What are WE going to DO?

Today's post comes from our regular contributing blogger ARC (A Radical Centrist).

Gasoline is over $4 per gallon and the push for ethanol is driving global food prices higher (no it’s not just the recession). What are we going to do about it?

That is the important point in any problem. What are we going to DO? We can keep talking about “energy independence” and alternative or renewable energy. We can keep hoping the market will fill the need. Or we can DO something.

The US Department of Energy has a great website, though I doubt it is oft visited. On that site you can find information on solar(1) and wind energy and even wind maps(2) indicating the areas best suited for wind farms. Elsewhere you can find maps indicating average solar intensity for use in generating power(3). The market is barely starting to turn to these sources AFTER we have entered a real decline in oil availability(4) and a spiking of prices. But the “market” is not geared for long term thinking. It is a short term system based on filling an existing need and profiting off of it. So this image of going green is more PR than substance. Often the market actor who anticipates a trend or need looses out on market share. Just look at BetaMax, Apple (particularly in the 90s) Computers, or the Tucker automobile. And frankly that is just how the market should be, profit driven. So as long as these alternatives remain more expensive (and more inconvenient for industry) than traditional generation methods they will not go mainstream.

But government is different, government should be solution driven, forward thinking, forcing the market to respond to conditions that improve our standard of living and our society as a whole. Government should protect us, the market should enrich us. Much like scientific and religious views of creation both should be taught in school, just not in the same classroom, these two systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact they can each benefit from the other. Government enacted safety regulations for automobiles were anticipated in the Tucker (seat belts, safety windshields), but the industry did not adopt them ‘til they were forced to. When they were made to do “the right thing” they still managed to make money.

In what may be a bad example, the auto industry took off on two pillars in the 1950s. First the market drove auto and oil companies to buy up commuter rail systems and shut them down all over the country (more than 5000 miles in Los Angeles alone) in order to force people to use cars(5). Second, and to my point, the Federal government, under first Franklin Roosevelt and, to a greater extent later, Dwight D. Eisenhower, started building the national highway system(6). That highway system promoted the use of cars, and increased interstate commerce. If we had built the highway system based on “market” actors taking the initiative we would be driving around on 2 lane highways and paying tolls for the privilege.

I know highways are a pedestrian example to use here, but it gets straight to the point. Government can and should set the conditions to steer the market to our benefit not just our short term profit. Energy is the biggest problem we face right now, driving up prices, driving up our cost of living, making us more dependent on others. Stop incentivizing the market status quo with oil company tax breaks. Create competition and force them to change their business paradigm.

A solar farm, using existing photo-voltaic cell technology, measuring 100 miles by 100 miles (that is a lot I know, 10,000 square miles) placed in the desert southwest would more than meet the peak electrical demand for the entire United States during daylight hours(7). A farm only 10 miles by 10 miles would meet more than 1% of our demand. It does not sound like a lot, but it would be a BIG start. Expensive, probably, but if the government does it, they don’t need to make profit, they need only charge the national average per kw/h in order to give the market a push, and start getting us off fossil fuels. Any financial return on the investment could be reinvested into sustaining the system and developing newer solutions. If it pays for itself great! If not, it is still cheaper than the alternative of doing nothing.

An average 1 MW wind turbine can provide power day and night, year round (as long as the wind is blowing) for over 200 homes(8). Again, not a lot, but if each subdivision had one, wow, what an impact that could have.

I could go on and on and on. And that is part of the problem. We could TALK about hydro power, thermal energy, even new technology nuclear power, or hydrogen. Then we could TALK some more about bird strikes on wind turbines, the cost of solar cells, how ethanol is driving corn (and indirectly wheat) prices up, the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear waste, or how we are running out of water so making hydrogen is foolish. Meanwhile oil gets scarcer, the climate gets warmer (which will kill a LOT more birds than any wind turbines) the market gurus get richer, and the average American gets poorer.

To paraphrase a once popular and altogether kitschy television show, “We have the technology; we can make it better…” We just need to do something. So what do Senators Obama and McCain propose we do?

ARC

(1) http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/
(2) http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp
(3) http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html
(4) http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches
(5) http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=508
(6) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm
(7) http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2004/renew-energy-batt/Stirling.html
(8) http://www.citizensenergy.com/english/pages/28/about-wind-energy

4th of July

Greetings everyone. Sorry, it's been a long time since I've posted, but I have been recuperating from surgery. In honor of Independence Day, here is a special post befitting the occasion, by guest author Thomas Jefferson with assistance by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. If you prefer, here is a link where it is being read by celebrities.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTvS-kyHzs


IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

One Party Rule

There is a trend in politics today that disturbs me greatly. In case anyone has not been paying attention, the Republicans have just lost 3 special elections in a row of seats that they've held for decades in areas of the country, like Mississippi and Louisiana that have no reason being competitive. The one special election was for the former seat of Dennis Hastert, the last Speaker of the House. Times are not good for the Republicans. A solid of majority of people think the Republicans, particularly the current Bush administration, has taken the country in the wrong direction. I think generally, the Republicans are reaping what they have sowed. If they are in a crisis of public confidence, they have earned it.

But... What does this result mean? Well, in this country, it means the other party reaps the benefit. Not from being better or having different ideas, but by not being the party who is out of fashion. This has been a story that has repeated itself through our history. Some parties have fallen so out of fashion that they have dissolved and reformed as something else, as in the middle of the 19th Century when the Whig party was remade into the Republican party by Abraham Lincoln. It started with the founding of the country. While both Washington and Adams tried to be above party, the Federalists fell out of favor with the electorate and Jefferson came to power. The unfortunate consequence of our electoral system is that it only allows for two big parties to dominate. This is something I believe we desperately need to change.

So now the Democrats are in a position to reap the benefits of the Republicans implosion. Even though all indications point to a very tight presidential race, Democrats are setup for bigger wins in the House and the Senate than they saw in 2006. The Republicans are desperately trying to figure out what is wrong with the Republican brand. Some are arguing that the party is not conservative enough while others feel they need to throw their president overboard in order to restore their trust with the public. David Brooks had an excellent article on the same process that the Tories have gone through recently, after being out of power for the last couple of decades. The Republicans could learn a lot from the changes they have implemented, but they probably won't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09brooks.html

In the meantime, the Democrats may rack up enough seats to have veto proof power in Congress, with an even or better chance of capturing the White House as well. I hate to play the role of Captain Obvious, but this is not a good thing. One party rule is bad for the country. One party rule is bad for any country. I can list about a dozen examples off the top of my head, from Robert Mugabe's ruination of Zimbabwe to Lenin to Mao, the results are usually disastrous. Now, of course, one could argue that we are a democracy, after all, not a dictatorship, but when you look at the results of the Republicans having one party rule in the earlier part of this decade, the dividends are abismal. The old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely is the only thing certain in this world except death and taxes. No matter how benevolent a party goes into power, unchecked it will over reach and eventually become corrupt. The best you can hope for is a longer period of benevolence than you expect.

My ultimate solution to this problem is two-fold. First, amend the Constitution and eliminate the electoral college. This, in my humble opinion, is the main barricade to giving people more than two options. In my heart, I will never believe that two parties can truly represent the needs and hopes of all the citizens of this nation. Second, eliminate the gerrymandering that both parties shamelessly pilfer every decade after the census comes out. If districts could be drawn by a non-political independent local body, it might give people more of a chance to defeat incumbents in national elections. Right now, both parties are carving out their own territories in order to give their incumbents the best chance to be re-elected. Of course it doesn't always work, as has been seen with the last three special elections, but it would help. These solutions are obviously not easy to implement, but if the citizenry rises up and demands change, it is possible.

In the meantime, we need to keep the pressure on people of both parties that stand up for good government and fiscal sanity. Those people are an endangered species no matter what party label.

A Case for Regulation

There has been a lot of items in the news lately that in my mind make the case for government regulation. The case against government regulation is that it stifle innovation and that the market is the best ultimate regulator for business. But let's look at 3 specific examples of current issues.

First, take all the toys (and other products?) that are being imported from China that contain lead. Most of the lead in the toys come from lead paint used because it is cheaper. Now who should be held accountable? The companies like Fisher Price who are outsourcing the manufacturing of their toys over in China? The problem with the global economy we are now participating in is that there are more and more layers of outsourcing. Trying to track down the proper company to manage and then make sure that their products are safe would be burdensome to the company at the top. Also, countries like China and India that are taking more and more of manufacturing does not have any concept of quality control. On the evolutionary scale of capitalism, they aren't yet beyond the concept of you can't poop where you eat.

A second example which is even more current is the thousands of flights that have been canceled because airlines neglected to maintain proper maintenance on their aircraft. In this case, it is an example of lax regulation and companies taking advantage of that lax oversight to save money. In the meantime, there were planes flying with cracked fuselages.

Finally, there was a meat processing plant that was forcibly putting downer cows into the food chain. This caused a massive recall of beef mostly from school systems that were feeding the beef, unknowingly to children. This was another example of oversight that needed to be better. The company was waiting until the inspectors had left before they purposely put in the downer cows. There has been a lot of discussion about the worry that terrorists could do something to harm the food supply. Apparently, we don't just need to worry about the terrorists.

I'm going to make an assumption that the government should have a role in public safety. The level of that role is always going to be up for debate. In all the examples, you have to ask what is the best way to accomplish protecting the public. I would argue that proper government regulation is more efficient than letting the market take care of things. It's really the difference between being proactive or reactive. Being proactive you find out about issues before they end up on the front page. That to me makes the most sense. I have a job in the service sector. The more we are proactive with our customers on issues, the more profitable our business.

I would also argue that it does not behoove businesses to try and regulate themselves for public safety. The job of a publicly traded company is to maximize profit for their shareholders. That means that there is constant search for ways to be more efficient and push prices down. That is the opposite of the mission of public safety. That mission does not take into account the cost of public safety. The government's mission is public safety. A properly run government should be able to do it more efficiently than companies. It also saves the company the cost of self regulation (a big assumption that they would comply). The problem with the current administration is that is not competently run, as has been proved by Katrina among a long list of deficiencies. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy if you come in saying that the government cannot do anything right and then set off and prove that theory.

Ultimately, I think there is a balance both from trying to be over protective from the government and being mindful of the burden. However, the above examples do not even pass the common sense test. Our children should not have toys with lead paint, we should before that the planes are safe BEFORE one falls out of the sky, and we should make sure that the food supply is safe. Those are pretty basic. As usual, a little common sense goes a long way.

Boycott China, not the Athletes

Regular Contributor - A Radical Centrist posts on the Olympics -

All this talk of boycotting the Olympics is, well, distracting from the point really. In the past the end result has never been a real impact on the nation in question, but always on the athletes. It is China, not the Olympics we should be talking about.

Okay, so the athletes in the Olympics are not just “amateurs” anymore. Many of them will and have found recognition elsewhere. But most of them will get one shot at being on the world stage as one of the, if not the, best in their sport.

Let’s start sending a message to China. Regardless of your position on Tibet (me, I tend to sympathize with the Tibetans) China could have avoided this row during all of the international scrutiny. The leadership there could easily have found a way to calm the Tibet issue for a couple of months and get past the Olympics without a real fuss. But they chose a typical totalitarian regime response and now blame Tibetans and Buddhists for damaging the reputation of the country and sabotaging the games.

Here is my centrist take on the whole thing. First picketing and demonstrating might get you on the 5 o’clock news in your town but won’t make a bit of difference. Second, boycotting the games will only hurt the athletes. Third personally boycotting the games is silly, how many of you were planning to fly to Beijing?

If you want to send a message, if you want to make a difference, boycott the sponsors and the suppliers. Take money from them. It’s too late to keep them for paying for the rights and getting the licenses needed for doing business in Beijing. But if you send them a financial message, impact their bottom line enough, they will stop doing business there, or at least will advocate on behalf of human rights and that will make some, even if not much, difference to China. I know it helped a little in South Africa in 1980’s. Coke lost a lot of market share over apartheid.

To that end here is a list of the companies you most likely will be able to boycott (there are others but I can’t get my keyboard to type Chinese characters, and most of us will not be traveling to China so won’t have a chance to not use those companies):


Coca-Cola (RC gets new customers)
GE
Johnson & Johnson
Kodak
Lenovo (the Chinese state owned firm that bought IBM’s PC division)
Manulife
McDonald’s
Omega (guess I’ll have to get that Rolex now!)
Panasonic
Samsung
Visa (Master Card and American Express could really do well on this one)
Adidas
Volkswagen (too bad too, they are about to make a diesel hybrid that gets 79.9 mpg!)
UPS
Budwieser
Snickers
Staples
PriceWaterHouseCoopers

If the US lawmakers and presidential hopefuls want to make a difference maybe they should boycott these companies that are helping China financially, and profiting off of a China that is oppressive.

Just a thought.

ARC

Being a Moderate & the Falacy of the Mean

Today I have another guest blogger that writes about what it means to be a moderate.

I want to describe two ways to be a moderate in politics. The first, what I'll refer to as the political centrist, believes that the right solution to problems is found in the middle of extreme views. This idea goes as far back as Epicuris in Ancient Greece who taught that the best way to live was a life of moderation. This was later refined into a moral theory by Aristotle who wrote that morally correct actions are those performed by a person whose disposition or character trait falls in the middle of two extremes. For example, the virtue of courage is a moderate disposition between the two extremes of cowardice and foolhardiness.

In the US, the political centrist adopts a similar stance for political solutions. A political centrist argues something like, "The correct solution to problem x is to find the middle ground between the liberal and conservative and adopt that position since either extreme is, by their nature, incorrect."

The other way to be a moderate is to recognize that joining political parties or embracing their claimed ideologies are not the way to decide social, economic, and diplomatic issues. Rather, this moderate examines the specific situation, examines the political views, and adopts the position that has the most weight of reason behind it. I will refer to the adopter of this position as a rational moderate.

The first view of being a moderate, the political centrist view, is fallacious. It succumbs to what is known as the "fallacy of the mean". Stated simply: just because a presented conclusion is in the middle of two extremes does not make it the correct conclusion.

For example, the seemingly never ending debate between teaching intelligent design and evolution in public school science classes across the country can be seen as two extreme positions. On the one extreme are the creationists, gussied up in the smarter clothes of intelligent design, arguing that evolutionary theory is incorrect. On the other extreme are Darwinists who think that intelligent design is pseduo-science at best and religious propaganda in public schools at worst. The centrist position would adopt a compromise view, such as either teaching both extremes, "teaching the controversy", or allowing some formal announcement deriding evolution as "just a theory" by administrators or stickers in textbooks. The problem with the centrist view in this situation is that it is wrong. The weight of the evidence that gives us the fact of natural selection based on biological research as well as the explanatory and predictive power of evolutionary theory coupled with the weight of reason that shows us that science should be taught in science classes and religion should be kept out makes the centrist conclusion the wrong conclusion. It doesn't help the centrist that every claim that intelligent design proponents make has been thoroughly dismissed and debunked by the scientific community. (Just Google "Project Steve" to see what I mean.)

The rational moderate would look at this and be swayed by the weight of logic and evidence on one side over the other. Some might argue that this shows a an inherent bias that a rational moderate is attempting to hide. Like our romanticized ideal of journalism, a true moderate should keep an open mind and remain impartial to both sides. Truth, however, is biased. Some positions are objectively better than others. And so rather than pull out our college football pennants with "Republican" or "Democrat" printed in large block letters and wave them wildly in the air for the current political speech regardless of the content of the message but simply because they're on our team, the rational moderate actually listens to what the speaker is saying and makes a rational choice based on logic and evidence.

The country could use a lot more of them. And the ones that are here should be really, really angry.


The Rational Moderate

The Passing of the last of the "Big Three"

A second post by our guest blogger, ARC.


The Passing of the last of the “Big Three”

I was saddened the other day when I learned of the death of Arthur C. Clarke. He is one of five science fiction authors who helped shape my worldview, and one third of the triumvirate (that included Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein) that presided over science fiction for more than half a century. By far he was not the most prolific; he did not delve the most deeply into controversy or sociology. In fact he represented the middle road, the centrist position among the five. And now in his passing he remains the middle man, not the first to go, and not the last. Here, for those who may be so inclined, are the five authors with reading recommendations:

Robert Heinlein (1907-1988) – “Stranger in a Strange Land”; “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”; “Starship Troopers” (read it, skip the movie)

Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) – “Caves of Steel”; “Foundation”; “I, Robot”

Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008) – “Childhood’s End”; “2001: A Space Odyssey”; “The Fountains of Paradise”

Ray Bradbury (1920- ) – “The Martian Chronicles”; “Fahrenheit 451”

Ursula K. Le Guin** (1929- ) - “The Dispossessed”; “The Lathe of Heaven”

** Ms. Le Guin is the daughter of the man who is arguably the founder of American Anthropology Alfred L. Kroeber – another good source for reading.

I think being a centrist or a moderate requires balancing the present and the future; people and resources; science and society. The list goes on, but the point is simple. We are not people of bumper sticker slogans; we are people who understand that when the explanation is complicated it is because the thing being discussed is likely complicated. Most important, I want to believe, we are people of the future. We represent the consistently constructive part of society. These authors showed me that path. With the passing of each I feel the heavier burden of keeping the faith with what they helped teach me.

ARC