Many people write or speak to tell us what we should think. Some want to be believed because they are experts, or think they are. Some want to be believed because they claim to speak for us. Some have had revelations. Others want us to trust them because they communicate through prominent media outlets. Many tell us what we should think. I write to encourage my readers to think for themselves. I write to ask you to inquire. Question me. Have fun.

Comment of the Day
Net neutrality exposed

Jan 16, 2014

Internet service is not much different than other utilities, such as electricity, gas or water. Politicians and commentators focus on the nominal speed offered by ISPs. Comparing to water for example, nominal speed offered is analogous to water pressure. We are charged not for the nominal pressure, but for how much water we consume. The pressure offered is a mere technical consequence of the need to satisfy our demand for the volume of water. Similarly, for the internet service providers the cost of service is related to the volume of data transmitted. In order to have this transmission be useful (for example, being able to watch live TV) certain speed needs to be guaranteed.

    If we want the internet to grow and develop freely, we have to expect that its users are charged based on real cost of the service delivery, not on some political fiction imagined by politicians that do not understand neither technology nor business.
      Net neutrality came into existence due this ignorance of politicians and their eagerness of mingling with things beyond their comprehension. As much as this seems to be a norm, it does not release us from exposing it every time when it occurs.

      Illegal lawyer
      Jan 03, 2014
      The California Supreme Court granted permission to practice law to Mr. Sergio C. Garcia, who formally is an illegal immigrant. This decision created a lot of noise in media. We can only hope that this case will trigger long overdue discussion about legality, I mean constitutionality, of our immigration law as it is now. The case can be made that our current immigration law is unconstitutional, and that this is the beginning and the end of all the problems with immigration we ever had, have now,  and might have in the future. 
      Spherical heaters
      Dec 17, 2013
      The government decided that we should not use old style incandescent bulbs due to their energy inefficiency. Only about 10% of the energy they use goes into light, everything else is heat. Most of us have already gradually switched to new bulbs, luminescent or LED. Do we really need the government to be a busy bee regulating this technological transition? What if some people, regardless of inefficiency, want to keep old bulbs for aesthetic or sentimental reasons? The European Union is ahead of us in this process. When they banned old kind-hearted bulbs, some people still wanted to have them. As there was a market for them in Germany, they were sold not as light bulbs but as spherical heaters. After all, this is what they do the best. The eagerness of bureaucrats never can overcome ingenuity of regular folks.
      Helping Mexico
      Dec 10, 2013
      Some anti-immigration advocates say that the best that the U.S. can do, is help Mexico reform their political system. How can it be done most efficiently? Ironically, by allowing freedom of migration and letting even more Mexicans from poor states, such as Oaxaca, to come and work in the U.S. As soon as they see that the world could be better than it is in their home state, they will do whatever in their power to change it. Their strength and resolve will be reinforced by dollars made in the U.S. The ideas of freedom and democracy still are the strongest assets and attraction of the U.S. The best way to spread them is not by sending American soldiers to implement them somewhere else. It is by allowing others to come and experience them first hand. Those are very contagious ideas.
      Obamacare will never work
      Nov 24, 2013
      Obama care does not work and never will. The Harvard Law School graduate does not know the definition of insurance. He does not understand that by its definition insurance can cover only possible but unlikely events. There cannot be insurance covering preexisting conditions, as it cannot be insurance covering the leaking roof. If we loosened up the grip of government regulations, the market would come up with the insurance for permanent health deterioration; hence, it would make sense for young people to pay this insurance for if they develop “preexisting conditions” next year or 50 years down the road, they would have coverage. With this simple approach of insurance as a life cycle affair, not an one year deal, Obamacare is not needed at all.
        Obamacare will also not work because the University of Chicago constitutional law teacher does not understand the Constitution. The idea behind the Constitution is that people should have freedom to find the best ways of handling their affairs, and that the government should not be in the business of making these decisions for them or in the business of providing services to citizens. With Obamacare the government took upon itself a job of providing an essential service, instead of securing that private entities have freedom, including freedom from government regulations, to do so anyway they see fit.
        The pot calling the kettle black
        Oct 07, 2013
        Republicans want to stop Obamacare, believing that it is an excessive expansion of intrusive government, that it is a socialistic concept, which - if implemented - will make healthcare even more expensive and less accessible, putting more burdens on both - lives of individual Americans and economy as a whole. The problem is not that they are right, but that they are not better; they are unable to offer any viable alternative. Their approach to immigration proves that they are socialists as well. They want expansion of E-Verify, a Soviet style police state idea; they want socialistic central planning of immigration. In order to overcome the current crisis, the GOP needs to abandon socialism; on both, healthcare and immigration.
        Why the government is shut down?
        Oct 01, 2013
        In democracy majority rules. However, it is unwise to implement a major law with a narrow majority, and despite the strong disapproval of the main opposition. This is how the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare was voted in. Then it won a narrow support in the 2012 election. Slightly more than 50% of Americans are for Obamacare, and slightly less than 50% of Americans are strongly against it. The country cannot function when a narrow majority forces its policy on the meaningful minority.
        More Comments

        One idea, many consequences

        Let me begin with an introduction for readers outside of Illinois. In the last election, a political novice but a successful businessman, Bruce Rauner, was elected as the state’s new governor. One former Illinois governor is in prison, another was recently released – both for corruption. The state government is perceived as inefficient and crooked. The numbers are not good, either. People argue about how big the debt is, but nobody questions that it is too big; Illinois has the worst credit rating among all states in the nation.  Billboards in Chicago encourage businesses to move to Indiana.

        Bruce Rauner has promised to reverse this down spin. Preparing to take office in January, the governor-elect has turned to Illinoisans for ideas. People providing ideas are asked to allocate them to one of the 88 state agencies. The Department of Aging, being the first on the list, caught my attention, because with me being above 60, aging is my great concern.

        My first reflection was that even the best-run Department of Aging cannot stop or, even better, reverse my aging. Furthermore, a long time ago I knew when my senior years would come. I had decades to save money and make arrangements in securing for myself decent living conditions in retirement. I realize that if I miscalculate, in my senior years I might need to accept a lower standard of living than I enjoy now. Lastly, if I ever would need to ask for help from the Department of Aging, I would see it as a humiliating acknowledgment of my failure in securing my well-being at my old age, what I consider as my sole responsibility.

        It is not how the Department of Aging sees its mission, as in the opening statement on its website one can read that it is in “administering quality and culturally appropriate programs that promote partnerships and encourage independence, dignity, and quality of life” for older Illinoisans. The difference is in taking away the – obvious to me – embarrassment of reaching for government support and replacing it with the pride of getting something that one is entitled to. In this difference there is encompassed the essence of the problems that Illinois faces; it is in the question of what the role of government is. Is it in facilitating individuals to become prosperous and self-sufficient by their own actions, or is it in building a network of government institutions guaranteeing everyone “dignity and quality of life”?

        The latter seems to be the model of government practiced in Illinois. It seems to be the opposite to the ideal of government as envisioned at the origins of the United States and practiced up to about one hundred years ago, when gradually government began taking upon itself the ever-expanding obligations of providing “dignity and quality of life” for everyone. Before that, government was perceived as securing law and order, guaranteeing everyone the same chances to prosper. In that approach, the government role was in preserving the individual’s unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Behind this lofty language is the sobering truth best described by Benjamin Franklin that “the U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it.” The reality was that those who caught up with it became rich, those who did not – poor. Those unlucky poor were left to the mercy of the charity of others. It was perceived as unjust and undignified, as for many that misfortune was not their fault; it was due to sickness, accidents or the wrongdoing of others. From there, it was just one step to get government involved in assisting those unfortunate.

        Once started, it could only grow. For example, the $1.12 billion budget (2014) of the Department of Aging means an average $502 spent per year for every Illinoisan older than 60. Yes, older than 60, because this is the age that qualifies for help from the Department of Aging. Presently 17.3% of the inhabitants of Illinois are 60 or older. Within the next fifteen years it will be reaching 25%, almost a 50% increase. The Rauner administration will need to find money to finance the expected 50% increase in the needs of the Department of Aging. Or, it may take a different approach; it can revitalize the economy so people will make enough money to become self-sufficient in their advanced years. Also, it can open opportunities for older people to get help in the most dignified way, by finding a job. Lastly, it can tell Illinoisans the sad truth that “dignity and quality of life” never will and never can come from the government handouts; they can only come from one’s own work.

        With this approach the Department of Aging could be completely eliminated, as most old people would not need it. Those very few needing assistance with housing could get it from the Illinois Housing Development Authority; those needing medical or living assistance could get it from the departments of Healthcare and Family Services or Human Services. The general idea is that the government should shift from providing  “dignity and quality of life” into enabling and encouraging people to take care of their affairs themselves, so fewer of them would need and seek government assistance.

        Are Illinoisans ready to accept this concept of working more and expecting less from the government? I doubt it. My conclusion is based on the result of the minimum wage referendum, where almost exactly two-thirds of Illinois voters supported increasing the minimum wage from the current $8.25 to $10.00. The argument for an increased minimum wage was that a person working full time should earn a living wage. The fallacy of this argument is that neither the current nor proposed minimum wage suffices to support a family; the real living salary starts around double the minimum wage.

        The legal minimum wage is a reference point for unskilled workers and in practice should apply mostly for beginners and seasonal workers. Only unqualified workers with a poor work ethic should stay on the minimum wage for a prolonged time; everybody else should advance. Hence, the real objective is not whether the minimum wage is one dollar higher or lower, it is in having a prevailing majority of workers making at least double the minimum wage. However, with the economy in stagnation, as in Illinois, many workers had no choice but to accept jobs paying minimum wage or not much above it. The only way out of it is by stimulating the economy. The government decree increasing the minimum wage arbitrarily, without a revitalization of the economy, will only cause inflation; people will be paid more, but each dollar earned will be worth less. Two-thirds of Illinois voters do not get it.

        By electing Bruce Rauner, Illinois voters recognized the need for reforms. They are about to get a rude awakening to the painful truth that the near-bankruptcy of the state is not caused by a group of bad politicians. It is a logical consequence of the will of the majority of Illinoisans wanting the state government to maintain a system of regulations and government agencies guaranteeing “dignity and quality of life” for everyone. This concept of a complex government breeds corruption. It also gives the masses an illusion that, in exchange for some petty taxes now, in the future almost everyone will get government assistance far exceeding his or her contribution. This craftiness of a dodger eventually leads to too many takers and too few contributors. It leads to insolvency, exactly where Illinois is now.

        Bruce Rauner succeeded in convincing Illinoisans that he can make Illinois great again. Judging from the minimum wage referendum, about two-thirds of the people in Illinois still did not get it that it can be done only by government doing less, not more. It can be done only by government making it easier to get prosperous for those who want to work harder and take a risk. And, by government giving away less to those who are not as much entrepreneurial in taking care of their own affairs. By winning the election, Bruce Rauner opened the doors to a better Illinois. The steep stairs up have just begun.

        A version of this text was published by Huffington Post

        About me

        I was born in 1951 in Gdansk, Poland.
        Since my high school years, I have interest in politics and love for writing. During my college years, I started writing to student papers and soon became freelance author to major Polish political magazines.

        In 1980 I wrote a book “Czy w Polsce może być lepiej?” (“Could it be better in Poland?” – this book is available only in Polish) analyzing major problems in Poland at the time and outlining possible solutions.

        I was among those Polish political writers who by their writings contributed to the peaceful system transformation that finally took place in 1989. Since 1985, I live in the Chicago area. I went through the hard times typical of many immigrants. Working in service business, I have seen the best and the worst places, I met the poorest and the richest. I have seen and experienced America not known to most of politicians, business people, and other political writers. For eleven years, I ran my own company. Presently, I am an independent consultant.

        My political writing comes out of necessity. I write when I see that the prevailing voices on the political arena are misleading or erroneous. Abstract mathematics and control theory (of complex technological processes) strongly influenced my understanding of social phenomena. In the past, my opponents rebuked my mathematical mind as cold, soulless, and inhuman. On a few occasions I was prized for my engineer’s precision and logic.

        I have a master’s degree in electronic engineering with a specialization in mathematical machines from Politechnika Gdańska (Technical University of Gdansk).

        ... more