The Curmudgeon Speaks

I think we are in a unique and dangerous political situation in this country and I dispute those who try to dismiss what seems a very negative and divisive time as “politics as usual”.

I have no idea how to test my argument. I suppose that historians have a way or at least an informed opinion. I suppose there were times when physical fights broke out between politicians of different parties. Anyway, in my life time, I think we are in a unique time period.

I have been a blogger since 2002. I have written several thousand posts to my blogs and Facebook in this time period. I thought one way to evaluate my own impression would be to examine my writing on political issues during this time period. It would have been too much work to review all of these posts, but I did make the effort to look at all posts during the month of October which would provide some info on the run-up to elections and a comparison from off years. The values represent posts on “political” topics.

I am not sure everyone has reacted in this way, but my focus has definitely shifted to political topics.

Curmudgeons are introverts by nature. This does not mean we are bad people. It just means that being in the midst of lots of people who want to engage with us makes us uncomfortable. It is not really the number of people, it is the vulnerability of unpredictable access that is the problem.

Anyway, I found this t-short that explains just how this feels. It was brought to my attention by family members who are constantly witness to my weird personality. It takes some effort to understand. I can speak to hundreds of people in settings that intimidate most and prefer to sit on the sidelines at far smaller events rather than make small talk. For some reason, expressing ideas in writing is also easy. Unless I know people well, I prefer conversations on matters of substance. This does not mean I avoid people. I just prefer not to interact unless I have something to say.

Just remember – introverts are people too.

This is about the time of year when Cindy and I like to take the Ranger out on the trails to photograph the leaves. Actually, because of other obligations, we were a little late this year and missed the peak of the color. Still, riding through the woods of northern Wisconsin and Minnesota in the cool of autumn is, well, pretty cool.

The destination today was Markville. Yes, Mark was returning to Markville to see how this little backwoods village in Minnesota was doing. We are able to get to the trail system in Wisconsin from our lake home. After making our way to the nearest town, Danbury, we can pick up the Gandy Dancer . As I understand the meaning of Gandy Dancer, it refers to those who work on railroad tracks. As rail lines have changed over the years, many sections of track were no longer needed and some have been modified to serve as bike, snowmobile, and ATV trails.

Crossing the Saint Croix into Minnesota near Danbury, WI.

A couple of photographs along the Gandy Dancer.

Mark in Markville.

Our destination was the village of Markville, MN. We discovered this “town” a couple of years ago. It has no cafe, no gas station, and no bars. The no bars thing is really strange because bars along the trails in northern Wisconsin and Minnesota are a big thing. We did find remains of a bank building with the date of 1915. There was no post office, but a dropbox and boxes for residents. I should have taken a few more photos in what remains of the town. I am guessing the town was once a stop along the railroad.

This post was written in 2011. I am bringing it back because the vague claim of political candidates that they support the values of their state always annoys me. The 2011 post was written when I lived in North Dakota and was directed at candidate Rick Berg. Rick Berg won that election and is now challenging the incumbent to become a senator from the state. My negative reaction still holds. The annoyance about claiming the values of your state continues to annoy me in my new state of residence – Minnesota. The claim of common values sounds so great, but is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. It is general claim that “I think like you” so I must be the candidate you should vote for that is pretty much untestable.

I am reposting my comment from 2011 after reading the Cramer position on #metoo.

———-

Now freshman Congressman Rick Berg labeled his campaign with a phrase that annoyed me then and now. He urged citizens to vote in favor of North Dakota Values. It is really difficult to know just what that means or how the values of one state would be different from the values of another. I think it is one of those phrases intended to generate a sense of we vs. them – as in we are special and they are not. We have good values and they don’t.

The video accompanying the ads tended to portray the opponent, Democrat Earl Pomeroy, as having lost his North Dakota values. While Pomeroy has obviously done tremendous things for the state of North Dakota, he supposedly had fallen in with the politicians in Washington and lost touch with his North Dakota roots.

I have opinions about many political issues. I am what most would consider a liberal democrat. I understand what I am. There is one particular issue and one component of this issue that will get me upset enough to spend my time doing things like writing this post or contacting the politicians who represent me. I support a better approach to health care. I have particular concerns about the number of individuals with no health care and a personal concern with the way the healthcare industry treats those with pre-existing conditions. My wife has suffered through two bouts with breast cancer and has the genetic condition that is evaluated using bracanalysis. This is what might be called a pre-existing condition.When you propose it is fine for the health care industry to ignore pre-existing conditions I react to your position in a personal way. Succinctly, I think you are selfish and lucky enough not to have had to deal with some of the realities of life.

So, when Representative Berg voted to repeal the existing health care plan, I sent him an email explaining my wife’s situation and expressing my concern that he was not willing to address the problem of pre-existing conditions. BTW – my wife has health coverage, but this is because she cannot be denied as part of my plan. On her own, or when seeking coverage unique to her (e.g., long-term care insurance) she is out of what some would describe as LUCK. Representative Berg evidently is concerned that there is some relationship between the present health care approach and jobs which he explained on the house floor. I am not exactly sure I understand the connection between ignoring the uninsured, the problem of those who cannot acquire insurance, and jobs, but you are free to listen to his comments yourself.

I did not really expect him to reply directly to my concern – what would he say? I did expect one of his minions would send a response probably indicating that while the representative was sensitive to problems of those unable to purchase coverage, health care is a complex issue and he has to make decisions on what is best for the country. I could have generated the same blather, but I have yet to receive a response so I am not certain what his position is.

Back to the issue of North Dakota values.

What am I to think at this point? I noticed that Berg voted with the rest of Republicans on this issue. This looks pretty much like politics as usual to me. Politics is politics no matter how long you have been in Washington. Anyone surprised?

So, just what is the North Dakota position on health care. What values is Representative Berg now promoting? Really hard to say, but it looks from here like the Representative assumes North Dakotans support some kind of “I got mine, too bad for you” value system. We certainly are special.

I am starting to worry that the government is incapable of addressing long-term problems. Political will is both heavily polarized and dominated by the problem of the week. Issues that are more abstract and that will emerge gradually just don’t energize most citizens and hence offer little leverage for politicians taking one position or another. I would hope our politicians would act on principle, but most seem more followers of public opinion than leaders.

Climate change and the reaction of politicians makes a great example of this type of problem. The United Nations just released a study showing that while climate change is too often regarded as a “future problem” we are now within a 20-year window to prevent major impact. Politicians may have positions on this issue, but understanding what such positions might require that voters have deep insight into individual candidates. Consider the ads that appear in this election season. So many are negative and I bet the 30-second spots informing the choices you and I must make makes mention of the issue of climate change. Will this candidate raise your taxes? Does this candidate embody the “state name” values that you supposedly endorse? Will this candidate encourage economic growth by removing government protections?

Trump’s promotion of coal industry jobs, questioning established science, and attacking multi-nation organizations such as the U.N. shows how easy it is to attack long-term goals. It is like the famous “marshmallow” test – it is easy to be tempted by an immediate benefit that commitment to a long-term advantage. If only the outcome of many important issues were simply the number of marshmallows we could consume.

Educators and parents take notice. I think you are our only hope. Where else will the leadership promoting principles and long-term values come from. It appears we cannot count on politicians or commercial interests to look beyond the next election or the next quarterly report.

I admit to being a stubborn idealist. Some of us have to do it. My latest idealistic commitment is to the Brave browser and the micropayment system it encourages users to employ.

First, you don’t have to buy in (literally) to the micropayment system to use the Brave browser. I will explain a little about this opportunity after a few introductory comments about the browser.

It makes sense to me that believing you use the Internet for free is naive. Of course, you must pay for access to the Internet. This is not what I am describing here, but because of the end of net neutrality, it is another topic worth thinking carefully about. Most use of the Internet and the companies that host content (mostly written by users) is supported by ads and by the collection of personal information which can be used to target ads. Some of this targeting makes sense. If I have to view ads, I want to view ads relevant to my interests and needs. However, one of the things the election of 2016 taught us was that this same personal information offering you ads relevant to things you may be interested in purchasing can also be used to manipulate opinions regarding political candidates.

Some are aware of such issues and have responded by searching for ways to anonymize their Internet activity and block the collection of ads and personal information. Brave will do this for you.

However, when you think about this ad blocking is really not fair to those supporting themselves as content producers by posting ads along with their content. You probably know that most newspapers and magazines do the same thing and as a consequence your cost to purchase these resources is far lower than it would be without the ads. The “free” content takes this same principle to an extreme requiring nothing to view content and attempting to sustain the content producers with ads. By blocking ads, you circumvent the intentions of the producers offering the content. Most don’t think twice about doing so mostly because they are unaware of the consequences, but the behavior is pretty much unethical. If an ad exists, the provider assumes you will see it and perhaps even click on it. This is the implied contract in the arrangement.

Brave will block ads, but encourages users of the browser to make a contribution that will be distributed across the owners of the content you use based on the frequency of your use. This system is presently a little complicated to set up. You must create a cryptocurrency account and transfer money into this account for Brave to access. I figured it out, but I hope Brave can make the process simpler. Folks with a little tech experience should have no problem working their way through the requirements.

While I am idealist, there is a limit to how far I will pursue my commitment to supporting content producers. I terminated my Apple music account and I intend to use this money to support the Brave strategy. I decided it was silly to pay $10 a month when I also pay for two other music subscriptions and I pay Apple $25 a year to hold my 7000 song music collection. So, my financial liability is limited, but if everyone did this ….

Educators and most parents caution students that they must treat the online record they create as open to the public. This is probably not entirely accurate, but these young people are told to be concerned about what future employers might think of the content they post.

We all probably need to heed this guidance. When I was still employed as a faculty member, we were told that the email we sent through the University email system was considered available should this content be requested. This was not a matter of access should there be some legal issue, but a matter of the public record. It would not be up to any one of us to provide this content should it be requested, but the university would have to provide this content. I assume the cost of generating this content would be born by the party making the request.

I often think current politicians do not appreciate this reality. Despite constant charges of fake news, news agencies can produce video/audio of statements politicians made at two different times to demonstrate how they have flip-flopped or outright lied. With President Trump, this time delay may be a matter of just a couple of days. I believe the audio/video has a much larger impact than the words a journalist might offer to describe the same inconsistency.

The present dispute regarding the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh offers a great example of this type of inconsistency. There is an issue of whether the FBI can be requested to make an inquiry into the accusations made against Judge Kavanaugh. Two prominent Republicans, Grassley and Hatch, play important roles on the judiciary committee. Mr. Grassley chairs the committee. Both Senators served on the same committee when a similar accusation was brought against now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. At that time, both Grassley and Hatch supported in glowing terms the role the FBI served in collecting information on that dispute. Today, these same two individuals have spoken out to say an FBI investigation is not only not needed, but that it cannot be conducted. The news media could describe this inconsistency in words, but it is far more damning to hear the words spoken to praise the role of the FBI in one situation and to say such an investigation is not needed or possible in another. We use the word hypocrisy far too frequently in the past few months, but I don’t know what else to call what I and you can witness for yourself.

One of the issues that has always seemed strange to me about state institutions of higher education is just how much power the politicians of the state have over the “state’s” institutions given the limited funding the states tend to provide to keep these institutions functioning. This is vastly different from the state and local funding that dominates K12 funding. Unlike K12, those who enroll in higher education pay for the education they receive. The Institutions themselves are also responsible for raising money from other sources e.g., research grants, contributions from interested parties.

For example, why does the state have anything to say about tuition? Institutions of higher education must function within a higher education environment, receive limited funding from their state, and yet cannot set tuition as they see fit. They obviously have to deal with the consequences of overcharging if such a decision would price them out of the range of potential students.

I happened across this article from Inside Higher Education which focuses on higher education in North Dakota. This is the system I worked in for 39 years. Higher education in North Dakota gets little national attention so I pay attention when an article is featured at this level. The article uses the situation in North Dakota to comment on “public governance” of state institutions.

For example, the situation in North Dakota involves:

Making any major changes to the governance structure would require a constitutional amendment. The task force would approve a recommendation, and the state Legislature would have to agree to put it on the ballot. Voters would then decide whether to change the Constitution. A majority of voters would have to approve of the change.

This situation creates a very strange environment in which local state legislators tend to vote based on local interests (11 institutions in a state with a very small population) rather than on what would allow the development of the best institutions given what the state is willing to spend. The many institutions have a tendency to be perceived as a way to support the local economy rather than a collective asset that is best for the state as a whole. While I agree that bigger is not always better, the small size of all of the institutions and the limited state funding create serious problems of what I would describe as critical mass. At some level of size and state funding, it is impossible to compete at a national level.

Taking the grandkids to the donut shop has become a weekend tradition and like all good things now it is gone. We showed up at Danbury Cares this morning like so many other weekend mornings and the shop was gone. No more donuts.

I owe these folks some kind of thank you. This was not an ordinary donut shop, this was special. The owners make these great donuts as a way to donate to the small town of Danbury. They even made the effort to move their shop from its original location and  created a nice business that most tourists probably did not realize was all a charity.

I first wrote about Danbury Cares in 2015 and that post tells the story of the retired couple responsible for the venture. Today we found a short post in the local paper noting the end of the venture. There was not as much information as I would have wanted, but these folks probably wanted it this way.

Goodbye Danbury Cares and thanks for the goodies. I happened to take a picture of some of the donuts from what turned out to be our last visit. Not shown are the key lime donuts which were taken during the first choice round we have had to enforce to give everyone a fair chance.