LJWorld.com

Thomas Jefferson once opined that “an enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight”.

I n our modern information age, is it any longer possible to be enlightened on all the major public policy topics of debate? The idea for this blog originated in a set of threads elsewhere that are questioning the boundaries between opinion and fact. Being able to recognize that difference is IMHO very important in being enlightened. At first I thought it would be obvious. But, is it?

Today our society IMHO relies heavily on data, statistics, polls, studies and the like to inform us on public policy options. Many of these sources are quite complicated. The media and our political leadership tend IMHO to reduce that complexity to short “talking points” as a means of informing their various constituents.

Does that work? Are we getting the full story or even an accurate story? Is opinion to include spin manipulating the underlying facts? Do we know what assumptions were used in generating the information – IMHO sometimes assumptions drive the outcome. How do we know that this information is factual and very importantly that the interpretation of that information is well informed, accurate and free of bias?

Has the complexity of public debate led to our acceptance of the facts and conclusions as portrayed by various information sources. Not only does an inability to determine what is “fact” potentially compromise our nation’s future, it IMHO is influencing our public debate as we throw around concepts using unvalidated and perhaps inaccurate information to advocate our position and demean our opponents?

Are we willing and able to educate ourselves on what is “fact”, how to determine it and how to interpret it? If we are significantly dependent on others (many of whom hold an advocacy position) to inform us then maybe we should no longer be an element of the political process and simply allow the “experts” to formulate and execute public policy?

In our local blog world are we reflecting this dilemma by using the terms opinion and fact interchangeably. If it is my opinion it is obviously fact but if it is your opinion it is just that and worse. Do we have a common perception of what the terms mean and how to distinguish them in an article? Are we trying to separate them or are we deliberately mixing them to make points? Are we using those terms in ways that discredit those with whom we disagree?

IMHO this is very important. If we can be easily bamboozled by the “experts” or those who manipulate their ideas than why even bother to hold elections since they will frame the debate so as to drive our decisions anyway?

What do you all think?

So headdoctor, you are the "blog" policeman. To borrow one of your past comments; who appointed you the tax - no blog god?

Unlike many of the bloggers on this list, I trade under my real name. People can goggle me and find actual actions on my part to implement my philosophy in the real world. I have never considered anyone on this blog space in a way that would have me maintain any sort of history on them. So, I really know nothing about headdoctor or anybody else (other than others who traffic under their own names).

Now, where am I coming from? Many blogs in this space are on light an non-controversal topics. Thye draw many comments. I comment on current events. I am political misaligned with many bloggers on this list; I therefore, expect to be attacked- frequently and soundly. I anticipate many people avoiding my inputs for many reasons - to include my opinions. That is why I am here - to challenge. Only occasionally have I, in my opinion, advocated anything. I usually respond to something in someone else’s blogs or comments with which I disagree. So, yes, I am disagreeable.

First of all most of my comments are opinion. Occasionally I have facts to back up what I say and when I do, I say so. My opinion is just that; no better or worse then anybody else’s opinion.

Sometimes I comment on what I perceive as facts and the misapplication or misstatement of them. Those comments are usually related to personal experience, training or facts actually sought from a government web site. My comments on social security fall in this category because I have been trained by CMS and AARP on the program

Most of the time I opine on what I perceive as faulty logic. My opinions on the linkage of infant mortality to the quality of health care and the need for national health care falls in this category.

Sometimes I opine because I bring a differing perspective. My age, my military background and our vagabond life are different from many bloggers on this system.

Frequently, I opine about what I consider inequities. Our progressive tax system that is not progressive falls into this category. Our unwillingness to care properly for our homeless is another. Making a small number of us clear the sidewalk quickly regardless of conditions is another. Bribing senators and congressmen to vote for a bill is another. Spending our city tax money on questionable economic development is another. Much of what I opine is directed at government.

One frequent focus of my opinion is the constant stream of gripes demanding that the government do something. While I am frequently sympathetic with the issues I constantly demand to know where the money is coming from. It always fascinates me that when I suggest a source, I usually am attacked. Do most of the people on this list think that government services are free?

Another big gripe is what I see as a constant stream of data that comes unchallenged from sources that are clearly partisan or suspect. Health care brings out a lot of that. So does some of our local issues. Just because something is on somebody’s web site does not make it so – even the UN data. As an example, listing the set of our school administrators on a blog with the inference that by firing them we can save all that money – but provided nothing that relates to the functions they actually perform and why we no longer need to perform them . In my opinion in the case of the UN data one needs to look at the assumptions (real and implied), how the measurement criteria were selected (important when many UN members have a national system), the methodology to collect the data (some nations deny the UN the ability to verify what they supply) and other consideration in information management that a freshmen at KU would understand.

A basic gripe is that some bloggers on this list resort to personal invective when they disagree with me or I with them on matters of opinion (sometimes stated as fact). Unfortunately, I have at times resorted to the same when a personal attack is levied against me. My failure; I am human and I do draw a lot of invective.

And yes, sometimes I am trying to protect the two of us from what I call the “mob”. Continuously increasing taxes or reducing established benefits at our age can be devastating – we have no ability to recover. Selling me a government solution while demanding cuts in the government solutions imposed upon us previously will draw a comment – every time. Most of those commenting in this blog space seem to have little familiarity with history. What they do not like about today they want to change right now. There is no regard for where the society has been or for sacrifices made by others along the way. Fault is liberally applied retrospectively based on new definitions of what is now proper and used to demand further selective sacrifice.

We all know that cuts to our schools and social services have become punitive (except for Americans for Prosperity and their fellow travelers). We all know we need more revenue; there is little if any waste still in our state budget because we have been cutting it for a decade.

The response from our legislature and governor is to increase taxes on those who have been hit hardest by our economic decline - mostly government caused. Sales taxes hit hardest on the lower income segment of our society.

We do not even seem to want to discuss a tax increase on the really wealthy who in general have done well despite the declining economy. Sustaining a progressive tax system that is not progressive is one more example of how most of us are disrespected by our local and state elites.

Is it not time that somebody (our representatives0 put forward the notion of adding tax brackets to our state income tax - not to increase taxes on most of us- to increase taxes on those with incomes over $100K. I am not talking class warfare. I am talking tax equity. Why should a family of four with a Kansas taxable income of $65K pay the same marginal rate as a Kansan with such an income exceeding $1,000,000?

It would be nice to force the “party of no” to say no to increasing taxes on the wealthy. Even if they vote it down, at least we would have a record of those who think the really rich are overtaxed (besides Rush and Fox News).

This sounds so simple to me – what am I overlooking?

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

Well, we have gotten ourselves in another fix. We do not have enough money to run our schools as some of us would like. Of course, we have seen our state contribution decline significantly as the state has addressed declines in tax revenue – heavily weighted by individuals experiencing reductions in their income. Our local contribution has been increased – although the decline in property values will probably reverse that. Consequently, we have a real problem.

I doubt the state will reverse the trend of declining school contributions. We will be lucky to break even this session. There is a glimmer of light as there is a bill before the legislature that may allow us to increase our local contributions. For a variety of reasons it may pass. That could mean a local property tax increase. Before the rocks start to fly maybe we can have it both ways.

We all know that the city has an uncommitted stream of sales tax revenue because we have retired the original debt. How about a deal. The city just lets that revenue stream die and reduces our sales taxes, thereby possibly making our community more business friendly. In return, we acquiesce to a short-term property tax increase to fund schools – to be revisited if the economic environment improves. I am not talking a tax to make it whole but a tax to avoid the worst of the impacts. If schools need to close to balance our student population and ensure equal treatment of our children then so be it.

Maybe there are other solutions but if we simply go for a massive tax increase to meet all the demands from portions of our community we will further reduce the attractiveness of our community by making our every increasing tax rate unattractive to businesses and new population. There is no future if we drive people away. Worse, many of our potential newcomers would likely be those who would increase our elementary school population to warrant the continued funding of all our neighborhood schools.

There have been many articles on the need for preserving certain neighborhood schools. Those articles have been uniformly silent on how we obtain the needed money. If you do not like my idea, how would you fix the mess?

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.