The Curmudgeon Speaks

I recently had what I thought was a very amusing experience, my wife thought offered an insight into digital natives, and I categorized it as an example of a First World Problem.

I was at my favorite coffee shop and was about to leave when I encountered a twenty-something walking along and looking beneath the row of tables along the wall where I was seated. I guessed that he was looking for an outlet to plug in a digital device and said that I was leaving and he could have my table. He then explained that his phone had died and he needed to get at least enough charge into his device so he could unlock his Tesla. In the first reaction, this may seem unusual, but it is logical.

I rose to leave and then watched as he stared at the outlet next to my table, realizing that he had a cord attached to his phone, but there was no converter at the end of his cord, and the outlet would be of no use to him. Trying to help, I pulled my laptop charger and cord out of my bag and said that while I had to go, I could give him five minutes. He said that should do it. After about five minutes, he thanked me and left. This was such an unusual experience I have since thought a lot about it. Maybe it is just my perspective as an old man, but this one still has me shaking my head.

I found great value in the “No Kings” protest. Despite the MAGA characterization of a “hate protest”, I found the large local gathering anything but about hate. We are in a time of great and dangerous disruption of how our government should function. Given that we are less than a year into the Trump presidency and several weeks into a government shutdown, it is easy to become dispondent and feel helpless. Such large gatherings offer the perspective that your reactions to the present circumstances are far from out of touch, and demonstrate that there are many like you out there willing to make the effort to take to the streets in support of a more positive and less selfish view of our country. Participate in future events of this type. It is a great and positive experience.

I have just finally gotten around to reading Jaron Lanier’s book, Who Owns the Future, and it has given me much to think about. It has been the most recent focus of the book club I participate in, chosen because we read extensively about both politics and digital media. Lanier argues that the increasing focus on digital networks, while initially quite positive, has shifted to take wealth and influence away from the middle class, contributing to a general recession. While many of us contribute content and attention to create a meaningful experience, the central computer companies make nearly all of the money. If you are not paying for the product, you are the product is often used as an explanation for what seems to be free services. Sometimes, things go even further, and you both contribute content and pay to do so. 

Lanier identifies a common pattern across what he describes as Siren Servers. He uses the term “Siren Servers” to describe large, centralized computing platforms that lure everyone into using “free” services, vacuum up data at a massive scale, analyze it with superior computer power and algorithms, and then concentrate wealth and power in the hands of the few who control those servers. There is a certain “bait and switch” element, intended or perhaps not, in what tends to happen. Users are attracted and invest time in various ways and these investments result in a network effect that traps them in various ways. They may build connections with others who are loosely joined, offering advantages, but they cannot be easily moved to a different network. They may invest in creating content that has aggregate value, but might also be challenging to move. The switch occurs as those behind the server act to “decouple risk” so that it moves to those using the system and is not shared with the system. 

By chance, I happened across a Medium article, “Medium writing platform exhausts its potential by eliminating incentives from subscriptions …” by Jamen Mendes. The similarities to what Lanier described immediately struck me. Mendes notes that during its origin, Medium shared the monthly subscription fees with content creators and members, based on how much paid subscribers engaged with individual authors’ work. Medium gradually shifted away from this model to completely abandon sharing subscribers’ subscriptions in favor of ad revenue provided through individuals or organizations willing to pay to increase the degree to which their posts would appear in the stream of titles sent to users and reader activities other than reading (claps and interactive comments). Mendes contrasts the present Medium system with Substack, which uses a more direct relationship between subscribers and author compensation. 

As a content creator (aren’t all social media users), this is the first time I have considered some of these issues. Obviously, there are differences between the companies Lanier writes about and Medium. Medium is tiny compared to the corporations Lanier targets, which rely on collecting and selling information to ad companies and others interested in user behavior data. Medium is not a player in manipulating political matters or the economy. However, there are parallels in what Lanier describes as risk. Like other Medium subscribers over the years, I acknowledge that the changes made were not done without acknowledgment, but the rationale was never clear to me. I understand that the backend necessary to support micropayments models requires storage and compute, but why was this not adequately incorporated into the original business model? Lanier’s perception of shared risk somehow converting to user risk does seem to apply. 

I apologize in advance for this post, but I quite frankly have had enough. If it matters, I posted this would required membership to read because I understand this content is the typical effort I make to offer content I think is potentially educational.

I doubt if is is surprising to any regular Internet user that you encounter plenty of social media content you regard as objectionable and unfair. Mostly, I simply scroll through this material without much of a reaction. I am having trouble doing doing this with criticisms of those I regard as experts in ways that offer nothing to support the claims made limiting any opportunity to challenge the claims made. I encountered the following pronouncement which is typical of the type of comment that annoys me.

I was a college prof some years ago and also had opportunities to observe K12 classrooms. I don’t remember ever witnessing the type of objectionable behavior hinted at here. Maybe times have changed with everyone functioning in a more hostile environment and even encouraging more educators to comment on current issues. I doubt this is the case, but I admit it is a possibility. 

The type of ambiguous complaint that is the focus of this Facebook post has become much more common. Immediately, I react because there is nothing specific about the complaint or even an assurance that the complainer was a witness to inappropriate behavior. 

I imagine educators reading this trash and not feeling like there is a reasonable way to reply. Most educators do not teach subjects that would naturally bring up the type of content likely to be offensive – maybe social studies or English composition. I suppose the biology teacher might explain evolution or maybe something related to the biological definition of male and female and perhaps the difference between the genetics and concepts such as gender identity. Since the accusations are so often so vague I have to work hard to imagine exactly what topics or comments might rise to the level encouraging parents to react.

Frankly, it seems of greater potential concern that parents poison their kids understanding of many now politicized issues. What these kids now believe can make situations difficult for educators and for other students. What does the teacher do when positions are taken in class when arguments are advanced that are simply wrong or clearly not in keeping cultural norms.

I understand the issue of anecdotal reasoning. Someone has had a personal experience or has an acquaintance who has had an experience that is rare, but this experience does fit the position being advocated. When people are emotionally involved such evidence may be sufficient, but in rational situations most of us can take rare events into consideration. 

Empathy is a part of this problem. Have the complainers considered the impact their claims could have on others again without clear identification of problem, circumstances, or the actual target of the accusation? 

I have little to offer in terms of advise. I sometimes take the time to respond based on the issues raised here. What specific behavior has prompted this attack? How often has it happened? Did you witness the type of issue you have described or is your position based on other nonspecific complaints you have witnessed on this platform? I have no idea if such responses impact the poster, I do want those attacked to understand others did not support the claim being made. 

John Warner (More than Words) describes a devious writing scam that had not occurred to me. 

The goal is to make money on ad revenue and an way to offer reasonable content on topics likely to appeal is to first scrape the content of popular blog authors and then ask an AI tool to rewrite the content in the form of a blog post. Such scammers than post this new content on their own blogs. Because the rewritten posts are unique this is technically not a copyright violation. 

I tried this with one of my posts and the new post is at least more attractively formatted than my original and seems a reasonable alternative.  The new post appears below.

*******

The New ChatGPT Study Buddy: Redefining How Students Learn

Artificial intelligence has been gradually weaving itself into the fabric of education, from automated grading tools to personalized learning apps. But the newest iteration of ChatGPT’s Study Buddy signals a major leap forward. Rather than waiting for students to craft the perfect prompt, this reimagined tool creates a structured, conversational learning environment that feels closer to interacting with a real tutor than a chat interface. For educators and students alike, this is a development that deserves a closer look—especially as the new academic year kicks off.

From Prompting to “Preprompting”: Lowering the Barrier to Learning

One of the biggest challenges with generative AI tools has always been the prompt paradox. To get useful responses, you often need to know how to ask the right questions in the first place. The Study Buddy changes that dynamic. Think of it as a preprompted version of ChatGPT—a system that starts the conversation without requiring the learner to engineer detailed instructions.

Instead of saying “Write me an overview of Metacognition,” the student enters a simple scenario, such as “I’m studying Cognitive Psychology and want help preparing for an exam.” The Study Buddy then guides the session, offering a range of possible directions: Do you want a summary? Practice questions? Connections to theories? Even ideas for mini-experiments?

This puts the focus on learning itself rather than on fighting with command syntax. It mimics the way a tutor listens first, then suggests possible learning activities.

Multiple Entry Points for Different Needs

Students can access the Study Buddy in two ways:

1. Directly from a dedicated Study Guide page.
2. From ChatGPT’s main interface by selecting the “Study and Learn” tool.

This flexibility allows for different workflows. Some students may want focused study coaching, while others may want to blend it with broader ChatGPT tasks like brainstorming essay ideas or getting writing feedback. Educators can also experiment with both paths to understand how their students might most naturally approach it.

Building Context Through Interaction

One of the tool’s subtle but powerful features is its ability to track and leverage the history of the conversation. If students allow the system to remember interactions, it can gradually assemble a profile of what they know—and, more importantly, what they don’t. Over time, this contextual learning creates a progressively sharper tutoring experience.

Of course, there are challenges here. As the blog author notes, simulating the “new student” experience didn’t always work as intended because ChatGPT tried to reason with stored context. But in a real classroom, where individual learner growth matters, this persistence is potentially transformative.

How Study Buddy Supports Active Learning

The blog post describes a test run where the author asked about Information Processing Theory and Metacognition—two classic topics in Cognitive Psychology. What stood out wasn’t just the quality of the explanations, but the way the AI followed up with next-step options.

For example:

1. “Would you like to try answering a few practice questions?”
2. “Do you want to dig deeper into a specific theory?”
3. “Would you like to run a mini-experiment to test your understanding?

That last suggestion is especially intriguing. The system proposed a simple experiment related to metacognitive accuracy—the gap between what learners expect to score and how they actually perform. The author noted that this was strikingly similar to research he had once conducted with students, where learners wagered points on how confident they were in their answers.

Even without complex lab setups, students could use the AI-generated experiment to reflect on their own study habits and calibration skills. This isn’t just rote memorization support; it’s fostering metacognitive awareness, one of the hallmarks of advanced learning.

Embracing Unpredictability as a Learning Feature

As anyone who has used ChatGPT knows, responses can vary—even when prompts are nearly identical. Some educators fear this unpredictability. But as the blog points out, it can actually be a teaching moment. If a student notices an inconsistency, they can challenge the AI directly.

This kind of “arguing with the tutor” isn’t a bug; it’s a chance to sharpen critical thinking. When learners push back on an AI’s explanation, they practice defending their position, re-examining evidence, and articulating counterarguments—all valuable intellectual skills that transcend specific course content.

Why Educators Should Experiment Now

The Study Buddy is available even in ChatGPT’s free version, making it widely accessible. That alone removes a major barrier to entry. But more importantly, it offers a safe sandbox for teachers to experiment with how these tools might complement their existing practice.

Here are some ways educators could start exploring:

1. Classroom simulation: Pretend you are a student in your own course and see how ChatGPT responds.
2. Topic-specific trials: Plug in subjects where students traditionally struggle and evaluate the clarity of explanations.
3. Critical challenges: Intentionally dispute answers to test whether the system can 
4. refine its reasoning.

Even a short experiment can show teachers how this tool aligns—or conflicts—with their teaching style.

Final Thoughts: A Study Buddy, Not a Replacement

It’s tempting to see tools like the ChatGPT Study Buddy as the beginning of the end for traditional tutoring. But that’s the wrong lens. What’s emerging is not a replacement, but an augmentative study companion.

Its greatest strength lies in providing structured yet flexible guidance, reducing the friction of figuring out how to ask for help. Used thoughtfully, it doesn’t diminish the role of teachers or tutors—it amplifies learning outside the classroom, giving students a way to practice, reflect, and engage more deeply with material at their own pace.

As the school year begins, educators who take the time to play with the Study Buddy themselves will gain insights on how students might use (or misuse) it. The earlier we start these conversations, the better positioned we’ll be to shape an AI-enhanced learning environment that prioritizes curiosity, critical thinking, and metacognitive growth.

*****

There really seem not defenses against this scam if you post content to the open web. If this concerns you, and Warner claims it will become very common I can come up with counter measures that are unlikely to appeal to many.

1. For readers, encourage a return to the use of RSS readers. With an RSS reader, the reader selects writers he/she wants to follow and uses to provide access to content from these sites.
2. For the writer, place your content behind a pay wall. Those who pay for access can scrape content (this would be a problem with Medium because for $5 a month, you can access all content and less so with Substack as you pay for access to individual authors), but for those who pay the subscription fee at least you know who wrote the content. 

We are about to leave for a month or so trip so how much I write and what I write about is likely to change. I leave a message when this is my situation so those who expect to read something will know what is going on.  When we travel I focus most of my writing time and uploading opportunities on  my travel blog. The focus of this blog may be different, but we have had some interesting experiences and some will find them interesting.

This time I extend my typical message about the change in my writing focus. I have maintained multiple blogs beginning in 2002 and over time these outlets have moved toward specific foci.  I have different reasons for why I have different emphases as this limits how much content appears in any given place. Facebook, which I guess is technically not a blog, was the origin of my thinking about specialization.  I started Facebook like most with an emphasis sharing a wide variety of my experiences with friends. As I learned more about Facebook and decided to share my political views, I began to distance myself from using it as a platform to share with friends. I did not want my general antagonism toward the policies of the present administration and those defending it be mixed with other personal interests. I mostly write about education and technology elsewhere and while Facebook posts clearly have taken on a political bent it seemed best to try to get others to understand that I do write about other things. 

A portal for my other blogs can be found here. 

For the past year or so, I have been posting some of my technology and educational technology content behind a paywall.  I don’t look at my writing at this point in my life as a way to make money. I did the textbook thing and did well. Now, I write mostly because I have something to say. Truthfully, as a hobby and wanting to host my own content, I spend much more for server space than I make in ad revenue and subscription fees. I use Medium for the paid platform because their system charges readers $5 a month and readers can read anything that appears on their platform. I like the idea of a platform that does not collect user data and am interested in the idea of micropayments to authors. The issue of free online content and what we all give up to read for free is a serious issue and to think about alternatives, I think it best to be part of the system. 

Anyway, we are off to Alaska and then Japan. We have explored Alaska in multiple ways over the years first driving the ALCAN highway when some of it was still gravel.  This trip is by boat with a 6 day repositioning jaunt to Japan. Cindy spent time in Japan as a visiting educator and still has friends we will visit. Great to have the access of a local. 

So, the travel blog is obviously focused on travel experiences. 

Note: I wrote this with the assistance of AI. I decided it worth the effort to explain the process I used. I don’t want to distract from the message of the main post which I think is very important so I will explain my process at the end.

*****

History is full of cautionary tales about what happens when political authority takes precedence over evidence. One of the most striking examples comes from the Soviet Union – the rise of Trofim Lysenko, a man whose scientific errors were amplified, defended, and enforced by political power. While the details are unique to its time and place, the underlying pattern — political leaders elevating certain claims and suppressing dissent — is not confined to history. Today, echoes of this dynamic can be seen in the political battles surrounding figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump.

Lysenko’s Rise and the Suppression of Genetics

Trofim Lysenko came to prominence in Soviet agricultural science in the 1930s. He claimed to have discovered a process called vernalization, in which exposing seeds to certain temperatures could convert winter wheat into spring wheat. While vernalization itself had limited, real-world applications, Lysenko went further, asserting that this acquired trait could be inherited by future generations of plants. This contradicted established genetics, which held that such changes were not heritable.

Science can, of course, survive incorrect claims — provided those claims can be tested, debated, and rejected when evidence doesn’t support them. But Lysenko’s error was not confined to a scientific paper. He sought control over his field, working to purge respected geneticists such as N. I. Vavilov, who supported modern genetics and whose research contradicted Lysenko’s theories. Lysenko began publishing articles that attacked other scientists not on scientific grounds, but because their work conflicted with Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Stalin embraced Lysenko’s claims. The idea that agricultural productivity could be vastly increased through a politically approved method was irresistible to a regime determined to prove the superiority of socialist science. Skepticism toward Lysenko’s theories became politically dangerous. Being an advocate for genetics could cost you your career –  or your life. Vavilov, once one of the Soviet Union’s most celebrated scientists, died in a Siberian prison after years of harassment and deprivation. He met death in a Siberian prison.

The result was catastrophic: Soviet biology was set back decades, with ripple effects on agriculture and public welfare. Sound science was discarded because it clashed with political ideology.

The Pattern Behind the Story

The Lysenko episode illustrates a dangerous feedback loop:

1. Political endorsement of a contested claim — A leader embraces a theory because it aligns with ideological or political goals.

2. Suppression of opposing voices — Dissent is framed as disloyalty, incompetence, or even treachery.

3. Institutional capture — Gatekeepers in academia, government, or media are replaced or pressured into conformity.

4. Long-term damage — Decisions made in the service of political narratives undermine public trust and institutional integrity.

This is not just about flawed science. It’s about what happens when truth becomes subordinate to power.

Modern Echoes: Kennedy, Trump, and Politicized Truth

In modern America, the specifics are different, but certain elements feel familiar. Both Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump have built political momentum around claims that many experts dispute. In both cases, political alignment has amplified these claims far beyond their scientific or evidentiary support.

The dynamic is not identical to the Soviet experience — the U.S. retains robust legal protections for dissent, and no scientists are being sent to Siberia. But there are parallels worth noticing.

The similarities lie in the logic of politicized truth: when a political leader or movement defines which facts are acceptable, disagreement becomes more than an intellectual matter — it becomes a loyalty test.

Why This Matters

The temptation to shape truth to fit political needs is not confined to authoritarian regimes. Democracies can fall into softer versions of the same trap. When political allegiance dictates what counts as valid evidence, the result is the erosion of trust in institutions designed to safeguard accuracy — universities, public health agencies, election systems, the press.

Once trust is lost, rebuilding it can take decades. In the Soviet case, biology eventually recovered, but not before generations of scientists had been silenced and countless lives affected by misguided agricultural policies. In the U.S., the stakes involve public health preparedness, the peaceful transfer of power, and the credibility of the democratic process.

*********

AI and me – what came from what source

Like so many others, I am experimenting with AI and trying to decide how I should use AI in my writing in a way that is intellectually honest. Typically, I use AI to chat with the large collection of digital notes and highlights I have accumulated over the past decade or so. The approach used to write this post is a variation of that approach.

Given our present situation in which the role and control of Universities is being questioned and challenged, I wanted to read something on this topic. This is often how I approach issues important to me. I decided on a book by Jonathan Cole that I have since thought may not have been the ideal choice because it was published in the early days of the Obama administration. I have since decided that the arguments made have some unique value because they predated our present circumstances and hence cannot be interpreted as a direct reaction. 

In reading a section of the book that argued for how political meddling in what I would call the “university process” can be destructive. Included in this section was the example of biologist Lysneko. This account resonated with me in a way I hope the post makes clear. It seem such a close approximation of how I see present political meddling, I thought I would use the example as an effective object lesson.

Here is how the post you read was generated. I paraphrased aspects of the Lysneko story as presented in the book and identified what to me seemed the stages by which a university can be corrupted. I created a post asking ChatGPT to generate a post based on this content that then would suggest a parallel between Trump and Kennedy in our present. I input nothing more about Trump and Kennedy allowing the AI to use its own information. What you read was nearly the word-for-word output from this prompt. I did make a few small modifications. 

Jonathan Cole (2011) – The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected (2011)

In the ongoing debate over government regulations, it’s easy to lose sight of their profound impact on public health and the environment. Trump and his colleagues have just recently gutted the EPA’s role in fighting climate change and it was this action and the rejection of scientific expertise that prompted me to create this post.

I happen to be reading Jonathan Coles’ The Great American University and there was a section focused on the importance of university research using as one example the influence of work focused on the destruction of the ozone layer. One of the most compelling examples of regulation’s success is the international effort to protect the ozone layer—a critical shield that safeguards life on Earth. This example not only highlights the importance of science-based policy but also serves as a blueprint for addressing today’s environmental challenges, including climate change.

The Ozone Layer: Earth’s Protective Shield

The ozone layer, located in the stratosphere, plays a vital role in absorbing the sun’s harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Without it, humans would face increased risks of skin cancer, cataracts, and immune system damage. Additionally, ecosystems, crops, and marine life would suffer devastating consequences. By the 1970s, however, scientists discovered that this protective barrier was under threat, and the culprit was human activity.

The Ozone Crisis: A Scientific Breakthrough

In the 1970s, researchers in England and the United States identified a growing “hole” in the ozone layer above Antarctica. They linked this depletion to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), manmade chemicals widely used in aerosols, refrigeration, and air conditioning. If you have had an old air conditioner die, you know that a different coolant is now required. The evidence was clear: CFCs released into the atmosphere were breaking down ozone molecules, creating a dangerous gap in Earth’s defenses. This discovery sparked widespread concern, as the thinning ozone layer posed significant health risks, including increased exposure to UV radiation that could lead to skin cancer.

Early Action: National Efforts to Ban CFCs

Governments were quick to respond. In 1978, the United States banned the use of CFCs in aerosol sprays, followed by similar actions in Canada, Sweden, and other nations. These early measures demonstrated the power of national regulation to address environmental threats. Public pressure, driven by growing awareness of the health risks, played a crucial role in pushing policymakers to act. However, it soon became clear that the ozone crisis required a global solution.

The Montreal Protocol: A Global Regulatory Milestone

In 1987, the world came together to adopt the Montreal Protocol, a landmark international treaty aimed at phasing out ozone-depleting substances (ODS). The agreement was groundbreaking, not only for its scope but also for its adaptability. As scientific understanding evolved, the treaty was amended to include new chemicals and stricter timelines. The Montreal Protocol became a gold standard for international cooperation, proving that nations could unite to tackle a shared environmental crisis.

The treaty’s success was driven by several factors:

• Science-led policy: Research guided decision-making, ensuring regulations were based on evidence.
• Global collaboration: Developed and developing nations worked together, supported by funding mechanisms and technology transfers. In contrast, Trump proposes leaving counter measures up to individuals and perhaps states.

The Results: Regulation That Worked

The outcomes of these regulations are nothing short of remarkable:

• Nearly 99% of ozone-depleting chemicals have been phased out globally.
• The ozone layer is on track to recover to 1980 levels by 2040, with full recovery over Antarctica expected by 2066.
• Millions of cases of skin cancer and cataracts have been prevented, saving countless lives.
• The Montreal Protocol has also contributed to climate change mitigation, avoiding an estimated 0.5°C of additional global warming by regulating HFCs.

These achievements underscore the practical value of government regulations. Far from being a burden, they have delivered measurable benefits for public health, the environment, and even the economy.

Lessons for Today: The Importance of Regulation

The success of the ozone layer’s recovery offers critical lessons for addressing today’s environmental challenges, including climate change. However, recent shifts in U.S. policy highlight the risks of abandoning science-based protections. As reported by The New York Times, the Trump administration has taken steps to roll back environmental regulations, dismiss scientists, and reduce funding for climate research. These actions represent a stark departure from the principles that guided the ozone layer’s recovery.

The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) has reoriented its mission away from environmental stewardship, prioritizing cost-cutting over public health and safety. This shift undermines the very foundation of effective regulation: the use of science to inform policy. As the Times notes, the administration’s approach reflects a broader trend of prioritizing short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability.

Why Regulation Still Matters

The story of the ozone layer demonstrates that regulation is not an obstacle to progress—it is a catalyst for innovation and collaboration. When governments act decisively, guided by science and supported by public will, they can solve even the most daunting challenges. The Montreal Protocol succeeded because it mobilized industries to develop alternatives, fostered international cooperation, and adapted to new evidence. These same principles can and must be applied to today’s crises.

Conclusion: A Blueprint for the Future

As we face new environmental threats, the lessons of the ozone crisis remind us that regulation is not just a tool—it is a necessity. By embracing evidence-based policies and fostering global cooperation, we can build a sustainable future for generations to come.

Abandoning science-based protections is a dangerous gamble – justified by proposed business advantages or not. The success of the Montreal Protocol proves that the costs of inaction far outweigh the benefits of regulation. It’s time to recommit to the principles that saved the ozone layer and apply them to the challenges of today.

Sources

How Trump is Transforming the U.S. Government’s Environmental Role – NY Times

The Great American University 

I have read quite a few battles online lately that involve some portion of the population not appreciating some other portion. When you think about it, most folks work at something that is necessary in some sense to others or they would not be compensated for their efforts.

Anyway, I want to address those who believe farmers are not paid their due. I have mixed feelings about this position. I grew up on a farm and I can assure you that physical labor 50 years ago was very different than today. Sitting all day in an air conditioned tractor cab is not that different from sitting all day in an office. Farming is a business and presents unique challenges, but this is the case for most individuals who work alone or in small businesses. Much of what farmers produce is far removed from what you or I will eat. The production of corn to produce alcohol for gasoline or soybeans to sent to China has nothing to do with feeding you or me. As far as feeding folks go, I have far more empathy for those immigrants toiling in those small plots of land to produce vegetables to sell at our local farmers’ market. They have families to support just as much as the guy down the road with a thousand acres of land and massive equipment to work it.

Anyway, I do think that an appreciation of where our food comes from is important and I have long support school gardens as a way to develop such insights. Yes, I would not expect the kids to kill and pluck the feathers from chickens like I did growing up to appreciate the production of our primary protein source, but at least they can experience growing some what they eat.

I garden, but I also have a recommendation for those with little land. Grow vegetables on your deck. My recommendation would be a Garden Tower. The tower makes use of vertical planting and is combined with vermi – composting (worms converting material to compost). It is a like a science project on your deck.

Our tower is now operating a maximum capacity producing herbs, tomatoes, and other green leafy stuff we use for our salads. As you can see, the quantity of material is impressive. The basil (plant at top) is great for making pesto and we obviously have more basil that we can consume. Gardening is like that and it can be difficult to predict how much, if any, of a given plant you will bring to harvest in a given year.

The worms?

There is a cylinder down the middle of the tower in which you cultivate a culture of red wrigglers. You constantly feed these worms green material and they convert this material into compost (castings generated by the worms) to support your garden.

Taxes and tax cuts are a major focus of the present political climate. Yet, it seems to me that people are easily misled. They don’t understand very well how the tax paid relates to income and more to the point of this post what should be considered a tax. I have two examples

Tariffs make the best example. We are told by the present President that our nation benefits from increasing tariffs on imports because money flows into the coffers of the U/S.. This may be true, but the reality with tariffs is that consumers either pay more because they purchase goods and services originating in the US, or they pay more for imported goods because of the tariff. The exporter does not pay the tariff. This increase in the cost of goods, no matter the origin, is essentially a tax.

I think it can also be argued that the removal of a safety net program such as Medicaid is also a tax. If you have ever spent time in a public hospital emergency room you should understand why. There are folks there needing immediate help. There are also people there with less severe problems – say a family with a child who has a painful ear infection. Why doesn’t the child with the ear infection seek help from a family physician or urgent care? The answer is likely that the family does not have medical insurance and the public hospital will not turn people needing help away. Who then pays for the costs of the “freebies”? We all do. The hospital has to meet expenses and the option without safety net support is to charge more of the people who can pay – a tax. Preventative care and treating problems before they become serious and more costly would be a better approach.