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
More parenting is needed

Aug 01, 2019

Peter Gray in Psychology Today advises for less parenting. The problem is exactly the opposite: There is not enough parenting. In the past, when most of our ancestors lived in self-supporting households, often a farm, out of necessity, children were an integral part of whatever adults needed to do during their daily life, and they learned that way. Now, we do not need to do as much at home. Work is outside the home, food is brought in, heat is turned on and off, and mysteriously magical, colorful screens are the center of most activities. If we leave children free to explore what they find the most attractive, they will play video games. There might be some educational value in it, but one needs to learn much more. Hence, we need more effort in parenting, with parents doing more in the home than is otherwise required, and spending more time with children outside in order to introduce them to the real world. This realization hit home after I witnessed the surprise of a 7-year old seeing apples on my apple tree.

PREVIOUS COMMENTS
Less fight more work
Jul 30, 2017

The fight over Obamacare repeal is over, at least for now. The GOP can start to work on a new proposal that each of us can look at it, and then compare how my particular health care solution would play in it, as compared to Obamacare. In a television interview, HHS Secretary Tom Price said that Obamacare “may be working for Washington, it may be working for insurance companies, but it’s not working for patients.” Maybe it is time to consider patients’ involvement in the preparation of an Obamacare alternative? It could be that Obamacare repeal failed just because it has been prepared by Washington with consultation from insurance companies. Let us start with addressing 19 health care issues that politicians avoid talking about.

More
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.

More
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
More Comments

The swindle of the century,

or why Democrats do not want debates about climate change

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Recently I post my texts on Medium as well. Recognizing the popularity of this emerging forum, I wrote a polemic with the text posted there.

“We are facing an existential threat,” Lauren Martinchek warns us in her text It’s Time For a Climate Change Debate. Ms. Martinchek calls herself a “leftist” but is introduced by Medium as the “Top writer in Government, Economics, Politics, Climate Change, Leadership.” When Medium recommends an article by one of the top writers, I read.

At first, I was excited as I see a lot of misinformation on the subject and always welcome any opportunity to discuss the subject with people of different views. This is not what Ms. Martinchek had in mind. She does not want any discussions with people disagreeing with her views on climate change, as expressed in her eight texts on this subject published on Medium this year. She just wants Democratic presidential candidates to simmer in their own sauce, outbidding themselves in avoiding the real debate.

People ready to debate climate change for real are everywhere, Medium included. If, before writing a lot, Ms. Martinchek read a little, she could find on Medium that What you know about climate change is probably wrong, written by Jonathan Clark, a regular guy just curious to find out how it really is. David Siegel went even further. He read science reports representing all imaginable points of view on the subject, and in his comprehensive, 9,000-words-long report concluded, also on Medium, that The Science is not Settled on climate change.

My small contribution is in bringing to Medium my old polemic with an author at Huffington Post, doubting that our attempts to fight the climate change are as smart as going With a hoe against the Sun. When reading articles about global warming reposted on Medium from the Washington Post, I noticed recently that It is not about climate, and it is not change, but about billions of dollars per day.

If Ms. Martinchek is not much into reading, there are plenty of videos as well. My preferred is a brief lecture by Prof. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel laureate in physics.

Let us speculate what could be discussed, if politicians would approach the issue of climate change seriously. The most obvious would be starting with the assumption that CO2 emissions are the main cause of climate change, and that we can stop it by going away from fossil fuels. People such as Ms. Martinchek want our government to borrow anywhere between $10 trillion and $100 trillion within the next decade to finance technological transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

A multitude of concerns come to mind. First, we should worry that the federal government will do it as efficiently as it runs the U.S. Postal Service and the Veterans Administration. It means that if hard times due to the climate change actually come, we all, as a nation, and as individual Americans, will be under the burden of a horrendous national debt. Our ability to react to the unexpected will be very limited. Only the very few rich, who now want to lend us these trillions of dollars, will be fine.

Just before cars had been invented by the end of the 19th century, people had been scared that the civilization as it was known would collapse soon due to horse droppings. The high demand for transportation required so many horse carriages that scientists calculated that soon it would be impossible to remove horse droppings from the streets. Cars changed everything. It is important to note that the federal government did not lend money to finance the Model T. The federal government did not spend a dime.

One should ask why a transition from the fossil fuel-based energy to renewable energy should be done differently. The recent technological progress in solar energy is tremendous. As well as progress in batteries. Already there are houses off the electric grid. The Model T version of it is somewhere nearby, where energy from solar panels can be stored in batteries, making electrical energy cheaper than from fossil fuels. Parallel to this, the recent advancement in electric car technology is promising as well. Soon these cars will be cheaper than the ones with combustion engines.

Of course, an investment is needed in further development of these technologies. China is getting ahead because for the last 20 years they invested in technological progress while Americans spent a few trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. People who lent money for these wars now convinced Ms. Martinchek, and many others, that they should lend money to the American government so then the government can use this money to finance the technological rebuilding of American industry. To make it clear, the same people who want to lend us these trillions of dollars are major stockholders of American industry. In other words, they will get back, in contracts and grants, the money they want to lend to federal government. Then they will reap the benefits of this rebuild for themselves and charge Americans the interest on the loan.

That double-dipping is the swindle of the century. The objective is not in doing nothing about climate change, but in putting the onus on private industry to lead the technological progress. This will make richer both individual Americans as well as government agencies on all levels. If investments in infrastructure are needed, they could be better managed by local governments. If blunders happen, as the federal government did when “protecting” us from opioids, or from flying unsafe planes, they will affect only a city, a county or a state, not the whole nation. This decentralized approach goes along with the basic American principle that the strength of the nation comes not from what government does but from what Americans do by themselves.

An ideologically blindfolded leftist might not see the complexity of this matter. Practical operatives at the Democratic National Convention may not see it clearly either, but they are clever enough to anticipate that as soon as the climate change issue comes up for debate, many of the difficult questions and seditious ideas mentioned above will get out of the bottle. Eyeing the general election, they cannot afford this to happen now.

Leave a Reply

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