The Wonder of Transparency – Missing in Banking and Politics

 

As we progress (?) from one political party’s convention (Republican) to the next convention (Democratic), I saw a comment about the Republican Convention that got me to thinking about transparency. These conventions were designed to delineate policy for each of the party’s candidates, regardless of the political level. Candidates from the vaunted dog catcher of a local municipality to the presidential and congressional candidates, are defined by their adherence to these policies, called platforms, if they take on the “R” or “D” label.

So what does this have to do with transparency? First, I will present some background.

One area which has become very opaque is the financial sector. There is much deception, fraud and corruption, just like in politics.

The business relationship between commercial and investment banking and insurance, known as the financial industries, is a complex one. Early in another depression (yes we are currently also in a depression), the American leadership tried to clarify the relationship between and legislate these financial industries in 1933. A major piece of legislation, the Banking Act of 1933, became known as the Glass-Steagall Act. It is explained as follows:

“Congress saw the need for substantial reform of the banking system, which eventually came in the Banking Act of 1933, or the Glass-Steagall Act. The bill was designed “to provide for the safer and more effective use of the assets of banks, to regulate interbank control, to prevent the undue diversion of funds into speculative operations, and for other purposes.” The measure was sponsored by Sen. Carter Glass (D-VA) and Rep. Henry Steagall (D-AL). Glass, a former Treasury secretary, was the primary force behind the act. Steagall, then chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, agreed to support the act with Glass after an amendment was added to permit bank deposit insurance.¹ On June 16, 1933, President Roosevelt signed the bill into law.” - Glass Steagall Act - http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1504.html, http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/25,

It seems that during that previous financial crisis our country’s leadership were also “under extreme pressure” by their “constituency” to “do something.” Based on the nature of this Banking Act, increased public and regulatory transparency was deemed to be needed. It was manifested as a separation between traditional banking and more speculative commercial and investment banking.

I recently watched a documentary on YouTube about the use of technology in investing entitled Wall Street Code – https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GEAGdwHXfLQ. The introduction to this video shows the “sleepy” very passive nature of mortgage banking prior to the leveraging of technology in investing. At that time, mortgages were thought to be the basis of our financial society and security. As such, they were “rock solid,” highly rated and very low risk. After all, people never defaulted on their homes because they were checked financially and could not get a mortgage if they didn’t “qualify.” Mortgage banking was presented as extremely boring, as nothing ever changed since the implementation of the 1933 legislation.

However, in the early years of the 21^st century, these rock solid investments were modified to make them more “sexy” due to changes in this 1933 legislation. Yields increased and the investment community started making “big” bucks with very low risk. To fuel this massive “cash cow”, more and more people had to be able to get mortgages, regardless of financial qualifications. While the financial ratings of the mortgages stayed the same, increased risk was introduced via non-qualified buyers.

Part of this change was brought about by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1999. The following history is noted by Dave Manuel on his website, dated July 23, 2016.

“On November 12th, 1999, Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed SOME of the provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act. … So, as a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a commercial bank would be able to buy an insurance company, or a commercial bank would be able to buy an investment bank, etc.

The three co-sponsors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were:

Sen. Phil Gramm - R
Rep. Jim Leach - R
Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. – R

In 1999, the Republicans held a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The final version of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by a vote of 90-8. This made the bill "veto proof", meaning that if Clinton had decided to veto, the bill would have been passed anyways. Having said that, if Clinton truly didn't want the bill to become law, he could have vetoed the bill in a symbolic gesture, but this did not happen.

Many people point to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as a major reason why the financial sector imploded in 2008.

When it comes to pointing fingers, both parties get the blame. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was co-sponsored by three Republicans, signed into law by a Democratic president and had the overwhelming support of both parties when it was eventually passed.” - http://www.davemanuel.com/fact-check-did-bill-clinton-repeal-the-glass-steagall-act-120/

Both Republicans and Democrats in positons of leadership and power benefitted greatly from these changes in the financial system. Massive transfers of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1% took place due to this change in legislation. Anyone in management of a bank such as Goldman Sachs, or the financial system, such as Ted Cruz’s wife, obviously benefited immensely.

Two distinct positions have been taking form since the financial crisis of 2008. The pro-Republican position is that one of the main causes of the financial meltdown of 2008/2009 is reported to be the repeal that separated commercial banking from investment banking. A USA Today article by James Rickards entitled Repeal of Glass-Steagall Caused the Financial Crisis, dated August 27, 2012 notes:

“The big bank boosters and analysts who should know better are repeating the falsehood that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the Panic of 2008.

In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it's critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis. Without a return to something like Glass-Steagall, another greater catastrophe is just a matter of time.” - http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

Mr. Rickards states the cause of the financial meltdown in simple terms:

“It was Glass-Steagall that prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers. This ability along with financing provided to all the other players was what kept the bubble-machine going for so long.”

A more liberal and moderate position is as follows. Aaron Klein of the Brookings Institute writes in his July 19, 2016 article entitled Why is Glass-Steagall so politically popular and what does it really mean?

“Glass-Steagall separated the commercial and investment banking and the business of insurance from each other. Firms had to specialize in one of those areas and could not cross business lines. Separating business lines was a response to the factors that caused the Great Depression.

The surprise last-minute addition of a plank in the Republican platform embracing Glass-Steagall Act mirrors a call in the Democratic platform inserted by Bernie Sanders’ supporters to do the same, in spite of the fact that Hillary Clinton has explicitly rejected it.

Including it in the GOP platform is surprising and is a major about-face for Republicans. It contradicts House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who just weeks ago proposed an alternative financial regulatory system of increasing minimum bank capital in return for less regulation. Repealing Glass-Steagall in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was a signature victory of the conservative movement’s deregulatory agenda, which was also supported by President Bill Clinton. Why is Glass-Steagall now so politically popular and what does it really mean?

Bringing back Glass-Steagall is good politics and bad public policy, as is often the case. It is good politics because it taps into the belief by the American public that the Depression Era generation, faced with their financial crisis, made smart reforms that worked. Those changes did work and many of them still do, such as federal deposit insurance, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission to police Wall Street, and a series of investment laws designed to protect investors. At some point, the thinking goes, we strayed from the wisdom of our grandparents, and in our zest to harness the powers of markets we made critical mistakes, unleashing a tide of forces that created our own financial crisis. Almost a decade later after the Great Recession, the American public is still extremely angry at Wall Street and wants change.” - http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2016/07/19-why-is-glass-steagall-so-politically-popular-what-does-it-really-mean-klein

However, along came the election cycle of 2016. With an increasingly “ingrown” political elite, distinctions between the candidates and political parties are required, whether they exist or not. As such, the financial system became one of those distinctions. Needless to say, the repeal of Glass-Steagall is a very politically charged issue in today’s political climate. Both political parties are jockeying for position on this economic issue in the election of 2016. The following quotations make this very apparent.

While I am not taking a position on the reinstitution of the Glass-Steagall Act issue, it is important to note the Republican “plank.” The following was noted about Donald Trump’s speech to the convention on July 22, 2016. It is as follows:

“No mention of efforts to cut financial regulation. Nothing about the Republican Party platform's new aim to break up the big banks. And not a word about Hillary Clinton's long-standing ties to Wall Street kingpins and the tens of millions she's accepted in donations from them.

Trump's failure to mention banks was all the more surprising considering that one of the few tidbits of actual policy news to come out of the Republican gathering in Cleveland was a plank in the party platform to reinstitute the Glass-Steagall Act. Since the Great Depression, that regulation had installed a firewall between commercial and investment banking, but its repeal in 1998 is often cited as helping cause the financial crisis.”

Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-one-key-word-that-trump-left-out-of-his-rnc-speech/ar-BBuFKK5?li=BBnb4R7

My perspective on this issue, as we go into the Democratic Convention is similar to that of my previous blog, entitled American Infrastructure – One of the Things Which Defies Logic, http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com/2016/07/american-infrastructure-one-of-things.html. Regardless of the statements to the contrary made by the long standing politicians such as Hillary, Cruz, McCain, Romney, Christy and others, they have benefitted by keeping the status quo. They clearly are the problem, not the solution.

How and why is this so?

It is fairly simple, maybe even transparent. There have been very few “new” faces in leadership in Washington D.C. for a long time. Those that say they are new, typically come from the “political” or “economic” elite. Many, such as the Bush family, are from “political dynasties” formed from years in power and are accustomed to wealth. They, and their colleagues, Republican and Democrat, have had years to resolve the economic and political problems. However, the same problems remain with very little happening except those same people amassing immense wealth for themselves and their heirs. How can we continue to think about electing people like Hillary, Jeb, Ted or Chris, as well as, many of our candidates who currently reside as fixtures in Congress in Washington, D.C., when we truly need both fresh ideas and a different view of the world?

Candidates like Donald Trump, the current Republican nominee, and the deposed Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, are truly fresh faces on the political scene. While you may not like their ideas, policy positions or personalities, either of these men would bring a different perspective to the office of President. Mr. Sanders was truly marginalized by the Democratic party, and they tried the same with Mr. Trump. These are not the only people this has happened to. One great example from previous elections was Ron Paul. He had the support of many of our youth in his campaign but was totally marginalized by the Republican party in favor of the candidate of the Bush dynasty.

As you watch the upcoming Democratic convention, take heed of the candidate’s statements and party positions. Ask yourself several questions. Where have you heard these statements before? How many times? For how many years? What has changed? If you are truly honest with yourself, you can’t escape the fact that the vast majority of politicians are saying the same things in 2016 that they were saying in past election cycles. For example, Hilary Clinton’s positions are very similar to that of her husband President Bill Clinton. You might counter that this is only “party politics” which she must adhere. But still, what really do you think will change with her in office?

You have a unique opportunity to change this political structure. Donald Trump, truly, is a new face in American politics. Is he the ideal solution? Probably not. I definitely don’t think he will accomplish anywhere as much as many people would like to see. However, the real opportunity is twofold and probably longer term.

First, he will bring new ideas and a new business perspective to the Washington beltway, and to the political and economic elite, which has been in power for these many years. While the changes may be slight, it doesn’t take much of a directional change in thinking to alter the course of leadership over a generation. Hopefully, he will bring a measure of transparency to our current political and economic (banking) systems.

Secondly, and maybe more importantly, his children, who are in business with him, seem to be very bright and well educated. With a Trump presidency, may come a completely new, more business oriented (as opposed to crony capitalistic) dynasty to the American political scene. American politics, just like the politics of Russia, China and all the other first world countries of the world, seem to require the development of dynasties in order to continue in leadership positions for more than a few years [note President Jimmy Carter]. I suggest it is time to introduce a new political dynasty to the American political scene. Who knows, it might be much more transparent than those we currently have.

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hcourtyoung
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com

Sent by Windows 10

American Infrastructure – One of the Things Which Defies Logic

 

As America just celebrated its 240^th birthday on July 4, 2016, I noted that I have been seeing an increasing number of articles about the state of the United States water and electrical infrastructure. As I reviewed these articles, both current and historic, a pattern which defies logic (at least in my opinion) is clearly apparent. Before I explain this statement, I need to present some background.

When I wrote and published my two books involving the water infrastructure (Understanding Water Rights and Conflicts, Second Edition, 2004) and (Understanding Water and Terrorism, 2010), I was very concerned with the state of America’s water and electrical infrastructure. These books were written with the intention of presenting a simple, easy to understand explanation of these two infrastructures and the relationship between them. Both books are available in EPub and Kindle format at the links above.

Following is a select list of a few of the many articles which I have scanned and organized since the years I published these two books. Note this list is not at all comprehensive but it does reflect the tone of the engineering, electrical and water professionals who understand the problem. It also reflects the variety of publications which touch on these very critical infrastructures.

Article Title	Publication	Publication Date
Denver Firm’s Mine Poisons River	Rocky Mountain News	August 23, 1995
The 138 Billion Dollar Clean Water Solution	NUCA Magazine	April 1997
EPA Forecasts Clean Water Treatment Needs	Environmental Marketplace News	October 1997
Nation’s Water Costs Rushing Higher	USA Today	September 28, 2002
Congress Trims State Revolving Funds	WaterWorld	Feb 2012
New Report Highlights Staggering Costs Ahead for Water Infrastructure	WaterWorld Magazine, Waterworld.com	April 2012
How a Smart Water system can save money	Water/Wastewater Magazine	April 2012
Troubled Waters	Christian Science Monitor Weekly	December 3, 2012
The Pending Water Shortage	Chemical Engineering Magazine	June 2013
The Power of Water	Net Zero Magazine, www.nzhmagazne.com	September 2013
Water Wise	Emergency Management Magazine	Sept/Oct 2014
Americans’ Deeply Concerned about Water Infrastructure	WaterWorld Magazine, Waterworld.com	March 2016
Billions Pledged to Improve US Water Infrastructure	WaterWorld Magazine, Waterworld.com	May 2016
Senate Panel Eyes Water Infrastructure Needs	WaterWorld Magazine, Waterworld.com	June 2016
Poor US Infrastructure Could Cost $1.4 Trillion in 10 Years	Material Handling and Logistics (NHL) Magazine, MHLNews.com	June 2016
National Infrastructure shortfall continues to grow	Logistics Management Magazine, Logisticsmgmt.com	June 2016

The June, 2016 Logistics Management magazine article entitled National Infrastructure shortfall continues to grow sums up the challenge very well. It states:

“An ongoing and ever-mounting deficit for U.S. infrastructure continues to be the norm., according to the most recent edition of the “Failure of Act” report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Lack of sufficient investment into infrastructure will result in U. S. businesses being less efficient, with business productivity and GDP falling, coupled with drops in employment and personal income. From a financial perspective, ASCE said that from 2016 to 2025, each U. S. household stands to lose $3,500 in disposable income annually because of infrastructure deficiencies, with that loss pegged to rise to $5,100 annually from 2026 to 2040 if not addressed. And if it goes unattended by 2025, the U. S. economy is expected to lose nearly $4 trillion in GDP with a loss of 2.5 million jobs. As for the current state of U. S. infrastructure, ASCE was clear that the U. S. infrastructure is not making the grade, giving it an average of D+.”

Given that this is the case, and that the ASCE gave the infrastructure the same “D” grade back in 2002, and before, things have not changed much. As I note in my book Understanding Water and Terrorism:

“Humans can live only minutes without air, several days without water and weeks without food. Yet, for most of us, the thought of not having “a drink of water” when we are thirsty is foreign. Very few of us would deliberately forgo a drink of water for even a day. The average amount of water used per person (depending on activity) is .2 to 15 liters a day (3.7 liters=1 gallon) with the average drink being .2 liters.

Because water is so important to our survival, our water supply systems were identified as one of eight critical infrastructure systems in Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD 63). This Directive issued on May 22, 1998, was intended to achieve and maintain the capability to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure from intentional acts of terror.”

However, even with numerous books and an increasing number of articles about these two critical infrastructures, the electrical grid and the water supply system, Americans don’t appear to comprehend the reality of the problem. The following is from my blog entitled “Heightened Awareness” presented in October 2006.

“Only heightened public awareness of issues like energy, water and terrorism will really make a difference to the survival of this country. While very few of us need to be experts, a good working knowledge about these extremely important topics allows us to exchange meaningful ideas and question the experts and leadership. For some reason our politicians are unwilling to lead us. So the general public needs to take the lead. Need we continue to be puerile about these issues?

Sadly, it seems to me that our country’s leadership actually reflects us very well. We all seem to want instant answers and quick fixes. It seems that both major political parties, Republicans and Democrats, are more motivated by self-interest than whether America survives as a country. The latest public outcry is often designed to deflect our attention away from key survival issues. The economic bottom line seems to be the most important issue in our lives and our society.

Worse, we do not seem to realize the need to know more about these critical survival issues. We seem to be satisfied with the information contained in 60 second sound bites, unwilling to make an effort to become informed to have meaningful discussions, find viable solutions and insuring that we can maintain our way of life.”

Clearly this problem of a rapidly declining infrastructure has transcended four, if not more, presidential administrations. Starting with the Clinton Administration, and continuing through the current administration, the ASCE infrastructure grade has remained at a level of “D.” This clearly is not a “Republican” or “Democratic” issue, since it spanned both types of administrations. The minor changes / improvements made over the last 30 years do not even begin to address the problem with either of these infrastructures. They don’t even keep up with the degradation due to the passage of time.

You might say the improvement / replacement of these infrastructures is purely in the hands of the utilities which own and operate them. If they were completely a private enterprise, that might be true. However, these utilities are public-private entities. They are governed by federal regulation and take “public money” for operation and maintenance. This quasi-municipal status puts them directly into the public arena, and subject to the whims of the political elite and ruling class.

So how do these two infrastructures defy logic? Let me explain.

Given that we need both the water and electrical infrastructure to survive (both personally and as a society), and that the decline of these infrastructures has been consistent and constant over the last four administrations, why do we keep electing the same class of people to both Congress and the Presidency? Yes, they may be different because they have an “R” or “D” behind their names, but they state the same old platitudes, positions and espouse the same policies. The people we have put into office (president and congress) over the last 30 years have clearly been totally ineffective with respect to leadership involving our water infrastructure and electrical grid.

These two infrastructures are critical to the survival and sustainability of our society, yet presidential administrations and congresses come and go, and there is no change. Waiting for them to make the necessary changes via their leadership clearly is not working. Things are actually getting worse, as the engineering life of the components are ebbing away. The majority of the water infrastructure is definitely beyond its engineering life of 50 years. The electrical grid is continuously being overtaxed due to the exponential advance of technology and the use of the cloud. How can we continue to re-elect the same people to “leadership” positions given the fact that they are unwilling to make the changes that are so critically necessary to sustain our society? It seems logical to me that we, as the electorate, would at some point in time, take notice that our survival is actually at risk, and demand change by putting people in leadership positions who have a chance of making the necessary changes in focus, or at the very least, actually talk about making changes.

Take the current election cycle for the U. S. President. Why are we, as a society, even thinking of electing someone who is a member of the “political class”, such as Hillary Clinton. She has been a “political insider” and member of the “1%” ruling elite since her husband was president. How can we truly expect any change beyond some minor fixes around the “edge” of the problem, with people like her in office? They seem to want to keep the “status quo” because they are being enriched by the current system and see no reason to change.

This is probably the best reason to vote for someone like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. Clearly they are not “political insiders,” nor have they been in political leadership. It stands to reason that, while we may not like their stated positions, there is a possibility that they may bring a new psychology to the top “ruling elite” and political class. Their election to office has a chance to slightly shift the course of this country. For example, both of these men espouse positions far different than that of the “political insiders.” This is clearly the case, otherwise there would not be the extreme push from the Republican and Democratic leadership, and their financial supporters, to have both candidates marginalized and discredited, in favor of more “traditional candidates.”

We have, for the last 30 years, been “shooting ourselves in the foot” with respect to our most important critical infrastructure components the water infrastructure and electrical grid. By electing and re-electing these same people to political office and leadership, we have lost time, expertise and opportunity to make the changes necessary for converting 19^th century infrastructures into 21^st century infrastructures. It defies logic to believe that anything will change with respect to the water or electrical infrastructure based on past performance, if people like Hillary, Jeb or Ted, as well as the many other “political insiders”, are kept in “leadership” roles in this country.

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hcourtyoung
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com

Tribute to My Newest Grand Daughter

 

As I was anticipating writing this blog, along came my newest Grand Daughter – Machalie Xuan Doan - born on April 29, 2015. I wanted to pay tribute to her and all the others born in the year 2015.

I find things on the internet which bode very well for their future which may well extend to the year 2090 or even 2100. As a side note, living to the 22^nd century in itself is hardly conceivable to me. Of course, born in 1949 as I was, I marveled at the turning of the century in the year 2000. However, I am following numerous other topics on the internet which I find disturbing for these new arrivals.

In my most recent blog which was a tribute to my Mother, I marveled that she and her parents had lives that spanned from 1895 to 2010. The things that those two generations witnessed were truly amazing. My Grand Dad’s family had one of the first cars in their hometown. They saw the advent of airplane travel around the globe and a man landing on the Moon. Probably the most amazing of technologies for those generations was the advent and wide use of the computer and in Mom’s case, the internet.

So today, we have not only what was once termed the “PC” or “personal computer”, but “smart phones.” We have more than a billion people connected to each other via the “world wide web.” Smart phones can do more today than the entire NASA system used to launch both the Apollo Moon mission which landed men on the moon, as well as the EROS mission in 2001, detailed in my EPub, EROS Adventure, Journey to an Asteroid. Yet despite the limited technology the photos from the EROS mission, 300 plus of which are in the book, are intriguing as well as spectacular.

How will these new arrivals use this new technology? Where will it take them? I have an example which might shed some light on this question both positively and negatively.

My family installed solar panels on our house as part of the program of “net metering” used by Xcel Energy to encourage solar development. This legislation, passed by Colorado, also had a solar rebate built into the model, so we received a certain amount back from Xcel for the installation of the panels (which were not cheap). We paid the upfront cost and received the rebate several months later, which was not close to the completed system cost. We also entered into a contract to sell excess electricity back to Xcel, over and above what we used.

There is a growing argument about this “net metering” concept. The utilities argue that it cuts into the amount being paid to them, which is true. They argue that they can’t reliably maintain the grid infrastructure with a decreasing revenue stream. It is true that the nation’s electrical grid is basically in shambles because of lack of maintenance over the last 30 years. In my opinion, utilities have been and continue to be unwilling to look at the long term and spend the money necessary to do what is required, or look at any other business models.

The following presents the scope of the issue. Clearly, homeowners and businesses are looking for ways to reduce their energy costs.

“Between 2011 and 2012, the number of newly installed solar NEM systems increased from 61,400 to 89,620 -- a 46 percent annual growth rate -- bringing the cumulative total to 302,380 NEM systems,” the SEPA study reported. “By year end 2012, U.S. solar generation under net metering totaled more than 3,500 megawatts-AC. It is striking to consider that in 2005, when EPACT passed, total grid-connected solar capacity nationwide was only about 200 megawatts-AC.” Source: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/The-Solar-Industry-Responds-to-Utility-Attacks-on-Net-Metering

Yet, utilities fighting this “net metering” legislation is, as far as I am concerned, exactly the problem. I invested my private capital to provide them generating capacity which they did not have. Yes it was a small amount, but our system does feed electricity into the grid, as do many thousands of other “roof top” and “ground mounted” solar systems around the county and world. Many people, especially the republicans (“R”) call this a “subsidy” and argue against the utilities having to give it. They say solar can’t compete financially, but generally don’t define their terms nor really understand the concepts behind what they are discussing.

This is the reality behind the “subsidy” which I received. The money I received back in the form of a rebate was essentially the difference between them paying me for electricity at the rates they were charging retail, and their wholesale rates for generation, which are much less than ½ the current retail. If I had not gotten the rebate, I would have been selling the electricity I produced back to them at the same rate they were charging me. This was a huge win for them because they received my generating capacity for an anticipated 25 to 50 years of operation at a rate which was their wholesale generating cost when we installed the system

The only difference between me buying a bond from the utility company (i.e. loaning them money in return for interest) and placing solar panels on my roof is that by adding the panels to my roof, I am actually producing something which the utility can’t control. By that I mean, if I lent them money by buying a bond, they could add generation capacity to their system or use it to pay the CEO a bonus. The first would be beneficial to the consumers and ratepayers, the latter would not (in my opinion). I took that choice away from the utility and looked into the future at which would be most beneficial to both myself and our society as a whole. Financially, I would have been much better off if I had put the same money into a bond, but felt compelled to take a longer term view with regard to the “return on investment.”

Yet the people we elect, with an “R” (republican) or “D” (democrat), behind their names are typically in favor of the first option, giving them money and having them decide what they want to do with it. This is all done in the name of “employment,” with is in reality in the name of votes.

Clearly, legislators want the “mega-corporations (utilities)” to be able to dictate their own policies and have the choice which I took away from them (albeit in a very small way). How many of these mega-corporations have you heard of lately that pay top management (CEOs) huge bonuses while the firms themselves are struggling to survive? They pass legislation in favor the utilities, which might be fine if the utilities had the public interest in mind. You can see the same policies with the energy companies (Exon, Mobile, Chevron, etc.), utilities (Xcel, Duke Energy, etc.) and the information companies (such as Verizon, Sprint and AT&T).

“In the past, according to the EEI study, regulators managed rates to protect utilities. With the proliferation of distributed solar, it predicted, there will be pressure from utilities “to undo these cross subsidies.”” – Source: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/The-Solar-Industry-Responds-to-Utility-Attacks-on-Net-Metering

Getting back to my new granddaughter, Machalie and some of the very positive things I see for her generation going forward. As noted previously, computers, energy technology, medical advances, revolutionary transportation development and robotics all bode well for them. Indications are that these advances in technology will continue at a ever increasing pace through her lifetime.

For example, recently, Elon Musk, CEO and invertor of Tesla Motors announced that he developed a new concept and business model.

“Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed the Tesla Powerwall unit in an event late Thursday in California that was live streamed online.” – Source: http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2015/05/01/tesla-motors-powerwall-home-battery-pack/26685443/

The Powerwall is described as follows on the Tesla website.

“Powerwall is a home battery that charges using electricity generated from solar panels, or when utility rates are low, and powers your home in the evening. It also fortifies your home against power outages by providing a backup electricity supply. Automated, compact and simple to install, Powerwall offers independence from the utility grid and the security of an emergency backup.

Powerwall comes in 10 kWh weekly cycle and 7 kWh daily cycle models. Both are guaranteed for ten years and are sufficient to power most homes during peak evening hours. Multiple batteries may be installed together for homes with greater energy need, up to 90 kWh total for the 10 kWh battery and 63 kWh total for the 7 kWh battery.” – Source: http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

While not new, this battery storage concept will probably catch on in a big way. People are looking at ways to save money over the long term. This will have the impact of adding capacity to the grid while taking the control away from the utilities. As I noted previously, the utilities and legislators are pushing back. They are trying to take away any financial incentive including tax incentives and federal credits in order to preserve the “status quo.”

I note some of the changes and trends which are occurring due to innovators and entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates, and Elon Musk in my EPub entitled World Collapse or New Eden, 2015 Edition. This digital publication takes 101 predictions made in the time period of 2008 to 2011 and follows them forward into 2015. It is an intriguing, thought provoking read, applicable to these times. These are the ideas and people which have changed and will continue to change the world for Machalie.

It seems the only way to change the direction from the existing “status quo” is to completely “overhaul” the global power structure. I propose starting in Washington DC. I don’t believe that just getting all of the current legislators (Congress) out of office is the solution. In my opinion, I think something as radical as not letting anybody over the age of 50 vote or run for office might tip the power structure enough to make some changes. This could effectively transfer power to the young generation and remove my generation from power. After all we are the cause of the problem, by keeping people such as Jeb, Hillary, Rubio, Christie, O’Malley and Walker in the limelight. In my opinion the only possible change from the existing elitist system will come from the likes of Rand Paul.

With all the promise that Machalie and her generation have in front of them, they need the chance to move beyond the “status quo” power and financial structure created by my generation. This transfer of power, from my perspective, is critical to allow them to achieve their goals and aspirations as they grow up. They can’t use the current 20^th century model in the 21^st and coming 22^nd centuries. Remember the generation coming up as you enter this 2016 election cycle.

As I celebrate the birth of Machalie, I wish both my granddaughters, Machalie and Imani much love and success in all that they undertake.

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hcourtyoung
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com

A Tribute to My Mother and her Generation of Small Business

 

In memory of my Mother’s birthday which was in April, I am presenting a tribute to her generation and the small businesses which made America the global power it is. I remember the small town in southern Illinois which she was born and grew up. The photograph is of her parent’s family business which started as a small garage and grew into a local hotel located on the main street of this southern Illinois town.

During her lifetime and her parent’s lifetime, which spanned the entirety of the 20^th century, the world changed exponentially. At the turn of the century between 1899 and 1900, the mode of transportation was the horse. Large loads and multitudes of people were transported via rail. In fact, I remember one story which my grandmother told about arriving in San Francisco via train with her mother one day before the 1909 earthquake.

By the time my mother was born, cars were the main mode of transportation, but rail was still very prominent. Her family had one of the first automobiles in this small Illinois town. She would describe trips taken across the United States via automobile. They had quite an impact on her. The entire family would travel together, including my grandfather’s parents. One trip, when she was seven years old, was to Colorado (where she ended up living for most of her life). They went to the top of Pike’s Peak near Colorado Springs. Another family trip was to New York City.

Her family and millions of others like it worked in or owned small businesses in small towns across America. Many more were farmers and ranchers on small acreages producing the food and livestock to feed an expanding population. Because this area of southern Illinois had an abundance of oil and natural gas, coupled with a lot of agriculture, the great depression of the 1930’s was not as severe as it was in other parts of the country. Businesses bartered with each other, much as they had done prior to the depression. They traded goods and services to the benefit of the community and its members. By today’s standards, they lived a relatively modest life style, but they seemed much happier and contented than today’s first world societies.

World War II changed society in the United States. Many of the men went off to foreign lands to fight, while the women took jobs previously reserved for men. “Rosie the Riveter” was the name used for the women who took these factory and shipyard construction jobs, building the material to wage war.

When Dad came home from the Pacific Theater, he and Mom moved to Colorado. Dad started mining for silver, lead, zinc and uranium in the central Colorado Rocky Mountains. Many of the men who had been off to war, came home and started businesses, or went to college on the G.I. Bill. Often, they were the first in their families to be able to do so, thanks to the financial help from the government. This help enabled a generation of men and women to become engineers, doctors, lawyers and accountants. They applied what they learned and with a lot of hard work and dedication, built a nation, the likes of which the world had never seen.

This economy was still fueled economically primarily by small business and family owned farms. However, as money flowed, standards of living rose and profits made small businesses and farms larger. Large companies began to dominate the American and global economy. Things began to change. Because our society was more mobile, children began to leave the small towns of their parents and move to the large cities. Family ties were being broken by an increasingly mobile expanding society.

One of the first trips I remember taking on an airplane was to Hawaii. It was in 1962 and the trip was amazing. Mom, Dad and I felt extremely “pampered” by today’s standards. Air travel gradually became the “norm” and it morphed into the “dollar-hungry” ordeal of today.

As my generation came of age, many of us went to college, as our parents had done. However, the rise of the military – industrial complex (MIC), which President Eisenhower warned us about, was becoming increasingly dominant. Wars, such as Vietnam which was one of the first, became “profit centers” for these large corporations and their huge government contracts. As the money flowed into the mega-defense/government contracting corporations, they bought lobbyists, politicians and other “influence” peddlers to slant legislation in their favor. The political influence and impact of small business (as well as that of the individual) declined rapidly.

Throughout my youth, technology was advancing at a rapid pace. Computers, developed during WWII, were becoming part of everyday life. Companies such as Microsoft and Apple were started by the same entrepreneurial spirit and quest for knowledge shown by the generation of my Mother. This technological revolution is still one of the bright spots in our world today, in my opinion.

That being said, where will it take us? For example, there are an increasing number of articles and blogs concerning the development and use of robotics. As the use of robotics increases, what will happen to the workers who previously filled those positions? What is our educational system doing to offset the impact of this new technology? Are the young people of today going to be able to find meaningful employment? If not, what skills do they need to learn to be competitive?

Why aren’t our “leaders’, both in government and the private sector having this discussion publically in a meaningful way? As the United States enters into yet another “election cycle” why are we hearing about “lost emails” and “the necessity of starting/continuing yet another war” against people that can’t harm us? This lack of meaningful dialog makes almost anyone who attaches an “R” or “D” behind their name essentially a “sad joke on the American public”, in my opinion. With perhaps one exception (Rand Paul), I won’t be voting for any of these “R” or “D” candidates who claim to be “aspiring public servants.”

I included over 100 major predictions about these and other issues in my EPub entitled World Collapse or New Eden. These predictions, starting in 2008, have been carried forward to 2015. They show trends which are unmistakable and more than slightly discouraging.

Contrast the predictions in World Collapse or New Eden with the marvelous technology shown in my EPub entitled EROS Adventure, Journey to an Asteroid. It contains over three hundred high resolution photographs of this amazing billion mile space mission to a small near-Earth asteroid. This NASA/JPL mission, completed in 2001, is a testimony to the triumph of technology. Why do we continue to reduce our government and private space and science expenditures in relationship to that of the MIC? Clearly the benefit of the few out weigh improvement for the many.

So what about the promise shown by my Mother’s generation? Have we (the sons and daughters of her generation) really “frittered” their accomplishments away in such a short time? I have a very high regard for the generation coming up, i.e. that of my Mother’s grandchildren. They seem to be operating on a different “wavelength” than my generation (their parents). While I probably won’t see the outcome, I see the same promise in them that was in my Mother’s generation. I can only thank my Mother and her generation for their wonderful accomplishments and hope for a swift transition in power from my generation to that of her grandchildren.

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hcourtyoung
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung
Blog: http://hcourtyoung.blogspot.com

The Greatest Generations – A Tribute to My Dad and My Children

 

Two generations stand out in my mind. The first is that of my Dad, which has been termed the “Greatest Generation.” The other is that of my son and daughter. While this may be natural for a Dad, I am in a unique position to note some similarities.

I had a life-long, incredible relationship with my Dad. The following is a quote from my book, The Orphan Boy, A Love Affair with Mining.

“One September afternoon I sat on the dump of a small mine in Colorado with a unique man, my dad, Herbert T. Young. Even at 12,000 feet, the sun was bright and warm, and the sky was so very blue. Below, the aspen leaves were just starting to turn gold, and there was a hint of fall in the air.

We had talked on the way up the rocky, steep road about the mines and the history of the area, as we often did. I never got tired of the many stories Dad told about his experiences and information he gathered in researching the mining district.

Arriving at the Orphan Boy mine, we sat down and had a cup of coffee from Dad’s ever present thermos. Even though I had previously heard many of his stories about this mine that started his love affair with mining, they seemed much more real as I sat with him in that remote and peaceful basin.

My eyes were drawn to the rugged splendor of the high peaks; Brittle Silver Mountain, Grizzly Peak, Revenue Mountain... Along the horizon were Gray’s and Torrey’s, two of Colorado’s fourteeners. The air was so clean I felt like I could almost reach out and touch the peaks across the Warden Gulch basin. Morgan Peak, behind me, and Santa Fe Peak to the south looked so close it seemed like I could hike to them in just a few minutes.

Everywhere I looked were evidences of the mining and prospecting that went on in a different time. I noticed the reddish brown and yellow gossans that streaked the mountain slopes in several places. All the while, this remote valley was very quiet, almost as if our thoughts themselves interrupted the solitude. This scene stirred something in my soul that words cannot begin to explain.

I thought of Dad and the many experiences he related to me. I noticed he was also scanning the mountains, deep in thought. He turned and smiled at me, with his brown eyes shining. I knew we were thinking, feeling and experiencing the same closeness to God in that moment.

The feeling of kinship I experienced while sitting on that mine dump were similar to the feelings I had during the times Dad and I worked underground together. Working underground brings a special sense of closeness where everyone looks after one another. Even with 30 years difference in our ages, we were kindred souls.

I worked with Dad during the summers and after college graduation until his death and had the fortune to experience firsthand why his generation was named the ‘greatest generation’.

He was typical of the World War II generation whose lives were interrupted by that war. When they came back home, they changed both America and the world in a special way.”

As I get older, I watch my generation at the height of their power and prestige. I can’t help but compare them to that of my Dad.

A recent blog on ZeroHedge entitled “25 statist propaganda phrases and how to rebut them” [source - http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-14/25-statist-propaganda-phrases-and-how-rebut-them ] reveals much about my generation. The original source of the blog is as follows - http://reece.liberty.me/2015/03/09/25-statist-propaganda-phrases-and-how-to-rebut-them/ . The phrases listed are generally applicable in regard to today’s society. However, three seem to be especially relevant in demonstrating the difference between my generation (the Baby Boomer generation) and that of my Dad.

The first on my list is the concept of the “free world.’ This has been sold to my generation as a consequence of fighting the Russians and the “iron curtain all through the “cold war.” We needed “rulers” to protect us from the Russian “bear.” We were incapable of making our own decisions, despite advocating “freedom for all” in our youth.

5. “The leader of the free world”

“The free world” does not exist; each individual person exists. Again, we are speaking of rulers rather than all types of leaders. Free people do not have rulers; they rule themselves.

However, as my Dad’s generation knew, “free people do not have rulers, they rule themselves”. Dad’s generation understood the idea of ruling themselves. They kept themselves far less ruled than my generation has. President Eisenhower was correct when he warned of the “military-industrial” complex, for which a requirement is a ruling class..

Dad was a decorated war hero in World War II. However, he had very little choice when he entered the service in 1942. The compulsory draft was instituted late in 1940.

“Congress passed the Selective Training and Service Act (September 16, 1940), creating the country's first peacetime military conscription program. Conscription in America is commonly referred to as the draft. The initial act authorized the conscription of men, but placed a limit of 0.9 million on the number to be trained. The period of service was set at 12 months.” – Source: http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/us/aod/draft/aod-draft.html

Dad was caught by this legislation and before his conscription term was up, the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred and war was declared. His and millions of other Americans had their lives interrupted and changed. He had a job lined up at a tin mine in Chile and was preparing to embark on a career in mining.

The next phrase in the statists list of 25 (number 8) is applicable to Dad’s generation as well as mine. It applies to World War II and all “wars” afterward.

8. “Our military”

If the military is “ours,” then “we” should be able to exercise exclusive control over it. But “we” neither command the military nor have the freedom to destroy it. Thus it is not “ours”; it is a tool of the ruling classes used to make it very difficult for citizens to violently overthrow the government, provide a last line of defense for the state in the form of martial law should the citizens succeed in violently overthrowing the government, and present a deterrent to other rulers elsewhere in the world who might seek to take over the state and capture the tax base for themselves.

Despite his valiant and decorated service, Dad always maintained that he had nothing against the Japanese people that he fought against. In his opinion, World War II was “Roosevelt’s war.”

When they returned from the War, Dad’s generation started where they left off. Many were able to go to college, which was a “government financed” program. Prior to the war, “higher education” was expensive. Dad got his degree prior to the war, primarily because of his sports prowess.

Anyway, after the war generation received access to college and higher education, they “got to work” and built a country like none the world has seen. They were both innovative and industrious, and realized education was a tool to be used to benefit themselves and others. They wanted to create a better world for all people.

In contrast to Dad’s generation, my generation started its youth with unprecedented wealth. We became very politically and socially active. “Drugs, Sex and Rock and Roll” was the governing phrase. We wanted “freedom.”

Our activism stemmed in large part from the Vietnam War, which like World War II and the Korean War, reflects phrase #8 of the statist list above. Because of the “draft,” many young men ended up fighting an “enemy” which they neither knew nor had any animosity against. Certainly, the country of Vietnam was not a military threat against the United States or its “national security” in any way.

While some actions may require a government, those actions first require the voluntary consent of the majority of the people in a “free” society. Dad and my Granddad’s generation were aware of this and held their “rulers” far more accountable than rulers are today. In addition, the rulers themselves, being of that generation, took their responsibility and trust much more seriously than they do today.

19 “Government is necessary”

This is a positive claim which carries a burden of proof. By itself, this is a claim asserted without logic or evidence and may therefore be dismissed without logic or evidence.

However, after the war in Vietnam winded down, my generation settled in to a life of comfort and excess, and it shows. Technology was advancing rapidly and we were taking advantage of it.

The political activism and desire to “change the world” embraced by my generation in their youth morphed into almost complete chaos politically because we did not have the will to follow through or the character to effect the changes. My generation lost their will and desire to do the things necessary to create the change we professed to believe in because of the lure of excess. Instead of taking responsibility and ruling, we allowed ourselves to be ruled.

As a result, absolute greed has essentially taken over most of our global societies and political structures. We continue to follow and embrace that same pattern. If you doubt it, just look at our political parties (those with an “R” or “D” behind their names). Those people don’t represent me, and if you really analyze it, they don’t represent 99% of Americans, either morally, financially or ethically. Sadly, they represent the highest level of a society in a life of extreme power, comfort and excess.

So what about the generation to come; that of my son William and my daughter Laura? They seem to be very practical and much more grounded than my own generation. I see in them many of the traits of my Dad’s generation.

While it is true, many of them are interested in using the current technology and seem to be immersed in it. That is to be expected because they have grown up with it and it comes very natural to them.

For example, I watched my son and daughter-in-law research the real estate market while buying a home recently. The following MSN quote describes their approach to the complexities of this business.

“Younger buyers want to know what to expect and when. “I see them wanting to understand what’s going on at any time in the process more than any other generation,” says Paul Reid, a Redfin agent in Southern California’s Inland Empire region.” - http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/moneyinyour20s/10-ways-millennials-are-changing-homebuying/ss-AA9yDra#image=4

“Millennials expect to be partners in the home search, and they want quick answers to questions. “They want information, and they want valid information, and they want it right now,” Reid says. “They’re the generation of Google at your fingertips.””

“Many millennial homebuyers get recommendations on agents from their parents, but they also do some research online before they ever call an agent. They want to see testimonials on an agent’s website, as well as read online reviews.”

They make use of the technology developed by my generation. But they also have a natural curiosity about the world around them which my generation, in general, didn’t seem to have.

They tend to value real education, not necessarily that which is taught at today’s universities. Many are more interested in vocational training than “higher education,” (which today comes at an extreme cost).

They also seem to be naturally curious about the world around them, and as noted above don’t take many of the “statist propaganda phrases” as truth, like my generation has. In fact, my generation seems to have fostered, if not invented, many of those phrases as they sank into excess. They do not take the utterances of someone with an “R” or “D” behind their name as truth just because their parents belong to the “R” or “D” party.

After watching my children, their spouses and some of their friends, I am positive about the future. In many ways, they remind me of Dad and his generation. I am hopeful that they will follow in the footsteps of their grandparents and reinvent the phrase “greatest generation.”

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320
Email: tmcco@msn.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung

American Exceptionalism, Reflections of the Past or Today’s Reality?

 

As we enter what would have been Dad's 98th year, and I continue to write about our lives together, I wonder about the concept of American Exceptionalism. This term is “bantered about” by all of those with an ‘R’ or ‘D’ behind their name, especially in election years.

In this age of exceptional greed, is it still possible to have an exceptional culture? What does that really mean or look like?

First, we must define the term. Wikipedia notes the following:

“American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations.^[2] In this view, U.S. exceptionalism stems from its emergence from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation"^[3] and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy and laissez-faire. This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism."^[4]”

“Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and other American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.^[4][5] To them, the U.S. is like the biblical "City upon a Hill"—a phrase evoked by British colonists to North America as early as 1630—and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.^[6]”

I believe most in America today would, if not explicitly, then implicitly use the “neoconservative” approach of superiority of the American culture and race. However, to Dad’s generation it meant something far different. While they may have expressed it in “neoconservative” terms, that is not what it meant to them.

In my book entitled, The Orphan Boy, A Love Affair with Mining, I note the following about a man who demonstrated true American Exceptionalism:

“One September afternoon I sat on the dump of a small mine in Colorado with a unique man, my dad, Herbert T. Young. Even at 12,000 feet, the sun was bright and warm, and the sky was so very blue. Below, the aspen leaves were just starting to turn gold, and there was a hint of fall in the air.

We had talked on the way up the rocky, steep road about the mines and the history of the area, as we often did. I never got tired of the many stories Dad told about his experiences and information he gathered in researching the mining district.

Arriving at the Orphan Boy mine, we sat down and had a cup of coffee from Dad’s ever present thermos. Even though I had previously heard many of his stories about this mine that started his love affair with mining, they seemed much more real as I sat with him in that remote and peaceful basin.

My eyes were drawn to the rugged splendor of the high peaks; Brittle Silver Mountain, Grizzly Peak, Revenue Mountain... Along the horizon were Gray’s and Torrey’s, two of Colorado’s fourteeners. The air was so clean I felt like I could almost reach out and touch the peaks across the Warden Gulch basin. Morgan Peak, behind me, and Santa Fe Peak to the south looked so close it seemed like I could hike to them in just a few minutes.

Everywhere I looked were evidences of the mining and prospecting that went on in a different time. I noticed the reddish brown and yellow gossans that streaked the mountain slopes in several places. All the while, this remote valley was very quiet, almost as if our thoughts themselves interrupted the solitude. This scene stirred something in my soul that words cannot begin to explain.

I thought of Dad and the many experiences he related to me. I noticed he was also scanning the mountains, deep in thought. He turned and smiled at me, with his brown eyes shining. I knew we were thinking, feeling and experiencing the same closeness to God in that moment.”

The feeling of kinship I experienced while sitting on that mine dump were similar to the feelings I had during the times Dad and I worked underground together. Working underground brings a special sense of closeness where everyone looks after one another. Even with 30 years difference in our ages, we were kindred souls.

A good example honoring others as you would yourself is as follows. This is a passage in my upcoming book, Light at the End of the Tunnel, about my Dad and our relationship:

“When mining at the Orphan Boy Mine, a story told in my book entitled Orphan Boy, A Love Affair with Mining, Dad offered his partners a ‘buy-sell’ agreement. He fully intended to buy them out and continue mining the Orphan Boy Mine.

Had Dad not offered his partners a ‘buy-sell’ agreement, not realizing they had the funds to buy him out, which he honored and was subsequently was bought out, things might have been different. This [Defense Minerals Exploration Administration (DMEA)] grant would have given the money to do the exploration at the Orphan Boy which Dad planned and always wanted to do and probably would have found the mineral that Dad always thought was there.”

Unknown to Dad, during the summer of 1952, his elderly partner, Fred Brooks, stated to the DMEA office staff that because the DMEA grant had been approved, his nephew had bought out Mr. Young’s interest and was attempting to buy out Mr. Schoonover (the third partner in the Orphan Boy Mine).

This grant was awarded before Dad was aware of it, and it was these funds that was used to pay back Mr. Brook’s nephew. Dad could have fought the buy-sell agreement, which could have been financially beneficial. This would have been the “neocon” approach. But Dad had given his word and made an agreement (which he signed), which he honored regardless of cost to him.

There are many other instances of this sacrificial type behavior throughout Dad’s life. He truly believed in “doing unto others as you would like them to do to you.” He loved people and it showed. He got a lot of joy in helping others and gave much of himself. He got a lot out of life and friendships.

I worked with Dad during the summers and after college graduation until his death and had the fortune to experience firsthand why his generation was named the “greatest generation.” He was typical of the World War II generation whose lives were interrupted by that war. When they came back home, they changed both America and the world in a special way.

Two other people in my life show this quality of “American Exceptionalism,” my son, William and my daughter Laura. They both are very talented, but deeper than that, they have the same gentile, quiet spirit that my Dad had. They both care about others and give much, but they get much from life as well.

As I note in Light at the End of the Tunnel:

“Years later, eating lunch as I sit on the dump [of the Orphan Boy mine] with my son, William, and my daughter, Laura, the memory that comes back most often is a sunny afternoon with Dad. I think of Dad and the many experiences he related to me. As I watch and listen to my children, I see in them the same fascination with life my Dad had. They look from one high peak to another with shining eyes and a sense of wonder that I saw so many years before in my Dad. These are gifts passed from one generation to another.”

I have met some of that generation (the 30 something’s) through William and Laura. I like what I see. They seem to be very practical and much more like the generation of their grandparents than my generation is.

My generation, from whom the current crop of “leaders,” corporate and political, come from, in general, doesn’t reflect the exceptionalism they are so fond of talking about. Our society is clearly a reflection of their views and qualities. In my opinion, very few show the same measure of exceptionalism of their parents.

It is for this reason I am writing about Dad, and our relationship. I want to touch the lives of others through writing which is why I attempt to “promote awareness through the written word.” It is also why I wrote my EPub, “The Art of Writing an EBook, How to Enrich Yourself and Others”.

All people have stories to tell. You have no idea the number of people who tell me that writing is “too hard” or “I don’t know where to start.” My EPub entitled “The Art of Writing an EBook, How to Enrich Yourself and Others,” can help with the “I don’t know where to start” challenge. I encourage you, my reader, to take a look at this EPub. If you have any desire to put your story into print, it is a resource which will help with many common writing challenges.

I had a mentor, best friend and Dad who demonstrated true “American Exceptionalism.” I see the same qualities in those of the generation of my children.

So, it seems that American Exceptionalism is alive and well in today’s world. It is not what those with an ‘R’ or ‘D’ behind their name term it or understand it to be. It is especially not what the “neocons,” corporate leaders or mainstream media (MSM) tell you it is. It is also not just an “American” trait, but is universal among people who truly love and value others as themselves.

American Exceptionalism is the quality of self-sacrifice and love of the other person that was demonstrated so well by my Dad’s generation and that is budding in the generation of their grandchildren. It is both a reflection of the past and a reality in today’s younger generation.

Sincerely,

H. Court Young
Author, publisher, speaker and geologist
Promoting awareness through the written word
Research, freelance writing & self-publishing services
Facebook: HCourtYoung
Phone: 303-726-8320

Email: tmcco@msn.com

Twitter: http://twitter.com/hcourtyoung

As a tribute to my Dad’s 98^th year, I am offering a promotional discount of about 17% off on the EPub version of my book The Orphan Boy, A Love Affair with Mining. Visit Amazon.com by clicking of the link and check for this discount.