It's As If....

Terence Jeffrey

In a September 2012 article, CNS News editor TerenceJeffrey reported voter turnout in recent presidential elections has exceeded the number of full time workers in the U.S.  That is to say, non-working voters ”outnumbered” workers.  He then described several other conditions that apparently affect presidential elections, such as the fact that more women are working than ever before, and food stamp benefits are much higher than in 1968.  Toward the end of his article, he attacked the number of employed Americans who work but do not pay taxes due to tax credits.  He concluded his article with the punch line, “The problem is that government has divided America into two camps: those who work and pay, and those who take and take.”

In Jeffrey’s theoretical second camp, those who “take and take”, he implicated non workers, part time workers, workers who qualify for food stamps, women, and workers who qualify for tax credits.  These descriptions encompass every single one of us, including Jeffrey himself.

Although Jeffrey’s factual data cannot be disputed, his implications and conclusions are despicable.  In order to make these destructive conclusions, he had to leave out huge amounts of contrary data: 

He did NOT tell us that in 16 presidential elections since 1952, 13 were decided by non-full time workers, while only 3 elections were controlled by full time workers.  The problem he describes is actually the historic norm.

He did NOT tell us that the opposite is true in EVERY off year election due to low voter turnout.   Full time workers theoretically control the outcome of ALL off-year elections.

He did NOT report that overall employment per capita has been higher in the last 30 years than ever before in U.S. history, with the exception of the war effort during WWII.

He also did NOT report that the recent increase of part time time workers is due to the lack of job openings after 2008, not due to people who are unwilling to work.

He also did NOT report that welfare benefits expanded significantly during the 1970’s and are remaining fairly consistent with the 40 year average relative to GDP.  There are more people on food stamps today, but each recipient is getting a smaller share.

He did NOT report that government expenditures have been shrinking over the course of the Obama presidency, down by 3.3% of GDP since Bush’s 2009 budget. 

And lastly, he did NOT report that Reagan tax reforms required poverty level workers to pay taxes while the wealthy enjoyed major tax cuts.  Reagan cut top tax rates to the lowest levels in 50 years, which continues to cause growing deficits.

It’s as if Jeffrey hen-pecked his data to create an extremely right-biased article.  Funny thing, since CNS News claims to eliminate bias.  Conservatives repeatedly accuse liberals of lying, while creating loads of misinformation like the above.  Jeffrey’s friends in the media have taken his article and run with it: Hannity, Limbaugh, and other AM radio hosts use this misinformation to rant about how we live in a taker’s welfare state, how the takers control elections, and how we had better prepare for the worst by stocking up on guns and ammo.  It’s as if conservatives are hoping for a war.  If there is “class warfare” in this country, it's as if it is being propagated by conservatives.

The bottom line is this:  The percentage of “providers” has risen in the last few decades, reaching its highest level in 1998 and coming down only a few percentage points in recent years due to economic change and job competition.  The percentage of “takers” is rising only among the elderly.  Overall spending on “entitlements” is up in recent years due to the increasing population of retired citizens, but Jeffrey doesn't mention this.  He tries to attribute the problem to American laziness, as if that were true.  

The wealthiest Americans are paying lower tax percentages than in the years from 1932 to 1986, yet they are complaining that poverty level wage earners are not paying enough.  It's as if the wealthy are the most "entitled".  To correct Jeffrey’s closing line, Conservatives have divided America into two camps: those who work and pay, and those who allegedly take and take.  As if the latter actually existed.

Tony F.   2013

A Physics Lesson about Life

Darkness cannot be created.  Darkness only describes the absence of light.  Without light, darkness prevails.  On the other hand, extreme light will slice through everything in its path.  Only the right amount of light can pierce the darkness and illuminate you.

Cold cannot be created.   Cold only describes the absence of heat.  Without heat, cold prevails.  Absolute zero is the total absence of heat.  On the other hand, extreme heat will burn and destroy.  Only the right amount of heat can melt through the cold and warm you.

Hunger cannot be created.  Hunger only describes the absence of nutrition.  Without nutrition, hunger prevails.  A total lack of nutrition creates starvation.  On the other hand, extreme nutrition creates obesity.  Only the right amount of nutrition can sustain you.

Apathy cannot be created.  Apathy only describes the absence of care.  Without care, apathy prevails.  On the other hand, extreme care causes jealousy, possessiveness, and smothering.  In the 1990 film “Misery”, Kathy Bates’ character cared about the novelist so intensely; she was willing to injure him to keep him in her care.  Only the right amount of care can comfort you. 

Anarchy cannot be created.  Anarchy describes the absence of governance.  Without governance, anarchy prevails.  With anarchy, justice is destroyed, except for the strongest and most equipped.  All others become their victims.  On the other hand, extreme governance creates tyranny and loss of freedom.  In this way, freedom and justice are opposing values.  Only the right amount of governance can provide both freedom and justice. 

Peace is misunderstood.  Peace cannot be created.  Peace only describes the absence of chaos.  Without chaos, peace prevails.  On the other hand, the desolation of outer space is extremely peaceful and we cannot survive there.  Solitary confinement is terribly peaceful and it is a hellish form of isolation.  Relative peace is good, but only when escaping chaos, and having the freedom to return to chaos.  Only the right amount of peace can calm you.  The right amount of chaos can excite and stimulate you. 

Truth is misunderstood.  Truth cannot be created.  Truth describes the absence of falsehood.  Without falsehood, truth prevails.  Truth is not subject to interpretation or modification, it simply exists.  On the other hand, absolute truth is not kind.  If someone you love is not looking their best, it is not a good idea to tell them the whole truth.  Unchecked truth is damaging.  In this way, some lies are supportive.  We often need to hear a well fashioned and well-intended lie from someone we love.  We trust a person who lies when we need it, and tells the truth when we can learn from it.  Jesus told many cryptic parables because he knew the bold truth was too harsh to handle.  It takes a very mature person to handle the naked truth.  We all wear clothing because we really don't want to know the naked truth about each other.  Only the right amount of truth can be productive.

The planet Earth is not too cold or too hot.  If it were, all life would perish.  Our planet travels at the perfect speed around the sun to keep it in equilibrium with the gravitational pull between masses.  All of life exists in this perfect balance - the fine point of equilibrium between nothing and everything, between scarcity and excess.  When we think of this fact in the universal sense, all of life exists at a tiny point at the center of vast extremes.  Balance creates life.  Extremism destroys.  Balance takes effort, strength, knowledge, understanding, and temperament.  Extremism is relatively effortless because it thrives on ignorance, weakness, and anger.

Find that very small place.  Find your balance.  Find goodness.

“Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life; and only a few find it. - Matthew 7:13”

Tony F.  2013

Shaken Up About "Fracking"

In a 1970 report, the USGS identified an apparent correlation between Colorado earthquakes and the deep injection of wastewater 12,000 feet deep into the earth’s crust at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, beginning in 1962.  According to the report, very few seismic events were reported in Colorado in the 100 years prior to 1962, but over 1,500 tremors, light earthquakes, and significant earthquakes occurred in the decade following the deep wastewater injection.  Most of these were not strong enough to be noticed by the public, but dozens of events caused varying degrees of damage and were relayed in the news.  There are numerous correlations of this kind throughout the U.S. over the last 50 years, most notably in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas, and Colorado, evidently related to deep wastewater injection.

Although the coincidence of earthquakes associated with deep wastewater injection appears inarguable, there is a misnomer when the press relates deep injection to “fracking”.  The two are not the same.  Deep wastewater injection is usually done at a depth of more than 10,000 ft., and it involves the permanent injection of fluids where they are able to cause an increase in seismic activity.  Conversely, hydraulic fracturing typically occurs at the depth of 3,000 to 6,000 ft., and involves the temporary injection of fluids.  A majority of these fluids are subsequently removed, leaving sand in the cracks.  According to most theories, this has the effect of reducing and absorbing seismic energy rather than causing it to radiate.

These key differences are rarely made clear by the media.  Although a measurable amount of wastewater from the energy sector is disposed through deep wastewater injection, it is not done during the “fracking” process.  Strangely, many of the news stories involving seismic risk tend to blur the line between "fracking" and injection, despite the fact that all reports about seismic risk are tied only to deep wastewater injection.  The two activities are easily confused, and the media is not making an effort to alleviate confusion as they jump on the bandwagon to hype up negative news about gas exploration.

One significant purpose for deep wastewater injection is the sequestration of carbon in the “clean burning” coal process.  Carbon is rinsed from coal and trapped in large quantities of water.  The water is then injected into deep wells to prevent CO2 from entering the atmosphere.  This process, which ultimately increases seismic activity, is just another black mark against the coal industry.  Without the “clean burning” process, and deep wastewater injection, coal is 7 times more carbon emitting than natural gas.  As major power companies plan for the inevitable requirement to reduce carbon in the power generation process, most are converting coal plants to natural gas.  The fuel source is less expensive, and the process is far less involved than the "clean burning" of coal.

I’ve written several posts in support of hydraulic fracturing and retrieval of methane.  One flaw in the gas network is the frequency of gas leaks, which release powerful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  The industry and lawmakers are working together to tighten regulations on leakage for this reason.  Although the process is not perfect, it is still far cleaner than coal and other fossil fuels.  The capturing of methane is identified by the EPA as our best short term solution to reducing greenhouse gases.  As more power plants and vehicle fleets continue convert to natural gas, our methods of capture and distribution also improve to create a cleaner natural gas network.  In my recent post, “No Alternative”, I made the case that alternative energy is also deeply flawed, so we must embrace the lesser of evils in our quest to reduce greenhouse gases.

That said, the potential for increased seismic activity due to deep wastewater injection may be an issue worth getting shaken up about.  So, please inform your friends and write your politicians about your opposition to deep wastewater injection, but be careful not to confuse it with hydraulic fracturing.  They are not the same.

Tony F.  2013

The Richest Men in America

During the turn of the century, 1870-1930, the wealthiest and most resourceful men in American history made their mark.  This was the time of Great Gatsby.  It was the pinnacle of the industrial revolution when great inventions were made and the world was changed forever.  The wealthiest men in American history were worth, in today’s dollars, anywhere from $34 billion to $340 billion each.  The last member of this elite group was Henry Ford, owner of the Ford Motor Company, who died in 1944 with an estimated net worth of about $160 billion in today’s dollars.

After Ford’s death, no American had a net worth greater than $8 billion in today’s dollars – less than one twentieth of the wealth of Henry Ford.  This trend continued until 1987 when Sam Walton broke into this elite class with an estimated adjusted net worth of $45 billion.  Then a remarkable set of events occurred.  In the same manner as the industrial revolution, the top earners in America experienced runaway wealth once again.  In the last 25 years, the accumulated total wealth in the Forbes 400 has now reached proportions not seen since the Jazz Age.  Since 1982, the total net worth of the Forbes 400 has risen by 1200 percent.  Average household income has risen by 263 percent over the same period.  Based on this trend, the turn of the century moguls who once owned the title of top 30 wealthiest Americans of all time, will be completely replaced by men who are growing richer today.

During the turn of the 20^th century, America was tainted by extreme separation of the rich from the poor.  The working class struggled to have their basic needs met.  The wealthy leveraged cheap labor for extreme personal gain.   In the period after WW2, however, America’s middle class gained strength through unionization, taxation, and social programs, thus narrowing the gap between rich and poor to a more sustainable level.  By nearly every historical account, including the reminiscence of our own parents, this period from 1944 to 1987 was the greatest period in American history.  From this observation, it appears the country is not doing as well today as we could be.  The rising wealth of the rich and a resulting weakening of the middle and lower classes is likely to be adding a strain to our economy.

Mark Zuckerberg

Not surprisingly, today’s billionaires do not look like the super-rich of yesteryear.   The richest men in American history are not wearing top hats, suits, and fur coats.  Today’s billionaire is much more humble.  Sam Walton took great pride in driving his old Chevy pickup each day.  Bill Gates, who is worth over 70 billion today, is seldom seen in more than a simple button up shirt.  Warren Buffett often argues that he should be taxed more heavily.  Mark Zuckerberg, worth about $20 billion, wears a hoodie at all times.  It’s difficult to loath this kind of humbleness, but it doesn’t change the fact that these men are growing wealth at a pace only seen once before in history.  If any of these men flaunted their wealth as Gatsby did, we most certainly would have a different attitude.

Let’s not forget, however, that the turn of the 20^th century was a historic period in terms of shaping our entire world.  The development of railroads, steel, oil, automobiles, and electricity helped create the modern age of the next 100 years.  The men who dedicated their lives to these changes became the richest men in America.  It seems that we are now in the midst of another revolutionary age which is far less visible.  Not surprisingly, a large majority of the billionaires on the Forbes 400 today are involved in computer technology.  We have yet to fully realize how computers are affecting our future, but we can be certain the changes are larger and more permanent than we realize.  With the use of computers and technology, corporations are providing more products with less labor, and making record profits.  Conversely, the wages of the average worker remain stagnant, except for a few who are leveraging technology in their favor.  Technological advances are not creating more jobs, instead they are reducing the labor needed to produce the same results.  In his book “Average is Over”, Tyler Cowen makes a very convincing argument that anyone who is not savvy with computers and technology will be underemployed and poor in the near future. 

I wrote about this historic shift in my post “Digital Economy”, January 2013.  The equation is simple; if you are working with a computer, you stand a chance of making a living.  If you are building robots, you stand a chance of living well.  If you are making computers or robots work even better, you may grow very wealthy.  But, if you describe yourself as being hands-on, in the trenches, and not comfortable with technology; you may need to be very concerned about how your future is being shaped by richest men in America.

Tony F.   2013