A Complementary/Contradictory View.

Taking the Long Way by Yuval Levin | Articles | First Things





Wanda Fries posted this on Facebook and it is a remarkable treatise on a free and liberal society.  I think in this reference that both conservatives and liberals (by the usual definitions) will be able to find revelation.  It is lengthy (by today's standards) and will require some furrowing of the brow to comprehend but it will prove beneficial to anyone who takes the time to do so.



Bob

The Conversation

In New York City the assembled police force has taken to turning their backs on the Mayor when he speaks in a flagrant show of disrespect. He has tried to raise the topic of inequitable treatment of some African-Americans by the police and some perceive his attempt as a lack of support for the police everywhere. It is a hazard inherent in trying to address complicated topics where there may be fault on all sides. You may have noticed that with some people there is a great reluctance to speak on certain topics such as religion, politics, governmental policy and many others. It's because we don't know how to talk about them and we don't know how to listen about them. I want to tackle a couple of those topics in this space and I hope I can do that without feeding the monster itself.

The last several months, heck, longer than that, have brought people into the streets to voice dislike of policies that seem to be discriminatory or just plain wrong-headed. The most recent is the example of demonstrations protesting the police shootings of unarmed black men and boys and the inability of our justice system to adequately address the shootings to the satisfaction of the public. It is critical that the public be satisfied because it is from “the consent of the governed” that our government derives its just powers. So, perceptions do matter. Recently the tide turned and two police officers were murdered by a man who made references to the shootings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown and who then shot himself. He was planning to kill himself anyway since he had already killed his girlfriend and decided to take a couple of cops with him. It was murder in a heartless and cold blooded way. Passions are high and public speech is trying to lead us to choose sides but we don't have to do that. There is plenty of blame to go around and the solution to the problem of justice and perception of justice does not lie in choosing sides.

Sometimes I am cautious about engaging in discussion of hot button topics because I just don't thrive on controversy. I much prefer sensible discussion and entertaining alternative viewpoints. For instance, while the murder of those police officers is deplorable it really has nothing to do with the complaints of those who are protesting what they perceive is unfavorable treatment of black males by the police. Our emotions are charged. We immediately go into fight mode to defend our perspective but that is not where the answers ultimately lie. The answers lie in a transparent, introspective look at what we ask our first responders such as police to do. Theirs is a difficult task, one that requires split second decision making and it must be acknowledged that mistakes will be made. Our task is to find agreement on how to minimize those mistakes and assure the public that every effort at justice and caution was observed. In each of these cases that has not been done. The system has rendered judgment in some cases but it has not been a transparent one and not one that is perceived as just.

Military conflict offers another potential conflict. Much has been made of the soldiers returning from Vietnam to less than respectful treatment and there is a national resolve to not allow that to happen again. That is admirable but that does not mean that it is necessary to endorse the military conflict into which our nation is thrust. It is quite possible to disagree with the militaristic posture and still be a patriot. Many good citizens may not accept the premise that is given to justify our use of military force but that does not diminish respect for those who act at their nation's request. So, the discussion should not be about whether we support our troops or not. It should be about whether or not our government exercised due diligence in asking those men and women to risk their lives so that we can continue to live without being subjected to danger or sacrifice. Did we exhaust all other alternatives? Is the cause so serious so as to require human lives be sacrificed or can we accept some other solution? I have to say that as long as the people of the United States allow their elected representatives to make war then we should be willing to accept responsibility and sacrifice accordingly. Those men and women that serve do so at our request and behest, like it or not. So, it is our profound responsibility to enter debate about policy and elect representatives that will represent our wishes.

In the case of our police things are a little different. They are not military but are civilians just like the rest of us. Their motto is To Protect and To Serve but that can't be done if they are allowed to use violence without being called to be responsible for their actions. That does not represent a lack of appreciation or respect for police, it shows the the people are taking responsibility for what we ask them to do on our behalf. If we see things that we feel are unjustified then, again, it is time for debate and course correction. That is just the way democracy works. Blind acceptance is a characteristic of a totalitarian state.

Just as we are asked to be supportive of police and the military it is also important that the people be respected when they speak out in protest. Yes, we can expect protest to be lawful but sometimes it need not be peaceful. Being lawful and peaceful are not the same thing. When the civil rights marchers approached the bridge at Selma it was anything but peaceful but it was lawful, at least until the police began beating them. Sometimes the only way the people can be heard is by joining together and speaking as one. It is an unfortunate fact that some will take advantage of the disorder by committing illegal acts and that should be met with enforcement action. But the people must be allowed to speak peacefully even if it is disorderly.

Those policemen that turn their backs on Mayor DeBlasio should not show such disrespect but should acknowledge that his responsibility is to all the people and not just the police. It should be remembered that the American Revolution was fomented by people meeting in taverns and engaging in acts of violence. My Take is that we should learn the difference between disrespect and disagreement.

What Changed

Merry Christmas, y'all. In the economic news are reports that the stock market has topped 18,000. You may recall that it was at 12,000 when the crash occurred and dropped to 6,000. Also, the past quarter the rate of GDP growth was an annualized 5%, largest in years.

I was reminiscing the other day thinking about those Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines of the 1960s where there were predictions of flying cars and so much leisure time we would enter another Age of Enlightenment. What on earth happened? I had to wonder how those prognosticators expected people to make a living and buy groceries and those flying cars. Now it seems that it wasn't the science that was so far off but, rather, the economics. Personally, I'm driving a 13 year old pickup truck and it still has wheels that touch the road. Until the City of Somerset began introducing some competition into the local gasoline market I wasn't certain that those wheels would even roll.

So, what was it that gave those writers any reason to assume that having all that leisure time would result in having enough money to live on? Well, for starters, from the time of the Great Depression forward it had always been assumed that the people in general would share in any increase in wealth proportionally since the axiom was “a rising tide lifts all boats”. Since 1980 the axiom has been revised to read “a rising tide lifts all yachts.” Since 1980 the productivity of the American worker has increased exponentially but he or she has not enjoyed the wealth associated with such production. In the mid 1960s the tax rate for a family earning $60,000 per year (which was a lot of money then) was in excess of 50%. The top tax rate for those making over $250,000 was right at 90%. In those times the United States was the economic engine of the world and infrastructure such as the interstate highway system was being built which resulted in millions of good paying jobs. Companies had their assembly lines running full blast to fill orders from the expanding middle class that had enough money to purchase their products and that also meant jobs that could support growing families and improved educational aspirations. The future was bright and filled with hope and expectation. It seemed that America had found the Holy Grail then it slipped from our grasp.

Well, it didn't slip from the grasp of every one but only from the great middle class that was the envy of the world. It didn't all slip away overnight. It took 10 years before American corporations concluded that the middle class didn't have enough purchasing clout any more. There just wasn't enough money there to support a business model that was changing to a more demanding model that desired ever increasing markets and those markets were going to be the rest of the world. Only problem was that to sell to the rest of the world the costs of production had to come down and come down they did. Production was shipped overseas and the jobs that supported the middle class went with it. The top tax rate had fallen to 50% and the $60K rate had dropped to 40%. Bridges began to rust and decay, no new interstate projects were being built and domestic steel production had cratered. The neo-conservative elements that had fought the New Deal, Social Security and Medicare were ascendant and they told us that lower tax rates would encourage those who garnered the wealth to reinvest in America and jobs would come and prosperity would reign. Trickle down. It did not happen. It trickled up then it began to rise to the top like a helium balloon.

Now the top tax rate is 33% and the $60K rate is about 28%. Just look at whose rate has come down the most. What about that leisure time? Now millions are working two or three jobs just to keep the lights on and who on earth even thinks about a flying car? Services that were provided by governments are now either eliminated or have been outsourced to private companies with a license to steal from those too poor to notice. The new bridges that are needed over the Ohio River are going to cost a lot of money that government does not have so the powers that be are considering allowing private corporations to build them and then charge motorists for using them. In some places highways are undergoing the same considerations. Let me ask you this. If we pay for them with taxes or with tolls what is the difference other than a portion of the money getting diverted to private pockets?

You've heard it before. Income inequality is strangling our people. We no longer have money to maintain bridges and roads or to pay decent salaries. We have to ask ourselves why. What changed?

Last week there was a news blurb that it had been discovered that Prevailing Wage laws were costing the taxpayer money and that we need to do away with them so companies can use the cheapest labor they can find to do state and federal projects. I have been fortunate enough to work on a few prevailing wage jobs and I can tell you that I never felt I was cheating the taxpayer. What I did feel was that for once I was making enough money to buy a car or perhaps a new automatic washer. It seems that is just the kind of thing we want to happen. I have learned from life experience that when you search for the cheapest job you can find that is usually what you will get. My outlook now is that I want people to make money. When they make money then they buy stuff. It seems plain as the nose on your face but there are those who believe that their life's work is to keep the middle class from becoming prosperous once again. Warren County government is now trying to pass a “right to work” law which is nothing more than a “right to work for as little as you can” law.

Take what you will from this but as “Deep Throat” once advised, “follow the money.” My Take is that we should look at what worked before and maybe try that again.

Who Can Help?

It is disheartening, the ongoing struggle of our daughter to receive care for a chronic, long-term back problem. Everyone has their own cross to bear but you may recall that a few months ago Yvonne was to have had a much needed surgery to relieve nerve compression in her cervical spine. She had been jumping through hoops with Coventry (does not) Cares and was within days of the surgery when they demanded another hoop and her doctor quit accepting Coventry Cares (not) because they would not allow him to treat his patients. She was once again thrown into the morass of medical limbo to find another doctor who would treat her. She has debilitating pain each and every day. It never ends but the regulations that the state and DEA have foisted upon us have doctors afraid to treat pain. She finally got another appointment for today. The doctor told her that since she has a neural stimulator she should not need further treatment and that he was not going to accept Coventry Cares (no it doesn't) any longer. This is how our state Medicaid program is run. Kentucky contracted with private companies to deliver health care in order to save money. How can you hire a middle man and save money? No-Brainer. By denying care and people suffer. Yvonne has jumped through these hoops so long that hope is ephemeral, help is available but inaccessible because of the bottom line of Coventry Cares (nope). I just needed to tell you about this, you may not be aware if you are not a chronic pain sufferer but you need to know. But on a more positive note, if you are aware of any doctors that can either manage chronic pain or who could even do the surgery and who is not scared to death of the DEA and frustrated with Coventry Cares (fiction) please let me know. We would like to give up but we can't.

NYTimes.com

For Russia, Ruble Crisis Is Testing Its Resources - NYTimes.com

 is the President's strategy working?



 Fracking Battle Begins

What is the down side for New York?



On to Cuba

Long awaited rapprochement brings glee and anger



Counter-intuitive or Just Wrong

what if the conservative ideology on government support is just not right?

Who Will Speak For You

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller

The instances that we see in the news of late are hauntingly reminiscent of this allegory. What we are seeing now are predominantly instances of what may be called a discriminatory response to actions affecting the African-American community or other minorities of color. It just can't be ignored that these instances of alleged police misconduct are not happening to white offenders at the same rate. Is it because these minorities are more likely to commit acts of violence against people or property or is there something in our perception of these offenders that makes them seem more of a threat? If that is the case, is this not a time for us to examine our souls to seek out sin and cast it out?

Sometimes it seems that we never get better. Sometimes it seems that our ugliness only goes to ground for a time but returns at a time when we think we have put that behind us. Look within, try to cast a wide view rather than a personal one. Ask why it seems that violence is perpetrated on a select few. These are questions that dog our souls and define who and what we are as humans, Americans and as Christians. Shouldn't we first entertain the thought that something may be wrong rather than just dismiss those protestors as rabble who are only seeking to steal from others? Shouldn't we consider that even though there are some who take advantage of the disorder by looting there still may be something of merit to be heard? Is that not what we would want for ourselves?

These men and boys that we have seen killed, shot down by those empowered to protect and serve, didn't all present themselves in the best light. We know that one was likely selling untaxed cigarettes. The other had just robbed a grocery and was belligerent but was it not possible to have dealt with these offenses without killing? Why did an officer have to apply a lethal, illegal maneuver to bring the man down? Why did the officer have to risk a confrontation without backup in the streets of Ferguson? Why was the boy shot dead within seconds of the police arriving? Why was the boy with the airsoft pistol deserving of death? Would if not have been better to disengage and assess the situation rather than shoot? And here is the kicker. Would those men and boys be dead if they had been white? Whether or not you think this is a valid question it is still one that must be asked because significant numbers of our people think it is a valid question.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this is not a law enforcement problem, this is a socioeconomic problem that was revealed by these deaths. Is the response to alleged offenses of people of color perceived to be discriminatory? If it is then we must change course. This is not the first time we have seen this, not even the first time in my life. I saw it as a teenager in the civil rights protests. I saw it as a college student with the anti-war protests and here it is again, rearing its ugly head.

What if it was you or your loved ones? Would you want someone to speak up? A couple of years ago we had a local case of a police office using unwarranted force repeatedly. He was allowed to continue much longer that he should have by taking advantage of the solidarity of his fellow officers but he was finally brought to account for his actions. Police are in a difficult job, no one disputes that but they must make exceptional decisions in their application of force and must be held to account when they err. Restraint must be the rule rather than the exception. Like others, they are servants of the people, not our rulers.

My Take is this. We must be as diligent about the rights and protection of others as we are of our own. If we do not, who will speak for us when they come for us?

Welfare for the Rich and an Empty Bowl for the Rest

The Story Behind the Story of Those Huge Corporate Tax Cuts | BillMoyers.com

The 47-year-old nuclear elephant in the room

The 47-year-old nuclear elephant in the room: A growing number of U.S. experts say that feigning ignorance about Israel’s nuclear arsenal creates more trouble than it averts.

Ben Stein is Aggreived.

 

 Not often do I find some commentary so incisive, humorous and literary that I want to share it.  These comments speak volumes about the complaints of the well-to-do about how they are being taxed to pay for things they don't want and how that taxation is keeping them from creating jobs.  I totally love it.  Thank you, Wanda.

Bob

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wanda Haynes Fries shared Carl Paladino's photo.

1 hr · Edited ·

Meanwhile, think of all those shut-ins who have to pay for roads and all those childless people who have to pay us teachers (police officers are different because they have guns and they protect us from people who want to take our stuff). Shouldn't people who have children have to be responsible for educating them? Why should I have to care one way or another whether some poor child born to a drug addict or born of grape pickers or a hotel maid learns to read, or for that matter, gets a vaccination? Poor Ben Stein. So rich and clever and yet so stingy and easily annoyed. Imagine what would happen if he smiled every now and then. Do you think it might make him feel better about this horrible, third world country he has to live in, where your average comedian is so burdened by taxes and hordes of the unwashed, he can barely get ahead? Why should he even keep working? He might as well become like the Big Liebowski, unwashed and stumbling to the grocery store in his bathrobe.
Okay, sometimes liberals are so sincere and so naive, they make your teeth hurt. But at least they're usually trying to create utopia. Dumb, but it's at least sweet. But, Jesus (and I mean that as a prayer and not a curse word), I get so tired of rich white people whining that they're going to starve to death any minute and barely can stand to go to work anymore because they just can't make any money because the socialist president thinks the maid ought to be able to go the doctor or that they're really worried that it's Hispanic immigrants who have taken all the good manufacturing jobs. One thing we did learn from Ferguson for sure, though, is that liberals and conservatives both hate the government; they just hate different parts of it.
 
The difference is, that conservatives at least love the flag, especially at ballgames. And they love the military, because they are sure that the military will so ditch the commander in chief and storm the White House with Ted Nugent carrying the colors when the time comes for armed rebellion, so they won't have to shoot any National Guard troops in the coup. Oh, and they like to complain about high taxes and neglected veterans in the same breath because they are sure that it is educating Hispanic children--and not letting Mitch McConnell tax shelter his wife's inherited money that has so strapped the VA. I mean, it does add up, all those Social Security payments to widows and orphans. And it's true that even if Mitch had to pay more taxes or the CEO of KCTCS made less money, it still would only be a drop in the bucket. But be sure to post that bit about how the Congress shouldn't get all their great retirement, but live on Social Security because they totally read Facebook. Oh, and we did know, didn't we, that we don't have a direct vote on Congress's paychecks? So, like, we might have to vote in some different guys, and we might have to term limit them by voting in ALL the elections, not just the ones where we get a holiday? Vote? Oops! Look! Look! Immigrants! Nancy Pelosi is coming to get your guns!
Anyway, Mitch McConnell explained what the problem is, and it is certainly not income inequality or laying off teachers or NASA engineers, leaving them free to seek employment in the private sector, which has the really good jobs, like barrista and sales associate. Liberals should never suggest that rich people should love their country and forgo making gazillions by relocating rather than keeping the jobs here and paying good wages and making only zillions. Mitch McConnell was really irritated about that in the last election. And he really wanted to let the Koch brothers make some dough on that pipeline and screw the aquifer that supplies water to the west or that Obama's administration has really lowered our imports of foreign oil. Goodness knows, the Democrats aren't going to point it out. They're too busy pointing out that they love Big Oil! They love Big Coal! They hate the EPA! They're Clinton democrats, from back when the treasury still had money in it and before George Bush decided to send us our money back. By the way, does anybody remember what you did with those two checks?
I think when children are two years old, their parents should NEVER force them to share their toys. And for heaven's sake, don't buy them those bracelets that ask, "What would Jesus do?" All that stuff about "giving away all you have," and "if a man needs you to walk a mile with him, walk, two, or one coat, give him two." You better keep that coat. What if your coat gets a hole in it, and anyway, why doesn't he have his own coat, and why is he hungry? And what was that guy doing anyway when the Good Samaritan picked him up and kept paying his medical bills and checking on him? Was he in drag? Did he have on a hoodie? Was he in the right neighborhood? I mean Jesus was okay then, but he would so not make it in the modern world.
Give the poor advice, that's what you do. Tell him to pull himself up by his bootstraps. Tell her to get three jobs at whatever wage the employer wants to pay, because she can work 70 hours if she wants to, 90 if she can stay away awake, she can get as many jobs as he wants because this is a free country. As for who will watch her children, children are a luxury commodity. If you can't afford them, don't have them. As for the immigrant and the stranger, tell him to go home and fix his own damn country because he is not our problem.
That's how you begin to build a liberal, you know. Telling them all that nonsense about sharing and including everybody. Some of them grow up thinking we mean it.

Just Shut Me Up

Just imagine, if you will, that your brother is skateboarding down the sidewalk when a police officer orders him to get off the sidewalk. When your brother, surprised, spins around the officer sees the AirSoft pistol in his hand and, mistaking it for a real weapon, shoots and kills him. Yes, an unlikely scenario but one with precedent and, in light of recent events, not so farfetched. Has this officer overreacted or was he justified in the killing because he perceived that he was threatened with death or injury. What is the proper forum for determination? Is it a matter of public interest or should it be determined behind closed doors and in secret? Should the victim's family (that is the family of the one who was killed) be able to closely examine the evidence? Who represents the interests of that family and the one who was killed? Who is the victim and who is the accused?

I try to avoid arguments that involve the founders but sometimes one has to look at the basis for the provisions of our legal system. Under British rule a person could be accused, locked up for an indefinite period and be tried without ever knowing who had accused him or having he opportunity to defend himself by examining the witnesses against him. These considerations were the basis for the creation of our system of hab

eas corpus, presumption of innocence, right to confront one's accusers and a public trial by a jury of peers. The aim was to create a transparent system of jurisprudence that was open to be seen and appreciated by the public so that everyone could see that justice had been addressed and, by doing so, give the public confidence in fairness and lessening the chance of a public uprising. This is what was denied in Ferguson, Missouri and the perception of the African-American community there is that this kind of behavior is the norm rather than the exception. True or not, perception is important here.

In the American system of jurisprudence a sitting Grand Jury is perhaps the most powerful body that can affect your life. It has the power to charge, investigate or indict to trial practically anyone for anything. It also has the power to refuse to do so. Prosecutors have the power to charge presumed offenders on their own or to convene a Grand Jury to do so. It has been famously said that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich if he wishes. The reason for that is that the prosecutor will usually only present evidence of guilt and withhold exculpatory evidence and there will be no defense witnesses or cross examination. No attorneys present to represent the victim. That was not done here in Ferguson.

So, who speaks for Michael Brown, the kid who was killed? Admittedly, the videos and eyewitness reports make it difficult to feel any sympathy for Brown but that is not the point. All the Grand Jury was charged with was the investigation as to whether Officer Wilson acted within his authority. The real question is whether or not justice was served in a public manner concerning the death of Michael Brown and that deserved a public trial. One in which evidence is presented and witnesses are cross-examined and a jury decides to convict or exonerate. That is the minimum that was necessary to quell the suspicion that Brown's death was business as usual and a whitewash by the law enforcement and judicial system. It is the minimum any of us would expect if it were our son or brother lying dead in the street. That was not done in Ferguson.

I don't mean to intimate that the Grand Jury acted improperly since that is almost impossible given the scope of the powers granted to that body. Did they err in choosing not to indict Officer Wilson and passing the choice of guilt on to the trial court? Maybe. But what about the prosecutor? I find it implausible that he did not intend that this decision be the result. Prosecutors learn early on how to best bring a case to trial and the probability of conviction. He knew that at a trial he would have to speak for the victim, Michael Brown, and he did not want to do that. Whatever his culpability he most certainly has violated the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law and this is what the people of Ferguson and elsewhere are reacting to. If the population can't feel that the law is being administered impartially to all citizens then there exists no rationale for support of the law. If it is perceived that favoritism is being shown to some and not others then the only avenue for recourse is protest since the system has failed to address their concerns. This is what the hubbub in Ferguson and elsewhere is about.

Our system is not perfect but it is accepted because there is a presumption of fairness. People can accept system failure if the perception of fairness survives. This should have gone to trial where the public's concerns could be addressed publicly in an impartial court. Where witnesses for the prosecution and defense could have been presented and testimony examined. Then guilt or innocence could have been established by a jury of peers and that would have largely dealt with the perception. Now none of these concerns can be addressed. Maybe the Feds will bring a civil rights suit but the bar is very high for that. Maybe the Browns will bring a wrongful death suit which has a lower threshold for proof and that is likely but the needs of the citizenry will never be met and that is unfortunate.

This is My Take. If this prosecutor will handle whether or not to indict the same way in the rest of his cases I will shut up. I feel certain you will be hearing from me for some time yet.

Why The Blowout

The Red State Wedding: Why McConnell blew out Grimes - Page 3 of 3 - Insider Louisville





Very interesting, and I think accurate, theory as to why the margin of victory was so large in the Kentucky Senate race.  Also, some thoughts as to how that might have been avoided.

An Alternative View

MAP: How much energy is the world using?





Quite interesting when you consider the use per capita.

Occupy The Farm - Official Theatrical Trailer

This is not really about trying to feed hungry people.  It is about the privatization and patenting of the public food supply.  How can the common man or woman seek to feed themselves and their families if nutritious food is unavailable to them either by dint of location or price?  It is about the allocation of public lands to private enterprise.  It is about taking objection and protest out of the arena of debate and placing it in the arena of action.  It is the same method that was used to occupy lunch counters during the civil rights movement.  The people are being slowly made into peasants who exist on land at their lord's pleasure to create wealth for him.  Watch the video.






                                                                                                

How Do We Talk About It

Finally. The election is over and the interminable television ads that tell you in an ominous tone how the opposing candidate is going to ruin the republic, spoil your milk and turn your children into deviants are at an end. Hallelujah! What not is at an end is all of the trash that is left in your mind that was planted there to create an emotional urge for you to rush out to crush the evil opposition and stamp out any vestiges of its existence. It is the political equivalent of spraying images of pornography on the city's sidewalks and not coming back to clean it up. Neuroscientists are beginning to discover the basis of emotions as being the impact of various chemical combinations on the different areas of the brain and what has happened is that these imprints have been set free in your gray matter.

Political operatives have discovered that they can manipulate response by appealing to raw emotion using methods that social scientists would be discredited for if they used them. People think that Political Science is the study of political methods and institutions and it is that but it is also a social science that is focused on what motivates particular political behavior. Political operatives can accurately predict what a specific ad will do and largely how many people and what subsets it will impact. This leaves us, the people who have real lives and in whose hands the welfare and future of the republic lies, with a big question.

HOW DO WE TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS?

We are beset from each extreme by disembodied voices that preach to us what they say will surely result in our destruction if we do not act immediately. This comes at us from Social Media, which is surely the wild west of free speech, from television and radio networks who specialize in a certain political slant and even, to some lesser degree, our national news medial which has abdicated the role of calling into question ridiculous behavior for fear of appearing partial. It is only natural that these modes of expression would find fertile ground in the expression of individuals. Can anyone really believe that this kind of expression will lead to rational discussion of areas of disagreement? Why on earth do people believe it is either my way or the highway?

Let's face it. Rational discussion and thought are just not that exciting and they do not create all those chemicals that trigger our animal responses to slay the enemy who is not like us. Rather, being calm and rational may possibly lead to that favorite chemical of mine, oxytocin, which promotes feelings of well being and love.

So, why on earth do we persist in this flawed mechanism that can't, by its very nature, lead to agreement and compromise? In addition to the implantation of single minded trash we simply don't know how to go about debate. We don't know how to prepare an argument buttressed by facts and references. I'm talking about real facts and references and not the stuff blown out the mouths of right and left wing media outlets or those senseless memes so popular on Facebook that ridicule one side while wrapping in holy cloth the other. I am talking about stuff that one actually has to think about. Stuff that has to be rolled around in a head in order to examine it from every angle and to consider the impact on people other than oneself. We are much more comfortable with the assurance that we know the correct behavior and we certainly don't want to have to think too hard. Many of us don't know how to think too hard and the use of labels to describe the sacred self and the unholy others makes it all to easy to describe our own group. It is almost tribal.

If you can do it I urge you to consider this the next time you passionately echo some phrase that defines how you feel. Take a moment and think about it. Why do I feel this way? What is the impact of my statement on others? How can I use this to speak with someone who holds a different opinion and perhaps persuade him or her of the rightness of my position. The other side of the coin is to allow yourself the possibility of not having all the answers and to open yourself to consideration of the root causes of particular opinions and behaviors. It is liberating but most of you will refuse to do it because you don't know how or you see it as a betrayal of your clan or tribe. It is the only way our Republic will survive in a form that we will recognize.

I'm not saying to be without passion. Passion is vital to a vital democracy but it is not everything. Our welfare is not up to our leaders, they are just figureheads we elect to represent us but the powers that manipulate them also seek to manipulate us and we must refuse to be so gullible. This manipulation has done great harm to our home and it must be resisted as if it were an invader because that is precisely what it is. It seeks to deprive us of our greatness in order to enrich a special few and that is not democracy.

Religion and politics are topics that many avoid due to the propensity of passionate argument that can lead to anger and hurt. One deals with our relationship to our God and the other with our relationship to our fellow man and woman. It is vital that we talk about it. I love to engage in these discussions and entertain different viewpoints and I often find reason to reconsider my own rationale. It makes ones holdings a bit harder to define but that is OK. We are complicated and wonderfully made. We should act like it.

Monied Groups attack the Fed for inequality statements.

Yellen’s Declaration Of Non-Independence « Palisades Hudson Financial Group



Why is is always the money moguls that nay say the problems of inequity or try to say that it does not exist at all?

It's Just Not That Hard

Some of you may know that I, along with my wife, own and operate a small business. It is a business that provides services and some durable goods sales to mainly residential customers. It is very small having only one employee at the time. I have had as many as two and at other times it has just been me. I confess that I am not the 60 or 80 hour week kind of guy but I have, on occasion, been forced into such a schedule. Some years we have done okay and others we haven't. Since the economy fell off the cliff it has been more haven't. I believe it was the year following the beginning of the recession that the President pushed a small stimulus bill through Congress and it was targeted in a way that impacted my business favorably. It was a decent year. Since then business has been more a matter of holding on that being a growth business. I have made a few observations of things that have impacted my business and I think they may be the same kind of things that impact other businesses.

One thing I can say for sure is that tax policy is a non-issue with my business. Taxes are reasonable and I have discovered that to pay taxes one has to make money. Social Security is the largest burden since, as a self-employed entrepreneur, I have to bear the entire payment. If you are employed by another employer you only pay half while your employer pays the other half. But I really can't gripe because I knew that going in and I figure I will get more than I paid in when I start receiving benefits. What hasn't happened is enough income to plan for retirement so my plan is to work as long as I can even after I start receiving benefits. This way maybe I'll drop dead on the job and won't have to worry about retirement.

Over the years I have noticed how my business rises and falls with the local economy. I have examined that with a great deal of interest since people that I owe money to really want to get paid whether or not I have any money. I'll bet that is true for most of you. With my business I carved out a small niche where I wasn't in competition so much on price as I was on quality and customer service. What I have seen is that when other companies in my line of work who are larger employers become affected by the local economy they begin to lay off workers. Some of those workers do what they have to do to earn money and that is encroach into my niche. With that competition goes up and I have the choice of doing less business, lowering prices or cutting quality which is a part of my overhead. I have to tell you that if I had known thirty years ago what I now know about operating a small business I may have looked a little harder at working for another company or trying for a government job. However, I was confident that my work and skill would be a better choice in the long run. Entrepreneurship is to be highly valued. Those owners really are a vital part of a local economy and they assume a lot of risk often being ill equipped to assess that risk and therefore become one of the many that fail within the first 5 years.

This recession that began in the year before President Obama was elected was rooted in the exploding home construction bubble. I recall in those years leading up to the recession people in my business kept wondering who was really buying all those houses. Turned out that a lot of people were just trying to buy those houses. When the bottom fell out and the mortgages on those houses turned upside down that golden goose died and with it the dreams of millions of people. Around here the ripple effect could be observed going through the economy. Because I wasn't so much involved in construction it took a little longer to begin to affect me but affect me it did in two ways. As I said, those workers laid off started businesses of their own and they were willing to work in my niche. Also, it soon became evident that our local population was being much more conscious about how it spent money. Jobs that would have come along were now being delayed and people did not spring for repairs until they were affected in a painful, negative way.

So, this is what I have learned about operating a small business, at least one as small as mine. Tax policy on earned income is of little consequence. What is of consequence most is lack of demand. People don't have any money. Now, some are okay but I am speaking generally. The federal stimulus was a matter of tax policy but it allowed people to use a deduction to stimulate the economy in a targeted way. The way it affected my business was to create demand and I suppose it did the same for others who are in my line of work. In addition, it was targeted in such a way as to get people to make investments in energy efficiency which stimulated the entire economy to some extent.

This is what I see. Of all factors demand is most critical. Demand is created when consumers have disposable income that they can use for necessary or elective needs. We have a lot of people, just ask Mitt Romney, who don't make enough money to pay much more in taxes than their Social Security. If you take that population out of the equation then demand takes a huge hit. Lowering the overall tax rate will not impact those people to any large degree. However, targeted stimulus using the tax code will impact those people by making it possible to have some extra income to spend and that ripples through the economy from the ground up. It does not trickle down. Families with children are able to access the earned income credit which also allows them to acquire income they would not have had before and this is stimulative to the economy from the ground up.

Lowering taxes on higher incomes has no stimulative effect on my small business. Even if they invest the money in stocks, bonds or whatever it is simply not trickling down because the businesses those stocks represent are not creating new business. They are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash or using it to buy back stock to increase the net worth of that stock. It has no stimulative affect nor does it create new wealth.

My take is that we are told a lie when our aspiring leaders tell us that taxes are too high and that lowering them will bring prosperity. What is needed is demand and we must ask what will create new demand. It's not hard.

Rule Number One

A few years back there used to be a
used car salesman in Somerset from whom I learned an elemental lesson
in economics. He didn't teach it to me directly but rather through a
story I heard about him one time. Seemed that this young couple came
to him to purchase a new car. They had shopped around and saw one
they liked on his lot and inquired as to the price. He told them the
price and it was considerably higher than some prices they had gotten
on some similar vehicles around town and they told him so and asked
why. His reply was, “Well, I make more money that way.”

This seems like one of those obvious
things that everyone knows but I recognized it as a fundamental rule
of capitalism. Everyone wants to maximize profits and will charge
whatever they feel the market will bear. It is up to the purchaser
to be wise.

I applied this well known rule to a
discussion I had online with some people over the past week or so.
They were remarking on the very high price of some cancer drugs that
were up around $100,000 per year or more. At the same time I had
watched a television special on the prices of drugs where some had
gotten to the public relations group that represents Big Pharma
asking why this was so. Of course the stock reply is that it costs
millions and billions to put a new drug on the market and they should
be compensated adequately to insure motivation for research and
development and to cover the costs of production. One of the drugs
mention was Gleevec which is a very effective drug that combats
leukemia. When it first came out it cost $28,000 per year for the
drug regimen. Soon some other drugs came on the market that were in
direct competition. One would expect the competition to force prices
down but Gleevec rose to almost $90,000 per year. This was an eye
opener because it flew in the face of accepted free market ideology
and that meant that there was another dynamic at work here. What was
at work here is the economic rule I spoke of earlier. They make more
money that way. But why didn't the competition force prices down?

The thing that forces prices down is
the willingness of the purchaser to shop elsewhere for the product at
a cheaper price. That assumes that the end user is the purchaser
which is not the case here. The purchaser in this case is the
insurance company that pays for the drug. People without access to
insurance obviously can't afford it and so they die. Just not in
large enough numbers to affect the bottom line. The largest insurer
in the United States is Medicare but Medicare is prohibited by
legislation that was written into the Medicare D bill that President
Bush the Second pushed. That legislation forbids Medicare from using
the enormous purchasing power of the federal government to negotiate
a lower price. The law states that Medicare must pay whatever is
charged by the pharmaceutical pushers.

Two things that are unacceptable here.
One is that the taxpayer is forced to subsidize the profits of the
pharmaceutical industry and the other is that the insurance companies
are guilty of de facto rationing of medical care based on ability to
pay. The United States is the only developed country in the world
that pays full retail for drugs. All other civilized countries have
negotiated prices well below what we pay. If the pharmaceutical
companies are so focused on recovering costs then how can they sell
at those steep discounts to those countries? Make no mistake. For
drugs still under patent protection there is no one else making those
drugs so one can't use the excuse of them being made overseas under
poor supervision. And, in the case of Gleevec, if costs were being
covered under the lower price then what was the justification in
tripling the price. The drug companies also say that they take into
account the value of the quality of life of those using the drug. In
other words, if it is a real good one they want to charge a lot.

This is the way the free market works,
right? Well, it would be if medical care and pharmaceuticals
competed in a free market but they don't. If a person has leukemia
and there is one drug that can help that is not a free market. If an
insurer has a single drug on its formulary that is not a free market
but at least the insurance company can negotiate a lower price. The
largest insurer in the country can't even do that since that was a
gift to Big Pharma in order for them not to lobby against the law.
Why would they? It is the largest cash cow to come down the pike and
it dumped excessive profits on them like the rain in spring. If it
were a free market people would be able to shop for prices and
Medicare would be able to negotiate on behalf of the taxpayer.

Big Pharma does many things in order to
keep the cash cow giving milk. Gifts and honorariums to physicians.
Free drugs. Trips (ostensibly to attend training or seminars but
more likely to play golf or scuba dive) are quite the draw. But the
biggest of all is the lobby Big Pharma pays for in Washington,D.C. to
keep Congress growing the grass for the cash cow.

So, what is the reason drugs cost so
much? “Well, I make more money that way.” Rule number one of
capitalism. Hold it close to your heart.

Arming the Ally and Enemy Alike

Islamic State’s ammunition has origins in U.S, China | World | Kentucky.com





This has been exactly what the President warned of and one of the major reasons that he did not want to send arms to the factions fighting in Syria.  Organizations and governments in that region are hotbeds of corruption and will sell out their patrons in a minute by selling or giving the arms provided by the US and other countries to combat the Syrian regime to ISIL.  In essence, we are arming our enemies.  This article points out other ways that US made equipment is falling into the hands of those we have to fight.



My point is this.  If we must fight then why are we not pursuing back channels to force change on the battlefield?  Why must we rely on military action for our foreign policy goals?  Why must we continue to drop billions into this rat hole?  Now the US armaments manufacturers get to supply both sides.  How does that make sense?

Relentless

Exxon-Mobil CEO pushes for scrapping ban on U.S. crude oil exports | The State Column





They are relentless.  The hunger for ever greater profits and stock values presses ever onward with no heed of the warnings of climate change.  Saying that allowing US companies to export crude would boost production are probably correct but that is not a thing we should encourage.  Our governmental actions should be focused on energy conservation and a transtition to clean energy.  Already the US is the world's largest exporter of refined goods.  Why would we need to export crude except to enrich the multi-national oil corporations profits.  At least this way they are forced to keep headquarters, and hence profits, here in the US rather than shifting them to some foreign place where they escape taxation.

Alberta Oil Sands

If you want to see fuel prices explode to the heights the rest of the world pays then this is the way to go.

Read the linked article and be forewarned.  Knowledge is power.

The Truth Spoken

Biden blames US allies in Middle East for rise of ISIS — RT News





This is a truth that you won't hear spoken very much in the United States where we tend to protect our regional allies from responsibility for their actions.  The parties mentioned, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Qatar, are all responsible for much of the terrorism we see in those countries and also the attacks on European and American interests.  The only reason for such behavior that I can come up with is to protect American business interests in the area.  These kingdoms should be forced to deal with the reality of their actions and defuse the resistance rather than try to use the United States as their mercenary army.



VP Biden is known for his outspoken ways but he is usually correct in his assessment of foreign policy.

Just Like the Stone Age

“The stone age didn't end because
they ran out of stone” was the quote from one of Charlie Rose's
guests. That phrase slapped me across the face because it so clearly
points out the fallacy of most of the arguments for not cutting back
on carbon emissions to reduce the impact of climate change. In one
sentence the arguments about economic impact, lost jobs and reliable
fossil fuel sources are shown to be distractions from the truths that
argue for dramatically developing clean energy.

The buggy and whip industry was wiped
out by the automobile. The ocean liner was docked by the airlines.
Ships with sails lost out to steam powered vessels. Manual labor was
replaced by the movable assembly line and the list goes on and on.
Yes, we are losing those jobs mining coal but the fact of the matter
is that it is not EPA regulations doing it. It is plain old
economics. Profit and loss. Now there are cheaper fuels such as an
abundance of natural gas but, truthfully, it is only a matter of time
before the evidence mounts that using it is little better than
burning coal or oil.

The fossil fuel industry as we know it
is going to die. It may be a long death, a painful death but die it
will because the downside of using those fuels is so devastating that
humanity cannot survive using them in such great quantities.

Solar is gaining traction, not through
subsidies but through simple economics. The power companies realize
it and are lobbying Congress to make it more expensive to use solar.
As it is in most places one can sell an abundance of solar generated
electricity back to the power company at the same rate the power
companies charge to deliver electricity. Now the utilities want
legislation to cut that resale price to a fraction of what it is in
order to make the cost of installation require a longer payback
period. One of the great benefits of individual electrical
generation sites is that power generation would not be so centralized
and would not require as massive an investment in electrical grid
infrastructure as bringing new plants on line. This is an effort
that the federal government should subsidize in the national
interests.

Solar will not serve to replace all
generation now on line but it can serve a significant part. You may
recall that a few years ago the federal government provided loans to
clean energy startups which was a good plan. Problem is that when
those efforts were unable to provide profits they were allowed to
fail. When they failed the intellectual property that was developed
was bought largely by the Chinese who are leading the world in solar
generation and the panels required to accomplish it. As a result
estimates are that the cost of solar panels have fallen by as much as
80%. Our domestic industry doesn't like that and want tariffs placed
on Chinese panels. The domestic industry is a casualty of
shortsightedness. We simply cannot allow unyielding allegiance to
market forces dictate the pace or feasibility of new energy sources.

There are powerful forces arrayed
against the emerging industries. The existing extraction and
generation industries are furiously lobbying Congress to protect
their financial base which should be allowed to die a natural death.
Obviously we will need to keep it on life support while we bring new
generation on line but the movement is in that direction.

Such new industries will generate
thousands, maybe millions, of new jobs in new, emerging technologies
that will once again return the United States to the pinnacle of
economic might. If we do not grasp it then someone else will. There
are those poised to do so.

We have been in the age of steam for
over 200 years. Even the latest turbine using generation plants are
simply steam engines. They differ only in the types of fuel used to
generate the steam to drive the turbines. Just as the stone age did
not die from a lack of stone so steam will not die from a lack of
coal or oil or nuclear. Like stone it will die from new and better
technologies. The only question is how painful will it be? Will our
politicians who worship at the feet of King Coal do its bidding to
hold the line against the inevitable demise or will the people demand
that they now lead us to make the transition in favor of the people
rather than corporate interests? We know what the tendency is.

This is My Take on this issue. Since
my early years I have read magazines such as Popular Science and
Popular Mechanics that predicted that new technologies would provide
all people with adequate resources and leisure time. What happened?
Why have the people not prospered? It is because our system of
corporate influence is such that new technologies don't come on line
until the CEOs and hedge fund managers figure out how to make money
on it. The wealth generated is not shared with the people of the
United States. We need to get past that.

Big News Today--Israel on the Line

Fatah and Hamas negotiators Azzam al-Ahmad and Musa Abu Marzouk, September 24, 2014.



if the Palestinians can agree on a single government for Gaza and The West Bank it will put pressure on Israel to step up realistic efforts at peace.   We should be able to see how serious the parties are about reaching an agreement, finally, after all these years.

Here We Go Again

Deja
Vu All Over Again

The ascension to power of the Islamic
State in the Levant (ISIL) is providing fodder for all sorts of
demands for retaliation. So far, no one has warned of a mushroom
cloud. The beheading of journalists and aid workers has galvanized
public opinion and increased the shrillness of those who clamor for
war at the first threat, imagined or otherwise. This group is
barbaric, of that there can be no doubt but have we reached the
threshold for a declaration of war? I am not certain that we have
although I do think there is a risk that must be addressed.

Air strikes have begun in Syria against
various targets of terrorism and have been going on in Iraq for some
days now. The talking heads on TV are scorching the earth to find
anyone that may be presumed to have any kind of intelligence or
military credibility to comment on the topic. Actually, they are
looking for anyone that can drum up some kind of ardor for military
action. They aren't too interested in those who think this isn't
such a great idea. In its enthusiasm the new “coalition of the
willing” is quite excited to participate in aerial bombardment but
those willing to actually put people on the ground to do the nasty
work of rooting out combatants from their urban hideouts are scarce.
Of course, our group formerly known as the “neocons” are champing
at the bit for the United States to return warriors to the
battlefield to die in the quest for Middle Eastern hegemony but so
far the President has been unwilling to furnish them. Only the
Kurds, whose homes and peoples are under attack, and the imaginary
Iraqi army are willing to provide what we so euphemistically call
“boots on the ground.”

The past few days have revealed yet
another threat to the “homeland” so the bloodlust is stoked to
provide political cover for the President to send bombs and missiles
to avoid the prospect of those radicals reaching across the Atlantic
Ocean to visit mayhem on the American people. But has the case for
war been made? Has a clear and present danger been identified that
would justify the expenditure of more lives and treasure? At last
count the cost was $7.5 million per day and I am certain that has
risen precipitously since engaging the enemy inside Syria. After the
snow job we got in order to provide “probable cause” to invade
Iraq I must confess to a bit of skepticism about NSA and CIA reports.
This is another one of those cases where there are no good options
and we have been cleverly played to provide the means of knocking off
the enemies of Hafez Assad in Syria and the Ayatollah in Iran who are
jubilant to see the United States making recruiting posters for their
efforts.

Here is my problem. The chief
instigator of radical Islam is the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.
All but a couple of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack were Saudis.
Wahhabism is the brand of radical Islam that the Saudis practice and
Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi. They are the chief financiers of
radical Islam along with Qatar and Kuwait, both ostensibly allies of
ours. The Saudi ruling family has been promising the Caliphate for
years and they are deathly afraid of their own people rising up and
overthrowing them like the people of Libya, Morocco, Egypt and Syria
and they need a way to blunt the threat without fighting their own
people. In addition, the Saudis really don't want Iran to be a
bigger power than they are because the Iranians are Shiite Muslims.
Sort of like Baptists and Catholics a few centuries ago. If you
don't understand the history of the region you can't understand the
present and the present is much more complicated than we are led to
believe.

So, here we go again and who else is
excited besides the Syrians, Iranians, Saudis, Kuwaitis and Qataris?
Why, those who profit the most from the machinery of death, the
armaments industry. All of that money we spend on war, where do you
think it goes. As an old investigative phrase goes, “just follow
the money.” Current reports are of billions in defense contracts
to the private sector for all sorts of support machinery and
intelligence gathering. The benefactors? Northrop-Grumman,
Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics and a myriad of acronyms of
surreptitious companies that provide deep surveillance for the
military. You may ask “what does the military actually do?”
Well, the military takes those products provided to them by those
contractors and adds the human element. The folks we put in harm's
way and those millions of taxpayers who have their taxes siphoned off
from schools, roads and hospitals to feather the nests of the
stockholders of those companies. Incidentally, defense stocks are
up.

I realize there is some level of threat
to the United States proper and its citizens. I just think the
response is poorly conceived and lacks a clear definition of our
goals. The most incisive comment I have heard made concerning this
military action was made in a Charlie Rose interview with President
Rouhani of Iran. I will try to quote it as accurately as I can. He
said, “why do you think you can solve the problems you created with
actions that only recruit more enemies?” There you have it.
President Obama knows this and that is why he has been resisting
action as long as he has but the dogs of war have been unleashed and
no one knows when they will be called to heel.

My Take is this. I wish we perceived
the threat of climate change as clearly as we perceive this threat.

Write me with your thoughts.

Time To Shoulder The Burden

The climate change generation finds its voice | MSNBC

It is time for this generation to step up and contribute its energy to this demanding issue.  My generation took on the War in Vietnam, Civil Rights, Women's Rights and many other issues and forced change that remains with us today.  There is no substitute for youthful enthusiasm and idealism.  Without motivated people in each genertion there will be no progress.  The pressure from monied interests is relentless in its efforts to strip public advantage and add to profits.

Victim: the poor and helpless

A New Way Insurers are Shifting Costs to the Sick - ProPublica



It is things like this in which business efforts to game the system are so prevalent that they result in skirting the regulations meant to control costs and treatments.  They are relentless in their pursuit of profits even if it means harming the consumer.  It reveals that the insurance companies have absolutely no interest in health and are focused on the bottom line.  This scam is known to me.  Just this last week I went to refill a prescription I have had for years.  It quadrupeled in cost going from $10 for a 3 month supply to over $40.



The pursuit of short term gain will inexorably lead to such a strict regulation of health care that single payer will be preferable.  Just another example of the short sightedness of our corporations.

If you build it, they will come

Chattanooga's Gig: how one city's super-fast internet is driving a tech boom | World news | theguardian.com







Evidence that building the infrastructure can result in being very attractive for business.  Perhaps we ought to do this as part of a comprehensive plan.

Who's going to pay for it this time

House Could Vote On $500 Million To Arm, Train Syrian Rebels : The Two-Way : NPR





I am totally upset.  And I have to say that I am upset with my President and my political party.  He we are spending money that we say we don't have for other things to benefit our citizens to address a nebulous threat that has every possibility of leading us back into our men and women dying in some desert half way around the world.  It is hard to keep from cursing.  500 M here, 7.5 M per day and who knows what else.  I simply do not accept that this group poses a "clear and present" danger that cannot be addressed in a less spectacular way.

With U.S. Oil Supply Climbing, Some Call For End To Export Ban : NPR

With U.S. Oil Supply Climbing, Some Call For End To Export Ban : NPR

The "some" certainly does not include the American consumer.  The United States is already the largest worldwide exporter of refined products but to allow export of crude oil would only do more to place the United States at the mercy of the giant oil producers and the world market rate for crude oil.  This is perhaps the last hedge that the consumer has against extreme pricing and it is a lucrative export market for our refined products.

Held Hostage

Sisi says coalition must battle Islamic State and others | World | Reuters



it seems action in the Middle East to combat ISIL will require supporting despotic regimes in their efforts to remain in power.  Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq.  They all want us to deal with their problems of restive populations.

Art in the Vineyard and Cooperative Efforts

Art in the Vineyard is an oasis, literally and figuratively, nestled in the rolling hills of Eastern Pulaski County. Shown as a cooperative effort between Cedar Creek Vineyards and the Watershed Arts Alliance it celebrates wine-making, music, arts and crafts in the setting of the residence and vineyards of Jeff, Debbie, Isaiah and Micah Wiles. After a long driveway through the deep woods one suddenly bursts into the sunlight and sees open fields and grapevines on the slopes and a home in the middle of it all.

This event, Art in the Vineyard, has become an annual event that allows the different arts and crafts to come together in a bucolic, rural setting to showcase some of the best efforts of the mostly local artisans. At least two of our local authors were present to sell and autograph their works as were the widely varied artisans there.

A decade ago an event such as this would have been nearly inconceivable. Over the past few years things have happened in our local area that I did not expect to live long enough to see but it just reinforces the idea that there is a tipping point after which the floodgates open and change becomes the norm. It isn't that people were not working in areas that have recently become more visible but it is that their efforts are now being rewarded. The long quest for legal alcohol sales was a critical part of the solution but is wasn't just so people could go out and party like it's 1999. That one thing allowed the creation of many venues for artistic expression by providing a way to actually make those things a profitable venture. New businesses are still feeling their way around to get an understanding of the competitive nature of their endeavors. The business models are still evolving. Free enterprise will determine which of these businesses find success and also those who will fail. On the other hand there has been an explosion of community based efforts to provide entertainment and revenue opportunities to people in the area. The Market on Main comes to mind as a successful community based effort that draws hundreds of people to the downtown area to buy the products of the local farmers and other entrepreneurs. In the meantime, some exposure is given to local talent and that has a rebounding effect of drawing even more people to downtown.

The long struggle to reclaim the Virginia Theater for downtown has regained the public's attention. Even if the business model has not yet been determined it has the potential to be a valuable source of attraction to the downtown area and that will encourage other venues to open up to both serve and take advantage of business opportunities. These are some fine examples of public/private partnerships and how they can be immensely favorable in the development of a progressive community. In the same manner as the entertainment venues there is also a tipping point when a community becomes recognized as being one that is eager to support new business ventures. Once that tipping point is reached then there will be an explosion of jobs and new opportunities. Our children will no longer have to leave home to find their version of the American Dream.

There are several important ventures in the pipeline, all of which will require a measure of public/private partnerships. The project we keep hearing of to build a new hotel near the Center for Rural Development in order to attract more convention business to the area is one. An upgrade to Pulaski County Park that will attract more vacationers and water sports enthusiasts to come here and spend their money here is another. Perhaps one with the most potential is the redevelopment of Burnside Island. I am no fan of turning public properties over to private industry but there are ways to do this that can be of great benefit to everyone.

Personally, I think what I have seen of the plans for Burnside Island are far too short sighted. Bring the chair lift spoken of on over to Lakeshore Drive and create a corridor right up French Avenue to Main Street and Burnside has potential to become a Gatlinburg on Lake Cumberland. It is the only city that has direct access to the lake with an existing dock. The possibilities are endless but Burnside may need some help with capital requirements and this is where Pulaski County government can step in to become a partner. I have spoken from time to time about there being no advantage for Somerset to accept a merged government but with an improved financial outlook and evidence of progressive government that could change. It will be a while down the road but Rome was not built in a day. Lexington was a one horse college town until IBM came to town. That one thing opened the floodgates and now Lexington is a very attractive place to live.

Just like the advances made in the arts and entertainment communities these efforts will be built piece by piece until the tipping point is reached. When that happens we will experience a growth of opportunity for every citizen of the area but we will never get there is we continue to do things the same old way. Sometimes progress is frightening but a community can't just stay in one place. You are either going forward or falling back and we don't need to fall back another inch.

My take is that we should take the advice of that old gospel tune, “Step into the water.”