Political Thoughts

·      I believe in global climate change. After all, the climate’s been changing under its own volition since well before mankind started walking upright. I also believe we are in a global warming phase but do not subscribe to the related catastrophic fears. For millions of years the climate has cycled from hot to cold and back again. The idea that it’s now locked perpetually into a temperature increase illogically defies the pattern set over millions of years.

·      Inequality as a call to action is misguided. A successful war against inequality would merely lower the median toward the lowest common denominator, not raise it toward the highest. Instead, the goal should be to build wealth and let everyone buoy their position.

·      Capitalism, the free market economic system, is the greatest tool ever invented to build wealth for the masses. Around the world poverty rages where capitalism is not practiced.

·      A reliable source of energy is required to help poverty-stricken people grow beyond the bounds of poverty. This observation is easily substantiated by the fact that the poorest nations are often those where the citizens are without a reliable energy source.

·      Solar energy has its place in the 21^st century. Its uses are currently limited because it is not yet reliable enough or potent enough for industrial-scale use like energizing a factory, hospital or a 21st century economy. It can, however, be a viable niche energy source for those people not connected to an energy grid.

·      I’ve come to terms in favor of gay marriage. Statistics indicate that marriage is good for males. With that in mind, I find it difficult to justify that those benefits be limited to only heterosexual males.

·      Free speech has been struggling recently due to protests on college campuses. If you think the other side is pitching a faulty idea, reason would suggest that it could be logically argued away and defeated. If, however, your own logic fails, maybe it’s not the opposition with the faulty train of thought. The losing side is the one that must shout down the opposing view because it cannot be beaten with words and reason.

·      The anti-nuclear environmentalists seem to be doing more harm than good to their cause. They are succeeding at shutting down nuclear power plants, but as nuclear plants are going offline around the globe they are often being replaced by coal power plants. The anti-nukes are winning on that front, but harming the environment by putting a dirtier source of reliable energy back into play. They need to decide. Is the goal to improve the environment or eliminate nuclear power plants? The two causes, at this point, appear to be counter productive.

‘How do you like President Trump?’

We’re living in volatile times where calm, reasoned political discourse has become an anomaly. When such a question as above is posed the proverbial trigger warnings should flash in your head. For me, I like our president about as much as I like a sack of snakes. But the more properly worded question is ‘How do you like the policies of the Trump Administration,’ not so much the man himself. Certainly the administration has appeared clumsy, disorganized, cantankerous and factually inept at times. The setting is ripe for a subsequent question, ‘What do you think of Hillary now?’

Look, if I disagree with a politician 90% of the time, the fact that they’d be more proficient at holding a press conference would be no consolation. On the other hand, if I agree with a politician 70% of the time I’ll begrudgingly endure the press conferences that look more akin to a professional wrestling post-match interview.

The reactions of the hordes to Trump are regrettable what with the relentless marching [I concede their admirable gumption] and protests. If a person chooses to be offended at every farcical motion of the Trump Administration then they’re a hysteric. Similarly, if a person agrees with every action of the president then they would seem to be a non-thinking beast simply accepting their team’s talking points. Either way both personifications are operating in absence of reason and judgment.

So then, what do I think of the Trump Administration? I mostly agree with their policies, yet I definitely want our highest official to stop with the Executive Orders. Conservatives didn’t like it when President Obama pushed out Executive Orders like coasters at a pub during happy hour, and it’s entirely understandable President Trump would get similar push back from opposing forces.

As far as I’m concerned, there is almost nothing the government can provide for me that is made better if it is expedited. Stop with the Executive Orders and let this stuff take the long way through the House and Senate. Sure, I know, Trump owns all three branches of government why not push everything through? I prefer a more complete vetting before the president’s instructions go live. It’s important for the American people to see both political teams work together to find common ground and lay down bipartisan work. Executive Orders disallow this opportunity and foster a bountiful amount of resentment. The congressional process is necessary to let these bills see the light of day. I don’t want anyone to be able to hide their bilge behind the unilateral act of our president. Make the elected officials stand up and explain what they stand for.

We need to be able to agree or disagree without each Trump challenge being praised as if it were a gallant act of defiance. Reasonable adults should be able to disagree without prancing around for high fives and validation. Let’s strive to be those reasonable adults and discuss our positions without the self-important gesticulating. And Mr. President, put down the Twitter, sir!

Fake News

Since the election of President Trump there have been media articles raging about fake news websites. My initial thought was that this might be a revolt against the considerable number of Hillary puff pieces emanating from the New York Times and its ilk leading up to the election. After a brief bit of spelunking I find those were not the target of rage. There is discussion at Facebook of possibly banning articles that are deemed to be from fake news sites. Google is also discussing disallowing its ad services from fake news sites. The concern is that if war were to be waged against fake news, then there would be a group of people deciding and enforcing what news is fake and what is real. Who would be these deciders and what of their qualifications?

I vote against this prospective censorship and banning of websites. In a light-hearted example, let’s say a sports writer thinks the Cleveland Browns have a chance of reaching the playoffs next season [this season is already shot for this perennially damaged sports franchise]. As far as I’m concerned that’s not real news and such silly opinions would be worthy of ridicule. But just because I disagree with it doesn’t mean it should be banned from a public that is willing to consume it. Certainly we can all agree that the Browns footballers playing well enough to reach the playoffs is a comical idea, but there really is a serious issue at stake.

The greater issue is that if censorship comes to fruition, a news article or opinion piece putting forth a challenging idea might be deemed inedible for public consumption. If a journalist challenges global warming or is perceived to slight a favored demographic, for example, these articles might be deemed to have run afoul of an enforcer’s threshold of fake news. Ignorance prevails every time only a single side of an issue is put forth with the other perspective being suppressed. Such suppression would be a significant barrier to fostering an educated informed populace.

Of course fake news is problematic, so is dumbed down journalism written to navigate within the barriers of approved talking points. The truth is there are dubious websites, they are deserving of their freedom and our derision. Just as importantly, serious people should consider sources before ingesting their news. So let's be serious.

klem

My Syrian Refugee Plan

What to do with all the Syrian refugees that have fled their homeland? The U.S. has committed to accepting 10,000 by year end plus 20,000 more in 2016. Tiny numbers, really, for a country of 330,000,000 citizens, yes, but taking relatively few is better than taking none at all, and better than taking too many. Meanwhile, some U.S. governors have said ‘Yes, we’ll take refugees’ or ‘No, we don’t want them.’ An unconditional ‘No’ or ‘Yes’ is equally unconditionally ignorant.

Many Syrians will be Muslims, sure, some Christians. Who to accept? Who to pass on? Acceptability should be no more a matter of their religion than it should be their physical characteristics. Base acceptability on the values they hold for themselves and family. To blithely say no to a large swath of people makes no more sense than ‘No, we do not want to take left-handed people,’ or ‘Yes, we want those with blonde hair.’ The yes or no must be dependent on the values hierarchy held by that person or family. The U.S. should accept the refugees whose values fit those of America. So then, how to assess this?

Syrian refugees would be accepted based on the quality of their family and friends who are already citizens of this country. Look, every society does not hold the same values with the same level of reverence. The U.S. would do good to take in people whose values best align with those of the United States. As individuals we already do this in real life when we assess someone whether they be a friend, a prospective boyfriend or girlfriend, or an acquaintance. The easiest way to figure a person out is by looking at their friends. What kind of person do they hang with? What are their personality traits and goals? If a person’s friends are goofballs and jerks, odds are you’ve figured out the person in question. If their friends are smart, well behaved, productive people, you’ve probably figured out the person in question. Apply this test to the refugees.

The background checks of which our government boasts will almost certainly prove to be a ridiculous charade. Who can possibly conduct a background check with no documentation and a homeland in chaos. Vet by ‘Who do you know?’ Rate the refugee applicants based on the quality of a sponsor family already citizens in the United States. But not just a sponsor, someone they know or knew from the homeland. If those citizens are productive Americans, then the refugee family goes to the ‘green light’ pile, else the application ends up in the recycle bin. At the end of the process we simply select the best 10,000, then rebalance for 2016.

-wdk

California’s Drought . . . Problem Solved

In southern California we live with a constant reminder about our decades-old drought what with the ‘Be Water Wise’ and ‘Don’t Waste Water’ campaigns. There’s just no water solution in sight. Or is there?

First things first, it’s not a drought so much as it is truly southern California’s coastal desert environment returning to prominence. This ‘drought’ has been in force for more than a 100 years, since well before Mr. Mulholland brought water to southern California in the early 1900s. His resourcefulness bought us seventy years of willful neglect in considering the significant lack of fresh water without bringing it in from hundreds of miles away. Suffice it so say, it’s not a drought, this is the natural environment for the area.

Meanwhile, our valiant warriors in elected office, the fruits of a bountiful slothful ill-informed voter citizenry, have laid down the latest decree. Effective this month throughout the state, we have the privilege of watering our lawns as much as twice weekly. Should that not result in the desired decrease in water usage we’ll further have the privilege of paying higher water rates, too.

Look, I’m not willing to defend the right to have a lawn. It looks nice, but clearly it’s a luxury that has run its course, at least for this area. But I’ll tell what chaps my hide, those arrogant clowns in elected office making us give it up. A more appropriate message from the legislature, rather than June’s ultimatum, would have been the following:

‘We could have done things better these last few decades preparing for the inevitable, but we kind of blew it. Here’s our plan to fix it.

[1] Water your lawns only twice weekly. That’s the sacrifice we’re asking of our citizens. Many of you will lose your lawn, for that we’re sorry.

[2] For our sacrifice, we’ll give up our silly bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco and redirect the money toward a water plan. And if we get this figured out, we’d like our toy train back.’

In the face of this crisis our legislators in Sacramento have done little more than capitulate. Certainly we can start by trying to figure out what to do with that huge body of water immediately off the coast! Sure, I know, the salt content of the Pacific Ocean is an inconvenience. The contents of the Pacific Ocean could be readily usable without it. If only science had furnished us with some way to remove that stuff. Oh wait, that’s right, desalination!

You’re probably thinking, ‘Klem, you know that’s too expensive to put into practice on such a grand scale as needed for California, don’t you?’ Expensive, yes, but too expensive? If it is too expensive then why is it so widely practiced throughout other parts of the globe? Think about Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and their neighboring Middle Eastern countries and their ½-inch annual rainfall. They exist with the same conundrum of a bountiful supply of salted water and not enough of the fresh stuff. Desalination. Expensive, sure, but the science is there. And, like solar power, the technology becomes more efficient and effective with each generation. So the question becomes ‘How do we fund the desalination plants and the necessary continued research and development?’

That’s the great part, the funding is already factored into the state’s bloated budget. Cross out the budget line description reserved for that ridiculous ‘bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco’ and scratch in ‘Desalination.’ That crummy train is such an amazing financial sinkhole of a delusional bureaucratic dream that the desalination plants could be green-lighted right away, given the amount of money currently being committed to that boondoggle of a high-speed train. [I could show you all the facts and figures, but for the sake of brevity, kindly trust me.] Redirect funds from the train and this desalination plan can be immediately financed in its entirety!

Truth is, this addresses an even more pressing issue. Global Warming! [nudge nudge wink wink] We’ve heard about the impending ocean tides slated to rise three feet by 2100. We owe it to our great grandchildren to drink the oceans down and occasionally sprinkle our lawns simply to retain the current safe ocean levels. California’s drought, as I see it, is the solution to the impending devastating effects of Global Warming. I’ll gladly drink to that.

Iran’s Nuclear Deal

There’s been much talk lately regarding the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran. The current deal being negotiated would limit Iran’s nuclear program to only civilian use and scale back their nuclear enrichment program. Unfortunately, they’ll get to retain their advanced [‘military-grade’] centrifuges and plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor [instead of being required to dismantle it]. Great for Iran! Not great for the rest of us. But wait there’s more, Iran will get an assist with nuclear Research and Development, plus, sanctions relief will give their economy a big boost as foreign companies engage Iran to do business.

‘Civilian use, what’s the big deal,’ you say. To be truthful, the deal being negotiated would provide for International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] inspectors to verify that Iran’s nuclear capability remains solely for civilian use, not for bomb-making purposes. This assurance of inspectors, of course, ignores the fact that prior deals have also allowed for IAEA inspectors, but the inspectors had regularly been denied access disallowing this verification. Who would trust Iran to make another similar deal and this time expect them to abide by the inspectors?

“We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk,” said President Obama in a recent interview with journalist Thomas Friedman. Iran’s a long ways from us, so he’s likely correct that we would not immediately be at risk. Being a good citizen, however, especially the most powerful good citizen in the world, means looking out for more than number one. It means also looking out for our allies.

Additionally, a nuclear Iran affects a vast circle of influence. This could spike a nuclear arms race as their neighboring countries try to keep up to deter the local bully. What happens when the violence in the Middle East becomes nuclear? At that point, the troubles may flow like an open fire hydrant.

If Iran complies with the details of the deal, nuclear armaments are delayed for 10 years. After those 10 years, however, their bomb making nuclear capability is virtually assured as a result of the shared knowledge and research. To speak clearly, a nuclear bomb is not the issue, it’s a matter of who has the nuclear bomb. France and England have a nuclear bomb, but nobody’s worried that they’d actually put it into play. Iran, however, is a different story! A hotbed for terror and aggression with a newly booming economy - due to the lessening of economic sanctions [sanctions have been in place since the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979], and enhanced nuclear knowledge could energize them with renewed bravado and a willingness to get militarily frisky. Bummer for their neighbors, and our allies – the good guys, they are not in favor of this deal’s success.

“I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch,” President Obama went on to say. I’d find it more encouraging had he stopped after ‘Iran will not get a nuclear weapon,’ instead he seems more content in knowing that they’ll get one, just not until he’s out of office and they’re somebody else’s problem. Here’s an alternative: no nuclear deal, keep talking with Iran, retain sanctions, do not provide nuclear technology, and prevent their bomb-making capability.

Maybe I jump to conclusions, certainly President Obama would not be in favor of a deal that makes Iran a nuclear power. He hopes at least, hope that is neck-deep in a utopian’s perspective. I’m not one of his detractors saying the president is trying to push forward to intentionally compromise the U.S.’s world position. I am, however, one of his detractors who thinks President Obama is regrettably naïve in the things he believes will fall into place as a result of a sporting gesture. Unfortunately, this sporting gesture has nuclear catastrophic potential.

-wdk

The True Inequality Gap . . . and the Fix

There’s been much talk in recent years about the Income Inequality Gap. The inequality gap, it seems, has become a popular rallying cry to increase the amount of welfare funded by the achievers. Bummer really, because there is a remedy to fill in the gap, but this fostering of government dependence is not it.

Think about someone that you admire or respect. It is probably that person’s achievements, skills, or successes fueling your admiration. That’s a healthy reaction. The alternative is envy resulting from these same successes or achievements. Envy is the basis for the Inequality Gap rallying cry. There are a number of bureaucrats in government, and their obedient citizens, sparking this interest angling for an extra poke through the paychecks of the achievers.

This talk of an Inequality Gap aims to reduce the gap by reducing the take home pay of the highest earners. A true fix would, instead, reduce the gap by allowing for those on the lower end to raise themselves up. Envy fuels an endless cycle of coveting the assets of those on top, even if those on top had once been on the bottom and ascended due to the strength of their success. By this current ‘rallying cry’ formula, they will have become the target of envy and must themselves be taken down.

If, however, praising of achievement became the new rallying cry, the endless cycle would become one of strengthening support as people strive for their own success rather than shaking down someone else’s. The goal should be to raise oneself up to decrease the gap, not bring someone else down to achieve that end.

In fact, let’s dig deeper and find the cause of the income inequality gap. The cause is a result of a Values gap. Find out what compels a successful person to attend night school and seek an MBA? What motivates someone to sacrifice leisurely evenings at home instead to work 70 hours a week to get their business off the ground? What inspires someone to prepare at night for the next day at work instead of watching television deep into the night? How does someone find the stamina to cobble together two and three decades in an industry learning and honing skills that ultimately result in a commendable income? Encourage people on the lower spectrum of the gap, if they are interested in bettering their position as measured in this way, to emulate a few of these values. If inequality resolution is sought, address the cause, not the visible symptom of the gap.

There is nowhere else in the world, outside the United States, where upward mobility is such a realistic possibility, but only if people put in the effort and strive for success. Let the endless cycle of achievement fuel each generation to build on the successes of the generations before them. Filling in the Income Inequality Gap comes with building each other up, not banding together to tear down a few.

-klem

Global Warming? Here’s the Real Point.

Is global warming, or global climate change, for real? To be honest, I’m not sure, but I do not buy into man-made global warming. I mean heck, the globe’s had a fluctuating climate since before mankind. The earth transformed itself from the Ice Age 12,000 years ago long before the man-made industrial age.

Silly remarks about global warming being ‘settled science’ I find tough to stomach. You want settled science, stick with The Doppler Effect and ‘PV=nRT.’ Global climate change is no more a settled issue than is the age old question, ‘What came first, the chicken or the egg?’

For practical purposes, the entire global climate change discussion is little more than a highly toxic non-productive distraction to the real point. The end game, simply put, is to improve our energy technology to the point of self-sustaining renewable energy, a valiant goal to be sure. So the best approach is to stop the name calling and arguing who’s right about global warming, and just get the research underway.

Global warming believers want renewable green energy so as to not be haunted by these troublesome CO2 molecules. The non-believers, not so troubled by the CO2 that is exhaled with every breath, will gladly accept renewable green energy so long as it comes at a competitive market price. That means no artificial support by government subsidies. If these energy technology options viably come to the market, the global warming discussion is circumvented. Really, that’s it, stop the nonsensical blather about whether or not the globe is warming, just concentrate on the technology to put one’s sensibilities at ease.

Market viability is the integral aspect for success. If you tell me the solar power of today has already arrived, I’ll suggest that you’re full of baloney. If a product’s viability is dependent upon a government subsidy to compete in the market place, then, quite frankly, it’s not yet ready for consumption on a mass scale. Perhaps, and hopefully, the next generation of technology will meet the mark. While this research is in progress, though, we must continue to access our own domestic oil and natural gas energy sources. This would continue until a better energy alternative is available efficiently and in appropriately abundant quantities.

The U.S. and Europe have pollution standards and energy efficiency standards in place. Yes, we are major consumers of energy but our pollution standards mean that environmental health has been factored into the energy that we consume. Because of this environmental awareness our citizens need not breathe through surgical masks that are so popular amongst citizens living in industrial areas of China. Legislating local or regional standards merely penalizes, or makes more expensive, energy usage for one’s existence in those legislated locales. You want renewable energy and the culmination of the global climate change harangue? Improve the energy technology to the point where the product is available worldwide at market prices. It would be laughable for a climate change believer to think that California residents voting to have the highest (cleanest) fuel standards for our cars is a move in the right direction. Task completion would only come to fruition through a future generation technology whereby energy becomes so inexpensive and available that citizens of Namibia, for example, no longer need to burn dung to heat their huts.

How about this for a step in the correct direction, consider those billions of dollars in subsidies paid out to increase consumption of solar energy amongst the world’s wealthiest nations and residents. Every dollar consumed in this way is a wasted opportunity. It would be more productive to invest those billions in subsidies, instead, on research to improve that technology and accelerate the timeframe where its next generation technology may come to market possibly making it ready for consumption worldwide.

For too much of the world’s population climate change is simply an issue of which they’ll never have the luxury of concerning themselves. If a person’s main concern is ‘Where can I get food and clean water to survive another day,’ they’ll never care about how many CO2 molecules are bouncing around in the atmosphere. But if renewable green energy is made available to them, then they can help in the task of ‘saving the earth’ without even thinking about it. For those of us who do not think that the globe is in climate peril, think instead of how much better off we’d be if alternative energy meant less money flowing into the unpredictability of the Middle East.

Now let’s stop the non-sensical ‘Hoaxer versus Denier’ name calling and have a Happy Earth Day.

-klem

The Prager. Constructive Talk Radio.

I do much driving in the course of my employment and quickly learned that listening to music all day can leave a fellow feeling mentally exhausted. Looking for a change one morning I discovered sports talk radio and found myself blissfully encapsulated in a sports broth for several months. But even that wore thin without an ever-changing landscape of topics being discussed.

It was during the two month lull between football and baseball season that I encountered political talk radio, and I was enamored. Rush Limbaugh held my attention for a few years, I’m almost embarrassed to admit now, on account of his aggressive and demeaning tones he often takes. [I would like to clarify that the tones ultimately became the source of my embarrassment, they were not the means by which I became enamored.] I vastly agree with his positions, but I turned the corner on my appetite for the way his positions were presented.

After the November 2012 Presidential Election, finding myself boasting of a bottomless sinkhole of disappointment, I traded in my drive time listening with Mr. Limbaugh for a new road companion, Dennis Prager, an AM radio talk host. My interest in aggressive and angry tones expired that dark night watching the election results stream in. I wanted out of the angst market and Prager offered constructive conversation for the disappointment I was experiencing. I offer this prelude because, while I would like to claim the following pieces of wisdom as my own, it important to source the wisdom as pieces gleaned from The Dennis Prager Show.

·       Treat people equally, not the same.

We hear much talk in today’s politics and culture about fairness and equality, but there is typically a vacancy where qualifications should follow. People should be treated equally based on their equal standing, but not equally just because it would be polite or kind.

Example: A mom and dad should be shown equal degrees of respect. But let’s be honest, a mom and dad cannot be treated the same as if they are interchangeable. Each fulfills different parenting needs to their kids. Sure, there is much overlap in what they provide, but to say that they are the same is to purposely ignore the fact that a significantly disproportionate number of young troubled males were raised in single parent households.

·       Results are more important than intentions.

It is necessary to discriminate between good and bad results, not good and bad intentions. Rarely will a person or organization consciously set out to do wrong or harmful deeds. But if good intentions yield bad results, the source of those intentions need be held accountable.

Example: Consider charitable organizations. Virtually every non-profit organization seeks to do good deeds. But when making a donation you may prefer an organization with a greater degree of efficiency. Would you prefer to donate to a charitable organization where a higher percentage of the donation actually affects good results? Or would you prefer to give to an organization with a better Mission statement while it consumes a higher percentage in administration costs?

The same could be said when voting or making governmental policy. Look beyond the intentions and vacant calls for fairness and equality. What will be the consequences? Is the topic in question better for the country? Or is it simply better for a group of citizens at a cost to everyone else?

·       Let your brain decide, not your heart.

Feelings and emotions render the heart the decision maker while rendering the brain a non-factor. Where reason and a logical train of thought are absent, feelings will be the decision maker. The great thinkers throughout history used their brains to argue and decide between right and wrong. They were not emotion-based waifs, the proverbial impulse buyers at the check out counter loading up on gossip magazines, beverages, and snappily packaged snacks as if loading up for a road trip.

·       Standards supersede compassion.

Standards (read, the law) do not have a sliding scale of right and wrong depending upon the reasons why the law was broken. An action is either right or wrong, the sliding scale applies only as it pertains to the level of punishment. Ill-placed compassion, on the other hand, would indicate that a sliding scale of right and wrong is applicable, provided the reason for wrong doing was deemed good enough.

Example: A person that vandalizes private or public property has done wrong. If, however, they do it as a declaration of war against ‘The 1%’ they are defended by too many public officials as having an important opinion that is worthy of being heard and respected. By the standards I wield, my compassion goes out to the law-abiding citizen whose property was damaged, not the self-styled victim striking out in ignorance.

When making decisions, whether they are to affect a small number of people or the country as a whole, it is necessary to consider what the consequences will be on society. Decisions need be made in favor of an improved whole, not an improved set of individuals.

Thanks for hearing me out.

-klem