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
How to pay for the wall?

Apr 04, 2017

If you want to build the wall, pay for it with your own money. How much of your own money are you willing to donate? Trump received 62,979,879 votes. If each of Trump’s supporters voluntarily donates at least $1,000, which corresponds to about $42 per month for the next two years, and if we encourage those who are more affluent to double their donations, then Trump can have on hand about $100 billion, which may suffice for a substantial piece of the wall. Hence, all of you who are talking loudly about spending my money on building this wall, stay away from my wallet, but open your own wallet and send money to the “Build the Wall Fund.” Put your money where your mouth is.

PREVIOUS COMMENTS
What is wrong with Russia?
Dec 22, 2015

It appears that Russian leaders cannot free themselves from the medieval concept of regional influence, where weaker neighbors were subdued into becoming serf states. Is anyone capable of explaining to them that in these times of a global economy, any influence comes from economic strength? Russia, thanks to its size, natural resources and well-educated labor force, has everything that it takes to maintain a dominant position in the region, just by maintaining free trade with all its neighbors. It can do so without military interventions in Georgia and in Ukraine. Russia has everything that it takes to be a respected wealthier neighbor, to whom everyone in the region would turn for help when needed. Instead, it is a bully and a hooligan. It would take so little to change that. But it is so hard for Russia to do it. 

More
Closed mind for closed borders
Nov 19, 2015

Known to some as a libertarian, Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. speaks against open borders. His argument is that it is an infraction against private property. He misses the point that most people migrate just because Mr. Rockwell’s neighbors want them on their private property – for picking apples, washing the dishes or writing a computer code. Then, Mr. Rockwell wrongly laments that those foreigners invited by his neighbors violate his private property rights by loitering in the public spaces that he frequents. He wants the government to deny the rights of his neighbors to do on their private property whatever they wish, so he will not need to face immigrants in the public spaces. Mr. Rockwell left the train called “liberty” at the station called “xenophobia.”    

More
They do not know…
Sep 14, 2015

Mr. Trump says: “A lot of what I’m doing is by instinct.” I prefer that our President would make decisions based on systematic due diligence. The instinct that guides Mr. Trump in his professional life arrives from his vast experience, starting when he was growing up under the mentoring of his successful father, followed by a solid education and years of practice. Mr. Trump's confidence is misguiding, as it gives his supporters the illusion that someone who mastered real estate dealing can be equally skillful as President. It is similar to the illusion surrounding Dr. Carson, that he can be as good a President as he is a brain surgeon. If both gentlemen were humbler, they would realize that they qualify to be President equally as much as Mr. Trump qualifies to conduct brain surgeries and Dr. Carson to run Mr. Trump’s real estate empire. The problem is not that they do not know many things they should; the problem is that they do not realize that.

More
Freedom cannot be legislated, its restriction can
Mar 31, 2015

Indiana voted in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In his WSJ piece, Gov. Mike Pence claims it was needed to protect the religious freedoms of Hoosiers. Every legislative act by its nature limits someone’s freedom. The only way of increasing freedom is by identifying existing laws that curb personal liberties and then eliminating them.  Hence, if Gov. Pence sees that under some circumstances, the religious freedoms of Hoosiers are not respected, he could correct the situation by eliminating laws causing this problem. We have the Bill of Rights, and it suffices. No “enhancements” are needed.

More
Greed-driven health care
Feb 27, 2015

The solution to our health care crisis is in the implementation of more market-driven mechanisms into our health care policy. This is the only way to give patients the freedom to make decisions regarding their care between them and their doctors; not having these decisions made by faceless bureaucrats. The biggest obstacle in implementing a change of this kind is in a deep public conviction that the introduction of the free market into health care will result in doctors, hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry and everybody else involved being guided by their greed, not the best interests of sick people. The biggest challenge in overturning Obamacare is not in Washington. It is in winning the argument with Americans that free-market-driven health care can serve their needs much better than the government-distributed one.

More
Immigration inaction
Feb 17, 2015

Congress could not agree on the immigration reform. President Obama resorted to executive orders. Now he is stopped by a court order. It is sad to see that this legal wrangling substitutes for real discussion on why we have this immigration crisis and what we should do to get it resolved. Most Americans have strong, ideologically motivated views about immigration. If they were right, the policies implemented would work, and we would not have a problem anymore. We have an ongoing problem because most Americans are wrong in their understanding of what caused massive illegal immigration and what we should do to get it corrected. There will be no progress until someone  addresses this problem. For more about why we have this immigration mess go here.  

More
More Comments

It is editors’ fault

Why is it so hard to reach any reasonable consensus on immigration? In 2006, we failed to reform our immigration system. Seven years later things do not look much better. The current Senate Bill S.744 has many vocal opponents, and even its supporters agree that it is just a tiny step in the right direction. Similarly, it seems unlikely that the House will come up with any concept gaining widespread support either. Where is the problem? Let me ask a tricky question: who is more to blame – the Senate or the House? The right answer is: the WSJ editorial page editors. To be precise, the blame is on media in general, in particular on the concept of the editorial writing practiced since the inception of newspapers. In this text I pick on the WSJ as, to the misfortune of the editors there, this is the main paper I read regularly.

Traditionally, every printed periodical has an ideological leaning; there is a set of values that the publication follows and promotes. In the not so remote past, there were at least a few newspapers in every town, there were many weekly and monthly periodicals as well, often locally owned; with an editor having his or her own political agenda. With such dispersion and variety, people were exposed to different ideas. With market consolidation, many small papers disappeared or were acquired. For those who remain independent it is cheaper to have syndicated political writers than to have a full editorial staff. On top of that, radio and TV stations were consolidated in a similar manner. As a result, Americans are now exposed to fewer political concepts and ideas than before. With this centralization, we have a relatively narrow group of media personas with nationwide influence; mostly those who are the best in their abilities to gather followers. It means a stronger bond with followers; it means as well that these followers are less likely open to other political concepts and ideas.

In this new environment, the concept of the editorial page as advancing a particular ideological orientation became obsolete as we do not have varieties of political orientations anymore. We have strong polarization of opinions. In the case of immigration, we just have two formations: for increased immigration and for restricted immigration. According to the recent opinion poll, 55% of Americans are for decreased immigration, 28% are for increased immigration, 10% are for no change and 7% are undecided.  For the 55% of Americans, immigrants are perceived as taking their jobs, as ruining their neighborhoods, as a burden to the state, and as changing our nation for worse.  These opponents of increased immigration are very passionate about their cause as they are driven by fears of losing something of value to them. For the remaining 45%, immigration is the net gain or they see it as the realistic and human approach to the simple fact that, as history has proved it to us, there is no way to forcefully stop migration of people in search for better opportunities.  

In this landscape the numbers and the dynamics are not good for any reasonable immigration reform. The rift between opponents and supporters of increased immigration is deep and the two sides are like a bad marriage, they do not talk anymore and when they face each other, they yell. We need a shrink. And this is where the editors should step in, but they do not. Media failed us as the fourth branch of government.

Editorial pages should serve as a platform for public debates on issues of utmost importance within society. Major papers, such as the WSJ, share more of this civic responsibility than others. They do not fulfill it, as they follow an anachronistic model of promoting their set of values. In the case of immigration, the WSJ editors are in that 45% camp, and they publish many valuable articles promoting and explaining their position. These texts are valued and respected by these WSJ readers who are as well in that 45% camp, but they have very little effect on the readers who are in that 55% camp. It is worth noticing that most comments posted on the WSJ online edition are by vicious opponents of increased immigration. Despite this, besides occasionally publishing these opinions in the letters to editor section, the WSJ editorial page barely recognize and address concerns and aggravations of that 55% camp. If so, some attention is given to maneuvers in the corridors of Washington in order to outsmart ploys of the opposite side.

Parallel, there are other publications where arguments against increased immigration are presented and opposite arguments are ignored. Similarly, some attention is given to navigation in the corridors of Washington in order to outsmart the opposite side. As much as I agree that the political apparatus in Washington became dysfunctional, on this issue I would not like to be in the legislators’ shoes as with the almost half and half split within the nation, it is impossible to arrive at any reasonable compromise. No one seems to recognize that the solution is not in manipulating the lawmaking process but in understanding and addressing objections of the opponents. Plainly, unless either side wins the argument in a public debate and broadens its support this way, there is no hope for any reasonable immigration reform.  

My reference point reaches back to my journalistic experiences in Poland in 1970s. The press there was similarly centralized, not due to the market consolidation as in the U.S. now, but as the part of the political system. Operating in the totalitarian system, dealing daily with censors, leading journalists tried to maximize their use of scarce freedoms of expression by being as objective as possible, through sticking to the facts and scientific deduction. This way they could avoid accusations of being anti-socialistic. Their persistence in this facts and logic based approach made a huge dent in the opinions of the political elites and politically aware citizens. This systematic effort built the foundation for the Solidarity movement and the transition several years later. My recollection from that experience is that despite censorship, we had more thorough political debates than I currently observe in the U.S.

There was no magic in this approach. It was just hard meticulous editorial work. An issue identified as of high importance was presented for the public scrutiny. Editors sought opinions offering better understanding of the problem. Opposite views were presented, then responses, then responses to the responses. Letters from readers, and responses to them were an important part of the process. When a major publication brought up an important subject, it resonated throughout all the press. Polemics, which have more appeal to readers, were much more common than in the American press now. A reader following such debate had a fair chance of finding most of the relevant information -understand interests and motivations of the parties involved; hear their arguments and arguments of their opponents and get a broader historical and geographical content. The complexity of this approach was the key, as this was the way to build and retain the customer’s trust.

Applying this approach would imply reexamination of the whole immigration dilemma in front of the WSJ readers. Why do we have the immigration law as we do? Is it good? Is it enforceable? Are there any other options? What should be the purpose of the immigration policy? How did we end up with such high population of illegal immigrants? What is the best way to eliminate this problem once and for all? Those are a few basic questions, just to get started. Representatives of both sides of the immigration split should be invited to answer these questions, then allowed the rebuttal. Editorial page editors should be moderators; they would be representing an average American trying to squeeze some sense out of that noise on the immigration issue.

Conducting this kind of public scrutiny might take a lot of paper, but it can be easily done online with periodical briefings in printed edition. Backed by the publicly conducted examination, the WSJ writers could take a firmer standing in expressing their opinions, and in challenging politicians and other media venues presenting views determined as false during the public analysis.

We have a political gridlock in Washington because, ironically, in the era of unprecedented abilities to communicate, we are unable to debate merits of our problems. Immigration is one example; health care is the next one. In the editorial writing concept as it is commonly practiced now, the term “communicate” reached its narrow meaning, as “to express” or “propagate.” Exchanging views and understanding opinions of others simply disappeared. Instead of searching for the truth, we have ex cathedra lecturing.  Giving a chance to deliberative democracy might be worth trying. For the WSJ it is a business decision to consider. For readers it would mean a different paper. If implemented, would this change be welcome?

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