Nothing Here But Trees

I've always found it interesting that many modern "intellectuals" in both the media and in politics find conservative viewpoints seeking to limit federal powers as "far right" and "out of the mainstream". Even the most cursory view of early American history shows that by today's standards, the debate in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were between those who favored an almost toothless federal government, and those who favored a federal system with just enough powers to form a cohesive union of states. Neither viewed the federal government as preeminent. In fact, the short-lived Federalist party led by Alexander Hamilton and (later) John Adams were vilified for the "extreme" position of wishing to create a federal banking system.

Their opponents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison formed the Democratic-Republican party (an ironic name, given that many believe that there is little to differentiate between the modern parties).

I enjoy collecting quotes from wise men and women of the past. What is interesting is to imagine the founders in a modern congressional hearing room, testifying before Congress. I remember a gun control hearing from a few years back. An invited guest was testifying that the Constitution gave every American the right to bear arms, not only for personal protection, but as a safeguard. The late Senator Ted Kennedy, working himself into one of his characteristic fits of righteous indignation, demanded "safeguard from whom, sir?", or words to that effect. The cowed witness was too timid to answer. What he should have said was "the founders believed that the final impediment to tyranny by an oppressive government was an armed citizenry, sir". Obviously, the point is not to prepare to rise up in violent revolution; we still have the ballot box. The point is that the founders believed that ultimately, unarmed citizens are vulnerable to government tyranny.

Just imagine if that witness had replied using some of these lines:

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." George Washington

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." Thomas Jefferson

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

One of Old Teddy's blood vessels would have popped.

Now let's call on some great Americans of the past to testify about taxing, spending, and federal social programs:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ... shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned; this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson

"There is no stronger sign of combinations unfriendly to the general good than when the partisans of those in power raise an indiscriminate cry against men of property." Alexander Hamilton (remember, Hamilton represented those who wanted proportionately more federal power).

"The stamping of paper is an operation so much easier than the laying of taxes that a government in the practice of paper emissions would rarely fail ... to indulge itself too far." Alexander Hamilton

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson

"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one himself, assuring that his shall be safe from violence when built." Abraham Lincoln

"By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt." James Madison

"The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." Benjamin Franklin

It sounds to me like Hamilton, Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison were all pretty much on the same page. But these views are now considered by many to be "extreme".

The founders were also united in their fear that a strong central government would over time accumulate too much power and subjugate its citizens:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison

"You will understand the game behind the curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government." James Madison (remember what Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's said about the financial mess; "never let a good crisis go to waste").

"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." George Washington

So during our country's first century, the entire political spectrum was pretty much in agreement that the foremost danger to freedom was federal power run amok. In fact, the founding documents, from the Declaration, to the Federalist Papers, to the Constitution all had the common theme of limiting government to the bare minimum in order to ensure as much personal freedom as possible. The freedom for each citizen to reach their potential, and consequently the freedom for each citizen to fail.

What is interesting to me is how far we have deviated from these ideals. How did this happen? After all, the Constitution is malleable; the mechanisms to change it are built right into the document. If you want it changed, convene a constitutional convention and get ratification by 3/4 of the states. Although I may not agree with some policies that others would wish to see implemented, the legal framework exists to change the Constitution to reflect the will of the people. That phrase, "the will of the people", is the key. Early in the 20th century, politicians (Woodrow Wilson, FDR) wanted the Federal government to take on a powerful central role that was unprecedented in American history. But there was no way that they could convince 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution to allow a huge federal power grab. So they came up with a clever mechanism to avoid the burden of convincing the populace; a legal interpretation which redefined the Constitution as a "living document". The gist of the idea is that we should not be bound by the dusty old precepts of a bygone era. "Interpreting" the Constitution would be an ongoing process that would take into account modern sensibilities. Translation: the Constitution means whatever they say it does. All that need be done is to pack the Supreme Court with enough Justices that subscribe to the "living document" (non-originalist) theory of review, and the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

The problem with the "living document" theory is that citizens no longer know what the law says until the Supreme Court decides to tell us. It is arbitrary. Prior to the "living document" method of interpretation, any reasonably well educated citizen could read the Constitution and understand their rights and freedoms. No more. No longer do we have a firm foundation of law. Instead we have a constantly shifting legal foundation dependent on the whims of 9 people who make decisions based on their perception of current events, culture, and ideology.

That is why a President's choice for Supreme Court Justice is so critically important and also why it has become so contentious. I am old enough to remember the pre-Robert Bork confirmation hearings when (for the most part) the proceedings focused on the legal qualifications and temperament of the nominee. That is simply not viable in an age where one Supreme Court vote can change the meaning of the Constitution, and thus the foundation of law.

There are numerous examples of judicial overreach, but perhaps the most egregious and recent example is the infamous Kelo vs. the City of New London case from 2005. This case is an example of how changing the meaning of one word can stand the Constitution on its head.

The City of New London wanted to use the government's power of eminent domain (the "takings clause" of the 5th amendment) to take the homes from a number of citizens and transfer the properties to a private developer as part of a redevelopment plan. The Founders, having property rights foremost in their minds, realized that at times government would need the ability to take private land in order to enable the creation of infrastructure such as roads, so they were very specific. The 5th amendment says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The key phrase here is "public use". From 1787 until 2005 this phrase was understood to mean exactly what it says; land for use by the public. Railroad tracks, roads, even a park could qualify. But New London wanted the additional $1.2M in tax revenue that a private redevelopment project would generate. Susette Kelo, a small homeowner, fought this "taking" all the way to the Supreme Court.

The result was a 5-4 decision in favor of New London in which the Court interpreted "public use" to mean "public purpose". Suddenly a government entity (New London) had the power to transfer ownership of private property from one citizen to another. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent that the decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Result; we no longer have guaranteed property rights. We only have the rights granted to us by the Supreme Court.

I challenge anyone to find any historical justification that implies that the Founders would have ever sanctioned such an action by our government. As John Adams stated in the Massachusetts constitution, his vision of a just government was "a government of laws and not of men."

Which are we?

Let's keep this short; the answer is "Yes". Why do I say that? It's an attitude thing.

Back in primitive times (the 1970s and 80s) there was a common expression in the Information Technology business; "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". IBM was the safe, dependable choice for IT needs. Most people have forgotten that the US Dept of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBM in 1969. By 1982, when it was settled, it was already becoming irrelevant. IBM was beginning to see cracks in its business model. By the early 1990s, it was fighting for it's life against competition that it never saw coming; commodity PCs and networks. Lou Gerstner came aboard as CEO and transformed the company from a maker of big iron mainframes to a provider of software and services. The company was humbled and then saved by his leadership.

In the 1980s and 90s, Microsoft was so preeminent that every other software company's strategic plan had to account for Microsoft's response to their product. Would Microsoft copy their idea, produce a competitor, and destroy the market? Would they withhold critical technical information, making it difficult or impossible to support the product? Would they issue a press release stating that they "planned" on entering the market with a similar product at some future date (known in the industry as "vaporware") and create so much FUD that the market would stall? Microsoft was so distrusted in the industry that it was terrifying to even partner with them. They might just steal your ideas, make a poor imitation, include it in Windows and kill the market. Like IBM, Microsoft was sued by the Dept. of Justice for antitrust violations. In fact, you can mark the beginning of the implosion of the dotcom bubble to the date that the lawsuit was decided, April 3, 2000. At that point, the Nasdaq index was 10% below its all-time high. One week later it was 34% below the peak. The party was over.

Microsoft is still around and still very powerful. In a future blog entry, I will make the case that Microsoft's days as a dominant force in the market are numbered, but for now here are just a few general points;

1) Their stock was $36.50 in June of 2001. Today it is at $25. Not a good investment, even with dividends.
2) When you hear "Windows", is your initial reaction positive or negative? "Windows" is Microsoft's most valuable trademark. Do you associate it with solid, trouble free computing or has it become something of a cultural joke?
3) How has Microsoft's foray into online computing panned out? They started 15 years ago in 1995. Are they a player? Would you trust Microsoft with your personal or corporate information?
4) If you were a graduating computer science student and you had a choice to work for Google, Apple, some exciting new startup, or Microsoft, would you pick Microsoft? In the software industry, we believe that talent is our future (credit to Whitney Houston)..
5) Microsoft has made attempts to diversify into a dizzying array of products. Aside from a modest success with the XBox, how has that worked out? They just killed their latest mobile phone attempt ("Kit") after just two months due to a total lack of demand. Ask yourself, would you rather have a Windows mobile phone, an iPhone, an Android based phone, or a Blackberry? Would you rather have an iPod or a Microsoft Zune? The only reason that Microsoft is still powerful is because they have a cash cow in Office and Windows, but knowledgeable people are beginning to discover that other products (like the free OpenOffice suite) meet their needs just fine. How long will it be before corporations catch on and stop paying Microsoft billions of dollars when instead they can either use free software or an application on the Web? Linux and the Mac run indefinitely with nary a crash and with little worry about viruses and spy ware. How many times have you reinstalled Windows on the same PC? What's Microsoft's competitive position on the Internet? In the mobile device field? Unless Microsoft can change public perception and move into hot new markets, they have peaked and will begin to decline. 5 years is an eternity in tech. I look forward to reviewing their position in 2015.

Why review the history of IBM and Microsoft? Because today, there is a new dominant tech company. It's always hard to imagine how such dominant companies can lose their position. Companies like IBM, Microsoft, AT&T, GM. And Apple.

You know Apple. The scrappy underdog. The company that the brilliant Steve Jobs brought back from the dead and turned into a media darling. The company that can do no wrong. I own a MacBook Pro and an iPhone 3GS. I love Apple products. But Apple is changing. They are morphing from an underdog to a bully. They are beginning to become downright Microsoftian in attitude. To wit:

• How many modern smartphones don't allow you to use removable memory cards? Answer: one, the iPhone. This allows Apple to sell models differentiated only by the amount of storage. It also forces users to use iTunes to transfer music, video, or applications. Either use iTunes or get a different phone.
• If your iPhone battery won't keep a charge any more, you can't replace it yourself (like any other phone). You have to go to www.apple.com, find the closest Apple Retail Store, bring your phone to them, and pay a technician to install a new battery for you. The closest store to where I am typing this entry is an hour and a half away. Traveling and short on time? Tough luck. Of course, you could mail your iPhone to Apple and they will replace the battery and mail it back. That's not too much time, expense, and hassle just to change a battery is it? "Apple; it's all about the user experience."
• If you are a developer who has created an iPhone or iPad app, Apple may or may not approve your application. There are certain no-nos that are well publicized. On the other hand, there are a whole lot of things that can disqualify you that you don't know about and can't determine in advance. It's on a case-by-case basis, you know, more like guidelines than rules. So spend what little cash that you have on R&D and roll the dice. Your app might get accepted. Then again, it may not. Steve Jobs insists that Apple must have complete control over the user experience. Remember Apple's most famous commercial? How ironic. By contrast, the Android OS is completely open, so as a developer or a user, you can deliver software any way that you'd like and run anything that you want. There are a lot of very good Android phones out there . . .
• On the product front, Apple is starting to show some cracks in its armor. Go ahead and Google "MacBook trackpad click". My MacBook trackpad now requires me to push when I click or it doesn't register. Of course all vendors have occasional hardware issues, but check out how long people have been complaining about this. What has Apple's response been? "Apple Store".
• It looks to me like the iPhone OS 4 saga may be the beginning of a story akin to Microsoft Vista. The Internet is rife with stories like mine. I have a 1 year old 32GB iPhone 3GS. I upgraded to OS 4.0 and the phone became almost unusable. Many times it just wouldn't respond, and when it did it was sloooooow. It couldn't connect to Wifi networks that I had been using for a year without any problems. It would drop Wifi connections and refuse to reconnect. There were at best some mild benefits to the vaunted new "multitasking" features, but not nearly enough to offset the really major issues. In short, it was a disaster. Worse yet, Apple provides no downgrade mechanism. Once OS 4 is installed, you are stuck with it. Apple actually wrote specific code into iTunes to prevent you from downgrading. Finally, after 2 days of my phone not working correctly, I used a complex hack that I found on the Internet to downgrade to OS 3.12 and it is working perfectly again. The Internet is filled with complaints, and most users are not software engineers.
• Apple's response to the iPhone 4's external antenna flap is instructive. Their response can be summed up as "quit your whining". Their only solution is to offer a free iPhone condom so that the user's skin will not touch the external antenna and cause reception problems. I don't want to be too forward, but would you mind undressing your new iPhone 4 so I can take a look?

Apple hasn't blown it by any means, but the direction they're taking is making me uncomfortable. Hubris has a way of biting tech companies in the ass (see IBM and Microsoft). Am I predicting the decline of Apple? Absolutely not. They are still the preeminent design and marketing company in tech. Apple has always had four major advantages; beautiful designs, great marketing, flawless execution, and fanatically loyal users. I don't expect their designs and marketing to fall off, but for the first time in a long time there are questions regarding their execution. It remains to be seen how loyal their users will remain now that Apple has morphed from a scrappy little underdog to a borderline arrogant giant.

Stay tuned, this could get interesting.

The debate about global warming has really got me nervous. What if fossil fuel usage is destroying the planet? What if CO2 emissions will result in New Hampshire having winters like Florida in 20 years (wait, is that bad?).

The EPA is worried, and that means I am really worried. Did you know that methane is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2? The EPA is so worried about methane that they've devoted millions of taxpayer dollars to the scientific investigation of cow farts. This study is required reading for any true worshiper of Gaia. There will be a test later, and you had better have your flatulent bovine stats straight, brother!

So what to do, what to do? Well, I've been evaluating the alternatives to fossil fuels. Ethanol is out. We tried producing 1% of our gasoline needs and food prices went through the roof. The whole country would have to be up to our ass in corn to make a dent, including L.A. and New York. And you know how those guys look down on farmers. Besides, it turns out that farmers were using a ton of gasoline to run their farm equipment to raise the stuff.

Solar? No way to store it for when we need it and it would require so much land we'd have to dodge solar panels with our electric cars. Besides, what would we do at night?

Wind power has potential, but first we have to convince the Kennedys to let us put some wind turbines off of Cape Cod.

Still, we absolutely have to move off of fossil fuels. Have you heard of "peak oil"? Environmentalists are telling us that oil is going to run out, so we'd better be prepared. They've been telling us this since the Carter administration, and sooner or later they're going to be right.

So I've been thinking of what I can do on a personal level, and I've come up with a plan. I would encourage all of you to follow me. Ready? Here it is; buy a huge, gas guzzling SUV.

I know what you're thinking; how will millions of Americans driving hulking SUVs help to save the environment? I've got it all worked out, so listen up.

Who is the most famous environmentalist of the 21st century? That's right, Al Gore. Al won an Oscar for his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", that contained a bunch of inconveniently untrue "facts". But it's the thought that counts to Hollywood, and Al sometimes has one, so Al is a star. He's also won a Nobel Peace Prize. Al's focus on climate change, and generating income from the "crisis" (his net worth has increased from $1M in 2000 to the $100-$200M range today) obviously puts him in the company of Barack Obama (they thought that he had potential), Jimmy Carter (huh?), Yassir Arafat (I'm seeing a pattern here) . . . Ok, I guess I've made my point.

Anyway, Al hasn't publicized his strategy, but his plan is apparent to even the most casual observer; use up all the oil available on Earth, thereby making all other alternatives cost competitive! It's brilliant, when you think about it. And he's right on top of it. Old Al has huge houses, a 4,000SFer in Nashville and a brand new 6,500SFer in Monticello, CA on the ocean (isn't he supposed to be concerned about rising sea levels?).

Estimates are that the CA house has 20 times the carbon footprint of the typical American home. Not only that, but Al frequently takes a private jet to his speaking engagements about limiting carbon emissions. And he's not the only one following this unique strategy. At the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December of 2009, there were 1200 limos and 140 private planes to transport the environmental elite to and from the conference.

So I say, let's take our cue from the experts! Buy an Escalade, a Hummer, or a Range Rover! 8 mpg or bust! Let's use up all the oil and those fascists on the right won't have any choice! Then they'll have to use solar or wind or bicycle power. Who cares how much we have to pay for energy? Do you?

Al and his friends sure don't.