The Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) has voted overwhelmingly to go on strike during the 2016 spring semester, with a walk-out tentatively scheduled for late March. This would be the second teachers strike in the Windy City over the past four years and would serve as a glaring reminder shame has been fully expunged from civil society.
According to The Washington Post, Chicago’s 27,000 public school teachers have a median salary of $71,017 and contribute—on the high end—only 2 percent of their salaries toward their very lavish pensions. They are the most highly compensated teachers in any major city in the country, and the average CTU salary is 51 percent higher than Chicago’s median household income, which is estimated at $46,877. Unfortunately, this will not stop CTU from crying poverty when they walk out of their classrooms in 2016.
The union claims Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is trying to cut teacher compensation by 12 percent over the next three years and take away $653 million in benefits. While CPS has already talked about laying off roughly 5,000 teachers early in 2016 due to a $1.1 billion (yes, that’s “billion” with a “b”) structural deficit, it argues meeting CTU’s demands would cost the city an additional $1.3 billion.
CTU’s demands include a 3 percent salary increase, pay for snow days, and smaller class sizes. Keep in mind the average class size in the district is only 26 students, but smaller class sizes would necessitate more teachers, which would conveniently mean more dues-paying members for CTU.
While CTU fights to stop necessary reforms, the 400,000 children CTU members are ostensibly supposed to be preparing for college and the workforce—not to mention to live lives as fully-functioning, educated citizens—are languishing in terrible schools where they are not being taught much of anything.
Although Chicago’s 2015 scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests, released in October, show some gains, they are still embarrassing. Only 30 percent of 4th graders and 25 percent of 8th graders tested as “proficient” in mathematics, and only 27 and 24 percent, respectively, were found to be proficient in reading. Going back to 2003, CPS has not produced an above-average NAEP score, relative to other large city school districts, in any subject. 2003’s kindergartners are 2015’s high school seniors. That is one whole generation of students that CPS and CTU have failed.
The results from the first set of the Common Core-aligned Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) tests, released in early December, confirm CTU’s failures. Of the 525 CPS schools where scores are available, only 45 of them (8.5 percent) saw at least 50 percent of their students meeting or exceeding proficiency for their grade level. Yes, you read that right: A full 91.5 percent of all Chicago Public Schools have less than half of their students proficient in reading and math. Almost a quarter of all CPS schools (24.7 percent) had fewer than 10 percent of their students reaching proficiency.
While PARCC tests leave a lot to be desired, and even assuming some implementation difficulties hurt scores, the results are absolutely abysmal.
One would think CTU teachers would be too ashamed to threaten to turn their backs on students and walk out of their classrooms over some snow-day pay, but it must be remembered this is a public-sector union; shame is not a part of CTU’s vocabulary.
Not only is CPS right to refuse to give in to CTU’s demands, CPS should go ahead with the planned layoffs. In a city where only a quarter of kids are reaching proficiency, there are a quite a few teachers in need of their walking papers. CPS should follow the example set by New York City, which closed over two dozen serially underperforming schools and saw a 15 percent increase in graduation rates from the students who were originally assigned to them.
Fewer than 5 percent of 52 CPS schools saw their students score as proficient on PARCC tests in 2014-15. The layoffs and closings should start there. Otherwise, another generation of children will likely be saddled with a dreadful education.
It is with deep regret that I report the passing of a friend, colleague, and great scholar, Dr. Robert M. Carter. Bob died peacefully in a hospital surrounded by family and friends following a heart attack a few days ago. He was 74 years old.
Funeral arrangements are being made and it will most likely take place on Monday next week in Townsville, Australia.
This is almost unspeakably sad. Bob was the very embodiment of the “happy warrior” in the global warming debate. He was a scholar’s scholar, with impeccable credentials (including a Ph.D. from Cambridge), careful attention to detail, and a deep understanding of and commitment to the scientific method. He endured the slings and arrows of the anti-science Left with seeming ease and good humor and often warned against resorting to similar tactics to answer them.
Bob never failed to answer the call to defend climate science, getting on planes to make the long flight from Australia to the U.S., to Paris, and to other lands without complaints or excuses. He was a wonderful public speaker and a charming traveling mate. He was not an easy man to edit, though – he kept wanting to put unnecessary commas, “that’s,” and boldfacing back into his manuscripts – but the great ones never are.
Bob helped immeasurably with three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series, a series of hefty compilations of scientific research he coauthored and coedited with Craig D. Idso and S. Fred Singer. Just a few weeks ago, he flew to Paris to speak at Heartland’s “Day of Examining the Data” and contributed to the completion and review of another book, Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus.
We honored Bob with a “Lifetime Achievement Award” at the 10th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-10) in Washington DC last June. I regret that I missed that event due to the sudden onset of shingles, and so missed the opportunity to see my friend as well as publicly recognize his great achievements in science.
We’ve updated Bob’s online bio, which you can read below. A “guestbook” is being compiled below. If you have a comment or memory you’d like to share, please send it to Jim Lakely at email@example.com
Please remember Bob and his wonderful wife, Anne, in your thoughts and prayers.
TRIBUTES TO BOB CARTER
S. Fred Singer, NIPCC; Science and Environment Policy Project
I feel so privileged to have known and worked with Bob (since our 2006 voyage in the Baltic) and to have shared the panel talks last month in Paris.
He died with his boots on.
James Delingpole, Breitbart London:
We all loved Bob; we’re all going to miss him. He smiled as he fought and as Fred says he died with his boots on. What those of you who missed hanging with him in Paris last December should know is that he was on splendid form – hail, happy, looking like he was going to go on forever. Good old Bob with his dark Satanic beard and his impish smile. What a hero! What a friend! Just the kind of guy you want in the foxhole next to you![More here.]
E. Calvin Beisner, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation:
I met Robert Carter first through correspondence, finding him always ready and patient to educate me, a non-scientist, on the ins and outs of climate science. Over the past few years, largely through Heartland’s International Conferences on Climate Change, we got better acquainted, indeed became friends, and I benefited even more from his wisdom. I was particularly grateful for his generous gift of time when I interviewed him for our video documentary Where the Grass Is Greener: Biblical Stewardship vs. Climate Alarmism, for which his comments were clear, focused, and eminently helpful to the intended lay audience. He will be sorely missed as a scholar, a gentleman, a responsible citizen, and a keen scientist. His passing is a great loss.
Craig Idso, NIPCC; the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
It is with a sad heart that I note the passing of my dear friend and colleague Bob Carter. Bob suffered a heart attack over a week ago and today (Jan 19), surrounded by family, he passed on from this mortal life. He was 74 years old.
I had the privilege of knowing and working with Bob for the better part of the past decade. Along with Fred Singer, I served with Bob as a Lead Author on several volumes of work produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Putting together those volumes was always a Herculean task and Bob was an integral part of their success. He was a master of scientific knowledge and had an incredible talent of sharing that knowledge with others.
Bob had a long and storied career. A wonderful biography of his accomplishments can be found here. But for those who knew him best, it was not his career that kept his heart, but his dear, sweet companion Anne, who was always at his side and accompanied him to nearly every work-related conference and meeting he attended.
I will miss Bob and the friendship we shared. To Anne and their family, may God bless and be with you during this difficult hour of your lives. You have our heartfelt condolences and are in our prayers.
Willie Soon, Astrophysicist:
Bob was a true gentleman scientist, and a friend and colleague who will be sorely missed. Bob gave everything he had in trying to educate the world on the danger of the CO2 scare, and was a true champion of science. Personally, he has taught me many, many things on Earth sciences. Knowing and working with him has to be among the most-special and happy times I have experienced in science.
Ken Haapala, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Bob was a splendid man with an inquiring mind. Last year, when we conversed on hypothesis testing, he stated that many scientists consider one hypothesis at a time, where he, as a geologist, may entertain several. There was no limited thinking with this singular man.
Bill Gray, professor emeritus, Colorado State University:
What a great professional and personal loss for so many of us AGW critics. Bob gave so much of himself in recent years to holding the line against the false arguments and propaganda that has been so extensively advanced by global warming advocates.
We should all admire Bob’s courage and his insightful climate understanding which he so skillfully brought to bear to up-hold the integrity of science. He leaves behind a most admirable legacy which will continue to inspire me and I’m sure many others to keep up our efforts to bring truth to the warming question.
Lord Christopher Monckton, Science and Public Policy Institute
We will remember him. He was our clearest voice of truth.
Viv Forbes, Carbon Sense Coalition:
Bob Carter was a shining light to those of us in Australia who benefitted from his leadership in the Earth Sciences. A great geologist, a sound scientist, a good friend, a superb speaker and illustrator, the sort of pedantic editor I appreciate, and good company. His leadership and advice in the great climate debate will be sadly missed, especially here in the Sunshine State [Queensland, Australia].
Tom Harris, International Climate Science Coalition:
Professor Carter was a very fine man — compassionate, intelligent and still hard working long after most people have retired. He will be sorely missed by many people.
Bob was a great supporter of me and the International Climate Science Coalition in general, helping providing the solid, rational science foundation to our work to bring climate realism to the general public.
I feel privileged to have known Bob in the last few years of his life. I also feel privileged to have spent some time with him in Paris, DC, Chicago, NY and here in Ottawa when he was on a speaking tour of Canada.
Anthony Watts, WattsUpWithThat.com:
Bob Carter’s sudden death reminded me that life is tenuous, and that what we view as firmament can be taken from us in an instant.
I traveled with Bob in Australia during my tour in 2010. To say that he was a man of good cheer and resilience would be an understatement. He not only bore the slings and arrows thrown his way by some of the ugliest people in the climate debate, he reciprocated with professionalism and honor, refusing to let them drag him into the quagmire of climate ugliness we have seen from so many climate activists.
His duty, first and foremost was to truth. I’m reminded of this quote:
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov
Bob worked hard to dispel scientific ignorance, and to do it with respect and good cheer. We’ve all lost a great friend and a champion of truth.
Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot:
Bob was a man of great courage, intellect and wit. I am deeply saddened by his passing. He easily seemed a decade younger than his 74 years with his youthful looks and energy level. the world of science has lost a true champion. I first met Bob when I invited him to speak at the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee hearing on climate in December 2006. Bob’s full 2006 testimony here.
I was in contact with Bob over the years, seeking analysis, quotes and of course he is featured prominently in the upcoming film Climate Hustle. Bob was in Paris decked out in his tux for the Paris premier of the film during the UN climate summit. See: Protesters, police, chaos! Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere’ – ‘Police cordoned off the road’ – Exclusive Video/Photos
Bob was amazing in Paris, good humored and adeptly handling the media and protesters. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Anne and his family and friends. He will be sorely missed.[More here.]
Joanne Nova, author of “The Skeptic’s Handbook”:
He was a man who followed the scientific path, no matter where it took him, and even if it cost him, career-wise, every last bell and whistle that the industry of science bestowed, right down to his very email address. After decades of excellent work, he continued on as an emeritus professor, speaking out in a calm and good natured way against poor reasoning and bad science. But the high road is the hard road and the university management tired of dealing with the awkward questions and the flack that comes with speaking truths that upset the gravy train. First James Cook University (JCU) took away his office, then they took his title. In protest at that, another professor hired Bob immediately for an hour a week so Bob could continue supervising students and keep his library access. But that was blocked as well, even the library pass and his email account were taken away, though they cost the University almost nothing.
It says a lot about the man that, despite the obstacles, he didn’t seem bitter and rarely complained. He dealt with it all with calm equanimity. Somehow he didn’t carry the treatment as excess baggage.[Read more here.]
John Spooner, award-winning cartoonist, co-author with Bob Carter:
Bob Carter was a great man. His greatness was located in something that we all recognized; his intelligent courage , perceptive kindness and an exuberant love of life.
Here was a man who showed everyone how to stand up to bullying and cowardly malice with elegant dignity.
I think he understood human weakness without cynicism but he was baffled by the evasiveness of his opponents in the climate debate.How could they not see the truth, and why wouldn’t they face him openly? He felt that tribal allegiance or group think anxiety were at the heart of what passes for thought in our society.
Ingrida and I are grateful to have called Bob and Anne our friends. A conversation with Bob could range from politics to science and fine art. He always had sympathetic care for family life. In fact he seemed to have a loving embrace for us all. He will be missed dreadfully by all who knew him. Our sincere commiserations to Anne and family, from John and Ingrida Spooner.
John Nicol, Australian Climate Science Coalition:
Bob Carter was a gentleman and a scholar. With his wife Anne and his family, together they were one of New Zealand’s and Australia’s (Townsville’s) great treasures. A scientist to his very core and a scholar, who shone his light on his students and those with whom he worked, Bob was no ordinary Professor. A world renowned geologist who worked on many of the big issues in geological measurement and analysis, as well as the small local problems, he gave of himself in every way possible.
Bob arrived at James Cook in 1981 when, as then Dean of Science, I had the privilege of welcoming him to our Science Faculty. Inheriting a well established and vibrant Geology Department, Bob very rapidly made further significant developments which enhanced his department, the image of Geology in Australia and James Cook University. Continuing with enthusiasm throughout his career, Bob moved into a new forum in retirement in which his goal was to restore integrity to science in general, where imposters had torn down its very fabric through promotion of the popular fallacy regarding the influence of carbon dioxide in causing increased Global Warming. The ideals of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Schrodinger and thousands of others, were in shreds because of greed, stimulated by the prizes of research funding to be awarded to those whose science was weak and whose integrity was weaker, all in the name of a political fantasy, but upon which fed an incresingly hungry industry – “Climate Change”.
Bob Carter stood out and will continue to stand out for many decades, as one whose retirement was given over to hard work in speaking the truth and encouraging thousands of others to do so.
For his unswerving courage in the face of denigration by those whose understanding of science is wanting, for his good humour, for his encouragement to others, his clear and accurate presentations of the facts, we owe him a debt of gratitude May he rest in peace and may his family be comforted by the knowledge that their husband and father has touched so many in a world wide community of genuine friends. May God Bless them and keep them.
Donna Laframboise, journalist, No Frakking Consensus:
The first climate skeptic gathering this journalist attended was a 1-day event in 2009. There were numerous speakers, but Bob Carter’s calm, sensible, persuasive presentation was the one I most talked and thought about afterward. (In 2012, I recalled that event here).
Having shared a stage with Bob twice in the past six months, I can say with perfect sincerity that he was kind, charming, and a gentleman.[Read more here.]
Steve McIntyre, ClimateAudit.com:
In 2003, when I was unknown to anyone other than my friends and family, I had been posting comments on climate reconstructions at a chatline. Bob emailed me out of the blue with encouragement, saying that I was looking at the data differently than anyone else and that I should definitely follow it through. Without his specific encouragement, it is not for sure that I ever would have bothered trying to write up what became McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) or anything else.
He was always full of good cheer, despite continuing provocations, and unfailingly encouraging.[Read more here.]
Cui Weihong, Secretary-General of the China Science Center of International Eurasian Academy of Sciences:
I was profoundly saddened to hear the news of the passing of Dr. Robert M. Carter. He attended the climate conference in Beijing and gave us a splendid talk last year. We will miss and remember him.
May he rest in peace.
Gary Johns, Australian Institute for Progress:
I was saddened to hear the news of the sudden death of my colleague and friend Bob Carter. Bob was a straight shooter, wholly intent on seeking the truth and sharing his understanding with others. He will be sorely missed. It is up to those who remain to keep up the struggle for rationale policy and politics.
Terry Dunleavy, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition:
Members of our Coalition have been shocked and saddened by news of the death last evening of one of our founding members, Professor Robert M. (Bob) Carter, in his home city, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Bob suffered a massive heart attack four days ago, which left him in a coma from which he never recovered. HIs wife Anne sent us this message: “We are very sad to inform you that Bob passed away peacefully this evening in the company of his family…One thing for sure, Bob made the most of every minute he had, and was a fighter to the very end.”
Bob Carter was a scientist of integrity and scholarship. He epitomized everything that was good in science, following the evidence wherever it might lead. Through his many presentations and publications, he exposed the fraud behind the mantra of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I have no doubt that his name will be writ large in the future record of what is proving to be the biggest fraud in the history of science.
Bob will be missed and I offer my condolences to his family, colleagues and friends.
Mark Steyn, co-author, Climate Change: The Facts:
I was very saddened to hear of the death of Professor Robert M Carter, one of my co-authors on Climate Change: The Facts. Bob had a heart attack at his home in Queensland and never recovered consciousness. He was an indispensable voice in the battle for climate sanity, and his chapter in our book exemplified his ability to make an important point easily graspable:
The reality is that no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today. In such circumstances the only rational conclusion to draw is that we need to be prepared to react to either warming or cooling over the next several decades.
Given that no-one can say what the climate in 2030 will be, erecting a vast global bureaucracy with an inflexible monolithic commitment to reverse what may never happen is worse than nuts, it potentially diminishes our ability to react to what may actually occur. It was characteristic Carter: He was no caricature of a wild-eyed denier, but in almost any discussion invariably the most sane and sensible man on the panel. …
He was pleased by the success of our book, and I was hoping to see him somewhere en route during my Aussie tour next month. A great scientist and a courageous and honorable man, he was full of joy and steel-spined, exactly the chap, as James Delingpole said, “you want in the foxhole standing next to you”.[Read more here.]
Andrew Bolt, Melbourne Herald Sun:
Professor Bob Carter had guts. He followed the evidence and not the crowd. He identified the pause in the warming and was abused for it by many on the media, and only years later did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concede there had indeed been a hiatus.
Carter was a seeker of truth, so it is a great blow that this fine man has died of a heart attack. … There are many people who call themselves scientists who follow the grants, the political drum and the media plaudits. Then there are those with the right stuff.
Click here for video of one of Bob’s appearances on The Bolt Report.
Jennifer Marohasy, Institute of Public Affairs:
Professor Carter did not like the term sceptic, he considered himself a rationalist, and popular usage of the term ‘climate change’ a tautology. As he wrote frequently: the geological record tells us that climate always changes. In Professor Carter’s passing we have lost a person who believed in value-free science.[Read more here.]
H. Sterling Burnett, The Heartland Institute:
Truly sorry to hear of his passing. My thoughts and prayers are with his family. In my limited personal experience with him, he was a pleasure to work with and was a brave man who followed the science where it led even at the risk of character assassination by his critics.
Ron Arnold, The Heartland Institute:
When Dr. Carter received his “Lifetime Achievement Award” at the Heartland Institute’s 10th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-10) in Washington, DC last June, it was my privilege to be present to see and hear and applaud this remarkable man. He left us a treasure of great thoughts, honest science and remarkable courage in a troubled world. Thank you, Bob Carter. May you rest in peace.
Susan Crockford, University of Victoria, British Columbia:
I’m still in shock – the news was in the first email I saw this morning and left me reeling.
I shall raise a glass of red wine (Bob’s favorite) this evening to a wonderfully rational, sensible scientist and dear friend.
All who care to do the same, around the world (whatever your time zone), are welcome to join me in saying goodbye to Bob. He will be sorely missed.
Steve Welcenbach, Reality News:
Besides being possibly the warmest person I have ever had the pleasure of meeting, Dr. Robert Carter was truly the greatest scientist of my lifetime. And that is saying a whole lot.
May God Bless his family in their time of sorrow and may we always put to use the gifts he gave to us in his incomparable lectures and presentations which dripped logic and reason with every spoken word. This ferocious warrior of truth and logic will continue to impale the charlatan opportunists that have overrun our government institutions and universities across the globe.
Russell Cook, GelbspanFiles.com:
Dr. Carter, like many other of the “celebrity figures” on the skeptic side of the CAGW issue, was a person who not only shared his time to his famous fellow skeptics, he also gave time to ordinary citizens.
In my case as recent as just two weeks ago, we exchanged emails over a situation in Australia where I was already in the process of alerting a prominent public individual there to the existence of skeptic climate scientists and the depth of their climate assessment reports, of which that person seemed totally unaware of. Dr Carter ultimately took my suggestion to contact that person as well, lending science credibility firepower to my effort. I am indebted to him for extending that favor to me, and for the prior correspondences I had with him. He will be truly missed.
My biggest memory of Professor Carter was he was the person who first turned me into a passionate and unapologetic AGW skeptic. This was the result of a talk he delivered one day in the late 1990s at the CSIRO in northwest Sydney. In this convincing talk, he had that rare combination of being at the same time rigorous yet engaging as well as critical yet positive.
James Rust, The Heartland Institute:
I was stunned at the announcing of the death of Bob Carter. I met him at the First International Conference on Climate Change in New York in 2008. Since I had spent 13 weeks in Australia enjoying their summers from 1982-85, I wanted to meet him and tell him how much I like the very hospitable “Aussies.” He was like all the ones from the past and we “shouted.”
This news brings tears to my eyes because Bob was the epitome of a real scientist. His logic was beautiful and his experience and contributions unique. His defense of Willie Soon was remarkable. Best of all, Bob was a warm and generous human being who refused to capitulate to political pressures, insults, and assaults on his livelihood without showing bitterness.
I once heard Bob say that a remarkable thing about our country was that an ordinary man could still afford to buy 40 acres and live free. I once presented Bob an underwater photograph of a threatened species from his part of the world, the sweetlips snapper, so he would not feel alone. I watched videos of Bob presenting the geological and paleontological evidence that there is nothing unusual or dangerous about our ideal interglacial climate today. I listened to many of his presentations at international conferences on climate change, and was humbled to share the dinner table on more than one occasion. Bob was fearless, while at the same time courteous and respectful.
Dr. Gerrit van der Lingen, Nelson, New Zealand:
Bob has been a powerhouse in the man-made climate change debate. He had an unbridled energy and sharp intellect. His contributions to New Zealand and Australian geology were impressive. He has made huge contributions through research and teaching. These have been recognized by many awards. To mention just one: the Outstanding Research Career Award of the Geological Society of New Zealand (2005). Notwithstanding this record he has been vilified for his activities as a man-made-climate-change realist (sometimes called sceptic). But he has fearlessly defended the scientific method, against the subversion of that method by the man-made global warming activists.[Read more here.]
Philip Foster, author “While the Earth Endures”:
When I think of Bob, I think of his passion for truth in science, his patience and commitment to educating and encouraging independent thinking in the sciences. He was helpful and patient with those of us who were less erudite. I have his comment in his book he gave me, “Do keep up your healthy agnosticism.”
Much in demand as a speaker in sceptical circles, he made the remark to me, with a twinkle in his eye, “If I’m given ten minutes, my fee is £1000; if I’m given half an hour, it’s £100; if an hour, it’s free. (His presentation for us in Paris can be found at www.pcc15.org and, yes, it’s an hour!)
His death is a huge loss to his family and to science. But such was his generosity of time and knowledge, we have the tools he passed on to carry on the fight.
BIO and VIDEO
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a long-time policy advisor to The Heartland Institute and a world renowned authority on climate change, passed away on January 19, 2016. He was 74.
Dr. Carter was a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than 30 years professional experience. He earned degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.
Dr. Carter served as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181(Southwest Pacific Gateways).
Dr. Carter was one of the world’s leading authorities on the science of climate change. He was the author of two books on the subject, Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change (2013) and coauthor of several more, including three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and published by The Heartland Institute. Shortly before his death he coauthored Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2015).
Dr. Carter’s public commentaries drew on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication list of more than 100 papers in international science journals. His research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy was based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand.
Dr. Carter has acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm. He was also a primary science witness in the Hayes Windfarm Environment Court case in New Zealand, and in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.’s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgment which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr. Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Dr. Carter’s research was supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC). He received no research funding from special interest organizations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.
On March 3, 2015, Dr. Carter authored a lengthy correction of the scurrilous attacks by the environmental left against his friend and honorable colleague Dr. Willie Soon. Read it here.
In December 2015, Dr. Carter joined Heartland’s contingent to Paris for COP-21 and presented at the “Day of Examining the Data.” Watch his presentation, and comments about an anti-CO2 demonstration below.
Dr. Carter received the “Lifetime Achievement Award” at the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on July 12, 2015. Watch his acceptance speech below.
Dr. Carter has presented at several of The Heartland Institute’s International Conferences on Climate Change. View them below.
On September 24, 2013, Dr. Carter was part of a panel at The Heritage Foundation to talk about Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Watch that presentation below.
On October 8, 2013, Dr. Carter was part of a panel at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California presenting Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Watch that presentation below.
On October 10, 2013, Dr. Carter was a guest on The Roger Hedgecock Show in San Diego, California. He, Dr. S. Fred Singer, and Heartland Institute President Joe Bast talked about Climate Change Reconsidered. Watch that video below.
In June 2011, Dr. Carter delivered a public lecture titled “Climate Context as a basis for Better Policy” at the University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba. Watch the presentation below.
In May 2011, Dr. Carter delivered a lecture at the Australian Environment Foundation. Watch the presentation below.
In April 2010, Dr. Carter was interviewed by Terry Dunleavy of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Watch that two-part interview below.
Today’s protesters calling for free higher education are just the latest in a long line of people engaging in destructive behavior in the name of egalitarianism, the concept of equal treatment for all. The 1960s brought a wave of destruction in opposition to the Vietnam War. In a rather silly echo of that impulse, Trenton Oldfield, a fanatical egalitarian from Australia, ruined the famous Oxford-Cambridge rowing race on the Thames River a few years ago by jumping in the river and blocking the competitors in the name of resisting the elitism. He was dubbed in the United Kingdom the “anarchist swimmer” and has mounted other guerrilla strikes to promote his agenda. He is urging, for example, cabbies to take well-to-do passengers on long detours and cleaners not to place toilet paper where they are expected to serve rich folks.
It is easy to dismiss this sort of thing as mere childish pranks by a nutcase, but this individual is a graduate of the London School of Economics (LSE). He seems to be taking the goal of social leveling very seriously, although his project is incoherent and mostly destructive.
Still, if you are exhorted by the likes of President Barack Obama or LSE grads and their professors — such as John N. Gray, a former classical liberal who has turned into a postmodernist leftist—to rip off the rich, who can tell what limits, if any, there are to this agenda? After all, there are innumerable activities wealthy people undertake that may, along egalitarian lines, be sabotaged. Polo games, fencing, and bridge tournaments will have to be attacked. Fine restaurants likewise belong on the list, as well as upscale stores, clubs, and car dealerships.
In fact, any form of entertainment is fair game for such equalizers, because whenever one is enjoying such recreation, one could instead be serving humanity by attending to the poor or the sick. Nothing is safe from a person determined to wrest enjoyment from others’ grasp.
A host of emotions well up in me when these people write this material, take to the streets, or make insane demands of society from university podiums. It’s true most rivers are seen as public goods anyone may use to his or her heart’s content, so Oldfield may well have a technical right to ruin everybody’s fun by blocking a boat race on the Thames. A private lake would be easier to protect from such terrorists. Fortunately, common sense and a longing for mutual civility lead most people to refrain from expressing their political dreams by ruining events like the Oxbridge rowing regatta.
But what can one expect when the head of the most powerful government in the world advocates the egalitarian project, suggests tax policy based on its aspirations, and bashes the rich at every turn? Not that there is anything revolutionary about this. After all, throughout human history, firebrands of all sorts have promoted aggression and violence as the proper course for those who cannot bear to accept some people being better-off than others.
One can be somewhat grateful for the complaints of college protesters, Oldfield, Obama, and others who come right out and state their willingness to destroy things for everyone else if they don’t get their way. What society needs today is for these fanatics to come out of hiding, remind us of exactly what their warped thinking actually leads to, and, one hopes, inspire sensible people to reject their leaders at the ballot box.
Activists protesting federal land mismanagement and the imprisonment of Dwight and Steven Hammond recently occupied the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters building in Oregon. Some facts, context and perspective may help people understand what’s really going on here.
At its core, this is about the often callous, iron-fisted hand of the federal government being slammed down on American citizens. Examples abound – from the IRS targeting 200 conservative groups, to the seizure of cars and bank accounts of innocent business owners, to heavily armed Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) agents bursting into Gibson Guitar facilities over phony exotic wood violations, to EPA destroying tens of thousands of coal industry jobs to “prevent climate chaos.” Making these outrages even more intolerable, those responsible are almost never held accountable, much less liable for damages.
Problems like these can become exponentially worse for people in one of the twelve western states where the federal government controls 30% (Montana), 49% (Oregon) or even 85% (Nevada and Alaska) of all the land. These government lands total 640 million acres: 28% of the entire 2.27-billion-acre United States.
Though they are often, incorrectly called “public” lands, the “public” has no fundamental right to enter them or utilize their water and other resources. They are federal government reservations, administered and controlled by agencies that increasingly want economic, motorized and many other activities prohibited and eliminated – under laws interpreted, implemented and imposed by officials in the FWS, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Park Service and other federal agencies.
The feds also exercise effective, often punitive control over millions of acres of state and private lands located next to or in the midst of these government fiefdoms. People living in those areas rely on the federal reserves for forage, water, timber, energy, mineral and other resources that are increasingly made off limits, on the ground that “beneficial uses” might impact wildlife, scenic or environmental values.
However, millions of people do have valid, existing, longstanding, protected rights to these lands and their resources, in the form of “appurtenances” conveyed to them by deed or will from the first settler or miner. The forage, water rights, range improvements, easements, rights of ways, mineral rights and other property interests that the first settlers created or were granted to these western lands are constitutionally protected and have been preserved in every federal land law ever enacted by Congress. Those rights cannot be summarily taken away – though federal agencies increasingly try to do so.
As an 1888 congressional report explained, the original idea for these lands involved use and protection: settlements, harvesting of commercial quality trees, watershed protection, and no land monopolies. Various laws allowed mining, oil drilling, ranching, farming and other activities, to supply food, energy and raw material needs, while early environmentalists wanted certain areas preserved as national parks and wilderness. Of course, modern resource use and extraction methods are far more responsible and environmentally sound than their predecessors, so impacts can be much better limited and repaired.
Nevertheless, “wise use” or “multiple use” is under attack, and such uses are now rare or nonexistent across many western and Alaskan government lands. Landowners who remain are barely holding on.
Imagine the feds owning half of Ohio or Pennsylvania – and gradually, systematically closing off access, taking away water and forage rights, banning economic uses, charging higher fees for remaining rights, forcing landowners into years-long courtroom battles, and refusing to pay up when courts order them to compensate owners for attorney fees and lost income. That’s the situation facing rural westerners.
The Hammonds got in trouble because they started a “backfire,” to burn combustible material, create a “fire break” and protect their home and ranch from a raging fire. They accidentally burned 139 acres of federal land before they put the fire out. Now they are serving five years in prison, even though Senior Federal Judge Michael Hogan felt a year or less was fair and just under the circumstances.
They could have been charged under a 1948 law that provides for fines or jail terms up to five years for setting a fire on government lands without permission. But they were not. Instead, the Obama Justice Department charged them under the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act – as though what they did, in an honest attempt to protect their property, was an act of deliberate terrorism. That law requires a minimum five-year sentence. Judge Hogan’s lighter sentence was thus overruled.
Why would the DOJ do that? Probably because the feds never forget or forgive. Some years earlier, the Hammonds had removed a barrier the BLM had installed to block access to water they thought was legally theirs. Turns out it was. But they had failed to fully adjudicate their rights to the water – an oversight that they then fixed, thus safeguarding their rights. The Hammonds were also the only ranchers who refused to go along with a BLM “cow-free wilderness” plan. The feds were determined to get even.
Why would the Hammonds just give up and go back to prison? Because the DOJ wouldn’t budge, and they could not afford the huge expense of continuing to battle a vindictive federal behemoth. So now a middle-aged mom and elderly grandmother must run their 6,000-acre ranch, pay $200,000 more in fines, and hope they can avoid bankruptcy, which would result in BLM getting the Hammond ranch.
It is absurd, outrageous and infuriating. The Obama DOJ refuses to call Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino and other massacres terrorism – but it labels a backfire “terrorism.” But it gets worse.
Harney County, Oregon, where the Hammonds live, is over 6.4 million acres (over 10,000 square miles, ten times the size of Rhode Island), and 72% of it is controlled by the federal government. A 2012 wildfire in the county burned 160,000 acres! A 2015 fire in the county next door burned 800,000 acres!
Still worse, the BLM has often lit fires in Harney County and elsewhere (often on private land) that got out of control, burned extensive private property and even killed cattle. No one can recall the feds ever compensating ranchers for their lost livestock, fences or forage. In 2013, the Forest Service started two “prescribed burns” in South Dakota that blew out of control and torched thousands of acres of federal and private land. No federal employee has ever been prosecuted for any of those destructive fires.
To top it off, many of these fires are ultimately due to lousy management practices that restrict or prohibit tree cutting, tree thinning and insect control. That leaves vast tinderboxes of dry, rail-thin trees and brush ready to explode in superheated conflagrations that immolate wildlife and incinerate soil nutrients and organisms, ensuring that what’s left gets washed away in storms and spring snow melts. So the feds “protect” our treasured national forests from ranchers and miners by letting them go up in smoke.
But despite all these outrages, and not content with its already vast landholdings, the feds are trying to gain absolute control over all private lands still left in Harney County, and elsewhere. As Congressman Greg Walden noted in a January 5 speech, they are trying to drive ranchers and even joggers out of the Malheur Refuge. Failing that, President Obama might turn 2.5 million acres into a national monument.
The twisted saga is reminiscent of travesties under Stalin, Mao, Castro and other dictators. And it is just one of hundreds, some of which I will profile in future articles. It’s no wonder people are frustrated and angry – and some support Ammon Bundy and other activists who took over the Malheur headquarters. History will judge whether that peaceful occupation of federal property was wise, helpful or justified.
But many in the Obama Administration, news media, academia and general public certainly support or justify the seizure of college administrative offices, Occupy Wall Street encampments, and even Black Lives Matter kill-the-cops rants, Ferguson, Missouri riots, Palestinian attacks on Israelis, and Obama BFF Bill Ayers’ criminal activities. John Kerry went so far as to say, with Charlie Hebdo there was “perhaps … a rationale … [and] you could say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.”
So twelve Hebdo staffers murdered by Islamist terrorists is “rational” or excusable, but occupying a federal building is intolerable. We are dealing with a festering, growing, open wound. Congress, the courts and our next president need to heal it, and address the root causes, before things get out of hand.
In episode #21 of the In The Tank Podcast, Hosts Donny Kendal and John Nothdurft bring in Director of Communications Jim Lakely to talk about the GOP debate. This weekly podcast features (as always) interviews, debates, roundtable discussions, stories, and light-hearted segments on a variety of topics on the latest news. The show is available for download as part of the Heartland Daily Podcast every Friday.
In today’s episode of In The Tank, Donny, John, and Jim talk the record-breaking $1.6 billion Powerball. The trio give their opinion on the government run lottery system as well as Thursday’s GOP debate. Lastly, they talk about the drop in oil prices. The competition between American fracking and OPEC has driven the price of oil down to below $30. John debates Donny as to where the price of oil is heading next.
If you don’t visit Somewhat Reasonable and the Heartlander digital magazine every day, you’re missing out on some of the best news and commentary on liberty and free markets you can find. But worry not, freedom lovers! The Heartland Weekly Email is here for you every Friday with a highlight show. Subscribe to the email today, and read this week’s edition below.Podcast: Kyle Maichle on Compact for America The movement to amend the U.S. Constitution is gaining momentum across the country. Kyle Maichle, The Heartland Institute’s project manager for constitutional reform, joins host Donald Kendal to talk about Marco Rubio’s recent endorsement of an Article V convention, which is causing quite a stir in the mainstream media, as well as Compact for America (CfA), an organization seeking an Article V convention to implement a balanced budget amendment. Maichle discusses CfA’s strategies, influences, and successes so far. LISTEN TO MORE COP-21 and the Paris Climate Agreement Tim Benson, Heartland Research & Commentary The agreement that came out of COP-21 was called a “turning point for the world” by President Barack Obama. But critics on both the right and left say the agreement is merely an aspirational document, lacking language that would make any of its provisions on emission reduction and redistribution to developing countries legally binding. After all the hype and rhetoric, the world got a toothless, hollow, and non-binding agreement. That’s a victory, not a setback, for sound science and economics. READ MORE Science Supports Public’s Rejection of Climate Change Hype H. Sterling Burnett, Inside Sources Heartland’s H. Sterling Burnett writes a devastating reply to sociologist Robert Brulle, who turned to the Washington Post on January 6 to continue his campaign to attribute the American public’s rejection of global warming alarmism to “the coordinated efforts of conservative foundations and fossil fuel corporations to promote this uncertainty.” According to Burnett, “The main reason I don’t accept the so-called ‘consensus view’ on climate change is it violates the scientific method. Virtually every testable prediction made concerning the harmful impacts of climate change has been proven to be incorrect.” READ MORE Reply to Mann and Oreskes Joseph L. Bast, Somewhat Reasonable Why would Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes, two prominent (and almost ridiculously alarmist) academics in the global warming debate, devote hours to writing letters to the editor to a small (circ. 10,000) newspaper in northern Wisconsin? Maybe to avoid peer-review and editors who recognize libel when they see it. Mann and Oreskes recently repeated every lie and half-truth about The Heartland Institute spread on the Internet (often with their help) in a letter to theLakewood Times, and Heartland President Joseph Bast set the record straight in his reply, posted online at the newspaper as well as on Heartland’s blog, SomewhatReasonable. READ MORE New Book! Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming The Heartland Institute released at COP-21 in Paris its newest book on global warming: Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming. The authors demolish the most pernicious myth in the global warming debate: that “97% of scientists” believe mankind is the cause of a global warming catastrophe. Scientists Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter critique the sources of this myth and present a summary of the physical science that makes it plain beyond any doubt that there is no global warming crisis. Go to Amazon.com or the Heartland store now and order a copy, or become a Heartland donor and get a free copy! READ MORE Every Student Succeeds Act: Another Republican Defeat Robert G. Holland, Washington Times Two days after the text was released, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was rushed through a House vote. Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee praised ESSA for short-circuiting a national school board and returning control to local hands. But why was former secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Education Arne Duncan so happy about this supposed devolution from federal control? “We were intentionally quiet on the bill – they asked us specifically not to praise it – and to let it get through,” said Duncan. Under ESSA, every state must adopt “college- and career-ready standards,” which means Common Core, or whatever rebranded versions the national education ministry deems acceptable. READ MORE Big Business Still Has No Idea Why Americans Don’t Like It or Common Core Joy Pullmann, The Federalist Fortune magazine, which styles itself as being the voice of modern-day capitalism, started the new year with a lengthy cover story heaping praise on corporate sponsors of Common Core and disdain on the stupid, right-wing, and misinformed opposition it encountered. Heartland Research Fellow Joy Pullmann has written a passionate and even angry reply at The Federalist that exposes the real sources of grassroots opposition to Common Core. You gotta read this one! READ MORE
Common Core Damage Will Last for Years to Come Peter Wood, The Heartlander Parents all over the country are becoming increasingly upset with the impacts of Common Core. With the mess that has been made of math and reading instruction, there has risen a growing movement to repeal Common Core entirely. Unfortunately, it may not be that easy. The large investment already made in textbooks, computers, tests, and training makes repealing this massive federal and state program a large feat. Undoing some forms of bad policy can take years. READ MORE Rolling Back CON Laws Underway in Virginia Justin Haskins, Consumer Power Report Few government policies produce worse effects on state health care quality than certificate of need (CON) laws. These laws require medical facilities to get permission in order to purchase new equipment, offer new medical services, or expand or build a new medical facility. Several state delegates in the Virginia General Assembly have had enough of these destructive and frankly dangerous regulations. As of now, eight legislative reforms designed to scale back these CON laws are being considered to return sanity and free-market regulation to Virginia’s health care system. READ MORE Rolling Back CON Laws Underway in Virginia Justin Haskins, Consumer Power Report Few government policies produce worse effects on state health care quality than certificate of need (CON) laws. These laws require medical facilities to get permission in order to purchase new equipment, offer new medical services, or expand or build a new medical facility. Several state delegates in the Virginia General Assembly have had enough of these destructive and frankly dangerous regulations. As of now, eight legislative reforms designed to scale back these CON laws are being considered to return sanity and free-market regulation to Virginia’s health care system. READ MORE Could Bitcoin Break the Government’s Monopoly on Money? Jesse Hathaway, The Hill As Bitcoin continues to climb in value, many are looking at the virtual money as a legitimate alternative to government-backed currencies. As its popularity increases, more established companies, such as Dell, DISH Network, Microsoft, and even Papa John’s Pizza, are beginning to accept payment in Bitcoin. Jesse Hathaway, managing editor of Budget & Tax News, argues Bitcoin could bring an end to the U.S. government’s near-monopoly over the money business, unleashing free-market principles into the worlds of commerce and finance. READ MORE Featured Podcast: Berin Szoka: Governments Wage War on “Zero-Rating” Video Plans Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom – a non-profit organization devoted to promoting the progress of technology that improves the human condition – joins Budget & Tax News Managing Editor Jesse Hathaway to discuss how regulators in the U.S. and abroad are using the power of the state to combat zero-rating, a kind of data plan that allows consumers to use streaming services at no cost. Szoka explains how foreign governments are cracking down on political dissent under the guise of protecting consumers with similar regulations. LISTEN TO MORE Invest in the Future of Freedom! Are you considering 2015 gifts to your favorite charities? We hope The Heartland Institute is on your list. Preserving and expanding individual freedom is the surest way to advance many good and noble objectives, from feeding and clothing the poor to encouraging excellence and great achievement. Making charitable gifts to nonprofit organizations dedicated to individual freedom is the most highly leveraged investment a philanthropist can make. Click here to make a contribution online, or mail your gift to The Heartland Institute, One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2740, Chicago, IL 60606. To request a FREE wills guide or to get more information to plan your future please visit My Gift Legacy http://legacy.heartland.org/ or contact Gwen Carver at 312/377-4000 or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
While the vast majority of Americans say that their nation’s not headed in a good direction, there’s a minority that are optimistic about the future. Indeed, author Michael Lotus believes America’s greatest days are yet to come.
Mr. Lotus draws his optimistic attitude by reaching back into this nation’s history. Although a young nation, America has survived other dark periods and has emerged stronger for them. Examples stem from the Civil War and this nation’s confrontation with the 3rd Reich (Nazi regime in Germany). After these two momentous events in the life of this nation, the economy buzzed, Americans thrived as a people, and great advances were made.
Paramount in sustaining Lotus’ hope is a cultural formula that has remained consistent over many centuries. This cultural foundation is technically termed the “Absolute Nuclear Family.” Lotus explained that this nation has an individualistic society, with the weakest extended family of any country in the world, making her unlike any other nation in the world. For example: In Arab-Muslim countries, traditionally the young don’t pick their own spouses. Theirs is an extremely clan-like family network.
That important concept was just one introduced Saturday morning, January 9, to the Women’s Republican Club of Lake Forest-Lake Bluff — now it its 75th year since its founding. Club member Hillary Till introduced Lotus, her former classmate at the University of Chicago.
Lotus is the co-author with James C. Bennett of America 3.0, Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century–Why American’s Greatest Days Are Yet to Come. The book has been endorsed or favorably reviewed by many, including National Review Editors-at-Large Jonah Goldberg and John O’Sullivan; Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner; “Instapundit” Glenn Reynolds; and hailed as an “intellectually ambitious and accessible work” by The Washington Times.
America 3.0: has two sub-title: “Rebooting American Prosperity in the 21st Century and “Why America’s Greatest Days Are Yet to Come.” Mr. Lotus prefers the latter sub-title, believing that America’s greatest days are yet to come despite this nation’s high unemployment level, the existing low trust by the American people for established institutions, and how senior citizens have been impacted negatively because of low interest rates, etc.
Reasons to be Positive
The Absolute Nuclear Family foundation gave rise over the centuries to a political culture in England then in the USA. That political culture is expressed in three important American documents:
- U.S. Constitution (described by Lotus as “a perfect code that doesn’t need to be edited”).
- Declaration of Independence.
- Northwest Ordinance – an achievement of Thomas Jefferson in 1787. It established clear property rights, which were very important. Without them nations remain poor.
English-speaking people have created wealth and innovation based on their practice of finding the most talented people they can find to build something, such as when starting a business, rather than relying on relatives. At the same time it is not a utopia, and complaints that America can be a cold or lonesome society have some basis in fact.
This nation has the ability to assimilate people unlike anywhere else in the world. As such we shouldn’t panic at allowing a certain number of immigrants to come to America.
(The author took exception with Mr. Lotus on immigration. Lotus never clarified specifically whether he was speaking about illegal immigrants, those of refugee status, or those who wait for years to enter this nation legally.)
Defining 1.0 and 2.0 America
America 1.0 was described by Mr. Lotus as the society of our Founding Fathers, one of small scale, local government and based on agriculture. People were free but poor. It was based on muscle power, since machine power had not been invented.
The transition to an America 2.0 first began to be visible in the Northeast before the Civil War. The introduction of steam power began to change the entire economy and society. It was the Civil War, particularly the mobilization of men, war material, and money required that created the initial outline of America 2.0. It was those of the Civil War generation (those who weren’t killed) who are credited as the true founders of 2.0. The change was not without pain, as big cities grew and politics became corrupted. Just as now, it was perceived by the American people that our nation’s Constitution had been undermined, and that America’s best days were behind her. But America got through that transition successfully.
The railroads enabled people and goods to move more freely. Factories sprung up and required lots of people doing things in a systematic way in order to achieve huge returns. The automobile replaced the horse and carriage. With the development of transportation suburbs were built, offering the American people a quality of life which only the wealthy had enjoyed before.
From its onset America 2.0 required some centralization. More rules and regulations were needed for the huge influx of people from farms into cities. Change led to the development of a progressive political movement which took several generations to affect change. The political framework for America 2.0 happened with the election of FDR and his “Great Society.” Social Security came into being which led the American people to believe that government would take care of their retirement years.
In retrospect, mid-20th century America looks like a Golden Age. Big Business thrived. WWII was won and prosperity returned to this nation. The building of suburbs exploded where families could have their own homes and yards. Our grandparents, and the World War II generation, built the America we grew up in, which was a very great country in its day.
Another important achievement of 2.0 were technological advances such as the Internet, which allows instant communication, and can be considered the beginning of America 3.0.
Transitioning from 2.0 to 3.0
The transition from 2.0 to 3.0 is already underway. The big government of today will eventually have to fail, for unable to keep its obligations, default is inevitable. The American people will experience pain as the government sector shrinks, but hopefully the cuts demanded will be made as as painlessly as possible. Mr. Lotus called for an open and transparent reduction of government, which he called “The Big Haircut.”
We can only speculate what America 3.0 will bring. Lotus suggested the following things as likely:
- Already self-employment is the growing sector. This trend will continue.
- The factory floor will no longer require thousands of people showing up for work every day, but will exist everywhere.
- The Internet will allow individual to work at gigs rather than at set jobs.
- 3-D printers will create no waste. Everything manufactured will be made to exact dimensions.
- Driverless cars will especially help those who are no longer able to drive: 10 years when a typical woman can’t drive a car; for men it’s 6 years. Commute time will become productive time.
- Robotic technology will become common place.
- Technology like BitCoin may replace money.
- Education and healthcare, now dominated by the government, will crumble, and be replaced by competitive industries offering many choices.
- Genetic engineering for body parts, etc.
- DNA manipulation
As changes come and are integrated into society, the cost of living will go down.
As with electronic devices whose technology is increasing at a rapid pace, to be fully accepted requires a generation who grew up with it and take it for granted before it become universal.
Mutineers needed with personal, moral courage
Although bad things will continue to happen during the transitional period, Mr. Lotus fervently believes that only when the situation becomes bad or oppressive enough will enough people rise up to demand change. This seems to be happening now, as millions of Americans are saving NO to establishment presidential candidates from either party in favor of candidates who are considered outsiders. The change from 2.0 to 3.0 must allow the creative powers of the American people to be realized and developed, despite a government machine that doesn’t want this to happen. It doesn’t help that we live in a “creepy state” where government has the capacity to spy on us. It will require political will to rein in this threat and subject it to lawful control.
Lotus enjoined all present to act as mutineers, keeping in mind that the spirit of freedom still exists within the American people to resist and reject submission, and that the nuclear family is still the norm when the American people are given that choice.
The conservative inclination is to go back to something considered more pleasing, perhaps to the 1950’s? Some conservative even try to romanticize America 1.0, but you can never go “back” to anything. Both political parties have become corrupted. It will take personal moral courage to fix something as bad as it is now.
George Washington and the Founding Father were willing to roll the dice and make change happen. The signers of the Declaration of Independence risked their lives knowing they could be hung as traitors.
Like those who risked death in Colonial America, as America 3.0 struggles to be born, activists and concerned citizens must take the lead, even if the personal risk is not so great. If they don’t others will do so in their absence, and the America of the future will not be as good as it should be and can be. The conditions are in place for change, given the excesses and the flaunting of our Constitution by our government and by cronies who benefit from it. We must be ready to seize the day.
Is Germany a renewable energy paradise, or a rate payer’s Hell? Germany is often cited as a leader in renewable energy and Facebook memes make the rounds boasting about wind and solar energy production in Germany, but how true are these memes and at what cost does increasing renewable energy exact upon the German people? The answer is: a lot.
Wolfgang Muller, director of the European Institute on Klimate and Energy (EIKE), a German-based think tank, and Heartland Institute Research Fellow Isaac Orr explore German energy policy and debunk popular environmentalist myths about renewables in Germany.
Sociologist Robert Brulle’s recent Washington Post op-ed “America Has Been Duped on Climate Change” (1/6/15) is reminiscent of President Barack Obama’s petulant response to anyone who disagrees with him concerning the legality and effectiveness of new gun control regulations. Obama can’t imagine any person legitimately questioning whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to restrict an American’s right to keep and bear arms, despite the plain language presented in the Second Amendment.
If you disagree with Obama’s new executive actions that limit gun rights and violate Americans’ privacy rights by providing unjustifiable access to health and financial data, Obama condemns you as being either in the pocket of the gun lobby or a paranoid conspiracy theorist. In the president’s view, there can be no honest differences of opinion concerning the need to enact more gun control.
Brulle’s argument is similar. If you disagree which his claim the science is settled that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, or his assertion the impacts of a warmer world are so bad the government is justified in imposing severe limits on freedom and economic development, you are either in the pocket of the fossil-fuel industry or you are ignorant of the truth because industry-backed shills have misinformed or confused you.
The main reason I don’t accept the so-called “consensus view” on climate change is it violates the scientific method. Virtually every testable prediction made concerning the harmful impacts of climate change has been proven to be incorrect.
Alarmists posit human greenhouse gas emissions are driving rising temperatures, yet the climate models they use to support this assertion consistently misrepresent past temperature and climate trends and overstate the amount of warming Earth has experienced. While carbon dioxide emissions have continued to rise over the past 18 years, global satellites tell us temperatures have plateaued, defying the most basic premise of the theory human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.
Based on computer models, government-backed scientists predicted the world should be experiencing more intense hurricanes, but December 24, 2015, marked a record 122 months since the last major hurricane, classified as Category 3 or higher, struck the continental United States, according to records kept by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division. Hurricane Wilma, which hit Florida on October 24, 2005, was the last major hurricane to hit the United States, making Obama the first president in 122 years, since Benjamin Harrison, to hold office without seeing a major hurricane strike the United States.
Sea-level rise is well below predictions and has in fact measurably slowed. Although in some areas polar bear numbers suffered a modest decline late in the 20th century, they have since bounced back. Just before Christmas, Norwegian scientists found the polar bear population in the Barents Sea has increased by more than 40 percent, to approximately 975 bears, compared to 685 11 years ago. Polar bear numbers are in fact at record highs, having increased from around 5,000 worldwide in the 1950s to more than 25,000 today.
Some land based ice sheets have declined in Antarctica, yet on the whole the continent is adding ice. New research shows the Antarctic ice sheet had an average net gain of 112 billion tons of ice per year from 1992–2001 and 82 billion tons of ice per year from 2003–08. Antarctica’s sea ice extent set multiple records during both the summer and winter months in 2014 and in 2015. Arctic ice levels have increased since the low recorded in 2007, with every year since then exceeding that measurement.
Crop production continues to set records year over year, and despite a recent alarmist article in The New York Times claiming increasing carbon dioxide levels are causing ocean acidification, which the writer says is harming sea life, internal e-mails from NOAA report, “[C]urrently there are no areas of the world that are severely degraded because of [ocean acidification] or even areas that we know are definitely affected by OA right now.”
Each of these scientific truths contradicts predictions and claims made by the so-called “consensus.”
It seems what really upsets Brulle is the fact Americans haven’t been duped by climate alarmists and stampeded into calling for drastic action to fight climate change. Instead, polls consistently show climate change ranks dead-last as a concern, far behind other public policy issues, such as budget deficits, crime, the economy, education, energy, immigration, taxes, and terrorism. Is the public’s skepticism due to effective communication by climate realists, or is it attributable to the fact Americans don’t believe a government that can’t control its borders, balance its checkbook, or consistently predict the weather less than one week out can control the global climate 100 years from now?
I don’t know, but I’m glad the public displays more common sense and is more judicious in its assessment of the relative dangers of climate change than the vast army of self-appointed, deceptive public scolds, such as Brulle.
Because Arne Duncan, the former secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, often engages his mouth before his brain, the case for abolishing the department may have just become stronger than ever.
By failing to restrain his end-zone celebration of the Republican-led Congress’ recent passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Mr. Duncan has exposed the deceit and dishonesty of a bipartisan Washington establishment that has imposed top-down controls on education a majority of Americans don’t want.
But wait: After working hard to nationalize education through the first seven years of the Obama presidency, why should the departing secretary of education be so pumped about ESSA, the successor to No Child Left Behind? After all, one of the act’s main sponsors, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee has crowed about the new law short-circuiting a national school board, repealing Common Core and returning considerable control to local hands. Republican talking points about the glory of devolution dominated early news stories about the Every Student Succeeds Act, even in The New York Times.
No doubt Mr. Duncan and his lawyers studied the 1,061-page bill line by line, and they most assuredly knew more than most members of Congress about how it actually seals in federal control, rather than empowering local stewards of education. More cause for Mr. Duncan’s juvenile joy was pulling a fast one via a hushed collaboration between a powerful Obama Cabinet member and the Republican congressional leadership.
“We were intentionally quiet on the bill — they asked us specifically not to praise it — and to let it get through,” Mr. Duncan said in a December interview with Politico Pro, a journal popular with Washington insiders. “And so we went into radio silence and then talked about it after the fact. Our goal was to get this bill passed — intentionally silent on the many, many good aspects of the bill. We were strategically quiet on the good stuff.”
Mr. Duncan’s revelation may help explain why House Speaker Paul Ryan rushed the massive bill to a House vote only two days after releasing the text, ignoring the pleas made by hundreds of citizen groups for time to study and debate the complex measure.
Mr. Duncan gloated about causes the administration “promoted and proposed forever the core of our agenda from Day One” now being embedded for the first time in federal statutory law. No longer will it be necessary to dangle monetary or regulatory bribes in front of states to persuade them to adhere to Common Core curricular standards. Under ESSA, every state must adopt “college- and career-ready standards,” which means Common Core or whatever rebranded versions the national education ministry deems acceptable.
Mr. Duncan’s former communications chief, Peter Cunningham, writing in the Dec. 13 Education Post, chose to chide Mr. Alexander for expressing such pride in a law that “now mandates the very thing he rails against”: Common Core. But that raises another question: Did Mr. Alexander, who served as education secretary under Republican President George H.W. Bush, realize full well the great ESSA deception and participate in it? As a one-time presidential aspirant, Mr. Alexander avidly supported national education standards and tests (albeit supposedly “voluntary”) as part of Bush’s America 2000 program, and at other stages of his political career.
So what are parents and educators who believe in local control to make of supposed congressional allies who prove to be either dupes or fools and wind up perpetuating nationalization of K12 education?
Instead of despairing and just accepting everything handed down from the Every Student Succeeds Act for many years to come, they may want to redirect their energy and commitment in 2016 to electing a president and new members of Congress dedicated to abolishing the U.S. Education Department.
Started by President Jimmy Carter as a political payoff to the National Education Association teachers union, the department has done nothing to advance the level of intellectual achievement in America. Quite to the contrary, as Patchogue, N.Y. school Superintendent Michael Hynes pointed out in a New Year’s Eve letter to Newsday, the Education Department policymaking “has left a wake of children who have been tested to death and also degraded educators by reducing them to numbers.”
It is time to stop letting political hacks and blowhards in Washington control our kids’ futures and to restore authority and choice to parents, teachers and local communities.
Co-authored by: Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold
As we digested events from last week in the light of President Obama’s Executive Order about gun control, it became clear that gun control was secondary to his attempt to marginalize the NRA. There was lots of sizzle, but no steak in the end. Even diverting attention from Gitmo, ISIS, North Korea, China, and the Middle East played a minor, but useful role.
The NRA refused to bite, so Obama was left to debate an empty chair. According to polls, undecided voters weren’t fooled either. They overwhelmingly agree with the NRA and the Republican candidates in opposition to the President.
Obama’s references to “Smart Guns” were vague and not picked up by the press nor the NRA, but they are available for purchase. Not popular at the moment, nevertheless, we took the liberty to explain later in our article what Smart Guns are all about and whether it would be advantageous for you to consider one.
Perhaps the most memorable event during this past week was Obama’s confrontation with Tara Kyle at his town hall meeting at George Mason University in Virginia where Obama sat stunned. When he couldn’t answer her question, he fell back on the old “something is better than doing nothing” trick.
The day after the December 2 assault on a Christmas party in San Bernardino, President Obama appeared on television to denounce “yet another tragic example of gun violence,” and renewed his vows to bypass Congress on gun control if they wouldn’t do as he asked. To Obama’s embarrassment, his FBI director announced that San Bernardino would be a terror investigation, not one of workplace violence as depicted by the President.
By at least one account, supposedly leaked from Obama’s inner circle, the President was outraged to be made a fool by director Comey. Accordingly, Obama, Valerie Jarrett and Loretta Lynch made plans to mitigate the situation. The next day Director Comey conducted a press conference, describing the nature of the investigation, accompanied by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
While Comey outlined the facts of the case, Lynch restricted her comments to a threat to prosecute anyone depicting Muslims as terrorists. When Comey opened the podium to questions, the video feed was suddenly cut off. Actual video of the remaining conference appeared briefly on the internet the next day, but was deleted within hours.
In order to gain support for his forthcoming announcements, the President mentioned things like using the no-fly list to disqualify gun buyers, which has serious constitutional issues. Re-classifying who needs a license to sell firearms. Streamlining reporting of mental issues (HIPAA issues), banning high (actually standard) capacity magazines and assault weapons based on cosmetic features, and mandating weapons to have electronic safety features tying them to one user.
When the President announced his decisions on Tuesday, January 5, they were basically as follows:
- Directed the ATF to establish rules for licensing requirements to sell firearms. It was not an order to change the rules, rather a directive to start the rule-process, including public comment and Congressional review, which will last well into 2017.
- Simplify the rules under which mental health professionals can report issues to NICS without violating HIPAA rules. Technically only involuntary examinations are affected, including court-ordered procedures.
- Increase the budget for mental health research in violence by $500M (subject to Congressional approval).
- Ask Congress to allow the CDC to study violence as a public health issue (banned by Congress in 2003, following highly questionable and biased reports).
- Asked for more funding to study “smart gun” technology, comparing it to seat belts in cars and safety standards for toys. This escaped the notice of the press, and apparently the NRA too.
In an interview with Fox News, former Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, described the President’s actions as “rearranging furniture.” Generalities were used by Mukasey:
- Less than 1% of guns used in crimes were purchased at gun shows (0.7% by FBI statistics). Most guns used in crime come from illegal street sales (40%) and close relatives (30-40%), not subject to background checks.
- Potentially criminalizes private individuals selling guns without a license, after the fact, depending on the prosecutor, not clear rules.
- $500M for mental health research was immediately tabled by the administration, without consulting Congress.
- No mention was made of using the no-fly list.
- No mention was made of “assault weapon” bans
- Mental health issues already impose a limit on who can purchase a firearm, but are not reported reliably by many states. Criminal convictions are not consistently reported to NICS either.
- Over 2/3rds of Obama’s “gun deaths” are suicides, which occur at the same rate in countries like Great Britain and Japan where no guns are allowed at all.
- More deaths occur on the streets of Chicago in a month than in all “active shootings” since Obama was elected.
- The 24/7 news cycle emphasizes incidents like San Bernardino for weeks on end, while ignoring the daily carnage in cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore and New Orleans, all run by unrepentant liberal Democrats. NYC is still somewhat below the national average (4/100K), but climbing rapidly under DeBlasio’s liberal policies.
- “Smart guns” restrict their use to a single person, using biometrics or an electron finger ring. The technology already exists, in case someone wants it. The acceptance has been very low, almost zero. While it keeps children from firing the weapon, failure would keep the owner from firing it too in an emergency, like an air bag which won’t deploy or a flashlight gone dead when the lights go out. The political implications are serious. At least one state, New Jersey, requires all guns to have this technology once it becomes available. The Democrats would be quick to spread this across the country, and Bloomberg would sponsor initiatives in states where they are allowed (e.g., Washington and Oregon). It would not have protected the cop in Philadelphia, who was shot with a gun stolen from the police. Any mechanism of the sort is easily disabled in a few minutes. The law would come down heavily on any citizen disabling this feature, but what does a criminal have to lose?
Town Hall Meeting:
Obama held a town hall meeting on Thursday, January 7, at George Mason University in Virginia, moderated by CNN. While packed with anti-gun activists and gun violence victims, a few surprises occurred.
Following a lecture by the President, containing familiar talking points, the meeting was opened to questions from the audience. Tara Kyle, widow of the “American Sniper,” Chris Kyle, who was murdered in 2013, pointed out that homicides are at an historic low, gun ownership at an historic high, criminals don’t do background checks, and federal prosecutions for gun crimes are down by 40% since Obama took office. Why?
Making NRA the Strawman:
The NRA was invited to attend, but declined. In an interview with Fox News, NRA Director Chris Cox explained that they were allowed one pre-screened question, and would be held hostage while Obama leveled one accusation after another. In fact, that is precisely what Obama did anyway – accused the NRA of blocking this or that and of raising panic among gun owners, the classic Strawman approach. While there was a marked increase in gun purchases, the NRA had nothing to do with it. Gun owners tend to keep one ear to the ground, and the President made a lot of noise leading up to Tuesday. The NRA was surprisingly low key throughout the two weeks, waiting to discuss facts not assumptions.
It is clear that the President wants to demonize the NRA as the enemy of public safety. With a budget of about $37M, the NRA isn’t even in the top 100 list of lobbying organizations, but their members (and even more followers) are passionate about their right to keep and bear arms for personal safety. Michael Bloomberg alone spends about $20M a year in anti-gun activities, including $2M alone in the Chicago primary race to replace disgraced Jesse Jackson Jr in the House of Representatives, for a race which normally costs less than $500K. The issue – gun control.
Distracting from domestic and international stumbles:
Throughout the last two weeks, the President has made nearly daily announcements regarding his gun control agenda. This has captivate the attention of nearly everybody, most important the network and cable news industry. This seems to be a Machiavellian attempt to control the news cycle and divert attention from the political situation in the Middle East. It also kept attention from Obama’s continued effort to close the Gitmo prison. Seventeen dangerous Al Qaeda members are scheduled for release in January, almost unnoticed by the press. By law, the Secretary of Defense must affirm (in writing) that these pose no security problem to the US or its allies. Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel all resigned in protest. Ashton Carter, who majored in Physics and Medieval History, with a career as a technical advisor, seems more … compliant in this regard.
What would work?
Criminals are going to get firearms as long as it is necessary to do what they do. They will go to the streets, suburbs, other states or other countries if necessary, and they won’t get background checks. If you can’t keep guns from the hands of criminals, why not do as much as possible to keep their hands away from guns. Prosecute them under existing gun laws!
As noted, prosecutions for federal gun crimes are down 40% since Obama took office. In Chicago, there are nearly 3500 illegal guns seized each year, but the average sentence served is less than one year. Under federal law, the minimum is 5 years and can be much longer, yet there were no prosecutions under federal law since Obama took office. It’s a lot harder for criminals to get guns in prison (unfortunately not impossible), and the public would get 5 years of relief from that individual’s depredations.
Mr. President, where is your Department of Justice? Is your reticence due to the demographics of violent crime in your home city?
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, managing editor Jesse Hathaway talks with Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, a non-profit organization devoted to promoting the progress of technology that improves the human condition, about how regulators both at home and abroad are using the power of the state to combat zero-rating, a kind of sponsored-data plan where access to popular web applications like Facebook or streaming video services is made available to consumer at no cost.
Szoka explains how the Egyptian government is shutting down Facebook’s “Free Basics” service, with the stated goal of protecting consumers and the real goal of cracking down on political dissent. In India, regulators are fighting to keep zero-rating away from consumers, effectively saying that no Internet access at all is better than limited free access.
Here in the U.S. Szoka says, regulators are using tactics one would expect to find used by China’s politically oppressive regime to limit consumer choice, advancing what he calls the “religious zealotry” backing the Federal Communications Commission’s 2014 network neutrality power grab.
Oral arguments in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case were heard at the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Monday, January 11. Most experts agree the questions and responses directed toward the attorneys for the California Teachers Association (CTA) from SCOTUS justices were hostile, which doesn’t bode well for CTA’s case.
For a quick refresher, Rebecca Friedrichs, a teacher, is suing her union to end forced agency shop fees, also known as “fair share.” The contention is these fees are political in nature and teachers should be free to choose whether to support this activity or not.
You can read the transcript in its entirety here. Some of the questions asked by the justices are as follows:
Mr. Carvin, is it permissible, in your view, to allow the union to be the exclusive representative so that nobody else is at the bargaining table?
Mr. Carvin, is it okay to force somebody to contribute to a cause that he does believe in?
If you were to prevail, what would happen with private employers in a state which said that there should be a union shop?
What about the Railway Labor Act?
Well, one of the points of your public employee cases generally, Mr. Carvin, is essentially to ensure that when the government acts as an employer that the government be put in the same position as a private employer. In other words, that the various constraints that would constrain the government when it’s acting as sovereign fall away and a different and lesser set of constraints apply that are meant essentially to ensure that the government doesn’t use its position as leverage over things it oughtn’t to be able to control, but that the government can do the same things that a private employer can.
And so why doesn’t this fall within that category of things? In other words, you’ve just said private employer can decide to do this. That’s not a constitutional problem. So too with the government employer.
Well, why are we treating the government differently than a private employer?
You just earlier said, and I think our cases are replete with the point that as employer, the government can already restrict speech, which is, I think, a higher problem than subsidization.
We’ve already permitted subsidization of bar associations, of government programs. We’ve permitted assessments on a lot of different levels, so why can’t the government, as employer, create a state entity? Because this union under California law is a state entity.
So collective bargaining in this instance subsumes, includes this wide-ranging effort on the part of the union to have a public relations campaign in favor of principles that some of its members, that some teachers strongly object to?
And you think all the Fourth Amendment cases, in your opinion, are correct? I mean, you know, the police can go search a car, the good faith rule in respect to admission of evidence that was seized unlawfully under the Fourth Amendment? I read a lot of criticism of those things in the paper. And it seems to me you could get people who are judges, who are up here, who thought that the Fourth Amendment should be really extended and, in fact, there should be no rule that gives police any special authority to search a car.
Ah, but that’s the question, isn’t it? Would it be illegal for the government, as employer or government, to fund the union?
Is there any history in American labor management relations, at least going back, I don’t know what, 75, 80 years of employers, paying for unions? I thought the union movement was against this long ago.
Is it a bargainable subject? I mean, it’s a political subject. I suppose you can enact a statute that says the government will fund you, but is it bargainable? Is it one of those items that the union can bargain for?
And you, you start overruling things, what happens to the country thinking of us as a kind of stability in a world that is tough because it changes a lot?
Before you get into that, could I just ask you a preliminary question that came up earlier in the argument?
Do you think that the California Teachers Association is an agency of the State of California?
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:
It’s hard to visualize this in a pure employer-employee relationship, when the collective bargaining agreement itself has to be submitted for public review and public comment.
That suggests that you’re doing more than simply regulating the employment relationship?
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:
If your employees have shown overwhelmingly that they want collective bargaining, then it seems to me the free-rider concern that’s been raised is really insignificant.
The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere, almost by definition. Should the government pay higher wages or lesser wages? Should it promote teachers on the basis of seniority? … the basis of all of those questions are necessarily political questions. That’s the major argument made by the other side.
The age-old analogy describing a good salesman is “He can sell ice to Eskimos.” Let us now contemplate the opposite. What if someone has repeatedly screwed up so terribly – they could damage the sale of the hottest of commodities to a full panoply of desperate buyers? How could anyone hamstring a water auction – in the desert?
We face that possibility in March. And that incompetent, over-meddling salesman – is government. The auction in question is the latest wireless spectrum auction – and the auctioneer the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Spectrum is the airwaves we use for all things wireless. From your intercontinental cell phone – all the way down to your car key fob. The spectrum supply is finite – and not all spectrum is equally useful. Think of it as a Monopoly board. Some spectrum is Boardwalk and Park Place – some is Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues. And varying degrees in between.
Let us begin with the fact that government owns the lion’s share of spectrum – roughly 60%. Much of it is of high value – and very high value. And shocker – government isn’t using it efficiently.
To paraphrase former Republican FCC Commissioner Rob McDowell: The government has long stretches of beach front property – and it’s built nothing on much of it, and tiny buildings on more of it. When it should be consolidating – and building high-rise condominiums on what’s left. To make better use – and to make more available to the private sector.
The government doesn’t even have a map of what spectrum it possesses – which would make managing public and private spectrum policy a whole lot easier. The FCC has for years been charged with drafting said map – but hasn’t done so. Congress has also tried to get the government to consolidate, and sell some of its spectrum to the private sector – and been rebuffed by the bureaucrats.
Some of those bureaucrats – are Defense Department folks citing national security. Which is understandable – but doesn’t explain away all of the government’s 60% possession. There is undoubtedly much of the government’s wireless territory that can be safely cleared and sold. (They likely are hesitant to map it – because it would demonstrate just how poorly they are using it.)
Back to the looming auction. Which is not of any government spectrum – but of private spectrum, largely utilized by broadcasters. Pre-cable, over-the-air spectrum broadcast were the only television and radio games going. As a result, companies like NBC, ABC and CBS became behemoths. And the government gave them use of the spectrum – for free.
Then came the cellular phone revolution – and now available spectrum is getting terribly scarce. The cell phone companies are most of the aforementioned desert auction attendees – desperately ready to bid on water.
The government – rather than making some of its majority share available – has asked broadcasters to make available theirs. Not the optimal response – but ok. And March’s is not the first such auction – there have already been other private-to-private sales.
Except they aren’t private-to-private sales. The government (of course) had to way-over-involve itself. The FCC mandates it buy spectrum from broadcasters – and then auction it to the highest bidders.
But wait – the highest bidders don’t always win. Because the government rigs some of the auction: “Federal regulators…set aside a portion of choice spectrum for smaller wireless carriers at an auction of TV airwaves scheduled for next year.”
But as we know, the road to Hell is paved with regulations. Shocker – government meddling doesn’t work out the way government intended. In the last auction, Huge Company Dish Network (total assets: $22.1 billion) set up small front companies – to rig the set-aside. Which netted them $3 billion in savings on their purchases – while totally messing up the bidding for much of the auction.
A rarity then occurred – government acknowledged it messed up. And made Dish pay the full freight. Which was something – but didn’t come close to rectifying the entirety of the damage done to the auction process.
But did government learn from its admitted mistake? Of course not. They are having the exact same type of set-asides in March’s auction. Which will almost certainly dampen this sale – just as it dampened the last.
Then you have to factor in the oppressive, all-encompassing government ridiculousness that is Network Neutrality – which makes any prospective Internet investment exponentially more risky. And there are (of course) even more anti-free-market impositions on the sector. Because it’s government – and that’s what government does.
All of which starts making the government’s water – look a whole lot less appealing to the desert bidders.
The private sector badly needs spectrum. The government should do more to make more of theirs available. And do much less micromanaging of the current private efforts to address the shortage.
The less government involvement in spectrum – in any and every way, shape, matter and/or form – the better things will be for all of us.
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Kyle Maichle, project manager for Constitutional Reform at The Heartland Institute joins Host Donald Kendal to talk about the Compact for America.
Compact for America is one of five major groups seeking an Article V convention. Maichle talks about the background of the organization, their influence, and their successes so far. As Maichle explains, Compact offers a unique strategy to accomplishing the task of carrying out an Article V convention.
Maichle also discusses the recent endorsement of an Article V convention by presidential candidate Marco Rubio. As Maichle explains, this is causing quite a stir in the main stream media.
Click Here for Podcast on Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force
Click Here for Podcast on Convention of States Project
Wherever we turn we are confronted with politicians, political pundits, television talking heads, and editorial page commentators, all of whom offer an array of plans, programs, and projects that will solve the problems of the world – if only government is given the power and authority to remake society in the design proposed.
Even many of those who claim to be suspicious of “big government” and the Washington beltway powers-that-be, invariably offer their own versions of plans, programs, and projects they assert are compatible with or complementary to a free society.
The differences too often boil down simply to matters of how the proposer wants to use government to remake or modify people and society. The idea that people should or could be left alone to design, undertake and manage their own plans and interactions with others is sometimes given lip service, but never entirely advocated or proposed in practice.
In this sense, all those participating in contemporary politics are advocates of social engineering, that is, the modifying or remaking of part or all of society according to an imposed plan or set of plans.
The idea that such an approach to social matters is inconsistent with both individual liberty and any proper functioning of a free society is beyond the pale of political and policy discourse. We live in a time of piecemeal planning and incremental interventionism.
The Reasonableness of Individual Planning
It is worthwhile, perhaps, to question this “spirit of the times,” and to do so in the context of marking an anniversary. Slightly over 70 years ago, on December 17, 1945, the Austrian economist (and much later economics Nobel Prize winner), Friedrich A. Hayek, delivered a lecture at University College in Dublin, Ireland on, “Individualism: True and False.”
At a time when socialist central planning appeared to be the “wave of the future,” Hayek argued that the true and essential foundation for any society wishing to preserve human liberty and assure economic prosperity was a rightly understood philosophy of individualism.
At the heart of Hayek’s criticisms of what he called the “false” individualism was the idea that individual human beings could ever have the knowledge, wisdom, or ability to design or remake a society according to some “rational” plan.
It is easy, no doubt, to fall into this error and mistaken belief. After all, we all undertake plans and design projects of action that we attempt to bring to successful fruition. The construction engineer, for instance, designs a technical blueprint for designing and building a bridge over a river or a tunnel through a mountain.
The individual private enterpriser works out a “business plan” about what product he might produce, the start-up investment and production costs that would be entailed, and the estimated consumer demand and stream of potential future revenues that would justify incurring the costs of bringing the business into existence and operation.
As private individuals we design, plan, and attempt to implement our own activities all the time, including going to college and earning a degree; or selecting and pursuing a particular profession, occupation or employment; or forming clubs and associations with others in society to pursue the fulfillment of any variety of “good causes” or shared hobbies and interests; or even the general life we might like to live in terms of achieving a sense of fulfillment, purpose, and happiness during our earthly sojourn.
Not to do all of these “planful” things, and many, many others of like kind, would leave our lives in disordered chaos and uncertain instability and confusion. Who, therefore, could be against or critical of wise, reasonable and “rational” planning of the society as a whole, in which we all live and work out our lives in interaction with multitudes of others?
Yet, that idea of the social designing and engineering of society as a whole by government and its central planners is exactly what Friedrich Hayek asked us not to assume or take for granted.
Human Knowledge is Divided and Dispersed in Society
Earlier in 1945, Hayek had published an article on, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” in which he pointed out that a fundamental limitation on the ability to centrally plan the economic affairs of society was the inherent and inescapable division of knowledge in society.
The division of labor through which we cooperatively associate with each other to better achieve our various goals and purposes carries with it a matching division of knowledge. The specialized types of knowledge that each of us possesses in comparison to others in society can never be fully and successfully centralized in the hands of a set of government central planners without losing much of the content and richness of the diverse qualities of that knowledge that exist in different forms in each individual’s mind.
Hayek’s conclusion was that if all of that dispersed and decentralized knowledge that exists in the individual minds of all the members of society is to be effectively used and brought to bear for mutual improvement of the human condition, each of us must be left free to use that knowledge as we, respectively, think best and most advantageous.
Furthermore, our various actions using our individual types and bits of unique knowledge is best integrated and coordinated through a competitively-based free pricing system generated by the unhampered interaction of market supply and demand. (See my article, “F. A. Hayek and Why Government Can’t Manage Society,” Part I and Part II.)
Society is a Spontaneous Order, Not a Planned One
In this later lecture on “Individualism: True and False” (which was published in Hayek’s collection of essays, Individualism and Economic Order), Hayek argued that the true individualism starts from the premise that “society” is not some ethereal entity having an existence of its own, nor the designed creation of one or a handful of minds imposing a “plan” on people that produces the social order.
Instead, society is the cumulative and interactive outcome and result of multitudes of individual human beings making their separate individual plans that interact and generate connections and associations with other individual plans to produce the overall social order and its coordinated patterns.
If we think of language, custom, tradition, most rules of common etiquette and interpersonal conduct, and the general moral and ethical codes that prevail in a society we surely realize, upon a little reflection, that they are the cumulative outcomes of multitudes of generations of people whose interactions brought about these social institutions without which human association and cooperation would hardly be possible.
Once we realize this, we also understand that much of what we call “society” could not and was not designed because the forms, shapes and characteristics that it takes on could not have been anticipated or even imagined in all their detail and specificity as they emerged and evolved through historical time.
If the evolution and institutions of society had been limited to what a group of central planners could have known and designed, our society’s development would have been confined and limited to what that handful of minds had been able to image and understand, given their own personal and limited knowledge.
Or as Hayek expressed it:
The “basic contention is . . . that there is no way towards understanding of social phenomena but through our understanding of individual actions directed towards other people and guided by their expected behavior . . .
“It is the contention that, by tracing the combined effects of individual actions, we discover that many of the institutions on which human achievement rest have arisen and are functioning without a designing or directing mind; that, as [the eighteenth century Scottish moral philosopher] Adam Ferguson expressed it, ‘nations stumble upon establishments [institutions], which are indeed the result of human action but not the result of human design’; and that the spontaneous collaboration of free men often create things which are greater than their individual minds could ever fully comprehend.”
Though Hayek does not include it, the next passage in Adam Ferguson’s An Essay on the History of Civil Society (1767), is most pertinent to this point:
“It may with more reason be affirmed for communities [societies], that they admit of the greatest revolutions where no change is intended, and that the most refined politicians do not always know whither they are leading the state by their projects.”
Market Planning versus Political Designs
Those market experimenters and entrepreneurs of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries who began to invest in mass production machinery in what became known as the “factory system” never imagined that their attempts to find ways to produce more and less expensive goods for mass consumption as the means to earning their personal profits would cumulatively generate what we now call the “industrial revolution,” with the economic transformation of unimagined rising standards of human living that has come from it over the last two hundred years.
Nor, more recently, could most, if hardly any, people have imagined the ways things would be changed and transformed in terms of everyday life through the development of computer technology. The first IBM computer occupied much of a city block in New York City. Who could have anticipated and planned for at that time that the later discovery and development of the microchip would revolutionize the world of communication and commerce in the way that has happened over the last few decades?
Yet, one hundred years ago, an American president entered the First World War to “make the world safe for democracy” and helped to set in motion a sequence of unintended consequences that, instead, resulted in twentieth century Soviet communism, Italian fascism and German Nazism.
And more recently, “anti-terrorist” nation building by U.S. government military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have helped foster, instead, the emergence of religious fanatics and cruel murderers equal to or often worse than the tyrants the interventions were designed to overturn.
Knowledge-Using Institutions versus Great Men Politics
What inferences were to be drawn from the view of a free society as, primarily, a “spontaneous order,” the cumulative, and often the unintended outcome, of multitudes of human interactions, the results of which could never be fully or in many instances even partially anticipated in its rich texture and form, out of which has come many of the human betterments around us?
Hayek suggested that an important insight was to accept the fact that it was a false trail to be attempting to find wise leaders or super-human statesmen to guide society to a better future. The reality, he said, is that none have the wisdom or super-human talents and abilities to guide and direct human society.
The fact is, people are limited in their knowledge, abilities and talents, and are too often tempted to misuse and abuse any such positions of political power to benefit themselves and their associates at the expense of others in society.
The task, instead, Hayek said, is finding an institutional order in which the potential for such misuse and abuse is minimized and the widest latitude prevails for people to use their own unique and specialized knowledge and abilities in ways that not only benefit themselves but improve the conditions of many others in society, as well.
The “chief concern was not so much with what man might occasionally achieve when he was at his best but that he should have as little opportunity as possible to do harm when he was at his worst . . .
“The main merit . . . of [political] individualism . . . is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm; it is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid. [The] aim was a system under which it should be possible to grant freedom to all, instead of restricting it . . . to ‘the good and wise’ . . .
“What the economists [of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries] understood for the first time was that the market as it had grown up was an effective way of making men take part in a process more complex and extended than he could comprehend and that it was through the market that he was made to contribute ‘to ends which were no part of his purpose’ [to quote from Adam Smith] . . .
“The true basis of [the individualist’s] argument is that nobody can know who knows best and that the only way by which we can find out is through a social process in which everybody is allowed to try and see what he can do.
“The fundamental assumption here as elsewhere is the unlimited variety of human gifts and skills and the consequent ignorance of any single individual of most of what is known to all the members of society taken together.”
Individual Freedom with Limited Government
If we take Hayek’s argument to heart, we must not only doubt but strongly challenge the arrogance and hubris expressed by all those in the public policy arena who assert a presumed knowledge to know how to guide, direct, redesign, regulate and plan the society in a manner better than allowing the free interactions of multitudes of individuals within a general system of individual rights to life, liberty and honestly acquired property, with enforcement of all contracts and agreements freely and non-fraudulently entered into.
As Hayek went on to say, this also implies a society in which individuals reap the benefits of all peaceful rewards they have earned, but also must be willing to bear the losses and disappointments when outcomes are not always to their liking.
Thus, while such a free society rejects any and all political forms of favor, privilege and artificial status, it also operates on the basis of market-resulting inequalities of material and other outcomes under a regime of impartial and equal individual rights before the law. Either all people are treated equally before the law with resulting unequal economic outcomes, or government treats individuals unequally in the attempt to assure more equal economic results.
Hayek ended his lecture with a question and an observation that is as relevant today as when he delivered it 70 years ago:
“The fundamental attitude of true individualism is one of humility towards the processes by which mankind has achieved things which have not been designed or understood by any individual and are indeed greater than individual minds. The great question at this moment is whether man’s mind will be allowed to continue to grow as part of this process or whether human reason is to place itself in chains of its own making.
“What individualism teaches us is that society is greater than the individual only in so far as it is free. In so far as it is controlled or directed, it is limited to the powers of the individual minds which control or direct it.”
Which direction will the twenty-first century follow: individual free minds or politically managed minds? That is the question for all of us to answer.
David Bowie passed away on Sunday. To say he was an innovative guy – would be the largest of understatements. He created, imbued and embodied multiple music personas – reinventing himself over and over again. He parlayed his multiplicative rock music success into fashion icon status – and numerous Hollywood and Broadway gigs.
All of which barely touches on his inventive approach to the business of being David Bowie. He was an avant-garde entrepreneur – who saw around the curve of the Earth just a little bit further than most people. He created out of whole cloth ways to make being David Bowie even more highly lucrative – and allow others to share in the earnings. And he intuitively understood how technological advances would help – and hurt – the business model of music and all things intellectual property.
Did you want to invest in…all things David Bowie music? Bowie made that not only possible – but profitable. And in the process lock-down-protected his music rights.
Bowie and his financial team dreamed up a revolutionary way to make millions from his extensive song catalog in the 1990s – and to secure the rights to all of his intellectual property in the process.
The rocker put up his entire catalog of 25 albums and 287 songs recorded before 1990 as collateral for $55 million in “Bowie Bonds” that were bought by the Prudential Insurance Company of America in 1997.
He forfeited 10 years worth of royalties from his records (including “The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars” and “Let’s Dance”) to generate the cash flow that secured the Bowie Bonds’ 7.9% interest payments — a 1.6% better return than U.S. Treasury notes at that time.
Bowie’s banker David Pullman has claimed this marked the first time a musician sold intellectual property rights through a bond. The move inspired other cash-poor artists such as James Brown, Ashford & Simpson, Marvin Gaye and the Isley Brothers to secure their own musical catalogs.
“Genius” is a descriptive far too frequently thrown around. I think true genius is creation – a successful way of thinking about or doing things never before conceived. Bowie Bonds were…genius.
And it was creative genius that wouldn’t have been possible – without a way for Bowie the Creator to protect his Creations – his intellectual property, his songs.
There are those who say intellectual property isn’t the same as physical property – and doesn’t deserve physical property’s legal protections. Bowie, I’m quite sure, would have laughed at such utter foolishness. While waving his well-paying Bowie Bonds in their faces.
Bowie unleashed his intellectual-property-protection-reliant Bonds in 1997. In 2002, he correctly predicted how technological advances would do harm to things like Bowie Bonds – and all things intellectual property.
“The absolute transformation of everything that we ever thought about music will take place within 10 years, and nothing is going to be able to stop it. I see absolutely no point in pretending that it’s not going to happen. I’m fully confident that copyright, for instance, will no longer exist in 10 years, and authorship and intellectual property is in for such a bashing.
”Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity. So it’s like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again.”
Bowie was absolutely right – intellectual property is currently suffering a terrible bashing. At the hands of thieves – whose thievery is made exponentially easier by the technological advances of which Bowie was thinking. But just because it’s now nigh effortless to steal – doesn’t mean it isn’t stealing.
Bowie was able to create and innovate – music, movies, Bowie Bonds,… – because he was able to protect his intellectual property. So here’s hoping he was wrong in one respect: That the ability to do what he did with intellectual property isn’t now as he predicted – a dead-letter-relic of a bygone era.
If we want to allow for and foster the next David Bowies (if that’s even possible for which to hope), we’d better do our very best to ensure that the things they create – they can protect from technological banditry.
The technologies will change – the principles absolutely should not.
Before I offer a reply to Dr. Michael Mann’s January 8 Op-Ed entitled “With Friends Like the Heartland Institute…” (which Heartland President Joe Bast also provided here), I must reveal the awful truth: I serve as a policy advisor to Heartland regarding environmental issues.
I am still awaiting a check from the Koch Brothers, or ExxonMobil, or whomever is supposed to pay me for offering my expertise to Heartland. So if Dr. Mann has any information on where to send an invoice, I would be most appreciative.
Dr. Mann is clearly committed to labeling folks like me “deniers,” which doesn’t really bother me, so long as everybody is clear about what is being denied. What do scientists (and I’m just a lowly chemist, not an exalted climatologist or anything) like me deny? Let us review:
* We do not deny that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is.
* We do not deny that human activity has introduced and will continue to introduce more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. We do.
* We do not deny that the introduction of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can have an effect on the climate of the planet. It can.
What we do deny is the validity of the following proposition:
That the magnitude of climate change that has been, and will be, realized as a result of carbon dioxide emissions generated by the United States justifies additional measures to further reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions in our country.
Please note there are only four words in that proposition that remotely require the expertise of a climatologist: “magnitude of climate change.” The rest of that statement involves matters of policy that I would suggest Dr. Mann is neither qualified to understand nor sufficiently unbiased to comment upon.
For if Dr. Mann and his supporters wanted to reduce the emissions of the gases they say are so endangering our very future, why on earth do they spend so much time hectoring and demonizing the nation that has made — and will continue to make — such dramatic reductions of GHG emissions? Wouldn’t you think they’d focus every bit of their efforts on finding ways to reduce emissions among the big emitters who continue to get bigger?
In that vein, one cannot help but wonder what Dr. Mann would deny:
Would he deny that the dramatic downward trend in United States GHG emissions that started in 2008 and continues to this day?
Would he deny that – thanks to coal-killing regulations, Renewable Portfolio Standards and other regulatory initiatives – that trend will continue?
Would he deny that tens of thousands of megawatts of coal-fired capacity are set to retire over the next decade, further reducing GHG emissions nationwide?
Would he deny that the United States could reduce its GHG emissions to zero and world-wide GHG concentrations would continue to increase if China and India continue to increase their GHG emissions at current rates?
One suspects he would cling to the fiction that China is banking its future on solar and wind, no matter all the evidence that they are doubling down on their fossil fuel investments. When an academic with an inflated sense of self-importance is determined to demonize the nation that provided him or her the freedom and opportunity to behave like a boor, he or she is sure to be blind to any facts that interfere with that narrative.
And that, my friends, cannot be denied.
Heartland Daily Podcast – Adrian P. Wydeven: Should the Gray Wolf be Removed from The Endangered Species List?
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Adrian P. Wydeven, Coordinator of Timber Wolf Alliance, Northland College and a retired wildlife biologist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin’s state wolf manager 1990 -2013. Wydeven joined Managing Editor H. Sterling Burnett to discuss a letter he co-authored signed by 26 wildlife management professionals and scientists sent to the Department of the Interior, urging it remove the great lakes gray wolf populations in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin from the Endangered Species list.
The scientists say the species is no longer endangered in the region and does not require further protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and that failure to delist wolves in these states is counterproductive to wolf conservation there and elsewhere where suitable habitat may exist and lessens support for the ESA.
Wisconsin Athlete Suspended for Angry Tweets Over Crowd Chants Ban, Critics Cite First Amendment Rights Violation
Hilbert, Wisconsin high school basketball player April Gehl was suspended six games by her school over a tweet against a new state association policy banning popular basketball and hockey chants, such as “airball” and “sieve.”
Gehl issued a vulgar tweet to the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association’s (WIAA) official Twitter account on January 4th, saying “Eat S*** WIAA,” along with a screenshot of the official e-mail sent from the WIAA to member schools. Gehl was suspended by Hilbert Athletic Director Stan Diedrich two days after the school was notified by WIAA about the social media message. Gehl’s tweet has not been deleted from her account since the suspension. According to the Appleton Post-Crescent, she is not appealing her suspension. Gehl is currently the leading scorer on her basketball team.
The tweet was sparked in response to a policy by WIAA banning chants directed towards opposing teams. The WIAA sent the e-mail back in December with the stated intention of “address[ing] concerns with a noticeable increase in the amount of chants by student sections directed at opponents and/or opponents’ supporters that are clearly intended to taunt or disrespect.”
The e-mail would lay out an edict to its member schools to ban some popular chants at games that are at no means at all profane or derogatory.
“Some specific examples of unsporting behavior by student groups including chants directed at opposing participants and/or fans. Among the chants that have been heard at recent high school sporting events are: ‘You can’t do that,’ ‘Fundamentals,’ ‘Air ball,’ ‘There’s a net there,’ ‘Sieve,’ ‘We can’t hear you,’ The ‘scoreboard’ cheer, and ‘Season’s over’ during tournament series play,” said the WIAA.
The official sportsmanship reference manual from the WIAA has previously put in place directives to administrators to clamp down on these chants, which do not look offensive to this writer.
Twitter users have already leveled a firestorm of criticism towards the actions of Hilbert High School and the WIAA to suspend Gehl, citing that her First Amendment rights were violated. National media outlets such as Daily Mail and USA Today