America’s “Separate but Equal” Foreign Intervention Policy – There in Black & White

There is a blindness and weakness in US foreign policy when it comes to developing, articulating and executing missions of intervention. The rationales developed and used for public consumption simply do not add up. They lack any coherent moral or policy theme or values that could support a sensible organizing principle other than themes based upon hegemony and racism. One would like to think that the US is somehow better than such amoral behavior, but read on.

Reports currently coming in from the Democratic Republic of Congo about cruel massacres that took place over this Christmas have trouble gaining attention in the media. So much attention is paid to the Israeli attacks on Palestinians that the deaths in the Congo go seemingly unnoticed, or at least unremarked in the US press. Yet over 400 villagers have been brutally murdered and thousands displaced while the world sits by with hands folded. And the US, who claims the lead in eradicating such attacks through a “war on terror” is embarrassingly silent.

Consider the following report posted by the BBC:
News of the attacks in north-eastern DR Congo began to come out after the weekend when the Ugandan army accused the LRA of hacking to death 45 civilians in a Catholic church near Doruma.

Bruno Mitewo, head of the Catholic aid agency, says that from information they have collated from their parishes on the ground, more than 400 civilians have died in the attacks. He said that in Faradje 150 civilians had died, almost 75 people in Duru and 215 in Doruma. The victims had been hacked to death and forced into fires, he said.

"All villages were burned by rebels... we don't know where exactly the population is because all the villages are empty," he told the BBC. "We have almost 6,500 displaced who are refugees in the parishes of the Catholic Church around the city of Dungu, more than 20,000 people displaced are running to the mountains," he said. Those who were hiding in the bush and forest were mainly the young, as the LRA tends to kidnap children and recruit them as fighters, he said.

A fair question would be to ask why the international community would sit by mutely as such brutal destruction of human life repeatedly unfolds. The LRA has been terrorizing these Congolese villagers for more than a decade and its forces are said to number less than 700. Yet the armies of Uganda, Sudan and DR Congo cannot control them. Where are the “technical support” personnel and the weapons aid contributions from the West? They can be sent to the Middle East, to Georgia and to Columbia but not to the Congo. If the US can waste billions of dollars on Blackwater agents that seem to thrive on the type of violence inflicted by the LRA rebels, could the US not lend these primitive mercenaries to be used by DR Congo military to hunt down LRA forces in the jungles of the Congo and help protect the innocent villagers? While the behavior of Blackwater agents in Iraq is unsupportable, placing them in an environment better suited to their talents and expertise would seem a more useful deployment since the US cannot spare any Ranger or Special Forces details because of the quagmire in Iraq.

When ethnic cleansing was occurring in Caucasian populated Bosnia, international forces were sent in to halt the war crimes and “crimes against humanity.” Are the people of the Congo less deserving of protection under those international standards? Could the reason be that their skin color does not warrant the same intervention? Are the Congolese villagers less equal than other people on behalf of whom humanitarian intervention has been invoked? Where is the “war on terror?”

A follow up question would be the following: If the people in the Congo who are regularly and repeatedly being subjected to terrorism by the LRA were white or Jewish, would the US be responding in the same way? If the villages were located on proven oil reserves, would the US response be the same? The questions are more than rhetorical, but the answers to them are quite obvious. In that regard, the old policy of “separate but equal” seems to have continuing vitality. The US publicly espouses policies against global terrorism and violations of human rights to defeat democratic governments. However, when it comes to taking action to carry out those policies, some world citizens are apparently more deserving of protection than others. If the victims are Black Africans, it is okay to sit by and watch the massacres.

To paraphrase what the US Supreme Court stated in the Dred Scott Decision, the Black man has no rights worth protecting or with which white men need be concerned. That is the separate but equal philosophy that the US has been following to date, publicly denounce terrorism and human rights violations generally, but provide resources only to situations where perceived interests of whites are involved. But now that an African American will assume the Oval Office, careful scrutiny should be applied to see whether such attitudes that were perhaps to be expected from George W. Bush will be carried forward by Obama’s administration. Change should be expected not because Obama is of African descent, but rather because he claims a more intelligent, balanced and humane platform than Bush. We should aspire to examine the problems of the world through human eyes, and not just white eyes.

Perhaps when flagrant violations of human rights, open terrorism and genocide are taking place, some action is appropriate. Perhaps the size of one’s wallet or natural resources to be exploited, strength of a religious lobby or color of skin should not be the factors that determine whether international intervention on behalf of declared minimum standards of international law and decency will occur. Perhaps...

[See source BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7804470.stm]

Insanity of War and Escalation

The current “offensive” by Israel on the Gaza strip has all the earmarks of the inherent insanity of war and escalation. The euphemism of a “military offensive” does not truly mask the fact that it is a deliberate massacre. As such, it has no justification. That by no means suggests that indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli towns is justified either. The point is that NEITHER is justified. Equally clear is that neither action is likely to yield any positive impact or move the sides anywhere nearer a solution to an age old conflict. Objectively, it is simply senseless bloodletting and venting for its own sake. Insanity of the first water.

Some topics are difficult to discuss because of emotion and intransigent views. Mention abortion or race and discussion quickly becomes irrational. The same seems true of any critical examination of Israeli – Palestinian conflict. Most want to jump to partisan sides and engage in unproductive defensive illogic. Israel deserves to live in pace with its neighbors. That is a given. Palestinian people deserve to have their own truly autonomous state, a place where they can live in peace and be able to prosper without restraint from an overseer like Israel. That too is a given. The quandary is how both objectives can be attained. Massive airstrikes that kill dozens hundreds of people and dozens of innocent women and children is not a step in that direction. Neither is indiscriminate lobbing of rockets into the backyard of your neighbor to create fear and panic.

The public must be released from the bondage of irrational fealty to the Israeli cause that seeks to rationalize and justify any action, regardless how ill conceived, hate based and inhumane in impact. To allow critical discussion is actually in the best interest of Israeli people and the world. A responsible parent would not sit and justify a child taking a rifle to school to kill and maim hundreds of school children, and then justify it by saying that the child was being bullied by other students. Yes, the bullying was wrong and should be stopped. But the actions of shooting and maiming many innocent people, and even those who were bullying is not rational, moral or justifiable. Likewise, we should not be expected to rationalize and excuse any and every action by Israel toward the provocations by Palestinians.

Israel has imposed a chokehold on the Palestinian people for many years, long before Hamas was elected as the Gaza Strip representative. Indeed, it could be argued that the single strongest reason for the rise of Hamas in the area has been Israeli government oppression. The Israeli government has treated the Gaza Strip like a Nazi Germany Jewish Ghetto, using cheap Palestinian labor for Israeli backed projects, but strictly limiting any food or resources available to the civilian population. When irritated, with or without some provocation, the Israelis have responded with disproportionate force and violence to exact collective punishment.

The sad observation is that violence and cruel inhumanity begets the same. Having learned the bitter impact of a policy of subjugation and genocide under Hitler, Israel now uses those same tactics, albeit modernized, against the Palestinians. It is not unlike the abused child who becomes the abusive parent. The main difference between the Israelis and the Nazi storm troopers is that the Israelis have the power now and in Hitler’s Germany they did not. Yet even in the Ghettos and prison camps, Jews formed a resistance. Is it reasonable to expect that Palestinians would not resist?

Although Israel and its apologists may try to characterize the current actions as “defensive” action, that is transparently false. Less than five Israelis have been hurt or killed by the rockets fired by Hamas, while more than 300 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli action. The supporters of such action argue that massive retaliation will stop the Hamas rockets. But that has not and will never work, except by the implementation of the Israeli’s “final solution” of extermination of all Palestinians. As long as Israel continues to target hospitals, refugee camps and universities and kill civilians (at least 51 women and children, some as young as a few months old at last count, as “collateral damage” of course) in the holding pen of the Gaza Strip, more martyrs will be created and the effect is exponential.

While Israel and its apologists decry as “irresponsible” the statements of Iran’s Ahmadinejad about “wiping Israel from the face of the earth,” Israel proceeds with a similar strategy without openly declaring it regarding Palestinians. In so doing, Israel is losing moral authority for its behavior and supporters for its cause. The enlightenment that came to Gen. Ariel Sharon came too late or his death came too soon. In any event, his legacy was too short lived.

As long as Israel continues the insane game of “shooting fish in a barrel” that it apparently enjoys playing with the lives of Palestinians, the feud will continue. Moreover, such senseless escalation has spillover effects. Clearly, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West bank are no match for the Israeli military machine armed with nuclear weapons, advanced weaponry and telemetry and US backing. As a result, the predictable response of Palestinian supporters is to target any Israeli anywhere in the world. That is the only way to counteract the imbalance of military power, terrorism. So the Israeli actions are actually breeding terrorism throughout the world, a fact that should concern all of us.

The more likely truth is that violence will subside only when a way to address the daily oppression and continuous threat of extinction that Israel is visiting upon Palestinians. There will certainly still be vengeful feelings on both sides. That cannot be helped, given the history of the blood feud. And neither side can completely control individual acts of revenge and terrorism. The policies of terrorism and oppression can, however, be undone and abandoned. Healing can only begin when the basic underlying causes of the hatred are removed and the fuel to the fire is abated. The insane notion that “might makes right” has been proven false throughout the ages and is equally true in this case. Unless Israel is prepared to completely adopt its own “final solution” and exterminate all Palestinians and their supporters, and bear the consequences of such a strategy, this course of disproportionate retaliation must stop. They can kill 100 so-called “security forces” in the Gaza Strip, but killing one innocent child undoes all benefit of the attack. Therein lies the insanity of war and escalation.

[See a subsequent article posted 12/30/2008 at http://www.truthout.org/123008A]

Bush’s Crowning Success

Perhaps the greatest success of the Bush Administration, of the president himself, relating to Iraq has come in the past week or so when Bush just missed getting “crowned” with a shoe thrown by a protesting reporter. The actions of Muntathar al Zaidi, an Iraqi television reporter, during a press conference in which Bush attempted to extol the successes of his Administration in Iraq symbolized the frustration of Most Iraqis. Al Zaidi shouted his protest on behalf of all the innocent civilians, women and children who have died or been made homeless as a result of Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Since that press conference, al Zaidi has been held in prison and not allowed to see his family. His representatives have formally filed a petition to allow his family to visit him and to protest his beating at the hands of security forces following his detention. Bush claims to regard the actions as evidence of the success of his Administration in bringing democracy and freedom of expression to Iraq. But Bush has made no effort to support the release of al Zaidi, an action that would lend some credence to the rhetoric he so readily spouts.

There have been daily protests in the streets of many cities in Iraq demanding that al Zaidi be released from prison. Parliament has taken up the issue and other important business of the country has been sidetracked until this issue is resolved. The actions of the reporter must be dealt with in a fair and just manner. Civil disobedience includes the acceptance of reasonable consequences for such defiance. But the context of the action, and the severity of the damage caused by the action, must also be considered. All that really happened was that the Iraqi authorities were embarrassed because one protester dared to speak out loud what the majority of Iraqis feel and believe. Consider the following quotes:

Munthatar's younger brother, Maythem, 28, said the family would take part in the protests until the court allows them access to him. "I affirm that his was a heroic act, and we as a family are proud of him. He was able to unite all of Iraq, all its Sunnis, Shiites, Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen and Christians."

"Because of Muntathar, I lift my head high. And to be frank, I haven't been proud to be an Iraqi for five long years of humiliation," said Sheikh Mohammed al Inizi, a leader in the Sons of Iraq movement, which brought Sunni tribes together with American forces to fight terrorist cells. "We should call him Muntathar al Iraqi - not Muntathar al Zaidi; all of Iraq is his tribe now," Inizi said.

If George W. Bush were more concerned about his legacy and wished to truly help heal Iraq, he would take the bold and courageous step of publicly asking Maliki to pardon al Zaidi. It would show true character and magnanimity that Bush has to date failed to demonstrate. True, there was a public display of aggression against a foreign head of state. But the potential threat was hardly lethal. If Bush could summon the courage to accept the dissent symbolized by al Zaidi’s actions, he would go a long way toward changing the picture that is likely to remain his legacy, that of ineptitude, arrogance, and lack of character.

The Plague of Fear

A significant problem with historians and social studies teachers is that we keep drawing parallels. Mankind is remarkably more prone to making the same mistake twice [or sometimes more often] than coming up with a solution that is truly novel. The trial and error process seems to be the preferred method of learning, instead of creative reflection and innovation. Today the world faces an economic crisis not seen for almost seven decades, i.e. the lifespan of most people alive today. There are many causes for the economic decline; it derives from a constellation of economic forces and deliberate venality and corruption. Looking to the future is an imperative if the world is to retain hope for a recovery from the devastating consequences of such wayward behaviors. Looking to the past may provide some ideas for corrective measures or at least provider advice regarding mistakes to avoid repeating.

During the Dark Ages, the Bubonic Plague or “Black Death” swept across the Mediterranean Sea areas and ultimately killed nearly half the population of the Byzantine Empire and Europe. The terrible disease unapologetically laid waste to one of the more advanced civilizations the world had seen. Beyond the horror of the disease itself, the Plague had far reaching social and political consequences. The fear of interacting with other people amplified the impact of the debilitating physical damage to society. Simply put, people learned to live with a low level mass hysteria and paranoia that inhibited social interaction.

Obviously, when communication and interaction with other people slows on a mass scale, the commerce dependent upon such interactions also slows and economic activity in general declines. History tells us that the greatest advances in science, technology and the arts have occurred in societies that fostered open communication and social interaction. The open exchange of information and ideas has generated the Pax Romana, the Golden Age of Islam, the Glory of Timbuktu, the European Renaissance and subsequent creative surges. In contrast, the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Third Reich, the Joseph McCarthy “Red Scare” campaign and other eras that emphasized distrust, sanctioned persecution and that fed upon social isolation and alienation have been steps backward.

What then can such history lessons teach us about the current status of civilization? Which model have we been trending toward, and what has the effect of that trend brought us? While not nearly as severe as the examples cited, it is reasonable to suggest that the general blanket of fear and alienation that has covered the globe is taking society in the direction of isolationism and distrust resembling the repressive regimes. The resulting impact would not likely to be salutary and current troubles may not be entirely coincidental.

The attack on the World Trade Center was a tragic event that shook the consciousness of the world and caused profound changes in the world outlook many US citizens held. Yet for all its destructive force, it was only an incident. It was not something that could have been characterized as a sustained invasion or revolutionary rebellion. The attack was a criminal and cowardly terrorist act, but it was the reaction to that attack that has shaped the global psychological war we find ourselves in today. The Bush opportunistic decision to concoct a conspiracy of Iraqi involvement to justify an illegitimate war of choice for purposes of regime change turned an isolated criminal act into a global “war on terror.” There have been other terrorist attacks that have not yielded such expansive and attenuated reactions.

With the call for and mass marketing of the “war on terror” the character of society in the United States has changed dramatically. Like the sense of fear and distrust that arose from the Black Death, each one of us and each of our neighbors have been infected with a sense of suspicion and distrust. Every person is presumed “suspect” unless and until he or she can prove that no terrorist or terrorist sympathizer beliefs are harbored. People that we would heretofore have felt no serious impulse to fear are now initially suspect. We might even cast suspicion on people that we thought we knew. We are constantly bombarded by messages that advise us not to accept anything from a “stranger” and to keep watch for any “suspicious activities” by anyone we encounter.

Immediate and obvious effects such as the extensive delays in transportation and subsequent restriction of free travel are caused by “security procedures” intended to ferret out potential terrorists within our midst. The presumptive mindset is that there must be a terrorist lurking somewhere close by. This collective mindset can have an incremental and cumulative impact that is not obvious when we focus on individual interactions. Much like individual cars entering a major freeway, the specific event is not seemingly significant, yet the cumulative effect can stall traffic and immobilize a city.

Similarly, the cautionary messages we hear constantly along with sensationalistic headlines about events of actual and “suspected” terrorism tend to inhibit free speech and communication in an aggregate way. Less travel because of the inconveniences of security procedures and latent fear of interaction with “strangers” in an environment that we now consider “unsafe” can retard the exchange of communication and ideas. We constantly hear warnings in airports and train stations that even joking about the issue of security or criticism of “security” procedures can lead to arrest. This indoctrination can have a dampening effect upon open communication and free speech. When free speech, exchange of ideas and the ability to express critical thought are suppressed, the potential for creative advances is reduced.

This “plague of fear” is an insidious problem that has been injected into the psyche of society. The cure for the condition is more complex and troublesome than the initiation of the malady. How does one effectively tell people to stop being afraid? Pandora’s Box, once opened, is not easily reclosed and the evils unleashed cannot be put back into the box. Even the message to stop being afraid, when combined with the suspicious attitude fostered by the climate of fear, is likely to be viewed with suspicion and distrust. Are they just trying to lull us into a false sense of complacency? Or there might be a lack of confidence in the security officials and agencies. After all, if the World Trade Center attack was an intelligence and law enforcement failure, why believe that these same officials are now more competent?

Yet if the direction of society is to be turned round, a way must be found to change this negativistic “groupthink” that has been cultivated. Some catalyst of hope and confidence in the basic positive traits of humanity has to be found and unleashed to counter the isolationism and distrust. Unfortunately, the fear and the related threat are not entirely psychological, thought the psychological component is the major debilitating factor. By demonizing certain groups unfairly as a result of stereotyping, enemies have been created that may well not have existed in the past. Persons who may have felt antipathy toward the US government and possibly its citizens, but only in the sense of disposition, may have been driven to action by insults, outrages and persecution generated by the Bush declaration of a crusade against “terror” which has morphed into a code for Islam. There is a psychological truism that treating a person as an enemy can provoke the person to behave like an enemy in response.

So the resolution will have to combine methods of dispelling fear and a cessation of unjustified provocation that tends to create the forces we fear. We need to abandon groundless fears, and stop creating the enemies that provide grounds for legitimate fear. It took considerable time for the general public to let go of the cycle of fear connected with the Cold War. The current cancerous Plague of Fear will be more difficult to eliminate. Given the deleterious effects of this conditioned thinking on society and the economy, the greatest thing we really have to fear is NOT finding a solution to the problem.

Don’t just do something, Stand there!

In some cases, the urge to “just do something” in the midst of a crisis can be overwhelming; but sometimes the urge should be resisted. This advice is cogent in the present environment where each day brings a more urgent doomsday alert. The financial industry is on the verge of collapse, we must give them unrestricted access to $700 Billion! The auto industry is on the verge of a meltdown, we must give them additional loans of $35 Billion. The health care system is at risk, we must invest at least $10 Billion taxpayer dollars to increase payments to health insurers! In each case, the plea for infusion of tax dollars is plausible and nearly hysterical. Eager to curry favor with both constituents and lobbyists, members of Congress have been lining up to dole out resources from the already strained public treasury in order to show that they are “responsive” in a crisis.

In certain circumstances, it is better to step back and read the situation more broadly before reacting to the “Chicken Little” cries for salvation. Weeks and months after the dire warnings of collapse of the financial industry, the industry remains in place with the shakeout of a few particularly poor performers. Some would argue that the normal operation of the market should eliminate the weaker performers. In any event, the “bailout” seems to have resulted in three things that were not among the objectives of the legislative kneejerk reaction.

The first was evidence of large bonuses and lavish “retreats” for industry executives. This “feel good” gesture for the same executive who ran the industry to near collapse seems, at best, a little odd and poorly timed. The second was the use of bailout funds by certain recipient financial enterprises to purchase their weakened competitors. This amounts to a federally subsidized “turkey shoot” in which taxpayer dollars were used to help banks favored by the Bush Administration capitalize on the crisis and eliminate competition from other banks who perhaps had not been as generous in their campaign contributions to the GOP of late. The third interesting result is that credit is still virtually frozen and the banks are hoarding the taxpayer funds. In other words, taxpayer funds were used to make the banks healthier so that they would open credit to aid consumers and businesses. The money was actually used to make the banks healthier, but the public benefit of the expenditure seems to have gotten stalled somewhere.

So the reluctance of some in Congress to rush bailout funding for the auto industry is perhaps fortuitous. Don’t think for a moment that the objectors are doing so completely out of logic and a sudden fealty to their obligation of public stewardship. Reasons for opposition include a desire to see the US Big Three auto manufacturers in bankruptcy in order to advantage Japanese auto companies like Toyota and Honda that have plants in the legislator’s district. More cynical politicians want to prevent a bailout that appears to be Democratic Party driven, and by blocking Congressional action they can force the Bush Administration to use other bailout funds to help the automakers, a GOP driven solution. The result, however, is the same. The delay in a rush for bailout has allowed time to debate whether and under what conditions such public involvement should proceed. The delay and debate should be seen as beneficial. There needs to be a discussion of the “conditions” that should be placed on any public investment to prevent the same sort of fraud that has accompanied the finance industry bailout.

Ultimately, there should be some form of aid to the auto industry. Such aid should be strictly limited and highly conditioned to assure not only that the industry survives the current crisis, but also that there is a substantial and lasting change in the direction and management of the companies. However, the idea of handing over billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to prop up failed and intransigent management would be foolish. If considered with a calm and logical disposition, the requisite intervention would be viewed as similar to a conservatorship. In such cases, management who had run the enterprise into the ground would be dismissed and executives with experience in turning businesses around would be brought in. The proposals currently being floated would leave current management in place and require the reduction of wages and benefits of the auto workers.

Some adjustment of labor costs seems logical in light of the differential between Big Three costs and those of the Japanese automakers. However, it is also possible that a large part of the economic difficulties faced by the US automakers, i.e. drop in sales, could be due to the production of the wrong types of vehicles. That would point to failure of management strategy at least as much as labor costs as contributing factors. Any sound strategy for rescue of the auto industry would require a carefully considered and thorough examination of the restructuring needed to turn the companies. This rationale supports, in theory at least, legislators suggesting that a combination of Bankruptcy reorganization with guaranteed public loan support for a renovated would be more prudent. The idea and argument that consumers would refuse to buy vehicles, if priced properly, from a company that is being reorganized to function more competitively seems doubtful. It is so doubtful that one wonders why additional “independent” of consumer opinion have not been conducted.

Exhaust Fumes [Smoke] & Mirrors

The CEO’s of the US automaker companies have announced plans to return to Capitol Hill to again plead their case for a federal handout to save the ailing manufacturing enterprises. This time, the parade will not arrive in separate corporate jets. Instead the executives plan to arrive by car, supposedly as a public relations move to counter the terrible press they received because of the mode of transportation chosen previously. At the risk of creating an impossible choice – damned if you do, damned if you don’t – the current decision highlights the cluelessness of the executives and their marketing strategists. No one is expecting busy executives [and they ought to be VERY busy] to wear a hair shirt and self flagellate in order to justify aid. The time required to travel by car could be seen as a wasteful publicity stunt unless the cars are equipped with communications devices that make the executives available during the travel. Why not simply take a commercial airline flight from Detroit [an airline hub] that would require far less time and be more efficient? Millions of business travelers get to and from meetings each week via air travel. Many no longer indulge in first class travel at the expense of their company or client, but they get where they need to go and back within a day.

The answer is probably that it never occurred to these folks. And therein lies the problem. They lack the ability to make simple common sense decisions that are fiscally sound and grounded in the real world. Similar critique could be applied to the expected bailout plans. Ford plans on requesting a huge “stand by” line of credit that it now says that it does not expect to need to tap. Why request it if it is unnecessary? Is the request being made because the company does not want to look like it is not a “team player” when its peers are kneeling at the public trough? “We don’t need the aid, but since GM & Chrysler are there begging, what the hell…why shouldn’t we get some free money too?” GM states that it will need from $ Billion to $12 Billion to survive. The demand is based upon plans for changes that it will make in the future, including the conversion to more eco-friendly and fuel efficient cars. Kick me if I haven’t heard that one before! The problem with such promises or deals – give me money now and we’ll make changes later – is that once the company gets past the immediate crisis, a thousand excuses arise for not making the changes.

The truth, I believe, is that the companies actually need some measure of aid in order to get past the immediate economic downturn. Vehicle sales have plummeted because people don’t have the money or credit to buy them AND because the vehicles needed are not being produced. A bailout plan based upon keeping Cadillac and Buick lines, the luxury vehicles of the fleet, does not sound like the executives have gotten religion or even thought the matter through.

This is PUBLIC charity we are talking about, not a public offering. And while the request for aid is justified by need to pay money for the shift of worker pension trusts, it is clearly expected that the companies will seek to delay such payments. So the pattern of dishonesty and deception, as well as doubtful executive competence, remains a problem.

The watchword should be caution. If money is sought, but not immediately needed, the government should maintain control and release funds only upon satisfactory certification of actual use. Putting discretionary funds in the hands of the same executives that have run the companies into multi-billion dollar debt seems senseless. Any promises made regarding future plans should be written explicitly into any legislation authorizing any bailout relief. The proposal for executives and management to take pay cuts is unpersuasive. These same executives have been drawing multi-million dollar compensation while the companies were diving into almost unbelievable debt. The question is not whether they should work for “one dollar” as the CEO’s propose. The real question is why they should keep their jobs at all, if the public is to risk billions of taxpayer dollars. Enough games, enough smoke and mirrors. The US government should do exactly what is truly necessary to help the automakers through the painful crisis. But the pain must be shared.

Thumb Twiddling in the Oval Office

The economists know it. The failed financial institutions and mortgage lenders know it. The hundreds of thousands of US citizens who have lost their jobs know it. The businesses who cannot get cash flow lines of credit to support continued operation know it. The multitude of merchants wringing their hands over the flat or declining levels of sales during what is supposed to be the highest selling period during the year know it. The Nation’s economy is IN RECESSION.The National Bureau of Economic Research officially declared that the US economy entered recession in December 2007.

Yet despite the multitude of facts and the multitude of dollars already committed to try to rescue the economy from total collapse, the Bush Administration cannot even acknowledge the truth. In a carefully worded and plainly disingenuous press statement, the White House noted that the NBER determines the beginning and end of business cycles and avoided even mentioning the word “RECESSION.”

Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Bush Administration has been so slow and so ineffectual in responding to the economic crisis? The President apparently still does not believe that the crisis is real. It is axiomatic that an alcoholic cannot begin the road to recovery until he or she first admits to the existence of a problem. Perhaps the pain or fear of acknowledging how badly his administration has failed by removing regulations and then ignoring clear warning signals regarding the practices arising from such deregulation is too much. Never one to face facts or listen to sage advice, Bush once again seeks refuge in denial.

News flash to President Bush: The weakness comes not in publicly admitting you were wrong and have failed. The actual weakness lies in the incompetence and stubborn adherence to ideology over reality that created the failure in the first place. Acceptance of the failure is simply the first step in the process of correcting the mistakes and trying to restore the damage caused by your incompetence. If you cannot grasp this principle, then perhaps an old military cliché will suffice. LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!

Unfortunately, there is no Constitutional provision that allows for the sitting President to vacate office early. The current inhabitant of the White house has not only failed the country in leadership and stewardship, he is paralyzed by the magnitude of his failure and unable to act with any expertise or conviction to move the remedial process forward. The President-Elect cannot take the reins of power and exercise effective leadership while Bush is still technically in office. Thus, the country will have to limp along for another month and one half until the inauguration before it can hope for leadership and serious efforts to rectify the disaster left by the Bush Administration.

For all the bluster of a President who strapped on his cowboy boots and claimed that he was the “decider” and protector of national security, the US is now more weakened and more vulnerable than it has been in more than seven decades. And George W. Bush is still denying reality in hopes of salvaging his “legacy.” How utterly laughable, how tragic.

A Modest Proposal - Minister of Culture

Recalling a lesson learned in Political Science college courses more than three decades ago, I am reminded that most of the impact and real "power" that a president exerts comes not from his or her actions, but from the tone and character of the policies that the leader establishes. Like a rock thrown in a pond, the impact has limited direct change, but the ripple effect of the action carries far and wide. The disdain and disrespect for government, the ideologic extremism and the self-centered ethic shown by George W. Bush undoubtedly fostered the ensuing corruption, incompetence and mismanagement that spread throughout virtually every corner of his Administration. The point is not to "flog a dead horse" but rather to learn from mistakes.

Going forward, it behooves President-elect Barack Obama to carefully consider the tone and character of his decisions and actions as President. Such choices can send ripple effects that could change the current of present discourse in the country and throughout the world.

Initial decisions regarding his new administration have been mixed. Pronouncements that appointees must pass muster and subsequently adhere to higher standards of ethics designed to inhibit conflicts of interest is a good start. The choice of some Washington insiders walks a dificult line between the pragmatic desire to get things accomplished in an entrenched Washington and the promise to bring real change to the way Washington does business. Yet the choices made so far include individuals of competence that far exceed the levels generally seen in the Bush Administration. Rather than just reward cronies for what they have done for the candidate or party in the past, Obama seems to be making an effort to select individuals for the talent and skills they bring to the table and what they can do for the country in the future. It is a subtle shift, but a hopeful change in tone and character.

One thing that the country could profit by in these times of spiritual as well as economic crisis might be the appointment of a Minister of Culture. Beyond the cliche that "man cannot live by bread alone," there lies a truth that in times of trouble we need something to inspire us to action to improve our circumstances. The need to fill our bellies for survival does not assuage the hunger to feed our souls with ideas and sentiments aspiring to a better existence.

There is perhaps no person, US citizen or otherwise, better suited to fulfill this role than Steveland Morris. Known to millions as "Stevie Wonder," he has been the voice of a generation and his body of work has inspired us for decades. If we take the time to look beyond the captivating rhythms and creative harmonies that Wonder has created, we find critical and complex lyrics that challenge, admonish and inspire us to seek a better world. For an African American of poor beginnings, without extensive "formal education" and who happens to be unsighted, his career and cultural contributions are unsurpassed.

Consider excerpts from songs "a Time to Love":
We have time for racism
We have time for criticism
Held bondage by our ism's
When will there be a time to love

"Higher Ground":
Powers keep on lyin'
While your people keep on dyin'
World keep on turnin'
Cause it won't be too long

I'm so darn glad he let me try it again
Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then
Gonna keep on tryin'
Till I reach my highest ground

and "Conversation Peace":
All for one, one for all
There's no way we'll reach our greatest heights
Unless we heed the call
Me for you, you for me
There's no chance of world salvation
Less the conversation's peace

One need only examine critically, or indeed just listen to, his commentary to recognize that this man who lacks physical sight has shown a greater and clearer vision of society than almost any sighted person. Perhaps the genius lies in seeing the world as it is rather than how it would like to perceive itself. In an era in which media and imagery carry such weight, Wonder stands as an unapologetic standard bearer for social justice.

Beyond his musical genius as a poet and lyricist, Wonder also has demonstrated remarkable creativity and innovation in developing new styles of music and entertainment and the use of novel technological modes of creating art. His breakthroughs in orchestration, the use of digital technology in recording and other examples evident in his work demonstrate an openness to change and innovation in delivering cultural messages to the public. His many collaborative projects evidence a philosophy that creativity can be a process that is inclusive rather than isolationist and self-indulgent.

Yes, appointing Stevie as a Minister of Culture could do wonders [pardon the pun] for the country. The need for bringing us all together and inspiring us toward responsibility as well as hope is great at this time. To paraphrase one of his songs "As", a voice from a higher power tells us:

We all know sometimes life's hates and troubles
Can make you wish you were born in another time and space
But you can bet your life times that, and twice its double
That God knew exactly where he wanted you to be placed.
So make sure when you say you're in it but not of it,
You're not helping to make this earth a place sometimes called Hell.
Change your words into truths and then change that truth into love
And maybe our children's grandchildren
And their great-great grandchildren will tell.
I'll be loving you

Sorry for the Hiatus- I'm Back!

For the few loyalist who follow the rantings and ruminations of this Blog, I offer an apology for the hiatus since the Presidential election in the USA. A rash of excuses might be offered, such as a busy schedule and demands of a teaching career. In truth, the more probable reason is a need to take time and reflect on the events of the world, the changes implicit in selection of new leadership and the ramifications of the decomposition of the global economy, global environment and public trust wrought in large measure by the Bush Administration.

To be sure, all the world's ills cannot be laid at the feet of President George W. Bush. Yet the enormous force and consequences of his Administration's misguided and incompetent leadership amply demonstrates the danger of placing too much faith, power and hope in the hands of any individual leader. Some disasters are, however, more predictable than others. The lack of intellectual capacity and curiosity on the part of Bush foretold an inability to appreciate the important nuances of governance and the unwillingness to consider longer term consequences of willful actions and policies. By any measure and by any viewpoint, save the proponents of world destruction, the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster. His sole success has been in topping the list of the worst presidents in the history of the United States, a dubious distinctions.

Yet with his tenure to be shortly at an end, we really have no choice but to pick up the shattered pieces of a nation whose bank, infrastructure and spirit have been broken or at the very least seriously injured. The level of antipathy, sniping and division incited by the GOP over the past decade and supported by its Democratic counterpart has not been seen in the country since the Viet Nam War era and the Civil War before that. The challenge ahead is to meld a critical eye with a positive spirit as the nation seeks to work through the current crises and move toward a more creative and optimistic future.

To that end, the aspiration of this Blog will be to place a positive oar in the water with the hopes of helping to propel the ship of state toward a brighter future. Though meager in scope, the efforts are well intended. I subscribe to the postulate: "If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem." And so I invite all who read this Blog to do the same and add your voices, your commentary, your hopes and your good will. President Barack Obama will need no less if he is to succeed in any real measure in effecting change that the country needs so desperately. Unlike Bush, Obama has declared his belief that the USA government must be "of the people and for the people." That foundational principle of the nation, if achieved, would be a sea change from the government we have experienced for the past eight years. So what say we give him a hand?

What We Have Regained…

Tonight I sit in stunned silence trying to grasp and to fully absorb the meaning of the events of the day. I am still a bit reluctant to trust my eyes and ears that have heard the media projections and the gracious concession speech of Sen. John McCain, proclaiming the election of Sen. Barack Obama as the next President of the United States of America. The thoughts are a bit jumbled as might be expected from the experience of an event that was heretofore inconceivable.

Yes, my intellectual side argued that this election was a true test of the character of the United States. There would be a challenge to whether the clearly more qualified and better suited candidate would assume the role of leader of the free world, or whether the deeply imbedded racial bigotry of the US populace would thwart this opportunity to recover from devastating incompetence and monumental corruption of the George W. Bush administration. But racism never really has been about rational long term self-interest. And trust in the integrity of the election process has been so tarnished by the experience of the past two national elections. So the risk of rejected opportunity was to be truly feared.

Tonight, however, the words of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. ring out clearly, calling forth the day when a man might be judged “not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.” And that dream now is become real. To be certain, nothing less than a man of supreme character is what is needed by the US to manage the crises created by his grossly incompetent predecessor. To right the ship of state and bring it back to a true course would be a miraculous feat. Keeping it from sinking will be a large enough task for any leader. But in a time in which the people of the United States of America can once again dream and have hope in the future for our children, anything may yet be possible.

I saw tears in the eyes of Rev. Jesse Jackson tonight and I understood them. After growing up Black in the United States in a family from which I was the first to ever graduate from college, I heard the clichéd phrase that anyone could grow up to be President. Many thought it a major accomplishment that I could achieve a postgraduate degree and success as a professional attorney. Yet until tonight I admit that I never actually believed that it was possible that a Black man could be elected President of the country. To tell Black children to shoot for the highest office would perhaps inspire them to work very hard and achieve status above any that they might otherwise imagine was all that we dared hope. Not truly honest, but rather a useful deception that has yielded remarkable results. Rev Jackson, Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Jordan all suggested that the content of character was there and ready for the nation to put to effective use if the racial blinders could only be put aside.

Perhaps the dire economic straits of the country and the vacuum of leadership shown by the Bush Administration have been shocking enough to compel the electorate to put aside petty bigotry. Yet one cannot help but notice the electoral map in which the states carried by McCain are remarkably concurrent with the old confederacy. And while McCain has attempted to dispel the bigotry that his campaign deliberately incited to garner support, there will doubtless be some important healing required before the nation can truly move forward.

I have no doubt that Barack Obama will be a fine President. Whether he can achieve greatness will depend upon factors somewhat beyond his control, with regard to the economic crises we face and the willingness of the loyal opposition to work rationally toward compromise in the interest of all. But I also have confidence in the President-Elect regarding his tireless commitment to finding ways to achieve productive and morally justifiable solutions. And in this I place my trust and hope. The world has changed today. That is what we have regained……hope for a future brighter than we have ever known before. That which was heretofore inconceivable has now come to pass; let us all embrace it and celebrate together the possibilities.

The Most Troubling Thing - Or - What Have We Lost?

Perhaps the most sobering thing and the most troubling thing that weighs upon our minds as the 2008 election day approaches is that we can no longer feel secure with the notion that the results of the election really will reflect the votes actually cast at the polling places. The experience in Ohio in 2004, the subject of a long delayed lawsuit, concerning electronic manipulation of voting machine data is unfortunately far more real and far more serious than the ruminations of conspiracy theorists. In fact, voting data is routinely transmitted via internet with less encryption and security that are bank deposits. No one can really explain why this laxity continues. No one can adequately explain why electronic voting machines are still being used in critical elections in light of the poor security standards.

In this light, a translated quote from Josef Stalin is appropriate:

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this —- who will count the votes, and how."

As US voters go to the polls in an election that may be the most significant, historic and important contest of a century, the doubt lingers whether it will be those who cast the votes who decide the outcome, or whether it will be those who manipulate and "count" the votes that will decide the outcome as happened in the elections that resulted in placing George W. Bush in the Oval Office.

A recent survey of respected historians yielded the consensus of more than 60% who clearly identified George W. Bush as the worst President that the US has ever had. James Buchanan who bungled his way and the country into civil war was the only close competitor in the minds of those historians. More than 80% noted the impact of the G. W. Bush presidency as wrenching the US from a leadership position in the world and overseeing the fundamental weaking of the US and global economic structure.

Therefore, we can only hope that the wil of the people will be manifest in the election outcome. The country has paid a terrible price for allowing George W. Bush to occupy the White House when it is by no means clear that he actually won the election. At least if the true vote yields a McCain presidency, then the public would have no one to blame but themselves when McCain follows in the footsteps of his predecessor. An Obama win would raise the hope of a serious examination of the electoral process and a drive to re-establish a basis for public confidence in the electoral process. Perhaps a thorough and complete examination of evidence concerning voting data manipulation can help restore that sacred trust that has been lost during the Bush/Rove era.

Finger Pointing

Consider the following report from The Nation magazine that refers to well documented events that occurred in 1991:

Just six months after being rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he interfered with federal regulators on behalf of a wealthy donor, Senator John McCain engaged in activities that may have constituted an abuse of his office for personal gain. In August 1991, McCain hosted a family reunion at the Bermuda Naval Air Station (BNAS) for at least seven days at taxpayer expense. McCain's entourage of eleven included his wife, Cindy, and several of his children. The trip took place as Washington was still dealing with the fallout from the Keating Five scandal, an episode that involved other improper luxury Atlantic-island trips for McCain.

The McCain campaign, and in particular its VP candidate have been on the campaign trail pounding rumor upon innuendo about the supposed questionable character of Barack Obama because he has served on the Board of Directors with William Ayers. Ayers, you will recall, was associated with the Weather Underground nearly a half century ago and alleged to have engaged in domestic terrorist activities at a time when Barack Obama was 8 years old or less and not even living within thousands of miles of Ayers. While we might point out that Obama was never associated in any way with Ayers’ youthful activities and has repudiated the philosophies and actions of the weather Underground, the absurd strategy of irrational smear tactics persists.
But a more proximate question is whether the country should embrace the leadership of individuals that are tainted, not by some greatly attenuated “guilt by association,” but rather by their own personal actions. McCain wants to dredge up history selectively. He would prefer that the public not focus on his own direct relationship with Keating and his wife’s dealings with Keating even after the banker’s fraud and criminality was exposed. And McCain would no doubt rather not have the public focus on his own disregard of ethical rules and constraints, as evidenced by the junket reported by The Nation.

Sarah Palin has been in the chair of Governor for less than two years and already has two formal sanctions from the Alaska Legislature for her ethical abuses of executive authority. Like Ted Stevens, her mentor and fellow Alaskan GOP Congressional colleague indicted last week, Palin passes off the sanctions as motivated by “politics” and overly aggressive prosecutors. No measure of ambition or aggression on the part of investigators could have yielded the results handed down unless there was substantial evidence to support the allegations of wrongdoing. The charges were well documented and no fabrication has been advanced or proven. The difference of opinion was simply that the actions of these public officials, in their own view, were either untouchable or did not constitute something that the public should consider wrong.

And therein lies the rub. When one starts to point fingers, as my father used to say to me, remember that there are three fingers pointing right back at the person doing the pointing. If you want to hold someone else up to standards, make sure that you can pass careful scrutiny yourself. McCain & Palin are clearly in no position to impugn Obama’s character, and to do so on such nonsensical and groundless charges is just plain knuckleheaded.

Just when you thought.....

After having deflected and deferred any formal investigation of claims of illegal intervention in the electoral process that resulted in George W. Bush “winning” an election in which he lost the popular vote, the Bush Administration now seeks to throw its weight behind a desperate effort by the GOP in Ohio to suppress voting in the upcoming election. The Supreme Court that Bush has packed with Right Wing apologist judges has declined to support this GOP strategy. So when the law fails, John Boehner turns to the person whom he believes will attempt to go above the law – George W. Bush.

It is not clear whether George W. Bush actually believes that the law does not matter. He has lived off the spoils of such political trickery and deceit so long that he might believe that he truly is above the law. Certainly the tutelage of Dick Cheney, who is the unrepentant progeny of the Nixonian philosophy of an imperial Presidency, has encouraged Bush to believe that there is no prerogative higher than Executive Privilege.

Desperate that the GOP might not only lose the Presidential election, but might take a drubbing in Senate and Congressional as well, Boehner has asked Bush to intervene in a blatantly political maneuver. There is no doubt that such a patently obvious move to seek political interference in the election would not be even considered unless there was a fear that a fair contest would not go their way. So the resort to extralegal maneuvers is the option that the GOP has taken. It is not clear whether the Congress has the spine to step in to address this tawdry spectacle. The viability of the Constitution is at risk, and that is not hyperbole. Historically, the US population has felt comfortable criticizing Latin American and other “Third World” nations for their tendency to allow corrupt politicians to manipulate elections and defraud the public out of free and fair elections. The US is in serious danger of stooping to that same level that previously would have been unthinkable. Just when you thought it could not get any worse....

Why Jerry Lewis Makes Us Uneasy

For the second time in two years, ultra-famous comedian and recognized humanitarian Jerry Lewis has been called to task for apparently injudicious slur remarks about gays. In an interview on Australian television to promote his tour there, Lewis reportedly referred to Cricket as a homosexual or effeminate sport. The Gay and Lesbian Organizations have reserved comment until after they review exactly what Lewis said. Jokes that juxtapose macho sport and effeminacy are not uncommon in the milieu of the stage, even if such humor is hackneyed and outdated. In other words, the remarks may have been a feeble attempt at comedy by an aged clown, but not a truly malicious aspersion. That Jerry Lewis has a venerable record for opening doors in society for Blacks in Hollywood and for raising millions of dollars to support medical research may make it worthwhile to cut him a little slack. The fact that Lewis is 82 years old is another important consideration.

What causes us unease, however, are not so much the ill considered remarks of a famous comedian as the recognition that Lewis is slipping in his old age. For someone who has been in the public eye for over half a century, we would expect him to be practiced in knowing what to say and in what circumstances to say things. The tension is painfully evident between the “experience” factor and the onset of age-related dementia. That is not to say that Lewis is not still a talented and sometimes entertaining stagecraft veteran. But at this point, each time he takes the stage there is a sense of uncertainty as to whether he is in control of his faculties and capable of making the fine and balanced judgments about what is truly funny and what is simply in poor taste.

While many would cringe at the mention of the shadow that lurks in our minds, and perhaps consider it politically incorrect, the same concern sits at the back of our minds regarding John McCain. His erratic performance during the last few months of the campaign have given cause for concern about whether he is sufficiently in charge of his faculties to be entrusted with the responsibilities of the Presidency. McCain is 72 years old and has a significant health history that cannot be ignored. He himself has acknowledged his tendency to make “gut” decisions rather than carefully considered judgments. He does not regret those decisions, but the question is whether the citizens of the US will be placed in a position where they might have to regret such decisions. There is a huge difference in the impact of poor judgment by a stage comedian and poor judgment by the Commander in Chief of the largest military industrial complex in the world.

From the Rubiyat to common cliché we are constantly reminded that time is inexorable. The finger of fate writes and cannot unwrite; time waits for no man, etc. We shun and protest that age does not disqualify one from positions of responsibility. At the same time we cannot deny that each of us dances our way toward that final coda, be it a spritely jig or a somnolent dirge. And with each round, we all notice a slight lessening of coordination and a slowing of our steps. Each time I step out on the soccer pitch or the basketball court I am reminded that my physical resources often cannot deliver what my imagination might concoct and my mind would direct. Only self awareness and humility keep me from making foolish moves. These qualities of self-awareness and reflection seem in short supply in the Bush Administration and in the McCain camp.

So we hear about the indiscretion of the aged Jerry Lewis, consider the incredibly high stakes involved in placing a septuagenarian in the White House, and we look for signs in McCain’s behavior to assure us that our shadows of doubt are unwarranted. Unfortunately, such reassurance is very difficult to find.

The John McCain Campaign Message – “Vote For Me – How Stupid Can You Be?”

In the closing days of the campaign for the next President of the US, the rhetoric of the GOP candidate John McCain has become, not only more shrill and desperate, but more incredible. We can even discount the irresponsible and disgraceful pandering remarks of Gov. Palin, seeking to brand Sen. Obama and who knows how many other members of Congress as “un-American.” Such tactics, reminiscent of Joe McCarthy, are also coded racist attacks on Obama because of his multi-ethnic ancestry and unusual name. Although one might hope that a responsible candidate would curb such idiotic excesses, the remarks of McCain himself show him as unable or unwilling to even recognize how far astray his message has gone.

To put a fine point on the matter, the McCain campaign message challenges and insults the intelligence of the voting public. Consider the two main talking points that seem to be the most recent in a constantly shifting cacophony of conflicting messages and strategies. First, McCain attacks Obama on the Illinois Senators proposal to cut or maintain tax levels on taxpayers earning less than $250,000. McCain’s solution is to make permanent the current tax cuts primarily benefiting the top 1% wealth holders in the country. While McCain repeatedly argues that he really has the interests of the average citizen at heart, the main street business owners he supposedly champions are struggling and losing under the economic regime of George W. Bush based largely on such "feed the rich and let the crumbs trickle down to the less fortunate" policies. In other words, the actual experience of the public clearly and starkly demonstrates the failure of such policies.

Second, McCain contends [and apparently believes] that a message that Obama is "inexperienced and unprepared" to “take the helm” of the country’s ship of state in such turbulent times. This argument is all but laughable coming from McCain. Experienced leaders from Former President Bill Clinton to Democratic and GOP former cabinet officials to former Secretary of State Colin Powell have all carefully scrutinized Obama and found him ready to step into the role of President with a sharp mind, steady nerves and optimistic yet realistic vision. As the backwoods folk would say: “that dog won’t hunt.” McCain would do better in seeking to reassure voters that HE is adequately prepared for the job than trying to persuade voters that Obama is not.

This takes us to another item, calm judgment. The seemingly unfocused and constantly shifting direction of the McCain campaign suggests instability and a dearth of true leadership even within McCain’s own team. That does not bode confidence in his ability to take on the much larger role of directing a disciplined and competent administration. McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin only underscores a tendency toward opportunistic and poorly considered judgment. He apparently believes that the majority of Americans do not see the real "Wizard of Oz" hiding behind the curtain.

Finally, if the analogy of experience at the helm is to be considered anything more than empty rhetoric, we would be well to remember that the Naval Officer John McCain managed to crash not one, but FIVE expensive and sophisticated naval aircraft. He used his family connections to avoid being washed out of a career as Navy pilot, a fate that anyone with less political pull would clearly have suffered for such poor performance. So if we are to consider who is more of a risk “at the helm” of the country, it would be foolish to ignore the evident incompetence of John McCain is piloting during critical moments in his military career. His intemperate remarks during the recent crisis in Georgia and South Ossetia suggest that his steadiness in critical moments has not improved much from his crash and burn days in the Navy.

So the real question for the voters is “how stupid can you be?” Are you capable of ignoring all of the neon sign warnings regarding the lack of vision, the lack of policies and the lack of character on the part of John McCain [and his running mate who was censured by the Alaska legislature for abuse of executive power]? Can you convince yourself that all of the evidence amassed by Obama during nearly two years of being scrutinized and tested in primaries and the general election campaigns? Are you willing to ignore the impact of the failed Bush Administration and its incompetence, corruption and venal greed that McCain has consistently backed and supported, despite his claims to being s “maverick?” If you are stupid enough, and if you can toss away basic concepts of enlightened self-interest, then McCain implores you to vote for him. How stupid can you really be?

Seriously Now Folks....

Lest I be accused of cheap humor at the expense of beleaguered Banking executives, or being too glib, let me posit just a few concrete examples that make sense, to me at least, of steps that should be taken in response to the current financial crisis:

1. There should be no severance compensation of significant value to any executive with managerial responsibility for lending practices that resulted in significant losses to the failed institutions. If they are paid anything, it should be in the lowest grade/highest risk commercial paper that was created under their management. This would result in relief on the institution’s balance sheet by removing a liability [in the form of a contractual severance payment or other compensation due expense] and also eliminate some of the “toxic” assets that the taxpayers are being asked to purchase. If the subordinated instruments turn out to have some value at some indefinite point in the future, then the executives could cash them in and pay taxes on the gain.

2. The Government should restrict purchases to risky or defaulted loans that actually have tangible assets behind them. In the case of the RTC, mortgages purchased by the government were based upon actual real estate, not speculative derivative profits from the purchase and future sale of sometimes undefined assets. In many cases, the financial institutions cannot say specifically what assets the “toxic” commercial paper represents. In such cases, the Government should not buy them. Let the institution eat the losses as the government purchases higher grade asset based instruments. The result would be that the banks would still get infusions of cash, but the risk to taxpayers in the deal would be lessened. There would at least be a chance to recoup the buyout expense.

3. The Government should consider a mortgage loan program. If the Government chooses to implement a program to restructure the purchased defaulting mortgages or to extend more time for the borrower to pay before actual foreclosure, the process would be facilitated by having identifiable property that could be assessed. This action would help stem the decline in home values, albeit indirectly, because the inventory of housing would not to continue to swell with properties being offered at lower and lower prices because of foreclosures.

4. Medium sized institutions that can be saved with infusion of capital should be targeted so that the trend of consolidation of large financial institutions that are buying up assets and other financial institutions can be slowed or halted. The consumers cannot expect to benefit from a Government funded monopolization of the credit industry.

These are just a few examples of the steps that seem to me most obvious. At the same time, new regulations and oversight must be fashioned and implemented to try to prevent the current crisis for recurring.

The "Mystery" Will Unfold, or Hold Onto Your Wallet!

Nothing is “foolproof” in the hands of a sufficiently talented fool! - GWB

If ever there was a time to “follow the money” in search of the true meaning and effect of a major historical mystery event, now is the time. The Congressional approval of a $700 Billion bailout of the financial industry has many economists shaking and scratching their heads. Under intense pressure from a Bush Administration panic campaign that the nation faced an economic collapse not seen since the Great Depression, the House of Representatives reversed course within a week and approved the amended measure. Truth be told, no one can really say whether the legislation will be effective. The simple reason is that there is so little definitive detail and guidance in the law, that no one can realistically say what steps will be taken to “rescue” the economy. That is what the Bush Administration sought and received in this latest crisis gambit the Bush administration is so famous for managing. The “mushroom cloud” images predicted and promoted in connection with the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” prepared by Saddam Hussein for launch against the US and its allies provide an apt simile.

If anyone questions whether the game is still afoot, consider the hedging coming from one hedge fund and financial market specialist:
“Investors still have to face some significant challenges in the broad economy that can’t be magically removed by a group of our Congressional leaders,” said Marc D. Stern, the chief investment officer at Bessemer Trust. “Investors have to confront a series of unknowns in the weeks ahead that can be disconcerting.”

Banking CEO’s are disembarking their perilous flights of fancy at this point because they want to cash in on the security of the multi-million dollar golden parachutes they will receive to ease their landings. And who could blame them? The recent departure of one of these "captains of industry" with a $17 Million plus severance package, after only three weeks in the job before his failed bank was sold, attests to the rampant greed and insanity that has ruled Wall Street since the removal of nearly all regulatory controls during the last eight years. If you have a truly “free market” economy, why not expect a “free lunch?”

Hank Paulson, Secretary of the US Treasury and former head of Goldman Sachs, now has the flexibility to spend as much as $700 Billion to rescue his fellow Wall Street barons from their irresponsible gambling decisions. He is authorized to relieve them of the losses from “toxic” assets [the new name for what used to be called a bad loan] and infuse their banks and financial institutions with cash that they will be free to make new loans with. Hank’s only lament is that many of his old friends have gone into seclusion as Lehman Brothers, Wachovia Bank, Merrill-Lynch, AIG and others have been sold or gone bankrupt. How sad to finally be given the keys to the vault and so few friends left to party with!

Let’s see, I extend Billions of dollars in loans to creditors that probably cannot pay them back on properties that are not really worth the inflated value ascribed to them in the loan documents, based upon traditional lending criteria. I make a profit off the interest that comes in on those loans in the short term and put that cash in offshore accounts. When the creditors lose their jobs or the housing bubble bursts so that the loans are not repaid, the taxpayers come in and buy the worthless commercial paper and I get a huge chunk of the original loan dollars put back in my bank. Now, since there has been no significant actual change in regulation, I can start all over with the lending cycle, although I will need to be careful not to extend exactly the same kind of irresponsible loan schemes that I used last time. I need to find a new scheme. Does that sound like a good plan?

One thing is mysterious, however. “Money laundering” is a crime, and is usually defined as the fraudulent manipulation of financial transactions to extract profit from unlawful activity. If a person were to make huge profits from selling cocaine, and then translate those profits into separate cash payments as “management fees,” would we hesitate to prosecute that person? Why then are the heads of these financial institutions not being prosecuted for money laundering when they have manipulated financial markets to defraud retirees and IRA account holders of Billions of dollars while lining their pockets indirectly through excessive compensation schemes and incredibly disproportionate severance payments? Are we to be persuaded that these finance executives did not know that they were trafficking in phony securities?

“Almost no one expected what was coming. It’s not fair to blame us for not predicting the unthinkable.“— Daniel H. Mudd, former chief executive, Fannie Mae
“We didn’t really know what we were buying,” said Marc Gott, a former director in Fannie’s loan servicing department. “This system was designed for plain vanilla loans, and we were trying to push chocolate sundaes through the gears.”

If so, then there must be an alternative pursuit of conduct that was in reckless disregard of their fiduciary responsibilities. We can only watch with bated breath as this “mystery” unfolds.

When October 2009 arrives, we will probably look surprised when the question is asked: “where did the money go?” This will probably be accompanied by questions about why the taxpayers are left holding Billions of dollars in worthless securities. Many economists will likely still be shaking and scratching their heads. Former heads of these financial institutions will be lolling in the sun in tropical isles or secluded palatial estates with their cell phones on speed dial to their Swiss or other private bank account managers, their names all but forgotten, like Charles Keating. Will be then be surprised? And will we be asking who really was the “fool?”

Palin Qualifications? - The Context Says It All

When making a rational and objective examination of the credentials and experience of Gov. Sarah Palin to hold the position of Vice President, the context says it all. Her experience may be objectively judged in terms of what her job actually entailed and whether such experience could objectively be said to prepare a person to step into the job of President at a moment’s notice. We must remember that John McCain is 72 years old and has had significant health issues. As a result, the risk is that he may become incapacitated even if a health crisis is not fatal. In such situations, the Vice President must step in and take the reins of government. Often, there is a power struggle between the sitting Vice President and strong willed Cabinet officials, as occurred in the case of Gen. Alexander Haig. While any person under the stress of the Presidency may be subject to incapacitation, it is certainly valid to look a bit more closely at the GOP ticket where the risk factors are higher. Any competent physician would consider McCain a greater health risk than Obama would be. Departing from name calling and schoolyard bullying tactics, let’s just examine the facts, positions and context.

Palin claims that her experience handling the responsibilities of mayor has prepared her for the Vice President position. The town she governed as mayor had a population at the time of about 5,500 persons, about the size of a medium-sized private college or a small university. The town had a budget of $6 million and 53 employees. This writer has held the position of Chair of the Board of Directors [elected] for a school district with twice as many students as Wasilla and with at least 4 times as many employees. Yet this writer also would not hesitate to disclaim such experience as qualification the job and tremendous responsibilities of Vice President.

In fact, the documented record is even less charitable to Palin. Her responsibilities as mayor of a very small town limited her exposure to or appreciation of the complex issues that even a mayor of a large city would comprehend. In Wasilla, for example, management of responsibilities for firefighting and schools are handled by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the regional government for central Alaska where Wasilla is located. In addition, state jurisdiction over social services and environmental regulations such as storm water management for building projects further limits the scope of executive responsibilities of the mayor. The full extent of Palin’s responsibilities as mayor included overseeing a small police department, the public works department, the parks and recreation department, a planning office, a library and a small history museum. Add to these limited duties the fact that Palin hired a City manager to take on the responsibilities of day to day management of Wasilla affairs.

Palin has been governor of a state that has a total population smaller than some of the larger cities in the US. She has held that position for less than two years. Both at the city and state level, Palin has not had to deal with any complex issues of tax policy due to the tremendous oil and natural gas based revenue that has virtually eliminated property taxes and sales taxes.

Contemporaries who are inclined to speak well of Palin acknowledge that they were shocked to hear that Sarah Palin was actually chosen as a running mate for McCain. They noted her charisma, public speaking ability and obvious political ambition. Yet they also commented that the opportunity came along before Palin was properly prepared and experienced to justify or handle it.

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of the contextual analysis is the factor of one being completely unaware of what they do not know. Dianne Keller, the current mayor of Wasilla, who believes Palin qualified for the job of Vice President, actually stated the following: "Executive experience is executive experience. Whether you are a mayor or a governor or an executive at a company, the duties and responsibilities are the same." This level of oblivious confidence based upon clearly false assumptions says a great deal about the conviction with which the GOP ticket claims that Palin is “qualified” to be next in line as President of the United States.

If Palin has no better understanding of the scope of responsibilities of a chief executive than to believe that her meager experience is equal to that of a CEO of a business that has a multi-trillion dollar budget and more than a million employees, it is extremely scary to envision her actually holding the position and discovering, after the fact, that the actual job is magnitudes of difference greater than she ever imagined.

Economic Sense or Nonsense?

The public announcement of the US government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac this Saturday comes as no great surprise to those watching the precarious state of the credit markets. Following a period of deregulation of credit institutions during the past 8 years or more, with Sen. Phil Gramm passionately leading the charge as Chair of the Banking Committee, a series of imprudent lending and investment decisions has led these credit giants to the verge of collapse. Some of those decisions were caused by misplaced euphoria as the country was floating along on the housing bubble that has now burst. With the plunge in the housing market, the value of the mortgage based credit instruments held by these large financial institutions also plummeted. As their asset base fell, their ability to lend and the marketability of the assets they hold also declined. As a primary source for home mortgage and other consumer and business credit, the failure of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac could seriously affect the ability of consumers to secure financing for typical purchases that drive the US economy. Thus, the pressure to take some form of action to stabilize these institutions in the face of a staggering economy became intense.

Why was it so important for the government to intervene? The answer to that question is also not complicated. The strength or weakness of the housing market depends upon the availability of credit and mortgage financing. Indeed, the ready availability of mortgage financing to borrowers who previously would not have been deemed qualified was a major factor inflating the housing bubble. The drive for deregulation opened the door for unwise, and in some cases unethical, lending practices. Those lending mistakes have led to record levels of foreclosure and tens of thousands now face loss of their homes. These companies hold or guarantee more than $5 Trillion in home loans, or about half the total in the US. Obviously, the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have a major negative impact on the US housing market and economy overall.

The current dilemma is not a debate over whether these institutions should exist, but rather what is to be done about the current economic crisis to stabilize the market and reduce the risk to taxpayers in the face of the necessary intervention. Since the problem will not be rectified by the end of this year, and any action needs to be based upon a longer term strategy, the positions of the current candidates for the White House are of interest.

Obama campaign has been critical of the deregulation and the indiscipline that led to the mortgage lending crisis. The Obama campaign has indicated a belief that some form of government intervention was necessary. His campaign has announced that it wants to study the details of the proposed bailout carefully to see whether it contains the requisite and appropriate elements for an effective immediate response and the foundation for a longer term remedy.

Saturday, the response from the McCain campaign through its Vice Presidential candidate regarding the Bush administration intervention on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was that: “The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help.” Sarah Palin said Fannie and Freddie “have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.”

The former response seems considered and rational, while the latter seems muddled and nearly incomprehensible. It appears to be the kind of response that a person who grasps neither the history of the situation nor the fundamental economic functioning of these companies or the credit market. For a person who is striving to dispel the idea that she is a backwoods and unsophisticated politician, Palin has chosen her words poorly. It is the management of the companies, not their size that presents the current predicament. The “cost” to the taxpayers would come essentially only in the need to rescue the companies from poor management. The role of government in their functioning is primarliy regulatory. Thus, it appears that Gov. Palin lacks a basic understanding of federal credit markets. It also appears that Palin is another example of the GOP style of leadership that prizes ideology over competence, slogans over substance.

The economic turmoil in the US and globally, and the complexity of factors that impact and will continue to influence credit markets, require much more than hollow slogans about "big government." The companies in question came into being in order to facilitate housing finance options and to make the purchase of housing available to average citizens on terms that were affordable. That strategy and the vehicles that made such financing available have fueled the American dream for millions of families for decades. Only by reemploying fiscal prudence and by restoring such institutions to financial health and vigor can the American people hope to regain confidence in the housing market and reverse the downward momentum we currently experience.

Only such inexperience and lack of comprehension would generate such a simplistic and economically nonsensical response. Further inquiry would probably reveal that Palin and her family have directly benefitted from the operation of these institutions. It is understandable that a neophyte who lacks exposure to the complexities of national finance, other than the specific quests for federal funding earmarks for local pet projects, would misunderstand the significance of the government intervention on such magnitude. The real question is whether the American people can risk entrusting the leadership of the country to someone so obviously unprepared to deal with such critical domestic issues.

"McCain Antoinette"

Students of history recall a critical event in history said to have been a primary incendiary spark that ignited the French Revolution: Marie Antoinette of the French aristocracy responded to reports that the peasants were starving – Why then, let them eat cake!

John McCain will accept the mantel of standard bearer for the GOP aristocracy in his bid for the Presidency of the USA next week. By most reports, McCain seems as out of touch with reality and the circumstances on the street as was Antoinette. McCain states that the country has made “great progress” under the George W. Bush administration. He says that the economy is strong, despite the fearful commentary by the great majority of economic experts. McCain’s chief economic advisor, former Sen. Gramm, called the nation a “bunch of whiners” in a mental recession rather than an economic one. McCain stated that he defined “middle class” as someone earning less than $5 million per year, and he could not even recall how many homes he owns with his multi-millionaire wife.

At the same time, news reports surface everyday that remind us that the world we actually live in is not as rosy as the view from McCain’s windows. Today comes a report of a proud 80 year old woman who, after health setbacks, is forced to do something she had never dreamed of doing, file for bankruptcy. Hundreds of thousands of families, including a disproportionate number of single women with children, are forced into foreclosure and ejection from their homes. Food prices are escalating to levels that force many families to choose which of their standard 3 meals per day to forego. An unprecedented number of children in the country are without even the most basic health care insurance. College loan sources have dried up substantially forcing families to scramble to find alternative financing to keep their children in college. Too many will have to inform their children that they will have to take at least a year off from school because the family can no longer afford higher education.

At the same time, the US budget has sunk into a 2-3 trillion dollar deficit that does not even include all the funding committed to the Iraq conflict. More than 60 percent of that US foreign debt is held by China. The US voluntary military forces are stretched so thin that soldiers with documented mental conditions and physical infirmities that would usually make them unfit for combat duty are being sent back for third, fourth and even fifth tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia engages in undeterred aggression in Georgia, presses for annexation of former satellite areas and threatens Poland with nuclear attack knowing that the US is currently powerless to do anything other than bluster disapproval.

Next week in the Twin Cities, McCain and the GOP elite will gather with Bush and Cheney to pat each other on the back about what “great job” they have been doing for the country. We are reminded of Bush's congratulatory pat on the back to the former FEMA agency head - "Great job Brownie!" - after the Bush administration's disgraceful response to Hurricane Katrina New Orleans is still in shambles and currently threatened by Hurricane Gustav with the levees still not adequately repaired three years later. Great job indeed! One thing is fairly certain, there will be as many dissenters inside the GOP convention as were rebellious peasants inside the French palace where Marie Antoinette made her political commentary. The local police have engaged in a series of pre-emptive raids on protest groups to harass and intimidate them, lest they seek to disrupt the RNC festivities.

Logically, it is obvious why such clueless and uncompassionate remarks by Marie Antoinette touched off a bloody rebellion that resulted in angry beheading of much of the French aristocracy. A government that is so out of touch with and unresponsive to the needs and concerns of the public does not deserve to stay in power. But much of the last eight years have been spent cultivating a culture in which education and an understanding of the lessons of history are considered “bad” or “elitist.” So by playing to largely irrational fear and distortions of fact the McCain campaign has maintained a relatively close race with Obama for the Presidency. As PT Barnum proclaimed, however, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public!” In other words, the American public is stupid enough to buy anything. When Americans are swilling gruel these days, we will see how well the GOP message next week proclaiming cake and candy for all goes over.

Historians will recall another lesson. Nero is reported to have been happily fiddling while ancient Rome and his entire realm fell into destruction. While they do garner a measure of fame, history ultimately has not been very kind to clueless and unresponsive leaders. Fortunately for the Bush-Cheney-McCain aristocracy, the American form of removal from power is less physically challenging than was utilized in the French Revolution.

No Such Thing as a “Clean War.”

The Bush/Cheney "Shock & Awe" team seems to think that war can be conducted from a distance and with “surgical strikes” that cause damage only to the designated “enemy.” Most rational people know that this thinking is seriously flawed and dangerous. There is no such thing as a “clean war” and the risk of “collateral damage” must always be considered by any military force clinging to any sense of morality. Collateral damage is a military euphemism for describing innocent victims that get injured or killed, or homes of innocent people that get destroyed in a military mission.

Recent investigations by the United Nations, as reported in the French Press, detail hard evidence of how US forces conducted a tragic raid in Afghanistan on August 21 that resulted in a massacre of more than 90 innocent civilians:
A United Nations team has found "convincing evidence" that 90 civilians, including 60 children, were killed in US-led air strikes last week, the body's representative in Afghanistan said Tuesday. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) human rights team was sent to the western province of Herat after local claims that scores of civilians were killed in Friday's strikes.

The basic military decision to strike back against Taliban or other insurgent militia forces is not what is being challenged here. There is legitimate evidence that many average Afghani citizens and villages would prefer not to be dominated by Taliban extremist factions and simply live their lives in peace. Unfortunately, living in border territories contested by Afghani and Pakistani government forces and by Taliban militia has left these villagers no such option. The Bush policy of “combating terrorism” and "exporting democracy" by financing often fundamentally undemocratic leaders has helped keep the conflict raging.

The strategic and moral questions at the heart of contention here involve the tactics used by the US military and the US government to pursue such policies. If there is a strategic and policy justification for intervention in Afghanistan [not a given when there is no actual threat of Taliban attack in the US], then the choice of tactics to be employed for such purpose should reflect positively upon the character of the intervening party and mission goals.

The strategy and tactics should be designed to be effective and expeditious in achieving the intended result. Planning should include the optimal assignment of proper resources and should also anticipate the level and type of resistance to be expected. In addition, the strategy should consider the risks and the level of collateral damage, both in human mortality and property damage, which is likely in order to determine whether a given strategy is worthwhile and effective. We have all heard of the apocryphal story of the rescuing force that destroys the village in order to “liberate” it. Unfortunately, the Bush team strategists have failed on both counts and are looking a lot like the aforementioned foolish and misguided “rescuers.”

“War is hell” is not just a cliché. It is a fact and a reality that must be faced by any honest military leader. Commanding officers with actual combat experience, something Bush and Cheney regrettably lack, know that any military mission risks property and people’s lives beyond the designated target. The more remote the military attack strategy from the site, the greater the risk of error and risk of collateral damage. The level and precision of laser guided missiles and “smart” bombs aside, something always turns out somewhat different than the details of any planned offensive. Complete precision and control is a fantasy and a dangerous delusion. Some aspect of intelligence will be flawed, some aiming mechanism will operate outside the expected margin of error, some person on the ground will unexpectedly change plans or some unexpected third parties will enter the area of attack. The variables are simply too great to control.

Experienced military commanders know this. But it seems that the only military commanders that Bush and Cheney are willing to listen to are ones that are spineless, incompetent or immoral, willing to sacrifice sound military judgment for career advancement or political favor. Scores of competent and experienced high ranking military commanders have been summarily dismissed when they objected to the whims and demands of Bush and Cheney. When this happens, the result has been thousands of US military men and women dead, tens of thousands of service men and women injured, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians maimed or worse and millions displaced.

When, as in the case of the August 21 attack in Afghanistan, 2/3 of the victims of the attack are innocent children, the military mission was unquestionably a fiasco. We may never know whether the main flaw was poor planning, poor execution or simply a wanton disregard for the safety and lives of those poor children. Whatever the reason, any moral justification that the US government may have advanced for undertaking the mission immediately evaporated. The Taliban, like other extremist armed groups, are not above using human shields as a defensive strategy. [There is no repported evidence that such tactics were used in this recent event.] However evil the Bush administration may seek to portray the Taliban, the manifest results of this massacre of innocent children outstrips any effort to seek a moral high ground.

What is the alternative? It really is not that complicated. If the designated target is hiding in a nursery school, you do not bomb the school and kills tens or hundreds of innocent children. You attempt to isolate the site and wait until a more effective and morally justifiable strategy can be employed. If an enemy leader is identified to be located in a populated town, you do not send in bombs from many miles away from the ground or air and bomb the entire town. If there is strategic urgency, you send in Special Forces to take out the target while minimizing risk of collateral damage to persons or property other than the targeted enemy leader and his or her direct accomplices. You weigh the costs and benefits, you act rationally and you act with a sense of a moral compass consistent with a larger purpose.

While any act of war is inherently "dirty," in the sense that there will be risk of death and destruction, there is such a thing as ethical and morally justifiable use of military force. How can the Bush administration ever expect the people of the bombed village who lost at least 60 innocent children to believe that the US government action was intended to help them? Why should they, or other Afghanis who learn of the tragedy, ever believe that supremacy of force by the US government is better than the fate they suffer at the hands of the Taliban? The Bush administration labels the Taliban or Al Qaida as evil “terrorists,” and yet behaves in a morally reprehensible and monstrous manner as did the forces that massacred these children.

This moral bankruptcy is not isolated. The same flawed moral judgment is at play when the Bush administration expressly approves the use of illegal and inhumane torture as a tool for “expedient” interrogation. The use of the tactic is not effective in achieving the intended result; and the consequence of using the tactic undermines any moral authority the US government might otherwise have for the interrogation. Moreover, the subsequent loss of respect and confidence in the US government taints future actions, no matter how justifiable or well planned. That the way the US conducts itself is a critical facet of both diplomatic and military policy effectiveness is a lesson that the current administration apparently has not learned. Simply put, the ends DO NOT justify the means. There is no such thing as clean warfare. And unless the Bush administration is willing to listen to sound military strategic advice [instead of whispering in their own ears and substituting political ego for intelligence], the former reputation of the US military as the most respected fighting force on the planet will continue to decline and may be irreparably tarnished.