Me Injun

            Elizabeth Warren, Senate hopeful from Massachusetts, recently made news with reports that she had used a highly doubtful claim of Native-American ancestry to obtain preferential treatment as a minority. I had to chuckle at this cynical and absurd ploy, because I could have done the same thing myself.

            Not long ago my sister Louise and I decided to do our family tree. The research was great fun. By the time we finished, we had documented ancestors going back to 16th century France. Fortunately, we got plenty of help from genealogical societies and one book in particular that detailed my paternal grandparents' lines back to the very earliest settlement of their village in Canada. We also had a family photo album that my grandparents had maintained religiously over the years. The most intriguing photos, however, were found in a shoebox. Of those, the most startling was a tintype of my maternal grandmother's mother.
            She had very definite features of a Native-American.
            "I knew it!" blurted my sister. "We have Indian blood coursing through our veins."
            Louise had insisted for years, even before our genealogical research, that we must have had an infusion of aboriginal genes somewhere in our ancestry. That's because our dad looked like he could have posed for the Indian nickel. He had high cheekbones, a swarthy complexion, a prominent hooked nose, and straight jet-black hair. In addition, he shared  those characteristics with one of his brothers, and passed some of them on. We were not able to trace our great-grandmother's line back far enough to prove our Indian ancestry, but it was enough for me to shout, "I could have  built a casino!"
            Joking aside, claims of special status based on remote connections to a minority group are laughable. Worse, they are racist and un-American. They are no better than demands of reparations for ills committed generations ago.
            All Americans are descendants of people who were oppressed,  some more than others to be sure, but vilified in one way or another. American history  is filled with stories of religious persecution, famine, tyranny, enslavement, and murderous bigotry. Fortunately, these tales of human degradation are overshadowed by stories of courage in the face of adversity, determination to succeed, indomitable spirit, and struggle for freedom and equality.
            It is high time for Americans of all colors, creeds, and ancestries to reject policies of class warfare and divisiveness, the cult of victimhood, and the culture of imagined rights and unearned entitlements.
            We are not a hyphenated people. We are Americans. Let us celebrate our diverse heritage, but let us not forget our motto, E pluribus unum.

Whose Social Justice?

            I have always refrained from including religion as a factor in any discussion of issues. I must now make an exception to this self-imposed rule.

            I will not take a position on abortion, contraception, or same-sex marriage. Enough has been said on both sides of these issues. But I would like to address the question of social justice, a term that, in my view, has been used and misused by both our government and our religious institutions.
            In the context of our Judeo-Christian heritage, social justice has come to mean how we approach equality, fairness, and compassion, specifically with regard to the poor, the sick, and the disadvantaged. Christians, in particular, turn to the teachings of Jesus as a guide to the love and care of others. In the extreme, he would have us sell everything we own and give the proceeds to the poor. Unless we have the convictions of a Francis of Assisi,  we are not likely to find this advice terribly practical. So we form communities that translate our good intentions into programs run by civic and charitable organizations. Fortunately, Americans have been most generous in this regard.
            The church--and I use the term in the most inclusive sense--also seems to support social justice as a function of government. I cannot recall any sermon objecting to welfare in its various incarnations, to redistributive policies to achieve equality of outcomes, to calls for fairness through increased taxes on the rich, or to the role of government in defining what's good for every segment of our society.
            On the surface, these two methods of achieving social justice seem to be compatible: if individuals can't do it, then let the state do it. There is a flaw, I think, in that view. Jesus never appealed to the Romans or to the Jewish state to care for its citizens; he preached directly to individuals to love and care for the least of their brothers. He said the rich should be generous; but he did not advocate forced redistribution to achieve fairness.
            More importantly, Jesus would not have viewed equality of outcome as a goal of social justice. His parable justifying unequal pay for workers in the field would not be viewed as fairness by our government. Further, his parable on talents underlines the fact that we are not equally gifted, but that we should make the most of our opportunities. This sounds to me very much like the principles underlying capitalism and free markets, not the progressive policies of president Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate.
            Is there a moral argument to be made here? I think so. Is it not more moral to achieve fairness through individual freedom than to compel it through coercive methods? Is it not more moral to allow people to keep more of what they earn than it is to take more and more of it in increased taxes? Is it not more moral to create opportunities for individuals to succeed than to pursue policies that enslave half our population in a hopeless cycle of dependency? Is it not more moral to give citizens confidence in their leadership's fiscal responsibility than to saddle them with a debt they and their offspring cannot hope to repay?
            In sum, it is more moral, in my view, for a government to achieve social justice by encouraging individual talents and resourcefulness that benefit society as a whole than to mandate it through over-taxing, over regulating, and punishing success. And It is more moral for our churches to preach individual generosity than to support elected officials who cynically espouse a phony compassion to ensure their survivability.

The EPA War

            In a recent (4/12/12) blog I accused the Obama administration of waging a war on fossil fuels by using the EPA to bypass Congress to, among other things, prevent domestic oil and gas exploration. As if on cue, the EPA has made my case.

            As evidenced by a video made by Al Armendariz, a top EPA administrator, we now know that the EPA's philosophy is to "crucify" oil and gas companies and "make examples" of them. Armendariz compared this tactic to the Romans' use of crucifixion as a method of subjugating conquered villages.
            The clear purpose, according to Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, is to incite fear in the public with unsubstantiated claims and intimidate oil and gas companies with threats of unjustified fines and penalties. Inhofe cited the example of the EPA's targeting of natural gas producers in Pennsylvania, Texas,  and Wyoming with a claim that hydraulic fracturing was a cause of water contamination. The EPA has never produced any scientific evidence to support that claim.
            Another tactic used by the administration to wage war on fossil fuels is through EPA regulations. The prime target here is the coal industry. Clean air regulations issued by the EPA make it financially impossible for the industry to upgrade old plants or build new ones.
            What will happen if coal-fired energy plants have to shut down? Hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs, including not just workers in coal-fired plants, but also in the mines that supply the coal and the railroads and ships that transport it.  In West Virginia, a state with a population of only 1.2 million, an estimated 40,000 workers would join the unemployment lines.
            Coal accounts for just about half of the electrical energy produced in this country. And there is enough coal in the ground to last another 100 years. You just can't replace this resource with green energy, not with wind and solar that produce a measly 1% of electrical energy, and, as evidenced by the failure of companies like Solyndra, hold doubtful promise for the future.
            The best replacement for coal, over time, is natural gas. It is plentiful, clean, and cheap. It is so cheap, in fact, that some companies are cutting back on production because they can't make a profit. Wouldn't it make more sense for President Obama to clear the decks for the increased use of natural gas in our power plants and in our transportation industry? But for that he would have to call off the dogs at the EPA.
            With the EPA advocating crucifixion of the oil and gas industry and attempting to regulate the coal industry out of existence, it seems to me that the president has let go the leash and has no intention of retrieving it.     

Scandals and Wars

            Why should anyone be surprised by the GSA scandal?

            A million-dollar party in Las Vegas featuring a clown and a mind reader for entertainment; an invitation to friends to join in the hot tub fun; a blast in Hawaii followed by side trips with the wife to the South Pacific. Let's spend all the money in the budget so we can ask for an increase next year. 

            Why not? The boss does it. Christmas in Hawaii, a vacation in Martha's Vineyard with a special plane for the family and the dog, vacations in Spain and Colorado and a safari in South Africa for the wife and her entourage; and let's fly up to New York on Air Force One to take in a Broadway show while we're at it.

            Why not? It's all on the taxpayer's dime, isn't it?  After all, we are the royal family, aren't we? Well, maybe we don't wear crowns, but at least we're entitled to be treated like we do.
            When the man at the top sets the example, is it any surprise that his minions follow it? 

            I'm afraid we're looking at a prevailing culture of corruption in Washington that permeates everything. It's the corruption of moral values (Secret Service scandal). It's the corruption of the truth (Fast and Furious). It's the corruption of a political system that was meant to serve the people, but now serves only special interests and personal agendas.

            We now have  the politics of class warfare, divisiveness, and envy. We are encouraged every day by our president to despise the 1% at the top who don't pay their fair share. Never mind that this 1% pays 40% of federal taxes while the bottom 50% pay nothing at all.  Never mind that this 1% includes the bulk of small business owners and job creators.
            We now have the politics of ideological warfare against free enterprise and conservative principles. No targets are spared. Not business and trade associations, not talk radio, not Fox News, not the Republican House, not the Supreme Court, not even the Constitution.
             We now have the politics of warfare against fossil fuels. It's not enough to demonize oil speculators and oil companies, the administration has to use the EPA to bypass Congress to destroy the coal industry, to prevent domestic oil and gas exploration, and to shut down refineries.  And let's not build a pipeline to import oil from Canada, either.          
            Finally, we have the politics of warfare against those like Congressman Ryan who would dare submit a budget to rein in out-of-control spending. Never mind that the president's budget for increased spending was voted down unanimously by Congress. Never mind that the Democrat-controlled Senate, in direct violation of its constitutional obligations, hasn't passed a budget in over a thousand days. A $16 trillion dollar debt is only paper money, after all.
            Domestic enemies like these do redefine the role of Commander-in-Chief, don't they?

Lots of Uglies

            A blog reader just took me to task for calling windmills ugly. She proceeded to list her own "uglies," including strip mining, fracking, critics of President Obama, power companies, and industries that don't clean up their messes.

            Fine. She is entitled to her own opinion, as am I. But she should be careful to get her facts straight before firing broadsides in every direction. And she should concede that there are valid arguments on both sides.
            Take coal, for instance. Sure, strip mining does scar the landscape, and coal-fired plants do emit CO2 into the atmosphere. But coal presently accounts for almost half of our electricity production, compared to 0.9% for wind and 0.1 % for solar. Clearly, renewable energy sources are not about to replace fossil fuels anytime soon. Yet, this has not stopped our president from wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on failures like Solyndra, Beacon, Ener1 and Abound, while waging war on the coal industry with regulations that make it prohibitively expensive to build new power plants or upgrade old ones.
            Is this a just war? Let's ask the million people who would lose their jobs as a result of an Obama victory. And how will we all feel when Obama's prediction that "costs of electricity will necessarily skyrocket under my administration" becomes a reality?
            The president's war on fossil fuels extends to oil as well. The only way to reduce the price of gas at the pump is to reduce our reliance on imports from OPEC. Yet, this administration has done everything to prevent an increase in our domestic production. When he boasts that domestic production is higher today than at any time since 2003, he is mouthing a clever lie. The fact is that today's production level is not based on anything he has done, but on decisions made before he became president and by private companies, not the government.       

            Further, the assertion by my critic that "more oil and drilling has taken place on federal land than in any previous time" is flat out wrong. The fact is that fossil fuel production on federal lands recently hit its lowest point in nine years. How did the administration do it? 1) By cancelling oil and gas leases in Utah, the western Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic coast; 2) by delaying exploration off the coast of Alaska and keeping onshore areas off limits; 3) by erecting more regulatory hurdles to onshore oil and gas production; and 4) by pursuing climate change lawsuits that have prevented oil and gas exploration in places like Montana.

            One final point on those bad guys, the oil companies. My critic seems to have a problem with oil companies making a profit. OK, let's pick on Exxon Mobil for starters. In the five years prior to 2010 It earned  $40.5 billion domestically.. But it paid $59 billion in total U.S. taxes. That's $1.45 in taxes for every dollar in profits. Worse, in 2010 its tax bill was three times larger than its domestic profits. The administration should be deliriously grateful for such a generous contribution.
           The oil industry as a whole has an effective tax rate of 41.1% compared to 26.5% for other manufacturers. Still Obama must be calling that not paying a fair share, because his latest budget would raise another $85 billion in new taxes on oil companies over the next decade.
           There arre ways to solve our energy crisis other than by destroying a vital industry like coal or killing the golden oil goose. I don't have room here to discuss natural gas and fourth generation nulear plants, both of which hold great promise for the long term. But first we should stop the vilification of fossil fuels and release OPEC's strangle hold by accessing the vast resources we have in the ground and off our shores.

The Next Revolution

            The Hearst Corporation is the largest privately-owned communications company in the nation. In addition to 15 newspapers, 29 television stations, and cable properties that it owns in whole or in part (The History Channel, A&E, ESPN), it publishes 20 nationaL magazines like Good Housekeeping, Redbook, O, Esquire, Popular Mechanics, Harper's Bazaar, Marie Claire, and Road & Tack, among others. When I went to work for Hearst in New York in 1969, magazine subscriber lists were maintained on a phalanx of enormous IBM computers that worked day and night. Today, all that information can be accessed on a desktop.

            We are in the midst of a technological revolution. Just ask anyone who owns an I-Pad or streams Netflix on his TV...or works for Hearst. New applications are coming out so fast, they leave old guys like me in the dust. But the transformation brought on by computers is far from over.

            I think the next revolution affecting families will be in education. It has already begun. Go into any elementary or high school today, and you are likely to see kids sitting in front of computer screens learning math, science, history, and more. They love it and are good at it, because they have grown up in the computer environment.

            Dropping out of high school before graduation continues to be a problem. But now, kids don't have to go to night school to earn a GED like in the old days. They can earn one online at a very reasonable cost through programs offered by companies like Lincoln Academy.

            But here's the big one: I predict that  within ten years (and maybe a lot less), kids who want to go to college but can't afford it will be able to earn a college degree online. Already under development are MOOCs and MOOSes (Massive Open Online Courses and Seminars). Sure, kids with parents who can afford it will want to get that "college experience." But if tuition at a big private school costs upwards of $40,000 a year now, what will it cost ten years from now? Why not have access to the country's best professors right in your own living room at a tiny fraction of the cost?

            There are problems to be worked out, like testing and accreditation, but they are not insurmountable. My oldest granddaughter, who attends North Florida University while holding down a part-time job, is already doing supplemental course work at home and is excited about fitting more course work around her tight schedule.

            Not every college course can be taught online, of course. I doubt you will ever be able to earn a degree is medical forensics from your living room couch, no matter how many episodes of CSI you watch. But humanities? Why not?

            Wouldn't it be nice someday if those snobbish Ivy League schools had to compete for students?