America’s strength has always been founded upon its diversity. The melting pot of the world has become an economic juggernaut that now drives the world economy. The United States has demonstrated that the American Dream is accessible to anyone in a free enterprise economy and a democratic society that does not discriminate against race, color, or creed.
Over the past 250 years, the United States of America has been the destination of choice for the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses who have sought safe haven and opportunity by escaping from their homelands where they suffered under economic and social oppression.
Too be sure, diversity has not been an easy course for America. In a land where native peoples were conquered, slavery was once common place, U.S. Citizens of Japanese ancestry were rounded up and imprisoned, and anti-immigration sentiment has always run high, civil rights have been more of a concept and ideal than an absolute. It started with the phrase that helped frame our desire for independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Since that declaration in 1776, civil rights in America have been a work in progress more than a destination.
If diversity is the thread and colors that are woven together form the tapestry of American culture, then civil rights and the peaceable resolution of issues are the glue and the grease that hold it all together. And what a beautiful tapestry we have become—people from every nationality, race, language, and socio-economic background living in peace, governing ourselves, prospering and caring for one another, and helping the rest of the world to know the benefits of freedom and democracy.
There is, however, a pernicious trend in America that threatens to unravel the very tapestry of our culture. Political Correctness has permeated our culture, but being politically correct prevents us from acknowledging and embracing our diversity. We are no longer allowed to express ourselves freely. Instead, our language must be sanitized and our vocabulary purged of such terms as he or she, black or white, short or tall, winner or loser, fat or skinny, gay or straight, and stupid or smart. Especially perplexing is that any reference to the God of Judeo-Christian culture is systematically being expunged from our society while other religious references are tolerated.
This unraveling of our culture became clear to me when I served at the Department of the Interior as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks where I helped oversee and set policy for the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
We received word one day that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was threatening to sue the National Park Service. The ACLU was incensed that a certain book, The Grand Canyon—A Different View by Tom Vail, was for sale in the bookstore at Grand Canyon National Park. The ACLU’s letter argued that by presenting the view that the Grand Canyon was created by the receding waters of the Great Flood as described in the Bible, the book should not be sold in a National Park Service venue. Their argument was based on the separation of church and state clause of the First Amendment and because the book differed from the National Park Service’s position that the canyon was formed over hundreds of thousands of year.
Of course, it did not matter to the ACLU that there is no consensus within the scientific community about how long it took to form the Grand Canyon. Nor did it matter that the book in question is a compilation of essays written by 23 people. Three of the essayists were theologians and the rest were highly acclaimed and well educated scientists with PhDs in geology, hydrology, geophysics, and atmospheric science, to name a few of the disciplines represented.
But, wait a minute. In this same bookstore, and almost every other bookstore in National Parks, there are numerous books about Native American spirituality and prayers. From the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, interpretive signs point out three of the most prominent peaks in the canyon that are each named after Hindu gods. And, in the bottom of the canyon, the most famous of the geologic formations is called Zoroaster Formation in honor of the ancient Persian prophet.
The point is that you cannot talk about America and what made her great without referencing our religious faiths. You cannot benefit from the strength of diversity by trying to sanitize our heritage. We cannot address what problems exist by denying or failing to recognize that people are all different. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses, and if there are biological, biochemical, and physiological reasons for those differences, it is okay to acknowledge them.
Christian Faith and the Bible had a great influence on the Founding Fathers who established this great nation and wrote documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If you have ever been to Washington, DC, the monuments to Jefferson, Lincoln, and Washington all reference their faith and allegiance to Christian principles. The Supreme Court of this land is adorned with references to God and the Ten Commandments. To fail to recognize these facts, and worse yet to try to deny them through historic revisionism, will steadily erode our cultural heritage and unravel the tapestry of our culture today.
Like the Founding Fathers, I do not believe in State sponsored religion. I do not want my government telling me what to believe. I happen to be an unabashed believer in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. That is my choice and mine alone. I will defend my right to my faith and I pray I live my life as a good witness of my faith. I will also just as vigorously defend your right to believe in whatever or whoever you want. More to the point, I do not believe it is society’s or the government’s responsibility to purge our nation of those things, religious and otherwise, that make us diverse and strong. To try to homogenize America will completely unravel the tapestry of our culture that has made America what it is today—the beacon of hope to the rest of the world.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Banks--It's a Love/Hate Thing
Banks! You can’t live with them and you can’t live without them. Everyone has their story about a bank and/or a banker who did them wrong. And, now, President Obama has chimed in as the Bank Critic-in-Chief.
I have my own stories to tell. These tales are made even more interesting by the fact that I was a bank loan officer for five years from 1980 to 1985. Together, with my college degree in economics, I have a perspective that is a blend between outraged consumer and the insider who knows the rest of the story.
Banks have a tough road to hoe. First and foremost, they are responsible for safeguarding your money and insuring that when you want or need your money it is there for you. Secondly, banks make money by loaning your money to others who are supposed to pay the money back with interest. Thirdly, the banks are generally stock-held companies and their stockholders expect a return on investment commensurate with similar investment opportunities. And fourthly, banks are highly regulated to insure that your money is safe, consumers are informed of the cost of borrowing, your privacy is protected, and nobody is treated unfairly, just to name just a few of the key rules.
Bankers and the term “Fat Cats” have become synonymous over the decades. The reasons are fairly simple. Bank buildings are usually opulent brick and mortar structures designed to instill confidence in the strength of the bank institution itself. Bankers most often wear dark suits and together with their fiscally conservative nature, they can give the appearance of being powerful and world-class snobs.
The Nazi’s in pre-World War II Germany fanned anti-bank sentiment into a racial issue to support their belief in the pernicious anti-Semitic delusion that all the bankers are Jewish. Thank goodness we have gotten past that image, but when the President of the Untied States for political reasons bashes the banking industry as being the lacky dog of Wall Street Fat Cats, one should not be surprised when social tensions increase.
The problem is a simple one. Everyone wants loose credit when they are borrowing, but tight standards when it comes to the lending of their money, or taxpayer money. When the current recession began it was largely due to the imminent failure of large banking institutions that had built large loan portfolios on flimsy standards and highly leveraged credit instruments. Many people correctly trace the beginnings of the financial crisis back to Federal regulators in the Clinton Administration who used the Community Reinvestment Act to encourage banks to substantially increase home ownership among minority populations. While a laudable goal, the only feasible way to increase home ownership among minorities was to relax credit standards for home mortgage loans. Real estate loans were made for 100% of the purchase price and sub-prime interest rates were used to qualify candidates. During the peak of the housing boom, borrowers were encouraged by overzealous lenders to overstate their income and previous bad credit was ignored. We were warned by the experts that the slightest downward trend in housing values could precipitate a crisis and it did when the house of cards began to fall in 2007.
Sensing a crisis that could spread to every sector of the economy, the Bush Administration proposed and Congress approved the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to re-capitalize banks that were forced to write-off billions of dollars of mortgages that would never be repaid. Many people criticized this program as an unnecessary bailout for fat-cat or greedy bankers. The new term “Too Big to Fail” was coined amid hues and cries of let them fail.
While I am not a fan of government bailout programs, I believe the TARP was warranted for the following reasons. There is a principle in the construction trade called the “keystone.” A keystone is usually a brick in a structure that when removed would result in the failure of the building. Banks are one of the keystones to a free enterprise economy. Failure of the credit industry means potential loss of depositor dollars, severe contraction of available money for businesses through reduced credit, and a ripple effect that reverberates throughout America from the fat cats to Main Street. More importantly—and substantially different from the follow-up Stimulus Package which I did not support—the TARP money was loaned to financial institutions and would likely be repaid with interest. Indeed, many banks have repaid their TARP money with interest already, especially when the Obama Administration decided unilaterally that TARP gave them authority to regulate private sector salaries and bonuses.
Quite naturally and I believe appropriately, banks have reverted to more common lending practices. To get a mortgage or a small business loan you should have what is called the Five Cs: Capital—your investment into the deal, Credit—your track record of paying money back on time, Collateral—a real asset to back up the loan if you do not pay, Conditions—what you intend to do with the money and the economic prospect of success, and Character—your reputation for honesty and for being a law-abiding citizen. I applaud this change and it is necessary to ensure against future credit crises. But, now, we have a President who once roundly criticized banks for building their financial house of cards and who now speaks out of the other side of his mouth to admonish banks for not being loose enough with their (your) money.
In all recessions, it is normal for credit and venture capital to get tight. And it is human nature to grouse publicly about how the greedy and stingy banker will not help someone start or expand their business. Do you think for one minute that the people who are denied credit will ever tell you that their cash flow won’t support repayment of the loan, or that they are already in hock up to their eyeballs, or that they have a pattern of not making their payments on time? No Sir, you won’t here that from the disgruntled customer and privacy laws prohibit the bankers from defending their decisions publicly.
When I was a banker in the early 1980s, the credit card companies were in the habit of mailing credit cards to everyone, including students with no visible means of support. The result was predictable. There were huge numbers of defaults on credit card debt, bankruptcy filings, and big losses for the banks that issued the cards. Quite naturally, credit cards became more difficult to get after that while banks went back to the Five Cs and practiced more conservative credit card issuance policies. We have come around full circle once again. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t get a letter from my credit card company urging me to use my card or offering me a larger line of credit. I even get solicitations offering credit cards to my unemployed college kid which I dutifully throw away knowing full well he would not know how to handle all that available debt.
The point is that everything in life is cyclical. The banks will come back around and loan money again, the economy will resurge, and the sun will come up tomorrow. It just may not be soon enough to suit President Obama’s political time frame.
I have my own stories to tell. These tales are made even more interesting by the fact that I was a bank loan officer for five years from 1980 to 1985. Together, with my college degree in economics, I have a perspective that is a blend between outraged consumer and the insider who knows the rest of the story.
Banks have a tough road to hoe. First and foremost, they are responsible for safeguarding your money and insuring that when you want or need your money it is there for you. Secondly, banks make money by loaning your money to others who are supposed to pay the money back with interest. Thirdly, the banks are generally stock-held companies and their stockholders expect a return on investment commensurate with similar investment opportunities. And fourthly, banks are highly regulated to insure that your money is safe, consumers are informed of the cost of borrowing, your privacy is protected, and nobody is treated unfairly, just to name just a few of the key rules.
Bankers and the term “Fat Cats” have become synonymous over the decades. The reasons are fairly simple. Bank buildings are usually opulent brick and mortar structures designed to instill confidence in the strength of the bank institution itself. Bankers most often wear dark suits and together with their fiscally conservative nature, they can give the appearance of being powerful and world-class snobs.
The Nazi’s in pre-World War II Germany fanned anti-bank sentiment into a racial issue to support their belief in the pernicious anti-Semitic delusion that all the bankers are Jewish. Thank goodness we have gotten past that image, but when the President of the Untied States for political reasons bashes the banking industry as being the lacky dog of Wall Street Fat Cats, one should not be surprised when social tensions increase.
The problem is a simple one. Everyone wants loose credit when they are borrowing, but tight standards when it comes to the lending of their money, or taxpayer money. When the current recession began it was largely due to the imminent failure of large banking institutions that had built large loan portfolios on flimsy standards and highly leveraged credit instruments. Many people correctly trace the beginnings of the financial crisis back to Federal regulators in the Clinton Administration who used the Community Reinvestment Act to encourage banks to substantially increase home ownership among minority populations. While a laudable goal, the only feasible way to increase home ownership among minorities was to relax credit standards for home mortgage loans. Real estate loans were made for 100% of the purchase price and sub-prime interest rates were used to qualify candidates. During the peak of the housing boom, borrowers were encouraged by overzealous lenders to overstate their income and previous bad credit was ignored. We were warned by the experts that the slightest downward trend in housing values could precipitate a crisis and it did when the house of cards began to fall in 2007.
Sensing a crisis that could spread to every sector of the economy, the Bush Administration proposed and Congress approved the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to re-capitalize banks that were forced to write-off billions of dollars of mortgages that would never be repaid. Many people criticized this program as an unnecessary bailout for fat-cat or greedy bankers. The new term “Too Big to Fail” was coined amid hues and cries of let them fail.
While I am not a fan of government bailout programs, I believe the TARP was warranted for the following reasons. There is a principle in the construction trade called the “keystone.” A keystone is usually a brick in a structure that when removed would result in the failure of the building. Banks are one of the keystones to a free enterprise economy. Failure of the credit industry means potential loss of depositor dollars, severe contraction of available money for businesses through reduced credit, and a ripple effect that reverberates throughout America from the fat cats to Main Street. More importantly—and substantially different from the follow-up Stimulus Package which I did not support—the TARP money was loaned to financial institutions and would likely be repaid with interest. Indeed, many banks have repaid their TARP money with interest already, especially when the Obama Administration decided unilaterally that TARP gave them authority to regulate private sector salaries and bonuses.
Quite naturally and I believe appropriately, banks have reverted to more common lending practices. To get a mortgage or a small business loan you should have what is called the Five Cs: Capital—your investment into the deal, Credit—your track record of paying money back on time, Collateral—a real asset to back up the loan if you do not pay, Conditions—what you intend to do with the money and the economic prospect of success, and Character—your reputation for honesty and for being a law-abiding citizen. I applaud this change and it is necessary to ensure against future credit crises. But, now, we have a President who once roundly criticized banks for building their financial house of cards and who now speaks out of the other side of his mouth to admonish banks for not being loose enough with their (your) money.
In all recessions, it is normal for credit and venture capital to get tight. And it is human nature to grouse publicly about how the greedy and stingy banker will not help someone start or expand their business. Do you think for one minute that the people who are denied credit will ever tell you that their cash flow won’t support repayment of the loan, or that they are already in hock up to their eyeballs, or that they have a pattern of not making their payments on time? No Sir, you won’t here that from the disgruntled customer and privacy laws prohibit the bankers from defending their decisions publicly.
When I was a banker in the early 1980s, the credit card companies were in the habit of mailing credit cards to everyone, including students with no visible means of support. The result was predictable. There were huge numbers of defaults on credit card debt, bankruptcy filings, and big losses for the banks that issued the cards. Quite naturally, credit cards became more difficult to get after that while banks went back to the Five Cs and practiced more conservative credit card issuance policies. We have come around full circle once again. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t get a letter from my credit card company urging me to use my card or offering me a larger line of credit. I even get solicitations offering credit cards to my unemployed college kid which I dutifully throw away knowing full well he would not know how to handle all that available debt.
The point is that everything in life is cyclical. The banks will come back around and loan money again, the economy will resurge, and the sun will come up tomorrow. It just may not be soon enough to suit President Obama’s political time frame.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Dangerous Confluence of Jihadists and Eco-Terrorists
Washington Post Online, January 29, 2010, Breaking News: “Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.”
Osama bin Laden sees that jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon can help bring down Western Civilization. “In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring ‘the wheels of the American economy’ to a halt,” said the Washington Post Online article.
According to the Washington Post, “The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants.” Clearly, bin Laden is aligning himself with eco-terrorists and radical environmentalists who all share his goal of bringing down Western Civilization. Beyond that, all these terrorists also share a goal ensuring that Third World or Developing Nations never enjoy even the most rudimentary of Western creature comforts such as a light bulb or heating and air conditioning.
If Osama bin Laden considers the Global Warming issue to be an effective Weapon of Mass Destruction, then perhaps there is hope that our leaders in Washington will not detonate such a device (Cap and Trade Legislation or greenhouse gas emission limitations) on the United States economy. Maybe the political leaders of the world will see the Global Warming Farce for what it is—a terrorist plot.
The revelation of ClimateGate stunned millions of people. Now, we know that Jihadists and eco-terrorists share the same hell-bent goal of destroying Western Civilization. Perhaps, the rest of the world will now see the mounting evidence that conclusively demonstrates that blaming global warming on humans is a farce.
The discovery of thousands of emails is evidence that climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom—working with other leading climatologists around the world—fabricated, distorted, manipulated, and cherry picked climate data records to support their predisposed conclusion that humans are the principle cause of global warming. ClimateGate clearly demonstrates how zealous and dangerous scientists can be when they cease to be true to any scientific code of conduct and become “science advocates.”
The essential question that all of us must always be asking ourselves is, “If a scientist says it is so, is it true?” Before you ask that question, there are a few things you should know about science.
Scientific Method is the process by which scientists make observations, take measurements, conduct experiments, develop a hypothesis, and repeat the cycle in order to prove, disprove, or modify the hypothesis. Often this cycle can take a life time of work without any proof of the hypothesis. Scientific Method is not about consensus. In fact, being skeptical—asking the hard questions—is a healthy attitude for any scientist.
There are a number of different kinds of science. Applied science is proven science that results in the technology we see or use everyday. Microwave ovens, cell phones, medical instruments, pharmaceuticals are just a few examples.
Theoretical science seeks to support a theory about something that may never be proven or debunked such as the origins of matter or how the universe was created. Sometimes it may take generations to learn if the theory is true or not. Einstein did not live to see much of his Theory of Relativity proven and some theories may never be proven one way or the other.
Scientific Modeling is a relatively new form of science that has become much more feasible with the advent of computer technology, especially super computers capable of making billions of calculations per second. Scientists and mathematicians develop complex models that are supposed to mimic reality. Such complex mathematical models include economic models, population models and even climate models. Sets of data are plugged into these models, and as in the case of climate change, the super computers chug away for days before spitting out a likely outcome. The outcome is called a projection, not a prediction. Generally, the projection is considered valid if the core assumptions underlying the model are correct; the model thoroughly considers the impacts of all the various inputs; and the data being entered into the model is accurate and validated. Sometimes, the outputs of one model are then plugged into another model, and so on, thus multiplying the possibility of erroneous projections. This kind of science is the basis for the Global Warming Theory and this is why ClimateGate cast such a large shadow of doubt on the theory that humans are the cause of global warming and even brings into question the premise that the planet is even warming.
Listen closely to what the Warmists are saying and study their rhetoric closely. There is a pattern to be observed in the phenomena called Global Warming. The underlying assumptions are that Western Civilization is bad for the environment and Developing Nations would be better off without Western-like Civilization. The science is being manipulated to support this erroneous conclusion. And now, we are seeing the dangerous confluence of eco-terrorism and Jihadists terrorists. Both have demonstrated an alarming disregard for humanity that should be cause for America and the rest of the world to be concerned, very concerned. And maybe, just maybe, Al Gore, NASA’s James Hansen, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change, and the rest of the radical environmentalist community should have their names added on the No-Fly List.
Osama bin Laden sees that jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon can help bring down Western Civilization. “In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring ‘the wheels of the American economy’ to a halt,” said the Washington Post Online article.
According to the Washington Post, “The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants.” Clearly, bin Laden is aligning himself with eco-terrorists and radical environmentalists who all share his goal of bringing down Western Civilization. Beyond that, all these terrorists also share a goal ensuring that Third World or Developing Nations never enjoy even the most rudimentary of Western creature comforts such as a light bulb or heating and air conditioning.
If Osama bin Laden considers the Global Warming issue to be an effective Weapon of Mass Destruction, then perhaps there is hope that our leaders in Washington will not detonate such a device (Cap and Trade Legislation or greenhouse gas emission limitations) on the United States economy. Maybe the political leaders of the world will see the Global Warming Farce for what it is—a terrorist plot.
The revelation of ClimateGate stunned millions of people. Now, we know that Jihadists and eco-terrorists share the same hell-bent goal of destroying Western Civilization. Perhaps, the rest of the world will now see the mounting evidence that conclusively demonstrates that blaming global warming on humans is a farce.
The discovery of thousands of emails is evidence that climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom—working with other leading climatologists around the world—fabricated, distorted, manipulated, and cherry picked climate data records to support their predisposed conclusion that humans are the principle cause of global warming. ClimateGate clearly demonstrates how zealous and dangerous scientists can be when they cease to be true to any scientific code of conduct and become “science advocates.”
The essential question that all of us must always be asking ourselves is, “If a scientist says it is so, is it true?” Before you ask that question, there are a few things you should know about science.
Scientific Method is the process by which scientists make observations, take measurements, conduct experiments, develop a hypothesis, and repeat the cycle in order to prove, disprove, or modify the hypothesis. Often this cycle can take a life time of work without any proof of the hypothesis. Scientific Method is not about consensus. In fact, being skeptical—asking the hard questions—is a healthy attitude for any scientist.
There are a number of different kinds of science. Applied science is proven science that results in the technology we see or use everyday. Microwave ovens, cell phones, medical instruments, pharmaceuticals are just a few examples.
Theoretical science seeks to support a theory about something that may never be proven or debunked such as the origins of matter or how the universe was created. Sometimes it may take generations to learn if the theory is true or not. Einstein did not live to see much of his Theory of Relativity proven and some theories may never be proven one way or the other.
Scientific Modeling is a relatively new form of science that has become much more feasible with the advent of computer technology, especially super computers capable of making billions of calculations per second. Scientists and mathematicians develop complex models that are supposed to mimic reality. Such complex mathematical models include economic models, population models and even climate models. Sets of data are plugged into these models, and as in the case of climate change, the super computers chug away for days before spitting out a likely outcome. The outcome is called a projection, not a prediction. Generally, the projection is considered valid if the core assumptions underlying the model are correct; the model thoroughly considers the impacts of all the various inputs; and the data being entered into the model is accurate and validated. Sometimes, the outputs of one model are then plugged into another model, and so on, thus multiplying the possibility of erroneous projections. This kind of science is the basis for the Global Warming Theory and this is why ClimateGate cast such a large shadow of doubt on the theory that humans are the cause of global warming and even brings into question the premise that the planet is even warming.
Listen closely to what the Warmists are saying and study their rhetoric closely. There is a pattern to be observed in the phenomena called Global Warming. The underlying assumptions are that Western Civilization is bad for the environment and Developing Nations would be better off without Western-like Civilization. The science is being manipulated to support this erroneous conclusion. And now, we are seeing the dangerous confluence of eco-terrorism and Jihadists terrorists. Both have demonstrated an alarming disregard for humanity that should be cause for America and the rest of the world to be concerned, very concerned. And maybe, just maybe, Al Gore, NASA’s James Hansen, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change, and the rest of the radical environmentalist community should have their names added on the No-Fly List.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Gold Rush of 2010
[Note: I am not an investment counselor and you should not buy, sell, or hold anything based on my advice alone or anything I say in this column.]
It actually began in 2009, but the Gold Rush of 2010 is now in full swing. Haven’t you heard? There is gold in them thar hills; or is it in your jewelry box; or is it available for purchase from a number of different gold vendors. You can get it minted in coins; you can buy it in bars; or you can get it the old fashioned way—from a mine.
I find it curious that the gold dealers come out in droves every time the economy is down or there is even the mere mention of possible inflation. Listen to the ads on any one of the television business channels and you’ll get an ear full of doom and gloom. “Worst recession since the Depression.” “Out of control government spending.” “The falling value of the dollar.” “Inflation.” “Record unemployment.”
There can be no doubt, many of these claims may indeed be true, but I have never seen an industry rally around bad news more than the purveyors of gold. Well, maybe the mainstream media loves bad news, but I digress. It is as though the only way to sell gold is by creating and instilling fear. “Gold is the only asset that never has zero value.” “Gold is your hedge against inflation and a falling stock portfolio.” If the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, then I am convinced that gold brokers foment more fear than miners find gold.
In fact, the Gold Rush of 2010, driven by fear tactics, has pushed the price of gold well over $1,000 per ounce which is about twice as much as it costs to get gold out of the ground. If you are absolutely convinced that gold is your best investment, then for crying out loud, buy stock in a gold mine. Those guys are making good money right now.
But, let’s examine the underlying theories behind the Gold Rush of 2010.
The dollar is dropping in value compared to other currencies such as the Euro or the Yen. So, you put your dollars into gold. What are you going to do with the gold? Put it under your bed; bury it in your back yard? Heat your house with it? Eat it when you get hungry? Nope, just like any other investment, you are going to sit on it and wait for its value to go up, down, or stay the same. The problem is that you can’t spend gold. Just try going down to your local store to buy some groceries with the gold shavings you whittle off of your gold bar. When you get hungry or it is time to pay your property taxes, you are going to sell some gold and get dollars back. If the fear-mongering purveyors of gold are right, the dollars you get when you sell your gold are going to have less purchasing power than the dollars you used to buy the gold. If the value of gold went up more than the dollar went down, then you are okay. But if it does not, then you are no better off, or worse yet, you have lost money. This same logic applies if you are investing in gold to hedge against inflation.
Gold is a commodity and like all commodities it has real intrinsic value and it has psychological value. When gold supply is low and demand for gold jewelry, gold circuitry, and gold-tipped Ipod cords is high, then the price of gold goes up. What we are seeing today is that because fear is high, so is the price of gold. The first example is the law of supply and demand; the second is speculation. “Speculation” is nothing more than a euphemism for gambling.
But, the gold broker will tell you that gold will never be worth zero. Go tell that to Bunky Hunt who lost billions of dollars in the 1970s speculating that silver would continue to go up in value. He and his brother tried to corner the world market by buying close to 100 million ounces of silver. When silver prices crashed on Silver Thursday in March 1980, they lost everything and had to file bankruptcy. The price of silver may not have gone to zero, but they still lost their shirts.
Very few of us have the capacity to corner any market, let alone the gold or silver market. So, if you are buying gold because you fear the economy is going to collapse, ask yourself the logical follow-up question, what will I do with all this gold if the economy does collapse?
Much of the fear-mongering associated with gold goes back to the decision by the United States to take its currency off of the gold standard. Since ancient times, gold has been used as currency all over the world. Gold was more rare back then and it has always been available in finite quantities, thus its value was relatively stable. Moreover, gold is gold and no matter what language you speak or what your culture is, gold transcends it. People got tired of carrying gold around in their pockets and using scales when the printing press came along and they could paper currency. Paper currency then was the same as debit cards are today, more convenient. In order to build trust in paper money, government currencies were redeemable for gold or silver. This gave people the illusion of security. The reality is that the value of gold fluctuates, as does the value of paper currency, but few people ever redeemed their paper currency for gold or silver. Instead, paper dollars were doing what currencies are intended to do; they were used to buy goods and services and facilitate trade. When the United States went off of the gold standard, the value of the currency was based on the quantity and efficiency of the production of goods and services. Like gold supplies, the supply of goods and services produced can go up or down and the value of the currency follows.
I will always remember when the Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Arthur Burns, was testifying on the value of the U.S. dollar and whether we should go back to the gold standard. A Congressman held up a five-dollar bill and asked Burns what he could get for that five dollar bill? Burns reached into his pocket and peeled off five one-dollar bills and said, Sir, what else do you need? Currency is just a medium of exchange. The value of currency is affected by changes in either the supply and demand of goods and services or by the supply and demand for money itself. Money Supply is managed by the Federal Reserve Bank, and ever since the inflation of the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, the Fed has done a masterful job of controlling Money Supply to keep inflation in check. A vivid example of this is that you can go to any fast food joint in town and buy for $1 the same burger you got for a buck back in 1980. Yes, prices of good and services have changed and that is to be expected as supply or demand fluctuates. With all the government borrowing, rising energy prices, spiraling medical costs, the overall U.S. inflation rate for 2009 ended up being only 2.9%.
There may be many warning signs out there today that could give the most optimistic of us pause about the future of our economy. Gold may indeed be an appropriate part of the mix of any investment portfolio along with mutual finds, bank certificate of deposits, and real estate. But, beware of snake-oil salesmen. The old maxim—there is no such thing as a free lunch—still holds true. I suggest we do our research, consult with sage financial counselors, and invest wisely, but I would not put my faith in any investment. As for me and my house, we will trust in the Lord, and not in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or under my bed.
It actually began in 2009, but the Gold Rush of 2010 is now in full swing. Haven’t you heard? There is gold in them thar hills; or is it in your jewelry box; or is it available for purchase from a number of different gold vendors. You can get it minted in coins; you can buy it in bars; or you can get it the old fashioned way—from a mine.
I find it curious that the gold dealers come out in droves every time the economy is down or there is even the mere mention of possible inflation. Listen to the ads on any one of the television business channels and you’ll get an ear full of doom and gloom. “Worst recession since the Depression.” “Out of control government spending.” “The falling value of the dollar.” “Inflation.” “Record unemployment.”
There can be no doubt, many of these claims may indeed be true, but I have never seen an industry rally around bad news more than the purveyors of gold. Well, maybe the mainstream media loves bad news, but I digress. It is as though the only way to sell gold is by creating and instilling fear. “Gold is the only asset that never has zero value.” “Gold is your hedge against inflation and a falling stock portfolio.” If the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, then I am convinced that gold brokers foment more fear than miners find gold.
In fact, the Gold Rush of 2010, driven by fear tactics, has pushed the price of gold well over $1,000 per ounce which is about twice as much as it costs to get gold out of the ground. If you are absolutely convinced that gold is your best investment, then for crying out loud, buy stock in a gold mine. Those guys are making good money right now.
But, let’s examine the underlying theories behind the Gold Rush of 2010.
The dollar is dropping in value compared to other currencies such as the Euro or the Yen. So, you put your dollars into gold. What are you going to do with the gold? Put it under your bed; bury it in your back yard? Heat your house with it? Eat it when you get hungry? Nope, just like any other investment, you are going to sit on it and wait for its value to go up, down, or stay the same. The problem is that you can’t spend gold. Just try going down to your local store to buy some groceries with the gold shavings you whittle off of your gold bar. When you get hungry or it is time to pay your property taxes, you are going to sell some gold and get dollars back. If the fear-mongering purveyors of gold are right, the dollars you get when you sell your gold are going to have less purchasing power than the dollars you used to buy the gold. If the value of gold went up more than the dollar went down, then you are okay. But if it does not, then you are no better off, or worse yet, you have lost money. This same logic applies if you are investing in gold to hedge against inflation.
Gold is a commodity and like all commodities it has real intrinsic value and it has psychological value. When gold supply is low and demand for gold jewelry, gold circuitry, and gold-tipped Ipod cords is high, then the price of gold goes up. What we are seeing today is that because fear is high, so is the price of gold. The first example is the law of supply and demand; the second is speculation. “Speculation” is nothing more than a euphemism for gambling.
But, the gold broker will tell you that gold will never be worth zero. Go tell that to Bunky Hunt who lost billions of dollars in the 1970s speculating that silver would continue to go up in value. He and his brother tried to corner the world market by buying close to 100 million ounces of silver. When silver prices crashed on Silver Thursday in March 1980, they lost everything and had to file bankruptcy. The price of silver may not have gone to zero, but they still lost their shirts.
Very few of us have the capacity to corner any market, let alone the gold or silver market. So, if you are buying gold because you fear the economy is going to collapse, ask yourself the logical follow-up question, what will I do with all this gold if the economy does collapse?
Much of the fear-mongering associated with gold goes back to the decision by the United States to take its currency off of the gold standard. Since ancient times, gold has been used as currency all over the world. Gold was more rare back then and it has always been available in finite quantities, thus its value was relatively stable. Moreover, gold is gold and no matter what language you speak or what your culture is, gold transcends it. People got tired of carrying gold around in their pockets and using scales when the printing press came along and they could paper currency. Paper currency then was the same as debit cards are today, more convenient. In order to build trust in paper money, government currencies were redeemable for gold or silver. This gave people the illusion of security. The reality is that the value of gold fluctuates, as does the value of paper currency, but few people ever redeemed their paper currency for gold or silver. Instead, paper dollars were doing what currencies are intended to do; they were used to buy goods and services and facilitate trade. When the United States went off of the gold standard, the value of the currency was based on the quantity and efficiency of the production of goods and services. Like gold supplies, the supply of goods and services produced can go up or down and the value of the currency follows.
I will always remember when the Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Arthur Burns, was testifying on the value of the U.S. dollar and whether we should go back to the gold standard. A Congressman held up a five-dollar bill and asked Burns what he could get for that five dollar bill? Burns reached into his pocket and peeled off five one-dollar bills and said, Sir, what else do you need? Currency is just a medium of exchange. The value of currency is affected by changes in either the supply and demand of goods and services or by the supply and demand for money itself. Money Supply is managed by the Federal Reserve Bank, and ever since the inflation of the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, the Fed has done a masterful job of controlling Money Supply to keep inflation in check. A vivid example of this is that you can go to any fast food joint in town and buy for $1 the same burger you got for a buck back in 1980. Yes, prices of good and services have changed and that is to be expected as supply or demand fluctuates. With all the government borrowing, rising energy prices, spiraling medical costs, the overall U.S. inflation rate for 2009 ended up being only 2.9%.
There may be many warning signs out there today that could give the most optimistic of us pause about the future of our economy. Gold may indeed be an appropriate part of the mix of any investment portfolio along with mutual finds, bank certificate of deposits, and real estate. But, beware of snake-oil salesmen. The old maxim—there is no such thing as a free lunch—still holds true. I suggest we do our research, consult with sage financial counselors, and invest wisely, but I would not put my faith in any investment. As for me and my house, we will trust in the Lord, and not in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or under my bed.
Monday, January 11, 2010
“Bad Policy” Does Not Always Equal “Unconstitutional”
There is a mantra that is repeated across these United States on a regular basis. It is most often invoked when someone does not like a particular policy of the President or legislation being considered by the Congress. The mantra goes like this. Someone hears about a new bill in Congress that they oppose or something the President is proposing to do that they do not like. Immediately, it is labeled as “Unconstitutional.” The term itself has become a political trump card, but unfortunately the users all too often do not know the difference between a bluff and trump.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that too few Americans ever read the United States Constitution. Oh, yes, it is taught in school, but being part of a curriculum does not necessarily mean that students actually read the document itself. More importantly, we all come away with our particular impression of what the Constitution says and that memory is usually incomplete and heavily influenced by cultural factors and political persuasions.
Many times I have thought that all natural-born Americans should be required to pass a citizenship test before their rights as a U.S. citizen are conferred upon them. I believe that most naturalized U.S. citizens have a better working knowledge of the Constitution than many natural-born Americans. This is a sad state of affairs that could be easily rectified.
If you have not done so in recent years, find yourself a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read it—all seven Articles, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Amendments. It is a relatively short and easy read. It is a beautifully written and masterfully constructed document as evidenced by its having endured these 222 years. One of its greatest strengths is in what it does not say as much as what it says. It is an organizational document that sets up three branches of government and the checks and balances among the three that prevent any one branch from dominating. It describes how our leaders are to be elected or appointed; it articulates their powers and authorities; it sets out our rights as citizens; and it limits the role of government.
But, the U.S. Constitution does not tell us what is right or wrong; it does not differentiate between good and bad. The Constitution does not tell us which policies would best help achieve the purposes of the federal government articulated in the Preamble. The Constitution establishes the process by which we govern ourselves and it identifies those rights that shall not be infringed upon. As long as we adhere to those processes and do not abridge those rights, as ultimately determined by the Supreme Court, there is wide latitude delegated to the Congress and the President to establish whatever policies they determine will advance the above-mentioned purposes.
There is a subtle point—a fine line—where Americans cross pollinate bad policy with unconstitutional. I have very strong views about a number of issues including health care reform, energy and environmental policies, support for our military, and the prosecution of the war on terror, just to name a few. Regardless of my views about any particular policy, I believe all these issues and others are within the domain and established purposes of the federal government. The domain and purposes of the federal government are laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Moreover, if you think that an action by Congress is unconstitutional, I invite you to read Article I, Section 8, where the powers of Congress are enumerated.
An important distinction to make is that there are very clearly articulated philosophies of government that were expressed by the Founding Father of this great country. They formed their views of democracy and a vision of limited government in the context of having been oppressed by the English monarchy and unfair taxation policies. They believed in the power of individual liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness. They saw the potential of free enterprise to create a better world. And they believed that government should help, not hinder or over regulate, the individual’s freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. I firmly believe that there is plenty of historical documentation that would suggest that the Founding Fathers would be firmly opposed many of the social engineering and taxation policies proposed and in place today.
I also believe it is correct to say that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and that most of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be Christians. That said, those same Founding Fathers ensured freedom of religion in the First Amendment and when they inserted into Article VI of the Constitution: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Another principle often misunderstood by a lot of people is that there is no Constitutional responsibility of our elected Representatives or Senators to carry out our desires or necessarily the wishes of the majority of their constituents. The Constitution created a “republican” form of government, not a pure democracy. We elect leaders to serve the United States of America. They should gather information from all sides of an issue. They are to understand the policy or legislation being proposed. They should consider what is best for the nation as a whole as well as the collective will of the people they represent. Finally, our leaders cast their vote knowing that they will be held accountable for their positions every two or six years when “We the People” have our opportunity to cast our votes.
The only Oath or Affirmation articulated in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1), and the basis for all oaths pertaining to federal service, is:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." There is nothing in that oath of office or the Constitution obligating our leaders to act in accordance with our wishes, collective or individual. For me, I do not want a leader who makes decisions based on polling data, putting their wet finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing today. Polls can be too easily manipulated by the media and the pollsters, and all too often the opinions of the general public are not well informed or thoughtful. I want a leader with the same core values that I embrace, who acts on principles, and has a moral rudder that will guide them through the stormy seas whipped up by the political winds.
For America to continue to be that bright shining star of liberty and freedom and the land of opportunity, we must firmly exercise our rights as citizens to hold to our beliefs and to express them peaceably. It is our solemn duty to engage in the political process of selecting our leaders and to make known to them our informed position on any given issue. But, whether or not we like a proposed policy or law, let us not resort to the high-handed bluff of declaring it “Unconstitutional!” Let us read and more fully understand what the Constitution says, and just as importantly, what it does not say. And let us leave questions of Constitutionality to the purview of the courts as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in Article III of the Constitution.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that too few Americans ever read the United States Constitution. Oh, yes, it is taught in school, but being part of a curriculum does not necessarily mean that students actually read the document itself. More importantly, we all come away with our particular impression of what the Constitution says and that memory is usually incomplete and heavily influenced by cultural factors and political persuasions.
Many times I have thought that all natural-born Americans should be required to pass a citizenship test before their rights as a U.S. citizen are conferred upon them. I believe that most naturalized U.S. citizens have a better working knowledge of the Constitution than many natural-born Americans. This is a sad state of affairs that could be easily rectified.
If you have not done so in recent years, find yourself a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read it—all seven Articles, the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Amendments. It is a relatively short and easy read. It is a beautifully written and masterfully constructed document as evidenced by its having endured these 222 years. One of its greatest strengths is in what it does not say as much as what it says. It is an organizational document that sets up three branches of government and the checks and balances among the three that prevent any one branch from dominating. It describes how our leaders are to be elected or appointed; it articulates their powers and authorities; it sets out our rights as citizens; and it limits the role of government.
But, the U.S. Constitution does not tell us what is right or wrong; it does not differentiate between good and bad. The Constitution does not tell us which policies would best help achieve the purposes of the federal government articulated in the Preamble. The Constitution establishes the process by which we govern ourselves and it identifies those rights that shall not be infringed upon. As long as we adhere to those processes and do not abridge those rights, as ultimately determined by the Supreme Court, there is wide latitude delegated to the Congress and the President to establish whatever policies they determine will advance the above-mentioned purposes.
There is a subtle point—a fine line—where Americans cross pollinate bad policy with unconstitutional. I have very strong views about a number of issues including health care reform, energy and environmental policies, support for our military, and the prosecution of the war on terror, just to name a few. Regardless of my views about any particular policy, I believe all these issues and others are within the domain and established purposes of the federal government. The domain and purposes of the federal government are laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Moreover, if you think that an action by Congress is unconstitutional, I invite you to read Article I, Section 8, where the powers of Congress are enumerated.
An important distinction to make is that there are very clearly articulated philosophies of government that were expressed by the Founding Father of this great country. They formed their views of democracy and a vision of limited government in the context of having been oppressed by the English monarchy and unfair taxation policies. They believed in the power of individual liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness. They saw the potential of free enterprise to create a better world. And they believed that government should help, not hinder or over regulate, the individual’s freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. I firmly believe that there is plenty of historical documentation that would suggest that the Founding Fathers would be firmly opposed many of the social engineering and taxation policies proposed and in place today.
I also believe it is correct to say that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles and that most of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be Christians. That said, those same Founding Fathers ensured freedom of religion in the First Amendment and when they inserted into Article VI of the Constitution: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Another principle often misunderstood by a lot of people is that there is no Constitutional responsibility of our elected Representatives or Senators to carry out our desires or necessarily the wishes of the majority of their constituents. The Constitution created a “republican” form of government, not a pure democracy. We elect leaders to serve the United States of America. They should gather information from all sides of an issue. They are to understand the policy or legislation being proposed. They should consider what is best for the nation as a whole as well as the collective will of the people they represent. Finally, our leaders cast their vote knowing that they will be held accountable for their positions every two or six years when “We the People” have our opportunity to cast our votes.
The only Oath or Affirmation articulated in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1), and the basis for all oaths pertaining to federal service, is:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." There is nothing in that oath of office or the Constitution obligating our leaders to act in accordance with our wishes, collective or individual. For me, I do not want a leader who makes decisions based on polling data, putting their wet finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing today. Polls can be too easily manipulated by the media and the pollsters, and all too often the opinions of the general public are not well informed or thoughtful. I want a leader with the same core values that I embrace, who acts on principles, and has a moral rudder that will guide them through the stormy seas whipped up by the political winds.
For America to continue to be that bright shining star of liberty and freedom and the land of opportunity, we must firmly exercise our rights as citizens to hold to our beliefs and to express them peaceably. It is our solemn duty to engage in the political process of selecting our leaders and to make known to them our informed position on any given issue. But, whether or not we like a proposed policy or law, let us not resort to the high-handed bluff of declaring it “Unconstitutional!” Let us read and more fully understand what the Constitution says, and just as importantly, what it does not say. And let us leave questions of Constitutionality to the purview of the courts as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and enshrined in Article III of the Constitution.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Smile When You Call Me That
“Smile when you call me that,” said the The Virginian with his six gun drawn and cocked in Owen Wister’s famous novel about the West. The author lamented that the outsider could not discern why one cowboy calling another a “SOB” sometimes resulted in laughter and at other times led to gun fire. As the story progresses, the outsider learns that there is an unseen bond among cowboys and an unwritten code of ethics.
There are certain things that form a bond among different ethnic groups or tie generations together. There are formative events or cultural icons that transcend any other differences of opinion that may exist within a particular group.
For cowboys, it was the shared experience of driving large herds of cattle across vast and fenceless landscapes that are harsh and unforgiving. There is also the bond between a cowboy and his horse. Over long and lonely days of riding herd, the cowboy gains understanding of the unique attributes of each horse in his remuda, the different personalities, characteristics, and needs of individual horses. Through this study of horses and horse behavior, the cowboy gleans an insight into the social behavior of humans. But, owing to the lonely nature of the job, his observations and understandings are seldom spoken. The cowboy observes and acts with a suddenness and certainty that is confusing to the outsider, at least, until the outsider goes through the same experiences and acquires the same understanding.
There are events that serve to unite different people groups. The Civil War by its very nature established a bond that transcended the war between the North and South. The Civil War pitted Americans against Americans, family members against other family members, but in the end, the United States of America was reunited in order to form a more perfect union.
Certainly each of the World Wars had a similar effect on Americans fighting overseas to protect the freedoms and liberty of other nations against the aggressors.
And, then the Viet Nam War established a unique bond among baby boomers, but for a completely different set of reasons. There was deep division within the United States about our involvement in Southeast Asia, a schism largely between the World War II generation and the baby boomers. It was our first experience in a guerilla war with a loosely organized enemy that did not wear uniforms and the dangerous cohabitation of combatants with women and children. Moreover, the conflict in Viet Nam was as much psychological and spiritual warfare as it was conventional. The psychological assault continued when returning soldiers were spit upon by baby boomers and rejected by World War II veterans.
But even between the World War II generation and the baby boomers there are those events, movements, and things that serve to form that common unifying bond that makes us all American.
Events like the assassination of President Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr., or Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, or the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, or the terrorist attacks on American soil on September 11, 2001, all serve to unify Americans of all generations, of all political persuasions, and of all ethnicities.
Social movements can have a similar effect. Who does not share some memory of, link to, or affinity for the Civil Rights Movement and how it changed America?
Generations remember Love Canal, or the Santa Barbara oil spill, or the Cayahoga River catching fire in Ohio, or Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring. These were the events that led to the modern environmental movement which has so impacted our culture today.
Americans love affair with food also seems to exhibit the capacity to transcend all other divisions. Most of us put aside our differences and join together to enjoy the roast beast of our choice at Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner each year.
And what about music? It sooths the wild beast. A young King David played the harp to help calm down then King Saul’s horrible moods and headaches. Music forms a link between generations, across ideological divides, and reminds us of our common heritage. The same music may affect each of us in a unique way. The fact is that certain lyrics or a series of notes and chords can trigger memories for all of us, and while the memories may be unique, it is that special song we all identify with that can unify us as well.
When I served at the Department of the Interior under President Bush, I was a political appointee. There is always a dynamic tension between political appointees and the career civil service employees. Some career employees agree with the philosophy of governance of the sitting President and some do not. While most of them serve the administration without political rancor, there are parlays between politicals and careerists while each tries to feel the other out. I remember one such meeting when I related a story about misdirected emails. I had been trying to send regular monthly reports to an individual whose email address was name@bbhc.org, but was inadvertently using the email handle of @bbhc.com. I kept getting the most curious replies from the unknown recipient. In the process of identifying the problem of the misdirected emails, I began corresponding with the owner of bbhc.com who as it turns out is none other than the drummer from Janis Joplin’s first band, Big Brother and the Holding Company. We had a wonderful exchange about the history of rock and roll and the San Francisco genre of the same. Well, by telling that story to this career federal employee, who was particularly challenged by my political persuasion, he suddenly could identify with me. We were able to work well together after that and advanced several productive policy changes as a result of having first established the unlikely common bond of rock and roll.
As we all celebrate the Christmas and New Year holiday season together, let us take a little time to refresh our memories about the things that unite us as a people. I believe this country may be as divided today as it was during the Civil War. And I believe those divisions are real and significant. I am as deluxe a partisan as anyone out there, and as you have no doubt noticed, I have very definite opinions about issues and policies. But, in the end, the things that bring us together are much greater than what divides us. For our collective mental health and the future of the United States of America, let us from time to time lay down the sword and focus on those unseen bonds that make us E Pluribus Unum, a people united.
There are certain things that form a bond among different ethnic groups or tie generations together. There are formative events or cultural icons that transcend any other differences of opinion that may exist within a particular group.
For cowboys, it was the shared experience of driving large herds of cattle across vast and fenceless landscapes that are harsh and unforgiving. There is also the bond between a cowboy and his horse. Over long and lonely days of riding herd, the cowboy gains understanding of the unique attributes of each horse in his remuda, the different personalities, characteristics, and needs of individual horses. Through this study of horses and horse behavior, the cowboy gleans an insight into the social behavior of humans. But, owing to the lonely nature of the job, his observations and understandings are seldom spoken. The cowboy observes and acts with a suddenness and certainty that is confusing to the outsider, at least, until the outsider goes through the same experiences and acquires the same understanding.
There are events that serve to unite different people groups. The Civil War by its very nature established a bond that transcended the war between the North and South. The Civil War pitted Americans against Americans, family members against other family members, but in the end, the United States of America was reunited in order to form a more perfect union.
Certainly each of the World Wars had a similar effect on Americans fighting overseas to protect the freedoms and liberty of other nations against the aggressors.
And, then the Viet Nam War established a unique bond among baby boomers, but for a completely different set of reasons. There was deep division within the United States about our involvement in Southeast Asia, a schism largely between the World War II generation and the baby boomers. It was our first experience in a guerilla war with a loosely organized enemy that did not wear uniforms and the dangerous cohabitation of combatants with women and children. Moreover, the conflict in Viet Nam was as much psychological and spiritual warfare as it was conventional. The psychological assault continued when returning soldiers were spit upon by baby boomers and rejected by World War II veterans.
But even between the World War II generation and the baby boomers there are those events, movements, and things that serve to form that common unifying bond that makes us all American.
Events like the assassination of President Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr., or Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, or the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, or the terrorist attacks on American soil on September 11, 2001, all serve to unify Americans of all generations, of all political persuasions, and of all ethnicities.
Social movements can have a similar effect. Who does not share some memory of, link to, or affinity for the Civil Rights Movement and how it changed America?
Generations remember Love Canal, or the Santa Barbara oil spill, or the Cayahoga River catching fire in Ohio, or Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring. These were the events that led to the modern environmental movement which has so impacted our culture today.
Americans love affair with food also seems to exhibit the capacity to transcend all other divisions. Most of us put aside our differences and join together to enjoy the roast beast of our choice at Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner each year.
And what about music? It sooths the wild beast. A young King David played the harp to help calm down then King Saul’s horrible moods and headaches. Music forms a link between generations, across ideological divides, and reminds us of our common heritage. The same music may affect each of us in a unique way. The fact is that certain lyrics or a series of notes and chords can trigger memories for all of us, and while the memories may be unique, it is that special song we all identify with that can unify us as well.
When I served at the Department of the Interior under President Bush, I was a political appointee. There is always a dynamic tension between political appointees and the career civil service employees. Some career employees agree with the philosophy of governance of the sitting President and some do not. While most of them serve the administration without political rancor, there are parlays between politicals and careerists while each tries to feel the other out. I remember one such meeting when I related a story about misdirected emails. I had been trying to send regular monthly reports to an individual whose email address was name@bbhc.org, but was inadvertently using the email handle of @bbhc.com. I kept getting the most curious replies from the unknown recipient. In the process of identifying the problem of the misdirected emails, I began corresponding with the owner of bbhc.com who as it turns out is none other than the drummer from Janis Joplin’s first band, Big Brother and the Holding Company. We had a wonderful exchange about the history of rock and roll and the San Francisco genre of the same. Well, by telling that story to this career federal employee, who was particularly challenged by my political persuasion, he suddenly could identify with me. We were able to work well together after that and advanced several productive policy changes as a result of having first established the unlikely common bond of rock and roll.
As we all celebrate the Christmas and New Year holiday season together, let us take a little time to refresh our memories about the things that unite us as a people. I believe this country may be as divided today as it was during the Civil War. And I believe those divisions are real and significant. I am as deluxe a partisan as anyone out there, and as you have no doubt noticed, I have very definite opinions about issues and policies. But, in the end, the things that bring us together are much greater than what divides us. For our collective mental health and the future of the United States of America, let us from time to time lay down the sword and focus on those unseen bonds that make us E Pluribus Unum, a people united.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The Nuclear Option
If you have read my columns in the past, you probably know that I am not convinced that humans are the principal cause of climate change. Moreover, the policies under consideration such as Cap and Trade and the UN Copenhagen Treaty will likely do nothing to alter the earth’s climate, but could very well result in a lot of people freezing in the dark.
But, the question that keeps coming back to me is why doesn’t the United States of America go nuclear? Whether or not you believe in human-caused climate change, nuclear power has the potential to be a full-time, zero-emission, safe, reliable, and significant source of electric power. And because we have a lot of uranium ore here in the United States, like coal, it can be a power supply that decreases our dependence on foreign oil. And with about half of the world’s supply of uranium ore residing in Canada and Australia, going nuclear significantly reduces the number of dollars funding terrorist sponsoring countries in the Middle East.
Nuclear power currently provides the United States with about 20% of our electric supply. In France, it supplies about 80% of the electricity.
Nuclear power can provide abundant electrical supplies and it does not stop when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining. It does not result in development phenomena called energy sprawl nor does it require extensive new transmission line development.
Contrary to current American mythology, nuclear power is safe. I remember the rather blunt message on a bumper sticker back in the height of uranium production in the early 1980’s in Wyoming. “More people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy’s car than have died from nuclear accidents in the United States.” While albeit a bit nasty, it makes the point—no one in the United States has died from a civilian nuclear accident in the last 40 years.
America virtually stopped constructing nuclear power plants after the infamous Three Mile Island plant’s partial meltdown in March of 1979. Though only a partial meltdown, some radioactive material escaped the confines of the facility resulting to doomsday predictions of higher cancer rates and deaths to be associated with the accident. However, a report released by the presidential commission, appointed to investigate the Three Mile Island accident, concluded that "there will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects." Several epidemiological studies in the years since the accident have supported the conclusion that radiation releases from the accident had no perceptible effect on cancer incidence in residents near the plant.
Of course, the facts about the benign nature of the accident were overshadowed by the hype and hysteria of anti-nuclear activists. This anti-nuke mood was exacerbated by Hollywood which had coincidently released a nuclear power accident thriller “The China Syndrome” just weeks before the Three Mile accident.
Then came the reactor explosion at Russia’s Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine. There was a massive release of highly radioactive material and a radioactive plume traveled over Eastern Europe eventually resulting in radioactive rain as far away as Ireland. This horrific accident was not a complete surprise to observers of the USSR’s nuclear program. Safety was never a priority for the Soviets and one has to wonder about the capacity to construct safe nuclear power plants in a country that could not even make a toilet that flushed properly.
Nonetheless, the 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency and World Health Organization, attributed 56 direct deaths and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people. While any loss of life is tragic, by comparison, deaths resulting from Chinese coal mine accidents numbered nearly 37,000 from 2000 to 2005, averaging 6,151 dead miners per year!
Even if we get past the red herring of nuclear accidents, the anti-nuclear folks will tell us that the nuclear waste disposal is too hot to handle, no pun intended. Currently, nuclear power plants in the United States produce about 2,000 ton of nuclear waste each year. Compare that to the 230 million tons of municipal waste disposed of each year, a staggering 4.6 lbs. per person per day. This is arguably not toxic waste, or is it? Have you ever thrown out old paint cans, pesticide bottles, household chemical containers, or perhaps worst of all, unused pharmaceuticals?
By applying existing nuclear fuel rod reprocessing technology, the United States could reuse the 2,000 tons of annual nuclear waste, generate more energy, and greatly reduce the amount residual waste as well as significantly reduce the time the reprocessed waste remains radioactive. The remaining waste can be safely stored in steel/concrete containers. I will always remember when a company proposed constructing a temporary spent fuel rod storage facility near Moneta, Wyoming, back in the 1990’s right in the heart of some of the richest uranium deposits in the country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressed concerns about the project because the naturally occurring background radiation levels exceeded their allowable standards.
Since 1987, proponents and opponents to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository have argued about the safety of nuclear waste storage. Through the loyal opposition, future nuclear power plant construction has been stifled until the United States addresses the issue of nuclear waste disposal. During this same twenty year time frame, nuclear power plants having been storing their nuclear waste on site, often in or near urban areas, and without any detected leakage, harm to humans, or any other life form. In the meantime, we wonder if the most studied mountain on the planet and should be developed at all. Yucca Mountain, the United States’ only Congressionally designated long-term repository for nuclear waste, is composed of geological material that is suitable for long-term nuclear waste storage. It is part of an Air Force operations area that includes the site of 904 atomic bomb tests between 1945 and 1992, and is 80 miles from the nearest population center, Las Vegas, Nevada. In order to address the long-term storage of nuclear waste, we need to move forward with the development of the Yucca Mountain deep geological repository.
Nuclear power is the only non-carbon-dioxide-emitting method of generating electricity that could ever come close to replacing coal, oil, and natural gas in the United States. Wind and solar will never generate the amount of electricity that America needs to power our homes, businesses, and industry, nor will it ever be as reliable as other more traditional sources of power. America needs to get past Three Mile Island, the nuclear waste issue, and utilize zero-emission nuclear power to generate electricity. I say this because America needs safe, diverse, reliable, and stable supplies of energy. I do not support the vain and anti-human agenda that attempts to address a naturally occurring climate cycle that most likely cannot be stopped anyway. But, if the climate change debate is to serve any good purpose, it should be to shock us out of our nuclear phobia and back into the Atomic Age.
But, the question that keeps coming back to me is why doesn’t the United States of America go nuclear? Whether or not you believe in human-caused climate change, nuclear power has the potential to be a full-time, zero-emission, safe, reliable, and significant source of electric power. And because we have a lot of uranium ore here in the United States, like coal, it can be a power supply that decreases our dependence on foreign oil. And with about half of the world’s supply of uranium ore residing in Canada and Australia, going nuclear significantly reduces the number of dollars funding terrorist sponsoring countries in the Middle East.
Nuclear power currently provides the United States with about 20% of our electric supply. In France, it supplies about 80% of the electricity.
Nuclear power can provide abundant electrical supplies and it does not stop when the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining. It does not result in development phenomena called energy sprawl nor does it require extensive new transmission line development.
Contrary to current American mythology, nuclear power is safe. I remember the rather blunt message on a bumper sticker back in the height of uranium production in the early 1980’s in Wyoming. “More people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy’s car than have died from nuclear accidents in the United States.” While albeit a bit nasty, it makes the point—no one in the United States has died from a civilian nuclear accident in the last 40 years.
America virtually stopped constructing nuclear power plants after the infamous Three Mile Island plant’s partial meltdown in March of 1979. Though only a partial meltdown, some radioactive material escaped the confines of the facility resulting to doomsday predictions of higher cancer rates and deaths to be associated with the accident. However, a report released by the presidential commission, appointed to investigate the Three Mile Island accident, concluded that "there will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects." Several epidemiological studies in the years since the accident have supported the conclusion that radiation releases from the accident had no perceptible effect on cancer incidence in residents near the plant.
Of course, the facts about the benign nature of the accident were overshadowed by the hype and hysteria of anti-nuclear activists. This anti-nuke mood was exacerbated by Hollywood which had coincidently released a nuclear power accident thriller “The China Syndrome” just weeks before the Three Mile accident.
Then came the reactor explosion at Russia’s Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine. There was a massive release of highly radioactive material and a radioactive plume traveled over Eastern Europe eventually resulting in radioactive rain as far away as Ireland. This horrific accident was not a complete surprise to observers of the USSR’s nuclear program. Safety was never a priority for the Soviets and one has to wonder about the capacity to construct safe nuclear power plants in a country that could not even make a toilet that flushed properly.
Nonetheless, the 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency and World Health Organization, attributed 56 direct deaths and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people. While any loss of life is tragic, by comparison, deaths resulting from Chinese coal mine accidents numbered nearly 37,000 from 2000 to 2005, averaging 6,151 dead miners per year!
Even if we get past the red herring of nuclear accidents, the anti-nuclear folks will tell us that the nuclear waste disposal is too hot to handle, no pun intended. Currently, nuclear power plants in the United States produce about 2,000 ton of nuclear waste each year. Compare that to the 230 million tons of municipal waste disposed of each year, a staggering 4.6 lbs. per person per day. This is arguably not toxic waste, or is it? Have you ever thrown out old paint cans, pesticide bottles, household chemical containers, or perhaps worst of all, unused pharmaceuticals?
By applying existing nuclear fuel rod reprocessing technology, the United States could reuse the 2,000 tons of annual nuclear waste, generate more energy, and greatly reduce the amount residual waste as well as significantly reduce the time the reprocessed waste remains radioactive. The remaining waste can be safely stored in steel/concrete containers. I will always remember when a company proposed constructing a temporary spent fuel rod storage facility near Moneta, Wyoming, back in the 1990’s right in the heart of some of the richest uranium deposits in the country. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressed concerns about the project because the naturally occurring background radiation levels exceeded their allowable standards.
Since 1987, proponents and opponents to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository have argued about the safety of nuclear waste storage. Through the loyal opposition, future nuclear power plant construction has been stifled until the United States addresses the issue of nuclear waste disposal. During this same twenty year time frame, nuclear power plants having been storing their nuclear waste on site, often in or near urban areas, and without any detected leakage, harm to humans, or any other life form. In the meantime, we wonder if the most studied mountain on the planet and should be developed at all. Yucca Mountain, the United States’ only Congressionally designated long-term repository for nuclear waste, is composed of geological material that is suitable for long-term nuclear waste storage. It is part of an Air Force operations area that includes the site of 904 atomic bomb tests between 1945 and 1992, and is 80 miles from the nearest population center, Las Vegas, Nevada. In order to address the long-term storage of nuclear waste, we need to move forward with the development of the Yucca Mountain deep geological repository.
Nuclear power is the only non-carbon-dioxide-emitting method of generating electricity that could ever come close to replacing coal, oil, and natural gas in the United States. Wind and solar will never generate the amount of electricity that America needs to power our homes, businesses, and industry, nor will it ever be as reliable as other more traditional sources of power. America needs to get past Three Mile Island, the nuclear waste issue, and utilize zero-emission nuclear power to generate electricity. I say this because America needs safe, diverse, reliable, and stable supplies of energy. I do not support the vain and anti-human agenda that attempts to address a naturally occurring climate cycle that most likely cannot be stopped anyway. But, if the climate change debate is to serve any good purpose, it should be to shock us out of our nuclear phobia and back into the Atomic Age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
