WITHER THE PENNY?

 …my two cents worth…

 

Stop the presses! The practice of minting the penny is going to be halted. Discontinued. Stopped. One of the two current Presidents of the United States has demanded it!

     Why? Because, while the little copper colored disk has a face value of one cent, the cost to manufacture one costs 3.7 cents.  It’s a money loser! It’s among the reasons the treasury of this Grand Republic is going bankrupt. It’s nothing personal; it’s strictly business. “I know, Godfather,” ~ think Abe Vigoda here ~ “Strictly business.”

 

But consider this (understanding that the pricing references in this commentary may be a bit out of date ~ like by about fifty years): On his way home from second grade, Billy drops by Harvey’s Market and, pulling a penny from his pocket, buys a hunk of Fleer Bubble Gum. Or maybe Bazooka ‘cuz their comics are better. Billy has gotten his one cent worth out of the penny and the coin goes into Harvey’s till until Mrs. Jones offers seventy-five cents in the form of three quarters for two bundles of carrots priced at twenty-nine cents a bundle. Billy’s penny leaves Harvey’s till as Harvey makes seventeen cents change. In dispensing the penny back into circulation, the one cent coin has seen two cents worth of action. Before Mrs. Jones goes home, she must go downtown to purchase some new boxers for Mr. Jones at JC ~ wait for it ~ Penney’s. But because of those damned parking meters, she must drop two pennies in the meter in return for twenty-four minutes parking. One of those pennies had belonged to Billy about an hour-and-a-half earlier. Around 6:00 PM, Rita ~ you guessed it ~ the meter maid, empties the parking meter which includes the traveling copper of this opinion piece. It has now returned three times its face value. Rolled and returned to the bank, the city receives value. Harvey, needing change for another day’s marketing shows up at the bank and buys ~ among other coinage ~ two rolls of 50 pennies each for a buck. David, the candy and tobacco wholesaler swings into Harvey’s Market to drop off several boxes of 24/fives (two dozen five-cent candy bars costing Harvey 90 cents a box) and two 10 pack cartons of White Owl cigars wholesaling for $3.18 each. The penny becomes David’s. David uses the penny when he stops by Big Al’s for a burger and fries and a low-cal Fresca at lunch and Big Al turns the penny over to a customer in change a few minutes later. In less than twenty-four hours, the Billy’s penny has changed hands eight or nine times returning eight or nine times its face value – far more than its cost of manufacture.

Coins are simply tokens ~ tokens that represent monetary value. But they are not the value itself. As the penny is exchanged its worth as a tool increases. The longer it circulates, the more worth is accrued. (The same might be said for us old people.) 

     Now, following this little diatribe ~ which I shall loftily refer to as ‘logic’ ~ it is evident that the minuscule penny holds far more worth than its face value; far more worth than its cost of manufacture.

     Truth be told, I don’t really care if the US mint quits minting pennies, but given the above scenario and related elucidation, the death of the penny might well be viewed as a little ‘non-cents-icle.’© 2025

Church of the Open Road Press

THE SEA RANCH CONUNDRUM

The Sea Ranch is a several thousand-acre development of gracefully designed homes set above ocean cliffs or nested deep in the coastal woods.   

It used to be a center for logging activities supporting San Francisco’s growth, then sheep property.  Some evidence of that ranching heritage still remains.  California’s Highway 1 – one of the world’s greatest motorcycling roads – ask anyone – bisects the development.  For a ten-mile stretch, small, well-maintained private roads reach into the prairie grasses that top the coastal rim, and amongst those grasslands are ribbons of houses most people I know could not afford to own. 

The Sea Ranch was going to be a modern coastal community located between Marin County’s wealthy enclaves to the south and Fort Bragg’s gritty, working-class outpost to the north.  There’d be grocery stores, hotels, galleries and recreation – all placed on this windswept tableland west of the San Andreas Fault and east of the Pacific.  It would be a play land for the affluent who could, in essence, have it all with them as they left it all behind. At least that’s my rudimentary understanding of it. 

At the time of The Sea Ranch’s origins, private coastal properties could change hands – change from ranching to subdivisions – change from open range and to privatized beaches and bluffs – without much oversight, coordination or discussion of opportunities gained or lost beyond those monetary.  Enter the California Coastal Commission whose existence owes itself to the threat of a widespread locking up of our coastline.  Visionary one time Sonoma County Supervisor, the late Bill Kortum lead a charge suggesting that the coastal expanses belonged to the citizens.  Excess, as it was proposed, needed to be curtailed in the interest of access. 

Many times I have traveled this section of highway thinking how great it would be to stroll along the tops of the bluff with that on-shore breeze whipping at my face.  Signs warned me off in all but a handful of designated access routes to specific postage stamp sized beaches.   

Now, however, because I dropped about a grand on three nights in a beautiful house only steps from the shoreline, I can access over fifty miles of trail with views stretching nearly to the Golden Gate, nearly to Cape Mendocino – the lower 48’s westernmost point – and, one imagines, nearly to Hawaii.  Not bad.

The conundrum is this:  When the land was privately held, cattle or sheep ranchers fenced and gated miles of the coast between highway 1 and the bluffs.   

Riding along on the BMW or Guzzi, I never considered parking at a wide spot, squeezing through the rail fence and traipsing across private property in order to glimpse a section of rocky coastline or roiling sea.  Why, then, should I be upset that a development of privately held homes restricts my access?

I know the answer to this, of course.  The Coastal Commission had it right.  Their argument that the coastline belongs to all and that access is for everyone is just in a socialistic sense.  Perhaps not so in a corner of the world where private holdings bring esteem and demand respect. 

Nevertheless, the kibosh was placed upon such urbane development and a more modest, but certainly quite upscale plan evolved: 

A clubhouse, some preservation of historic buildings, tended and groomed trails and CC&Rs.

From the porch of my mine-for-three-days home I determine that not much could be better than sipping a piping cup of Point Arena’s locally roasted coffee while the morning unfolds before me. 

Buzzards roost nearby. 

Swallows flit here and there. 

A grazing doe slips past. 

I can always hear the sea’s murmur punctuated by the distant bark of harbor seals and the occasional screech of a hungry raptor. 

This is a place where you can take that book you’ve been meaning to read with depth, the one that takes all your best and most focused concentration to fully appreciate, and although interrupted only momentarily by a kit fox carrying off a hapless vole or field mouse as he scampers between your house and the next, finish the book in a deep and satisfying manner.  (Mine happened to be Ian McEwan’s 2005 morality play: Saturday.) 

Later, I watch the afternoon breeze pick up, worrying and bending the coastal prairie grasses to its will. 

Members of the non-migrating herd of deer will soon be out for their evening forage.  Edward, the lab mix, will see them and downshift into his predator mode from behind the picture windows. “Can’t I just have one of them?”  “Sorry, Ed, No.”  The Sea Ranch is a pleasant, controlled place, “and you must be on a leash at all times.” 

The sun sets and the winds calm and the sea air floods the house through the home’s open windows, inviting us out for a moonlight stroll. 

Perhaps there’ll be harbor seals again tonight.

Yeah.  I like this.  But I’m not sure about the fairness of it all.  I think I’ll need to secure this rental for a few days in October, and again in February – perhaps yet again this time next year – to further research my feelings on the matter.

o0o

Accessing “The Sea Ranch”:  Located on California’s legendary State Route 1 about midway between Tamalpais Valley where it leaves US 101 in Marin County and Leggett, north in Mendocino County, where it rejoins it, there are several engaging routes linking the coastal highway with 101.  Get a good map or atlas and explore.

Rental information is readily available.  We secure ours through http://searanchrentals.com/

© 2016

Church of the Open Road Press

It's Even Worse than It Looks

It’s Even Worse than in Looks, Thomas E Mann and Norman J Ornstein, Basic Books (2012) $26.

News items catch my eye everyday; the words of columnists, too. 

Recently, Vista Republican House member Darrell Issa trumped up yet another falsehood regarding the administration's much maligned roll-out of the Affordable Care Act.  This following his charges about the NSA, the IRS, Benghazi, and concerns that Fruit of the Loom no longer sews fabric tags into their briefs, which probably relates to some form of corruption coming from the White House.

Coincident to that, in response to a Southern California state senator’s travails, Sacramento Bee regular Bruce Maiman opined that the reason corruption is alive and well in the state capital is that the general public doesn’t care about it.

I think Maiman is on to something.  The reason folks throw up their hands in disgust has less to do with the Twitterization of America, reducing every piece of information into 140 character doses, and more to do with being fed up with obstructionist tactics.  Issa's actions are a prime example.

In Worse Than it Looks, (and paraphrasing from page IX) Mann and Ornstein report: On January 26, 2010 the Senate voted on a resolution to create an 18-member deficit-reduction panel in order to fast-track a sweeping plan to resolve our debt crisis.  The resolution was co-authored by Democrats and Republicans including John McCain and Mitch McConnell. But on January 26, the Senate blocked the resolution with McCain and McConnell joining the opposition.  Why?  Because President Obama was for it and its passage might gain him political credit.  That should frustrate the hell out of the average American.  I know it does me.

Initially, I was concerned that Worse was simply a tool by Mann and Ornstein to pillory the Republican Party.  But the further I read, the more I realized their premise was not simply an attack on the GOP – they frame Speaker Boehner’s position as unenviable rather well suggesting that no Speaker in history has had to wrangle with such a deeply divided majority.  Rather, the book is a treatise on how far the radicalization of politics has taken Washington away from its task at hand: Governance.  One-ups-man-ship, disrespect and obstruction has ground Washington to a halt and a weary citizenry, unable to discern information from misinformation, only shows up to vote.  And that’s only about half of us. 

Mann and Ornstein outline the problem, examine false solutions (third party rescues, balanced budget amendments, term limits) and then outline a better course.  And like those news stories and columnists comments, this concluding line caught my eye (paraphrased from page 201):  If the goals of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are sometimes amorphous, their hangers-on sometimes unsettling, and their means sometimes questionable, they still reflect a broader public desire to get America back on track.

From this I conclude: Somebody wins when those groups can’t find a middle ground.  And that somebody who wins ain’t us.

This is an interesting read; one that warrants a trip to your local independent bookstore.

© 2013

Church of the Open Road Press

ELECTION WITH NO PUBLIC DEBATE: WHO LOSES?

In 1960, Richard Nixon and Jack Kennedy sat face-to-face for the first televised presidential debate.  Nixon was said to look nervous and his five o’clock shadow didn’t help.  Kennedy was charismatic.  Being only eight years old at the time, I can’t relate the substance of the debate, but I do recall that Kennedy was declared the winner that evening. 

In every election cycle we are told that the country is at a turning point – a critical crossroad.  2012 is no different.  Nationally, we are slowly crawling back from a monster of a recession and we are winding down two bloody forays into Middle Eastern and Central Asian politics, while necessary domestic programs are going unfunded, schools and infrastructure are crumbling and college kids can no longer afford to attend.  And, of course, too many people are still out of work.  There is plenty to debate.

California’s newly formed Sixth Assembly District encompassing parts of Sacramento, El Dorado and Placer Counties, is a microcosm of America.  Yet no debate is happening.  Why? 

Ms. Gaines

There are three candidates from the two major political parties vying for voter approval in the 6^th AD.  Specifically, the Republican incumbent, Beth Gaines, is facing both a Republican challenger and a Democratic challenger.

Mr. Pugno

The Republican is Andy Pugno, an attorney closely associated with California’s Proposition 8 – the constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

Mr. Bronner

 The Democrat is Reginald Bronner, a Naval veteran with experience in high-tech business development, sales and marketing.

The El Dorado County League of Women Voters scheduled a candidate form but was informed by the incumbent that she could not attend due to “a conflict in schedule.”  In Placer County, Sierra Community College in conjunction with the League of Women Voters and the American Association of University Women attempted to schedule a forum and was met with similar response.

Ever since Nixon / Kennedy, debates have devolved into events centered more on style than substance, more on cool than resolve, more on pitch lines and sound bites than solutions.  And, like cynical fans at a stock car race hoping for a fiery collision, commentators guide viewers to those points when a candidate imploded rather than when someone offered, with sparkling clarity, a viable path forward.  Who’d want to subject him or herself to that?

One can only speculate as to why local candidates in a competitive political race find it inconvenient to debate.  Certainly, witnessing what happens to candidates in nationally televised forums must give one pause.  But local races – where, as Tip O’Neill famously said, “All politics is” – are not glitzy mud-wrestling affairs arranged to for spectacle.  Rather, local forums are those councils where the public can hear the candidate and respond in a manner unfiltered by a network’s point of view. 

So perhaps the no-debate ploy is about something else.  Perhaps it is about rigid ideological views that do not really offer solutions to the issues facing the district and the nation.  Perhaps it is about views that cannot withstand thoughtful scrutiny of an opponent.  Perhaps it is about sharing views one doesn’t truly hold in his or her heart.  Or, perhaps the candidate indeed has a dental appointment that just can’t be rearranged.

Enter the individual who wishes to have a substantive discussion on the issues of the day: the one who understands that a vast and moderate middle exists in America, the one who believes that joining hands in more productive than standing ideological grounds.  Without a forum for debate, how are voters to determine which candidate can dig deeper than simply repeating platitudes or signing vacant pledges?

It does seem that those shunning the debate are happy to purchase air time on local media and to place placards throughout the district thinking that voters will pull the lever for the one who has greatest “name recognition.”  To their credit, tapping signs into the ground is a safer bet than going face-to-face with someone who can articulate plans to reemploy thousands, refocus government spending priorities, promote education and foster growth in the region.

Curious, ain’t it?  The bottom line is this:  When there is no forum for discussion of the issues, the only loser is the voting public – a public that should demand better from those holding office.

o0o

Note:  Absent a robust one-on-one-on-one debate, perhaps the next best venue for determining the stances of those running for office is provided on the Internet through their official campaign websites.  Here are links to those for Ms. Gaines, Mr. Pugno and Mr. Bronner.

http://www.bethgaines.com/

http://www.andypugno.com/

http://bronner4assembly.com/blog/

A little scratching around on these sites will tell us what the candidate wants us to know.  If the website has an “issues” button, that’s a pretty good place to start.  Understand, however, that a campaign website is a safe place for anyone to express anything without being subjected to public scrutiny or direct challenge.  For that to happen, folks need to meet face-to-face.  And we need to watch.

© 2012

Church of the Open Road Press