Trego's Mountain Ear

"Serving North Lincoln County"

Tag: News

  • An Evening Like 1917

    It’s a little over a century since my grandparents bought the place in Trego. With the power outages, we’ve experienced a little of what their ordinary day and evenings were as the season moved toward Christmas – the wood stove keeping the house warm, and, for use, battery powered lanterns, where their light was kerosene. A kettle on the stove for coffee or tea – and no internet or electricity. I suspect we’re a lot less able to keep ourselves entertained during the long winter nights – but as I look at my stash of harmonicas, I realize it was my grandmother’s harmonica that led me to playing them – and that I can play harmonica in the dark as well as the light. Their power outages didn’t affect a refrigerator or freezer.

    I have a shallow well – and I’m realizing that a solar panel on the south wall of the pumphouse, charging a 12 volt battery, can power an inverter, so that we can keep water running by going to the pumphouse, turning the inverter on, and taking the pump off the grid and plugging it into the inverter. Our record power outage, to date, is 18 hours – and keeping the water running, without having to start a generator, has some advantages.

    The grill on the porch runs on propane – and it will take little effort to add a propane burner to handle a coffee pot or scramble eggs. Admitted, the top of the wood stove already does that – but it takes little to avoid the occasional return to pre-electric existence.

    Still, I suspect we have lost a lot of the family social interaction with the luxury of rural electricity. I think of being a Trego kid in the early sixties, when there were only two Spokane TV channels – and reading the entire encyclopedia before finishing the eighth grade. If nothing else, it made high school a bit easier.

    The connection with my grandparents is not strong – my grandfather died shortly after I turned 5. There were a lot of things that couldn’t be shared. But the occasional power outage does offer a little understanding of what their lives were like in the early days of Trego.

  • Thinking of That Congressional Dormitory

    I’ve been thinking more of the implications of housing all Congresscritters in dormitories, much like college freshmen (who are often required to reside in university housing). This meme suggests building that dorm might make congressional service more accessible to the average American:

    Part of the problem appears to be that congresscritters don’t want to leave DC once they get there. I can’t explain it – from the moment my plane hits the ground there, I feel that I’m “in the presence of mine enemies” and I want to go home. Dormitories aren’t places where you get so comfortable that you want to stay. Look at Jon Tester – he got to DC and stayed 18 years before the election results forced him back to Big Sandy. Compare him to Marc Racicot – who took a job in DC, then lobbied there, and then made up his own mind to move back to Montana. Think of Nancy Pelosi – 37 years in DC representing San Francisco. John Thune was running for Senate when I hired on with SDSU (2000). Admittedly he didn’t get to DC until 2005, but he hasn’t made it back to a home in Sioux Falls yet. His predecessor, Tom Daschle also served as senate majority leader, spent 26 years in DC, and when South Dakota’s voters sent Thune in, Daschle stayed in DC until a few years ago, when he moved to South Carolina. He has yet to make it back to Aberdeen to live. The list of people who get to Congress and never go home is long.

    My proposal to counteract the incumbency advantage will work – every time an incumbent runs, he or she is limited to a campaign spending limit that is half of their previous election spending. Under that limit, Nancy Pelosi would have been down to three bottle caps, a subway token, and a half-stick of Wriggly’s gum for her last election.

    A Congressional dormitory might help bipartisanship – but it would definitely make congresscritters more anxious to travel home for weekends and holidays – Dormies like going home. I recall AOC’s challenges in finding an apartment when she first went to Congress – the congressional dorm would eliminate that problem. Who knows – with affordable housing for congresscritters in Washington, and reform that would counteract the incumbency advantage, we might wind up with less than half of Congress being millionaires and more.

  • Politics – Where We Disagree

    This morning, I read a quote from Mamdani – the Socialist candidate who seems to have cinched the race for mayor of New York: “We need to ban all guns.” I understand his point – if there were no guns, nobody would be shot (by guns). We can’t argue the point though – it was the big issue that made me cast a Trump ballot in 2016. I knew where Hillarie stood on guns, and had hopes that Trump was closer to my view. Here in northwest Montana, I don’t even need to go into any greater detail to be understood – and in New York, Mamdani doesn’t have to, either.

    Still, I’m not a single-issue voter. Economics – there is a point where borrowing money can lead to increased wealth. I don’t disagree with John Maynard Keynes on this premise. On the other hand, I can’t see how spending money our nation doesn’t have on some of the frivolities that DOGE has cut from foreign aid helps us any. It’s one thing to borrow to fund something that will produce income – and quite another to borrow to spend on a project that just gets us deeper in debt.

    I don’t particularly favor capital punishment – but I do recognize that there are some people wandering around whose misconduct won’t stop for anything less. I’ve researched the behavior of some of the worst in prisons.

    I had a lib come by at the fair years ago – he explained that, since my party had created the all the problems, I should by a raffle ticket to benefit the local democrats. He seemed totally lost when I asked “When have the libertarians been in charge and able to create these problems?” Our disagreements are areas where we don’t see the topic the other side is arguing.

    Abortion – one side argues against killing babies, the other side argues for reproductive freedom. Is it any wonder that, as we talk past each other we don’t find areas of agreement? Does political rhetoric exist only to arouse and anger its own side?

    As the final episode of MASH aired, I drove a U-Haul to Trinidad, Colorado. February 28, 1983. At the time, Mount San Rafael was the only hospital in the US performing transexual surgeries, and the only surgeon doing the work was Stanley Biber. I suppose I started seeing transexuals quite a while before the typical American – hell, I was teaching at the little college in the nation’s transexual surgery capital. I knew that Dr. Biber insisted on a lot of psych and counseling before he uncased his scalpel. I suppose I think that his pre-surgical caution is still justified. The relevant comment is “First, do no harm.” I don’t argue the topic – but I know my views on something I’ve observed for 40 years.

    I’m a fiscal conservative – and I’ve found that arguments against supporting fiscal conservativism usually break down to accusations of heartlessness. It’s hard to discuss the topic – I talk for being able to maintain a strong currency and I’m told that I’m heartless. There’s no convincing when the argument is on different topics.

    I think back to a transexual student’s Southern Baptist parents – depressed that there would be no grandchildren, and his (my student’s) concerns that he wasn’t comfortable as male. The love was there – but the common ground wasn’t.

    I recall a classmate, insisting there was no voter fraud. Using logic, all I had to do was document a single case. I did. The result was anger and discounting the conviction as only one case. We don’t even agree on the rules of debate.

    So I’ll continue to vote against candidates who vote against my interests. I don’t expect them to understand why. As we get more Republicans officeholders, there will probably be more Republicans who disappoint me. Then as we get more Democrats in office there will be more of them voting against my interests. As Milei said, “Viva la libertad! Carajo!”

  • Misinformation

    It’s easy to spread misinformation. Unfortunately, we all have a tendency to believe data that supports our beliefs. On the morning of September 10, I wouldn’t have recognized Charlie Kirk if he had walked up and bit me on the leg. By the afternoon of that day, I heard the the President’s words confirming his death. The folding table, and the sign “Prove Me Wrong” were vaguely familiar – it turns out that I retired from the college campus scene about the time he was starting – so I looked at YouTube to see what he did.

    I watched him debate, or attempt to debate, a young man whose stance was that anyone who identified as a woman was a woman. Charlie Kirk’s stance was that it took two X chromosomes. He was using rationality against repetition – and, to me, it looked like he was on top of the debate. The guy who was arguing against him looked frustrated, angry and foolish.

    I tried rational discourse on Facebook years back. A classmate had posted that (based on her experience as an election official) there was no election fraud in Montana. It was too easy – all I needed was to show one 8conviction, and I had a dozen or more to choose from. Piece of cake – but my rational assessment wasn’t enough to overcome her beliefs. Confirmation bias has a lot of power.

    I read left-of-center publications as well as the right. If I limit my information sources to those I want to hear, confirmation bias will beat me. Years back, on Facebook, I cited data from Texas that showed illegal immigrants have higher rates of criminal activities than US residents in general. Texas was the only state collecting and publishing such data. I got a reply telling me my data source was bad because some right-wing pundit had used the same information. I would have preferred more sources – but as a social scientist, you use the best you can get. Unlike Charlie Kirk, I responded to the insult with an insult of my own. A long time ago, Chet Apeland told me, “Mike, you don’t want to get in an argument with an idiot – after the third exchange, nobody will know which is which.” Chet’s rule has been good advice. Whenever I have ignored it I’ve looked like a jerk.

    Some of the best information on a specific topic available deals with abortion. Every state collects, maintains, and publishes data on who gets abortions. It’s there. So when a lady from DC – a lawyer – told me that American Indians get abortions at the same rate as white women, I could check. They don’t. At least in South Dakota, American Indian women are less likely. What really shocked me was how much more likely South Dakota’s few black women were to get abortions (than whites). South Dakota is a state that is mostly white, then a lot of American Indians. Still, I was more shocked by the Attorney giving misinformation to the State Demographer. I’m still not sure if she was ignorant, or just believe that she was credible and I would accept her statement without checking.

    The data doesn’t affect the argument – one side argues for reproductive rights, the other argues against killing babies. It’s hard to debate when each side has it’s own topic. Makes confirmation bias even more powerful.

    Getting back to the murder of Charlie Kirk – when the photo of the assassin’s rifle showed up, I saw a comment: “That’s not a military rifle.” The rifle was a scoped 1898 Mauser with a black synthetic stock. The best guess I’ve seen is that over 100 million of these rifles were made between 1898 and the end of World War II. The 1898 Mauser might be the statistician’s primary example of a military rifle. I suspect I read an opinion from someone who first thinks of an AK-47 (also 100 million produced) or the AR-15 platform (over 30 million individually owned in 8the US). Confirmation bias leads to misinformation.

    I have a tendency to distrust all politicians – regardless of party. They live in a world of partisan bias – and, like the lawyer lady, want me to accept that view without checking. It’s easy to get misinformation – and there will always be unpleasant facts. I thought that “Trust but verify.” came from Ronald Reagan – it turns out that it’s a Russian proverb. It was a good idea in a country where the line went “there is no truth (pravda) in the news (isvestia) there is no news (investia) in truth (pravda). It’s probably just as good an idea here and now.

  • Feeling Politically Normal

    I read a substack called “The Liberal Patriot.” It’s basically the writings of middle-of-the road Democrats – I can’t say that I fully agree with what is written there – but I’m within reach of some of the messages. This morning, in an article titled “The Independent Era Is Coming,” they included some polling results:

    I figure that translates to 2/3 of people agree with me – disappointed with government, and 5/8 are frustrated by government. The thing is, largely I’m disappointed by my elected officials and generally frustrated by the professional bureaucracy. That isn’t a winning percentage for either side. The article shows this pie chart:

    75% want major reforms or a complete overhaul of the system – and the one-time head of the FBI has been indicted by a Virginia Grand Jury. Comey is an example of the problem and the dissatisfaction with our political bureaucracy – with a Virginia jury of his peers he is likely to walk free with a hung jury, but that will only emphasize the feeling of a need to change the system.

    The article ends with : “Be yourself and not a partisan. If you’re economically populist and socially conservative and don’t see this represented in the two-party system, be yourself and support independent candidates who back a pro-worker, pro-family, pro-America agenda. Alternatively, if you really care about a specific economic or social issue and don’t feel that either Democrats or Republicans equally care about the issue, then be yourself and support those who do back the issue regardless of their party label. Some of these candidates may be Republican, some Democratic, and others may be independent. Make them work for your vote! Don’t be a partisan and blindly accept every position and argument on one side and reject those on the other. Don’t write off outsiders without a party label. The beauty of political independence is that you no longer must toe anyone’s line or feel any pressure to conform to a specific party platform or candidate. Embrace the liberation from partisan insanity!”

    It would please me if my readers went to the Liberal Patriot and read the articles. I don’t agree with all of them, but their substack does a nice job of showing that middle-of-the-road liberals exist – and they can still communicate with the rest of us. Give the Liberal Patriot a read.

  • Complexity and Collapse

    The ending years of the 20th century saw three theorists developing hypotheses related to societal collapse of states.  George Cowgill (1988:263) saw internal economic reasons – societies that depend on taxation develop increasing numbers of people and organizations that are legally exempt from taxes . . . and increasing numbers of taxpayers find ways to avoid taxes illegally.  Bureaucracies – expensive bureaucracies – grow, with “increasing corruption, rigidity, incompetence, extravagance and inefficiency.”  Simultaneously, citizen expectations of state services increase.

    Jared Diamond looked at growing populations mandating agricultural intensification – and that intensification carries with it unanticipated consequences – soil erosion, problems with water management, deforestation, etc.

    Joseph Tainter looked at complexity – challenges in production are met with increasing complexity (1988:88-90) and listed 8 causes for the collapse of complex societies.

    1. Resource Depletion
    2. New Resources
    3. Catastrophes
    4. Insufficient response to circumstances
    5. Other complex societies
    6. Intruders
    7. Mismanagement
    8. Economics

    Economic factors and mismanagement kind of go together.  If we look at the bureaucracies that keep our nation state functioning, we find ( https://www.federalpay.org/employees ) 

    2,807,126

    EMPLOYEES

    732

    AGENCIES

    $76,667.77

    AVERAGE SALARY

    $215.22B

    TOTAL SALARY

    Now if these numbers seem large, the Census provides us with numbers for state and local governments: 19,768,685 employees, with $89,265,296,554 in total salary.  Frankly, I don’t trust my data – it comes from two sources, and the proportions look a little strange.  But questionable data isn’t the problem – we’re talking over 22 million government employees to manage.  Tainter’s 7th cause of collapse is mismanagement.  

    The total number of jobs listed for the US in February 2022 was 150,399,000 – and a little bit of rounding tells us that about 2/15, or 13% of US jobs are for one form of government or another.  On one hand, 13% of the nation’s jobs are to make government work – which is a large expense.  On the other hand, there is a tremendous opportunity for Murphy to get into a system this large and complex and arrange for things to go wrong.

    Under the heading of Mismanagement, Tainter’s explanation is “The elite in a civilization may so abuse their power and direct so much of the surplus wealth and labor of their society to their own benefit that not enough is left for the maintenance of the economic and political system, leading to collapse.”

    If you’re politically on the left, you can readily see where the fat cat right wing elite can do this.  If you’re politically on the right, the stories of Joe Biden and son that are available support Tainter’s explanation.  If you’re somewhere in between, Tainter makes even better sense.

    Simply enough, the more moving parts there are in a system, the more opportunities Murphy has for things to go wrong.  The less competent management is, the more opportunity there is for systemic failure.  It kind of goes back to Malthusian demographics – for a bit over 225 years, our society has developed increasingly complex systems that made Thomas Malthus wrong.  The thing is, Malthus only has to be right once.