The Energy Conundrum

I have had this story in my head for about a month now. I would hope it scares and inspires us to realize that by maintaining the energy status quo we may be forfeiting any energy independence we could gain if we don't begin the arduous path towards maximizing our energy efficiency, and seeking, supporting and perfecting alternate ways to provide our energy needs. 

                           

                              The Energy Conundrum 

King Nayef waived nonchalantly to his royal guard, indicating his permission to allow entrance for today’s visitors. The king sat comfortably at the small but elegant, hard-wood table which dominated the otherwise impressively furnished meeting room, one of six similarly fashioned meeting rooms on this floor. Only royal insignia engraved on the high-backed chair on which he reposed revealed the special nature of this particular room. 

Strange Americans, the king thought. From the days of the early struggles to find, tap and release the vast quantities of oil that lay buried in the Saudi Arabian deserts, the American companies’ superior technology and relentless work force combined with a bottomless source of government financial and military support, had tamed the harsh environment, providing the energy for the world’s industries and economies to prosper. It was a win-win situation that changed the face of the planet and made possible countless advances in the lives of everyday people, while, of course, enabling the desert nations of the Middle East and their royal rulers to attain riches beyond their wildest dreams. 

Even through the oil embargo days of the 1970’s and the severe highs and lows of the cost of oil in the early part of the 21st century, the Americans and their western allies expended massive amounts of resources to keep the oil flowing. Despite repeated warnings from their own scientific community that the burning of fossil fuels was damaging the earth’s ecosystem, they continued their dependence on oil, continued their astronomical thirst (and waste) of energy. 

The king thought of that curious American toy called the yo-yo that he had played with endlessly one summer as a child. Down goes the price of oil, up goes the sales of gas guzzling cars, SUV’s and trucks. Up comes the price of oil; up goes the sale of energy efficient and alternative energy vehicles. Down goes the price of oil again, up goes the sales of those same cars and trucks that nobody wanted just a few years before. Then, up goes the price of oil again. Up and down, up and down like a yo-yo, the pattern repeated, the gnashing of teeth when the price was high, the profligate waste when the price was low. 

The king smiled. For, despite the ups and downs of cost and supply, the money flowed continuously for his country and his family. And, when a real threat occurred to the supply of oil, the Americans were the first on the scene allocating even more resources on military interventions which toppled governments in the name of freedom all the while continuing to support those nations which guaranteed the flow of oil despite its humanitarian record of suppression of dissidents. 

Now, over a hundred years after the first oil wells of the 1930’s, the American president and his delegation were waiting for an audience to ask for an increase in the flow of energy. Again. It was as if their incredible ability to invent, perfect and bring to market the technologies that provided the mechanisms to create and harness energy was equally limited by their political will to force the citizenry to embrace the changes needed to move forward. Again, the king smiled to think that democracy was a wonderful political concept, a truly enlightened way for people to govern themselves, but nothing beat a dictatorship for making people do what was necessary to achieve a nation’s security. 

The meeting room door opened and in walked the president, his secretary of energy, the Senate majority leader and three of the most influential business leaders of the United States. The best men and women from the most powerful country in the world, and all here to promise the king anything and everything to slate their country’s never ending needs for energy. 

“Welcome my friends”, the king began. “Please, make yourselves comfortable”. The American delegation found their chairs but barely heard the king’s words. They were too distracted by the immense pictures that covered the walls on all sides of the room. First distracted, then awed when the realization struck them that these weren’t pictures but monitors. Monitors that displayed the vast solar collection fields that existed for hundreds of miles across the Arabian Desert. 

“I see you are impressed by the view”, the king said. Huge solar collectors converting the almost constant light of the sun into clean energy. Collectors invented by American companies, installed by American technicians, monitored by American engineers who controlled the transmission of the billions of megawatts through power lines invented, installed and maintained by American and German contractors. Energy which required no digging in the earth, no processing in pollution producing factories, no pumping of millions of gallons of chemically treated water into the ground. Solar technology bought and paid for with the money of the very customers who traded their dependence on oil and fossil fuels for a new dependence on an energy source that shines down for free but was deemed too costly, too ugly, and too futuristic to pursue with any conviction. 

“What can I do for you”? the king began.

Osama bin Laden

A thumbnail moon rise this past weekend followed by dramatic sun rises. I don't know why experiencing the start of a new day continues to effect me, but I certainly recommend that everyone get out of bed and watch a sunrise every once in a while. Perhaps together, we can figure out its attraction.

Clearly, the news of the day is the death of Osama bin Laden. To the brave special forces unit that executed such a daring, dangerous and precise operation, we all owe a great debt and sincere congratulations. I was especially touched by the people interviewed that lost loved ones on 9/11 and who exuded a sense of relief and closure upon hearing the news. The spontaneous celebrations in Washington DC and at ground zero, among other places, speak to the deep seated sadness that Americans have suppressed since that scary day almost 10 years ago. As is the case with all momentous events, we will all remember for the rest of our lives where we were on 9/11 and now, where we were when we heard the news of the killing of bin Laden.

Despite the realization that bin Laden may have been less involved operationally with the designs of al-Qaeda he was still the face of this movement and its spiritual leader. While his memory may still be used to inspire suicide missions, violence and destruction, his charisma and connections with those that loved him will not be easily replicated. The famous and infamous alike share a certain trait that elevate them to a unique place in history. Bin Laden had this trait which is why he generates such extreme love, and extreme hatred.

For me, the removal of someone so misguided as to think that violence and destruction somehow conformed to his religion and was blessed by his God is a good thing. Many commentators I heard today mentioned that they thought that bin Laden not only suffered a deserved, violent death and less than desirable burial, but that he certainly faced an eternity of torture at the hands of his creator. It is hard to disagree with this assessment.

Perhaps though, there is a lesson for all of us in his example. Righteous violence, whether to deal with a terrorist leader or the neighborhood bully can be a seductive activity and so easily condoned, even cheered. But where does it end? In the case of bin Laden, "justice has been served" as President Obama said. We spent untold dollars and countless lives to hunt down bin Laden and I would imagine that the vast majority of Americans would feel the price was worthwhile to avenge the death of the victims of 9/11.

But what about invading a country to remove its leader? Or firing missiles into foreign cities to force those in charge to relinquish power? When does violence in an effort to fight a brutal dictator or an "evil" nation cross over the line of righteousness and become the very thing it claims to abhor? Is it possible that by spending almost 1 out of every 3 dollars of our national budget on the military that we have stepped over the line of righteousness?

In light of the dramatic raid and killing of Bin Laden, one might argue that we don't need to spend over $700 billion each year on the military when superior intelligence, patience and precision are all we need to strike a blow against our enemies.

We are currently debating the causes and solutions of our growing national debt. Our colossal military budget is a factor in this growing debt. Perhaps, as part of this debate, we should be questioning our desire to be the world's police force, the cost of such a desire, and the moral certainty that this path is the will of our God.

I Want My Country Back

I was fortunate enough to have the following published recently in my local, weekly newspaper.


I Want my Country back...

I want my country back from people who believe President Obama hates America.

I want my country back from those who use religion to foster hatred.

I want my country back from people who believe that repeating a lie often enough makes it true.

I want my country back from those who decry the tyranny of the majority, until they become it.

I want my country back from people who use profit as their only yardstick.

I want my country back from those who think Charlie Sheen and the Kardashian sisters are role models.

I want my country back from people who believe that the loudest opinion is correct.

I want my country back from those who forget that everyone in America descends from immigrant ancestors unless they are Native American.

I want my country back from people who believe that might makes right.

I want my country back from those who are very religious but not nearly spiritual enough.

I want my country back from people who believe that compromise is a sign of weakness.

I want my country back from those who deny the pleasures of marriage to the gay community while ignoring the 50% plus failure rate of marriage among heterosexuals.

I want my country back from those who believe that profits are more important than people.

I want my country back from people who believe that their religion is the only true religion, their politics the most patriotic, their color the superior race, their sexual orientation the only moral perspective and their nationality the only exceptional heritage because it is divinely blessed.

America is a great country! Despite the fact that your opinions may reflect some of mine as detailed above or are more in tune with one or all of those with which I disagree, we are able to voice those opinions, debate the merits and flaws of our various ideas and do so without the violence and unrest that is currently taking place among people throughout the world. Unfortunately, we sometimes forget that it is the very existence of this diverse and sometimes incompatible range of viewpoints, and the freedom to express them that makes America so great. Our ability to resolve the disagreements among ourselves, without rancor, is the most powerful example we can present to those protesting, fighting and dying for the rights and freedoms that we so often take for granted.

Taxes

Lately, with all the news about our growing national deficit, I have spent some time reading the various deficit reduction plans, critiques of said plans, and articles about taxes in general.

I have read that our corporations pay a far smaller percentage of aggregate collected income tax than they did 20, 30, 40 years ago, but I also read an opinion that these collected taxes are lower because many of these multi-national corporations moved their headquarters off shore to take advantage of the lower corporate taxes of other countries.

I have read that we shouldn't tax millionaires any more than we are currently, because they will simply up and move their companies and/or residences to states where the taxes are lower but then I read about a research study that indicated that very few millionaires, who have the opportunity to move to a neighboring state with lower "top-end" income taxes, actually did move.

I have read that one party's deficit reduction plan will place the next generation of our elderly in the precarious situation of chasing after their own individual health care plan while on a "budget" while the other party's plan will result in the bankruptcy of Medicare which will leave all the elderly without medical coverage. But then I read that one party's tax cut is another party's increase in spending and that either way the budget will never be balanced.

So what is the answer?

As is always the case, the answer lies in a country's priorities. What does it mean that Medicare or Social Security are going to bankrupt America? My understanding is that both these programs have historically collected more money than needed to pay their liabilities. Unfortunately, that excess money was used to balance past federal budgets rather than kept aside for a rainy day (and it appears to be raining pretty hard right now) so we have IOU's in place of actual funds. Yes, those IOU's are in the form of treasury bills, etc which means that one government agency owes another, but the fact is there is a debt and accompanying interest that exists as a result of this accounting ploy. 

And now, there is the fast approaching time when these programs will begin taking in less money than required to pay the bills so not only will we be paying interest on past debt, we will have to come up with new money to pay future liabilities. So, while using the word bankrupt may be an exaggeration of sorts, the fact is that either cuts to the benefits or new taxes will need to occur to bring both programs back to solvency.

Now, lets take the case of national defense. The United States spends as much money on "defense" as the next 20+ countries in the world, 5 times more than that spent by the 2nd highest. Should that mean that we, as citizens, should then expect to pay more in taxes to support this tremendous outlay of monies? If there were a poll taken today of Americans asking if they were willing to pay substantially more in taxes than the citizens of all other countries in the world to cover defense spending, what would the result be? Clearly, Americans seem unwilling to pay more taxes for better health care and other social services, but I wonder if we would draw the line on national defense. If so, then I guess we have established our national priority; security as a nation over security as individuals. If not, then perhaps we need to have a new discussion about where our tax money is being spent.

Which brings me back to corporations. Are they not willing to shoulder the higher tax rate to keep America safe?

One other question about corporate taxes. Why are corporations allowed to merely establish a corporate headquarters in another country to avoid US taxes? Perhaps I am naive in saying this, but wouldn't it be more fair if corporations paid taxes to the countries coffers where they actually earn their revenue and profit? If I were to research and find the lowest state tax rate in the country and then open a post office box in that state and use it as my "headquarters", could I avoid the state tax of the state where I work? Probably not, yet isn't that what we allow corporations to do?

Finally, I saw an article in a well-respected business magazine which detailed how businesses and individuals could pay no taxes to Uncle Sam. All the suggestions were legal tax deductions, of course. Certainly, I understand that we all need to feel that our tax money is being spent wisely, and so I encourage everyone to research the national budget and see where the money comes from and where it goes. But is it not part of our patriotic duty to pay our taxes? Or, to put it more bluntly, are you not willing to support our troops, pave our roads, build our bridges, educate our children, research the prevention of disease, assist the disadvantaged, etc? Or have we all become so selfish and self-centered that we now ask "not what we can do for our country" but what our country can do for us?

Final thought (for now) on the budget and the military

With (finally) the onset of nicer weather, I have been hearing birds in the morning during my route. Chirp, chirp.

In a previous blog, I detailed that federal spending is divided into two main categories, mandatory (required spending per existing laws) and discretionary spending (where we choose to spend our funds). So, when I recently read an article that stated that discretionary spending for the 2011 federal budget was overwhelmingly being directed to the department of defense (something like 75%), I thought it necessary to investigate.

Towards that end, I found a very informative interactive graphic in a New York Times article. Cut and paste link below.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

This graphic displays the 2011 federal budget by spending via blocks that are sized based on the amount allocated for each area. It is also color coded in that it indicates the percentage of increase or decrease for the 2011 budget over the 2010 budget. It is interactive in that you can place your cursor on each box to reveal the name of the category. And, at the top, there is a box that enables you to hide the mandatory spending categories to display only the areas of discretionary spending. It is very revealing!

First, if you look at it with all spending boxes "on", it is easy to see where the bulk of the federal budget is targeted; national defense, social security, medicare and an area called income security. Clicking on the "remove mandatory spending" button, presents the discretionary spending and confirms in stark contrast the high percentage of military spending that the article claims. The shear size of the box when compared to spending in all other areas would be comical if not for the fact that it reveals just how costly is our belief in might makes right. I encourage everyone to take a look at this graphic and decide for yourself if it reflects your priorities.

In conjunction with this discussion on the military, I recently began reading a book called "9/11/11: The Tenth Anniversary Attack" by Dr. Rocco Martino. It is a work of fiction but is executed by a writer who clearly knows his subject. In the book, Dr. Martino attempts to detail the strategies of our terrorist enemies, and our own government as we attempt to thwart their plans to inflict damage on our country. The plot takes the reader through the time of late 2010 up until the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and paints a possible picture of the destruction that may be heading our way.

Without revealing too many details about the book, there is one particular scene which spurred an unsettling thought on my part. The scene involves a conversation between two of the main characters in which they are discussing as fact how President Reagan toppled the Soviet empire by outspending them. I am not saying I disagree with the assertion that this was the sole cause of the fall of the Soviets as I think it is a bit simplistic, but I certainly agree that it was a factor. (It certainly led to the doubling of our national debt which so many conservatives today seem to overlook in their idolatry of Reagan's legacy).

What unsettled me was that perhaps our enemies are using the same philosophy against us, i.e trying to bankrupt us in our execution of the "war on terror". Again, the obvious fact that we have spent huge sums of money on the wars since 9/11 (not to mention lives) and that, again, this expenditure has as much to do with our growing national debt as anything, seems lost on the deficit hawks now in the spotlight. Perhaps our enemies' plan is to let us spend ourselves into bankruptcy by merely adding fuel to our "revengeful" fire via the occasional plot (foiled or successful, it doesn't matter). Now, as I review the budget boxes as demonstrated on the NY times graphic, it makes me even more concerned that perhaps my fear is not so outlandish.

At a time when federal, state and local budgets are under stress to decrease funding for the people of this country via education, health and human services, there seems no end to the money we will spend on the military. What better way to destroy a country than to let it collapse upon itself.

For readers interested in Dr. Martino's book, please refer to the following websites for information.

http://www.roccoelonardmartino.com (Dr. Martino's website)

http://www.9-11-11thenovel.com (the book site)

Or, for all you electronic book users, it is available on both Amazon (in digital and electronic form) and Barnes and Noble (in electronic form).

Another War

I was accompanied by snow on my route these past few days. Monday's flakes were especially big, fat and sticky. I tried to enjoy them knowing that it could very well be the last of winter's white blanketing of our lawns and cars. Also, last weekend featured what the press was calling a "supermoon". While it was certainly full and looked rather large when low on the horizon, I didn't think it was as impressive as others I have witnessed since my recent purposeful awareness of my environs. Perhaps all the hype took away from the pleasure but the supermoon was not as spectacular as billed. For me, the best show was last Saturday's moon rise which I saw as I traveled with my son to bring him home for spring break.

As if we weren't engaged in enough military expressions, President Obama decided to join (some might say form), a coalition of western allies to attack Libya. Our old friend, Muammar Gadhafi has been killing his own people as they rise in protest of his authoritarian rule. Like the wave of freedom-seeking protesters that has swept across the Middle East these past few months, those in Libya are expressing their anger at decades of poverty and pain for the people while the comforts of oil money stay in so few hands. It is a scenario, with or without the oil connection, that is playing out in Egypt, Yemen, and Tunisia among others, and has implications for any eastern or western nation where the young have awakened to their plight.

While I understand that, in this case, the Libyan leadership was using more modern weapons at their disposal to quell the unrest than did some previous dictatorships, I have to wonder why we didn't intervene, militarily, on the side of any of the other citizen protesters. Perhaps because we dislike Gadhafi more than Mubarak in Egypt? Perhaps because there is oil in Libya but none in Tunisia? If the same type of protesting began tomorrow in an African country, would we call on the United Nations to intervene? If it happened in Saudi Arabia, would we create a no fly zone and shoot down the Saudi's American made planes?

I am glad that I am not in President Obama's shoes. I can only imagine the pressure he was under to "act" in support of the Libyan protesters or face the usual political pundits who would claim his hesitancy reflected a "deer in the headlights" reaction typical of his presidency, at best, an outright hatred of freedom at worst.

For me, I can't quite grasp how it is so easy for us to justify killing others in the name of freedom. And, even more baffling, how the winner in these conflicts is always in the right, as if they are divinely blessed. For all the millions of people who have been slaughtered throughout history by superior military forces, it must be difficult to swallow the realization that they were killed by the grace of someones god.

Perhaps this has been suggested already, so I don't want to assume I didn't hear it somewhere in passing, but it occurs to me that this wave of protest is a reflection, not of our military excursions into Iraq and Afghanistan, not a result of President Bush's drive to bring democracy to the world, not even because current President Obama has reached out to the Muslim world in a way that no previous president.

I think these protests, driven mostly by the young, are due to the power and pervasiveness of social media. Yes, it is Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg and Jack Dorsey whom we should thank. In the last 20 years, their creations have spread the concepts of freedom and self determination, and the rights for all human beings to enjoy those freedoms more quickly than in the previous millennia of human existence.

So, perhaps rather than spending $850 billion on defense and the military, the United States should spend, lets say $10 or $20 or even $50 billion dollars instead towards supporting the continuation of the flow of information. Then we will have more than enough money for proper funding to fix the infrastructure of our country, and to maintain the many other domestic programs we cannot fund due to the incredible cost of waging war.

Yes, while we will have to put up with U-tube videos of stupid pet tricks and celebrities gone wild, we will also provide the millions of under 20's who reside in these suppressed countries the means to experience our freedoms. It is only a taste that they need, their youthful energy and vigor will provide the rest. After all, where previous totalitarian regimes always sought to repress newspaper, TV and radio, they now target Facebook and Twitter instead.

The NFL Labor Dispute

I have noticed more rabbits during my delivery route lately. They appear in my headlights and scurry this way and that both in the street and on front lawns, then disappear behind the safety of a bush or house or into a field. 

Of course, in the face of the (in comparison) huge monstrosity of the vehicle I drive, they must be terrified at my existence in their world. This morning I thought of the unfortunate occurrences taking place in Japan as I watched one particularly scared rabbit zip in and out of my vision. We have such grand opinions of ourselves, building great monuments into the sky, harnessing nature to power our lifestyle, and debating the will of the Creator as if we have a clue what the grand scheme really entails. Yet in the face of photos and videos of the devastation of a natural disaster such as has happened in Japan, we are offered a glimpse of the power of nature. Unfortunately, the humbling that we feel is only short lived.

Which brings me to the ongoing labor dispute in the NFL. Generally, I lean toward the side of workers in most labor issues. To me, owners/business operators hold the vast majority of the cards so when a particular labor group can draw even, or perhaps inch ahead, I feel it is a win for all workers. In this case, though, we are talking about millionaires fighting with fellow millionaires, and it leaves me cold. Regardless of who wins this fight, the loser will still be neck deep in money.

In reality, all football fans in particular, and sports fans in general are the losers here because no matter how is shakes out, the fan will foot the bill for someone's increased revenue.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am a big sports fan. I follow all the professional sports teams of Philadelphia, and up until recently was able to attend a few Eagles games each year. So it is not easy for me to say that I hope there is no football season this year. I hope the two sides cannot come to an agreement to share the billions of dollars at stake, and decide to play chicken with the sport. I hope that their resistance to compromise (by the way, when did compromise become an indicator of weakness?), causes a complete cancellation of the 2011-12 football season.

More importantly, I hope that fans like myself come to realize that sports is just a diversion from life, not life itself. That we can enjoy our Sundays (and Monday nights, and sometimes Thursday nights, and, yes even Thanksgiving) without the sport. I hope that we find more time to spend with our families, more time to walk in the neighborhood or the local park. More time to read, listen to music or go to a movie. I hope we find that it is nice to watch a football game, but not necessary. Then, perhaps, when the labor dispute is settled, the embattled millionaires will realize that they need us more than we need them and sports will revert back to its proper priority in life.

Trickle Down

A devastating earthquake followed by a tsunami has created chaos in Japan this past few days. Getting overly excited about budget battles might seem trivial when compared to the loss of life and the still unresolved issues related to the nuclear reactors that have been negatively affected by nature's wrath. Perhaps a day will come when material possessions and the pursuit for them are prioritized appropriately by man. Perhaps it will take more acts of nature to help us along the way as it seems that despite our obsession with the material, disasters seem to bring out the best in us via humanitarian aid for the unfortunate. In the meantime, it might be helpful if we kept in mind that we should be working in concert with nature and not in competition.

This past week, Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania, proposed his 2011-12 budget. Going into the process, it was known that the governor was faced with the daunting task of balancing a budget with a $4 billion deficit, a task he made even more difficult by promising no tax hikes to close the gap.

The good news is that he was true to his word; no tax increases. The bad news is that he was true to his word. No new taxes but massive funding reductions, centered mostly in education and human services. He also plans employment terminations which will result in hundreds of public employee layoffs.

It appears that Governor Corbett has taken a page from the now 30-year old economic theory called trickle down. Originally, it was envisioned that this theory would create a rising standard of living for the middle class by allowing big business and those with the resources to proceed unencumbered; less regulation meant more free enterprise meant more money and opportunity for everyone. Unfortunately, the past 30 years has instead resulted in higher incomes for a very small percentage of Americans and a stagnation of the standard of living for working, middle class families.

Now, with governor Corbett's plan, the theory has come full circle. But in this case, the Governor's plan features the trickle down of the pain and suffering of sacrifice for the middle class. While state taxes may stay the same, local taxes will rise to cover the shortfall in funding, and/or jobs will be lost in many communities. Less jobs will mean less money to spend which means less goods and services being purchased which means less orders which means less need for employees. You get the picture.

Somewhere down the line, we, as taxpayers, will learn that voting for someone who pledges no new taxes will not necessarily result in no new taxes for the middle class. We never asked the governor elect how he was going to handle the $4 billion deficit so he never detailed his plan until elected. Now we get the details and are surprised that the tax burden will trickle down to the local level. That old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice (or over and over again) shame on me, comes to mind.

More on the Budget

As the sunrise is coming earlier now, I am starting to see glimpses of it as I finish my weekday route. The last few days I was witness to a slight dawning of the light over a scenic view of Lenape park as I drove down Oak Street in preparation of making a left towards the library. Unfortunately, I will only be privy to this until Saturday as Daylight Savings Time begins Sunday morning and I will be thrust back into the dark for my weekday route for another few months.

I have spent some time reviewing various breakdowns (with accompanying opinions) of the proposed 2011 federal budget. The numbers are staggering but in a nutshell, there is about $2.5 trillion dollars expected in revenue with $3.8 trillion estimated for expenses. Quite a discrepancy!!

From what I can gather, slightly more than half of the revenue comes from income taxes, individual and corporate. Just under half comes from social security and other payroll taxes and the slight remainder (about $200 billion, or approx, 8%) comes from a small group of other sources.

Output is divided into discretionary (about 37%) and mandatory spending (the remaining 63%). In raw numbers, mandatory spending is $2.4 trillion. This means that we could have a budget surplus of about $100 billion if we only spent the money we had to and nothing else.

Unfortunately, the categories on the discretionary side of the ledger include the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Justice, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, just to name a few. And, of course, the Department of Defense.

Clearly, the mandatory spending side of the issue needs to be addressed, and that includes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which account for $1.5 trillion. Until we see our elected representatives begin discussing these programs, all this "serious" talk about cutting funding for items like Planned Parenthood or the Corporation of Public Broadcasting is purely political bombast.

Think of it this way. Examination of your personal monthly budget reveals that after you pay your $1000 mortgage and $200 in utility bills, you have $60 left to eat and clothe yourself and family.

Serious problems need serious discussions. Too bad we aren't getting any, and shame on us for not demanding them.

Its about revenue, stupid

Last weekend I was treated to a pretty pink and purple sunrise.

This past week, Monday I think, there was a moon rise very early in the AM. The moon was just a sliver and during the 15 minutes when it was low on the horizon, it was perched in the sky nearby a large point of light, probably a planet. The juxtaposition of the two was like something you would see on a SciFi movie about a far away world.

I have heard many a deficit hawk claim that our current budget deficit woes are about spending, spending, spending. Rep Ryan has emerged as one of the leading voices in this area and he has been quoted more than once as saying something to the effect that tax revenues are fine, it is the "out-of-control" spending that has created the fiscal mess we are in.

Perhaps.

I googled federal tax receipts and found that tax receipts for fiscal year 2009 (many Obama blamers forget that the federal budget runs from September through August so the 2009 budget was President Bush's last) were about the same as those for 2005. Clearly, the recession was in full bloom causing a backslide of tax receipts which was not matched by a similar reduction in spending. In retrospect, it is easy to see how devastating such a reduction would be and realize that very little could have been done to prevent it. (The 2009 deficit was $1.4 tillion by the way). 

What President Bush started - a federal plan to bolster the economy via the TARP program, various bailouts for the automakers and Wall Street - President Obama continued via more bailouts for troubled industries and the stimulus program. As a result, the 2010 federal budget, still saddled with 2005 level receipts, saw an increase in spending over 2009 to create another $1.5 trillion deficit for the year.

UGH.

Clearly, we need to work towards bringing receipts and spending more in line. But to ignore the fact that tax receipts were reduced $400 billion from 2008 to 2009 (almost 20% less) ignores half of the budget deficit issue. Also, and it is certainly debatable, there are many economists who would say that the bailouts and additional spending that occurred in 2009 and 2010 prevented an even more severe recession. Again, it is hard to know what would have happened, but it is certainly conceivable that the current state of recovery would not be as far along as it is without the increased spending.

I have heard it said that President Reagan won the cold war by outspending the Soviet Union. A look at the federal budget numbers for his eight years in office reveal that there was a strain on our federal budget as well resulting in yearly federal budget deficits as well as a doubling of our national debt. If we assume it was money well spent then, why aren't we as willing to assume the current deficit spending is also worth while if it avoided a deeper recession?

Sometime soon, taxes will rise. History is clear; President Reagan's deficit spending spree resulted in higher taxes during his 2nd term and during that of the first President Bush. Rather than starting now, Congress and President Obama recently chose to extend the Bush era tax cuts, thereby increasing the deficit even more. Again, the idea is to get more money into the hands of the populace but the fact is, the debt will increase.

Lets reduce spending. But lets recognize that a deficit is the normal result of a recession. And lets also remember that how we reduce federal spending will reveal our priorities. We applaud the deficit spending which contributed to the decline of the Soviet nation. Will we be as eager to continue deficit spending if it helps fellow Americans stay in their homes, secure access to medical services, obtain medical coverage, afford higher education and place food on their tables?

More on the budget

I have been hearing a lot about how overpaid federal workers are when compared to their private sector counterparts so I thought I would google "federal salaries" to see if I could garner some type of breakdown of workers and their salaries. Found that, as usual, the returned discussion of federal employee salaries leaned heavily one way (overpaid) or the other (underpaid) depending on its source. Analysis from groups like the Cato Institute claimed federal workers are making 50% more when including benefits and compensation, while analysis from sources more friendly to workers in general, and govt workers in particular, claimed a negligible difference.

Facts that seem undeniable

- The federal work force is a bit over 2 million strong. That number is about the same as it was when Ronald Reagan was president. In fact, from what I could gather about actual federal workers, only President Clinton reduced the federal work force. Conversely, President Bush II, dramatically increased the federal work force after 9/11, most specifically in the creation of the new Homeland Security department which includes the actual personnel of that department as well as a huge number of civilian contractors. So, there are less federal workers per citizen today than there was 30 years ago.

- The federal work force is composed of a higher percentage of white collar positions held by higher educated staff. It appears that thousands of blue collar jobs have been privatized in the past decade leaving the work force overbalanced with what would normally constitute higher grade, higher pay employees. One could still argue that these individuals may be overpaid, but it might be fairer to compare them to similarly populated industries as opposed to the general work force in its entirety.

- There are about 100 million employees in the public sector. The loss of manufacturing jobs in the past 20 years along with the growth of the service industry means that there is a higher percentage of blue collar (which usually equates to lower compensation packages) jobs than before and a much higher percentage when compared to the federal work force as noted above.

- In general, it appears that high-skilled workers in government are slightly underpaid, lower-skilled workers are slightly overpaid relative to the private sector.

- Benefits accorded federal workers are clearly superior to those in the private sector, less so if you compare them to private sector employees earning $80000 a year or more, but clearly better than the average private industry worker many of whom have no benefits whatsoever.

- Federal workers at the top of the wage scale make less than their private-sector counterparts, while the reverse is true for those with entry-level jobs. An easy example would be the president himself and his cabinet when compared to the CEO and other top executives at any large corporation.

What seems lacking in almost every discussion and article I read is an understanding of why public sector pay has stagnated over the last 30 years. So many people seem eager to blame the overpaid federal workers but no one seems interested in examining why private industry has done little to improve the compensation of its employees yet at the same time, has lavished huge salaries, bonuses and golden parachutes on those at the top. Hmmm.

Another interesting tidbit I found was that congressional staff pay has increased faster than inflation in the recent past. In other words, the very same people who want to eliminate federal workers and reduce their pay have been very generous with our tax dollars to those that work for them.

All in all, it appears that the savings which will be netted from freezing federal workers pay will be about $1 billion a year. In the face of a $1 trillion deficit, we need to find 999 more of these type of savings. Again, we are playing around at the edges here.

Finally, why is it the federal workers, state workers and lately union workers that are being targeted by (mostly) Republican congressman, senators and governors. Freezing their wages, eliminating their jobs, questioning their work ethic is OK, but when someone asks for a few percentage points in extra taxes from the super rich or (gasp), a salary cap on compensation at the top of the wage scale, then that is called socialism.

To me, the average worker in this country should be outraged that fellow middle class workers are being blamed for the deficit. If these savings actually net that $1 billion amount, that means these overpaid workers account for 1/10 of 1% of the budget deficit yet that is the focus of all the talk. Why aren't we talking about the other 99.9% of the problem???

Deficit Components

While it may have occurred since I started delivering papers in the early morning, this past weekend featured a setting moon along with a rising sun. In addition, the moon was full so the combination was quite remarkable. It was especially striking when traveling on the back streets where there are fields on either side of the roadway. The moon, stark white and full beginning its descent on one side while the rising sun produced pastel pinks and oranges on the other side.

A while back I saw a comedian, Dennis Miller I think, mention the national debt during his routine. He said what I believe reflects many people's thoughts, that the number is so big it is hard to get your head around it. I thought of that remark earlier today, and, in conjunction with all the doomsday rhetoric concerning the debt, I thought I would google "national debt" to see if I could get some data as to whom we owe this money. Do we owe the Japanese? Chinese? Australians?

Wikipedia detailed the debt in the following manner.

The national debt is broken down into two main categories:

1.Securities held by the public

Marketable securities
Non-marketable securities

2.Securities held by government accounts

It pegs the breakdown of these 2 categories as 60-40 where the 60% portion is held by the public. I think this means that 40% of the debt is held by one US government agency against another. For instance, the chart I saw showed that over $2 trillion was held by the Social Security Administration which I assume represents the amount of money that has been paid into Social Security by people over the years but not yet collected by retirees. Other agencies are listed as well. In effect, it sounds like we owe ourselves about 40% of the national debt. Which I guess also means that when we pay interest on this debt, we are paying ourselves as well. Interesting.

That leaves 60% owned by the public. Again, are they citizens of the United States, corporations, foreign governments?

Again, data was hard to decipher but it appears that about half of the "public" debt (which again is 60% of the total) was held by non-US citizens and institutions. Of this amount, about 66% was held by the central banks of these countries, in particular the central banks of Japan and China.

So, what does it all mean? I think it mainly means that the federal deficit is not a debt owed to people who are looking to bankrupt this country. I often hear some alarmists talk about the day when our debtors will "call our loans". As we live in a time of a global economy where all monies are tied together, I can not imagine the banks of the world deciding to foreclose on America as it would bring everyone down together. This seems true in light of the concern of countries like Greece and Ireland failing and all the effort extended to keep them afloat. Now times that by 1000 in regards to the United States.

But it also means that we cannot continue to forestall serious discussions about the debt. The problem is, you can't discuss something serious if you don't understand the problem, and if my experience today in trying to detail the minutia of the debt is typical, there are very few people who understand this topic. Unfortunately, there are many who are using the national debt for political gain regardless of whether they understand it, and in fact seem only interested in adding to the confusion about its true meaning as opposed to educating the people as to what it will take to reverse the process.

So, when you hear someone discussing the debt, listen for facts as opposed to opinions. You might find a dearth of one but a plethora of the latter yet it is the latter that seems to be driving the discussions.

The Budget Battle

Much warmer weather recently so I am hoping that this past Saturday was the last day I will see single digit temps on my car's outdoor thermometer. With the warming trend, I have seen groups of deer with multiple members. Whole families (extended families?) coming out to forage for newly uncovered grass. A few mornings ago, I had one individual deer run alongside my car for a brief few moments. I had slowed considerably fearing it would bolt across my path so it just seemed to pace me for those few seconds then stopped running altogether. Makes me wonder if there are daredevil deer who enjoy the rush of adrenaline just as some humans do.

A while back I had a conversation with a new acquaintance about federal spending. At the time, I mentioned that we spend over $800 billion a year on defense (that is 25% of our yearly budget), and that any serious attempt to balance the budget will require a hard look at this huge number. At the time, my new friend seemed surprised that we spent so much money in that way. Yesterday, I saw him again, and we spent some time discussing the President's proposed 2012 budget. 

This time, his response to my question as to whether he saw confirmation that we are again allocating 25% of our expenditures to defense was that we should be spending that much money on defense (more if necessary to combat our enemies) and that we should stop spending money on education, community programs, etc, you know, all those liberal left wing areas.

Previous to that conversation, I read an interesting article in this past Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer written by Harold Jackson. It addressed his belief that there is selfishness at work, especially among those in the upper income brackets, and that this "unsated selfishness" is driving the newly dominated Republican House of Representatives to target those programs designed to help the poor. Without saying it so abruptly, Mr Jackson intimated that not only are the Republicans who are led by the new "tea party" conservatives without compassion, that additionally their association with the conservative Christian right smacks of hypocrisy in the face of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If you have read my blog in the past, you will probably conclude that I disagree with my new friends belief in high military spending and low domestic spending, and that I agree wholeheartedly with Harold Jackson's article. And you would be mostly right although not completely.

My sentiments aside, I truly feel that there is an unspoken viewpoint, one that represents many people's perspectives but which is unpublished and non-existent over our TV and radio waves because it reflects a position that does not believe one side or the other is completely right.

Being conservative and caring for the poor are not mutually exclusive attributes. There are certainly rich people who are selfish and uncaring. But the unwillingness to share is more the result of our society's obsession with material possessions rather than political affiliation. Taking care of ones own has mutated to ONLY taking care of ones own, and this attitude infects all economic strata of America. Perhaps we need to better flesh out our overall societal issues before accusing one side or the other of disdain for the needy.

Yet, I think most people disagree with those that claim that our federal dollars should not be spent on assisting the poor, who say that charity is the domain of the church and community, and that government assistance programs are veiled attempts to redistribute our country's wealth from the rich to the poor. 

Yet is not our government based on that timeless document that begins "We the People..."? Aren't our elected officials tasked with spending taxpayer money as we the people direct them? Whether they spend it on assisting the poor or buying weapons, they represent us in their decisions. So, when your congressman or senator votes to spend your money in ways that do not reflect your desires, you have that most powerful of tools, the vote, to make your will known. Do you want your money spent in America or overseas? Do you want your money spent to help Americans or kill terrorists? As I said above, I believe that most people seek a balance between these and many other priorities. Perhaps in the next election cycle we should express those priorities in the voting booth at a rate greater than the paltry 40% that voted in the 2010 election.

And perhaps we need to remind our elected officials, both on the left and the right, that compromise is about finding common ground and then working as adults to fashion the best possible budget which reflects the best in our priorities.

Garden Revival

If you live anywhere near the Philadelphia area, you are probably sick of winter by now, especially the recent cycle of precipitation, frigid cold, slight warming trend then back to precipitation again. As a respite, my wife and I went to Longwood Gardens this week. What a great way to get refreshed and be reminded that spring will come. Whether you know an orchid from a palm tree, a few hours amidst the flowers and plants, is a soothing salve for winter's doldrums. From the moment one enters the main conservatory, you experience a constant influx of scents, colors, and textures. How amazing is it that nature includes such an abundant variety of flora. (Perhaps there is a lesson there in man's tendency to fear and isolate those that are different rather than relishing those difference). I highly recommend a visit. And, if you don't have the time or resources to visit a place such as Longwood Gardens, even a trip to a flower shop or nursery might help. Anything to help change your perspective and attitude.

Speaking of attitude, this past week marked the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan. I have read a few articles about him in the last few days, both pro and con. First, to be honest, I was not a fan of President Reagan; didn't vote for him either time. The articles I read that agreed with my opinion, reminded the reader that he raised taxes multiple times, doubled the national debt, and began the trend called supply side economics (also called the trickle down theory) which I believe started the middle class's road to its current stagnating standard of living. Those articles that extolled his Presidency focused on his winning the cold war, but mostly emphasized the change of attitude that he brought to a country that was in dire need of uplifting.

It makes me wonder if that, ultimately, is how we currently elect our presidents. Who will make us feel more positive about today and the days ahead? Clearly, President Obama won that battle hands down over John McCain in 2008. Obama was younger, with fresh ideas and the energy of youth while McCain clearly represented the past in both his views and his age. So, where Reagan, to me, communicated a simplistic view of the world where good and evil were clearly defined, he also gave us an outlook that gave us hope for the future. In effect, Reagan was a successful president in one major area; the country felt better about itself and therefore began to move forward. Attitude!!

Don't get me wrong, we need more from our leaders than a smile and a happy face. But perhaps a little "the cup is half full", might be enough to energize our citizens to spend some money and our business community to hire some new employees. We need to get the cycle going again and perhaps a Reaganesque attitude will help prime the process.

Castaway and Cast Ahead

An overnight rain/sleet storm left a nice coating of ice on everything this morning. While it took me an extra 45 minutes to get through my route, I was still able to deliver all my papers despite the difficult driving conditions.

Neither rain nor snow nor sleet nor hail shall... Oh that's for postal workers, sorry.

This afternoon, I caught about an hour of the movie Castaway with Tom Hanks. (Talk about the maturation of an actor. Does anybody else remember him in the TV sitcom Bosom Buddies?) There is a scene where he realizes that he is finally leaving the island that was his home for over 4 years, and as the profile of the island begins to fade away, I thought I detected a note of nostalgia, or at least tenderness for the island. At that moment, rather than feeling animosity towards a place from which he felt trapped, he seems to be experiencing a fondness for his soon to be ex-home.

At least that is what I thought. And it reminded me of the current unrest in Egypt. I am certainly no expert on Egypt. But I do know that this is a country which has had the same leadership (Hosni Mubarak) for just about 30 years. A country that is unlike most of its Arab neighbors in that they do not exhibit an outward hatred towards Israel. A country that has been an ally of the United States, again, unlike many Arab nations. A country where religion does not drive its politics. In so many ways, it is a country with traits that are not only more like the western world, but which we wish other countries in that region would emulate.

Yet, many of its people are unhappy.

One has to wonder if, once Mubarak is out of power and a new leadership takes hold if some of these same protesters will look back at the last 30 years with a hint of wistfulness just as Tom Hanks did as his makeshift raft drifted out to sea. Will this truly mark a turning point in the history of the country and prove to be a step forward towards an even more free society? Will the grass be greener on the other side?

Most likely, the change will be neither all good or all bad. I guess that is what makes change so hard to undertake, both on an individual or group level.

As an individual, there are the inevitable questions as to whether the change was for the best or if the old ways would have worked out eventually. Or worse, the desire for the time before the change, whether that change was adulthood, marriage, parenthood or simply old age, can sometimes dominate one's thinking to the point that no experience of the present can match what has come before. Unfortunately, so many of those memories are filtered to remove the unpleasant aspects so that they may be comfortable, they do not reflect reality.

The same can be said for those wishing for a return to the old days, as it relates to the country. It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw where the father was walking through knee deep snow while he told his son that he remembered when the snow used to be chest high. Of course, looking at his son, we see that the snow is chest high on him. So, when you hear someone pining for the old days, ask them what specific time frame they pine for? Invariably, you will find that it was a time when they were children or young adults with little responsibilities.

So, to the people of Egypt, I wish good luck with this history making change. Let's hope that as they cast away the old regime, they are able to make their new vision come true. But don't be surprised if there are Egyptians who look back on the days of Mubarak's reign with nostalgia. Especially when that nostalgia is rooted in a perceived stability that can come from 30 years of the same leader.

To Write or not to Write

The near zero temps ended earlier this week. Amazing how warm 25 degrees can feel after a few days of single digit readings. Unfortunately, a rather large winter storm struck the area leaving at least a foot of snow to be shoveled, or blown as the case may be. I encountered some impressive snow mountains during my route, especially in cul-du-sacs. More than a few of them had small children perched on top waving to the cars and pedestrians as they passed by.

More snow is expected this week; after 3 snow days already, I told my daughter she should be prepared to be in school until July this year.

I read a column this past week which admitted to and bemoaned the fact that the writer was aware of an obsession with Sarah Palin. He was not especially proud that he had written about her 42 times since her vice-presidential nomination so he had decided to try to be Palin-free for a month in his columns. I sent him the following email

Mr. ----,

I am a subscriber of the Philadelphia Inquirer which has recently been publishing your column. I was especially interested in last Tuesday's column concerning your dilemma in reporting/commenting about Sarah Palin and your challenge to be Palin-free for a month.

What particularly struck me was your admission that your obsession is partly driven by the reluctance to "send millions of Web surfers, readers, viewers, and listeners to our less scrupulous competitors". Wow. Obviously, as a paid writer, you must be cognizant of your audience in that, you need to have one to be paid. But isn't it the job of the writer to create the audience either by pure writing talent, poignant topical commentary, interesting stories, inspiring tales of human achievement, etc? It seems so easy to stand on a soapbox or sit in front of a radio mike or a TV camera and say "The bogeyman is coming" so as to get attention. I know that your column was meant to be tongue-in-cheek but the problem lies in the fact that even good media men and women are resorting to quips and commentary for the sake of ratings.

Somewhere in your column there is the unstated message that if no one talked about her, she might disappear; if we stop feeding the beast, it will wither and die. I have a blog which I began last year. I have no real audience to speak of so perhaps it is easy for me to sound a bit condescending when I say that I have only mentioned Ms. Palin once or twice and only as an example towards making a point, not as the topic of the entire blog. If my blogs were the norm, Ms. Palin might still be governor of Alaska!!

To be honest, I know that one of the reasons for not blogging about her is that I do not find much of interest in what she says or does. Her popularity seems to be rooted in her ability to create a black and white response to every topic, then convince her listeners that she and they are always in the right and the "others" are always in the wrong. It doesn't matter if today's "right" audience agrees with yesterday's, as long as she winks half a dozen times during her speech, everything is right as rain. For some reason I am reminded of the scene in the movie, Men in Black II when the Laura Flynn Boyle character, Serleena says "Silly little planet. Anyone could take over the place with the right set of mammary glands."

I have only read a few of your columns to date, but I feel confident in saying that YOU CAN DO THIS. As you say, only good can come from conquering an obsession. While I don't think you will gain so much time as to actually understand the federal budget or Medicare reimbursement rates, perhaps you could attempt the more modest achievement of explaining how giving more money to the top 1% income earners is going to get people back to work again.

Good luck and my sincerest regards,

Joe Pugnetti

Working Girl

One of my favorite movies is Working Girl with Melanie Griffith and Harrison Ford. I like the idea of a "rags to riches" movie with a woman for a change and I like to look at Melanie Griffith. Propriety forbids me to detail why I like Melanie but if you get a chance to watch this movie, note the way and how often she licks her lips.

Towards the end of the movie, after it is revealed by her boss that she is a mere secretary causing her to lose not only her job but credit for the big deal she has worked on throughout the movie, the day is saved when she reads about a potential problem with the radio network purchase, Harrison comes to her defense, and she is given the opportunity to explain everything to the owner of the company negotiating to buy the network. When asked why she didn't tell everyone the story of how she first came up with the idea of this big company buying into radio, she said (and I quote)

"You can bend the rules plenty once you get to the top, but not while you're trying to get there. And if you're someone like me, you can't get there without bending the rules."

Is that really true? Do we tend to look the other way when successful people bend the rules, whether they be legal, moral or just the generally accepted guidelines for everyday living? And if so, why?

Certainly, we treat our athletes differently than everyday people. Especially if the person exhibits extraordinary athletic prowess. Right from high school they are accorded special status which can frequently lead to the turning of a blind eye when rules are bent or broken.

Or in the case of high salaried executives who cook the books resulting in a corporation's economic collapse. Is that person punished in the same way as the common criminal who holds up a grocery store. 

Obviously, I am not condoning armed robbery, but hasn't the executive whose crime results in the unemployment of hundreds of people and the loss of millions of dollars of pensions/IRA money done more harm to society than the guy who steals $300 from the owner of one store? Yet, the thief will spend real, hard time in prison behind bars while the white collar criminal, perhaps after months if not years of judicial posturing might spend some time in a federal penitentiary. Worse, once the blue collar criminal serves his time, his record will make it difficult for him to find meaningful employment, yet some of these CEO's leave one failed corporation only to go to another 7 figure salary at another one.

In the movie, Melanie's character makes the jump to a better job, gets the guy and, at least at first, treats those in the position she left with respect, unlike the way her boss treated her. She has made the most of her opportunity and, with some help from those who already "made it", we are treated to a happy ending.

I still believe that America is the place to be to experience this kind of "success" story. But I sometimes wonder if more people who have become successful are demonstrating the example of Melanie's original boss rather than her eventual boss.

Do enough people in management and ownership positions realize how many future Melanie Griffiths there are working the assembly lines and phones lines and counter lines who just need that one break? Do they remember that it wasn't that long ago that they were in a similar position and received that chance from a mentor or ex-boss? Pulling up one's bootstraps is a great cliche, but the vast majority of people who have made it, did so with some help in addition to their own hard work. .

Finally, I read an article in the business section of the Philadelphia Inquirer recently. The author was commenting on the news that corporations are currently sitting on literally billions of dollars of cash but are still slow to hire new employees. When the author asked a person of some standing in the business community what advice they would give these companies about jobs and hiring, the answer was that they should continue to focus on returning profits to the investors.

Is this a reflection of most thinking in today's business community? Is this a philosophy that will help hire and encourage future Melanies?

Does a concern for investors and profit rather than the employees or people of the community bend the rules of how we should treat each other?

Pretty Condoms In a Row

Extremely cold weather the last few days. My car's outside temp reading dipped below the zero degree mark the last two mornings. I was curious to see if it would actually display a negative number but it did. In fact, this morning it displayed a negative number for the majority of my route. When it finally warmed up to zero then topped out at 3 degrees I was tempted to open my window and let in this warm air!

Yesterday the papers were very late getting to the warehouse so I did most of my route in the light. A new perspective for many of the neighborhoods and homes of my customers. Also, I witnessed a very pretty sunrise while noticing a just-off full moon on the other side of the sky. The sun and moon in the sky together is an interesting sight.

Finally, not many deer out these last few days. Funny, when the weather gets extreme, the animals know enough to stay in shelters but the humans still go out!

A new friend of mine who frequently submits letters to the Phila Inquirer, recently sent one regarding an Inquirer editorial supporting a contest in conjunction with the distribution of condoms in our city schools. (I believe the contest was to create a new wrapper for the condoms in hopes of increasing interest, hence increasing condom use.) My friend's letter expressed displeasure that rather than promoting abstinence and self-control, the Inquirer was supportive of a school program that more or less condoned teen age sex. In response to his email detailing his letter and asking for feedback, pro and con, I sent the following response.

Dear ...,

You may recall that this was the topic that began our correspondence, and, dare I say, friendship. I had submitted a letter to the Inquirer about teen pregnancy to which you responded. If you further recall, we disagree somewhat on the subject.

As I may have said to you before, I believe that humanity is evolving, physically, emotionally, spiritually.

As I see it, this evolution as it relates to sex has developed in the following manner. (This would be my personal viewpoint, I didn't read it anywhere).

A. The Beginning to the discovery of a link between sex and children

My understanding is that man spent many eons in ignorance of the relationship between sex and conception/children. One could argue that this was a good thing as the species needed to breed to increase its chances to survive. The base workings of this time are still present today; in men, a stronger sex drive (create a blood line), and in women, the desire for family and the nurturing aspect of raising children.

B. The Time when that link was understood by women (only)

I assume that at this point, women understood the relationship between sex and children. I would bet that research into most of the civilizations of the past would reveal lore passed along from mother to daughter as to how to keep from getting pregnant. Of course, since men wrote much of the history that we read, this information may be hard to find but I am sure that women figured it out long before men. How long that time lasted I will leave to greater minds than my own.

C. The Time when men (in charge) finally figure it out

Whether there was a Benedict Arnold among women along this topic or just that finally men started thinking with their big heads, sometime in history the link became apparent to the men in leadership positions. Unfortunately, since men are more about power and control, all the institutions of the day were adjusted to include this new knowledge. Whether by religious or government control, men incorporated this new knowledge in their need to be in charge. Sometimes sex was good such as when procreation of those like oneself was involved, sometimes bad. To defend men, there were decisions to limit sex that were actually good for society, such as no sex between family members or with farmyard animals, but in general, it is more about control. This is best reflected in the fact that so much of the birth control methods are for women, a gender with such a complicated reproductive system when compared to men.

D. The Time when contraception becomes widely known

Finally, through science and despite the control mechanisms (still ongoing) from religion, everyday contraception is available to most people in societies like our own. (There are still leaders that don't allow birth control in their country because they are still stuck in level C above). While we still struggle to define when sex is appropriate and for whom, we at least understand the link between sex and pregnancy and have the resources to engage in one while preventing the other. But the evolution of our emotional understanding of sex is still to come.

E. The time when our understanding of the mechanism of sex is matched by the evolution of our emotions concerning sex

This time is yet to come. Birth pangs of this time are evident in the fact that our young people use sex for all sorts of emotional gratification rather than for its true uses; responsible pleasure and/or procreation. But I believe that eventually, sex will be treated as I have indicated. Young people may still have sex, but not because their peers do, or because they are bored or because they have not progressed beyond the base instincts that I detail in section A. Of course, as is true for all generations of young people, they will at times engage in foolish acts, including sex. The good news is that birth control will not be about controlling the actions of certain populations but about preventing pregnancy for people either too young to be parents or not desiring to be parents.

I think that in the end, we still confuse birth control with preventing sex. It is about preventing pregnancy. Take out the emotional baggage and it seems pretty clear that we want all people, children as well as adults, to understand that sex leads to pregnancy and so if one believes that sex is an expression of love, then true love includes some form of birth control in that expression.

Or, to put it another way, if you believe that sex among young people is irresponsible, fine, continue to give them solid, rational, practical reasons why they should not participate. But isn't it as irresponsible to withhold the process of birth prevention to those same people? Does it help to stand above them and say - see, I told you so when they get pregnant for lack of knowledge of prevention?

As always my best regards,

Joe

Last word (for now) on violence control

From the time I leave my house to get the papers until I return home, I usually note upwards of a 10 degree swing in temperature per my car's outside thermometer. Usually Doylestown is warmer than Perkasie and certain neighborhoods built near open fields are colder than those in town. This morning every time I looked at the gauge it said 33 degrees. Every time!! Although the temp was at 33 degrees, I still found my car sliding through certain turns and around some areas. While I won't say that I am becoming an expert at driving in ice and snow, I am certainly getting more used to being out of control, temporarily, while driving in poor weather. Could there be a future blog about life and enjoying those out of control moments?

Speaking of sliding, yesterday's sleet cover on top of the new snow produced my longest newspaper tosses to date. Not because I threw the papers any further but because some deliveries hit the ice and kept on going!! I wonder if any of the subjects of the various articles were saying WHEEEE as they slid on the ice?

I realized after posting on Monday that I was remiss in not mentioning that it was the national holiday in recognition of Martin Luther King Jr. What a tremendous example of working for societal change within the framework of non-violence! It makes me wonder why, on a national level, we continue to advocate change in countries where the rule of law is less established, countries where leaders routinely use violence against their own people to control them, yet we invariably turn to our own version of violence to reinforce these ideas. Again, as if might makes right.

Would not an example of diplomatic pressure, aid to improve the people's standard of living, and support for the process of change, ultimately work better than bombs and bullets? Please, can someone cite me an example whereby the killing of the citizens of another country led them to change their society to be more like us? And, please, don't respond with WW2 for my understanding of history indicates that it was more the incredible amount of economic aid and debt forgiveness that turned Germany and Japan into allies. As proof, I would offer the evidence that our treatment of the losers of WW1, especially Germany, planted the seeds for the eventual rise of the Nazi party. It was oh so easy for Hitler to take national pride and turn it into international hate when his fellow citizens could see in their everyday lives how little the world cared for them.

You can catch more flies with honey...

But again, there is a violent streak in Americans, by nature and by culture. We love righteous anger and the victory of the downtrodden over the bully. Unfortunately, we don't seem to recognize that in many parts of the world, we are considered to be the bully. The memory of America's role in saving the world from Hitler, or even that of our victory over the evil Russian empire has been replaced by our more recent history of both covert and overt actions to change the leaders of countries with which we disagree.

So, how does all this relate to guns, gun control, violence control? Perhaps it is inevitable that the crazy or the angry individual will kill regardless of the law. But aren't the laws written to control those individuals or to guide the more rational, majority of the populace? I would think that if asked, most Americans would prefer a world with a little less violence and a little more love. For themselves and their children and grandchildren, etc.

If love then is preferred, should we then not use it as a litmus test when considering any topic? Do guns promote this future world of love or suggest that violence is an acceptable method of interacting with one another? Or more specifically, do assault weapons and multi-round magazines for hand guns sound like they should have a place in a world with more love and less violence?

More on Violence Control

On my way to pickup the papers last Friday, I glanced at my car's outside thermometer and was reminded of the movie The Golden Child where Eddie Murphy is crossing the path of logs to get to the special dagger and asks how many people successfully completed that same challenge. When he hears the answer, he repeats it: None, None!!. In the case of my car's thermometer, I was repeating One, One.

I was in an especially positive mood within the first 15 minutes of Saturday's delivery because I saw a herd (what qualifies as a herd by the way; 6, 8, 15?) of deer on Harvest Lane. Eight deer were in the midst of crossing the road as I approached and two more were about to cross but turned around when they saw my headlights. I lowered both windows and greeted them with a hearty "Good morning".

In my last blog, I suggested that we should reframe the issue of gun control as a violence control issue. Of course, there is an inherent problem in doing this as violence is part of our American culture as well as part of our human nature. I have even had people tell me that it is only through bursts of violence that all the important advances to humanity have occurred. One could even argue that the very basis of how we mark the passage of time began with as grisly a death as imaginable; a crucifixion.

"We justify our bloody deeds in the name of destiny and in the name of God". (From the Last Resort by the Eagles, on the album Hotel California).

Nonetheless, I remain hopeful that we are slowly (agonizingly slowly) evolving away from violence as a means to address our problems. From country on country to man on man (or woman), our use of violence has reduced over time.

Yes, countries still drop bombs on each other, mobilize troops at each others' borders and actually invade each other, but generally these actions follow an attempt at diplomacy, and even after the onset of hostilities, lines of communication remain open and other nations intercede to help negotiate a ceasefire.

And certainly, as individuals we continue to wrangle over resources and occasionally murder each other but most nations have developed laws which make killing illegal and the vast majority of people respect and honor those laws.

To me, one of the critical concepts we must address is: might makes right. Whether it is the wronged innocent who exacts vengeance on their unpunished attacker or the belief that the victor in a war must have had god on their side, this concept permeates our existence. What is truly striking is that, at least in America, we take pride in our christian values yet conveniently forget that the foundation of those values, Jesus Christ, did not "win" his earthly battle with those that held the power in his time.

So, if might makes right, doesn't that mean that at various times in man's history, some of the most ruthless men and their nations were in the right?

Perhaps might needs to be defined in a different way? Perhaps the "right" path is the one which involves the least amount of physical might as that kind of might can so easily lead to an arrogance that values some lives over others. Perhaps the preoccupation with might and the belief that "right" can be won is, in fact, the exact opposite of the message of Christ. Perhaps believing in one's might to make right has everything to do with living a life demonstrating the example lived by Jesus and nothing to do with the might derived from weapons.

The Tucson Shooting

This morning I delayed delivering the paper as we had received about 6 inches of snow overnight. As a result, I was out and about between 6-8:00 AM which meant that I was driving in the light for about half of my route. For the most part, the main roads were completely clear and virtually all of the streets I encountered were plowed. My only difficulty was the occasional turnarounds that I do in customers' driveways and the fact that many had not cleared them yet. But any minor turnaround issue was more than made up by the scenery of the morning, especially in the time when it is light but the sun has not quite risen. There was a white and silver sheen of snow on the trees and telephone wires which was very pretty indeed.

The past weekend's horrific shooting spree in Tucson which claimed the life of six people and left many more wounded, elicited some strong discussions about both the vitriolic discourse careening across our airwaves and the status of gun control in America.

While I certainly agree that the nature of our political discourse has been very extreme, I don't think it is possible to know what transpired in the mind of the young man who committed this crime. But I have heard it said, and have said it before, words matter. As long as the talking heads, radio talk show hosts, TV commentators, etc, continue to cater to the extreme ideologues on each side, as long as conflict, and three people talking at once, and screaming sell advertisement time, as long as we, the audience, continue to settle for superficial blabbering rather than meaningful debate, then there will be individuals, already on the edge who will find subtle and not so subtle encouragement to address today's issues with violence.

Which brings us to gun control.

It dawned on me today that, again, part of the problem with meaningful gun control is that the issue has been framed by the people who are opposed to it. It is too easy to fire up a certain portion of the public by turning all attempts at gun control into a litmus test about the Second Amendment. Assault weapons are clearly not needed in a civilized society (they certainly didn't exist in the time of our founding fathers) but banning their use becomes an attack on our right to bear arms, even though so few people in this country choose to purchase an assault weapon.

So, perhaps we need to begin calling this issue violence control. Isn't that what we are really attempting to reduce; the number and severity of violence and violent acts. Certainly, no one is for more violence! Banning multi-round cartridges like that used by the Tucson shooter would not be gun control, but an attempt at violence control. Restricting the type of weapons that can be purchased, certain assault weapons for instance, is an attempt to reduce the violence that results when such a weapon is fired. Requiring that someone notify the police if they lose their handgun, again, becomes an attempt to reduce the violence that might be committed by the thief.

Since the Tucson shooting, I have heard more than one person say that if more people had been carrying guns, the shooter may not have done so much damage. In other words, had more people been shooting in that crowded parking lot, there would have been less violence. Does that sound right? I would hazard to guess that had more people had weapons, more people would have been shot; perhaps less shot by the disturbed young man but probably more overall due to "accidental" hits. Am I wrong?

On the other hand, if no one had a gun, then no one would have been shot.

Violence control; are you for it or against it?

The Growing Income Inequality

Since my last post it snowed a few times. The first began in the early morning hours while I was delivering papers. The flakes were of the large variety and when I flicked on my car's high beams the scene was spectacular. Big, fluffy snow flakes flying at my car's windshield made the road resemble a scene in one of those snow globes that you shake. Beautiful.

On the weekdays I am done delivering papers by 6:00 AM so it is still dark when I get home. But on the weekends, I have almost three times as many customers so I don't finish until 7:30 at least. This past Saturday, the sun rise was especially pretty especially when viewed coming up over an open field some of which still exist in Perkasie area.

Last Friday I read an article which presented information detailing the growing income inequity in the United States and questioning why Middle America was not more outraged.

The information about the income inequities came from Timothy Noah at slate.com; a link to view this info is below.

http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026

My response to the author is as follows

I read your article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer with much interest as I have spent much time recently trying to understand why average Americans are not more outraged at the redistribution of income that has resulted in the stagnation of their standard of living. Unfortunately, you did not present any substantial answers. Perhaps it is because you are asking the wrong people.

First, does a plutocracy exist in America today? Probably not yet as there are too many professions that still produce exorbitant salaries. Athletes, movie stars, rock stars, hedge fund managers, CEO's of multinational companies, reality show hosts, etc, there are thousands of people who are earning millions of dollars a year. As I would include an organizational aspect as part of the definition of plutocracy, I don't see one existing today nor do I see one existing in the near future.

That being said, I do believe that there are forces at work in America that actively work to keep influence and resources in the hands of the rich while offering just enough opportunity and reward for the middle class to keep them, as Tyler Cowen so aptly defines them, as threshold earners. But these forces are not big enough to direct all the money and all the influence as many people achieve enhanced economic status through the vagaries of emotion, fads and other superficial factors that can't be predicted or controlled. Who knew that American Idol would become what it is today? (Although, the recent Supreme Court decision allowing more money to flow into politics disturbs me and certainly increases the chance of a plutocracy emerging).

A possible answer as to why middle class Americans are not up in arms is that our belief in capitalism overrides our ability to make a connection between the problems of capitalism and the growing inequality of incomes. That is because capitalism is no longer an economic philosophy but is beginning to become a religion.

The rich, of course, believe 100% in capitalism as it has worked for them. They are the poster children for hard work, entrepreneurship, individualism, etc, all the positive attributes that are associated with capitalism at its best. And, not only did it work for these individuals, but it worked for America. We are a country that went from a second class world power which just barely recovered from a decade of economic depression to the only super power in the world; all in about 50 years.

Organizations like the Cato Institute and magazines like the American Interest are the priests and rabbis of the religion of capitalism so will not be able to offer any understanding of why people who are not benefiting from it are not more outraged. They undoubtedly believe that those who are not benefiting are just not working hard enough, or worse, they have fallen all the way down the rabbit hole and believe God does not love those people.

In the end, the plutocrats are winning because middle class Americans still believe that they can be rich. And, since enough "regular" people still achieve a lofty economic status, the middle class will continue to believe so, despite the fact that the chance of earning your way to this level is slim to none.

If you want to prove or disprove my assertion, it is easy enough. Ask middle America.

Best Times of Your Life

I recently watched the movie "Pirate Radio". If you haven't seen it yet, it is a light-hearted piece of entertainment, especially if you are either 50+ and can remember when rock n' roll was just beginning to invade our air waves, or if you are a younger rock music fan and you are curious about its origin in terms of radio broadcasts.

There is a scene towards the end of the movie which occurs after the radio rock DJ's are told that legislation has been passed in Great Britain making Pirate Radio illegal. (Considering all the talk today about an increasing government interference in our lives, it is interesting to realize how much more freedom we have today, at least in terms of access to music and entertainment, especially in light of the world wide web).

Anyway, the scene depicts a conversation between two of the main characters in which one comments to the other that he had a horrible thought a few months past and instead of suppressing it, he allowed it to stick in his mind and become a conscious realization. When asked what that thought was, he responded that it was the understanding that this was the best time of his life. The second character, a much younger man, responds that he thinks he will have better times in his future. The first character emits a short laugh, and says, "maybe, but I doubt it".

The meaning that I grasped was that the character was lamenting, not that he was having this spectacular time but that he knew once it came to an end, he would never have as great a time again. His life had peaked. And his conclusion that the younger man would never have a matching experience was based on the wisdom gained from the decades of life that he had already lived. He knew, or thought he knew, what awaited the young man and concluded that it would never match this Rock Radio phase of his life.

So the question that begs to be asked is, when was your best of times? High school? College? Your 30's? 40's?

How many of us would say that their current life phase is the best of times? How many (over 40 years old) would say that the best times are still to come?

I suspect that most people over 40 years old would label their glory days as a time in the past. They might admit that life in the present is good, but not great, but many would certainly consider life in the future as either not something to be thought of or as a time to fear. Our obsession with youth and avoidance of getting old or being old clearly defines most people's opinion of aging.

In essence then, many of us are saying that our lives have peaked. Considering that our population is aging, that the first of the baby boomers will be applying for Medicare this year as they turn 65 years old, is it any wonder that the United States is struggling with its identity? Is it a surprise that we see such a strong yearning for the past, that so many people are looking back for answers to our shared problems rather than forward to the future for resolutions? If a large percentage of the populace thinks it has peaked, then does that not mean that the country has peaked as well?

In my last blog I resolved to try to find the unique in the everyday. Twice in the past three days I stopped to look at the sunset. The magnificent colors, the sheer expanse of the sky where it approached the horizon, and the way the entire scene changed as the sun slowly dropped beyond sight, made me smile. To think that the process happens everyday, twice, when you consider the sunrise, certainly qualifies as both unique and everyday.

But more importantly, I look forward to the continued best times of my life. Yes, I may not be as spry in appreciating those events. I might have to walk through the more physical events rather than running. I may nod off as an evening progresses, perhaps even missing a portion of the night. But I remain hopeful nonetheless that the best times are happening now and are still to come. Perhaps because I have only recently decided that I am a writer, obviously not by profession as I have never been paid to write, but by avocation, and certainly by self-identity. Maybe I am lucky that it has taken so long for this realization to occur, so now I have the rest of my life to see where my writing will take me.

Perhaps then, what defines the best of times is not just what is happening in the present but what keeps us looking forward to life's journey. We believe today is the best of times because we look forward to the same or better in the future.

So again I ask; when was your best of times?

A Special Day

Happy New Years!!

Again, too much time has passed since my last blog. But the perfect storm at my two jobs, extra deliveries and heavier newspapers in the morning job and extra shifts and incredibly busy days at my full time work produced barely enough time to complete the standard holiday routines let alone find the time to write. Still, as is always the case, the gifts were purchased and wrapped, the tree was chosen and decorated, the cards were sorted and mailed, and despite those nagging thoughts that everything wouldn't get done, the end of another holiday season approaches and nothing was neglected. Here's wishing that amid all the rush of the effort, you were able to take a step back and enjoy this special time.

Speaking of special, today is 1/1/11. Another one of those numerical oddities that occur very rarely in life. While we will also have 11/1/11 and 11/11/11 this year, the next date with just one numeral across the board after this year won't be for another 11 years. Think back to where you were 11 years ago, January 1, 2000 and how much has changed in that time. Perhaps a new job, new home, family addition?

Now imagine the changes to come in the next eleven years. Continued family growth or just the opposite, children leaving the nest. Maybe a new job or career; or retirement from your current work. Will your favorite TV show still be on air? Will your daily routine feature a new source for news, a new leisure activity or a new form of transportation?

My son is home from college for Christmas break. As it is a 6+ hour drive, we had ample time to talk about his first college semester. In the course of our discussion we touched on philosophy (one of his classes this past year). Among many topics was whether the penchant to reflect upon one's life is an innate trait or can be learned. To be honest, I was a bit shocked to think that there could be people who do not spend some time considering their life and its activities. My son posited that not only has he encountered such people but that some of them demonstrate much intelligence in other areas of life suggesting that the ability to reflect was separate from the ability to succeed academically. Let's hope that his classmates who appear non-reflective are guilty of youth only and will learn the wisdom of self examination.

Which brings me back to the special nature of today's date. New Years Day in general will often bring out our philosophical nature, which usually results in resolutions for the coming year. Of course, such a large percentage of these resolutions are broken. Perhaps one reason is that it is so hard to maintain that feeling of a new start or a new attitude that inspires these resolves. The days routines entrap us until we forget how the specialness of January 1st enhanced our reflections.

If that is even partly true, then consider this; 1/2/11 only happens once in your life. So does 1/3/11 and 1/4/11 and 1/5/11. We don't need special numerological events to consider each day unique, just the perspective to know that it is.

And so, my New Years Day resolution? To do the most simple and most difficult thing one can do; remember that each day only comes once in a lifetime and to look for the unique within the routine.