Discussion of what might have contributed to the revolution. Includes information about current events and some historical events.

#197 Internet Myopia: More Information, Less Understanding (Part 7)

04 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment whether Revolution plausible.

Note: most characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters. You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington. Jordan meeting with JC, who has agreed to get storylines about causes of the Revenge Revolution for Greenie, a mutual friend. Greenie is recovering from short-term illness. Conversation started #191.

Jordan: “OK, JC, you’ve had your break? Feeling better?”

JC: “Much better, thanks. By the way, do you have any chocolate in the office?”

Jordan: “I think Gelly has a stash somewhere.”

Gelly: “Did I hear my name called?”

JC: “Yes. Do you have any chocolate, please? I’m dying for something sweet.”

Gelly: “Been talking too long to Mr. Sourpuss here?”

Jordan: “Why do you guys always pick on me?”

JC: “You’re such an easy target. And it’s fun.”

Gelly: “I’ll get the chocolate. You want some coffee?”

JC and Jordan (in unison): “Yes, please. Thanks.”

Jordan: “OK, back to work. We need a few more topics for Greenie’s articles.”

JC: “Before the beak you said tax policy contributed to the decline in such cities as Flint. And the decline was a factor in the Revenge Revolution.”

Jordan: “Yes. Now have you got a topic for Greenie?”

JC: “Yep, the internet.”

Jordan: “Why the internet?”

JC: “The internet is a great tool for certain things, such as ordering certain products, checking out restaurant menus, getting answers to trivia questions…and a bunch of other stuff.”

Jordan: “So what’s the problem with the internet?”

JC: “Like a lot of things, sometimes what is good in one situation turns out to be bad in another situation.”

Jordan: “You need to be more specific, please.”

JC: “While the internet is great for looking up…whatever, the internet is awful for providing the entire picture.”

Jordan: “Why do you say that? You have a lot more information at your fingertips than ever before.”

JC: “True, but, like I said, most people don’t take time to get the entire picture. For example, some news websites allow viewers…really encourage viewers to tailor information to suit their tastes. Tailoring eliminates some or all of the story.”

Jordan: “So, your concern is people are not getting exposed to an array of info, but rather just what they want to see, or read. Call it ‘internet myopia’. It’s as if people are looking at the world through a telescope.”

JC: “Everything is magnified but the field of vision is narrow. Without tailoring, the news websites would be more like newspapers. Think about looking at a hard-copy newspaper. You might not read an article but you read the headline to decide whether to read the article. Just by reading the headline, you got some information, whether or not you want additional info.”

Jordan: “I guess the same logic applies to newscasts. Viewers or listeners are exposed to an array of stories, whether or not they would have selected the stories.”

JC: “People using the internet as a primary source for news and then tailoring the stories really narrows what they are exposed to — just like the telescope. On the website, many viewers just get information that reinforces their opinion or perception. Many of the internet-only news folks are not exposed to few new ideas and not exposed to opposing views.”

Jordan: “Back to your hard-copy newspaper or newscast — do you think anyone actually changed their opinion?”

JC: “Far more likely than anyone in the internet-only group changing their opinion.”

Jordan: “The internet seems to have created a paradox. Although information is more accessible, with tailoring many people are being exposed to less information and have less understanding.”

JC: “And a lot of people seem to be thinking less. Sounds crazy but it’s as if the internet and the smart-phone didn’t make people smarter, but made them dumber.”

Jordan: “I like calling it ‘internet myopia’ but aren’t you stretching the idea of the internet as contributing to the Revenge Revolution?”

JC: “The problem with internet info is unless one accesses a highly credible website, there is no way of knowing how good the info is.”

Jordan: “I agree a large portion of the younger population has never been taught how to research information properly, how to read a newspaper, or how to listen to two sides of an argument.”

JC: “And a lot of older folks seem to have forgotten, or just become lazy. Some people will chastise me but the internet seems to have diminished society’s ability to think critically. People seem to react without thinking.”

Jordan: “Interesting comment and I think you’re on to something.”

JC: “When one stops thinking critically, it’s easy to fall for slogans and other BS. I know it’s a few years ago, but look at what happened in the 2016 presidential race.

Jordan: “During that campaign a very smart guy and long-time friend asked me when the US economy was going to come out of the 2008 recession. Somehow he didn’t know, or maybe want to know, the economy had been expanding for 7 years with no recession in site.”

JC: “He must have some reason for his claim. Did he have his head in the wrong part of his anatomy?”

Jordan: “I think foremost, he’s a Republican who can’t stand Obama. But his argument about the economy was based on median income not increasing…which is true. But what he failed to understand is where the income went. He failed to understand how tax cuts and other policies had shifted income to upper quintiles.”

JC: “How’d he react when you filled him in?”

Jordan: “He was surprised and said he felt as if he had egg on his face. He knew I spent a lot of time studying economic data. But my frustration is this guy is not alone. He’s typical of many people, and it seems especially true of right-wing Republicans.”

JC: “Maybe you should rephrase that to former right-wing Republicans. A lot of those former Republicans became part of the Revenge Revolution.”

Jordan: “What’s your take why the participated.”

JC: “Something easy to understand. Lack of cash. A whole bunch of middle-class people kept working but few of them got ahead. They kept hearing promises from Republicans that tax cuts were the answer but those tax cuts never helped the little guy.”

Jordan: “And the little guy kept looking in his wallet and rather than dollars, he saw moths flying out. The middle-class family was out of cash and wanted a change…and they nominated The Donald.”

JC: “Then a few years later they started the Revolution. OK, but how does Greenie weave together, or maybe link together the internet, less critical thinking and economic inequality?”

Jordan: “My view? If a person tailors information received they are very likely not to understand what is really happening…and why. For many people, especially younger, the internet replaced traditional media forms. As a result, there was less exposure to differing view and certainly less critical thinking. That continued until…”

JC: “…people got tired of moths in the wallet instead of dollars. They felt screwed. Then many people, including a high percentage of lower-income Republicans, got jolted into reality.”

Jordan: “And voila, the Revenge Revolution.”

#196 How Tax Policy Created Multiple Flints (Part #6 of Series)

30 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Jordan: “For Greenie’s next article about the Revenge Revolution let’s select a topic that’s less political.”

JC: “Look, most big societal issues seem to come down to politics one way or another.”

Jordan: “Probably so. But some factors causing the Revolution didn’t start as big political issues.”

JC: “You have a particular topic in mind?”

Jordan: “Flint, Michigan.”

JC: “That’s an old story. Won’t Greenie be beating a dead horse? Besides you talked to POTUS about Flint. What’s new?”

Jordan: “Not much new about the facts. What is new is that we…societal we…failed realize the underlying cause of the problem. We failed to realize the cause when it happened. We fail to realize the cause now.”

JC: “And, I take it, you think the failure has widespread implications?”

Jordan: “Right. There are still many cities with problems very similar to Flint’s.”

JC: “When the story broke, there was lots of finger-pointing by politicians. Then people got very angry and Flint finally got a solution.”

Jordan: “What troubles me is the solution addressed the symptoms, not the cause.”

JC: “You saying fixing the infrastructure in Flint…and elsewhere…was the easy part? The Band-Aid?”

Jordan: “Here we are 5+ years after the Flint problem became public and we still haven’t start addressing the underlying cause. When are we going to wake up?”

JC: “Maybe that’s what Greenie should explore and write about – the real causes of problems in Flint.”

Jordan: “We keep saying Flint but we know the problem is more widespread – look at Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland…and a lot of other cities.”

JC: “I know there’s more than Flint but it’s a great example that’s still fresh in everyone’s mind. What did you tell POTUS?”

Jordan: “If you take personalities out of the Flint equation…”

JC: “…you mean like that guy you talked about that had it in for Flint — GM’s chairman. Squeaky or whatever his name was.”

Jordan: “Roger B. Smith.”

JC: “That’s it, Roger Smith. I like the name Squeaky better.”

Jordan: “If you take personalities out of the equation, the primary cause seems to center on US tax policy.”

JC: “Huh? Flint and tax policy. How so?”

Jordan: “Because tax policy allowed, maybe encouraged is a better term, inflated compensation for senior executives. The compensation was tax-deductible but hidden in the form of stock…more stock options then.”

JC: “Aren’t stock options only worth something if the price of the stock goes up?”

Jordan: “True but shareholders really didn’t understand how much the executives could make if the stock price increased.”

JC: “So what’s wrong with the executives making money? If the stock price increases, all the shareholders benefit also.”

Jordan: “How do you think the execs increased the stock price?”

JC: “I guess more effective management. Maybe introducing new products. I don’t know.”

Jordan: “What about cutting costs?”

JC: “Sure you can cut costs some but that only works for a while. No one ever saved their way into prosperity.”

Jordan: “Part of the problem at public companies was Wall Street.”

JC: “You keep confusing me. I thought Wall Street guys made it possible for companies to grow…and create all that wealth.”

Jordan: “One thing people need to understand. Wall Street pushes a stock price higher for increased earnings, not necessarily for preparing to grow the business. The focus during Squeaky’s reign was short term…and to a large extent the focus today remains short-term.”

JC: “Keep talking. I’m still a little confused.”

Jordan: “For many established companies, generating cash flow was…and is…rewarded more than building for long-term growth.”

JC: “Why? That seems like back asswards logic.”

Jordan: “I think it is back asswards logic. But for many stock traders, short-term is more important. Long-term growth is uncertain and requires cash. Earning often suffer before growth begins.”

JC: “Sounds to me as if Wall Street cared only about performance today, not really about the future. And certainly Wall Street didn’t care about the company. I keep using past tense. But you’re saying it’s till true today.”

Jordan: “Exactly right. People who trade stocks have no emotional bond with the company. Wall Street’s focus is dollars, not the company or its people.”

JC: “So now the company execs, who have a boatload of the stock options, need to play the Wall Street game if they want to make money. Otherwise the options could be worthless.”

Jordan: “Now you have it. The execs are the dog being wagged by the Wall Street tail.”

JC: “Based on what you just described, it makes more sense to cut costs and not spend money for future growth. Seems so stupid.”

Jordan: “Pretend you’re a CEO of a big manufacturing company with lots of workers in Flint, Detroit and elsewhere. And then…”

JC: “…I look at my pile of stock options and ask myself, ‘How can I make the most money?’ Mmm, maybe I can move operations to Mexico, or China as a way of cutting costs. And with that thought I shed a crocodile tear for the workers and the cities left behind. Their problem, not mine.”

Jordan: “Enlightening, huh?”

JC: “I never connected tax policy with movement of US companies to Mexico and China…or even to the southern US.”

Jordan: “Think about the implications of the tax policy.”

JC: “For the execs, they gain in wealth. They also walk from any obligation to the workers or the communities.”

Jordan: “Heads I win. Tails you lose.”

JC: “Seems more like the execs gave a one-fingered salute to everyone on the way to the bank.”

Jordan: “So if Greenie writes about how tax policy helped cause the downfall of Flint and other places, maybe…just maybe…the post-Revenge Revolution Congress will make some changes.”

JC: “And may…just maybe…people will begin boycotting companies who don’t support US cities and workers. And with that, I need a break.”

#195 Greenie’s Articles re Revolution: Petraeus Betrayed Us (Part #5 of Series)

23 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ 1 Comment

JC: “OK, I feel better now. So I don’t get the urge to scream again, could we talk about something other than the stupid North Carolina legislature…and governor?”

Jordan: “I thought you needed ideas for Greenie about the causes of the Revenge Revolution.”

JC: “I do but NC legislators were not the only cause. Give me another idea.”

Jordan: “One event that has always angered me but never seemed to get the in-depth news coverage I thought it deserved was the criminal activity and then sentence of General Petraeus.”

JC: “You mean the 4-star general who was head of the CIA? Didn’t he disclose top-secret info to his mistress…and who knows what else he did?”

Jordan: “Don’t you like the deal he cut with prosecutors?

JC: “Deal is an understatement. As I recall he got off with some misdemeanor…and a fine. I’ve got a question…”

Jordan: “…that is?”

JC: “You were in the military, right?”

Jordan: “Yes.”

JC: “Disclosing secret information has to be more than a slap on the wrist.”

Jordan: “In some cases the disclosure could be considered treason.”

JC: “So he disclosed secret info to some lady who was supposedly writing a biography about him.”

Jordan: “She was a lieutenant or captain in the Army Reserve, I think.”

JC: “OK, she’s some military officer. But she could be a spy. Not the first time sex was used to gain military secrets. How much security clearance did she have? Who knows, she might have been on double-secret probation.”

Jordan: “I like your humor but I don’t know what security clearance she had.”

JC: “This case smells like a really serious offense. A 4-star general discloses secrets to a much-lower ranking officer.”

Jordan: “Remember he was also head of the CIA, which meant he had an even higher clearance than anyone in the military.”

JC: “What’s the penalty for disclosing government secrets?”

Jordan: “Some type of felony…and certainly not a misdemeanor.”

JC: “Strike #1. Disclosure of secrets by a 4-star who is also on POTUS’ cabinet and sits in meetings at the White House. In fact he briefs POTUS on issues. It’s not as if he didn’t know disclosing secrets was a no-no. What’s the penalty if a military officer discloses secrets?”

Jordan: “There’d likely be a court-martial and if convicted, a demotion in rank, maybe dishonorable discharge, certainly loss of pay or pension and possibly time in the brig…jail time.”

JC: “Government employees, I guess, would be tried, and if convicted, fired and jail time…and maybe loss of pension.”

Jordan: “When Eric Snowden disclosed secret info, the US government wanted a maximum penalty, which would have been life in prison or death.”

JC: “But for our little 4-star who couldn’t keep his pants on, a slap on the wrist was the penalty.”

Jordan: “You got it.”

JC: “Speaking of pants, isn’t adultery a serious offense in the military?”

Jordan: “Yes, adultery is prohibited and cause for court-martial.”

JC: “Now General Pants Off has two serious offenses – disclosing secrets and banging a subordinate. Was she married, too?”

Jordan: “Maybe you can be a little more discreet with your choice of words. Banging seems a bit crude.”

JC: “Why? He wasn’t being an officer, a gentleman or fulfilling his duties as head of the CIA.”

Jordan: “He did betray the Army, the CIA, POTUS and his family with his behavior. He like stabbed them in the back. Stabbed all of us in the back.”

JC: “I remember before he became a 4-star or maybe before head of the CIA, there was a group that labeled him General Betraeus. The right-wing went nuts of course, claiming those who made such allegations were traitors.”

Jordan: “Are you saying the group was right?

JC: “Based on his behavior, the group that called him ‘General Betraeus’ was dead-on.”

Jordan: “Another aspect of the case continues to baffle me. The right-wing thinks the military can do no wrong. Yet, when the highest-profile military commander…and head of the CIA…flagrantly breaks the law by disclosing secret information, the same right-wing keeps its mouth shut with no call for accountability. Talk about hypocrisy.”

JC: “But let someone like Hillary use a private computer server for some emails…and apparently a number of other high-ranking officials did as well…and the same right-wing group wants to try her for treason.”

Jordan: “Now you see why I’m confused. The right-wing group screamed about an alleged infraction by one side and had a severe case of duct-tape-on-the-mouth when the head of the CIA knowingly disclosed secrets. I think a lot of the voting public is confused and frustrated by such hypocrisy.”

JC: “My take is this…inside the Beltway if you know the right people, criminal behavior is acceptable. And that applies to some people on both sides of the aisle.”

Jordan: “Petraeus is a good example of such behavior. Yet the Petraeus or the Betraeus story did not get as much coverage as I expected…and might not be a major cause of the Revenge Revolution.”

JC: “I think you’re underestimating the impact of General Pants Off. It’s one of those events that just hangs around and does not go away. The inexcusable behavior continues to gnaw at you, even if it doesn’t scream at you. Greenie needs to write about it.”

#194 NC “Done Wrong” by Mental Midgets in the Legislature (Part #4 of Series)

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington. JC and Jordan continue conversation that started #191.

Jordan: “Aren’t you being harsh on North Carolina? The legislature wasn’t that bad was it?”

JC: “Worse. What really frosts me is how hypocritical the Republicans were.”

Jordan: “Like what?”

JC: “The legislature and the governor…who was governor about 2016?”

Jordan: “You’re talking about Pat McCrory, former mayor of Charlotte?”

JC: “I guess so. Wasn’t he the governor when the legislature passed a bunch of laws they claimed would attract more business?”

Jordan: “You mean like tax cuts for the wealthy, prohibiting cities from raising minimum wage above the Federal level, restricting workers from filing discrimination claims in state court…and some other stuff?”

JC: “The legislature passed a bill making it OK to discriminate against gays…really all LGBT’s. Then, a bunch of large companies start pushing back and asked the governor and legislature to repeal the law. And what did the governor and the legislature say?”

Jordan: “If I recall correctly, comments from Republican Representative Pittinger, whose district includes part of Charlotte, were typical. He said we can’t let business dictate policy for Republicans.”

JC: “What’s his name…Pettinger?”

Jordan: “Pittinger, Robert Pittinger.”

JC: “Excuse me Bobby Boy, all this legislation got passed by Republicans to attract business. Then when some large businesses pushed back at legislation that clearly discriminates, you had the gall to say business should not dictate Republican policy. Can you connect two dots…not three…just two dots?”

Jordan: “You probably weren’t aware when Pittinger made those comments he was under investigation by the IRS for some type of tax issue…and he had a revolt by investors in his land-development company.”

JC: “Sounds like a credible guy. A developer, in the same huckster genre as Donald Trump?”

Jordan: “Yep, although not nearly as successful as Trump.”

Jordan: “No wonder investors…and apparently the IRS…didn’t trust him.”

Jordan: “Here’s an idea. If Pittinger thinks Republicans should not let business dictate policy, then why doesn’t he introduce legislation in Congress to negate the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision re Citizens United? That would put his money where his mouth is.”

JC: “Great idea but you know he won’t do that. No guts plus I’m not sure he’s smart enough to see the irony in his statement.”

Jordan: “So, we’ve got a wacko US Representative from North Carolina. Other places have wacko Reps as well.”

JC: “But NC seemed to go from a reasonably rational state to an irrational state. What happened?”

Jordan: “Earlier I said Republican legislature was like a bunch of teenage boys…”

JC: “…watching ‘Girls Gone Wild…”

Jordan: “As companies began to take action that hurt the NC economy and/or reputation…”

JC: “…like PayPal cancelling a major expansion in Charlotte…”

Jordan: “…and high-profile entertainers cancelled shows…”

JC: “…like Bruce Springsteen…”

Jordan: “…and a bunch of conventions cancelled or took Charlotte off the list, the Republican legislators dug in their heels and refused to consider changes to the law.”

JC: “Where was the governor in all of this?”

Jordan: “He claimed to be helpless in controlling the Republicans. Hapless is probably a better description. After a lot of heat, he issued an Executive Order to overturn part of the law but the EO was feeble and ineffective.”

JC: “So to prove they were in charge, the Republican legislators let the state of North Carolina, and Charlotte in particular, deteriorate economically. Didn’t they care?”

Jordan: “Obviously not. The Republicans had so gerrymandered the voting districts that most were rural and solid Republican. To many of those people Charlotte had been overrun by a bunch of Yankee liberals and needed to be straightened out.”

JC: “Payback time for the Civil War?”

Jordan: “Not the Civil War, please. War of Northern Aggression.”

JC: “Pardon me, I forgot.”

Jordan: “Many of the legislators were farmers or small business owners in rural areas. They thought their fortunes were not tied to Charlotte…or Raleigh, for that matter.”

JC: “So their attitude was let the hoity-toity city slickers rot. Some time passes and then the economy of Charlotte and Raleigh take a serious hit. But the legislators till won’t budge.”

Jordan: “Then the rest of North Carolina starts to slide. But before the legislators will admit their mistake…”

JC: “…the Revenge Revolution starts. The very people who the Republicans counted on to screw Charlotte ended up turning on the Republicans. I love poetic justice.”

Jordan: “Poetic justice but not before a lot of damage was done. North Carolina will spend decades trying to rebuild its reputation and begin attracting younger, well-educated people.”

JC: “I understand there have always been differences in perspective between rural and urban dwellers. What I cannot understand is why the NC Republican legislators felt a need to react so viciously to an ordinance enacted by the City of Charlotte. That reaction seemed to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

Jordan: “What I don’t understand is why the legislators even acted. The ordinance was for the residents of the city…no one else. If someone didn’t like Charlotte’s ordinances, no one was forcing them to go there. Go someplace else. I mean, what’s really the issue?”

JC: “My opinion. In NC terms, the state was ‘done wrong’ by a bunch of mental-midgets in the legislature. The mental-midgets were power-hungry, on the loose and the governor either couldn’t or chose not to control them. Let’s take a break before I start screaming.”

#192 NC: First in Discrimination; Last in Education (Part #2 of Series)

06 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington. JC and Jordan continue conversation from #191.

JC: “What have I been up to while you were away on R&R?”

Jordan: “Hardly consider recovering from surgery R&R.”

JC: “Well, you weren’t working very much as far as I know, so it must have been R&R.”

Jordan: “Back to my question, what have you been doing lately?”

JC: “Helping Greenie prepare some articles on the Revenge Revolution.”

Jordan: “Now I have to deal with both of you?”

JC: “You love it and you know it.”

Jordan: “I admit, working with you guys is fun. What’s your topic?”

JC: “State governments running wild.”

Jordan: “Reminds me of a movie from many years ago, ‘Girls Gone Wild.'”

JC: “Did you actually watch that stuff?”

Jordan: “Look, I saw my share of trash. Remember I was a teenager once. And teenage boys sometimes do stupid things. But let’s get back to your topic. Any state in particular stand out for running wild?”

JC: “Yes, your current home state, North Carolina.”

Jordan: “Call it the state where I pay taxes. But I hardly consider NC my home state.”

JC: “Whatever you want to call it, the NC legislature might as well have approved a new slogan, ‘NC: First in Discrimination; Last in Education.'”

Jordan: “Funny, JC, but unfortunately close to the truth.”

JC: “Tell me what went on to cause such a shift in your state?”

Jordan: “Please don’t call it my state. We just happen to live there. I have no other connection with NC…nor do I want any.”

JC: “OK, but what went on? The legislature seemed to want to lead the race to the bottom. Didn’t they understand there would be economic consequences? As I recall PayPal cancelled a big project.”

Jordan: “Yes, PayPal did cancel a big project. But I’m not sure the legislators thought about the real consequences. Conventions also began avoiding NC, companies other than PayPal didn’t expand in NC…and some actually relocated elsewhere. As a result the economy stalled. Then the Republicans blamed everyone from the mayor of Charlotte to the Yankee liberals for ruining the state.”

JC: “Still fighting the Civil War and the carpetbaggers?”

Jordan: “I don’t know when they’ll give up and realize they lost, or even put on their big-boy pants. Anyway, the Republicans legislators in the state house continued to act incredibly stupid.”

JC: “Like teenage boys? But, why?”

Jordan: “My view is the legislators got addicted to power. About 2012 or so the Republicans gained control of the state house for the first time in a long, long time. The first couple of years they went a little crazy with legislation. Many voters just rolled their eyes and thought the craziness would pass and some semblance of sanity would return.”

JC: “But it didn’t, right?”

Jordan: “The craziness got worse. The Republican leadership was drunk with power.”

JC: “What about the governor? What was his name? Mac something. Wasn’t McConnell, was it?”

Jordan: “His name was McCrory, Pat McCrory.”

JC: “Wasn’t McCrory mayor of Charlotte for a long time before becoming governor? I thought Charlotte was a reasonably progressive city. They were on a roll for a while.”

Jordan: “McCrory was fairly progressive as mayor. In fact, the right wingers thought he was too progressive. One of those liberals, as they say.”

JC: “What happened when he became governor? How could he shift so far right so quickly?”

Jordan: “Good question. My opinion – I think he got overwhelmed by the complexity of the job.”

JC: “Are you saying he wasn’t the brightest crayon in the box?”

Jordan: “I don’t know how smart he really was…or is. But he seemed to leave some of those smarts in Charlotte when he became governor.”

JC: “So at that point NC has an emboldened Republican legislature and, in polite terms, a weak-kneed governor.”

Jordan: “Exactly. There was no moderating force so the right-wing kept pushing and pushing and pushing…”

JC: “…and it eventually pushed the state over the edge. In researching for Greenie, I read that to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, the NC legislature cut salary increases for teachers.”

Jordan: “Even worse…or at least just as bad…to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, the legislature increased taxes on middle and lower-income residents.”

JC: “What about the airport fiasco? The state really tried to take over Charlotte’s airport? How could they do that?”

Jordan: “Another power grab, although fortunately they did not succeed.”

JC: “Seems like the state legislature basically gave the finger to everyone. They told Washington that states like NC should have more power. Then told the NC cities they had less power. Think the legislators understood the irony of what they were doing?”

Jordan: “When you’re drunk, whether drunk with alcohol or drunk with power, there are a lot of things you don’t understand. The LGBT ordinance was yet another example.”

JC: “If I understand correctly, the city of Charlotte passed an ordinance banning discrimination against LGBT’s. The ordinance affected only the city of Charlotte. No other location was affected. Then the state pulled a power play and banned the ordinance.”

Jordan: “Banned the ordinance plus a bunch of other stuff…like prohibiting the city of Charlotte from raising the minimum wage beyond the Federal level.”

JC: “Didn’t the legislature call a special session and in less than 12 hours pass the legislation, and then governor sign the bill? But the bill prohibited something that had not yet taken effect. How can that be?”

Jordan: “The whole thing was probably outside the constitution. However, the weak-kneed governor claimed nothing really changed because the ordinance had not yet taken effect.”

JC: “Which means that if discrimination was OK before the ordinance, then discrimination could continue. Now I see why the Revenge Revolution started in North Carolina. People became sick of the crazies in the state house.”

Jordan: “Just to be fair, North Carolina wasn’t the only state with crazies in the state house. But it was leading the pack.”

JC: “Thus the slogan, ‘North Carolina: First in Discrimination; Last in Education.'”

#191 Greenie to Write Articles about Revenge Revolution (Part #1 of Series)

02 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ 3 Comments

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington.

Gelly: “Jordan, you have a visitor.”

JC: “Well, well, if it isn’t Mr. Big Dog himself.”

Jordan: “First of all, nice to see you JC. And what’s with the Big Dog stuff?”

JC: “Gelly tells me you had dinner at the White House – just you and POTUS.”

Jordan: “Yeah, so?”

JC: “So? That makes you a big dog, a really big dog.”

Jordan: “The dinner and $3.00 will get me on the subway. But the dinner was great fun.”

JC: “What’d you talk about? No, first, tell me what was for dinner? Some fancy, schmancy food?”

Jordan: “Texas BBQ.”

JC: “You’re kidding. Really? Texas BBQ?”

Jordan: “Really. And it was great. Couple of guys, some good wine and a fun evening.”

JC: “Normally I don’t put Texas BBQ and wine together.”

Jordan: “When no one else is around, guys can eat and drink what they want. Besides the wine was a favorite of mine from Sonoma County.”

JC: “So what’d talk about? Anything really juicy you can tell me?”

Jordan: “We talked about the creation of the universe.”

JC: “C’mon, you’ve got to be kidding. With all the gossip and scandals in Washington and you guys talked about the creation of the universe? What’s wrong with you two?”

Jordan: “POTUS wanted a break from politics so we picked a topic that interested both of us.”

JC: “You guys are boring.”

Jordan: “Actually it was an enlightening evening away from the DC fray.”

JC: “Alright, I’m here to talk politics with you.”

Jordan: “Thought this was a social call. Do we have an appointment?”

JC: “Cut the Big Dog BS. Yes, the call is mostly social…and some business. No, we didn’t have an appointment. Gelly told me you had a break in your schedule so she let me in.”

Jordan: “That’s OK. Always nice to see you. What’s the business part? You’ve not become some kind of journalist or lobbyist have you?”

JC: “No. I’m doing a favor for Greenie. She’s starting a series of articles about the Revenge Revolution.”

Jordan: “And I take it she wants my help? How?”

JC: “The first article is about nominations of Supreme Court Justices. Remember she covered the Supreme Court in her journalism days, right?”

Jordan: “I read her articles regularly. She always had great insight for the non-lawyer types.”

JC: “Her premise is the thinks that any chance for fairness from the Supreme Court was jilted following the death of Antonin Scalia. All the hullabaloo by Republicans about refusing to even consider the nomination by President Obama made the public aware of how political the Supreme Court had become. That cynicism was yet another prod for the Revenge Revolution.”

Jordan: “But politics on the Court started at least 25-30 years before that.”

JC: “True but she thinks the public really didn’t pay much attention. For example, the confirmation of Clarence Thomas was juicy but people were less concerned about how Thomas would vote on certain cases than whether he put a public hair on a Coke can.”

Jordan: “I also think that even without the nomination hullabaloo, after 30 years of Scalia’s logic, agree with it or not, the public became more aware of the importance of selecting a Supreme Court Justice.”

JC: “Some of the logic was a bit convoluted to say the least. So Scalia dies and before the body is even cold, Republicans…led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell…state that the Senate will not consider any nominee to the Supreme Court put forth by President Obama.”

Jordan: “And why?”

JC: “Because, according McConnell, the people should elect the Supreme Court Justice. Excuse me, Mitch, have you ever read the Constitution? Voting on the nominee is the Senate’s job, period.”

Jordan: “I do find it ironic that the Republicans were demanding that the successor for Scalia, who considered himself a “Constitutionalist,” be elected by the people. The claim by the Republicans was completely contrary to the Constitution.”

JC: “So when did some facts and a few pieces of paper called the Constitution get in the way of a good argument in Washington, especially by Republicans?”

Jordan: “Now, now aren’t you being a bit harsh on your Republican friends in DC? Don’t forget the whacko Republican legislators in Kansas who wanted to impeach judges who decisions they didn’t agree with. OK, guys, let’s throw out the state constitution. Talk about stupid is as stupid does. Anyway, how does Greenie think I can help her?”

JC: “You know a lot of the players involved…but know them outside their usual environment. I mean you and POTUS had a private dinner together, right? You’ve played golf…or at least I think you have…with Mitchy, right?”

Jordan: “Yes, I do know a few of them. And, yes, I’ve played golf and had drinks with a few. Still not sure I can be of any help, but I’ll try.”

JC: “OK, great. I’ll let her know.”

Jordan: “When is she coming back?”

JC: “Don’t know. She might want to talk to you by Skype if that’s OK.”

Jordan: “Fine. Now, what were you up to while I was gone?”

#182 Company Relocations. Economic Development or Stealing? (Part #6)

30 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Corporate Policy, Gov't Policy, Possible Solutions, Societal Issues

≈ 2 Comments

Scene: Jordan and POTUS continue conversation about rebuilding US manufacturing. Starts entry #179.

POTUS: “As you were saying, GM technically went bankrupt in the 1990’s but never declared it. How so?”

Jordan: “Remember a company called GMAC?”

POTUS: “Wasn’t GMAC the finance arm of GM?”

Jordan: “Yes. To help beef up the cash position and avoid being forced to declare bankruptcy, GM moved money from GMAC to the operating company.”

POTUS: “Isn’t that illegal?”

Jordan: “Probably so but the financial guys covered their tracks very well. Part of the problem was caused by a number of accounting changes in the 1980’s during Squeaky’s reign. The accounting changes masked some earnings shortfalls.”

POTUS: “Pardon me for interrupting but whoever gave Roger Smith the name Squeaky deserves a drink.”

Jordan: “And I’ll buy. Anyway, with all the accounting changes, it became very difficult to determine where there were real performance problems. I’m not sure the finance guys really knew what was happening month-to-month. Sales and market share kept dropping and the cash was no longer coming in…and they essentially ran out of cash in 1992.”

POTUS: “Without getting into more detail about GM, what policies should we consider to encourage manufacturers to stay in the US, or return to the US if they’ve left?”

Jordan: “One issue that has always bothered me is the ability of companies to pick up and relocate with little or no consequence.”

POTUS: “Isn’t that a fundamental of capitalism?”

Jordan: “It’s very one-sided. Why should community and the employees make a commitment when the other side, the company, does not have to make a commitment?”

POTUS: “Are you saying the current system is unfair?”

Jordan: “Grossly unfair. And there are a couple of reasons why. First, the community and employees are often forced to make a financial sacrifice if the company threatens to relocate. Then the company can still pick up and leave.”

POTUS: “But, the community and employees have benefitted. The company has paid taxes and the employees have jobs. What’s not fair?”

Jordan: “The company has no downside risk. Heads I win, tails you lose.”

POTUS: “What if the company doesn’t sell product and make any money?”

Jordan: “Decisions that affect competitiveness are made by executive staff, not the employees or the town’s taxpayers. Failure to develop and introduce new product is a management issue, not an employee issue.”

POTUS: “What else?”

Jordan: “Laws in this country allow a company to bleed a community dry, and then relocate. As part of the relocation plan, the company demands prospective towns provide incentives. It’s a shakedown.”

POTUS: “Many people consider that economic development.”

Jordan: “I consider it stealing. Its only economic development in the eyes of the city where the company relocates. And most of those cities are too lazy to develop businesses on their own.”

POTUS: “Jordan, that’s pretty harsh.”

Jordan: “Pardon me, Mr. President, but to call incentivizing a company to relocate ‘economic development’ is BS. The only people who gain in the deal are the executives of the company…and probably a few elected officials. The overall economy loses.”

POTUS: “Tell me why you think the economy is worse off.”

Jordan: “Employees and the community where the plant was located now have a lower tax base, and very likely a higher welfare roll. They got screwed. People where the company relocated have to absorb the cost of the incentives. They might not know it but they’ve been screwed. Simple question, ‘Did employees’ wages increase?'”

POTUS: “No. Wages probably decreased except for the executives. Shareholders might benefit. I see your point.”

Jordan: “When you cut through the layers, relocation is another way to redistribute wealth…but disguised as economic development.”

POTUS: “How do we fix the problem, assuming we can convince people it is a problem?”

Jordan: “Convincing people should not be difficult. Start talking to people in cities where companies have left and see if they think its a problem. And ask them who came out ahead.”

POTUS: “You mean people in cities like Flint, Buffalo, Cleveland…and a bunch of other places.”

Jordan: “You got it. The solution to such relocations…at least a partial solution? Make the relocation costly…and difficult.”

POTUS: “Can a plan like that work?”

Jordan: “Look around Europe. Go no farther than Germany if you want to see if such an approach works.”

POTUS: “Lots of things work in Europe that don’t work in the US. National health care and gun control, for example.”

Jordan: “Attitudes in the US have changed since the Revenge Revolution. Now seems to be a good time to rethink whether we allow companies to pick up and move with no consequence.”

POTUS: “What if companies just declare bankruptcy and restart somewhere else? And what about the unions? Don’t they have some responsibility to keep a company from moving?”

(Continued)

#177 What’s Causing Middle-Class America to Go Away? (Part 1)

02 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Corporate Policy, Societal Issues

≈ 8 Comments

Scene: Pilot Truck Stop, Central Illinois. Jordan having breakfast, sitting at the counter.

Waitress to Jordan: “Coffee?”

Jordan: “Yes, please. Thanks.”

Waitress: “Ready when you are.”

Jordan: “Two eggs, over easy; hash browns, dark; English muffin, dry.”

Waitress: “Orange juice?”

Jordan: “Good idea.”

Patron (Sitting next to Jordan): “Excuse me. Visiting?”

Jordan: “Yes. Wife’s family. Taking a break. My wife is with her mother and sisters. They won’t miss me. You visiting?”

Patron: “No. Live nearby. Come here for breakfast every now and then.”

Jordan: “You farm?”

Patron: “No. Retired now…but not by choice.”

Jordan: “What happened?”

Patron: “Factory closed. We made axles for medium and heavy-duty trucks. You know the 18-wheelers. Then the owners moved all the production to Mexico and China.”

Jordan: “What’d you do at the plant?”

Patron: “Skilled trades – machinist.”

Jordan: “Why’d they move?”

Patron: “Supposedly cost. Some bean counter claimed it was too expensive to manufacture here compared to Mexico or China.”

Jordan: “Employees try to save their jobs?”

Patron: “Yeah, but the suits…I mean management really didn’t want to listen. They seemed to have everything lined up before we had a chance to try to save our jobs.”

Jordan: “Was management right? Costs lower in Mexico and China?”

Patron: “I’m no financial expert but here’s what I do know. The plant here made high-quality product. Turn-around time was short. And customers were very happy.”

Jordan: “What about now?”

Patron: “From what I hear turn-around times are much longer and customers are frustrated.”

Jordan: “You think they’ll bring the work back here?”

Patron: “Probably not. The plant is closed and management would rather keep the plant in Mexico than to have to eat crow and admit a mistake.”

Jordan: “What’s happened to the town?”

Patron: “You drove through it. It’s dying. The farmers are doing OK but there are few to no factory jobs. Middle-class America is dying.”

Jordan: “If you were president, what would you change to bring factory jobs back to America?”

Patron: “The tax laws. Look, I’ll gladly pay my fair share. But people who don’t really produce anything – you know, those cats on Wall Street and those guys that manage money…”

Jordan: “…the hedge fund managers?”

Patron: “That’s them. Those guys and the guys that get all those stock bonuses…they should pay a higher tax rate than guys like me. I mean what do those guys really bring to the table for all that money?”

Jordan: “What about CEO’s…you know, heads of companies?”

Patron: “”When I had a decent job, I didn’t much care what the big dogs made. We could afford a decent house, an OK car or two and even take a little vacation now and then.”

Jordan: “But then the plant closed.”

Patron: “You got it. The plant closes and I get screwed along with about 1,000 other people. Yet the CEO and his buddies make even more money. That does not seem fair.”

Jordan: “By the way, you OK talking about this? I don’t want to ruin your breakfast.”

Patron: “My breakfast has been ruined since the day they announced the plant would close. What’s one more ruined breakfast?”

Jordan: “Two questions. #1 is Do you think CEO salaries should be capped. Have some sort of limit? Say some multiple of the average worker.”

Patron: “You mean if the guy on the shop floor makes $50 grand per year, the CEO could only make 10x as much? So how much is that…$500 grand a year?”

Jordan: “That’s the idea. Some countries have such limits. The US does not.”

Patron: “I like that idea. The current system is unfair. There ought to be some limit on those CEO’s and especially those guys on Wall Street. I’m still not sure what they do to deserve all that money.”

Jordan: “Second question. What political party did you vote for when you were working?”

Patron: “Mostly Republican. You know this is small-town America.”

Jordan: “How about after the plant closed?”

Patron: “I hate to admit it because it sounds so stupid now. I voted Republican.”

Jordan: “Why do you think voting Republican was stupid?”

Patron: “Because I was voting against my own economic interest. Republicans were not for the little guy like me. Their policies favored the rich and screwed guys like me.”

Jordan: “But you voted for them anyway.”

Patron: “I told you it was stupid on my part. Then I eventually woke up.”

Jordan: “And joined the Revenge Revolution?”

Patron: “You bet. What the Republican leadership forgot is the Republican Party is the party of Lincoln. And what did Lincoln say about fooling people?”

Jordan: “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

Patron: “We’d been fooled long enough so we said ‘no more Republicans.'”

Jordan: “You think Democrats will bring the jobs back?”

Patron: “What I know is the elected officials in DC need to start working together on policy changes to help bring jobs back to this country. Otherwise, all these smaller towns – and maybe some mid-size towns – are going to suffer a slow death. When middle-class America goes away, then what?”

Waitress: “More coffee, gentlemen?”

(Continued)

#176 Normal People Give Dunce Caps to Science Deniers

30 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Jordan: “Matt, before the break you said there was hope for countering the science deniers. What did you mean?”

Matt: “If I didn’t say so, I should have said, ‘I think there is hope.’ By ‘think’ I mean the Revenge Revolution seems to have marginalized a lot of the more radical fringe groups. Real adults are starting to be in charge. The adults are giving dunce caps to the whiny brats and forcing them to sit in the corner.”

Jordan: “I agree putting the whiny brats in the corner has been a major step forward. But what about your book? Is it still relevant?”

Matt: “Yes, think so. The emphasis might change a bit – from the impact of the science deniers to how normal people denied the deniers.”

Jordan: “I love the term ‘normal people.'”

Matt: “Well, I think that’s true. Normal people…or at least who and I consider normal people…are fairly logical.”

Jordan: “We might think we’re logical but aren’t you considered part of the so-called ‘liberal media’? How many years did you write for that bastion of liberalism?”

Matt: “You mean the dreaded New York Times?”

Jordan: “What I find most humorous is the most vociferous of those claiming bias of the ‘liberal media’ are the same one who frequently cite Fox News, the multitude of talk-radio shows and numerous websites as credible sources of information…but, of course, those sources are not part of the media. Can these guys connect even two dots?”

Matt: “For many conservatives a liberal media outlet is…or at least used to be…a source of information that does not toe the party line. By not toeing the party line, the outlet must be liberal…and therefore biased. Forget whether their outlet of choice reports only a fraction of the story…or even makes up the story. If the conservative disagrees with the reporting, the outlet must be liberal media.”

Jordan: “As you mentioned, on the plus side the Revenge Revolution seems to have quieted some of the alleged reporters on Fox News and talk radio.”

Matt: “We both know that Fox News and talk radio are entertainment outlets. Entertainment is tied to advertising. No one ever accused Rupert Murdock of being stupid about generating income. Borderline unethical in reporting? Probably. Stupid? No.”

Jordan: “My beef is that Fox and the talking heads claim to be credible news outlets, not just entertainment. When I was director of marketing for you know who, the only media programs I labeled as off-limits for advertising were TV and talk-radio shows that I considered grossly biased.”

Matt: “What about advertising on shows considered controversial?”

Jordan: “Controversial shows were OK as long as the information was reasonably accurate or not overtly racist or derogatory.”

Matt: “So I take that shows like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and the like were off-limits?”

Jordan: “During my watch they were off-limits. In a competitive market, brand reputation does not need to be sullied based on some jerk on TV or radio. Enough things can go wrong with the product without some egomaniac flapping his or her lips.”

Matt: “But some of those shows are incredibly popular. You still think it was a good business decision to ban advertising on those shows?”

Jordan: “Matt, which companies…and organizations…last the longest? Those that operate with ethical standards or those that exploit the customer?”

Matt: “I hear you. But I still wonder whether investors and some customers really care?”

Jordan: “Look at what happened to VW after the diesel-emissions scandal. Sales dropped like a rock. It’s not clear whether VW can survive in this country and many countries worldwide.”

Matt: “Where does this conversation leave us…or lead us?”

Jordan: “We both agree…at least I think we do…that the Revenge Revolution in the US caused many people to put on their big-boy pants and start acting like adults.”

Matt: “And the adults banished the whiny children – the science deniers and fact deniers – to go to the corner and keep quiet…and keep on their dunce caps. What else?”

Jordan: “Groups and politicians on both sides of the aisle started working together to solve real problems.”

Matt: “So my book can have a happy ending, or at least an optimistic ending. The US might start solving big societal problems after all.”

Jordan: “Sounds as if you’ve got an interesting story to tell, Matt. Let me know if I can help.”

Matt: “You’ve been a great help already. I’ll keep you posted. Thanks for your time.”

Jordan: “You’re welcome Matt.”

#175 Dealing with the Science Deniers

27 Sunday Dec 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Education Issues, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

JC: “Jordan, looks as if you have another visitor. Check behind you.”

Jordan: “Matt, great to see you.”

Matt: “Jordan, nice to see you. When you’re finished, may I talk to you for a few minutes, please? Or, if better for you, I’ll catch up with you tomorrow.”

Jordan: “Let’s spend a few minutes now. Let me introduce two long-time friends of mine, Greenie and JC. Guys meet Matt…”

Greenie: “Excuse me, but aren’t you the reporter who wrote the book on General Motors?”

Matt: “Yes, how’d you like it?”

Greenie: “Fascinating. I’m not much into business but the way you wove in personal stories kept my attention. I really did like the book.”

Matt: “Thanks. JC, what about you? Read the book?”

JC: “Parts of it. But I also conned Jordan into telling me some of the details. GM was a remarkable success and a remarkable tragedy.”

Matt: “At least the company is on the rebound now.”

JC: “Speaking of rebounds, Greenie and I need to get out of here. Matt, nice to meet you. Jordan, enjoyed the conversation.”

Greenie: “Me, too, Jordan. Take care of yourself and we’ll talk soon.”

Jordan: “OK guys. Thanks for being nice to the old guy. See ya’.”

Matt: “So how long have you known Greenie and JC?”

Jordan: “We all went to the same grammar school, although we were a grade or two apart.”

Matt: “Wow, I’m impressed that you still keep in contact.”

Jordan: “Greenie and especially JC are much better at keeping in touch classmates than I am. Before we get started, do you want a glass of wine or cup of coffee?”

Matt: “Coffee would be great. I’ll use Greenie’s cup. Looks as if she didn’t touch it. Is the pot regular or no-lead?”

Jordan: “Half regular, half no-lead…decaf.”

Matt: “That’ll work. Now I need to pick your brain.”

Jordan: “About what?”

Matt: “Science deniers. I’m drafting an article, and maybe a book about why some seemingly intelligent people deny scientific evidence. They might as well believe in vodoo. The denial is even more baffling for those with some college, let alone a degree.”

Jordan: “You mean like people claiming global warming is a hoax. And then claiming that 3,000 scientists…or some large number of scientist worldwide got together to perpetuate the hoax? I know one guy with an advanced degree in one of the sciences that believes there is a hoax.”

Matt: “I’ve heard other people with advanced degrees flatly deny mounds of empirical evidence for say certain economic theories. Why is that?”

Jordan: “Two reasons, and you just mentioned one – the use of the word ‘theory.'”

Matt: “You mean that in science, the use of the word ‘theory’ means a way of explaining behavior, given a certain amount of evidence. The theory can be used to predict other events, or outcomes.”

Jordan: “But for politicians, pundits and many in the public, theory means you have an idea but it does not need to be based on evidence or observations. To these people, a theory can be a wild-ass guess – a WAG, if you will. They like to give the finger to science. For this group, a scientific theory is like some Mickey-Mouse idea that can be discarded and even belittled.”

Matt: “What’s the second point?”

Jordan: “The only real sciences are chemistry and physics. The deniers claim chemistry and physics are real because some of them completed an experiment in a high school lab.”

Matt: “But the other sciences – climate science, economics, social sciences, etc.…you can’t do some lab experiment. The results aren’t the same every time like chemistry and physics lab experiments so someone is just guessing at the outcome. Those ‘other’ sciences are squishy — like a tennis ball — and therefore not real science. Think how often the weather man is wrong. So what climatologists know about global warming?”

Jordan: “The irony is that the so-called ‘hard sciences’ – chemistry and physics – are just as squishy. But to the ideologues why ruin a good argument? Claim the other sciences are really not sciences and therefore discount or discard all results that don’t fit the ideologue’s position. So Matt, how do you (i) capture in a book the phenomenon of denial among seemingly intelligent people and more importantly, (ii) make the book interesting?

Matt: “That’s why I need some help. I really want to point out why public policy should be based as much as possible on science, even if the scientific theories are being challenged and tweaked over time.”

Jordan: “To me the most important issue for any public policy is relevance. By that I mean, understanding the consequences of action or inaction. If something is out of balance, fix it.

Matt: “Tell me more about what you mean.”

Jordan: “The issue with global warming, for example, is not determining exactly how much extra CO2 is generated by say coal-fired power plants. We know coal-fired plants are a out-of-balance contributor to global warming. So the policy should be replace coal asap with less polluting approaches to generating electricity.”

Matt: “What about focusing on measuring the amount of global warming from coal plants, rather than the claiming plants as a major contributor?”

Jordan: “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The exact amount becomes an academic argument that does not solve the problem. Science-deniers will claim global warming, for example, is due from multiple causes and therefore nothing can be done.”

Matt: “Are you saying just focus instead on what solutions can help solve the problem?”

Jordan: “Matt, to me focusing only on solutions takes us full circle and does not really help solve problems.”

Matt: “Why so?”

Jordan: “Because without a real understanding of the cause of the problem — even if the amount contributing to the problem is not exact — then the deniers will offer solutions that fit their fantasy world and not address the issue.”

Matt: “Have an example other than global warming?”

Jordan: “How ’bout economic policy? The deniers continue to refuse to accept mounds of empirical evidence demonstrating that in a recession the central government needs to increase expenditures, not decrease expenditures. The deniers’ solution is exactly the opposite of the evidence.”

Matt: “I need a break. But I also want to say I think there is hope.”

Jordan: “Good. I can’t wait to hear your logic.”

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Category Archives: Causes of the Revolution

#197 Internet Myopia: More Information, Less Understanding (Part 7)

#196 How Tax Policy Created Multiple Flints (Part #6 of Series)

#195 Greenie’s Articles re Revolution: Petraeus Betrayed Us (Part #5 of Series)

#194 NC “Done Wrong” by Mental Midgets in the Legislature (Part #4 of Series)

#192 NC: First in Discrimination; Last in Education (Part #2 of Series)

#191 Greenie to Write Articles about Revenge Revolution (Part #1 of Series)

#182 Company Relocations. Economic Development or Stealing? (Part #6)

#177 What’s Causing Middle-Class America to Go Away? (Part 1)

#176 Normal People Give Dunce Caps to Science Deniers

#175 Dealing with the Science Deniers