LJWorld.com

I have intended to write on this topic for some time but Mr. Pitt’s column today upped the priority.

We all know from our history that the notion of “guilt “runs throughout the fabric of our society with roots back to the initial colonists and before. As an aside, I do believe it may be declining with each new generation. That said it is still in my humble opinion widespread.

Think about it, why are we saddled with collective guilt about the environment, the economy, international relations, treatment of minorities and more?

Did you consciously do things to try to hurt the environment or have you, like many Americans been making efforts to reduce your “footprint” at ever increasing personal costs? Just what forest did you destroy? Do you really believe that we should all live as our grand parents did or should we use available resources to responsibly improve the human condition?

Have you actively supported actions by our government to hurt the weaker elements of the international community or have you contributed public and private resources to try to improve it? Do you believe we have economically subjucated the world as charged or have our collective efforts sought out and paid appropriately within the period for resources used? Do you believe we have repeatedly waged aggressive war or have we reluctantly responded to threats against ourselves and the weaker members of our community?

Have you been living way beyond your means, incurring debt you could not pay, or have you been using credit prudently in order to try to improve your family’s circumstances or meet unique obligations such as college? Did you have a clue that our financial elites were trafficking in high-risk securities with the blessing of our government elites? Just how did your personal debt, a dept you were servicing as required, drive the economic collapse in 2008?

Have you been actively working to suppress our minorities or have you been working slowly and incrementally to make our community more diverse? Do you buy in to Mr. Pitt’s assertion of our collective exploitations of gays? Are we somehow unique and evil in the way we treat others or does most of the rest of the word have a much less responsible record in dealing with human diversity?

I suspect most of you believe that you have been at least trying to improve things and believe you will continue to do so. You do not look upon yourself as an active participant in the exploitation of our planet or the people on it. So why are we barraged by media and political élites trying to portrait us as evil despoilers of almost everything? Could they be exploiting our historic propensity toward guilt and if so, why?

If one thinks back in history, political movements have used misrepresentation of ones neighbors to justify all sorts of undesirable goals to include mass murder and worse. Just think of Mr. Hitler. Could our political and social elites be using guilt for their own purposes? Are these groups selecting out elements of our society such as bankers, “tea baggers”, people who disagree with them, people of faith and others in order to accuse them of actions retrospectively determined by those élites to be evil. Are the standards being promulgated by the elites way too severe and ultimately self-serving? Are we really evil or is our collectively record superior to most countries, even if not as advanced as we might desire.

Is it not past time to apply a more appropriate standards to measure our past actions and acknowledge all of the good we have done while learning from those actions that in retrospect should have been avoided? Retrospectively blaming our whole society for things done mostly by our elites does not seem to be very productive in our efforts to improve that society in the future

The LJW ran an editorial yesterday and it has drawn out the continued debate. I read the posts and became increasingly confused.

Free Market solutions: Health care reform that allows for high deductible insurance, interstate sale of insurance and the like lacks any representation of where people get the money for the initial co-pay. Are the fees those renegotiated by insurance companies, or set by CMS or are they floating? How do we avoid interstate sale of insurance yielding a race to the bottom in terms of quality and coverage? Will the presumption of market forces on an inelastic product yield higher costs rather than cost control? One could go on.

Obama Care: Just what is it? Lots of rumors? There appears to be a big entitlement associated with it. There are also reforms such as portability, protection from pre-existing conditions and others. Others like tort reform are missing. Just what is the cost and who pays? Lots of noise but few supportable facts. Even the CBO could not really price it as the bill is structured to delay costs until the out years. Would it really raise costs for all those with existing insurance as it did in the Commonwealth? Would there still be commercial insurance/supplements? Who gets to pay for the massive unfunded subsidy- those already dependent on previously promised government programs? ? Can we really require people to have insurance? Are the savings projected real? One could go on!

National Health Care: Just what is meant by this term? Are we following a model where everybody works for the government? Are we following a Medicare model where the government pays but the program is administered in the market? A lot of numbers are thrown around. Where do they come from, which model are they following and what are the assumptions. Are things like the cost of transition, capital costs and the like included? There is one basic reality here; we do not really know what it will cost because all the numbers are the product of various advocates. I do not think we even really know the true costs of the current system as different advocates include different costs. One could go on!

How can anyone form an opinion about health care reform as it is being developed? I wonder if anyone has really interpreted the nearly 3000 pages. For example, are my insurance rates going to go up because I am overweight? Who defines that? Will we impose similar strictures on those on Medicaid or those receiving subsidies? What else is buried in there as a bone to the insurance companies to shut up?

Then there is the process. Two of the big bribes to Congresspersons have surfaced. What about the "gimmie" to the auto unions – insurance far in excess of what the average American has. How many more sweetheart deals are there? Transparency translates into traditional behind closed-door negotiations. I though we were against such or are we only against it if they are plotting torture?

Maybe the American People should be more involved in the process with shared details rather than grandiose promises, we all know about government promises like Medicare and Social Security. In distilling the numbers, it sounds like only about 15% of us lack health care and may not be able to afford it. Should we be in such haste to help these people that the rest of us have no input into what is going on? Maybe if we did this slowly and incrementally we could all participate and have results that are equitable and lasting.

Recently, I wrote a blog about my perception of inconsistencies related to our snow shoveling ordinance. The response seemed to tie social security to owing service to the state. A lot of discussion about social security ensued. A good topic. Next year Mr. Obama has vowed to try to tame that beast.

The exchange revealed a lot of misinformation or maybe just plain greed. In the interest of the former one would hope we do our homework before we end up in a massive generational fight.

The argument of the left at this point appears to focus on means testing social security. Not a bad idea if we don’t suddenly drop the bucket on those already on the program and who have paid a substantial sum for their expected benefits. Remember the very people pushing the notion of immediate major sacrifice are the very people who spent the trust fund on social programs and wars and make this an immediate problem rather than a 30 year out problem. The argument of the right has been to privatize the program (all or part). The left unified to block that approach during the Bush administration.

One interesting point. The very people who argue for health care reform conveniently forget that a major component of the Democratic Party bill is another massive entitlement- upwards of a trillion a year. How can we afford to make that commitment when we are talking about reneging on commitments already made?

We could pass a health care bill that reformed insurance, broadened availability, and eliminated abuses with out such a massive cost. We just need to strip the subsidies from the bill along with all the goodies for big pharm and big insurance.

What do you think? Should we all learn a bit more so we can make informed choices next year and not be driven by those who want to renege on promises made. Yes, whatever we do will be painful. Pain should be broadly and equitably shared

I can not help but notice that the battle over snow removal continues. The debate in this medium takes the form of some number of people demanding that other individuals clear their snow – because they say so. The word easement gets used a lot but it is not clear if those using it actually understand the word. In my humble opinion it sounds like a bunch of teenagers demanding their parents give them the car.

We have one of the more demanding snow removal ordinances in Kansas. I guess that is not surprising given Lawrence’s propensity to demand public services. I actually have pity on the city as it tries to implement this ordinance with some thought given the current circumstances. I really believe that our law-givers did not fully anticipate the consequences of a rare snow event coupled with bitterly cold temperatures. It appears to me they tried to compensate through slack enforcement and got taken to task by those fixated on snow removal.

In my humble opinion we as a society have become very fixated on legislating the action of the citizenry. We have traded thoughtful legislation for a plethora of legislation. Bad laws make for bad outcomes. Perhaps if our snow removal laws are to be so specific there should be provision for this and other unique situations. I know the city will argue that it will make judicious decisions or at least try to do so. I have never been comfortable relying on the temperament of my law-givers to address a mess of their own creation. And then we face the cry of the mob overriding any thoughtful application.

I understand the dilemma facing the city. It has miles of public infrastructure all over the city. It has no budget or even a reasonable way of maintaining that infrastructure. It seeks public support to do so. Yes, we need to clear our sidewalks. We do this not so that people in wheel chairs can whip around in a blizzard or that young runners can be spared any impact on their routine but so that children required to walk to school can do so. Amazing how another set of law-givers messed this one up. Only something of this importance could possible warrant requiring thousands of homeowners to provide uncompensated physical services to the city on what now appears to be an unreasonable schedule.

Now most of us have a responsible level of intelligence. The city, however, thinks we are all idiots. Yes. I might have delayed removing my snow given that schools were cancelled and that temperatures were near zero with drifting snow. That would be rational. The law we have denies me the ability to use my intelligence and forces me to take physical risks to meet the requirements. Why?

I suspect that many of the tickets that have been issued are probably to landlords and businesses that simply make an economic decision. I choose to pay a $70 fine as opposed to $150 to have my property cleared. I bet they will even write off the ticket as a cost of doing business. So, is our very demanding law aggravating the very people who the city needs to help maintain the city’s infrastrure? Has anybody though about why Mr. Corliss wants to tax us though our water bill to repair sidewalks? Could it be because there is real resistance by property owners to doing so at their expense and a lack of clear legal support for the city mandating that solution? If we keep messing with people we may end up with nothing- somebody will spend the money to legally challenge the 13 percent of the citizenry that demand such a tight and simplistic requirement.

If we are going to have such a law than in my opinion there needs to be appropriate elements in the law that clearly bounds the applications so that all of us know what is responsible and required and that timeliness bows to environmental circumstances among other matters. The city should not be trying to avoid its own law because it is not adequate. The inevitable outcome of the situation we have created is the selective application of that law. Individuals employed by the city will ticket some and not ticket others based on their own personal perceptions or political pressure from their superiors. Of course that does not happen in Lawrence. Really, I watch it happen yesterday.

And, oh by the way, our school board needs to look for other ways to cut the budget or find agreement for revenue enhancement. Kids should not be walking to schools across major thoroughfares or in prohibitive weather.

The purpose of writing clear and comprehensive legislation is in part related to clearly and appropriately defining the responsibilities of those subject to its tenants but also to preclude the selective application of the law by elements of the state.

In summary, if it is worth doing it is worth doing right.

I have recently written a number of posts on climate change. They do not in any way dispute its existence. They have been targeted at what I consider the consequence of doing too much too fast. Now, I do recognize that the consequences of my opinion may well be changes in the global environment that may be very undesirable for some. However, my study of history suggests that causing too much disruption to a society too quickly can lead to massive loss of life.

As a result of the blogs, I have been accused of a number of less then attractive shortcomings. One major argument is that I am an alarmist and am unique in my opinion. What follows is an Op-Ed from the Washington Post. Maybe I am not totally alone.

Anti-climate change, anti-human By Anne Applebaum Tuesday, December 15, 2009 There is no nihilism like the nihilism of a 9-year-old. "Why should I bother," one of them recently demanded of me, when he was presented with the usual arguments in favor of doing homework: "By the time I'm grown up, the polar ice caps will have melted and everyone will have drowned." Watching the news from Copenhagen last weekend, it wasn't hard to understand where he got that idea. Among the tens of thousands demonstrating outside the climate change summit, some were carrying giant clocks set at 10 minutes to midnight, indicating the imminent end of the world. Elsewhere, others staged a "resuscitation" of planet Earth, symbolically represented by a large collapsing balloon. Near the conference center, an installation of skeletons standing knee-deep in water made a similar point, as did numerous melting ice sculptures and a melodramatic "die-in" staged by protesters wearing white, ghost-like jumpsuits. Danish police arrested about a thousand people on Saturday for smashing windows and burning cars, and on Sunday arrested 200 more (they were carrying gas masks and seem to have been planning to shut down the city harbor). Nevertheless, in the long run it is those peaceful demonstrators, the ones who say the end is nigh, who have the capacity to do the most psychological damage. I'll pause here to point out that I enthusiastically support renewable energy, believe strongly in the imposition of a carbon tax and am furthermore convinced that a worldwide shift away from fossil fuels would have hugely positive geopolitical consequences, even leaving aside the environmental benefits. It's true that I'm not crazy about the Kyoto climate negotiation process, of which the Copenhagen summit is the latest stage. But I'm even more disturbed by the apocalyptic and the anti-human prejudices of the climate change movement, some of which do indeed filter down to children as young as 9. Over the years there have been many radical statements of this latter creed. In the infamous words of a National Park Service ecologist, "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." A former leader of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals once declared that "humans have grown like a cancer; we're the biggest blight on the face of the earth." But it is a mistake to think that this is the language of only a crazy fringe. Look, for example, at the Optimum Population Trust, a mainstream organization whose patrons include the naturalist David Attenborough, the scientist Jane Goodall and professors at Cambridge and Stanford -- and that campaigns against, well, human beings. Calling for "fewer emitters, lower emissions," the group offers members the chance to offset the pollution that they generate, merely by existing, through the purchase of family-planning devices in poor countries. Click on its PopOffsets calculator to see what I mean: It reckons that every $7 spent on family planning generates one ton fewer carbon emissions. Since the average American generates 20.6 tons of carbon annually, it will cost $144.20 -- $576.80 for a family of four -- to buy enough condoms to prevent the births of, say, 0.4 Kenyans. The assumption behind this calculation is profoundly negative: that human beings are nothing more than machines for the production of carbon dioxide. And if we take that assumption seriously, a whole lot of other things look different, too. Weapons of mass destruction should perhaps be reconsidered, along with the flu virus: By reducing the population, they might also reduce emissions. Perhaps they should be encouraged? Coupling all that with a firm conviction that the end of the world is nigh, you can see how homework is rendered pointless. As for hopes for the future and faith in humanity -- forget about it. But while we're at it, we might as well forget about reinventing our energy sources, too. For while it's true that humans are often greedy, stupid and destructive, it's also true that we got to where we are at least partly thanks to human creativity, ingenuity and talent. Electricity is a miracle, an invention that has brought light and life to millions. Modern communication and transportation systems are no less extraordinary, helping to create economic growth in places where poverty and misery were the norm for centuries. All of them depend on fossil fuels, but they don't have to: A profound change in the nature of human energy consumption is possible -- thanks to the entrepreneurship that created the Internet, the compassion that lies behind the advances in modern medicine and the scientific reasoning that sent men into space. As for nihilism and hatred of humankind, it teaches us nothing, except to give up. And we shouldn't be passing that on to our children either.

Something to think about!

I wrote a recent blog questioning why some of us in the United States seem to hold us responsible for a major component of global warming. I regrettable used the word singular and created a furor. My real intent was to raise the issue of why the world and many of our own citizens expects us to not only make major changes to our own economy at an unknown but likely very large cost both in money and in personal disruption but to send large sums to other countries. We had trouble, I think. agreeing that many people though that way. Below is a quote from the WWF regarding Copenhagen and how global warming should be addressed? They think that way. I can provide many other such quotes.

“Who should contribute and how much? Recognizing their historical responsibility for the climate crisis, Annex I countries (that’s us) should bear the lion’s share of climate finance support. Particular Annex I countries should contribute to global climate financing according to their historical responsibility for the climate crisis and taking into account capacity for contributions. Based on historical emissions, the United States is responsible for approximately 30% of accumulated greenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere. Based on the imperfect UNFCCC estimate above, a fair U.S. contribution would be approximately $40billion annually by 2030. Even taking into account the global financial downturn, with the largest economy in the world, the United States has the greatest capacity to take on a financial commitment."

Why? We did nothing to require redress on our parts to corect actions taken in the past. The CO2 we generated was perfectly legal and acceptable at the time. We certainly had no idea we were causing a climate crisis. Only in the past decade or so has anybody been seriously addressing the problem and dollar for dollar I bet we have been up there in the pack making accommodating changes. Just who is it now that wants to assign retrospective guilt and demand current and future redress. Many of the small countries demanding this largess in fact benefited from the C02 we generated. A significant number are run by oligarchies or despots-little of anything we give will get to the people. I bet off shore banks will reap a bundle. Some of the developing counties demanding our resources contributed significantly to CO2 generation by conducting major deforestation. Forests love CO2. Should they be retrospectively punished?

Perhaps the world and our local fellow travelers should take a more balanced approach and credit us for the contributions our C02 made to everyone else. I wonder if they would not end up owing us money to help us accommodate climate change. Maybe since making such retrospective assessments can never be done justly, we should just look forward. I certainly am willing to help others under appropriate conditions but I really reject being blackmailed retrospectively for a crime we did not commit.

I believe in dialogue. But I long ago learned that people will make demands (sometimes without any merit) and if you make no counter demands the compromise is that you make sacrifices. We need to guard against that as we try to be better world citizens. I am not really sure many of those criticizing us are as good a world citizen as we have in fact been historically despite the real and imagined transgressions of Mr. Bush.

I am accused of picking on the left. In retroflection that is probably true. The right is not making many waves. The left is. I am responding to their proposed changes. In our immediate future three significant initiatives emanating from the left will likely drive really significant change. What will our country look like in 2050 given those changes? Below I have generated a thought piece that I think represents the fears of the right at this time. I admit it is extreme but the lack of definition of where these changes are going certainly allows for such a flight of fancy. If we are to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 while lifting up the smaller countries it will certainly stress our economy. Could it lead to what I present?

The need to rapidly implement remedial actions to drastically cut CO2 as required by the climate accords of 2010 through 2020 led to a number of fundamental changes

To address the generation of CO2 from personal domiciles, groups were formed to review the stock of housing and to assign individuals to a home appropriate for their family size. At group direction and without remuneration many older homes were raised and new multi-family, more ecologically appropriate homes were built. Newer larger homes were modified to be multi family. By 2025 only certain families were allowed to remain in single family homes – most lived in small government subsidized structures.

To address the generation of CO2 from transportation sources the American transportation system has been changed. Railroads were significantly expended. Over the road long haul trucks were eliminated. Public transportation was expanded significantly. Groups were established to review application for personal autos. Only government officials and certain individuals were allowed to own one. By 2020 the stock of automobiles in the United States had been reduced to slightly more than a million.

Groups were established to identify what food products could be used. For the most part food is generated locally. High CO2 generating products had been minimized. Only certain people as determined by the various governments are allowed to consume delicacies such as meat, sea food, crops out of local season and so on. The farm population has expanded significantly with most farm land in the hands of the government as a result of the Commercial Farming Act of 2015 that confiscated all but a small number of individually owned farms.

The second major theme involves changes to health care. The health care reforms of 2010 and 2011 extended health care to everyone. Costs naturally escalated. Efforts to reduce costs significantly impacted the availability of doctors. Government was forced to recruit doctors and assign them to appropriate locations. To address the continued escalation of costs and to reduce the human footprint health care was more rigorously controlled. Health panels were established to review individual needs for care in consideration of costs and individual contributions. Seniors were routinely denied costly services. Live births were restricted to one per family. Costly routine care required permission from the local health panel. However, certain individuals as determined by governments, were provided better care so as to insure that the civilization functioned properly.

The third major theme is economics. The costs to implement climate change remediation proved truly immense. The cost of health care continued to stress the system. The diversion of resources to government directed activity all but eliminated the ability of the country to compete in the international arena. The financial expectations of 2010 were inconsistent with available resources. The population was too large for the available domestic jobs. Large corporations had fled the United States and established their headquarter in countries that were non-responsive to the Climate Accords of 2010 through 2020. Small business were unable to turn a profit given the tax rate necessary to adjust to the Climate Accords of 2010 through 2020 and as a result the Jobs Creation Acts of 2015-2020 saw most business become government owned. In order to hold down costs and to distribute population, committees were established to assign individual based on testing to specific careers and locations. By 2020 over 95% of the American populace was living at the same level as that of the1920s.

Now just maybe saner heads will prevail and change will be more gradual with due consideration for the maintenance of jobs and appropriate recognition to individuals who contribute more to the society then others. If the necessary technologies were then to mature as needed we might just thrive. However, making international agreements betting on the timely development of certain high risk technologies and significant and rapid changes to human activity just may not be a good approach!

I recently wrote a blog about “Climate-Gate. I did not challenge the science but asked why so many people seemed to want to believe in a rapid and expensive commitment to remedial action to address it. I asked if it would not be desirable if it turned out that some of the new climate data might suggest a slower remedial pace. I was roundly attacked for denying climate change-something I did not do. Hardly anybody wanted to talk about the actual question. The respondents were focused on rapid and broad remedial response.

That brings me to Cap and Trade legislation that is an element of that response. How does that affect you? Cap and Trade will cost you money. Under the current notion, the impact is not evenly applied. In the expected approach, the government will sell the carbon credits that will allow Westar to continue to produce the power we need. Those costs will be passed on to the ratepayers-you! The income from the sales will be used to help the less affluent adjust to the cost increase. The wealthy will absorb the cost increase with hardly a ripple. The middle-those who work and have incomes between $50K and $200K, will bear the brunt.

Let us see. You work all your life to improve your income. You invest in education and training. You pay your dues to advance. The government picks you to bare the brunt of our effort to address climate change. There are many other initiatives to address climate change; could many of these also focus on you? Do you think that is appropriate? If you don’t, maybe you should tell somebody!

A few weeks ago a number of e-mail interchanges between key scientists supporting the climate change theory were made public. They can be interpreted to suggest a conspiracy to defraud or they can be accepted as normal interchange between colleagues. Appropriate review processes have been established and the meaning of those interchanges will be professionally established in good time.

What has been fascinating is the response from some of the proponents. Lets us remember that the theory suggests almost catastrophic impact on human existence as we understand it whether from the postulated responses required or from our neglect to address the challenge. You would think that the revelation that maybe the challenge is not as great as previously indicated would be greeted positively-even if the uncertainty suggests that we not yet celebrate. Instead there is a broad defense of the theory from a large number of non-scientific proponents

One has to wonder why. Who among us wants a climatic disaster? Should we not be hoping that the situation has been overstated? Could there be people who want a disaster. Could their motives be control of their fellow citizens using governmental responses to climate change as a mechanism to achieve it?

I for one hope that newer data may revealed that the situation is not as dire as previously indicated so that we can avoid dramatic changes to our standards of living or the potential for great loss of human life. Is there anyone with me?

Since moving here we have been very impressed with the commitment of the community to those less fortunate. There seems to be a group supporting just about any human need imaginable from battered women to our homeless. Our faith based community is very active as is our secular elements.

We as a community are again revisiting our support for the homeless. There has been consistent pressure to move our shelter from downtown. The shelter has responded by finding a location that is away from most commercial activity and about as removed as possible from residential locations. The move also enables additional services to include accommodating homeless families in a better setting.

Unfortunately, no location exists where there will not be some impact on somebody. The impact voiced about the chosen location raises issues as to transitory actions by the homeless themselves. I know the city is attempting to address panhandling in downtown. Good luck as most jurisdictions trying that have been defeated by the courts. Everyone pretty much has a right to go where they may and do as they will within the law. The new shelter location will only improve the situation for all of us.

The real question here is whether our community is willing to help the homeless. Admittedly, some of them are a long way from the warm and cuddly single moms with babies that we help with other programs. So is the nature of homelessness. However, it is just plain naive to assume if we do not help the homeless they will go away. Most of those receiving shelter are local. They will not go away; they will just find less regulated and more dispersed locations to occupy. In that circumstance, we will lose almost all possibility of helping them escape the trap they are in.

I defy anyone to find a better available location for a shelter. Lacking such a find the chosen location is about as good as we will get. We need to support the shelter as it seeks zoning approval by communicating to our commissioners our support for helping the homeless. Warm and Cuddly they are not; but they need our help just the same!