America RIP

I wrote this a year ago prior to the 4th of July...

America RIP Born July 4^th 1776- died sometime in the last few years

America passed away quietly this year while most people were at home going on with their everyday lives not even taking note of the passing of this amazing giant. This was not a sudden illness or accident that brought about her untimely death, but she had been sick for many years and had suffered from a multitude of ailments that chipped away at her heart and soul.  It’s strange how some do not now even recognize or mark her passing as they go on with life thinking that coming to the point of her passing would never be possible because she had withstood so much and for so long.

  

With the coming of her birthday on July 4^th, some will still celebrate her birth with pomp and circumstance while those who have watched and taken note of her passing will solemnly commemorate a second memorial day this year.  Many songs and anthems have been written about her during her long and storied life.  Some of those will still be appropriate as a remembrance of the life she gave and the opportunities she provided for so many.

We will remember what she stood for and the principles that she espoused- those things that brought her and her people to amazing heights where just about anything was possible.  She was not perfect, but she was good.  When she viewed the dark side that was a mar on her birth, she and her close friends stared down that evil and paid a tremendous price to rid her of the cancer that surely would have taken her life much sooner.  She accomplished more, than any like her had previously done, in her lifetime bringing liberty, prosperity and protection to untold numbers of people.

We will remember liberty that she held so dear- the liberty to think, speak, and worship as we choose.  With that liberty, having the freedom to enjoy the fruits of our own labors; to engage in commerce, or not; and if we choose not to labor, well she let us live with the consequences of our own decisions. She didn’t hold our hand to protect us from dumb decisions (the protection she provided was from our enemies, not from ourselves), but she gave us the freedom to spend our labors for whatever we desired- for good or bad; for success or failure. 

Along the way some thought it unfair to have such freedom which included the freedom to fail! Such a freedom means that some people would inevitably fail, so while so many people still reveled in freedom those who were afraid of such freedom started planting the poisons that would eventually take her life.  Of some it is said “she lived great and she died great,” but sadly for her it can be said that she was born and lived great; she came in with the roar of a lion, but to our dismay the poison pills she took over such a long time transformed her until, at her last breath, she was a hollow shell of the greatness she once embodied.

I will shed tears on her birthday this year, but not those tears of the heart swollen with thankfulness and gratitude for the many opportunities and blessings that she passed on to all for so long, but tears of true sorrow and sadness for the passing of one of whom there was none other like her and will not likely be another.  Can she be brought back from the dead, resurrected to her former glory- I don’t know- maybe, but God bless America!  I am glad that I had the opportunity to know her well and I will remember and tell her story to all that care to listen.

Why I believe

I’ve been giving some thought recently to why I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In the end it comes down to receiving personal revelation from the Holy Ghost, because when Jesus asked his disciples “… But whom say ye that I am?”  When Simon Peter responded “…Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” Jesus said “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Mathew 16:15-17).  Even the men who were with the Savior daily had to receive revelation to know, of a certainty, who Jesus is.

To start this, however, I want to review some of the rational or logical reasons for why I believe. 

First why I believe in God- This one for me is a no-brainer. Everything around us testifies of the existence of God from the Earth on which we live to our solar system, galaxy and universe.  To think that such complexity and organization exists as some cosmic accident is, to me, nonsense. The atheist must accept that life is completely meaningless; that we are here as some accidental aberration; that anything we do for good or bad in this life ultimately has no meaning or real importance to anyone.  The strange thing about atheists is that the leaps of faith that they have take to not believe in God are much larger than having a belief in God.  Peter Keeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College points out “it takes faith believing that everything came from nothing. It only takes reason to believe in God.”

Next comes: Who is God?  Other religions teach of a God who is incomprehensible who is without body, parts, or passions; who is large enough to fill the immensity of space and small enough to fit in our hearts.  They will still refer to Him (I’m not sure that a gender definition makes sense with their teaching, but I’ll use it for simplicity) as the Father in Heaven, but how is he our father with this understanding of him?  It doesn’t make any sense.

They also teach that The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all the same being/entity, and the explanation is that He manifests himself as one of the three depending on the situation, which I’ve always had a problem with.  The following example illustrates this.  I was listening to the Christian station on Sirius XM and the preacher was explaining the war in heaven referenced in the Bible (Isaiah 14, Revelation 12). 

This is how it went- Lucifer, the son of the morning, rebelled against the Father and Michael the Archangel who was Jehovah or Jesus and the angels fought (who or what are the angels?) against Lucifer (so now God is the Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and also Michael…?).  As Michael won the war God was going to destroy or kill Lucifer, but Jesus stood between Lucifer and God and saved Lucifer’s life (Wait… Jesus is trying to save Lucifer by standing between himself and himself when it was himself that was fighting against Lucifer in the first place?  This is where it all breaks down for me… I know “one being, but multiple manifestations,” but why? There is no logical reasoning behind it.  What’s the point of all the subterfuge? Just imagine it, “I’m Michael I’m going to fight you Lucifer because you are rebelling against the Father which is really me.  I win now, so now the Father, who is me is going to destroy you! Oh no, the plan is foiled because Jesus who is also me is going to stand between you and me, the Father me, and save you.”)  Whew…

The confusion continues as Jesus comes down to take the form of a man.  At this point is no one at the helm in the universe or did Jesus leave part of himself at his heavenly home?  I realize the whole “so large to fill the universe” thing might come into play here, but if He takes human form to be the Son (why would the Son be in human form anyway?) then He is someplace and in a specific form.  I once years ago when the internet was in its infancy asked online the questions- Why would Jesus pray if he was just praying to himself?  Why would he ask the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane to “let this cup pass before me” if he really is the Father too, and didn’t want to go through with the suffering then why would he ask himself to let it pass?  My questions were referred to an “ex-Mormon bishop” to help me “deal with such questions.”   His answers were just more of the same about one entity but different manifestations…

I’m sorry.  That just does not work for me and it never could.  If God is my Father then I expect that it is a personal relationship.  How can it be a personal relationship if the Father is an incomprehensible being?  In what way am I created in the image of God if God does not have an image? 

To me the LDS understanding of the Plan of Salvation (including the pre-existence and the war in heaven) and the Godhead are absolutely fundamental in really knowing my relationship with my Father in heaven and understanding what life is all about. 

This is where the Holy Ghost comes in for me.  I have felt over and over throughout my life the spirit speak to my soul that Joseph Smith did see God the Father and Jesus Christ and that they were individuals in the form of man.  This amazing event answered the question that people had been debating since the Roman times--What is the nature of God?  Personally knowing that He is truly the Father of our spirits; that we lived with him before we were born; that we participated with Michael in the war in heaven; and that Jesus the first born of the Father in the spirit and the only begotten of the Father in the Flesh sacrificed his life for us fills my soul with joy.  While there are many things that I don’t know, I love the logic and simplicity of these basic truths!

These are the basic reasons why I believe.  I don’t begrudge anyone else for believing different than I do, because I believe that God wants us all to be free to make our own choices about such things. 

Central America and Evidence of The Book of Mormon People

From time to time I read things that show curious similarities to things in the Book of Mormon.  While some of these may be coincidences, I am confident that they do show a lasting impact in the Mesoamerican world from the ancient peoples of The Book of Mormon.

In the National Geographic around 2005 there was an article about an Indian tribe in Central America. My son and I read the article and found one thing that we thought was curious.  This tribe refers to white men as "younger brothers" and refer to themselves as "elder brothers."  After we read that we did a little search in The Book of Mormon and found-
2 Nephi 5:3 Yea, they did murmur against me, saying: Our younger brother thinks to rule over us; and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to rule over this people.

This was the brothers Laman and Lemuel speaking to their younger brother Nephi and it is also interesting to note that Laman and Lemuel's posterity were dark skinned while Nephi's posterity were light skinned further corresponding to the National Geographic story.

Recently I was reading a book published in 1906 about Hernando Cortez the Spanish conquistador who invaded Central America (all subsequent passages are taken from "Hernando Cortez" by John S. C. Abbott, 1906 The St. Hubert Guild, New York).  Cortez was definitely not a good man, but his story is quite a tale...  As the Spanish moved into the mainland there were many things which they observed which they thought were curious and had no explanation for them.  They stuck out to me as I read the book and hinted of things that can be found in The Book of Mormon-

1) While Cortez was intent on tearing down all the idols of the natives to convert them to Christianity he was surprised to find in the courtyard of one of their temples a large stone cross.
"There were several spacious temples, with lofty towers, constructed of the same durable materials. The adventurers were also exceedingly surprised to find in the court-yard of one of the temples an idol in the form of a massive stone cross."

In The Book of Mormon Christ comes and visits the people in the Americas after his resurrection in the old world and tells them of His crucifixion-
3 Nephi 27:14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil--

2) Cortez and his priests noticed a curious thing that the natives were baptizing their little children-
"It is an extraordinary fact that the rite of infant baptism existed among them. This fact is attested by the Spanish historians, who witnessed it with their own eyes, and who have recorded the truly Christian prayers offered on the occasion. As the infants were sprinkled with water, God was implored to wash them from original sin and to create them anew. Many of their prayers dimly reflected those pure and ennobling sentiments which shine so brilliantly in the word of God.
They certainly performed the rite of baptism. The cross was one of their idols. They also believed in original sin, which was to be in some way removed by sprinkling an infant with water."

Towards the end of The Book of Mormon when violence is taking over all the people there was a change in the rite of baptism with which they had been taught and they had started baptizing infants-
Moroni 8:5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.
It goes on to make clear that little children have no need of baptism because they are innocent and have no need of repentance since baptism is unto repentance.

3) As the Spaniards progressed towards the interior of central America heading to Mexico city, king Montezuma tried to convince them to go back home.  He was concerned about a prophecy of the overthrow of his people and was convinced that these Spaniards were going to be the fulfillment of that prophecy.
"Montezuma was informed of all these proceedings, and was greatly alarmed. He feared that a prophetic doom was about to descend upon him, and this apprehension wilted all his wonted energies."
"Perhaps to this fact is to be attributed the general and discouraging impression which then prevailed, that a fearful calamity which nothing could avert was impending over the nation; that it was the decree of destiny that a strange race, coming from the rising of the sun, should overwhelm and desolate their country."
After Cortez had made it to Mexico City-
"A long conference ensued, during which Montezuma betrayed his apprehension that the Spaniards were the conquerors indicated by tradition and prophecy as decreed to overthrow the Mexican power."
In an attempt to appease Cortez Montezuma essentially surrenders-
"I speak as the gods direct. Our prophets have told us that a new race is to come to supplant our own. The hour has arrived. The scepter passes from my hands by the decrees of fate which no one can resist. I now surrender to the King of the East my power and allegiance, and promise to pay to him an annual tribute."

In The Book of Mormon, the people were warned that if they fell into disbelief that the time would come when the people would be conquered by other nations-
2 Nephi 1
11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.
12 Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them; wherefore, my sons, I would that ye would remember; yea, I would that ye would hearken unto my words.

4) One thing that horrified Cortez as he traveled through central America was the tradition of human sacrifice and cannibalism among the natives.  The contradiction was that he was willing to kill as many people as needed to get them to stop the practice...
"They then entered the sanctuaries of the temple, where human hearts were smoking, and almost throbbing, upon the altars before the revolting images of their gods. On the summit of the temple there was an enormous drum or gong, which was struck when the miserable victim was shrieking beneath the knife of sacrifice...
...To these remarks Cortez added an indignant remonstrance against the abomination of human sacrifices, and of eating the flesh of the wretched victims."

Again towards the end of The Book of Mormon there was great destruction from war as the people had become very wicked and had devolved to torture, human sacrifice and cannibalism-
Moroni 9:10 And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.
Mormon 4:14 And they did also march forward against the city Teancum, and did drive the inhabitants forth out of her, and did take many prisoners both women and children, and did offer them up as sacrifices unto their idol gods.

There were other things that stuck out to me as I read, but these will suffice for this blog.  While I find these things interesting they don't really help a person find out the truth of The Book of Mormon.  It takes an answer from the Lord as Moroni encourages people to do at the end of the book-

Moroni 10:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Is Jesus a Socialist? Communist?

From time to time I run into (online or otherwise) people who are in support of the government redistributing other peoples money (through things like Obamacare) and justify it by saying that this IS what Jesus would do.  After all He taught socialist principles, he was against the wealthy and so forth...

To support such a stand these people use scripture verses such as these from Luke 18: (pay particular attention to the bold passages)

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Let's first make sure we understand socialism and communism at a basic level.  The end result of the two is not very different, but only a slight difference in operation.  People often confuse social programs and services such as schools, police and road construction as socialism.  This is NOT socialism.  Socialism is when the government controls the productive resources of a nation.  The only difference compared with communism is that the government owns the productive resources of the nation under communism.  With either of the two, the government becomes responsible for everything like healthcare, providing jobs, welfare, etc.  The end result of the two is that the government controls and directs nearly every aspect of its subjects lives and yet NONE of that sounds anything like what the Lord has said...  

In the Lord's time Rome was the supper power and the number one problem with those who want to accuse Jesus of being a socialist is that he never once said that Rome should take care of the poor. Notice when he told the wealthy man to "sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor..." it was still completely voluntary he was not going to be forced to give to the poor.  He didn't say to the man that the government should take his possessions and give to the poor, but that he should choose to do it himself.  Why?  As Bruce C. Hafen once said when referring to this instruction from the Lord "We can have eternal life if we want it, but only if there is nothing else we want more."

When the people saw this interaction with the rich man they asked "Who then can be saved?" the Lord answered in verse 27.  Joseph Smith added some understanding in his translation which reads-

27 And he said unto them, it is impossible for them who trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God; but he who forsaketh the things which are of this world, it is possible with God, that he should enter in.

It seems that the issue with this wealthy man was not so much his property but that he was valuing his property higher than achieving the kingdom of God- He wasn't using his resources to help those in need. Again the Lord never even hinted that maybe the government should do something about the poor and he was clear about who should help in Mathew 25-

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
(the people then asked when they had done these things for the Lord)
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Clearly the Lord is talking about personal individual service and care for those in need.  The personal ministering involved in meeting the needs of the poor is a basic fundamental of following in the Lord's path. Can you imagine anyone who is today on government welfare feeling like this- feeling like they have been ministered too; that their unique individual needs are being met- by a huge governmental bureaucracy?

So it is completely disingenuous for anyone to call the Lord a socialist because he taught that we are morally obligated to care for the poor and needy and to use our own resources to do so.  In all of His teachings we are at all times left to choose whether or not to follow Him.  He does not force us to help the poor or to keep His commandments.  If the Lord acted like a socialist or communist, everyone on the earth would be a Christian whether they wanted to be or not, but He does not so act, because He respects our individual agency to choose what we will do even if we choose poorly. 

Are The Poor Responsible For Their Poverty

Liberalism vs. Conservatism part 3- taken from video series I am doing with my son

In the first installment we covered one basic difference between liberals and conservatives which is the role each groups believes the government should take in the major issues of our day. Someone on YouTube asked this question “are the poor responsible for their poverty?”  This question gives us another opportunity to review some of the differences between liberals and conservatives.

In our 2^nd topic in this series, while talking about the proper role of government, we touched on the topic of the moral responsibility to care for the truly needy, but today let's consider the poor a little more, and lets be specific while we talk about the poor- we are not talking about the truly need (those who have mental or physical issues preventing them from taking care of themselves).  We are talking about poor who are capable of taking care of themselves.

Why would someone ask such a questions as “are the poor responsible for their poverty” in the first place?  Many have learned from the liberal viewpoint that the rich only got rich by taking advantage of the poor. To put it in the words of Ronald Regan “We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one!”  This is the liberal idea that economic growth is a zero sum game, or if I get richer someone else must be getting poorer.

Conservatives recognize that economic growth is not a zero sum game.  Notice I didn't say that conservatives believe, but that conservatives recognize, because economic data does not support the idea that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor.  

In my state JR Simplot became a billionaire starting out as a farmer and getting into a lot of other businesses.  It can be temping to vilify those wealthy thinking “why should he have so much when I don't,” but what is the reality?  Because of JR’s efforts there were 10s of thousands of jobs created over his lifetime.  He branched out into electronics at one point by being the major funding partner for someone else's idea for a business.  That start of a small electronics company became one of the leading memory companies in the world with 10s of thousands of jobs created in a totally different industry from where he gained his initial wealth.  No matter how I twist it I cannot think of any way that JR Simplot’s wealth hurt the poor, but just the opposite- his success resulted in a great deal of economic growth, jobs and the improved economic condition of very many.  Through his ventures he did not end up as the only one with wealth, but there were a large number of people who have become well off because of his ventures and this spawned many more business ventures.

So are the poor responsible for their own poverty.  Well… Yes.  Who else can be responsible for it, and herein is another fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals teach that the poor are victims of the rich and that the wealth of the rich should be re-distributed to the poor because they only got it by taking advantage of the poor.  Conservatives on the other hand show that when given liberty the poor do not have to stay that way.  JR Simplot started out very poor- he quit school and left home when he was 14 and started working on a farm- not the typical blueprint for a future billionaire, but he was free to work hard and try for success until he found it.  Only in a free society can the poor move upward.  If we eliminate the free society, we also eliminate the ability of the poor to move upwards.  One final point to consider President Lyndon B. Johnson started “the war on poverty” and now 46 years later and nearly 17 trillion dollars poverty is winning.  The federal welfare programs which amount to an income re-distribution program have succeeded in keeping the poor poor and making poverty worse… 

So, we have two ideas- the liberal idea that the poor are victims and need to be given handouts through re-distribution of wealth.  Or, we have the conservative idea that the poor and everyone else should be given liberty and the opportunity to improve their own situation in life.

Where do you stand?

Proper Role of Government

Liberals vs. conservatives part 2 taken from video series I'm doing with my son'

In our first installment we talked about one major difference between liberals and conservatives which was their ideas on the role that government should take in addressing the issues of the day. Today we will look a little closer at the proper role of government.

We'll start with a little story that I have adapted from someone else- let's say there is some land far from any city and outside of the boundary of any state.  We decide to move there because of the opportunity available in this land.  As several of us move there and start productive business opportunities a little community develops, but we don't have a government.  As individuals we have the right to guard our property and protect our families, but as time goes on we find that we have to spend too much time on protection.  As a result, we can't be very productive, so we get together and hire a sheriff to provide the protection of life and property and government is born.  We only have the right to delegate to the sheriff what we have the right to do for ourselves.

In our community, let's say that you have two cars and I need a car, and I think that you should give me your extra car.  I have no right to demand that you give me your extra car.  Even if everyone in the community thinks that you should give me your extra car, we have no right to demand it.  If we don't have the right to demand that you give me your extra car, we also cannot rightly have the sheriff confiscate your extra car to give it to me. Again we can only delegate to the government whatever we have a right to do ourselves- anything more than this is tyranny. 

This short story illustrates the conservative constitutional view of the proper role of government- that government has delegated to it only the powers to protect our basic rights of property, life, and our own pursuit of happiness.

Ezra Taft Benson said “The government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything. It's only source of authority and power is from the people who created it.”

Where do the liberals fall in this story?  Liberals believe that it is right for the government to confiscate your car and give it to me.  They teach that it is good for the government to forcibly take your possessions to distribute them to others.  In their view the liberals think that government bureaucrats can better determine where the product of you efforts should be directed.  They tell us that this is how you “care” for the needy by forcibly taking from some to give to others.

Ezra Taft Benson again said “Any attempt through governmental intervention to re-distribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.”

Does compassion for those in need have any place in this?  Yes. Conservatives believe that we are morally obligated to care for the truly needy, but that people must be free to choose to help.  Liberals also believe in the obligation to help those in need, but feel it right to use the government to forcibly take your possessions to hand out to others without any say from you at all.  Liberals have the desire to do good, but want to do good with other people's money.

We discussed the proper role of government from a conservative and liberal perspective. The conservative idea that government can only rightly do those things that we have a right to do ourselves vs. the idea that government is unlimited and can do and take anything that they choose.

Where do you stand?

Liberal vs. Conservative Part 1

This is part 1 taken from a series of YouTube videos that I am doing with my son.

Many mistakenly think that the difference between liberals and conservatives is what they care about. For example if I were to ask you- what do liberals care about, you might say- the poor, the environment, education, clean energy and other problems in society?

Thinking about it this way leads people to believe what they hear in the media that conservatives don't care about those things that they want to have dirty air and water; they are OK with poor education and so forth.  The reality is that both liberals and conservatives care about these same issues…

If that is true then what really is the difference?  It all comes down to how liberals and conservatives believe that these topics should be addressed.

Today I'm only going to focus on one main difference between liberals and conservatives (in the next installment we will discuss some other topics).  The liberal philosophy, when it comes to the environment, education, or any of the topics of the day, is all about the government. They believe that the government should be larger, have more power, control the economy and manage the lives of the people. 

Conservatives on the other hand believe in limited government and that the purpose of government is not to have power over our lives or control over the economy, but that government exists to protect our rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Conservatives believe that the important topics of our day can be addressed better outside of government intervention and control.

Let's look at energy as an example. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter (a liberal) signed legislation creating the department of energy. Initially the DOE was tasked with making the US energy independent…  Let see it has been 35 years and the DOE budget goes up every year significantly growing the size of the government and adding volumes of regulations and controls onto every company in the energy industry, but we are no closer today at being energy independent than we were then.  The liberal idea we hear much of today is that the government should “invest” in “clean” or “renewable” energy, and that sounds so good what could possibly be an issue with that?  In a free market system (supported by conservatives) technology winners and losers are determined by the market- which is to say by whatever technology is economically viable (whatever technology can deliver the energy for the lowest cost).  This one is highly important, because energy is the life-blood of the economy.  If we want a strong growing economy we must have cheap abundant energy.  The liberal view, however, is that the government should pick winners and losers based on some higher or more enlightened values (really it is based on political favorites), but what we end up with instead is wasted taxpayer money and higher energy costs.  The Solyndra debacle is the poster child for what happens when the government tries to pick winners- we waste 500 million dollars and the company goes out of business.  In my state we are installing windmills at a break-neck pace, and I'm sure this makes many feel warm and fuzzy when they see these windmill farms stretching out in the horizon, but the fact is that wind power is not economically viable in a free market environment, so they get installed with government subsidies and the government tells the local power companies that they have to use the power from these wind farms.  In my state the power company is now asking for special tax incentives to offset the higher costs of having to utilize these wind farms.

So, we have two major differing views on how to address the major topics of the day. Which one is right? If you look at the results… they speak for themselves.  The examples of big government failures are piling up all around the world.

Where do you stand?

Steve Appleton Remembered

It is an extremely rare occurrence when you see a confluence of high intelligence, advanced athletic ability, tenacious drive, fierce competitiveness, and earnest concern and compassion for others all in one person.

This was Steve Appleton in spades. From competitive (nationally ranked) collegiate tennis player to titan of the semiconductor industry to CEO of a fortune 500 company to Baja 1000 winner and regular competitor, to top level stunt pilot and jet pilot, to karate black-belt holder and champion, to motocross racer, sky diver, water skier, basketball player, multi-linguist, not to mention devoted husband and father and philanthropist, Steve did more in 51 years than most people could imagine in multiple life times. He truly lived larger than life, but at the same time demonstrated great care and concern for others.

What follows are some of my thoughts and experiences as well as things that I've learned about Steve over the years.

I was not a personal friend of Steve's or anything, but I have been an employee at Micron for about 23 years. When I started at Micron Steve was the manufacturing manager and he would come into the production area on a regular basis and hold meetings while we stood in the hallway. That's where I first met him, and I watched as he quickly rose from there to the company president just a few years later.

Over the years I had sent Steve a half dozen emails or so, and to my surprise he responded to every one (I learned that this was typical of anyone that sent him an email). He would respond even when the email written did not require a response. One time after attending an air show in Boise that he performed at doing stunt flying. His aerobatics were absolutely amazing and mind boggling to watch. I sent him an email the next day and just said that I enjoyed the air show and mentioned that the pilot in a certain plane was crazy! He responded with a simple "thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it." Some time later my dad, who is a pilot himself, happened to meet Steve's father in law. He told my dad that his son in law was a pilot and that he just had a special edition of a book about planes that he was in and on the dust jacket. I sent Steve an email and asked how I could get a copy of the book to give to my dad, and he responded "I have one here that I would be glad to give to you. What is your dad's name and I will sign it for him." He signed it and I went by his office to pick it up. He wasn't in at the time, but his secretary had it ready to give to me. I also emailed him during the short time that the board fired him telling him that it had been an honor to work under his leadership to which he thanked me for my support. He was hired back just a few days later when all the rest of the executives threatened to resign if the board didn't bring him back...

Jillian works at the library in Boise and had an experience meeting Steve at a reading event for kids, and in the short time that she had to talk to him she mentioned that she was sorry she didn't have time to ask him more questions, and he told her to send him an email and that he would be glad to answer all her questions. She sent him an email later and just thanked him for taking the time to do the reading event. He responded saying that it was his pleasure, and he set up a lunch meeting with her in a month so she could get answers to her questions- this led to Steve doing another reading event for the library. You can read her account here.

In my early years at Micron a lot of people were trying to learn Japanese since our major competitors were there. Someone that I worked with signed up for a Japanese class and it turned out that Steve was in his class, but after a couple classes Steve never came back. At one point someone finally asked why he was no longer coming to class. The answer was that the class was too slow, so Steve just decided to teach himself. A few months later he was traveling to Japan and was not using an interpreter to communicate. I suspect that he probably later learned Korean quite well too...

Micron one time had a dinner down at the Grove for people who had participated in the Micron Challenge. My wife and I walked in and there was already a bunch of people sitting at all the tables. I mentioned that it looked like there were some empty tables up at the front, so we walked up to one in the front and sat down. Shortly after we sat down I realized that there was a sign on the middle of this round table that said reserved. We were going to get up and move, but as we started to stand up someone said to us not to leave because they didn't know who else was going to show up (this turned out to be one of Micron's VP's and his wife). As we sat there Joe Parkinson came and sat down. Someone put his hand on my shoulder and I turned in time to see JR Simplot say "son, I'm JR Simplot how are you tonight." He sat next to us with his wife. Finally Steve came and sat down, and as he greeted everyone at the table he looked at me and said "Hi Roger. I don't believe that I've met your wife." I wouldn't have thought he would have known my name either, but he made me feel like I fit in at this table of executives where I was definitely out of place. It turned out to be a fun and memorable evening.

Under Steve's leadership Micron changed from a small local Boise Idaho company to a large global corporation with facilities in Idaho, Utah, California, Virginia, Singapore, Italy, Japan, Korea, and China just to name a few. His vision and leadership for Micron will not be easy to replace...

He was a scholarship tennis player for BSU and lettered every year. One year he broke his thumb just before a tournament. He cut the cast off his hand so that he would be able to compete at the event and ended up taking second in singles and first place in doubles. After that tournament and having to get the cast put back on he taught himself to play left handed so that he could compete during the rest of the season- change hands and still compete at the collegiate level!

Steve wanted to learn Karate, so in typical fashion he obtained a black belt in about half the time that it normally takes an adult to do so. He went to a tournament in somewhere like Portland and won a gold metal in his category.

Recently on a vacation trip flying though Mexico Steve and his friends landed along the beach. There was a little shack on the beach where a family was cooking shrimp and fish tacos for fishermen to make a few dollars to try and get by. Steve quietly found out information about the family and when he got home he sent them a very large care package. When a lady that worked for him with a cleaning service died he paid for all the funeral costs for the family.

I have never seen such a diverse group of speakers as those who spoke at Steve's memorial service. There was the president of SCORE national Baja off road racing organization, the governor of Idaho, the BSU president, the BSU tennis coach, A CEO of an aviation company, and the president of the national Semiconductor association. All of these people were greatly impacted by Steve and expressed how deeply people in their respective worlds would miss him.

I'm sure that my thoughts hear only begin to scratch the surface of all the peoples lives that were touched by Steve over the years, but I think anyone who had the opportunity to know him at all were blessed to see something very rare... Rest in peace Steve.

Support for Obama

I've read some reasons why some young people support Obama- Let's look at some of those here-

Health-care- Eliminated no coverage for preexisting conditions; made coverage more affordable for small businesses; raises age kids can be on parents policies; removed lifetime caps.

This one is so huge it could consume volumes, but lets consider the items listed. Why have preexisting condition clauses existed in the first place? It's simple economics- the plans get more expensive for everyone if they have to take all preexisting conditions. This does not mean there are not some ways to deal with gaps, but it does not need to take a whole national health-care to do it. The comment that it has made it more affordable for small businesses is just silly. We are talking about businesses that cannot afford to offer health-care in the first place, so how does forcing them to do so make it more affordable? What it does is causes them to go out of business or lay people off. This does not even start to take on the fact that many businesses will drop coverage all together because for many it will be more affordable to pay the fine for not offering coverage than it will be to offer coverage and those will have to be covered by the government. Now, why is it a positive thing for kids (no that's adults) to be on parents policies until they are 26??? That's just silly. What's so magic about 26? Why not 30? Why not 40? This again will cause insurance prices to go up. How is it right, or a good thing, that the government walks in to my employer and tells them that they have to keep my children on their insurance plans until they are 26? At what point should a kid (adult) earn their own way and provide for themselves? Finally the removal of lifetime caps- like preexisting conditions, this can be dealt with in other ways rather than all this national health-care. Again just removing these caps by decree will just make everyone else's rates go up. We have not even touched on the subject of what national health-care does to liberty or the fact that we can't afford it...

Ended war in Iraq and drawing war in Afghanistan to a close like he said he would.

Really? We are going to give him great credit for this? He didn't withdraw as soon as he said he would when he ran for office. Why? Because there was actually some objectives that needed to be achieved, and when done, war is supposed to end... Don't give me the tired phrase of him ending worthless wars. Did we do everything right in executing these wars? Probably not, but we did topple the Taliban which was harboring and colluding with Al Qaeda, finally got Osama, killed many terrorists outside of our country, got rid of Saddam who was funding Hamas, and fought Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq rather than in the US.

Thinks women should have access to free preventative health-care

Why do women, or anyone else for that matter, deserve "free" health-care of any kind? Nothing is free, so if some segment of the population is being given "free" health-care someone else is paying for it. I can't find any way of justifying that as being right. No matter how good it may make you feel, why should I have to pay for someone else's health-care. Honestly, do some actually believe that there are things that can given "free" without first taking away from others?

Believes in equality for all people-

This one is so false it is laughable! How is it equality for ~47% of people to pay zero taxes and everyone else is expected to cover all the expenses of the nation? OK, that's probably not what this comment was about, but really do people actually think that conservatives do not believe in equality for all people? The difference is what is meant by equality. Conservatives believe in the equality of the Constitution that all men are created equal and should be treated equally under the law (no special treatment for some groups), and that everyone should be free in their pursuit of happiness. Obama believes that everyone should be equal in the distribution of things- no that's not quite right- He believes that a few elites, who get to have more because they are above the masses, will benevolently take (by force) the product of other peoples labor and distribute it "equally" as those most noble elites decide best how to care for the masses. My wife tells me that this statement may be referring to Obama changing his stance on gay marriage, so just a couple comments on that. I have friends that believe that supporting gay marriage is more enlightened, shows that you are not bigoted, and demonstrates your strong stance on equal rights. I don't agree with those thoughts. Aside from my religious beliefs, the definition of marriage is a union between man and woman. That definition predates our constitution, our country, and all other countries. To try and redefine the meaning of marriage is to make marriage have no meaning at all (maybe that's the end goal...).

Signed the fair pay act-

Who was not getting fair pay, who determines what is fair pay, and who's pay is now different as a result of this legislation? Just saying it doesn't seem to stand out as noteworthy...

Promoting and investing in clean energy jobs-

Do I really even need to say anything more than Solyndra? First, no matter how many times you hear the words "investing" from the president, the government does not invest. Government only spends spends spends. The debacle with with the solar company is a perfect example of why the government should never be in the "investing" business for clean energy jobs or anything else. When the government picks winners and losers politics enters into it and money is wasted. If this is left to the free market real investment dollars will be focused toward those technologies that are economically viable. When the government subsidizes someone's pet technology we end up with bankrupt companies, 100's of millions of wasted taxpayer dollars, and windmills dotting the landscape. What's wrong with windmills? Just like several decades ago when the government subsides dry up the windmills will go away. If we were serious about wanting to increase the use of clean energy we would be focusing on building more nuclear power plants (maybe I'll address that in another blog).

Supports education by giving flexibility to no child left behind and by making college aid more available

For the flexibility with "no child left behind." If it's not a good policy why not just end it altogether? Making college aid more available? That comment doesn't make any sense. He eliminated most options for college aid. Now you can only get it though the government, but you used to be able to get it through lots of other lenders as well.

He thinks millionaires and billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us-

Like the rest of us?? I would wager that the person that wrote this statement doesn't pay a penny of taxes, so what could they possibly be getting at? Do today's brilliant thinkers ever stop to look at reality? Just to be clear- the top 1% of wage earners in the US pay 38% of taxes and the top 5% pay 59% of taxes, so under what justification can you assert that they are not paying their fair share? Look it up for yourself... What's more insidious about this is that the liberal elites are teaching a hatred of anyone who has more by making you think that the millionaires and billionaires only got that way by somehow taking advantage of everyone else. It really is the whole reason for the existence of the occupy crowd- the gimme gimme crowd.

Despite inheriting the worst economy since the great depression he added 2.6 million private sector jobs

Why do people constantly look for ways to give failed policies a pass? The economy was not at the worst since the great depression when he "inherited" it, but it was certainly going down quickly. What did Obama do? He made it worse with all his failed government spending. There is, in recent history, a direct economic comparison. When Regan took office we were in the midst of a severe economic recession, and in some ways it was worse than what Obama faced- Regan had high unemployment, but also had to deal with double digit inflation and interest rates that were about 20%. Regan and Obama enacted policies that were poler opposites of each other and the Regan recovery was rapid and lead to one of the longest times of economic growth in the US. Obama's failed policies have lead to a very anemic recovery and the prospects are not good for future growth either. Do we really believe we can avoid the economic realities that are facing Greece? Obama's latest budget proposal will take us quickly there to join them in the ranks of defaulting countries. You think this recession was bad, just wait for what is to come if we don't change direction soon...

Capitalism a Problem?

My daughter has just started college at BYUI. She is taking a sociology class and sent me a text that said "I need help with a sociology question: Why does the rise of capitalism effect how our society functions and how can we stop capitalism from becoming a problem?"

My jaw dropped; I didn't even know where to start. I felt slightly better to hear that it was a question from another student that she was supposed to respond to and not from the instructor. What I find so disturbing about this question is that it comes from a student at BYUI, because the student is most likely LDS and we believe (and teach) that the Constitution of The United States was inspired by God. Our Constitution is what sets up capitalism, because in order to have liberty you must also have economic liberty. Without the freedom to engage in commerce (or not); freedom to try; freedom to buy; freedom to sell; and freedom to fail there really is not liberty. Capitalism is fundamental to liberty- liberty does not really exist without it.

Let's take a look at that question in its parts- "Why does the rise of capitalism effect how our society functions..." Why? Because it is an integral part of our society from the beginning. It is the economic system that was brought into existence by the Constitution. Why? It is the only economic system that leaves all people free to improve their station in life. To move during a lifetime from the poor to the middle class to the wealthy is only possible under capitalism. Under all other ism's people are segregated into classes and the opportunity to move upwardly is nearly impossible. The question seems to be asked as if it is a bad thing that capitalism impacts our society, but on the contrary, its impact is positive. With this system products and services are offered based on the demands of the customer rather than a central planned economy where products and services are provided at the direction of a government bureaucrat.

The next part of the question "... how can we stop capitalism from becoming a problem?" It doesn't become a problem, however, there probably is some confusion on this given all the recent economic trouble our country has experienced. Our economic meltdown was caused, not by capitalism, but by government regulation, interference, and medaling in the markets. Yes greed becomes a problem when, driven by government mandates, men act in ways that they would not otherwise act. Very quickly- the government and regulators were threatening banks if they did not start lending more to minorities and poor action would be taken against them. When coupled with pressure from the government and implied associations that if it all went bad that the government would bail them out, many were driven to behave in non-capitalistic ways. The whole housing finance economic meltdown is a perfect example of the serious dangers when you leave capitalism and embrace government involvement in the markets. Under capitalism the decision to give someone a loan is solely based on an individual's ability to pay- this is not how lending institutions were behaving.

Capitalism is what made the USA a great nation. It is the system we have brought to many parts of the world and, to the extent that other countries have instituted capitalist principles, they have prospered. For more on the Lord's economic plan check out my blog with that title.

The Right Path for the Nation

Leading up to the Civil War the country was deeply divided over slavery. The political parties began to be divided largely based on their stance on slavery. The Republican party was born during this time made up of former Whigs, a group that had been labeled “know-nothings” and disenchanted Democrats, and it was the home of the abolitionists. The Democrat party was strongly on the pro-slavery side. Despite this great divide in the nation the Republicans would back down and placate the democrats for years rather than stand for the principles that they believed in. It was thought that these efforts to compromise would keep the country together as one, but it always included the continuation and expansion of slavery. When Lincoln was elected president as a Republican that was known to oppose slavery, the South went into a frenzy and immediately started the ball rolling for succession. They did this despite the pledges prior to and after the election by Lincoln that he would not interfere with the Souths current “legal” slavery. Lincoln quickly realized that military action was the only hope to save the country. When the war started the Emancipation Proclamation had not even been drafted, because initially the thought was that they would bring the erring Southern States back into the fold as they were. Eventually Lincoln saw that the time was now to stand for what was right and he issued the proclamation. The price and pain caused by the civil war was extreme. It cost more than 700,000 casualties and the pain of families literally torn apart and turned against each other. This was the price to be paid to eliminate the blight of slavery.

Thomas Jefferson had worked throughout his life to put policies and laws in place that would peacefully phase out slavery, but he was never able to get those policies to pass. He had stated that if we do not put these policies into place to phase out slavery it will require bloodshed for it to end. He was very prophetic.

What does this have to do with today? The principles of what happened then can be applied to our current situation in America. We are a nation deeply divided over the social and economic direction of the country. The Democrat party has, for many years, pushed us toward European style socialism, and the Republicans for far too long have placated the Democrats in the name of compromise. The problem is that compromise has become known as a continuing march towards socialism (sometimes the pace is faster or slower, but it keeps moving). We are in a state today where many want to deny that there is a problem and keep the quickening pace to socialism on course, despite the glaring financial realities and the European examples in Greece and Italy (with more to come) of the financial disaster awaiting us if we continue on this self destructive path. There is nothing good down this path, and it is a crossroads time not unlike Lincoln's day when it is time to stand for the right and move in that direction with alacrity. Can we do this without pain? No. The hard corrections needed, will cause a lot of financial pain to those who have depended on the government for their jobs and well being. The other path, however, ends with a much worse scenario. Consider how life in North America would be different today if the North had just let the South walk away and the country was forever splintered in two… Consider what life will be like if the dollar loses its status as the world's reserve currency; if taxes are raised significantly in a seriously floundering economy; and if our debt is allowed to continue on its path of growth. If the country would have adopted Thomas Jefferson's policy and law proposals we could have eliminated slavery without the extreme pain of the Civil War. If “we the people” would have held our elected officials to the standards in the declaration and constitution over the last many decades, we would not be in the economic, social, and political mess that we are in today.

It is time to stand firm on correct principles. It is time to emphatically turn down any “compromise” that is defined by continuing to tread down the same wrong path. It is time to make the hard and sometimes painful decisions to preserve our nation as the example to the world of individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Independance Day

On the back of our dollar bill we see both “In God We Trust” and above the all seeing eye and unfinished pyramid “Annuit Coeptis” (with God's favor or God is with us)- not just nice phrases, but slogans that held deep meaning to the Founding Fathers-

As summer of 1776 approached the nation was already at war with Briton. Washington’s troops had suffered large losses at Boston.

Thomas Jefferson showed up in Philadelphia as a delegate to Congress on May 14^th. He didn't really want to be there- His mother and one of his daughters had recently died; his wife was also very ill. On top of this, back home in Virginia, the state was working on a constitution, and Jefferson desperately wanted to help write it. He sent a letter requesting a leave from the Continental Congress, but his request was denied.

Jefferson had another divinely appointed role to play!

In early June a committee was chosen to write a document declaring their independence from the crown consisting of (Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson). Rather than try to write the declaration by committee, they selected Jefferson to write it.

Thomas Jefferson was more prepared than any other of the Founders for the task at hand. He was relentless from a young age in the pursuit of knowledge. He started studying Greek and French at age nine; entered the College of William and Mary at age 16, graduated at age 19; immediately started five years of intensive study with George Wythe becoming a talented lawyer. During this time, he was known to spend 12 to 14 hours a day studying. He became proficient in five languages, studied Greek and Roman classics; European and English history; and the Old and New Testaments. He studied law, languages, physics, agriculture, mathematics, philosophy, chemistry, anatomy, zoology, botany, religion, politics, history, literature, rhetoric, and on and on.

Jefferson spent 17 days drafting the declaration. A large portion of it is the reciting of the abuses of the King which were mostly copied from other things that he had already written and would have only taken him maybe a day to put together. He spent the majority of time writing and re-writing the first two paragraphs. In these two short paragraphs he captured at least eight of what he called “ancient principles” on the proper role of government and the rights of man. He accomplished an amazing feat of packing the guiding principles of our new nation so clearly and briefly.

On July 4^th the Congress as a whole approved the declaration. It was read in public a few days later and celebrations followed. People cheered, bells rang, and many celebrated all night (The Making of America).

Trust in God is evident in the first paragraph when Jefferson wrote that they had the right to “…assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…”

The start of the next paragraph was an eye opener to many who did not think this way…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

These were amazing words to a new nation looking for guiding principles regarding liberty and freedom. They set the founding principles that would guide the direction of the constitutional convention later.

Word of the Declaration got to Washington and his solders. It lifted their spirits and caused celebrations. It gave them clear purpose for why they were fighting…

Washington, that summer, was preparing to protect New York from invasion of a large British force that took place in August. He made a couple critical mistakes. First, he was afraid that the likely target of Long Island would be a ruse and that the British might attack first New York itself, so he split his army in half between the two. Second a road called Jamaica Pass leading into Long Island had largely been left ignored.

The British did attack on Long Island. When the battle started the Americans thought for a few minutes that they were winning, but did not realize that 10,000 solders that had marched down Jamaica Pass were about to attack their flank. The Americans retreated in chaos back through a swamp. They lost many men and were driven back to the East River. They joined a fort there where Washington was waiting. The army had nowhere to go. The British general ordered a stop to the attack and had to repeat it several times because the solders could tell they were about to crush the Americans.

How could Washington possible save these men? Loosing this much of his army would mean almost certain failure in the war. If the British fleet was able to sail up river there would be no possible path of retreat. A storm came up with a strong wind that made it impossible for the British fleet to sail up river. A plan to bring Washington's army across the river in small row boats was hatched. As they got started they found it impossible to row boats across the river against the strong winds and waves, but shortly the wind died down and switched allowing a quick row across the river. They were making progress, but morning was coming and still much of the army was on Long Island. They were sure to be seen now. As the sun started coming up a thick and dense fog rose all around the river. Men and trees were hard to see at 5 feet and completely disappeared at 10 feet. Washington was in the last boat to leave. The fog shortly lifted shortly after the last boat and within two hours, the British stormed the front lines and fort finding it deserted.

Impossibly out numbered and out maneuvered Washington and his army was saved by divine Providence and despite being demoralized and loosing many men, he still had an army which would be able to eventually secure the freedom of the new nation.

“In God we trust” and “Annuit Coeptis” from the Continental Congress to the battle fields culminating with victory at Yorktown God’s hand was certainly with these men as they set out to bring individual freedom and liberty back to the earth. Today as we remember the founding of The United States of America and the Declaration of Independence let us also remember and take note of the true source of our freedom and liberty and that they are granted by God and not by man or by governments. Let us put our “firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” and “pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Happy Independence Day!

Obama Supporters

When will the remainder of people that still support Obama and give him passing marks wake up?

I think it safe to say that most everyone understands the negative impacts of nearly $4 a gallon gas has on the economy, prices, and on individuals, but Obama supporters apparently don’t take seriously the fact that prior to the election he said himself that “under my plan energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.” Do people think he was kidding or is it just the idea that “well this isn’t really his plan; the gas prices have gone up drastically because of demand and all the unrest in the Middle East?” If things can happen to help him implement his plan without putting all of his policies into place, certainly he will take advantage of that. He used the gulf oil leak as a reason to stop granting drilling permits and even revoked some on-land permits in Colorado. It was his own chief of staff that said “never let a crisis go to waste.” Now the CEO of GM has come out saying he wants to see an increase in gas tax… Why? To push people towards more economical cars (I guess since no one wants to buy the Chevy Volt he wants the government to put more price pressure on us to “encourage” us to make the purchase that he would like us to make.). We could go on here, but the purpose of this writing is not to discuss only oil prices…

Obama has held up Spain as the standard by which we should model our new “green” economy. I could understand from the “environmentalist” standpoint if he had made such a claim a decade or more ago before the realities of what Spain has done are there for everyone to see. For every green job that Spain created two jobs were lost. The unemployment rate in Spain for 2010 was ~20%. Obama supporters should have been freaking out that their guy would hold up a miserably failing country as some kind of standard.

The selling points that Obama gave his healthcare plan was to cut and control costs, and to get more people covered, but the government's own budget office has reported again and again that the healthcare plan will cause significantly increased government spending, and it will be ineffective at controlling any costs. It also encourages employers to drop people that are already covered. In the end there is no way that this will work without significantly increased tax rates and rationing of care given. It is rationed everywhere in the world that healthcare has been nationalized, so what possible rational can supporters put forward that we will somehow be different? What it does do regardless of anything else is gives government control of a significant portion of everyone's life.

What about the impact of increased regulations? We could go on and on about increase regulations within healthcare; the burden is enough that over 1400 companies and unions have received waivers for parts of the law…, but let’s bring up a few others. The EPA is being used to implement their own version of cap and trade for carbon emissions even though this had failed to pass through the legislative process (an energy company just announced that it will close five coal plants in order to conform to these new regulations). These are the policies that Obama was referring to when he said that energy prices would skyrocket. The FCC has started issuing internet regulations even though both congress and the courts have said that this is outside the authority of the FCC (they did it anyway). The new financial industry regulations (these passed by the legislative process), which are supposedly to protect us from greedy unscrupulous Wall Street executives causing another financial meltdown (that is the topic of another blog), add lots of costs to doing business along with setting up a permanent “bail-out” fund for continued government meddling and intervention and ongoing costs to the taxpayer.

So what? How do all these things tie together? The thing to consider is what impact all this has on individuals. Everything we are talking about here makes living more expensive. What impact does that have on the poor and middle class? This makes it much harder for the lower and middle classes to travel, go on vacations, or do much more than stay in their own home town. The current White House administration has put forward their vision for communities of the future many times. This vision is about “livable communities” where people can go to work, go out to eat, go to a grocery store, and go to a movie without ever having to drive or own a car. Here is the big problem- this administration and others in power know that we would not choose to live this way, because we like the freedom to travel, go to the beach, and see the sites across this country, so how do you force “the masses” to do what “ruling class” thinks best? You gain control of large segments of the economy, make the cost of living very high, and increase the dependence on the government. At that point the government can control the lives and movements of “the masses” at the whim of whoever is in power.

Is this just crazy talk? You be the judge…

Did Greedy Execs Really Cause the Problem?

All the events with the economic meltdown in the housing finance industry made me think about reality and rational behavior... We are told (over and over) that the whole problem came from greedy wall-street executives, that they were purposely giving out loans to people who could not afford them, and that we need more regulation to stop it from happening again! But does that make any sense? Let's first ask some basic questions.

Pretend that you are a business owner- What is the basic reason that you are in business, or the reason why you engage in any business transaction? To earn a profit. If you thought of something else, then you may want to think about the question some more. If your first motivation isn't first to make a profit, then you can't really ever accomplish any of your other desires like providing meaningful employment or other worthwhile goals. Say that you are a banker- For what purpose would you give a person a loan? To earn a profit! There can't be any other reason otherwise you will not stay in business long. How would you determine who to give a mortgage to? Would it be based on the person's need, based on whether or not they deserved a house, or would it be based on an analysis of whether the person will likely be able to pay the payments? Clearly you would look at the applicant and weigh the risk of giving that person a mortgage, and if the risk was high that he or she would default, you would not make the loan.

If these banks executives were driven solely by greed in pursuit of profit, then does it make any sense that they would give loans to people who they knew could not afford them? No. People defaulting on the loans that you give them is not a way to gain profit. So, if it doesn't make sense that greed was driving the lending behavior, something else must have motivated such industry wide behaviors...

"I'll give you a hint. Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." Francisco d'Anconia to Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged

The behavior was going on, however, my purpose is not to answer the question of why the behavior was going on, but to point out that the reason we have been told doesn't make sense. It has contradictions. There are lots more questions to ask about this episode in our history. Keep asking them, and you will likely find that lack of regulation was not even a small factor... You may even find that those calling for more regulations were a large part of the problem to begin with.

There is a new book out (I have not read it but plan to) that addresses the behaviors that were going on. The book is- Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon
By: Gretchen Morgenson, Joshua Rosner

Gretchen is a business writer for the New York Times

Do Boot-Camp Workouts "Work"- A Case Study

I am a casual mountain bike rider (casual because when the weather turns cold, my bike goes into hibernation, and during the “good” weather season my rides can often get put off for other priorities). For the last 15 or more years, each year, I have mountain biked up the quarry trail in Boise up to the table-rock cross, so I have a pretty long standing baseline to judge my fitness level. On the first ride of the year this is my typical baseline- About half way up the trail my heart is pounding well into the anaerobic phase, and my breathing is fast with heavy gasps for oxygen. Some years I do not make it to the top on my first ride of the season, but in years when my fitness is a little better I have to stop once or twice to rest before I make it to the top. When I get to the top I am typically moments away from collapse, and I must get off and spend several minutes recuperating and getting my breathing under control before I can start the ride down. As the riding season continues I can ride to the top without stopping but typically with still a couple minutes of recuperation time at the top.

This year on New Year’s Day I started doing boot-camp workouts three times a week for 45 minutes at FitMania. After a cold wet spring, finally on Saturday May 21st, I got my new mountain bike out (Christmas present) for its first ride in the dirt. I was a bit concerned about my energy level as I started my ride towards the quarry trail, because I had spent Friday night camping with some boy scouts who kept me up well past 1:00AM… I got to the trail, about a 5 mile ride from my house, and started up. I got through the first section with relative ease and was feeling pretty good. At about the half-way point I was breathing comfortably, but my legs were feeling a bit fatigued. On this trail, the last three sections are the worst- one climb straight toward the hill-top, then a left turn and steep climb up to an outcropping of rocks, followed by a right turn and the last long climb up to the top. As I headed into these last three sections I started entertaining thoughts about where would be a good place to stop and go back, but I finished the first climb and turned left heading up to the rocks and I was feeling OK. My legs, again, were feeling the fatigue, but I was still moving at a reasonable pace. When I made the right turn for the final climb to the top, I realized that I was going to make it all the way without stopping. As I reached the top I slowed my bike, popped my feet out of the clips and got off the bike. As I stood there, I realized that I did not need to rest before heading back down and that I was ready to go! The ride down and back to my house was much stronger than I was expecting it to be. In my 15+ years of riding this trail, I have never had this good of a ride on my first ride of the season!

Thanks Boot-Camp workouts and thanks FitMania!

Econ. Bottom up or Top Down

Top down vs. bottom up-

Many economists today teach that Keynesian (top down) economics has failed. This is also the learning that I was lead to understand in my MBA economics classes, so for this writing we are going to assume that this is true.

This leads to the question- if top-down economics has failed then why do we continue to see government intervention, stimulus packages, increased regulations, and favorite industry subsidies? If all these actions have negative impact on the economy, then what is the motivation behind our government's actions? Some possible answers-

Our leaders-

1) are simply incompetent.

2) don't believe what the data is telling them.

3) believe they can plan and spend your money better than you can.

4) are power hungry, seek to control the lives of others, and see themselves as a ruling class who are above the "masses."

Sadly for many of our leaders all four of these exist to some extent or another. You don't have to look very far to see the evidence of incompetence- when a high ranking official calls extending unemployment benefits one of the best job creation stimulus methods not much more needs to be said.

What about those who don't believe what the data is telling them? Many fall into this trap republicans and democrats. Before he left office President Bush started with the first stimulus and started pushing for bailouts of the auto industry. President Obama came into office to fire off a huge 2nd stimulus and bailouts of the auto and financial industries. This was followed by a jobs bill and more. Surely at least one of these presidents saw economic data that showed that this kind of market intervention is ineffective at best and destructive at worst, but clearly they did not believe it. You can get away with ignorance by claiming "just think how bad it would have been if we would not have acted." Regardless of such silly claims, just consider where our economy now stands. A rational mind will say that we probably did no good with these measures and certainly made things worse for the long run.

The "do gooders" as Reagan called them believe, regardless of what reality and data says, that if they are in charge of spending, job creation and all economic planning that they can create a utopian society. It doesn't matter that no one has ever succeeded in creating such a utopia with these methods, because surely it has not succeeded because "they" were not the ones to implement the scheme. Not believing actual life data makes this group no better than the ignorant and possibly much more dangerous.

Finally the power hungry- Many of us average folks have a hard time believing that we have any leaders who view themselves as being in the ruling class and above the "masses" seeking for power over others, but let's not fall for the same fail mode of not believing the data. When our leader says "with my plan [energy] rates will necessarily skyrocket" how can this possibly be justified as a reasonable policy. We could review the "reasons" stated by leaders and in the media why we would want such policies, but let's not... Instead consider the effects of these kinds of policies. What is the best way to control the behavior of all the "masses" in a country of people who love liberty? Make the costs of living high enough that the lower and middle classes can no longer afford to travel and move about the country. Add to those costs government controlling more and more areas of our life (health-care) and "their" power over the "masses" grows quickly. Before I get accused of being crazy and seeing conspiracies where none exist, can you really believe that we have wonderful benevolent leaders and government who exist solely to do what is best for every one of us? Who is the crazy one? Washington knew what he was talking about when he said-

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

"Plans by the many not by the few" is the fundamental aspect of economic liberty and freedom. Not only do we loose that liberty with Keynesian type policies it is also destructive to the economic health of the country.