Swickard: The flaw in hating flawed leaders

Pat Garrett - Guts, Gumption and Courage

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "The one thing I want to leave my children is an honorable name." Theodore Roosevelt

             There is a revisionist history move in the news which has been simmering for years but now has burst out in college campuses. Some activists want to remove many of our founding leaders from public buildings and revise our American history books because in today's world they all are scoundrels.

            Even more modern presidents like Theodore Roosevelt are legitimately under attack for their flaws. And all forty-three men who have taken the oath of office for the presidency are flawed. There are some flawed with graft, some with goofy ideas and some with being intentionally ignorant in times of crisis.

            This is not a black and white issue. We must view our leaders in a more mature way than these protesters are doing. There is a more compelling story about the founding leaders clear up to our leaders today: what did they do for the ages.

            That is the yardstick for me: what did these leaders do that others could not or would not such that we have the country we have today. Our country has brought freedom to other countries by example and by fighting wars, not for our own gain, but to insure freedom from dictators for other people.

            As to our founding leaders and the complaints currently about them: all of the leaders who founded our country either were slave holders or did not effectively resist the holding of slaves. That much is true. And we cannot change that flaw in them.

            Some people suggest we even change the name of our national capital because George Washington was a slave holder. The angels on earth who created liberty for much of the world were flawed humans. Yet through their actions we have our freedom today.

            But in the arena of public opinion there is an outcry to cleanse our national history of those who were flawed. And it is every leader we have ever had starting with the first ones during our Revolutionary War. It is a mistake to not consider all of each man.

            Thomas Jefferson is under attack and unable to defend himself. He wrote for the ages, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

            Yes Jefferson was a flawed man in that he had slaves. And with Jefferson there are other things. But one of the problems with revising history is can we do without the good just to punish the bad?

            There were arguably four men who were essential to the Revolutionary War: George Washington who brilliantly commanded the weaker American forces into ultimate victory: Samuel Adams who provided the man-on-the-street leadership in effective citizen resistance; Benjamin Franklin who got the French to side with our nation or we would not have won and Thomas Jefferson who provided the words for our new country.

            Alas, can we find anyone who is not flawed? My favorite modern person, Martin Luther King, Jr. was certainly flawed. Yet he wrote for the ages, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

            In New Mexico we falsely worship a rascal we call Billy the Kid and ignore a man, yes flawed, who is a hundred times more interesting historically and as a member of our state: Pat Garrett. He was flawed in some ways and a legend by his resolve and courage. He had gumption and guts and ran toward the problem not away.

            In no way do I advocate obscuring the flaws of our leaders. We see that Americans in general have a simplistic view of our presidents, "George Washington was the father of our country and a good man." That is a disservice to their sacrifices.

            We have had some bad actions by men in the Oval Office which should be known. But ultimately let's take a look at their entire effect upon our country.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: The flaw in hating flawed leaders

Swickard: Thanksgiving is an Immigrant holiday

Great-grandparents Erik and Johanna and Grandmother Freda

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "It's a bit of a sore spot, Thanksgiving in Indian country." Robbie Robertson whose mother was Mohawk raised on the Six Nations Reservation in Canada

             The Pilgrim immigrants and the Native Americans who resided in America around the year 1600 died centuries ago. We are the descendants. Americans are divided on the question of immigration because it has such political gains and losses.

            For much of our history immigration was a benefit for both political parties. Then in 1914 something happened that changed our view of immigrants: the first year of our federal income tax.

            It passed in 1913 and in 1914 politicians had a wave of money to buy votes thanks to the people who worked. It was and is a tax on productivity therefore those who are productive like it less than those who get the benefits without working.

            Before 1914, immigration was open and appreciated. It brought workers to our country that had to stand on their own feet or suffer the consequences. Our transcontinental railroads were built by immigrants.

            The immigrants who came to America from the time of our founding until 1914 were people who could and did stand on their own feet. They added to our country's resources rather than taking resources. My relatives came from Germany, Ireland and Sweden not for American charity but for a chance to live a better life.

            My Great-Grandfather Erik Greenberg came from Sweden in 1867 and worked on the railroad. My grandmother was born in upstate New York in 1891. In 1908 the family moved to New Mexico and homesteaded land near Three Rivers. He is buried in Alamogordo.

            These days we frame immigration as our charity to the world where we take care of people from other countries. Americans support them with our productivity. This is also the debate about people who come to our country without legal status or stay illegally.

            The prime objection is that these people take our charity without giving us in America anything of value. While that is painting with a wide brush, it is the argument against allowing illegal immigration in our country. I think America should always be open to those who bring us something and follow our laws.

            I have a world view from having lived some years abroad and with the ability to speak several languages. I appreciate other cultures and especially appreciate the melting-pot aspect of America where for generations people of other lands came and made America stronger.

            This Thanksgiving I am most thankful for this wonderful country. I know Americans took by force the lands and ways of life of the inhabitants already in North America. I cannot do anything about that other than tell the truth. The Thanksgiving story is revisionist history since it happened around 1620 and the story of Thanksgiving we know came out during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars when the image of Thanksgiving was used to bolster American spirits.

            We should go out of our way to enable the current generations of Native Americans to live their lives as they wish because we know the truth of their loss. As to people who wish to come to our land without legal status or stay beyond their legal permit, I must oppose this for a reason not in public dialog currently.

            If in the year of my birth, 1950, President Truman wanted to spend money on refugees that might be fine. So what is different today? Truman would have been spending that generation's money.

            Contrast that to now when people coming to our country both legally and illegally with the intention to take our charity are not taking it from us Americans. Rather, they take it from our children and grandchildren's wealth. We Americans have already spent our wealth, and now are spending the wealth of future generations.

            Future generations should be allowed to be charitable if they so desire and not forced into it by us already spending their wealth before some of them are born. We cannot change what was done to the native populations centuries ago in what is now our country, but we can stop abusing the next generations.

            That is my prayer for this Thanksgiving.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Thanksgiving is an Immigrant holiday

Marita Noon: Ethanol loses its few friends

Commentary by Marita Noon - http://energymakesamericagreat.org/

Early in his campaign, now top-tier Republican presidential candidate, Ben Carson, supported ethanol—a position for which I called him out. It has long been thought, that to win in Iowa, a candidate must support ethanol.

However, in a major policy reversal, Carson told a national audience during the CNBC GOP debate that he no longer supports subsidies for any industry, including U.S. ethanol producers: “I have studied that issue in great detail and what I’ve concluded, the best policy is to get rid of all government subsidies and get the government out of our lives and let people rise and fall based on how good they are.”

Plainly irritated, the ethanol industry shot back immediately, saying it receives no government subsidies. But it neglected to mention a very important fact. Instead of subsidies, ethanol producers get something better: a mandate that orders refiners to blend ethanol into motor fuels which forces consumers to buy their product. A federally guaranteed market beats a subsidy every time.

The ethanol industry also benefits indirectly from agriculture programs that support farmers who grow corn for ethanol. And recently, the Obama Administration announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture is offering $100 million in grants tosubsidize the installation of blender pumps at gas stations all over the country.

In attempt to push more ethanol into the motor fuel market, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) readily admits it plans to “drive growth in renewable fuels by providing appropriate incentives. (Italics added.)”

Carson, and a majority of Republicans and many Democrats, knows the ethanol mandate is a do-gooder program that has gone horribly wrong. Enacted by a well-meaning Congress, in a different energy era, it is part of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires refiners to add biofuels to gasoline and diesel—ostensibly to reduce imports of foreign oil. This multi-headed hydra is siphoning money from consumers’ pockets.

The ethanol mandate has been blamed for rising food prices—particularly for beef and poultry—because it has increased the cost of animal feed. Ethanol-blended fuel provides fewer miles per gallon because ethanol contains only two-thirds as much energy as gasoline, forcing motorists to fill up more often.

The mandate puts at risk millions of vehicles owned and operated by private citizens and fleets. Ethanol is corrosive. In tests, it has been proven to eat engine components, including seals and gaskets, causing expensive repairs. The government does not reimburse motorists for their loss; rather it is allowing—in fact, encouraging—the sale of fuels containing more and more ethanol.

Most vehicles on the road today can withstand E10, a gasoline blend containing up to 10 percent ethanol, but the EPA has granted a “partial waiver” for the sale of 15 percent blends. AAA advises owners of non-flex-fuel vehicles to avoid E15, warning that manufacturers will void their warranties. Although the EPA maintains that 2001 model-year and newer vehicles can safely use E15, studies by the prestigious Coordinating Research Council found that E15 caused engine damage to some of the EPA-approved vehicles, leading to leaks and increased emissions.

Likewise, marine engine makers also caution boat owners to avoid E15. During winter storage, they suggest pouring a fuel stabilizer into built-in gas tanks to avoid problems. A survey of boat owners has shown ethanol-related repairs cost an average of about $1,000.

These days, ethanol has few friends. Opponents include such strange bedfellows as the petroleum, restaurant, livestock and auto industries—and environmental groups.

Despite government claims to the contrary, studies show ethanol also harms the environment. Earlier this year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) discovered the EPA grossly understated the amount of carbon spewed into the air by the expansion of corn farming. This month, the EWG found the corn-ethanol mandate is discouraging advanced biofuels development, which could have environmental benefits.

These are just some of the problems. There’s also the EPA’s complicated Renewable Identification Number (RIN) trading scheme, which allows refiners to buy ethanol credits when not enough is available for purchase. This poorly managed program has allowed phony ethanol companies to sell fictitious credits and abscond with millions of dollars. And then there were the huge fines levied against oil companies for failing to add cellulosic ethanol to gasoline although the advanced fuel did not exist in commercial quantities—even according to the EPA’s own data.

All of these costs have an impact on consumers who buy fuel and for taxpayers who pay the salaries of the bureaucrats who administer the RFS program. Yet the RFS continues to stumble along because Congress has not mustered the will to repeal it.

By November 30, the administration must finalize the amount of biofuels that must be blended into motor fuels in the next couple of years. A pitched battle is developing on Capitol Hill. On one side are those who want an even larger market share for ethanol. On the other side are those who see the program for what it is—a massive payout to one allegedly “green” industry.

The latter group includes more than 180 Washington lawmakers, including Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX), who have sent a letter to the administration asking it to “limit the economic and consumer harm this program has already caused.” Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT.) was more direct. “We’ve got to just acknowledge that the corn-based mandate is a well-intended flop,” he said.

If their effort succeeds, it will not end ethanol production, as there is a free-market call for it. Energy Economist Tim Snyder, who was influential in developing many early ethanol plants, told me: “Regardless of the limits the EPA sets, or the fate of the RFS, we will continue to use ethanol as an additive to provide an adequate oxygenate for our fuel. Oxygenates are beneficial in reformulated fuels to reduce carbon monoxide and soot. Formerly we used lead. We replaced lead with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) then ethanol replaced MTBE. Ethanol was initially targeted as only a replacement for previous oxygenates, however, today with ethanol being 23 cents per gallon more expensive than NYMEX RBOB, the math doesn’t work and the need to increase blends of ethanol doesn’t meet the test of proper blending economics.”

Wisely, Ben Carson has figured out that government meddling in the marketplace is a bad idea. Contrary to conventional wisdom, his rejection of special treatment for ethanol is not hurting his campaign. Although the State of Iowa has made support for ethanol a litmus test for presidential candidates, polls conducted before and after the Oct. 28 debate, when he announced his revised view on ethanol, show Carson continues to rise in popularity nationally. Even the pro-ethanol lobby, using its semantic gymnastics, cannot dispute that fact.

Congress could learn from Carson’s positive poll numbers by once and for all ending the ethanol subsidies, er, mandates, without fearing political reprisal. Like Carson, doing so might even help Congress’ pitiful approval numbers.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

Marita Noon: Ethanol loses its few friends

Swickard: Hardening America's soft targets

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. "As George Orwell pointed out, people sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier

             We live in a violent world and as the above quote proclaims we are either the people defending ourselves with violence or we are made safe by rough people doing violence on our behalf. Sometimes we are not at the wrong place at the wrong time, but sometimes we are.

            Worldwide terrorists intend to create terror in our hearts with violence. Again we are only safe from terrorists when rough people do violence on our behalf in neutralizing those of evil intent.

            The terrorist attacks we have seen this year and especially in the last weeks have one message for Americans: soft targets are attractive to people who wish to harm Americans. America like Europe is full of soft targets. How can we harden our soft targets?

            The definition of a soft target is a place where the people do not have a robust active defense. Examples are public schools and community areas. They are especially Gun Free Zones where citizens are prohibited from having a gun for defense. A lack of defense is very attractive to people who are going to break the law anyway.

            To people who only have seconds to live, the police will be there in minutes. The attackers assume being able to shoot unarmed citizens is good. Occasionally attackers will strike and an off-duty policeman will end the attack because he or she is armed which the attacker did not know.

            As I point out often to the opponents of having citizens be allowed a robust defense, the very nature of not having a defense is what motivates some attackers. It is not often that attackers decide to shoot up a police station. That doesn't end well for the attackers and they know it.

            The hallmark of soft targets is that none of the victims can shoot back. All they can do is ask for mercy as the terrorists kill them. It does not seem terrorists are deep into mercy.

            So terrorists seek soft targets because it is far easier to achieve their goals. That doesn't preclude that once in a while a high value target will have armed resistance. It means that armed resistance is the only way that the terrorists can be defeated and the helpless victims might survive.

            The goal to defeat attackers who hit soft targets is to not make the defense easily identifiable. When Sky Marshalls were put on commercial airplanes incognito skyjackers did not know if the plane had a defender and more importantly, if the skyjacker was going to get their head blown off. That discouraged rational skyjackers.

            That is the only real defense for our soft targets: the defense must be such that people of ill intent cannot spot the defense but they know it probably will be there and active. There is not easy defense when attackers are very motivated. Having someone with a gun standing there does not always work because the person showing a gun may be the first one attacked.

            But in the audience at the music hall in Paris the attackers had no one opposing them until the police arrived much too late to save many of the victims. If at the moment of attack the terrorists were summarily shot by citizens, it might have saved many victims.

            There is a great truth in a false quote that is repeated often by historians of World War Two. Probably the best military man of Japan, Admiral Isoroko Yamamoto studied at Harvard University and was part of a delegation that visited the U. S. Naval War College. He spoke English well.

            A false Yamamoto quote often repeated: "You cannot invade the mainland United State. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." No, he didn't say it. But it is good advice to terrorists. In America there might be a rifle behind every blade of grass so leave us alone.

            That will discourage or dispatch attackers. It is only by an active robust defense can we have any hope of being safe here in America.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Hardening America's soft targets

Swickard: Generations acting like suckers

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "It's morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money." W. C. Fields

             I was smacked around a bit for saying last week in my column that young people are not acting smart about their future. The fact is that their future finances are being spent now by politicians therefore young Americans, some of whom are not even born yet, are going to be left holding an empty financial future.

            When we are talking about young people who are of voting age this is even more egregious. Those young people could put a stop to the theft if they all worked together. Alas, not only are they not putting a stop to their future being stolen, they are actively handing to the thieves their valuables.

            We are all responsible for our actions so mostly I protest for the young people not of age to vote or not even born yet. They are being pilfered without any way to resist. The mainstream media pushes the scam of politicians spending the future money as if it was a responsible action. In a word it is the national debt which must be paid back at some point yet there are no plans currently to do so.

            How did we get to this place? The clever but morally corrupt people in our society are taking advantage of the citizens in our society who are not paying attention to the effect of printing money and borrowing money without any intention to pay that money back. Sadly even though clever politicians have stolen the young people's future financially most young people would vote for them again.

            There is a term, "Grifter" which is used for someone who swindles using deception. That's our politicians. We refer to them as a con artist or a swindler or a scammer. In the future young citizens will live lesser lives because of what is stolen today.

            At the coffee shop the question was asked: is this because of a collapse in public education? I do not think this is connected to education. Rather it is willful ignorance. Americans ignore data all the time to their detriment. Let me give you an example: a fantasy football betting operation is proudly touting that they will pay out two billion dollars this year. Wow, two billion dollars will be paid to the winners.

            When many Americans hear that statistic they want some of that money. They do not stop to ask a pertinent question: where does the fantasy football betting company get the two billion dollars to pay winners?

            The most common answer was that they have no idea where the money to pay out two billion dollars comes from. Well burro, the answer is it comes from those people who play the game and lose. In fact, collectively in the betting pool it is not two billion dollars lost it is more since betting operations make a profit.

            Likewise Las Vegas, Nevada was built with people who came and left their money. Some people can see this fact while others either cannot or will not. These same people are also unable to realize if the government gives something to one citizen, they must take those resources away from another citizen.

            And there is the Lottery which is viewed as good by most people. To be sure I am not against the Lottery since it is a tax on ignorance rather than some money you are compelled to send to the government against your will. The odds of winning are such that you are more likely to be struck by lightning.

            And I even say that people should play the Lottery with this proviso: play with money you can afford to lose. Same for Las Vegas and fantasy football betting. But what about stealing the money from generations that will follow us? That is a horrible crime that is going unseen and unchecked.

            The professed national debt is twenty trillion dollars while unfunded mandates are around a hundred twenty trillion dollars more. America has borrowed this money. The borrowed money must be repaid by someone eventually. The bill will come due in the future. Who will pay it? You know, the suckers.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Generations acting like suckers

Swickard: A warning to young people

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  Let me speak gently to the young people of our country. Someday in the future each of you may discover this column and be forced to admit you were warned by me and others about what was going to happen to you and your generation's wealth.

            Your future wealth is being spent today without your permission. When you figure it all out the ones stealing your future will already be gone. And you will have no one still alive to blame but yourselves.

            Most young people are self-absorbed and feel superior to us geezers and geezerettes. Truth be told, that's how I felt fifty years ago when I got advice from the oldsters of my generation. The politicians of today are counting on the young people remaining clueless.

            The greatest generation who fought the Second World War did not always think about their possible grandchildren and how the changes in the geo-political world would help or hinder those unborn children. They were trying to bring our world out of chaos and return peace to all people instead of war.

            We have lived most of seventy years afterwards without a catastrophic world war. At the same time over those years politicians came to realize they could steal the future wealth of young people without a protest.

            What is going to happen to the next generations is truly unprecedented. The theft of their future is happening today and no one really cares that they will live lesser lives because of my generation. Well, I care, hence this column.

            In 1960, when I was ten years old President Eisenhower and Congress ran a tight ship financially. There were very little in the way of deficits. Over the ensuring years more and more debt was absorbed first by Social Security and then by the Federal Reserve just printing money.

            Currently the professed national debt is twenty trillion dollars or about sixty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in our nation. There is no intention by the current national leadership to reduce that debt. It will come due. Who will pay it? The debt has been allowed to grow unchecked.

            Truth for the young people in our country is that the wealth for that debt will come from their generation. That is the sad truth. Each day we are spending for the purpose of politics the future wealth of our children and grandchildren. And those future citizens cannot stop the theft.

            Voting people into office seems to not make any difference. The media puts our attention to important items such as the cost of a Taylor Swift dress. The future of our young people does not look rosy.

            Yes, our young people have youth which is a blessing many do not realize and will only understand as it leaves them. The young have all of their fellow youth who are determined to remain as ignorant as possible. They will not vote because they do not see a reason to do so.

            Years from now the young people of that future generation, if honest with themselves, will see why our generation should have stopped the theft of their future wealth. Today, despite this being the information age they are caught without the education to understand the effect of our political actions on their future. The blush of youth makes them think they are on top of their problems. They are not.

            Money is taken from one person to buy the vote of another. Worse, it is taken from future generations to buy votes now. I have protested this theft many times but rarely do I find any of the next generation who pay the slightest attention to that theft of their future wealth.

            The day of reckoning will come for the incredible debt and unfunded liabilities. In fifty years that went from zero to one hundred twenty trillion dollars. Someone will pick up the tab for all of that vote buying and it is going to be coming generations.

            Don't say you were not warned. Vote for those who will address the financial crisis, not the ones promising to give you things for your votes. But I guess you will learn this lesson someday.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: A warning to young people