The Feedback Loop

In my pondering about the current state of affairs in the USA and the apparent doldrums of the Obama Administration, I have been searching for unifying themes. We need a way to try to make sense of what is happening; we need a way to direct and operationalize the frustration and anger that is felt when so many things seem broken and with leaders unwilling or unable to fix these problems.

That search has led me to two tentative conclusions. The first has been articulated by research linguistic expert George Lakoff in a way that exceeds any attempt I might make to articulate the idea.

http://www.truthout.org/obamas-missing-moral-narrative59968

Lakoff eloquently speaks to the failure of Obama to refocus on his core message and values that derive from empathy as a driving and unifying theme for his Administration and for his dialogue with the public.

The second point relates to the concept of a feedback loop. Static is generated by sound that is generated and amplified and then rebounds to the source to be re-amplified and rebroadcast in a continuous loop. Only when the sound is redirected to an audience that is not stuck in that loop does the broadcast of sound become rational instead of redundant. The Obama Administration seems caught in a trap that seems inherent inside the Washington Beltway, listening to the same group of pollsters who are talking to the same “experts” and commentators who listen to the administration and themselves almost exclusively. The result is static and noise instead of message and intelligible content.

When Administration insiders consult these pollsters as a way of informing decision making, they hear the feedback from the right wing that virtually any initiative will be opposed and doomed to probable failure. The result of taking this advice is for the Administration to balk on progressive initiatives that would better serve the public who elected him and who exist outside this Beltway feedback loop.

Add to the loop the fact that much of the “media” supplying the “advice” to the Obama Administration is captive of the right wing GOP and corporate driven interests. As such, they are predisposed to react negatively to any proposal that would favor the welfare of the general public over the profits of the corporate interests. To the extent that the President gives access to and listens to this so-called “feedback” from advisers, instead of listening to his own heart and values, he will be paralyzed and unable to act upon the promised initiatives that got him elected. We have all been to concerts in which feedback has gotten out of control and is painful or deafening.

To solve the problem, any good sound engineer knows that you must reduce the volume of the broadcast sound, figure out where the message is being generated and where it is targeted and then redirect both the amplified sound and the source of generated sound in a way that broadcasts an outgoing signal instead of a feedback loop. Sadly, it seems that the Administration sound engineers have gotten lazy and been unwilling to get off their collective backsides to redirect the President’s message and to assess the locus of reception and source of feedback. Until that is done, the right wing and corporate message machine will continue to generate static and prevent any intelligible message from getting through. To the extent that the corresponding actions of the President are like those of a bat that needs the responding signal to determine the lay of the land through which it navigates, he will need to break out of the feedback loop in order to fly.

The US electorate has grown extremely tired and frustrated by the continuous static and incoherent feedback. When those citizens live outside the Washington Beltway and are directly impacted by the failures of policies and failure to take decisive action to fix them, they will ultimately respond. That response may be to attempt to shut down the noise by ousting current officials and starting over. That strategy may not ultimately work, but the current course of events seems to provide no other alternative. The lesser alternative would be for the electorate to go deaf from the useless noise, a deafness that would signal the death of democracy.

Politicians: Listen up! CAREFULLY

While the incoherent rants of the extremist Wing Nuts seem to capture the limited and warped attention span of the mainstream media, the voices of the populace seem to get little more attention than a cry in the wilderness. The proper role of the media is to inform the people and reflect the pulse and sentiment of the general public. Yet an increasingly corporate controlled and market driven media has all but eliminated the traditional line between the “newsroom” and the Board room. The responsibility of the former used to be objectivity and credibility, while the latter was motivated by profit. Just as a judge cannot function as a just and neutral arbiter of the law when there is an appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest, the news media cannot function in its proper role when the information it presents is developed and edited through the filter of corporate agendas with a primary goal of “infotainment” and is supported exclusively by unnamed and unidentified “anonymous” sources. This transition is of no small moment in a society where collusion, corruption and abuse of the official functions of government and commerce threaten permanent destruction of the ecosystem and the global economy. Democracy can only survive in the context of a reasonably informed and educated electorate. But when the nightmare of Orwell’s 1984 type of media is becoming more of a reality than fiction, the ability of the public to function independently and intelligently is undermined. Democracy is neither conquered by an “evil empire” nor threatened by “terrorists,” rather it simply rots from within.

Public commentary in blog type postings is not the most reliable diagnostic for testing the pulse of the electorate. However, such information may provide symptoms of a pervasive infection that lies deeper and may be more dangerous to the body politic. Consider responses to a recent article detailing the record of malfeasance and environmental incidents involving BP Petroleum, the most recent being the huge spill from the well opened by the Deep Horizon drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. [http://www.truthout.org/ex-epa-officials-why-isnt-bp-under-criminal-investigation59936]

The article cites sources and details obtained from former EPA [US Environmental Protection Agency] officials who worked on prior criminal investigations relating to environmental disasters, including prior investigations and convictions against BP. The article appears well researched and very well written in contrast to the type of coverage seen in mainstream media. Information and assertions are not hidden behind speculative generalizations or posited only by sources who claim anonymity. Specific and documented information is cited regarding past violations of environmental regulations, damage to environment and economic interests [such as trade, tourism and fishing] in areas surrounding prior spills or toxic dumping by BP.

In addition, references to experience with corporate cover-ups, misrepresentation of facts and destruction of important evidence and documents. This latter concern is raised, in terms of basic criminal investigative procedures, asking why BP is allowed time and access to manipulate, hide or destroy evidence of what led up to and followed the blow out that killed workers and is spewing millions of gallons of oil into the gulf. The overall theme or question of the article is why there appears to be no formal criminal investigation against BP by the US Government in light of the magnitude of the disaster and the track record of BP – specifically including the fact that the corporation is on probation as a result of prior criminal violation of environmental laws. We should add the corollary and perhaps rhetorical question – why has such an article not appeared on the front page of the New York Times or other major news outlets?

Perhaps more revealing is what the readers of this article say in response to the questions raised. The visceral sentiments and expression of disappointment or lack of confidence in the government should be very disturbing to politicians on up to the Chief Executive who sits in the White House. The precision of their attacks and the specific grounds for their tirades is less significant than the coherence of the collective expression of distrust and dissatisfaction regarding the way government is being run. Implicit in their outpouring is the sense of despair that there really is no one in the governmental system anymore with the courage and the desire to honestly represent the public welfare. Let us look at a few examples:

Why? Because the government doesn't run things here; corporations do, and it wouldn't do to upset the capitalistic apple cart now, would it?! Just a bit of history; there has been thirty years of administrations, beginning with Reagan, that have downsized, defunded, and detoothed our regulatory departments whose job it is to watchdog industry on behalf of the citizens of this country. Next time they call for LESS government remember that that's what they intend to do. What they mean is: we will have money and you will have NO representation. Taxes come down, only for the wealthy, the military-industrial complex, and the corporations. Collection of wealth goes to the top 1% and wages for the lower and middle classes are stagnant.... oh and we get to pay the lion's share of taxes. We reap what apathy has sown.

BP will end up exonerated just like the financial Banksters, Our government is run by politicians who were raised by and with corporate interests. They will never see the harm to this country because they are too busy mining [sic] their own interests

.

"Why hasn't the government launched a criminal investigation into BP?"
Because our neoliberal President, who always favors, and kisses the ass of, Big Business, and promotes Corporate-Based Law Making -- measuring all things in market terms with neoliberal market lingo -- is in their pockets. He's one of them.

BP must be investigated, following whistleblower testimony that BP upper management gave the order for a highly risky series of events, despite advice to the contrary, that culminated in the explosion. If the government does not investigate BP for criminal negligence/recklessness, it is abrogating its responsibility to those who pay their salaries, the taxpayer, and we must get them out of office as fast as possible.

This small sampling provides a window into the growing sentiment that is apparent in the public. Many of these commentators appear to be voters who supported the election of Obama and the current Congressional representatives of both parties. The comments seem heartfelt and indicate deep distrust of the ability of the current government to act in the public interest, especially against powerful moneyed interests. The underlying theme seems to be that one can get away with anything, including causing multiple deaths through intentional misconduct or callous disregard, as long as you have enough money to bribe politicians and exert significant influence over the political process. Indeed, it seems that one can even prevent or forestall investigation into wrongdoing so that prosecution and criminal conviction would be the remotest of possibilities. This reflects discord with the recent Supreme Court decision in which corporations were deemed to have the same right to participation in the political process as individual citizens.

The pollsters and pundits who have the responsibility for taking the pulse of the public would do well to listen a bit more closely to those cries in the wilderness as the midterm elections approach. If all that the politicians value is keeping their jobs, instead of public stewardship and service, then perhaps a news flash that job security is a MAJOR concern in November might get their attention. If these expressions of distrust and dissatisfaction are indeed representative, then it would appear that representatives of both parties are in serious trouble. The concern is not liberal or conservative, but independence and honesty. It may be late in the day, but a representative who is willing to stand up and truly REPRESENT the voters is more likely to get my vote. And from what I am hearing, I am by no means alone in this persuasion.

Education Has Clearly Failed Us

The push is on from US Congress and the Obama Administration to develop and implement “national standards” for academic competency and performance as a way to raise the quality of public education in the country. This initiative would presumably seek to establish a floor or minimum standard for what is deemed a "well educated person" in the country. Sometimes, however, well meaning policy initiatives expose embarrassing facts when run through the sausage mill of the legislative process. The education initiative is no exception.

Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has joined with leaders seeking $23 Billion in emergency funding from Congress. The funding is needed to avoid as many as 300,000 teacher layoffs as a result of budget cuts stemming from the economic recession. One might think that these distinguished members of Congress would recognize the importance of maintaining the infrastructure of the educational system (i.e., teachers) if there is any hope of reaching the goal of implementing national performance standards. That conclusion is not exactly (pardon the expression) rocket science. Yet members of Congress appear to be balking in their support of the funding request. The reasons given are a need for corresponding budget cuts to offset the expenditure, and that such funding would be a “bailout” of education.

(Pause a moment for the laughter to subside.)

Now let us address reality for just a moment. The same Congress has authorized over $700 Billion in taxpayer funds to bail out financial institutions, and it looks like the public will never see even a small fraction of those dollars in tangible benefit. We are told that the expense was worth it because of the damage that might have occurred if the money had not been given away to huge banks and investment firms. The same Congress has authorized the expenditure of more than 50 times the amount requested for education to be spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The experts may have been right in their speculation that failure to bail out the financial institutions might have worsened the economic collapse. The cost of such speculation was enormous, and the failure of those institutions to expand lending and increase flexibility in mortgage foreclosure as a result of the bailout – the payback the public was supposed to get from the decision to risk their tax dollars on the bank bailout- renders the wisdom of the bailout questionable at best. Yet it is a near certainty that failure to provide emergency funding relief to education: a) will damage the quality of instruction to the nation’s children, b) will have immediate negative impact on the functioning of the educational system by increasing class sizes significantly and c) will set the goal of raising performance toward national standards back several years. And the cost of a “risky” bailout of education amounts to the mere fraction of the interest that would be earned on the money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan for a year. A person who cannot reason through such an alternative and conclude that the choice to support education in the short and long term interests of the country is a “no-brainer” may well be, in fact, a person lacking a functioning brain. Simple logic and the most rudimentary grasp of the concept of public service would demand immediate aid to education.

It is apparent that these Congressional representatives could not pass any proposed national education standards in math, economics, reading, history or social studies. This is even greater reason why Congress should hasten to support the request for emergency support to education. If our current system produces leadership of such caliber, there is cause for despair unless urgent measures are undertaken to improve the quality of instruction in the country. Imagine a new crop of leaders who are less educated than the current crop....

No More..No Less

Politicians, pundits and pusillanimous pontificators have all been pondering the next step in campaign finance in the USA electoral process. They puzzle the impact of the Roberts Court decision to allow corporation the same [or more] rights as natural persons in the arena of citizenship relating to the electoral process. Congress, the Supreme Court decreed, had placed unconstitutional constraints and burdens on the free speech rights of corporate citizens. Such restraints, the Court reasoned, are unfair and unjust when such limitations could not constitutionally be imposed upon natural persons.

Considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth over the demise of the electoral process, at least in any shape of form intended by the Founders, has obscured practical thinking. Suggestions have been made that a constitutional amendment is necessary to overturn the ruling. But that ignores the sad reality that the current Congress is so deadlocked that it could not even readily pass a simple measure to extend jobless benefits, making a so controversial a measure as a constitutional amendment little more than a pipe dream. Others suggest that Congress pass requirements that force greater disclosure of the origin and funding source of corporate poetical speech. That suggestion is far from a level playing field because corporations are so adept at the shell game. For example, the media is focusing attention on BP petroleum because of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico while the BP executives accurately respond that neither the rig, the operation of the equipment that exploded nor the installation that was probably faulty was done by BP. All these tasks were done by various different contractors and sub-contractors. So much for tracking responsibility or transparency!

A humble suggestion is to focus not on limiting the corporations, but rather upon empowering the individual “natural” citizen. Corporations can and will undoubtedly spend billions of dollars on lobbying and political speech to influence elections; their contributions are deducted from their profits in the form of business expenses. This creates an actual “inequality” that effectively gives corporations greater rights than the natural citizen in the expression of political speech and participation in the electoral process. The more appropriate response is to pass legislation that equalizes this situation by giving individual taxpayers a deduction for every dollar that they expend on political speech or to make their views known in the political process. If I use my phone to discuss the election or candidate views, then part of my phone bill should be deductible. If I use my computer and the internet to comment or express my political view in favor or against a candidate or to address an issue subject to referendum, then part of those expenses must be made deductible as well. It goes, without saying, that every cent that I contribute to any candidate or political cause must be deductible from my taxable income.

Instead of worrying about giving corporations equal free speech rights as natural citizens, the Congress should be focused upon making sure that natural citizens have no less right to participate in the political process than do corporations under the Roberts Court ruling. Won’t that approach severely deplete the taxable revenue, you ask? Perhaps it would. But if that happened, it is only the necessary logical consequence of the decision and interpretation of the Supreme Court regarding citizenship under the US Constitution. Maybe the consequence of actually equalizing rights will demonstrate how absurd the reasoning and judgment of the Court was in the first place. It will not be the first time that the wisdom of experience has caused the Supreme Court to reverse itself. And the survival of the electoral process envisioned by the Founders requires…No more…No less.

A Pig With Lipstick

The pundits and politicians have responded with amazing alacrity to the negative public response to the Arizona Immigration Enforcement Act that frees local law enforcement officials to target, harass and arrest any person that they “suspect” may be an undocumented foreigner. Since the act of walking down the street or sitting in a restaurant is all that is required to entail potential felony liability, the State of Arizona has entrusted the determination of “probable cause” to the subjective judgment and prejudice of each local cop. The Governor, upon signing the law admitted that she had no idea how to fairly enforce the law or to constrain the ethnic biases of the police officers entrusted to apply it. Honestly, how many blond haired and blue eyed pale complexion people do you think will be detained? Given this sweeping detention authority and the inability of top State officials to explicate any rational assurance that it is even possible to enforce it in a Constitutional and non-discriminatory manner, it is logical that protesters would suggest that it would be prudent to avoid traveling in Arizona as long as the law is on the books. Now the politicians come forward to argue that a Boycott would be unfair and ineffective. They even argue that the Boycott would harm those it seeks to support. These arguments are both facile and false. They are akin to trying to “put lipstick on a pig.”

Those that argue that the Boycott would be counterproductive seek to deflect the core issue and stand it on its head. They argue that a Boycott would be “unfair” and (if you can believe it) “discriminatory.” For any rational person who seeks to avoid mistreatment and harassment, it would seem entirely fair and just to avoid a State which has endorsed an open license to harass individuals based upon skin color or any other predilection the police officer may use to justify “suspicion” of illegal status. If this were an action or policy of a single business or establishment, consumers and the public could simply avoid visiting the enterprise or using its products. But in the present case, the ENTIRE STATE of Arizona has adopted this odious policy and practice. If Arizona citizens believe that the consequence of the law their duly elected representative and Governor have approved, then the remedy they should seek is to communicate to those officials that they disapprove of the policy. But to cry foul to those who would be discriminatorily subjected to the law is absurd. Do not blame the victim. As the quote attributed to Edmund Burke says: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” If you believe it is wrong, then fix it and stop squealing.

The argument that the Boycott would hurt Latinos because the shift of conventions and business away from Arizona will reduce employment in industries like hotels, restaurants and convention centers is even more misguided. This is indeed a twist of sophistry. First, we have to assume that the workers in those industries are legal employees and have the right to vote. If they are not, then it would be hypocrisy for Arizona not to be focused upon the employers who hire undocumented workers, rather than individuals on the street. Yet we know of the hypocrisy in Arizona of politicians who decry illegal immigrants while taking campaign contributions from businesses that profit from underpaying the illegals they employ. But more to the point, the victims of the law and the target of support the Boycott aims to support is virtually every citizen, and especially citizens who are of color. It is by no means clear or logical how advocating Boycott of a state that openly discriminates against brown skinned people would be against their interests, or the interests of all people who hold some genuine belief in equality and non-discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Former Presidential candidate, John McCain advances the argument that the issue of Arizona’s refusal to adopt a holiday for Martin Luther King, as virtually every other state had done, is different from the present situation and that a Boycott is unjustified. Let us set aside for a moment whether McCain was in favor of, or against, the King Holiday Boycott. Many who would try this argument are the same people who fervently opposed honoring the slain Civil Rights leader. The truth is that the issues are not, at the core, different. The State of Arizona has given voice and sinew to the underlying racial prejudice and ethnic bias held by the apparent majority of citizens and voters of that State. That was the message from the people of Arizona two decades ago, and it apparently has not changed despite the passage of time or even the national election of a President of color. McCain would distort the issue and claim that the Boycott is in support of illegal immigration status, as compared to a fallen hero who fought for justice and equality. While it is true that many supporters of the proposed Boycott would like to see due process and fair administration of justice applied to ALL, they do not advocate that immigration restrictions be abandoned. Those who support the Boycott want the same respect for all, regardless of the color of their skin, as did Dr. Martin Luther King. Any law that blatantly defies and violates that basic principle of humanity and social justice should be opposed. And it is the State of Arizona, the home of Sen. McCain that has adopted such a measure.

Finally, there is the question of impact. The politicians and the heads of tourism for Arizona are concerned that the Boycott relating to the King Holiday cost the city of Phoenix alone almost $200 Million. It took considerable time to recover that loss in revenue even after the State reversed course. That impact certainly affected jobs, and some such jobs were held by Latinos and people of color. Yet the facts tell us that Arizona has been experiencing a loss of workers for several years, since the inception of the public campaign against brown skinned people. One report cited concerns by Arizona manufacturing companies that were losing experienced craftsmen and supervisors, who happened to be Hispanic and had legal status, because those workers were moving to Nevada and other places to avoid racism. If the law is to be a permanent fixture instead of a public relations gimmick for political gain, then anyone living in Arizona should be able to plan their life and future around the social and political environment of that State. It would be foolish to think that the Arizona legislature will voluntarily repeal that measure, and the court system is slow and uncertain as a remedy. Indeed the current US Supreme Court seems to provide no great hope for relief in matters of racial and ethnic justice or due process for the individual against corporate driven political interests. So a shift of workers of color from the State of Arizona is a sad but logical and direct consequence of the legislative measure. The removal of professional sports franchises should, but will not likely, be another consequence of the measure. Many athletes, their friends, families and the multitude of fans that are of color do not deserve to be treated with disrespect. And it certainly is not beyond logic to assume that local police would try to use a sporting event that draws many thousands of people to a central location as a tool for conducting a “sweep” to detain and harass “suspected” undocumented persons. When is the last time you took your passport to a sporting event?

Just as the legislators who pushed for and adopted the law should have thought about the logical and inevitable consequences [short and long term] of enacting the law, the organizers of the Boycott should also assume and plan for short and long term impact. Contact with employers outside Arizona should be coordinated so that those areas can take advantage of the potential recruiting opportunity to lure experienced workers to their states and companies. Neighboring states like California, Nevada and New Mexico could benefit from a shift of investment and increase in production capability. While it may sound cynical, even bigots can benefit from the proposed Boycott. An exodus from the State would cause a further drop in the price of homes and make it easier for those who harbor the same prejudice as the supporters of the law to afford homes. Many experienced workers, from laborers to managers, would welcome the offer to move themselves and their families to a different state where the collective voice of the people has declared: “Show us your papers; we don’t want you here!”