Remembering Bunker Hill

I observed this Memorial Day by rereading Daniel Webster’s Bunker Hill Oration. In 1775 trying to prevent the British from fortifying the hills around Boston we fought for control and lost, retreating when the gunpowder gave out. (Woe is the nation without an industrial base.)  Causalities were high, especially for the British. (Those good old boys knew how to shoot.) This taught us that a citizen army, a militia, could take on the trained troops of a foreign empire.  (Is it a coincidence, or historic irony, that this past week the Oath Keepers just stared down the BLM in Josephine County, Oregon over a man’s gold mining rights?)

In 1825, the year before both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died, a monument was dedicated on Bunker Hill. The first generation of free Americans paid homage to those who made it possible and celebrated with those Revolutionary War veterans in attendance. What follows are selections from what Daniel Webster said that day:

“This  uncounted multitude before me and around me proves the feeling which the occasion has excited… a day on which all subsequent history would have poured its light… a point of attraction to the eyes of successive generations… to foster a constant regard for the principles of the Revolution…  God has granted you this sight of your country’s happiness… he has allowed us, your sons and countrymen, to meet you here, and in the name of the present generation, in the name of your country, in the name of liberty, to thank you!..  Wheresoever among men a heart shall be found that beats to … patriotism and liberty, its aspirations shall be to claim kindred with thy spirit… May the Father of all mercies smile upon your declining years and bless, them!.. look abroad upon the whole earth, and see what … you have contributed to give to your country, and what a praise you have added to freedom…we are assembled to commemorate the establishment of great public principles of liberty Heaven saw fit to ordain that the electric spark of liberty should be conducted, through you, from the New World to the Old…

 …It is owing, perhaps, to this truth, that the interesting struggle of the Greeks has been suffered to go on so long… to wrest that country from its present masters… the barbarian Turk… let us indulge an honest exultation in the conviction of the benefit which the example of our country has produced… on human freedom and human happiness. Let us endeavor to comprehend in all its magnitude, and to feel in all its importance, the part assigned to us in the great drama of human affairs… that with wisdom and knowledge men may govern themselves… The principle of free government adheres to the American soil. It is bedded in it, immovable as its mountains.

The great trust now descends to new hands… Let our object be… by the blessing of God, may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of wisdom, of peace, and of liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration for ever!”

It’s noteworthy that in 1825 we Americans desired aiding the Christian Greeks against their oppressor, the Muslim Ottoman Turks. In the name of full disclosure, my parents took me to the Bunker Hill Monument as a child, and my mother recited parts of Daniel Webster’s oration from memory. She later gave me her copy. As an adult, I once donned a Daniel Webster costume and delivered part of this oration. But soon it sadly seems that my generation and I could become a pre-Common Core anachronism.

Copyright 2015, Mark L. Bennett

Transparency or Crime?

What D. Norman called lack of transparency would be, in fact, a crime called: “Intentional interference with prospective economic relations” and includes as a cause of action: “timing alone may be sufficient to prove causation” (https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/2200/2202.html). In non-legalese, one’s business plans are one’s business.  Was the blueprint of the new iWatch posted on the internet a year ago? Apparently, he finds it appropriate to emulate the distortions and worse of The Ione Valley Land Air and Water Defense Alliance (LAWDA).

LAWDA is a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), just like Newman Minerals. Where does LAWDA’s money come from? They seem to have unlimited funds. Who paid for their petition gatherers? Unlike organizations such as the Foothill Conservancy or Friends of the River that have frequent fund raising events, paid memberships and required 401(3)c  funding records on the internet, the true nature of LAWDA is unknown.  Apparently D. Norman’s concept of transparency applies to only one side of the equation. This sounds like a definition other than "democratic".

He asserts that it is some sort of subterfuge that part of the former Howard Ranch may become home sites. Aside from a business’s legal right to keep their plans private, homes would only be built if there is a demand for them. And if people want to live in that area, that is their right. Traditionally, Americans have called this freedom. Unless D. Norman was born in Amador County, he freely chose to move here. Why should others be denied that right?

Another area that bothers Mr. Norman is that the capital for Newman Ridge is coming from outside the county. Completely ignored is the obvious. There is not enough capital here to finance this venture. We don’t even have a locally-owned bank in Amador County. At one time most people invested locally. This proved to be disastrous since often local people’s life savings and their entire community got wiped out when a local industry went under. Advocating this lack of investment diversification today would cause a financial adviser to lose their license. Also, capital could not easily move to where it was needed. For this reason the Federal Home Loan Bank Act was passed in 1932 to provide for “…home mortgage funding on a nationwide basis…”

While he takes issue with the out of county origin of the published petition that he cites, he ignores that the signers are local, unlike like LAWDA’s moveon.org petition that requires a world atlas to understand. He ignores that the andesite to be mined is a different substance than at the other local quarries. His mentions of possible water and traffic problems have all been already litigated and refuted so many times I hardly need to repeat them even if D. Norman needs to reread them.  But while I feel obligated to rebut these recent assertions, I am very pleased he has written this since I now have a better understanding of the “progressive viewpoint”. It really means viewpoint and little else.

Copyright 2015, Mark L. Bennett

Propaganda, Lies and Facebook Postings

Katherine Evatt, President of the Foothill Conservancy, recently posted an article entitled “Time to internalize those externalities and get prices right”. This article opens by stating that externalities, that is the external effects an activity may cause such as air pollution, are “still buried in obsolete economic textbooks”.  Having taught college economics up to the senior level for almost eight years, the topic of externalities is standard in the texts and curriculum. This statement is a distortion at best or at worst a lie.

They attack the pollution of “the 300 years of the Industrial Era” without even noting that the pendulum has swung so far the other way that today we don’t just prevent pollution, we prevent entire projects.  Part of their backup for this is “loss of forests”. But there is more standing timber in the USA today than in 1900. Much of this was family farms bankrupted in the depression and reforested during the New Deal. They assert that “massive debt overhangs” are due to the unaccounted for externality of pollution. I suppose then that a welfare state that pays people not to work or endless other examples are not factors in government debt.  They speak of unsafe offshore production while ignoring the real choices those people sadly have. The Western do-gooders that ended child labor of those under 16 in Bangladesh forced thousands of 14 and 15 year old girls into prostitution. While we all would like to live in a perfect world, we don’t. I prefer to make decisions in the real world rather than somewhere else.

This article completely ignores that the greatest material improvement in all of human history was the industrial revolution. My students found this hard to fully comprehend and I often told this story of Louis 14^th, builder of the Palace of Versailles, who’s very name stands for opulence and extravagance. He considered one of his most prized possessions to be a whole vanilla bean.  Today anyone of us could buy a whole vanilla bean for a few dollars. Without the Industrial Revolution people with the article writer’s attitude would not have the leisure time to complain.

They attack fossil fuels. But the oil industry was started to produce kerosene to replace whale oil. We all want to save the whales, don’t we? Or have they just forgotten? Gasoline was an underused by product of kerosene production. The automobile cleared our cities of horse manure and deduced infectious diseases. Victorians didn’t wear gloves and tall shoes because they were quaint. When my parents were growing up people washed their clothes in gasoline because it was cheaper than laundry soap. This history are externalities also.

Their attack includes “speculation in commodities” causing obesity and diabetes. But these are primarily the result of poor diet choices. In any market the raw fruits and vegetables, grains and beans are far cheaper than the packaged foods with undesirable additives.  They also include “hunger.” Most food “speculation” provides the necessary shortage of crops between harvests and also provides liquidity to the markets. Certainly there are dishonest speculators, but greed is nothing new and human nature is unlikely to change. In our common law tradition regulation of food speculators, in this case during a famine, goes back at least to Edward the 1^st in the 1200’s. It is not an externality within the economic understanding they claim to be using. 

These are but a few highlights of what purports to be an article. However, it is not a reasoned discussion, it is propaganda based on falsehoods. But judge for yourself and do share your thoughts as comments. http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2012/12/21/time-internalize-those-externalities-and-get-prices-right

Copyright 2015, Mark L. Bennett

Newman Ridge Referendum?

Political speech in the United States is wide open as it should be and while I cannot render a legal judgment, I believe that freedom hinges on responsibility. So when I read the No Newman Ridge quarry petition on Moveon.org I questioned how much imaginative argument we can tolerate and strive to be civil at the same time. Every one of their negative contentions have been completely refuted by extremely knowledgeable testimony at the Board of Supervisors, the Ione City Council and in the local media.  The project has been subject to a long and thorough EIR process which included major project revisions and EIR litigation. Since the project opponents have been defeated at every turn, they are now intending a ballot measure. I wonder how many people they can dupe with their distortions as their online petition did.

“Save the ranchers and farmers water” barked the ballot measure signature gatherer in front of a local market recently. The Newman Ridge EIR devotes 30 pages to water issues which have been approved twice by all the required bodies and survived the court’s intensive review. However, if they had any real grounds for an inadequate assessment of water issues another lawsuit would seem the most logical and productive strategy.  But their chosen course appears to be fear mongering backed by misrepresentation. “Untouched” and “pristine” still describe Newman Ridge on their posted petition when it’s a 150 year old mining area active until just a few decades ago. They claim that the EIR “cannot be legally approved” because it “did not investigate alternatives”. Minerals are where you find them. The only alternative is no project. But this world class deposit of andesite will make stronger roadbeds that save tax payer money along with the benefit of less disruptive road work.

The petition still refers to the quarry with the more excitable term of strip mine. This state of mind continues with “The area is already served well by three local quarries…running under capacity, so there is no business justification.”  What do we call governments that allocate markets? Doesn’t the free enterprise system work by creating a surplus that brings the price down? Has someone magically repealed the law of supply and demand? They further contend that this project “…will annihilate any chance this area has of attracting new clean business.” Most business people gravitate toward areas of economic activity and avoid those with a hostile reception.

They again exaggerate the project’s truck traffic, including ignoring prior and safe peaks of truck traffic.  In the existing plans and noted in the EIR is the Ione Bypass. The bypass will be a benefit for all, project or no project. Is it more likely to be built in a period of increasing tax revenue or in a stagnant economy?  But they somehow believe that a “Nature Park” instead will foster economic growth in a county already one third national forest. This notion seems as well founded as their contention that the project “will cause nearby home and ranch values to collapse.” By what logic is someone selling nature trail booklets going to be able to better afford a home that a heavy equipment operator?  

The product that doesn’t move by truck will move by rail. This provides the possibility of making our remaining railroad sustainable with a conceivable extension to the rest of the Newman Ridge project. Maintaining our railroad, which eliminates potential future diesel truck traffic along with stronger roadbeds, are both environmental pluses for the project. But the project opponents see only “massive environmental destruction”. The only massive destruction apparent is that of integrity.

Another significant issue is who is paying the opponents signature gatherers and attorneys? Since they are organized as a LLC (limited liability corporation) their information is not as easily accessible as that of a nonprofit such as the Foothill Conservancy.  If they are spending their own money that is their right. And if they are wealthy enough to finance this campaign it smells like an instance of the rich keeping the poor poor for whatever benefit they may derive.

Copyright 2015, Mark L. Bennett