Sign of Hope, Opportunity to Unite

Topic: Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch winning recall elections in Wisconsin

Take: There are still more reasonable people in Wisconsin than unreasonable takers.

Long-term Impact: Mixed. This may represent a shift in acceptance of government as the answer for all. But, those who have made their living suckling at the government tit are not going to move to solid food without first throwing a tantrum. There is a chance for this to unite us in the belief that all will be cared for and treated justly. However,  overcoming the violent reticence of some is the main obstacle to widespread understanding of how it can work, but that challenge must not dissuade us from that aim.

Best Case Scenario: The forces of good sense displayed in these ballots will be pervasive this November resulting in the replacement of both the President and control of the Senate, (while continuing non-progressive control of the House of Representatives). And, with control taken from the fiscally irresponsible there is hope that true reform can lead to a renewed American economy and with it a renewed American spirit of self. It won't be easy, and with the media message machine working against its cause it will be very hard work requiring an unwavering resolve; but it is worth it. Along with the fiscal progress can come a lessened voice of opposition to capital commerce, this will require consistent evidence of programs that are working and a restructuring of the mentality of the political media bosses and will not happen in our lifetime.

Analogous Situation: The current fiscal theories, as practiced by current governments are not working. There must be better answers. I am reminded of an article I just read in Smithsonian Magazine, When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience. When Alfred Wegener proposed the idea that the continents move, he was lambasted as a kook. But, he persevered, and today we know that he was right.

But Wegener was not timid about disciplinary boundaries, or much else. He was an Arctic explorer and a record-setting balloonist, and when his scientific mentor and future father-in-law advised him to be cautious in his theorizing, Wegener replied, “Why should we hesitate to toss the old views overboard?”

Others, authorities in their time, were not so open to change:

Rollin T. Chamberlin, who was also a University of Chicago geologist, did his father’s dirty work: The drift theory “takes considerable liberties with our globe,” he wrote. It ignores “awkward, ugly facts” and “plays a game in which there are few restrictive rules.” Young Chamberlin also quoted an unnamed geologist’s remark that inadvertently revealed the heart of the problem: “If we are to believe Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70 years and start all over again.”

He didn't get everything right the first time, but, just as we must do today to correct fiscal matters, he stuck to his underlying premise and today is known to be correct.

Wegener took the assault as an opportunity to refine his ideas and address valid criticisms. When critics said he had not presented a plausible mechanism for the drift, he provided six of them (including one that foreshadowed the idea of plate tectonics). When they pointed out mistakes—his timeline for continental drift was far too short—he corrected himself in subsequent editions of his work. But he “never retracted anything,” says historian Mott Greene, author of an upcoming biography, Alfred Wegener’s Life and Scientific Work. “That was always his response: Just assert it again, even more strongly.” By the time Wegener published the final version of his theory, in 1929, he was certain it would sweep other theories aside and pull together all the accumulating evidence into a unifying vision of the earth’s history.