National Divorce

The below is written in response to a fun email floating around the internet suggesting that the conservative citizens of the United States divorce the liberal citizens - dividing the country.  It got me to thinking……

It would have to be agreed that the land mass of each nation would consist of area currently occupied by people of liberal or conservative respective ideology, and that the separation would be based on geographic or demographic boundaries rather than State boundaries. Therefore the liberal nation, which I'll call the People's Republic of America, or PRA, is severely divided, consisting of a fairly narrow strip along the west coast, the east coast from Boston to Washington DC with notable pockets of dissention, Hawaii, and Chicago. We'll assume the entire coastal region of California, Oregon, and Washington goes PRA including all of the LA basin, but north of that only as far inland as the coastal range in California and the Cascades in the two northern States. The PRA controls virtually none of the oil producing parts of the country except the offshore wells along the California coast which they are forced to ramp up to full production as even a Subaru or Prius requires some gasoline and because they lack almost all electrical power generation capability except fossil fuel production and limited nuclear.  Fossil fuel production of electricity is severely stressed while additional nuclear is brought online, this effort severely hampered by politics in spite of the desperate need. The PRA controls no timber or mineral resources and extremely limited food production, the California central valley and the Midwest "breadbasket" both being in the conservative region. The southern part of the west coast region of The PRA suffers from a severe lack of fresh water which had previously come from inland sources now unavailable. A huge public works program is initiated to bring water from the Willamette valley in Oregon to southern California, water rights protected by the United States being declared null and void, and the need to irrigate crops in the Willamette valley ignored.

The PRA does control, through the harnessing of labor, a large part of industry and technology, which provides them with something to trade for food, but their primary asset is complete control of the media and significant control of higher education as even though some notable universities lie within the conservative nation's land mass, the vast majority of faculty from these institutions immediately migrate to the PRA. They are temporarily missed.

Washington DC is maintained as the official capitol of The PRA providing a sense of legitimacy in its attempt to establish foreign relations throughout the world, but the true seat of power is Los Angeles. New York takes on a tertiary roll; its primary contribution to the PRA is the United Nations.

On the other hand... the conservative nation which I'll call The United States of America is a solid block of citizens somewhat hampered by lack of seaports except along it's southern coast, but never-the-less self sufficient. Still bound by the Constitution of the United States of America, and now giving it proper respect, this "New USA" would be temporarily challenged by debate over the location of a capitol, likely candidates being Denver, Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas. But in a brilliant political maneuver to become known as the Elvis Compromise, the new seat of federal government in the USA becomes Memphis and Graceland the new White House. Debates to determine a location for a new capitol building for housing the two houses of the federal legislature take place over the internet and realization dawns that nearly all legislative business can be carried on in this manner eliminating the need for a capitol building, and allowing legislators to remain in their home States in touch with their constituents while being less available to lobbyists.

The first order of business of this rejuvenated, relocated legislature is to authorize oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and northern Alaska. This followed by the creation of a fair tax code and the shrinking of government in nearly all arenas. Based on the notion that offshore and northern Alaska oil is the property of the people of the USA, a tax on this production makes funds available for research into a variety of energy programs based on the theory that the USA does not lack energy, but simply lacks portable energy.  Research is focused on using available energy sources such as wind, solar, natural gas, and nuclear for charging fuel cells. Further investment in the form of corporate loans goes into the creation of fuel cell automobiles and fuel cell distribution infrastructure.

No longer constrained by ever growing socialistic policies of the "Old USA" the new USA is free to develop into the capitalistic nation envisioned by the Founders and Framers. Of particular interest is, finally, the realization of social equality and acceptance. With each person free to rise to his/or/her full potential unhampered by unfair taxes and governmental control within a welfare state, resentment of ones fellow citizens dissipate and while old prejudices die slowly, they would be virtually eliminated within a generation.

With movies and television from across the border now completely controlled by blatant liberalism these forms of entertainment quickly fall out of favor at least until production capabilities develop within the new nation. In the meantime families would learn to communicate and young people would learn to think for themselves. This trend would be reinforced as young college students are exposed to educators previously unacceptable to the old order institutions of higher learning.

On the other hand... in the PRA, food and other essentials became more and more scarce even while the government is controlled by a naive liberal elite that refuses to give up the dream of cradle to grave welfare. Ever shrinking production produced by an ever shrinking percentage of the population leads to hoarding and resentment causing people to cluster to their own kind for comfort and support causing prejudice and distrust between races and classes. Eventually this leads to the break up of The PRA into its two primary geographical parts, East Coast PRA and West Coast PRA leaving Chicago dangling and turning to Canada, and Hawaii ignored except as a favorite vacation destination of West PRA government officials. This division would further complicate food and energy shortages in the east forcing that once great region to turn to the USA for help and eventual reunification - back into the fold with lessons learned by all but a few Kennedys.

Washington DC, back in the USA, becomes a virtual amusement park with the original White House and capital building along with many other ex-government facilities becoming part of the Smithsonian.  Visitors from around the world enjoy wandering through the oval office and speculating on various famous or infamous events that have taken place there…  The pentagon again becomes headquarters for the armed forces of The United States of America.

Other than Washington DC, the city most affected by these events is New York. Wall Street will never again be the focal point of world business. These functions within the USA have been split between Denver and Dallas, but during the uncertain times surrounding the original breakup, most stock traders turned to previously little known exchanges in Canada - notably The Winnipeg Stock Exchange due to its convenient time zone. The Statue of Liberty, unmolested but largely ignored under the PRA once again becomes a favorite tourist attraction - with possibly greater appreciation than before. Most of Central park had become grazing land for PRA government produced cattle. The bovine are sold at auction and the proceeds pay for a huge reunification celebration complete with fireworks over New York Harbor.

West PRA continues to go by that name even after East PRA ceases to exist. The northern portion of this nation, pulled into the original PRA only by the influence of the cities, notably Eugene, Portland, and Seattle, becomes more and more discontent with being the primary producers of food ever hampered by lack of water, while public policy continues to be controlled by bureaucrats that appear to believe that meat and produce are somehow magically manufactured in the basement of Safeway by contented union workers. Secret negotiations brokered by corporate officers at Boeing and Microsoft bring about annexation back into the USA of all of West PRA that lies north of the Golden Gate. West PRA is powerless to interfere, but Hollywood generates several movies and documentaries demonstrating how the citizens of the previous northern portion of West PRA were coerced.

At this point of course West PRA is crippled and completely dependant on the USA for food, wood products, fresh water, and protection from foreign interference - notably Mexico and Venezuela. In spite of this they remain quasi-independent for decades, the leaders refusing to admit defeat and the citizens refusing to vote them out of office in spite of their obvious failure.  By the time these attitudes break down under the strain of destitution, the citizens of the USA have become reticent to bring this hotbed of liberalism back into the country. People that once held some sympathy or apathy toward socialism have now had its personality unveiled and, more importantly, the value of true freedom and capitalism demonstrated. The obvious financial burden of revitalizing the now impoverished PRA is also a factor.

Final reunification is triggered, as these things so often happen in history, by the actions of a citizen rather than a government official. A young, talented, but previously unknown filmmaker creates a documentary called “America, the Unappreciated” in an underground studio in Hollywood in the heart of the struggling PRA. In it he shows the history of the United States contrasted with that of Europe, Russia, China, and indeed the entire world.  He features the philosophies of the American founders and other great thinkers of the Enlightenment, showing the conflicting politics and yet common love of freedom of great minds like Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, Paine, Madison, Diderot, Smith, Voltaire, Locke, Franklin and many others that by apparent miracle existed at that critical time and combined to bring a new society of freedom to a new world. He shows the true heroism of Washington willingly giving up power when the crown of America was his for the taking. This young filmmaker does not gloss over the follies and mistakes of America: slavery, a horrible civil war, a too ready eagerness to fight without exhausting diplomacy; but he shows these compromises and mistakes in their accurate historic backdrop making them understandable, however unjustifiable. He shows how America learned and grew from all of its history, the good and the bad, to become the hope and deliverance of the world.  He shows how America rose at least twice to save the world from global despotism and many times to save parts of it from localized slavery. He shows the historic genius and generosity of the American people when allowed to create and to choose the objects of their charity. This young filmmaker shows a heroic America that had never been seen or understood by the general population of any part of the world.

The production quality of the film is poor demonstrating its tiny budget, but the research is thorough, the presentation brilliant, and the timing ripe. Released on DVD in the United States as its only commercial means of distribution it finds a hungry market. Most of the distribution in the PRA is pirated DVDs with no record of distribution numbers, but its influence is undeniable.  Within weeks patriotic fervor on both sides of the border generate rumors of final reunification.  Citizens of the PRA suddenly want to rejoin America; Americans are suddenly willing to foot the bill.

Coincidentally, or perhaps not, the release is six weeks before elections in the PRA.  Liberal legislators are removed from office by the dozen, replaced mostly by slightly less liberal alternatives, but in a few cases by truly conservative legislators whose candidacies had been considered symbolic with no chance of success.

Total reunification is an anti-climax with only muted celebration which is more like a national sigh of relief.  Liberalism is not dead in the United States of America; there are still those that believe that citizens owe cradle to grave welfare to one another; from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, controlled by a large government bureaucracy. But their political clout is crippled for decades and their allies, Hollywood and academia, have been transformed, or at least politically silenced for the foreseeable future, though some in academia would privately lament the cruel coincidence that put food, timber, mineral, and oil resources in the conservative part of the US, continuing to lack the understanding that it is no coincidence that the producing regions of a civilization are also the conservative regions.

The world in general is also affected by “America, the Unappreciated” and for a time, criticism of the United States becomes unpopular around the world. 

Most Americans don't care.

American Religion and Tradition

I’m a strong defender of American tradition, including those derived from Christianity, especial those associated with Christmas, but I am not a defender of American religion because there is no “American Religion”; we are specifically secular.

Many of the men we think of as “Founders” were devoutly Christian while many others were Deists, believers in a vaguely defined Creator or Supreme Being with little additional dogma; but virtually all of them were opposed to theocracy.  While weeks were spent at the Constitutional Convention debating slavery and slave trade, the nature and tenure of the Presidency, bicameral or unicameral legislature, how senators and congressmen would be selected and how often, the Necessary and Proper clause, etc, there was virtually no debate about religion. The Founders and Framers were in nearly universal agreement that the United States would not fall into the trap of theocracy that had been responsible for centuries of bloody conflict in Europe.  It must be remembered that our founders were not the Puritan Christians that landed at Plymouth, the Quaker’s led by William Penn, or other Christian based colonists. These people hold a place in our history, and certainly in our traditions, but they were British colonists, not the founders of the United States.  One might say that many of the British Colonies in the “New World” were founded on Christianity, but not the United States of America.

None of this changes the fact that America is a country of Christian tradition. While most of the incredibly talented men that founded this nation were not particularly religious, the common people were, and it’s from the common people that we derive our traditions.  And traditions are important; they tie society together like no constitution or history book can. Traditional activities - weddings, birthdays, holidays, even funerals are sources of joy and comfort to all levels of society in good times and bad. A society that gives up its traditions gives up the term “society” and becomes just a bunch of people.

It’s a fine line between defending America’s traditions, including Christian traditions, while not supporting Christianity as America’s religion, but an obvious place to start is by defending the use of the term “Christmas” in all areas of American life, especially in the public classroom. It seems to me that the tradition of Christmas is as much American as it is Christian – not exclusively American of course, but deeply rooted in the soil of American tradition nevertheless.  Christmas is such a large part of American tradition that many American Jews put up Christmas trees, jokingly referred to as “Hanukkah Bushes”. This is strictly an American and Canadian phenomenon demonstrating that Christmas is a deep tradition in these countries independent of its Christian origins.

Christmas programs, a Christmas tree in the classroom, and Christmas vacation are all part of the tradition of American public schools and as long as they are kept relatively secular they should not be considered offensive to any segment of American citizenry. These as much as pep rallies and basketball games help young people cope with cold dark winters and the challenges of being young. Similar traditional activities in adult society serve similar purposes. Christmas traditions are among the most important that make us a society, so while I could never support a crucifix in the pubic classroom or a statue depicting the Ten Commandments at the courthouse – these are too specifically Christian and are not American traditions - I will always support a Christmas tree called by that name, not only in the classroom, but on Main Street.

Prayer in public school is another matter though one could argue that at one time this too was traditional; indeed I can remember grammar school teachers reading Bible verses after recess.  But while I can see no reason why actively, or perhaps passively, observing a traditional American holiday whatever its origins would be offensive to any reasonable person that chooses to live in the United States regardless of his culture, I can certainly see why any non-Christian person, whether emigrant or native non-Christian would be offended by having himself or his children engaged in public Christian prayer or Bible study.  The one is simply observing a traditional American holiday based on Christianity, optionally in a secular manner; the other is acting as a Christian.

America is a country of emigrants; this is indeed another tradition and a large part of what makes America the wonderful country that it is. Historically emigrants have come from primarily Christian societies, but recently we’ve been joined by many people of other religions and cultures. It’s extremely important that we respect their traditions and invite them to adapt to ours as they see fit, but it’s also extremely important that in attempting to be welcoming we do not abandon the traditions that make us what we are.

Progressivism

It seems that the entire Left has decided that they are “Progressives” rather than “Liberals”. Hillary Clinton has described herself as a “Progressive”; so has the President and many of his Czars. Progressivism is the “New Liberalism”.

So where did this “Progressive” term come from and what does it mean? As with most political questions, a study of history helps provide answers, but to get a true picture it’s necessary to go back much further than the emergence of Progressivism.

Our Founding Fathers, under the influence of the Enlightenment thinkers believed that all men by their nature deserved equal opportunity under the law. Certainly some would be born into more fortuitous circumstances, some more clever, some more talented, but all should be equal before the law with none set above it or specifically protected by it more than their fellows. They believed that some men would rise above others due to their talents or labors and become leaders among men, and that these men would form a Meritocracy of Gentlemen, but that no man could claim this status as his birthright or hold it perpetually without maintenance.

Unfortunately, as early as the Washington administration, government began the practice of “helping” one part of society or another. Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was so anxious for America to take her place among the wealthy nations of the world that he pushed for high tariffs along with other subsidies and measures to help American manufacturing. Ever since, through westward expansion, the civil war, reconstruction, into the 20^th century, the New Deal, and beyond virtually all politicians have sided with big business, agriculture, labor, or some other social entity. Of course as soon as politicians begin favoring one part of society at the expense of another corruption follows. Levels of corruption varied with time and location but became a constant in American politics.

This is not to say that all politicians were corrupt or were motivated by anything but conscience or desire to represent constituents, but as the country made the transition from Republic to Democracy as typified by the election and administration of Andrew Jackson, more and more lacked the sophisticated philosophical background of the Founders to avoid being influenced by expedience.

 “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx was published in 1848 during a time of war and hunger in Europe and mass emigration to the United States.  In the following 50 years millions of European emigrants came to the United States to escape poverty, war, and persecution. Many of these people had been exposed to various varieties of Socialistic theory and accepted its idealism. Over time a popular attitude emerged, even among many prominent politicians that Meritocracy embraced by the Founders was evil and that all men should not just be equal before the law, but truly equal in their economic circumstances; that accidents of birth such as inherited wealth, cleverness, or talent should not make one man rise above another; that even personal life choices such as education or hard work should not distinguish one man from another; that all men should be created and should remain equal in wealth or lack thereof. They believed that this was the natural order of things and that any step toward this ideal was Progress, the philosophy was called Progressivism, and politicians holding these beliefs to a significant degree came to be called Progressives.

The Progressive Party of the early 20^th century sprung from the People’s, or Populist Party of the late 19^th century which in turn evolved from the two major Farmer’s Alliance Organizations that were formed during the depression of the late 1870s.

Southern farmers, poor whites and blacks alike, were trapped in the tenant farm system that evolved during reconstruction as a method of farming large tracts of land that had previously been tilled by slaves. Tenant farmers typically owed the proceeds from their crops to the store or landowner that provided basic necessities before the crop was harvested. Each year tenant farmers tended to go deeper into debt. In 1877, primarily as a social outlet, farmers in Texas formed “The Knights of Reliance”. Similar organizations sprung up across the south and they became loosely allied into The Southern Farmer’s Alliance, and began trying to influence local Democratic politics, that party being virtually the only one in “The Solid South”. This was, of course, only white farmers, there was also a Colored Farmer’s National Alliance, but it was kept separate and never had significant political clout.

In the north farmers felt themselves at the mercy of low wheat prices, debt, and high transportation costs. The United State Government had granted large tracts of land to railroad companies to encourage the building of railroads across the nation in areas where it otherwise would have been economically unfeasible to do so. To a large degree, railroads were financed by selling the land to farmers. Such land was relatively valuable simply because of the proximity of transportation, but once the land was under cultivation and the railroad was operational, the farmers were extremely dependant on the railroad because no other form of transportation was available. So, also in 1877, the Northwest Farmer’s Alliance was born out of previous organizations such as The Grange. Initially their focus was social and on cooperative buying and selling, but they were soon trying to have influence on local Republican politics.

After some years of attempting to effect local politics to little benefit, the Farmer’s Alliances met in Ocala, Florida and formed what became The Populist Party, called The Peoples Party in some States. This effort was primarily by Northern Alliance membership because the southerners were reluctant to challenge the Democratic Party that they credited with maintaining white supremacy. The Populist Party’s “Ocala Platform” called for a progressive income tax on the rich, a loose money supply, and nationalization of the railroads. The Party had significant influence in several States north and south, though in the south there was no Populist Party to speak of, only sympathetic Democrats.

One of the Populist Party platform’s most popular planks was adoption of what became known as “bimetallism”, a plan to back American dollars with silver as well as gold, and fix the value of silver at 1/16 the value of gold. Since silver was not nearly this valuable, the effect would have been to devalue the dollar by about 50%. Populist farmers were in favor, because it would double the price of their crops when sold, while their debts remained constant, and agricultural States found ready allies in the silver mining States. Bimetallism became the indentifying issue for the Party.

Ironically, it was the depression of the 1890s that led to the extinction of the Pluralist Party when, in 1896, the Democratic Party was in need of a way to distinguish itself from the Republicans, and in spite of there being a large percentage of “Gold” Democrats they virtually adopted the Pluralist Party Platform including bimetallism causing a serious rift in the Party. They nominated William Jennings Bryan, a known Pluralist in all but name, as their Presidential candidate. The Pluralists were left with the choice of backing the Democrats or splitting what had come to be called the “Progressive” vote. The adoption of the Pluralist platform by a major party ushered in what became known as the “Progressive Era” with many progressive politicians in both parties who believed in more power to the central government, control and regulation of big business, trust busting, a weak dollar, government support of unions, farm subsidies, conservation, and other “liberal” policies. This growing progressive movement found allies in the labor unions which the Pluralists had not represented.

The Pluralist went on to nominate Presidential candidates through 1908, but were never again a political factor other than their influence on Progressive politicians in the other parties. This was a time when both major parties were split ideologically with little to distinguish the parties from each other, but much to distinguish the splits within each party. It’s as if people were Democratic or Republican by habit, or heritage, and what they actually believed determined which faction within the party they would support. There were many Progressives in both parties that had spent a political career wandering in and around of the Pluralist Party or growing Socialist Party – a product of European emigration at a time when Socialism was gaining popularity in Europe.

In that convoluted election of 1896 Republican William McKinley, certainly not a progressive, was elected to the Presidency, and yet again in 1900 when, with even more irony, his running mate was the progressive, Theodore Roosevelt, who would be elevated to the Presidency when McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist only a few months into his second term.

Roosevelt was elected on his own in 1904, and was followed in the White House by his friend William Howard Taft. Then in 1911 a progressive faction of the Republican Party formed the “National Progressive Republican League” to oppose the 1912 nomination of Taft for a second term. Instead they backed Theodore Roosevelt for a discontinuous third term. When they failed to nominate Roosevelt, they broke from the Republican Party and formed The Progressive Party and nominated Roosevelt as a third party candidate. Roosevelt the Progressive did much better at the polls than Taft the Republican, but Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected and through a World War and the following business boom the Progressive Party ceased to exist, but its policies and many of its members would be absorbed by the Democratic Party in the 1930s and from this the modern personalities of the two major parties would emerge.

A corollary to Progressive beliefs was that capitalism, the nominal economic system of the United States, has failed, forgetting that the United States from its earliest days never followed laissez faire capitalism. Always there has been government interference in one form or another, attempting to help business or control it. The amazing accomplishment that is the United States of America is the product of Almost Capitalism – one wonders what might have developed under true capitalism.

My Father was a Democrat

There’s a Chinese curse that translates: “May you live in interesting times.” My father and his generation knew the meaning of this curse. Born in 1922, he grew up on a ranch that was tucked under the continental divide in eastern Idaho. At age fourteen, in the darkest days of the Great Depression he dropped out of school and left home to join the Civilian Conservation Corps and then, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the navy to serve in the Pacific during WWII. He returned to civilian life with no education and only one asset, the ability to work.

He was a hard-rock miner and excelled at running heavy equipment. He made good money when working and seldom had trouble finding a job, but due to alcohol and a stubborn intelligence that had trouble accepting that some stupid SOB was the boss, he had trouble sticking with them. He travelled the west from mine to mine, dam site to dam site, or worked on ranches when in a bind. He never owned a piece of real property, but he pulled his own weight and didn’t ask for handouts. He joined a union when it was beneficial to do so, but hated strikes, yet wouldn’t cross a picket line.

He was a Democrat.

Like most poor people that had struggled through the depression he thought of Franklyn D. Roosevelt as something of a demigod and considered the Democratic Party the party of the working man. His view of history was a collage of depression, poverty, and war, and through it all there had been Roosevelt - never mind that through his first term and well into the second the depression deepened, and didn’t ease until war in Europe began to put American factories back to work; the man truly cared about the working class, and he gave them hope.

I think my father began to question the Democrats during George McGovern’s campaign; I’m not sure how he voted that year if he voted at all. During the Carter administration he became more disillusioned and then he couldn’t ignore the contrast between Carter and Reagan, a Republican he admired.

When a man has embraced a political party for a lifetime it’s difficult to change, but despite his lack of education my father was always an observer and thinker, and in the last years of his life he began to realize that the Democratic Party was no longer the party of the working man. It had become the party of those that would rather not work, and of the environmentalists that shut down the mines and sawmills that created jobs, and were threatening the fundamental rights of ranchers, farmers, and other land owners. He came to realize that the Democratic Party had turned against the working class to represent the liberal elite.

I don’t think he could ever bring himself to vote Republican; he didn’t agree with them either and things didn’t seem to get any better when they were in power. He just quit voting and didn’t talk about it much except to cuss the environmentalists and the moochers – or the government in general. He was part of the aging “Greatest Generation” and was depressed by the future he foresaw for the country he had fought to save.

He died during Ronald Reagan’s second term, but if he were alive today there’s no question that he would be appalled at the national debt and deficit, the invasion on our southern border, and America’s continuing slide toward socialism. He might even be able to muster a vote for a rare Republican.

Many people cling to one political party or another by habit or because that party once represented their values. Now our country is at a critical crossroads, and each of us must question whether our habitual party continues to represent our core beliefs. In many cases neither major party will do so, and we will often be given the choice between the lesser of two evils, but choose we must because there is too much at stake to allow the more evil of the two to continue leading us down the path my father only glimpsed.

Lobbyist for a Day

Many years ago the company that I worked for was invited to send a representative to a series of meetings in Washington DC with representatives from the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, and staff members of one of the California Senators. These meetings were organized by companies within the American semiconductor equipment industry for the purpose of discussing the unfair administration of NATO rules controlling the exportation of high tech semiconductor processing equipment to China. Of specific concern was the fact that other NATO countries, notably France and the United Kingdom, interpreted the agreed upon rules more leniently, allowing the shipment of much higher tech equipment than was allowed from the U.S. This gave manufacturers of such equipment in those countries an unfair advantage over American manufacturers simply because the Chinese customers could buy the features they wanted from companies in France and England, but not from American companies. Our goal was to have the regulations made the same for all NATO participants.

I was chosen to represent my company at these meetings and had the opportunity to observe a bit of government in action; I was a lobbyist for one day, and what I took away from the experience is that legislators and regulators often do not understand the fundamentals of that which they are charged with controlling. In fact it would be impossible for them to be familiar with the vast array of subjects that they regulate? That’s why lobbyists exist, or more accurately, that’s the legitimate reason for them to exist.

Indeed, like the legislators themselves, lobbying should not be a full-time, career-long job. Legislators should be sent off to Washington for a legislative session and then go back to their jobs; lobbyists should be businessmen or experts on particular subjects that legislators call on when knowledge is needed, not full time employees of special interests that have influence over politicians.

It’s not wrong for companies, unions, environmental groups, or any other entity to hire lobbyists; it’s wrong for them to have any influence as opposed to providing information. They have influence over politicians only because politicians give them influence. Blame the politicians, not the lobbyists.

I don’t know how much effect we had that day in 1987. Over time the regulations regarding trade with China changed, but that was no doubt due to the much larger world picture. The minor roll I played along with several others was one of attempting to inform regulators on a subject of some importance to our respective companies; we were just people from a particular industry pointing out a regulatory mistake. And yes, our companies would have benefitted from the correction, but we were performing an honorable lobbying function and then we went back home to our jobs. And that’s as it should be.

Is “Climate Change” a Bad Thing?

Scientists can’t seem to agree that the globe is warming, or if it is, that it’s the result of man’s activities to any significant degree, or what the long term effects are likely to be. It occurs to me that before the emergence of modern man there were massive wildfires on a regular basis around the globe spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere. For example, a study in Yosemite National Park indicates that before Europeans came along, 16,000 acres per year burned just within that small geographic area. We mostly contain wildfires now, while we burn fossil fuels. Maybe it’s a wash.

But getting to the point, I think we’re asking the wrong questions. Let’s assume for now that the globe is indeed warming and not worry for the moment about the cause. Instead let’s ask the question: Is it a bad thing? Why are we assuming that having the earth go through a warming cycle is disastrous? Global Warming advocates, who are now called Climate Change advocates to fit more recent data, insist that huge portions of coastal land will be flooded as the oceans rise due to melting of the polar ice caps and that massive deserts will develop as the earth warms. But these same people are telling us that recent massive snow, cold, and rain along America’s eastern seaboard is the result of warming that causes additional evaporation from the oceans putting more moisture into the atmosphere leading to more precipitation. This theory sounds more or less plausible except for the fact that scientists are now saying that the earth’s temperature has been stable for at least the last 15 years, and maybe cooling.

But that aside, we’re assuming here that the earth is warming, so if a global warming trend causes more snow and rain, and focusing just on North America for the moment, wouldn’t it be probable that much of this additional rain would fall in the western part of the continent since weather tends to move from the Pacific Ocean inland?

I was thinking of these things on a recent flight from Central Oregon to Salt Lake over the high desert region of southeast Oregon and northwest Nevada into northern Utah. I’ve flown much of the adjacent country in private planes, seeing it from a sparrow’s view rather than an eagle’s. Further, I’ve driven much of eastern Oregon, parts of Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, western Colorado, Wyoming, and southern California, and I’ve seen much of west Texas from 30 thousand feet. This is thousands of square miles of arid land; virtually half of the landmass of the lower 48 States that, with the exception of a few pockets of irrigated land, is worthless as far as human habitation or growing crops is concerned for lack of water. So is much of Mexico.

How could more rain in these areas be a bad thing? How could a slightly warmer climate? Wouldn’t some significant percentage of these areas and similar vast areas in Africa, Asia, and Australia becoming productive land be reasonable compensation for the shrinking of some islands? I’ll acknowledge that some species might be endangered, but that’s not the primary argument of the Climate Change advocates. Their argument is that we are destroying the planet’s ability to sustain humans. Might it be just the opposite?

How much effect might there be? Might Mexico become mostly rain forest? Might Arizona and New Mexico become lush? North Africa? The Arabian Peninsula? The vast deserts of western Australia? Might the Great Basin become an inland sea again, or alternately, be engineered to drain large tributaries into the Colorado River system finally giving greedily thirsty Los Angeles ample water? And if these changes are taking place it’s obvious that they are happening very gradually so humans can respond over time to make previously worthless land productive even as other land is lost to rising tides. But a simple look at a topographical map proves that the area potentially made productive by additional rain is many, many times the area that might be lost. Yes, people will be displaced, but people have been being displaced throughout history by various phenomenon. Perhaps these modern displacements could be humane and to the ultimate benefit of the people such as when people who were moved in the 1930s due to intentional flooding of the Tennessee Valley.

And if there’s more moisture in the atmosphere, won’t this mean more clouds, and don’t clouds reflect the sun’s rays, and won’t this tend to have a cooling effect so the polar ice caps won’t melt as much as anticipated? And if thousands of square miles of present desert become rain forest or at least grassland, won’t vast amounts of water be captured by this vegetation and in marshes and various wetlands, and in those added clouds, and in rivers and vast lakes such as the one that will fill Death Valley. And won’t this leave less water to overfill the oceans? Aren’t these perfect examples of how the earth continues to be, as it always has been, a stable system that tends to self-correct perturbations on a global scale even while local changes occur?

I’m not a scientist, and my description of our climatic future is probably not accurate, but I’ve had a career in engineering and I understand the concept of scientific modeling enough to know that the advocates of “Climate Change” can’t agree on their models and that their models change to fit current data including last week’s cold and last year’s warm. There’s no reason to believe that their models are any more accurate than what I describe.

Change is inevitable and no matter what the change, some segment of the population will view it negatively. Thousands of years ago when the oceans rose and Britain was separated from the European continent, whether this was a gradual process or a virtually instantaneous one as some scientists believe, there must have been many that saw the event as catastrophic. Few inhabitants of the British Isles in 1941 would agree. Currently the fact that Britain is an island can be viewed as neither good nor bad; it just is, and now it’s the norm. People adapt; species adapt; and life on earth goes on. “Global Warming”, if it’s actually happening, whether man caused or not, will bring localized changes. There’s no reason to believe that these changes will be catastrophic.

I Am an Environmentalist!

The other day I saw a bumper sticker: "Mommy, What Were Trees Like?" 

The obvious implication is that trees of every species are on the verge of extinction due to mankind’s activities. As the implications of the bumper sticker began to settle into my brain I experienced a sense of unease out of proportion with the obvious lack of facts behind the implied premise.  I tried to forget it.  This was just another tree hugger, who had probably never been in the forest, displaying her lack of knowledge and understanding. But there was more, there was a disturbing discontent bothering me about this silly bumper sticker.

It was more than the simple fact that I disagreed with the implication or my low opinion of philosophical bumper stickers in general - a cowardly means of making a point, literally made while the purveyor of the opinion drives away from any possible requirement of defending her statement. Of course this was part of my discomfort, the unfulfilled need to present argument against the bumper sticker, against the righteous condemnation of mankind as a manipulator of nature for his survival and comfort, to point out to the owner of the car and bumper sticker that manipulating nature even while we respect it is what we must do to live a comfortable life. But her bumper sticker made those that do it somehow evil to be alive, or at least evil to be living beyond the level of cave men and in numbers greater than can be sustained by hunting and gathering.

But what finally occurred to me was that it was the divisiveness of the statement that caused me to feel a mild depression when I thought of it. The bumper sticker demands the taking up of sides in the environmental argument and squelches all thought of discussion on the issue of common sense timber harvesting, again ignoring the reality that our lives depend on it.  

The revelation inspired by this line of thought is that I am an environmentalist. I grew up surrounded by the forests in question.  I hunted and fished and camped and hiked in the mountains and forests of east-central Idaho where logging is (was) a way of life, and where simple observation proves that trees in general are not in danger. If they were I'd be among the first to protest because I love nature; the mountains, forests and streams have been a part of me as long as I can remember; just as they are a part of the lives of those hard working individuals that make their livings in the timber industry.

Those of us that are what I call “Common Sense Environmentalists”, people who love nature and understand that we can use its bounty without destroying it, have to do something.  We need our own Environmentalist Organization to counter the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and the like; to point out to the world that loving nature does not have to mean reverting to cave men.