A Thought on the Hasan Matter

"WASHINGTON -- Military officials investigating failures in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings may recommend that individuals be held accountable for failing to perform their duties."

Individuals, if such failure is shown, should be held accountable with direct and strong disciplinary measures. The aftermath of the investigation should also include the issuance of clear and concise guidance on vigilance and reporting. However, it appears to me that there could be an overreaction more detrimental to order and discipline than necessary. Soldiers, without question, need to have trust in each other and in their commanders. Security demands that actual threats be recognized and eliminated. Yet, any official reaction that suggests, in any manner, the need for reporting of all political views possibly contrary to existing policy might establish a form of "political police" not unlike those in the military of the old communist regimes. Commanders in good ol' "CYA" manner might feel compelled in the future to report every rumor or accusation no matter how baseless up the chain rather than apply their own reasoned judgment. I only suggest that the military needs far more than knee jerk rhetoric in responding. I am not sure where the balance point should be.

West Point Honor Code

As you have framed the issue, my friend, I believe the topic [the viability of an honor code] is the most important one we can discuss as grads and I hope it generates a broad response on this Class forum. You wrote that “[t]he goal of absolute honesty would not seem to be debatable.” In another context, self-interest in the market, on the Class forum, I said “Idealism in an aspect of human conduct may be an admirable goal where it has a viable foundation in the nature of man.” Is it in the nature of humanity (more encompassing than “man”) to be able to subdue desires and suppress self-preservation to the point of absolute honesty as defined by a code not to lie, cheat or steal? I believe that it is difficult yet attainable and maintainable.

Putting aside for the moment the concept of individual virtue in an ideal man, absolute honesty under a code seems to me maintainable over individual interests within a community of committed individuals. I have personally (anecdotally) found this to have substantively existed while a cadet and while dealing with fellow grads. To a slightly lesser degree, I have expected and been satisfied to find, in the practice of criminal law, a community of lawyers and judges practicing and applying law in the courts under a strict, statutory code that sanctions lying, cheating and stealing. To this point, I believe that sanctions are a necessary part of any human community code of conduct. The conscience of an ideal man may provide a sufficient punishment within, but I know of no “ideal man.” Accordingly, a “System” has to exist to enforce compliance with the agreed upon code.

I would think that a community of eighteen to twenty-three year olds could have the capacity to judge and sanction one of its own. The peer consciousness should be supplemented with training in, as examples, bias recognition and elimination, due-process concepts, and reliability in evidence. The objective would not be a mini-law school experience but education sufficient for them to provide a just (not necessarily fair in the bigger picture inclusive of life outside of the community) resolution to enforce the code and sanction the transgressor. As far as any application of “wisdom,” I haven’t seen it applied enough (if at all) to be able to argue for it as a prerequisite for any sanctioning entity. If ever attained, it would come, I expect, with maturity which I agree is a limited quality in young people. The Corps now however has within it a significant number of combat veterans who, presumably, have attained a higher level of maturity (more, I would argue, than any number of young jurists now sitting on the bench meting out relatively draconian punishments in the outside world). I would support, however, a gradual application of standards and sanctions to insure that the understanding of and appreciation for the Honor Code and the need for absolute honesty in the service to follow is first instilled in each cadet.

As far as the comment of Gen Maxwell Taylor, I disagree that the formative period need include exceptions to the Honor Code to teach them “early in life to inject toleration, judgment of human factors, and appreciation of sincere repentance into their decisions affecting the careers of their fellow cadets.” There will be ample opportunity in their growth at the Academy and beyond to build on earlier values and experience to that end. The Honor Code should become within their Academy experience an absolute standard. Truth is elusive, as you said, and the justice system deals more in probabilities than in the delivery of “truth.” But it does work to produce a just and often fair result at least often enough to continue to refine it.

It seems to me that the difficulties in enforcement within the Honor system arise with imposition of political and legal intrusions from outside the community of cadets whose code this is presumed to belong to. I do recognize that the Academy is a public entity bound by Constitutional and statutory constraints. Yet, as you point to my friend, “the military profession is fundamentally different.” More so than in the market or social or other civilian communities, absolute honesty is essential, demanded and expected. As you said there are no second chances in combat. Accordingly, the Academy and other leader development venues should be permitted to set and enforce the standard of absolute honesty.

Yesterday's News

Day One – Hour One: Cable news reports “CHICAGO ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION TO HOST 2016 OLYMPICS”

Daniel Shore, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite resurrected and to report for makeup prior to anticipated “News Specials” to air continuously over the next week analyzing the profound effects of President's failure.

All network and cable news directors order bureaus and affiliates to prominently display photo of President Obama during all programming on the issue. Fox News adds display of “Unbelievably Devastating Failure for Obama” with photos.

“Country in shock!” CNN Reports. Fox attempts to revive Limbaugh though able to quote his exhaling as “I knew it. I said it. The President has destroyed Chicago and next will be Moline!”

White House sources reveal the President on his way to daughter’s classroom to begin extended reading of Dr. Seuss prior to official announcement. Vice- President Biden seen standing on lawn waiting for someone to listen to him.

Day One – Hour Two: Congressional Budget Office reports ten billion dollar projected increase in Medicare payments due to epidemic of depression among elderly couch potatoes .

Department of Transportation projects substantial revenue loss to domestic airlines due to cancellation of reservations from hookers across the country. Bailout money discussed in congressional offices (for hooker “associates” of congressmen not airlines).

Mexican border crossing “guides” in protest along the border reported to have hired a prominent New York lawyer to sue the city of Chicago due to substantial decrease in labor requirements. At least two Columbian drug cartels to join suit alleging decreased cocaine demand.

Day One – Hour Three: Fox still unable to revive Limbaugh.

Spokesperson for Republican Party contends President incompetent. “How can we trust him on health insurance when he fails at something so simple?”

Austin Times/Fox News Poll just released confirms President’s approval rating drops to single digits.

Senator John Kerry issues a statement saying he plans to throw his Chicago Bears muffler over some, as yet unchosen, fence in protest. Jane Fonda reported confused.

Senator Mitch McConnell calls for the President's resignation and is quoted as saying "Hell, he wasn't legal anyhow."

Day One – Hour Four: Mayor Daley of Chicago attempts to call Mafia political backers but prison regulations preclude. Democrat precinct captains issued “Plan F’em” and begin arming the two hundred thousand no-show city employees in anticipation of invasion of winning city. Teamsters join effort.

O’Reilly and Hannity seen dancing naked together in Central Park. Fox News in turmoil when unable to locate key to Glen Beck’s cage.

White House cancels all meetings scheduled with anyone who had visited Chicago in last three years. Secret Service given classified instructions regarding Mayor Daley of Chicago.

Fox broadcasts interview with Republican John Boehner who charges the President “Never wanted America to win!” Boehner says he cannot dismiss allegations the President actually working for Muslim country in Olympic selection.

Mid Day – One: Rio announced the winner of 2016 Olympics - White House issues statement “Yeah, like they needed another reason to party!” White House source says firing of Acorn in recent weeks destroyed any chance for “Chicago-style” victory.

Day Thirty: Cable News interest in Olympics issue falls and all revert back to Michael Jackson stories.

A Rally by Any Other Name

A friend writes from his rally experience in Santa Fe: " Contrary to media reports, it was not an anti-Obama rally. It was overwhelmingly attended by average folks concerned about the runaway deficits and the growth of government."

I readily appreciate the probability that the majority of the attendees at these rallies are voicing their own legitimate concerns about national policy regarding deficit spending, growth of government, and medical insurance primarily. What troubles me is the stimulus (no pun intended) to this movement. It has appeared to me that the initiating cause for these gatherings was the rhetoric of Republican/conservative fear mongering premised on baseless hyperbole and lies. Now there is room in my philosophy for "the end justifying the means." And the Great American Public should have been and should remain concerned on all issues of importance to the country, including those now being considered (I started to say "being debated" but there is relatively no public or parlimentary debate). First, many if not most of the citizens attending, I'll concede for argument, are honestly concerned. Yet, having watched parts of the DC rally on C-Span (I'll defer wholly to my friend on his Santa Fe experience) two observations concerned me. I did see signs that were not issue statements but personal attacks on the President. And there were quite a few. Interestingly, these poster boards did not at all appear professional or preprinted but rather home made. I do not see this fact as a positive. Secondly, the leadership as evident from the identity of sponsors and the speakers were anti-Obama. So, I can accept a media report so stating as to the DC event.

I see the Republican Party using the "best" Machiavellian tactics to rebuild a base. The fact that the Party is being hypocritical is not noticed by this popular awakening because most of them slept through earlier years of skillfully managed obscene spending (both parties)and tax cuts blindly ignoring, among other facts, the reality of two ongoing wars and the associated costs. The reality of the depth of the world-wide economic crises and the necessity of limited government intervention as recognized in every developed country seems to have escaped the popular education. They, the majority of those rallying now yell out of fear and ignorance. The posted objectives I saw to "save the Constitution," stop socialism," stop communism," stop fascism," and Obama "the liar," the Hitler,"the enemy" are frankly ridiculous on the basis of any reasoned view of this administration's eight months in office. It is the strategy of the Republican conservative movement to negate the results of the national presidential election and prevent the developement of the policies and objectives desired by majority of voting citizens.

The DC rally was instigated by well established conservatives and encouraged and guided by Republican Party and elected representatives both of which have a specific, unified agenda not consistent with nor in the interests of these assembled masses. In the not to distant memory, there were rallies of workers protesting often legitimate and important issues and policies. There was then a distinction when such rallies were manipulated by the Communist Party toward ends not consistent with nor in the best interests of the workers. In November 2008 the country voted and rejected the policies of the Republican administration. Their objective to return to those policies is hidden by them with tarantinoesq fears and the flag.

Random Thoughts

Just a few random thoughts: I certainly do not intend to diminish the dangers existing to primarily future generations in the proposed spending of this administration. We elder types, as well, should be concerned and watchful. There comes a time, I believe, in science, for example, that a paradigm of unquestioned validity will lose its validity in the course of research and observation. Economics and so called social science do not rise to the level of "pure" science in their ability to develop such fundamental "truths." We are clearly in a time where our economic and social "truths" may be reevaluated. I say "may" because we can ignore the opportunity and muddle through without change but with very high risk. The conclusions that will evolve from a democratic review now may result in changes in the existing structures that we would not recognize but would efficiently and effectively carry us to the next period of necessary evaluation. The difficulty in such a systemic reevaluation is the fear of the unknown and the inherent uncertainty. The path to revised structures will, of necessity, involve trial and error though the extent of each can be minimized. The path and establishment of new structuring will be expensive – maybe shockingly so. As with any capital investment the books will take an immediate redlining.

Our medical insurance and provider systems, our electrical power grids, our fossil fuel dependency, social security, global warming/climate change, our national existence in a global economy and others each have some need for reevaluation, revision and/or rejection. I believe that this country is worth investing in to bring about necessary changes – and they are necessary. Keeping an eye on the short term costs in the context of long term progress is very tough in political cycles where decision makers look primarily if not solely at their personal and party short term election goals and current capital investment in the country is at risk. If we are the risk takers of the same mettle as the settlers, the founding fathers, the entrepreneurs of industry and science and IT we should be willing to accept reasoned risks for rewards. This President may well be taking on more than he should but I cannot fault him for identifying the needs and accepting his own level of political risk in the process. No doubt we are backing with our futures but this is time for reasoned discussion, debate and decision and not hyperbole, misinformation and lies. It is that time for "statesmen" and men and women of unbiased integrity willing to put aside eroded paradigms and step out front to guide and lead. I wish I could see more involvement in these discussions by the 20 and 30 year olds who will reap whatever we plant. In that age group in history have been the revolutionaries and paradigm changers. Unfortunately, I just don't see such independent thinking and initiative rising outside of bastions of the old orders. And the NFL pre-season has started so first things first.

A Response to a Review: "The Hurt Locker"

Your reviewer’s simplistic review of “The Hurt Locker” dis serves your readers and the community. This independently produced film should be seen by every adult citizen. The conservative lip-service given to our “support of the troops” would benefit from an exposure to a portrayal of the intensity and often chaos of combat and of what we are asking of our men and women. This film is a gripping, intense movie of war and not, as your reviewer seemed to suggest, a political piece. The crucible just happens to be Iraq in 2004 but in reality it could be set in a trench in France or a submarine in the Atlantic. The plot is not burdened with the extraneous. This is not to say, as your reviewer put it that the movie is “missing a story.” Your reviewer, I suggest, may have become accustomed to being spoon fed a story line as in the vast majority of Hollywood’s screened comic books. “The Hurt Locker,” with powerful photography that seems to place you at the scene, follows a bomb disposal team of three men jointly confronting fear and death in their assigned mission. Each man is uniquely affected by the external threats as well as the adjustments necessitated when the internal dynamic of the team changes.

I have no personal experience to vouch for the accuracy of the tactics or circumstances of the urban warfare in Iraq in 2004 as portrayed. One extended scene in a desert setting seemed to represent, without loss of credulity, a composite of different combat roles. However, the events, actions of the characters and the impact on the team members were to me, a combat veteran, appropriate and unnervingly honest. The wired, buried artillery rounds looked just as deadly and challenging as they did along routes in Viet Nam. Your reviewer displaces obvious truth with biased misconceptions. These are not depictions of “stereotypical Americans … and Iraqis.” The American soldiers are shown in the intensity of war doing tasks essential in war. Accomplishment of dangerous tasks does not make them gung-ho and they are assuredly not presented in that manner. Iraqis security forces are shown working with the team to identify possible IED’s for the team to defuse. Iraqi civilian locals are shown observing the team while set back on the perimeter of the action just as are American soldiers waiting for the team to do its work. Your reviewer says the film makes a stereotypical portrayal of Iraqis as “cowardly, skulking, roadside bombers.” The reality, however, that one of the observing Iraqi civilians may electronically set off the IED is a fact of life in this war.

This is not one of those surreal “Full Metal Jacket” fiction-type pieces. This movie surfaces feelings in its viewers, the feelings that, while in combat, for example, you never allow to surface. This is a very rare presentation of the intensity of war and its affects both during and following deadly combat. Seeing this movie will not make you a combat veteran but it will give you a greater understanding of why you display that magnetic ribbon “I support the troops” on your SUV.
Richmond, Virginia August 1, 2009

Let's Get Serious

I have now read Palin's Facebook response to the President and regarding Section 1233(by now I expect it needs no further identification) and find her contentions as well as those of the people she quotes as functionally, baseless fear-mongering. "The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context." sayeth Palin. Now, I do not intend to state or infer a position of my own on the subject of abortion but it seems to me that a conservative like Palin would most assuredly argue to the contrary, i.e. that there would be no coercive effect, if the "context" being referred to was a proffered discussion by medical personnel with a young woman of alternatives to a planned abortion.

A person may speculate that any meeting with a government representative in any context may be used for intimidation. A traffic court requiring a senior citizen to retake a driving test following a ticketed offense could surely intimidate the citizen to relinquish the privilege to drive thereby limiting contact with the world outside his home, inducing depression and ultimately suicide which would address social security and medicare shortfalls and reduce unattended flashing turn signals on the roads. Just how many police officers and judges could be convinced to knowingly participate in such atrocities?

The singular coercive effect of a discussion of the matters covered in 1233 would be to have the patient, due to age and/or changed medical condition decide what they wanted to be done in their care. Just how many of these medical professionals could be corrupted to become "Angels of Death" ala Mengele for the good of the country? There are more than enough legitimate issues to address in this and subsequent legislative proposals without this type of political, extreme propaganda.

Iranian Elections

Ayatollah Khamenei spoke (C-Span translation) at Tehran University about the Iranian election and the aftermath of demonstrations. He praised the 85% turnout of some 40 million citizens as proof of the Iranian people’s belief in and trust of the Iranian Revolutionary government. He argued that if the Iranian people were not supporters of the existing revolution they would not have voted. The people had shown their trust in the democratic process of the Revolution. This thesis was central to a presentation for national and international impact. The Ayatollah described each of the principal presidential candidates as long time members, in good standing, of the Revolutionary establishment, a point he argued further spoke to the legitimacy and strength of the existing form of government. Demonstrations were counter-revolutionary and should cease, in large measure, because there are existing legal avenues for challenging “specific” aspects of the voting. Demonstrations might also, he warned, have the unintended consequences of violence and death for which political leaders would be held accountable. Khamenei repeatedly warned about the overt and covert counter-revolutionary actions of the evil nations of the United States and England.

Khamenei spoke as a leader concerned about the increasing commitment to and successes of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and in cooperation with Pakistan. Iran is certainly concerned about the strength and intentions of Israel and the Sunni kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Khamenei and the ruling council were not about to alter the ruling paradigm at a time when any change might well be considered by its “enemies” as a weakening of the Islamic/Shia control. The results of the election, accordingly, were always predetermined though pretense of the debates, speeches and rhetoric gave hope to the Iranian people and the World of democratic change. Khamenei explicitly gave his blessing to Ahmadinejad’s policies including the nuclear issues.

Each of the candidates were in fact chosen and blessed by Khamenei and his ruling council prior to the elections. An honest election might have created a circumstance supporting our hope to change the rhetoric and alter the stated objectives of Ahmadinejad. I doubt it. I am merely a reader of current events with no particular experience or book learning about the Middle East but it appears to me that the forces at work across the Middle East from Gaza to India are too volatile and premised on ethnic and national phobias for any government to drift away from the existing fortress each occupies. Enlightened policy by the United States, foremost in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, over an extended period of time is the only basis of hope.

Judging the Judge

I am increasingly sickened by the political rhetoric regarding Judge Sotomayor as exploited by the shallow, histrionic “news” media. The latest “reporting” and “analysis” of two comments by Judge Sotomayor is ridiculous in emphasis and baseless in relevance. Judge Sotomayor has some thirty years of public service as an attorney in varied roles. She has through those years openly presented herself, her integrity, her competence, her judgment, her self-control, her intelligence, and her grasp of the law. As an assistant district attorney she made judgment calls on who would be prosecuted and what charges they would face. In the prosecution of these cases her character, demeanor and integrity were open to the scrutiny of the public, the defense bar, the media and the judges before who the cases were tried. In private practice the scrutiny continued by the courts, the New York Bar Association, her clients and, at times again, the public. Sitting as a federal District Court judge, her personal character and grasp of the law would have manifest itself repeatedly in the relatively fast paced, pressure filled dynamic of public trials. As a federal appellate judge her written opinions over the years provide another opportunity for reasoned analysis of her record. I do not know what will surface as the result of the now commencing political process but I do know that it is utterly preposterous to extract two sentences out the context of her career to rationally conclude anything of relevance.

In one of these statements she spoke of the difference in the functions of a trial court from those of the appellate courts. Trial courts deal with the facts and the applicable law in a unique circumstance. In her comment she explicitly referred to the law as “percolating” through the federal appellate courts. She did not suggest that it was a responsibility of any court to “make new law.” Judge Sotomayor correctly referred to policy formulation as a function of appellate courts. Appellate courts put form to the law in response to changed conditions and clarify and/or apply existing precedent to new factual situations, all of which impact cases and situations outside the particular case being decided.

Her second comment at issue seemed to suggest that a person of varied, life experience might make a better judge then one of limited life experience. I agree. Of course, personal experience must be coupled with other qualities, such as, a deep sense of fairness, intelligence capable of understanding legal concepts, and a self-controlled demeanor all hopefully underlying a confident wisdom. Many judges, though there are exceptions, however have risen to that position in a social and professional context dominated by “good old boys” of strikingly similar backgrounds. In my thirty years as an attorney I have found it more the exception than the rule that existing judicial selection processes elevate a man or woman to the bench personally and professionally suited to the task. The search for truth in a trial court and the desire for justice in all courts are played out in crucibles where human emotions, tragedies, ambitions, dreams and expectations are compressed into a formal, legal form. A judge of limited exposure to and appreciation for the realities of life is less likely to correctly or adequately evaluate the facts of the case. The stamping of legal principles unto formless facts of a case would be a relatively easy process for most competent attorneys. Bringing Justice to the process requires a judge of substantive human and legal capacity.

My Friend Proposes "term limits" for Congress ...

I am reminded of another method for limiting legislative abuses:

In the ancient republic of the Locrains "[a] Locrain who proposed any new law stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord round his neck, and if the law was rejected the innovator was instantly strangled." Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Forty-fourth Chapter.

You say "revolution," my friend...

My friend: You present an argument for a return of the American Revolutionary spirit to the citizens to retake control of a government for the people. The focus of your argument appears to be on the unresponsiveness to and derelictions of Constitutional responsibilities by elected politicians. You call for term limits and decry the unchecked spending and budget projections in the current economic crisis. Please consider:

Any "revolution" should carefully consider the circumstances creating the opportunity for dynamic change. To simply strike at the actors and performers would be meaningless. I am increasingly becoming convinced that the only "revolutionary" solution is one that strikes at those paradigms that have corrupted "our experiment." Among these are the wholesale deregulation of human greed which fostered illegal immigration as a cheap labor pool, fills the halls with lobbyists and their "contributions" and permitted securities fraud of unimaginable dimensions; an energy policy blinded by special interests and dangerous to our very existence; and a failure of the nation as a whole to stand up to and within political party systems that reward merely loyalty, ambition and money with apparently little, if any, regard for integrity, honor and commitment to the general welfare.

If it takes a substantial investment by our country to bring about a revolutionary change in these and other fundamental corruptions, so be it. As the founding fathers, we should be ready to personally sacrifice in the relatively short term and invest for the creation of a wiser and stronger United States of America.

To Sue on 3/7/09

My dear friend, you are most certainly correct that what is happening is frightening. And, more frightening is the fact that the fear is justified. I think the first thing that we in America must realize is that this is not a personal problem but rather an international crisis. Even China, now our selfish benefactor, is slipping. Other moderately and more heavily developed countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas are in the same boat. Significantly, they also are “throwing money” into their banks, infrastructure and markets. Now, this is not proof that this approach is the correct one since it could just be that everyone is wrong in choice of solution. Yet, I have to believe that the governments had sought their best available advice. So, it appears to me, that the real consensus is that governments are the only alternative for meaningful and necessary intervention. These are not just the so-called “socialist” countries of Western Europe. GDP’s have fallen across the board (even China) and so looking comparatively at spending as a percentage of GDP past and present is misleading at this time. I respectfully disagree that “every economist in the land” is seriously opposed to what is going on. And Cramer performs as an idiot. In the first place he is not an economist; like Rush (with no respect due to him) he is an entertainer. Cramer made his name on Wall Street as a practitioner during “bubbles.” Throughout the lead up to the crisis Cramer repeatedly screamed for investment and often urging investment in or contending the strength of corporations just prior to their collapse. There is enough on the internet, aside from Republican/Rush conservative sources, to see a broader picture.
Of course there is a great danger that such levels of government spending may create another inflationary crisis in the future. I think this is recognized by all including the Federal Reserve Chairman and the President. This concern is, I believe, the reason the President has announced a plan/intention/proposal to cut the federal deficit by something like a half within a stated time frame. The international community, which rightly still considers us the “strongest” economic entity, and our own market and banking communities need to have their confidence bolstered that the massive spending will have limits. I guess I have to mention the tax “increases” at this point since the lapse of the Bush cuts is a large part of the spending balance. Bush and the then Republican congress, on the verge of enormous expenditures for war, played the big “conservative” card that helped to push us from a negative national debt to the abyss we have today. No, though my exquisite manners and impeccable taste suggest that I am in the upper tax brackets, I fall far, far short. The “over $250,000” will suffer a return to tax levels of something like 39% rather than the present 37%. Actually, pre-Reagan I believe the rate was closer to 90%.
Please recall as well that the first ¾ trillion bailout late last year came at the urgent pleading of the Bush administration and the Fed; all this on top of the deficit of the Bush years. So, I find it quite disingenuous of Republican politicians to now scream about uncontrolled spending. Another tenet of the Republican Party has been the rejection of government interference, i.e. regulation, in business and Capitalism. So, quickly because I tend to ramble, let’s talk about the home mortgage crisis that was and is, by all accounts, a significant though not sole factor in the world-wide crisis. Here the Democrats and Republicans can take some blame, though each was motivated by different objectives, for pressing for expanded home ownership. So, “bad” loans were encouraged. Once these bad loans were in place they became subject to wholly unregulated (another joint mistake of the two Parties) derivatives. And imagination and greed piled more complex derivative upon complex derivative (all based upon the same bad or questionable loans). This was not simply the Fannie and Freddie situation though they were a part of it. Importantly, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, President Bush and Cramer, et al., were all advising and screaming spend, spend, spend. Recall that Bush said after 9/11 that all Americans need to get out and spend. So people, sheep that we are, pushed credit to the max, took out second mortgages, bought investment homes and used home equity to buy bling and gas guzzling trucks and vans. All the while input into the Treasury was cut substantially by the sacrosanct tax cuts. And the bubbles got bigger and bigger while warnings were ignored.
Now, in the first month, focus on that for a moment if you will – the first month, of this administration the Democratic House came up with a ridiculous, far-left package that reasonably was whittled down in the Senate. I accepted that Obama needed some time to assert his control over the congressional Democrats and that control is slowly becoming more evident though not complete by any means. It is significant, I believe, to recall those days long ago in November of last year when the majority of the American people repudiated the professed philosophy and expressed conduct of the conservative Republican Party. It can be argued that the vote for Obama was, to some measure, merely a rejection of the Bush cabal and not his Party values. And that may have some truth, however, it may also be correct that the Obama vote margin would be even greater in his favor, rejecting Republican values, except for the concern for Obama’s lack of experience.
I come from a generation raised with a belief in the reforms of the Roosevelt administration after the last Great Depression. Certainly, WW II changed the whole dynamic in bringing the world out of that depression but, as one example, unemployment dropped from some 25% to 10-12% before WWII based on such spending programs as the CCC’s and WPA. Roosevelt really was not the communist/socialist he is depicted as in some circles today. His policies were intended and did foster capitalism and business growth. I see Obama’s stated positions as similar. We need, in the context of vigorous debate, to give him some time. But, within that debate, ALL must recognize that a fundamental problem with our economy is a lack of confidence. A big part of the world’s problem is a corresponding lack of confidence in us. When our politicians vehemently reject and raise Armageddon as the necessary result of Obama’s policies it undercuts any positive effects of the programs. There must be a cautious balance in the public rhetoric. There will be ample opportunity to get back to the fear mongering of the Bush years during an election but for now they should cool it.
Substantively, I have absolutely no problem with the government spending (remember it is the ONLY source of recovery now) to increase jobs while repairing our roads, bridges and electrical grid (remember the falling bridges, failing dikes and blackouts due to antiquated structure); to enable and encourage start-up companies and entrepreneurs in developing new clean energy sources (rather than diminishing, polluting and foreign fossil fuels); to encourage and support educational opportunities for Americans in fields such as nursing and engineering so that we can BECOME AGAIN a competitive economic power (we now import nurses; high school dropout rates and our comparative (world)testing scores are abysmal); and revamp the medical system so that those companies that still pay or would pay a part of health care would not need to do so and their competitive outlook would be greater against the rest of the civilized world that has generally universal coverage and America would have a healthier work force (again our health care, as expensive as it is, is not as successful as in many other developed countries).
It is frightening and ANY alternative is a gamble based on too many probabilities as well as unintended consequences. The country picked a leader and he is putting out a plan. In combat, any plan may be modified prior to the assault to fit a changing situation and there will have to be adjustments – and there will be mistakes – in the administration plans. However, in combat, once the plan is being executed, even if it is not the optimum, if it is carried through with courage and vigor it can succeed.

Seppuku

As reported on nytimes.com today: "NEW YORK (Reuters) - A prominent U.S. senator gibed that executives of the troubled insurer American International Group Inc might consider suicide, adopting what he called a Japanese approach to taking responsibility for their actions.

Senator Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, made the comments Monday in an interview with a radio station in his home state of Iowa."

The Senator's comments brought out expressions of shock from the talking heads. I also am shocked. I am shocked that Senator Grassley would appear to believe that the executives in these "recently successful" business enterprises possess a level of moral character sufficient for them to accept responsibility and to publicly acknowledge their dishonor. Seppuku, as suggested here, is premised on a true sense of personal honor. Honor is manifest by the conscience and will of a person to do the right thing. The reflex of this honor is a sense of personal shame. Neither honor nor shame are admired qualities within capitalism or, presently, within our society. We must demand more of our leaders.

Stimulus and Support for the Presidency

Senator Lindsey Graham is being interviewed on a Fox News program as I write this. He charges that the President has “failed” and has lost an opportunity to bring the country together by going forward with a recovery bill that could only gain the support of three Republican senators. The senator’s commentary directly called into question the competence of the President to lead the country. Apparently this senator speaks for the entrenched 41 Republican senators who reject a compromise worked out in joint sessions today. Three Republicans, according to media reports, will vote with the Democratic majority to pass the compromise.

The consensus of the Congress has consistently appeared to be that an extraordinary fiscal stimulus effort by the federal government was immediately essential. Now, I understand that the bill presented to the Senate was the product of a Democratic House of Representatives relieving years of tension and contained “non-stimulative” options. Accordingly, I expected that appropriate and vigorous opposition would be raised to portions of the House bill in the Senate. But, it was also my expectation, given the unquestioned gravity of the national economic problems, that the Republican opposition would be tactical rather than strategic. In other words, though the posturing would be on strategic fundamentals, the attacks would be surgical amendments to individual provisions.

We are engaged in a fighting war on two fronts and, according to most political and economic projections, near the verge of a national or international depression. The media’s 24 hour cyclic headlining of quoted and synthesized hyperbole about the economic crisis by experts and fluttering, talking-heads has continued to shake the confidence of investors and non-investors, institutions and the institutionalized among our citizens. Whatever the validity of the conclusion, some 59 million American’s recently expressed a belief that Barack Obama, a Democrat, had the ability to lead this country through these perils; a conclusion with which I did not agree. This belief was a vote of confidence. Now, two weeks into his administration, the Cheneyesque assertions by a member of the United States Senate purposefully or ignorantly undercut that confidence and are unwarranted and irresponsible. The President’s personal efforts toward the Republican minority over this past week have been highly commendable, particularly in the shadow of President Bush’s open contempt for the then minority party. Whatever the strategic fiscal arguments might be currently, our citizens and the international community need confidence in our leadership. Statements from the United States Senate subverting confidence in our President of eighteen days, severely harms any prospect of success in recovery and the stature of the United States.

The Republican Party lost the confidence of the vast majority of Americans as evidenced in the results of the last two national elections. The leadership of a Republican President had been rejected around the world. However, as the Republican Party seeks to redefine, reassert or repeat its image, it need not and should not precipitously undercut the Presidency of the United States with attacks such as those of Sen. Graham. Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. McCain said of the bill “This is not a bi-partisan” compromise. However, it is the intransigence of the Republican minority that brings failure to the President’s attempts at a bi-partisan stimulus bill. The compromise will, apparently as I write this, become the Law of the Land. Hopefully Republicans such as Sen. Graham will, however grudgingly, express a confidence in the President for the good of the country if not their party. Like it or not our President is a Democrat.

Life as a Voyage

I ran across this quote tonight from the autobiography," Wanderer," of Sterling Hayden, an actor, and a member of the OSS during WW II who ran guns to guerrillas fighting the Nazis in Yugoslavia. Apparently, he loved the ocean and sailing. I thought it is interesting, beyond sailing.

"To be truly challenging, a voyage, like a life, must rest on a firm foundation of financial unrest. Otherwise, you are doomed to a routine traverse, the kind known to yachtsmen who play with their boats at sea... cruising, it is called. Voyaging belongs to seamen, and to the wanderers of the world who cannot, or will not, fit in. If you are contemplating a voyage and you have the means, abandon the venture until your fortunes change. Only then will you know what the sea is all about. "I've always wanted to sail to the south seas, but I can't afford it." What these men can't afford is not to go. They are enmeshed in the cancerous discipline of security. And in the worship of security we fling our lives beneath the wheels of routine - and before we know it our lives are gone. What does a man need - really need? A few pounds of food each day, heat and shelter, six feet to lie down in - and some form of working activity that will yield a sense of accomplishment. That's all - in the material sense, and we know it. But we are brainwashed by our economic system until we end up in a tomb beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry, playthings that divert our attention for the sheer idiocy of the charade. The years thunder by, the dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it, the tomb is sealed. Where, then, lies the answer? In choice. Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse or bankruptcy of life?"

A thought about Obama

There is a long road ahead for him, but I appreciate President-elect Obama's having begun his day on the 19th of January with an unscheduled visit to the wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He did this a day after laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

Each of these actions by a president-elect were, I understand, unprecedented in the days immediately preceding an inauguration.

I was not a supporter of Obama in the election and still have serious concerns. But, in a few hours he will be our President, and, accordingly, he deserves our respect and support. I am, frankly, angered by the emails that I receive continuing to replay the political diatribes of the election cycles. I understand that many of the actors in Congress have records and views and some are now asserting intended political actions that are worthy of criticism. And there will be a time when those political actions, if pursued within this administration, will bring those personalities and issues into the arena of vigorous debate and discourse. But, let's at least not politically castigate this President, directly or indirectly, before he has taken an action, proposed legislation or violated his oath. After all, the affirmative vote of 69,456,897 Americans deserves some respect as well.

Cheney's farewell.

According to a report moments ago – "Vice President Dick Cheney will be in a wheelchair during Tuesday's Presidential Inauguration, after pulling a muscle in his back while moving, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said" (CNN)

I cannot envision his recreating a more appropriate iconic image wholly representative of his character, demeanor and role these last eight years. Can you?

A letter to a friend: Unions

I have not been watching the auto industry issues very closely but I am concerned about some of what I read. My mother and father were both union members and often the best Christmas gift I received as a child was from the union. Having been raised in Chicago, I remember well the stories of the violence against union organizing in the early twentieth century. The unions made the difference between a living wage and basically indentured servitude. I remember my mother speaking of the difference in wages after her laundry unionized. I think her wage for hand pressing and folding a shirt went up to about .03 cents a shirt. She was 15. My dad worked for US Steel at its mill in South Chicago and, though wages were a continuing issue, safety concerns were paramount. Most importantly in each situation there was a structure that spoke for the workers. Prior to that, to speak up about conditions would cost a worker a job or a beating. To be sure, if one survived the career in the mill or sweat shops, the companies ultimately provided retirement and health benefits. A situation not unlike the Armed Services though each time a union contract came up for renewal all benefits and wage amounts were up for renegotiation. In my parent's situation, the contract that he was under from US Steel called for all benefits to end upon his death. So my mother lost all health benefits when he died. Other workers under different contracts may not have had their elderly spouses abandoned. Remember, in that generation most women were housewives.

The point, it seems to me, is that contracts for future benefits were always subject to market forces. The retirees now benefiting from contracts entered into years ago are in that situation because of the give and take of market power and negotiation. These were not the result of largess on the part of the companies or extortion of the workers.

The disparity between UAW wages in the North and foreign companies in the Southern states comes from market forces and, I expect, from the lack of unions in Southern states. As an attorney in private practice here in Richmond I saw first hand the substantial and heavily moneyed effort to keep unions out. I represented the companies. It seems to me that there is little difference in the actual wages paid whether North or South. [see the articles below] This lack of disparity is due in part to the existing market situation of higher existing UAW wages. Otherwise, I am confident that Toyota to South Carolina would be paying close to Mexican wage scales. Further, the plants in the South are relatively new and accordingly do not have added weight of existing, negotiated benefits for retirees and current employees.

Our country has come a long way with established safety regulations and so that effort on the part of unions need not be as needed or confrontational. But laborers have value in a capitalist system. The most effective way to insure a correct value for labor is by matching the power of the corporate structure against a unified, labor structure. There is no compassion in capitalism. Our country has dramatically moved away from employer health and retirement benefits. We are now in the transitional period when substitutes for employer programs and even social security are developing daily.

The bottom line for me is that the auto industry, as with American manufacturing, is not failing because of labor costs. The paradigm has changed. The globalization of United States corporations attracted by exceptionally cheap labor overseas is merely the logical extension of capitalism. Corporations are not good citizens. They have no patriotism. American labor can perform as well or better than any other national group. Maybe they just have to accept wages comparable to those in a village outside Ho Chi Minh City or wait for those villagers to organize for appropriate wages and benefits.

http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm

http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050