No one doubts the tragic and senseless loss of life now taking place on the Gaza Strip in the Middle East as a result of the armed factional fighting and power struggle between Hamas and Fatah. In one sense, only the militant factions themselves are to blame for their inhumane reaction to their current plight and the resort to ruthless violence. It is a struggle to be "King of the Hill" in a situation where the "hill" is not worth conquering, certainly not at the cost of so many lives. Yet the conditions that have led to this crisis are a product of actions on a larger geopolitical scope.
"Five years ago this month, President Bush stood in the Rose Garden and laid out a vision for the Middle East that included Israel and a state called Palestine living together in peace. "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," the president declared." [Washington Post, 6/15/2007].
Within that declaration can be found the duplicitous intent marking the Bush Administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush may have given lip service to a “two-state” solution, but there has been no demonstrated commitment to actually achieving or promoting that objective. Bush called upon the Palestinians to conduct a free and fair election. They did so, but favored representation by the Hamas Party. Bush and the Israeli government really meant that the Palestinians should have a free election – as long as they chose to elect leaders that Bush and Tel Aviv considered preferable.
For their part, Hamas was probably as surprised as anyone by the outcome of the vote. They admitted that the Hamas Party was more of a reactionary community defense organization that had few seasoned “politicians” trained and ready to take the reins and govern the Palestinian Authority and to engage in foreign policy processes. Hamas reached out to Fatah for a coalition. But for the meddling intervention by the US and Israel, there might have been a chance for real progress. However, without at least trying tp respect the democratic vote of the Palestinians, the US and Israel immediately declared the Palestinian plebiscite illegitimate and refused to work with Hamas. Instead, they imposed harsh economic sanctions and withheld sorely needed taxes legitimately due the Palestinian people, pressure apparently intended to force the Palestinians to change their mind and make the "correct" choice about their elected representative.
Thus, through bungled attempts at threat and intimidation, a potential opportunity to foster a pragmatic moderation of Hamas views and behavior was ignored. The Bush Administration only reinforced the sense of injustice and oppression that led the Palestinian people to turn in desperation to Hamas in the first place. Now, after years without demonstrable progress and continued disrespect and suppression of the Palestinian people by Israel and the US, Hamas has taken the position that a coalition with Fatah has been a failure. If Hamas joined with Fatah to obtain a sense of international legitimacy and to support diplomatic initiatives, experience seems to indicate to them that Fatah has failed to deliver the promised goods. Keep in mind that Israel has continued to arrest attack and kill Hamas leaders even when they have no evidence that the individuals attacked have actually engaged in any terrorist actions. Therefore, why bother to allow Fatah to control the Palestinian Authority any longer when Hamas is the duly elected representative? While this thinking and change of position is unlikely to improve the situation for the Palestinian people, the true victims in this debacle, the frustration of Hamas is at least understandable.
The Bush Administration is prone to simplistic labels and sound bites, rather than careful and thoughtful analysis. The Administration seems unable or unwilling to embrace pragmatic policies that require hard work and courage. Rather than just label Hamas a “terrorist” organization [even though the military wing of the Hamas Party has shown proclivity for indiscriminate violence], the Bush Administration could have done the hard and honest work of analyzing why the Palestinian people turned to Hamas. The severely depressed economic conditions they have lived in, and the treatment from Israel that President Carter characterized as akin to “apartheid” policies, has fostered a deep sense of despair and frustration among Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Instead of approaching the situation in a thoughtful and constructive manner, Bush simply declared the democratic choice of the Palestinian people to be WRONG, and that the US would refuse to respect that choice. Bush encourages and supports Israel in its continued economic strangulation of the Palestinians.
Hamas portrayed itself as the only “champion” of the people. Whether or not that was an honest representation of Hamas motives, it was the best option or perhaps the only option that the Palestinian people could see on the horizon. When you have no hope, you tend to focus on today rather than tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Palestinian factions have turned on each other in their despair and sense of hopelessness and helplessness. Equally unfortunately, there are always opportunists who are ready to supply weapons in such situations rather than real aid and support. Guns are easier and more profitable to deliver than medical and humanitarian assistance.
Israel legitimately complains about rocket attacks by Palestinian militants and insurgents. These attacks are wrong, unjustifiable criminal acts. The current situation in Baghdad clearly demonstrates that when you have a near total breakdown of infrastructure, economic systems and political cohesion it is nearly impossible to control and eliminate rogue militant insurgent attacks. The situation in the Palestinian territories is not much different. To pretend that either Fatah or Hamas has complete control of such activities is like declaring that the streets of Baghdad are safe because Nouri Al-Maliki has been installed as the Iraqi Prime Minister. It is a foolish assertion.
The response by Israel of sending in attack helicopters to blow up buildings or tanks to kill children does more to worsen the problem than to decrease the bloodletting. There certainly is no leadership, pressure or encouragement from the Bush Administration counseling less reactionary measures. The decades of blood feuds and an ironic sense of complacency about chronic conflict provide limited constituency in Israel for supporting sustained peace initiatives at this time. And to do so is admittedly very difficult when it is hard to identify a reliable negotiating partner with whom to build a trusting and respectful relationship. Yet no such negotiating partner is likely to emerge unless the economic and humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people improves to the point where they perceive some hope for the future. And as long as the US encourages and supports military reactions rather than diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives, the situation will only deteriorate further [if that is even possible].
“After his reelection in 2004, Bush said he would use his "political capital" to help create a Palestinian state by the end of his second term. In his final 18 months as president, he faces the prospect of a shattered Palestinian Authority, a radical Islamic state on Israel's border and increasingly dwindling options to turn the tide against Hamas and create a functioning Palestinian state. “ [Washington Post 6/15/2007]
It is a further tragedy that Bush has no more political capital and has no clue as to why his inept foreign policy has contributed to the worsening state of affairs . The level of incompetence of the Bush Administration on so many fronts is truly astounding.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
BLOGITOS: June 13, 2007
GUN REGISTRATION LAW: The House of Representative just passed a measure that will not only require states to automate and share information regarding individuals disqualified from legally purchasing handguns, but also provide limited funds to support the process of state level automation and information sharing. The FBI already maintains a database [NICS] of individuals barred from legal gun purchases. However, states do not routinely forward such information, for reasons of politics or antiquated record systems. So background checks are not terribly effective or reliable.
The gunman [terrorist?] in the Virginia Tech massacre was deemed mentally unstable and should have been prohibited from purchasing the two guns he used in the shooting. The unfortunate aspect of the measure is that it took a tragedy for Congress to act on a measure that is pure common sense and should have been addressed years ago. It is the typical government response of putting up a traffic light only after several people have gotten killed in accidents at a dangerous intersection.
HONESTY ALERT: A recent alert has been raised at the White House due to a major threat to the security of the Administration. It seems that there has been an insurgent movement of officials willing to actually tell the truth in public and for attribution. Despite strenuous efforts by White House functionaries to stamp out this emerging threat, the damage seems to be spreading as the alien menace grows. In a recent outbreak, the attempts by Vice President Cheney to plant false press stories alleging that the US military had caught Iranian agents “red handed” in the act of supplying arms to Iraqi and Afghanistan insurgents were foiled.
Secretary of Defense Gates publicly denied that any such capture had occurred. At best, he said, the interdiction suggested arms smuggling to drug dealers in Afghanistan, but there was NO EVIDENCE to connect the incident to formal or official Iranian government action. The NATO Command supported Secretary Gates and refuted the Cheney disinformation campaign. Unless checked, this outbreak of truth could cripple the Bush Administration apparatus and could even compel the President to deal honestly with Congress and the American people. Political and Psychology Experts seriously doubt that Bush and Cheney have the ability to tell the truth, and this could lead to a serious crisis for the Bush administration.
LET’S STAND HIM ON HIS HEAD: Many bystanders are scratching their heads about the lack of progress being achieved by the Iraqi Parliament toward the “benchmarks” established by the Bush Administration. Some of the confusion could be dispelled and better understanding gained by simply looking a bit more carefully at the specific “benchmarks” involved and the priority that the Bush Administration places on them.
The highest Bush priority seems to be approval of the draft legislation on oil revenue sharing. A fair question might be asked whether this should be the first order of business. The country is in such chaos that pumping and exporting oil is itself a dicey proposition. Is it truly most important how the revenue is dispersed when the revenue itself is under threat of being cut off? Looking behind the rhetoric about “power sharing” related to oil revenues, the real issue is forcing the vulnerable Iraqi Parliament to adopt a US drafted oil deal that grants to US and multinational oil companies rights and concessions far in excess of the licenses and leasing rights granted by any other OPEC nation.
The Iraqi Parliament has told US envoys that efforts to stabilize the country with some kind of unified security forces and to reduce factional violence are more appropriate priorities that oil legislation. But the Bush Administration will hear none of it. Cheney personally told Prime Minister Al-Maliki that the oil deal must pass soon or the US might be forced to withdraw its support of the current government. [Notice that Cheney DID NOT threaten to leave Iraq.] So the pressure to meet “benchmarks” debate is akin to standing the Iraqi government on its head and then kicking it when it falls down. Now doesn’t THAT make more sense?
MAKING THE LIST: Perhaps you cannot make it on the air as a candidate for the next American Idol or America’s Top Model or the like. It would appear, however, that you have a much better chance of making a different prestigious list - The FBI’s Terrorist Watch List. The most recent report indicates that there are now more than 509,000 currently on the List.
Since the US total population is slightly less than 300 million, and more than 1/3 of those are children, the basic math suggests that you have about a 1 in 400 chance of winding up on the Terrorist Watch List. Those odds are far better than any hope of securing a spot on a dream reality TV show. And let’s be frank, the usefulness of any screening list with more than a half million names is in serious doubt. If grabbing that fleeting chance for celebrity is your goal, then perhaps making the FBI Terrorist Watch List is your best hope.
The gunman [terrorist?] in the Virginia Tech massacre was deemed mentally unstable and should have been prohibited from purchasing the two guns he used in the shooting. The unfortunate aspect of the measure is that it took a tragedy for Congress to act on a measure that is pure common sense and should have been addressed years ago. It is the typical government response of putting up a traffic light only after several people have gotten killed in accidents at a dangerous intersection.
HONESTY ALERT: A recent alert has been raised at the White House due to a major threat to the security of the Administration. It seems that there has been an insurgent movement of officials willing to actually tell the truth in public and for attribution. Despite strenuous efforts by White House functionaries to stamp out this emerging threat, the damage seems to be spreading as the alien menace grows. In a recent outbreak, the attempts by Vice President Cheney to plant false press stories alleging that the US military had caught Iranian agents “red handed” in the act of supplying arms to Iraqi and Afghanistan insurgents were foiled.
Secretary of Defense Gates publicly denied that any such capture had occurred. At best, he said, the interdiction suggested arms smuggling to drug dealers in Afghanistan, but there was NO EVIDENCE to connect the incident to formal or official Iranian government action. The NATO Command supported Secretary Gates and refuted the Cheney disinformation campaign. Unless checked, this outbreak of truth could cripple the Bush Administration apparatus and could even compel the President to deal honestly with Congress and the American people. Political and Psychology Experts seriously doubt that Bush and Cheney have the ability to tell the truth, and this could lead to a serious crisis for the Bush administration.
LET’S STAND HIM ON HIS HEAD: Many bystanders are scratching their heads about the lack of progress being achieved by the Iraqi Parliament toward the “benchmarks” established by the Bush Administration. Some of the confusion could be dispelled and better understanding gained by simply looking a bit more carefully at the specific “benchmarks” involved and the priority that the Bush Administration places on them.
The highest Bush priority seems to be approval of the draft legislation on oil revenue sharing. A fair question might be asked whether this should be the first order of business. The country is in such chaos that pumping and exporting oil is itself a dicey proposition. Is it truly most important how the revenue is dispersed when the revenue itself is under threat of being cut off? Looking behind the rhetoric about “power sharing” related to oil revenues, the real issue is forcing the vulnerable Iraqi Parliament to adopt a US drafted oil deal that grants to US and multinational oil companies rights and concessions far in excess of the licenses and leasing rights granted by any other OPEC nation.
The Iraqi Parliament has told US envoys that efforts to stabilize the country with some kind of unified security forces and to reduce factional violence are more appropriate priorities that oil legislation. But the Bush Administration will hear none of it. Cheney personally told Prime Minister Al-Maliki that the oil deal must pass soon or the US might be forced to withdraw its support of the current government. [Notice that Cheney DID NOT threaten to leave Iraq.] So the pressure to meet “benchmarks” debate is akin to standing the Iraqi government on its head and then kicking it when it falls down. Now doesn’t THAT make more sense?
MAKING THE LIST: Perhaps you cannot make it on the air as a candidate for the next American Idol or America’s Top Model or the like. It would appear, however, that you have a much better chance of making a different prestigious list - The FBI’s Terrorist Watch List. The most recent report indicates that there are now more than 509,000 currently on the List.
Since the US total population is slightly less than 300 million, and more than 1/3 of those are children, the basic math suggests that you have about a 1 in 400 chance of winding up on the Terrorist Watch List. Those odds are far better than any hope of securing a spot on a dream reality TV show. And let’s be frank, the usefulness of any screening list with more than a half million names is in serious doubt. If grabbing that fleeting chance for celebrity is your goal, then perhaps making the FBI Terrorist Watch List is your best hope.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Common Sense and Politics - The Odd Couple
The raging controversy regarding US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and the US Senate is not an atypical circus event in the Nation’s Capitol. That is not to say that the events are made less significant by their theatricality. The Senate majority was able to indirectly express their symbolic “no confidence” in Gonzalez by a 53-38 margin. However, that vote was 2 short of the 60 votes required to gain cloture and send the measure to the floor for full debate. In effect, the GOP senators were successful in protecting Gonzalez from a full public airing of the misconduct and incompetence of his leadership of the Justice Department. The GOP faithful would not register their votes as supportive of Gonzalez, a step that would be extremely risky under the circumstances. Instead, they characterized the "no confidence" vote as non-binding and meaningless, since President Bush would not be obligated to take any action based upon the outcome of the vote.
The objective of the Democrats was to create an historic precedent by invoking a public censure of a Cabinet official. A rare occurrence in the history of the nation, it would represent a very significant step. The Democrats also sought to maneuver the GOP senators into casting a public vote representing either an affirmation or rejection of Gonzalez as the Chief Legal Officer of the nation. Of course, a lot of time and energy is spent by legislators in the Capitol attempting to avoid taking a public position on important public policy issues. While the GOP senators can attempt to “spin” the vote results as a purely procedural measure, it can still be effectively used by Democratic candidates to portray GOP senators who voted to block debate as a vote to protect the Attorney General. This latter agenda was properly characterized as “political,” but oddly makes common sense as well. The public and senatorial constituencies deserve to know where their elected representative stands on such an important issue. President Bush, the archetype oppositional and combative personality, has already stated publicly supports Gonzalez and stands by their friendship. More importantly, he will not allow the Senate to decide who is fit to serve in his Administration. Prior examples like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby show that even illegal conduct cannot force Bush to sack one of his loyal minions.
However, “political” was not always considered synonymous with bad. In its original sense, a political act is the effectuation of policy or purpose that furthers the will of the body politic. It is the engine that drives our system of government. The current usage of the term, however, has come to denote venal and self-serving behavior that distorts and abuses the public trust. In its original context, the “political” act of expressing “no confidence” in the Attorney General is a useful and important expression aiding the operation of the government. The Senate has expressed a majority opinion that it lacks faith and confidence in the integrity and competence of Alberto Gonzalez. Consequently, every action advanced by the Justice Department from this point forward bears the stigma attached to the distrust that the Senate holds regarding the competence and integrity of Gonzalez motives.
Keep in mind also that the vote of no confidence was not borne of partisan warfare, but instead based upon actions by Gonzalez that were viewed by members of both parties as of doubtful legality and unquestionably unethical. Members of the GOP have called for Gonzalez to step down. Thus, the “protection” of Gonzalez was a partisan endeavor, but the rebuke was not. In that sense, the Democrats have gained a campaign advantage over GOP incumbents. Any GOP candidate who voted to prevent debate on the “no confidence” measure can be properly cast as having sided with President Bush and supportive of the record of Gonzalez. That could be dangerous ground for a candidate, absent some miraculous recovery by Bush in the remaining months of his term.
As a practical matter, and based upon common sense, Alberto should resign. There is little question that nothing other than ego keeps him in his position. He cannot effectively lead the Justice Department. Many of the most talented lawyers within the management ranks of the agency have either resigned or tried to distance themselves from the Attorney General. Others with relatively lesser credentials have been elevated to positions of authority because of their political loyalty rather than their acumen or demonstrated qualifications. When former officials believe that they must demand immunity in order to testify under oath before Congress regarding their actions and communications with Gonzalez, common sense should dictate a departure of the Attorney General for the good of the Justice Department and the nation. However, the ethos of the Bush Administration has consistently placed personal power, arrogance and deceitful manipulation over the public welfare and effective ethical government.
President Bush has been informed by leaders of his own party that he has lost all credibility with Congress and the American people. Alberto Gonzalez is, if possible, in a position of even lower esteem. Yet both have vowed to stay the course. Sen. Charles Schumer, a sponsor of the “no confidence” resolution, stated: “When a majority of the Senate votes no confidence in a cabinet officer, it says a lot. He ought to have the decency himself to resign. Clearly, he is not up to the job.” Gonzalez rebuffed such criticism and stated that he intends to: “be focusing on what the American people expect of the attorney general of the United States and this great Department of Justice.” If that is true, it will perhaps be the first time in his tenure he will be doing so.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Lieberman’s Lunacy
Today’s announcement by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the former candidate for US Vice President, underscores the seriously defective process that yields national candidates in both major parties. Sen. Lieberman did little to endear himself to the American people during his bid for national leadership. His incoherent and often inconsistent views on policy issues left many with the feeling that he was lacking in firm principles and integrity. He was attacked unfairly because of his religion, but there were substantial other grounds for doubting his qualifications. His tenure in the Senate was touted as a solid credential, but that tenure seemed to lack any serious track record of legislative successes on initiatives relating to major national or foreign policy.
In his latest bid for re-election, Lieberman was deemed so out of touch with the mainstream Democratic electorate that he failed to garner the Democratic Party endorsement. He ran instead as an "independent"candidate with strong support from the GOP. His victory in the election has yielded an unpredictable vote in a Senate body astruggling to adjust to retaking the majority leadership. Lieberman has been allowed to caucus with Democrats, primarily because they hope for his support in pushing majority measures. However, he defects from that Democratic position as often as not, and cannot be counted upon to support measures that he previously has appeared to support. Obviously, the campaign process failed to properly expose to the public Lieberman's true character and leadership strengths and deficiencies.
The latest announcement has Sen. Lieberman suggesting that the United States should consider military action against Iran. Most diplomats and experienced military professionals deem the advocacy of a current unilateral military strike against Teheran to be the ravings of a lunatic. Not only is there a lack of proof that Iran presents a current and imminent threat to the US or its allies, but the US military is already overcommitted in its failing mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little doubt that the US military forces could not sustain another major military engagement with any hope of success on any of the fronts. In short, we have our hands more than full trying to deal with the messes in which President Bush has already ensnared us.
Aside from the logistical and practical infeasibility, the fiasco in Iraq should have taught any rational leader that diplomacy has to be the device of first choice and military intervention the option of last resort in resolving such strategic differences so far from American shores. It is difficult to envision what constituency Lieberman believes he is speaking for in taking this outrageous and irrational position. There are some right wing extremists in Israel who profess to invite a military confrontation against Iran. It would provide an excuse for use of the advanced military weaponry that Israel could deploy against their Shiites enemies. However, that extremist faction is still trying to deal with the failure of its agenda in the recent Southern Lebanon conflict. The massive military superiority and blundering overconfidence led to humiliation. So championing the cause of those Israeli hawks would be folly.
Given the mounting doubrts and disaffection of the American public toward the Iraqi invasion and occupation, it is difficult to imagine what factions would follow the “leadership” Lieberman might provide for an assault on Teheran. If one is going to “lead,” it would seem logical that one needs followers. Who exactly are these followers of the Lieberman doctrine?
So it would seem that the American people dodged a bullet when Lieberman was defeated. Hindsight is very accurate perspective however. In dodging that bullet, the people seem to have stepped right into the path of a mortar shell named George W. Bush. How sad and dangerous that the current political process yields the least capable statesmen and leaders when the United States and the world need those that are the most capable.
In his latest bid for re-election, Lieberman was deemed so out of touch with the mainstream Democratic electorate that he failed to garner the Democratic Party endorsement. He ran instead as an "independent"candidate with strong support from the GOP. His victory in the election has yielded an unpredictable vote in a Senate body astruggling to adjust to retaking the majority leadership. Lieberman has been allowed to caucus with Democrats, primarily because they hope for his support in pushing majority measures. However, he defects from that Democratic position as often as not, and cannot be counted upon to support measures that he previously has appeared to support. Obviously, the campaign process failed to properly expose to the public Lieberman's true character and leadership strengths and deficiencies.
The latest announcement has Sen. Lieberman suggesting that the United States should consider military action against Iran. Most diplomats and experienced military professionals deem the advocacy of a current unilateral military strike against Teheran to be the ravings of a lunatic. Not only is there a lack of proof that Iran presents a current and imminent threat to the US or its allies, but the US military is already overcommitted in its failing mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little doubt that the US military forces could not sustain another major military engagement with any hope of success on any of the fronts. In short, we have our hands more than full trying to deal with the messes in which President Bush has already ensnared us.
Aside from the logistical and practical infeasibility, the fiasco in Iraq should have taught any rational leader that diplomacy has to be the device of first choice and military intervention the option of last resort in resolving such strategic differences so far from American shores. It is difficult to envision what constituency Lieberman believes he is speaking for in taking this outrageous and irrational position. There are some right wing extremists in Israel who profess to invite a military confrontation against Iran. It would provide an excuse for use of the advanced military weaponry that Israel could deploy against their Shiites enemies. However, that extremist faction is still trying to deal with the failure of its agenda in the recent Southern Lebanon conflict. The massive military superiority and blundering overconfidence led to humiliation. So championing the cause of those Israeli hawks would be folly.
Given the mounting doubrts and disaffection of the American public toward the Iraqi invasion and occupation, it is difficult to imagine what factions would follow the “leadership” Lieberman might provide for an assault on Teheran. If one is going to “lead,” it would seem logical that one needs followers. Who exactly are these followers of the Lieberman doctrine?
So it would seem that the American people dodged a bullet when Lieberman was defeated. Hindsight is very accurate perspective however. In dodging that bullet, the people seem to have stepped right into the path of a mortar shell named George W. Bush. How sad and dangerous that the current political process yields the least capable statesmen and leaders when the United States and the world need those that are the most capable.
The Economic Dislocation of Executive Pay
There is a pervasive sense among the public that something is wrong with the system and the philosophy of executive pay in Corporate America. A recent report of executive compensation revealed that over half of CEO’s in large corporations are paid $7.1 million annually. The lowest paid in the survey was paid over $450,000. These figures do not necessarily include the value of all perks to these CEO's. The term “earned” lies at the foundation of the debate and thus is avoided for purposes of discussion here. Over the past decade, the disparity between top executive pay has widened to the point that CEO pay is in excess of 75 times the average pay of non-executive employees in the same companies. The debate goes beyond any “class warfare” arguments. The essential question goes to corporate governance and whether a responsible Board of Directors could rationally justify the high compensation and perks awarded to these CEO employees. This issue has come under increased scrutiny as executives are given tens of millions in “severance” package compensation when the company they were charged to lead experienced very substandard performance, in some instances bankruptcy.
Many of the arguments put forward to justify such compensation lack coherence and substance. No one argues that high levels of talent and performance should be denied high levels of compensation. However, there seems to be very limited positive correlation between the actual performance of the Companies and the level of compensation paid to the CEO. For example, the argument is used that corporations must pay very high compensation levels to attract and keep “star quality” executives. The example of pro athletes is advanced as a model. However, one would be hard put to find a pro athlete who is paid more than $71 million per year in salary alone. Athletes like LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and others earn their high compensation levels through a combination of sports competition, performance incentives, sponsorship contracts and investment ventures. In addition, they must consistently perform at very high competitive levels that are evident to the public in order to maintain such high compensation levels. The CEO of Yahoo who was paid the highest compensation among those in the survey led a corporation whose stock and profit performance have consistently trailed that of Google.
Another area in which the purported justifications fail to hold water lies in the size of the gap in compensation. Companies that are laying off tens of thousands of employees still pay tens of millions of dollars to the CEO in annual compensation. A general sense of equity and logic suggest that the excess funds could be more effectively used for the benefit of the corporation and its shareholders by investing them in measures to improve plant and equipment, upgrades to technology or other steps to improve competitive performance rather than rewarding substandard performance of the chief executive.
In a simplistic sense, “executive” entails the inherent concept of “execute” or performance. If the CEO fails to develop and execute a profitable strategy, the diversion of corporate assets to an extremely high compensation package seems illogical. It is true that some strategies require time to develop and implement and stability of leadership is a valuable asset. Like any investment, the CEO should accept risk and receive reward based upon thye success of the venture. However, if the CEO lacks faith in his or her own strategy and ability to successfully implement that strategy, why should that CEO be rewarded and compensated in advance of demonstrated results?
Ultimately, the economic dislocation affects the entire economy and becomes a public interest issue. In general terms, it makes little sense for the government to get into the business of regulating executive pay. The mechanisms of corporate governance and shareholder accountability, if functioning properly, should rectify gross abuses. However, the public has seen too many examples of late where such accountability is not functioning and the resulting consequences have created havoc and serious damage to the public. The collapse of Worldcom and Enron and similar scandals demonstrate that the negative consequences of failed corporate governance fall on helpless pensioners, employees and government coffers. In this sense, the government is already “involved” in regulation at some level.
One way to encourage accountability is transparency. Recent statutory requirements that CEO’s and CFO’s sign and attest to the accuracy of financial reports is a sore point for many corporate executives, but does require an increased level of transparency for public companies. Another more aggressive approach might be to link the tax deductibility of executive pay as a “legitimate” business expense to some concrete measures of corporate capitalization and profitability. If a corporation was losing millions of dollars, for example, the IRS could simply prohibit the deduction of any CEO and senior management compensation beyond some level based upon minimum compensation to CEO’s of corporations of the same class. For example, the survey mentioned is based upon corporate reporting required by law. It showed salary compensation of the lowest paid CEO at around $450,000.
The suggested proposal would not prohibit a corporation that is losing money from paying a $10 million salary to its CEO. However, only $450,000 would be tax deductible as an expense. The Board of Directors would thus be required to justify to shareholders the basis for the excess compensation that cut into operating capital. Additionally, the level of deductibility could be tied to a percentage of corporate profits. The logic of the proposal is that the Board of Directors could fashion any level of compensation package they chose. However, the taxpayer subsidy for the compensation would be limited by actual performance by the executive. This is not undue government regulation; it is instead the limitation of government subsidies for irrational and undeserving purposes that provide no benefit to the public. It would represent sound tax policy to combat government welfare to the wealthy. Most of the public believe that getting by on $7 million per year, instead of $70 million, would not be an undue hardship for a CEO whose performance has not been shown to be stellar. Many would be ecstatic to "get by"on a tenth of that lesser amount.
Many of the arguments put forward to justify such compensation lack coherence and substance. No one argues that high levels of talent and performance should be denied high levels of compensation. However, there seems to be very limited positive correlation between the actual performance of the Companies and the level of compensation paid to the CEO. For example, the argument is used that corporations must pay very high compensation levels to attract and keep “star quality” executives. The example of pro athletes is advanced as a model. However, one would be hard put to find a pro athlete who is paid more than $71 million per year in salary alone. Athletes like LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and others earn their high compensation levels through a combination of sports competition, performance incentives, sponsorship contracts and investment ventures. In addition, they must consistently perform at very high competitive levels that are evident to the public in order to maintain such high compensation levels. The CEO of Yahoo who was paid the highest compensation among those in the survey led a corporation whose stock and profit performance have consistently trailed that of Google.
Another area in which the purported justifications fail to hold water lies in the size of the gap in compensation. Companies that are laying off tens of thousands of employees still pay tens of millions of dollars to the CEO in annual compensation. A general sense of equity and logic suggest that the excess funds could be more effectively used for the benefit of the corporation and its shareholders by investing them in measures to improve plant and equipment, upgrades to technology or other steps to improve competitive performance rather than rewarding substandard performance of the chief executive.
In a simplistic sense, “executive” entails the inherent concept of “execute” or performance. If the CEO fails to develop and execute a profitable strategy, the diversion of corporate assets to an extremely high compensation package seems illogical. It is true that some strategies require time to develop and implement and stability of leadership is a valuable asset. Like any investment, the CEO should accept risk and receive reward based upon thye success of the venture. However, if the CEO lacks faith in his or her own strategy and ability to successfully implement that strategy, why should that CEO be rewarded and compensated in advance of demonstrated results?
Ultimately, the economic dislocation affects the entire economy and becomes a public interest issue. In general terms, it makes little sense for the government to get into the business of regulating executive pay. The mechanisms of corporate governance and shareholder accountability, if functioning properly, should rectify gross abuses. However, the public has seen too many examples of late where such accountability is not functioning and the resulting consequences have created havoc and serious damage to the public. The collapse of Worldcom and Enron and similar scandals demonstrate that the negative consequences of failed corporate governance fall on helpless pensioners, employees and government coffers. In this sense, the government is already “involved” in regulation at some level.
One way to encourage accountability is transparency. Recent statutory requirements that CEO’s and CFO’s sign and attest to the accuracy of financial reports is a sore point for many corporate executives, but does require an increased level of transparency for public companies. Another more aggressive approach might be to link the tax deductibility of executive pay as a “legitimate” business expense to some concrete measures of corporate capitalization and profitability. If a corporation was losing millions of dollars, for example, the IRS could simply prohibit the deduction of any CEO and senior management compensation beyond some level based upon minimum compensation to CEO’s of corporations of the same class. For example, the survey mentioned is based upon corporate reporting required by law. It showed salary compensation of the lowest paid CEO at around $450,000.
The suggested proposal would not prohibit a corporation that is losing money from paying a $10 million salary to its CEO. However, only $450,000 would be tax deductible as an expense. The Board of Directors would thus be required to justify to shareholders the basis for the excess compensation that cut into operating capital. Additionally, the level of deductibility could be tied to a percentage of corporate profits. The logic of the proposal is that the Board of Directors could fashion any level of compensation package they chose. However, the taxpayer subsidy for the compensation would be limited by actual performance by the executive. This is not undue government regulation; it is instead the limitation of government subsidies for irrational and undeserving purposes that provide no benefit to the public. It would represent sound tax policy to combat government welfare to the wealthy. Most of the public believe that getting by on $7 million per year, instead of $70 million, would not be an undue hardship for a CEO whose performance has not been shown to be stellar. Many would be ecstatic to "get by"on a tenth of that lesser amount.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Gullibles’ Travels – Chapter One
Once upon a time a people existed who were thought to be the most progressive, advanced and intelligent society on the planet. They had led the planet in technological advancement, were admired for their economic resourcefulness and were respected as strong and reliable allies. Internally, they enjoyed open and passionate debate over any and everything. Whether the topic was the best way to serve eggs for breakfast or the soundness of the country’s defense strategy, the debate was passionate and free.
These people, the “Gullibles” had a system of selecting their leaders that most of the people believed to be fair and reliable. Indeed, most of the people were so comfortable and complacent with the system, believing that the differences between the choices for leadership were so small, that they sometimes neglected to even cast their vote. From time to time, the people heard rumors that their leaders had been involved in unfairly exploiting other peoples, arguments that religion should be the driving force in government policies and theories that the rich should be heavily favored in government policies at the expense of the poor as opposed to measures designed to provide for the general welfare of the people. The Gullibles generally paid little attention to these rumors, believing them to be crackpot extremists that the majority of all Gullibles would never take seriously. There were even rumors that sinister ideological technology geeks were plotting to corrupt the system of selecting leaders to manipulate the outcomes of elections. Again, these rumors were dismissed as the ravings of conspiracy theorists.
There came a time when these people were caught up in a change of leadership. The newly elected leaders were chosen by a razor thin margin that even required the highest judicial sages of the land to decide who the actual winner of the election was. In several areas of the land, large groups of people complained that they had been discouraged or prevented from casting their vote for leadership. THey even brought forth proof of the mishandling of elections, flaws in the electronic machines that counted the votes and actions that intimidated poor and elderly voters from getting to the polls. These tended to be poor people and so their complaints were dismissed.
The new leadership took control and declared that there would henceforth be a "new way" of governing the people. According to the new President, taxes were cut for the richest of the people so that the economy would grow for the benefit of all. Economic resources for education, health care and relief to the poor would be cut in order to run a more efficient government, he said. If the poor needed help, he declared, religious organizations and charity should be the organizations to provide such help according to their beliefs. If the poor were not of the same religious beliefs, then they were obviously not deserving of aid. He declared that those people and governments in foreign lands that did not agree with his beliefs were “evil” and were enemies. To address this problem, the new President of the Gullibles increased the funding for the military.
Several groups of people on the planet had taken the advice of internationally respected scientists and came together to reach an accord on ways to reduce pollution and hydrocarbon emissions that were a long term threat to the welfare of all people on the planet. The new President of the Gullibles declared that there was no scientific evidence that such a problem existed. Although his lands were responsible for the single largest contribution of hydrocarbon emissions, he declared that the land of the Gullibles would not cooperate in the accord. The Vice President met secretly with the heads of the major oil and energy companies and developed an energy policy that would make their companies more profits. The President thanked the Vice President and ordered the Congress to approve this policy. Because the Congress was led by a majority of representatives of the president’s political party, Congress did as they were told. They ignored the cries of dissent that adopting such an important policy without allowing for the open debate that the people had previously enjoyed and expected was unwise and unfair. The critics were labeled as unpatriotic.
Some people expressed concern that the steps taken by the new President of the Gullibles were harmful to the people, to the diplomatic relationships around the planet and to the welfare of the planet itself. However, media channels that broadcast information to the people assured them that the President had declared that he, and only he, knew what was best for the Gullibles. He had stated that what he was doing was what the Gullible really wanted. If a media outlet broadcast a different viewpoint, the President no longer allowed members of that media organization into press conferences and cut off their access to news releases from the President’s office. So the media faithfully reported what the President told them to broadcast.
Believing that things were pretty much under his control and moving in the direction that he wanted, the President of the Gullibles started on his secret plans to attack leaders of other peoples that disagreed with him and that he considered personal enemies.
TO BE CONTINUED……
These people, the “Gullibles” had a system of selecting their leaders that most of the people believed to be fair and reliable. Indeed, most of the people were so comfortable and complacent with the system, believing that the differences between the choices for leadership were so small, that they sometimes neglected to even cast their vote. From time to time, the people heard rumors that their leaders had been involved in unfairly exploiting other peoples, arguments that religion should be the driving force in government policies and theories that the rich should be heavily favored in government policies at the expense of the poor as opposed to measures designed to provide for the general welfare of the people. The Gullibles generally paid little attention to these rumors, believing them to be crackpot extremists that the majority of all Gullibles would never take seriously. There were even rumors that sinister ideological technology geeks were plotting to corrupt the system of selecting leaders to manipulate the outcomes of elections. Again, these rumors were dismissed as the ravings of conspiracy theorists.
There came a time when these people were caught up in a change of leadership. The newly elected leaders were chosen by a razor thin margin that even required the highest judicial sages of the land to decide who the actual winner of the election was. In several areas of the land, large groups of people complained that they had been discouraged or prevented from casting their vote for leadership. THey even brought forth proof of the mishandling of elections, flaws in the electronic machines that counted the votes and actions that intimidated poor and elderly voters from getting to the polls. These tended to be poor people and so their complaints were dismissed.
The new leadership took control and declared that there would henceforth be a "new way" of governing the people. According to the new President, taxes were cut for the richest of the people so that the economy would grow for the benefit of all. Economic resources for education, health care and relief to the poor would be cut in order to run a more efficient government, he said. If the poor needed help, he declared, religious organizations and charity should be the organizations to provide such help according to their beliefs. If the poor were not of the same religious beliefs, then they were obviously not deserving of aid. He declared that those people and governments in foreign lands that did not agree with his beliefs were “evil” and were enemies. To address this problem, the new President of the Gullibles increased the funding for the military.
Several groups of people on the planet had taken the advice of internationally respected scientists and came together to reach an accord on ways to reduce pollution and hydrocarbon emissions that were a long term threat to the welfare of all people on the planet. The new President of the Gullibles declared that there was no scientific evidence that such a problem existed. Although his lands were responsible for the single largest contribution of hydrocarbon emissions, he declared that the land of the Gullibles would not cooperate in the accord. The Vice President met secretly with the heads of the major oil and energy companies and developed an energy policy that would make their companies more profits. The President thanked the Vice President and ordered the Congress to approve this policy. Because the Congress was led by a majority of representatives of the president’s political party, Congress did as they were told. They ignored the cries of dissent that adopting such an important policy without allowing for the open debate that the people had previously enjoyed and expected was unwise and unfair. The critics were labeled as unpatriotic.
Some people expressed concern that the steps taken by the new President of the Gullibles were harmful to the people, to the diplomatic relationships around the planet and to the welfare of the planet itself. However, media channels that broadcast information to the people assured them that the President had declared that he, and only he, knew what was best for the Gullibles. He had stated that what he was doing was what the Gullible really wanted. If a media outlet broadcast a different viewpoint, the President no longer allowed members of that media organization into press conferences and cut off their access to news releases from the President’s office. So the media faithfully reported what the President told them to broadcast.
Believing that things were pretty much under his control and moving in the direction that he wanted, the President of the Gullibles started on his secret plans to attack leaders of other peoples that disagreed with him and that he considered personal enemies.
TO BE CONTINUED……
Friday, May 25, 2007
Toss Another Stone on the Pile
How many more stones must be thrown onto the pile before the mountain of evidence appears so inescapably obvious that our Congressional representatives will muster the courage to act? There are now volumes of testimony on the record about how the White House manipulated the intelligence, set up its own separate back channel to manufacture self-serving “assessments” and intimidated anyone who sought to blow the whistle on the White House plan to invade Iraq on false pretenses. The Downing Street Memos provide international corroboration that the Bush Administration gave assurances to Tony Blair that the “intelligence would be fixed around the policy” – i.e. the intelligence assessments would be manipulated to support the preconceived plan for invasion. THese and other pledges were made to persuade great Britain to join the “Coalition of the Willing.” Blair obviously thought that they could get away with it because he signed up despite the absence of a UN authorization.
Today, the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Intelligence issues a report confirming that the true CIA assessment of Iraq prior to the US invasion warned of the serious risks of toppling the Saddam Hussein Regime and the potential for resistance, factional infighting and chaos that could ensue after the removal of Hussein. Consider these excerpts:
In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.” It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so imbued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."
The same assessment added, “Iraqi patience with an extended U.S. presence after an overwhelming victory would be short,” and said “humanitarian conditions in many parts of Iraq would probably not understand that the Coalition wartime logistic pipeline would require time to reorient its mission to humanitarian aid.”
The professional intelligence assessment was remarkably prophetic. Yet the Administration attempted to scapegoat the CIA and blame "bad intelligence" for the debacle that followed the invasion. In contrast to this carefully researched assessment by intelligence professionals, Vice President Cheney predicted that the US forces would be "welcomed as liberators." We will probably never really know whether Cheney was cynically trying to dupe the public or that these were the ravings of a self-deluded madman. The result is the same, however. More than 3400 American families have lost loved ones and tens of thousands more are suffering from battle wounds, physical and mental, from participation in a military escapade that never should have happened. Add to that number the deaths of civilian contractors resulting from profit driven “privatization” of the war effort by the Administration. This toll does not begin to touch the suffering, deaths and displacement of Iraqis caused or facilitated by the collapse of civil authority that resulted from the botched US invasion.
It is hard to define the precise obstacle to action holding the Bush and Cheney Administration accountable for these deliberate and deadly deceptions. Clearly, if such conduct leading to the predictable death of an innocent third person had been perpetrated by the average American, an indictment for manslaughter would be the minimum action taken. Perhaps it is the sheer magnitude of the crime that holds the Congress back. For it is not just a crime against a single person sacrificed to the Presidential ego and Administration lies, but thousands of deaths. Many Americans may shrink from accepting the notion that this country is capable of the kinds of war crimes for which we have easily condemned Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and others. At some point, however, America will have to remove the blinders and see what is obvious.
Each “stone” of evidence that has been amassed and the additional ones that continue to appear collectively represent a mountain of guilt on the part of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Today, the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Intelligence issues a report confirming that the true CIA assessment of Iraq prior to the US invasion warned of the serious risks of toppling the Saddam Hussein Regime and the potential for resistance, factional infighting and chaos that could ensue after the removal of Hussein. Consider these excerpts:
In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.” It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so imbued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."
The same assessment added, “Iraqi patience with an extended U.S. presence after an overwhelming victory would be short,” and said “humanitarian conditions in many parts of Iraq would probably not understand that the Coalition wartime logistic pipeline would require time to reorient its mission to humanitarian aid.”
The professional intelligence assessment was remarkably prophetic. Yet the Administration attempted to scapegoat the CIA and blame "bad intelligence" for the debacle that followed the invasion. In contrast to this carefully researched assessment by intelligence professionals, Vice President Cheney predicted that the US forces would be "welcomed as liberators." We will probably never really know whether Cheney was cynically trying to dupe the public or that these were the ravings of a self-deluded madman. The result is the same, however. More than 3400 American families have lost loved ones and tens of thousands more are suffering from battle wounds, physical and mental, from participation in a military escapade that never should have happened. Add to that number the deaths of civilian contractors resulting from profit driven “privatization” of the war effort by the Administration. This toll does not begin to touch the suffering, deaths and displacement of Iraqis caused or facilitated by the collapse of civil authority that resulted from the botched US invasion.
It is hard to define the precise obstacle to action holding the Bush and Cheney Administration accountable for these deliberate and deadly deceptions. Clearly, if such conduct leading to the predictable death of an innocent third person had been perpetrated by the average American, an indictment for manslaughter would be the minimum action taken. Perhaps it is the sheer magnitude of the crime that holds the Congress back. For it is not just a crime against a single person sacrificed to the Presidential ego and Administration lies, but thousands of deaths. Many Americans may shrink from accepting the notion that this country is capable of the kinds of war crimes for which we have easily condemned Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and others. At some point, however, America will have to remove the blinders and see what is obvious.
Each “stone” of evidence that has been amassed and the additional ones that continue to appear collectively represent a mountain of guilt on the part of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Blank Check for a Bankrupt Policy – or – The Boneless Chicken Feast
Thinking about the Democratic “Leadership” in Congress, and their handling of the current Military Funding Bill, I am reminded of a "Far Side" cartoon of a “Boneless Chicken Ranch.” It depicted a bunch of "boneless" chickens laying and wobbling about in a barnyard. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi appear similarly spineless and absurd. They apparently have negotiated a complete abdication of their popular mandate to challenge the Bush Administration and, if possible, change the course of the Iraq Debacle. That public mandate is what brought these “Leaders” to power.
The excuse given for the “compromise” legislation is that President Bush threatens to veto any bill that included any type of accountability measure. In essence, he had declared that he would play a game of “Chicken” with Congress to see who would blink first. Were this just a game or a test of egos, it might be entertaining to some. But in this case, the Congress has caved in and effectively sentenced hundreds, if not thousands, more American troops to loss of life and limb in an aimless and incompetent fiasco. The situation in Iraq has sunk into civil war that no American intervention could prevent or stop. It is a situation for the Iraqi's to resolve for themselves, with the support of its regional neighbors. For American troops, it is a deadly proposition without any upside. Even the Iraqi Parliament and Prime Minister have said that they want the US troops out of Iraq.
Instead of executing the task they were sent to do, Congressional leaders have apparently agreed to give President Bush another blank check to throw billions more dollars into his deluded messianic mission to export Democracy and Freedom to the Iraqi people. How ironic that someone who has such little respect for Democracy should embark on such a Crusade. However, all fault does not lie with Bush. He has been delusional, intransigent and wrong, but he has been consistent. When his GOP colleagues met with him to tell him that the American people are insistent on a change of course in Iraq and that he has no credibility with the American people, they asked him what his “Plan B” regarding troop funding would be. He told them that he was unwilling to discuss a Plan B because it would mean a concession that Plan A had not worked. He had thus signaled that he would not change his mind or his course until forced to do so.
The Congress had a perfect chance to precipitate that change with the troop funding legislation. All they needed to do was to hold firm and pass another Bill with timetables and restrictions and send it to the Oval Office. If Bush chose to veto it, then he would have to accept the consequences for delaying funding to the military. Alternatively, he would have to discuss Plan B. The argument that failing to provide a blank check to the Administration was “not supporting the troops” is false and cynical. The Congressional attempts to provide limitations on the funding were the best hope of providing true support to the troops by mandating a rational strategy for getting them out of Iraq. Remember also that Congress previously has passed emergency stopgap legislation when government was on the verge of shutting down. If Bush vetoed a Bill with restrictions a second time, Congress could still pass a stopgap measure that assured the minimal military funding that is required until a comprehensive measure could be worked out. The currently proposed legislative cave in not only emboldens Bush to continue with his misguided “mission” in Iraq, but encourages him in his current efforts to precipitate yet another dangerous military confrontation with Iran.
This is no delicate moral dilemma; it is a case of common sense. Picture your child caught in the middle of a busy expressway with traffic speeding recklessly in both directions. Would you send the rest of your children out there to stand in the middle of the road to stop traffic? Or would you take immediate steps to get your child out of harm’s way? If the traffic is going to continue anyway and will involve collisions, removing your child from a dangerous situation at least removes the prospect that your child will be killed or injured in the collision. It is not rocket science; it is logic and common sense.
There must be some kind of force field around Washington, DC that dissolves the backbones and saps the consciousness from legislators. They start out from their home districts with a clear message that they are dispatched to deliver and job they are hired to perform. Once they reach the Capitol, however, they become mindless and spineless tools of lobbyists and political pollsters. They react out of fear, rather than act out of principle. This is a time when the need for true leadership is most evident. Someone is required who understands principle above political expediency. We need someone who is prepared to stand up and do what is right, rather than just what seems the easiest. Those candidates who aspire to occupy the White House should be measured by their response [or lack thereof] to the current funding situation. There is an old adage that is you will not stand up for something, you will fall for anything. That is not the kind of spineless individual that this country needs.
The excuse given for the “compromise” legislation is that President Bush threatens to veto any bill that included any type of accountability measure. In essence, he had declared that he would play a game of “Chicken” with Congress to see who would blink first. Were this just a game or a test of egos, it might be entertaining to some. But in this case, the Congress has caved in and effectively sentenced hundreds, if not thousands, more American troops to loss of life and limb in an aimless and incompetent fiasco. The situation in Iraq has sunk into civil war that no American intervention could prevent or stop. It is a situation for the Iraqi's to resolve for themselves, with the support of its regional neighbors. For American troops, it is a deadly proposition without any upside. Even the Iraqi Parliament and Prime Minister have said that they want the US troops out of Iraq.
Instead of executing the task they were sent to do, Congressional leaders have apparently agreed to give President Bush another blank check to throw billions more dollars into his deluded messianic mission to export Democracy and Freedom to the Iraqi people. How ironic that someone who has such little respect for Democracy should embark on such a Crusade. However, all fault does not lie with Bush. He has been delusional, intransigent and wrong, but he has been consistent. When his GOP colleagues met with him to tell him that the American people are insistent on a change of course in Iraq and that he has no credibility with the American people, they asked him what his “Plan B” regarding troop funding would be. He told them that he was unwilling to discuss a Plan B because it would mean a concession that Plan A had not worked. He had thus signaled that he would not change his mind or his course until forced to do so.
The Congress had a perfect chance to precipitate that change with the troop funding legislation. All they needed to do was to hold firm and pass another Bill with timetables and restrictions and send it to the Oval Office. If Bush chose to veto it, then he would have to accept the consequences for delaying funding to the military. Alternatively, he would have to discuss Plan B. The argument that failing to provide a blank check to the Administration was “not supporting the troops” is false and cynical. The Congressional attempts to provide limitations on the funding were the best hope of providing true support to the troops by mandating a rational strategy for getting them out of Iraq. Remember also that Congress previously has passed emergency stopgap legislation when government was on the verge of shutting down. If Bush vetoed a Bill with restrictions a second time, Congress could still pass a stopgap measure that assured the minimal military funding that is required until a comprehensive measure could be worked out. The currently proposed legislative cave in not only emboldens Bush to continue with his misguided “mission” in Iraq, but encourages him in his current efforts to precipitate yet another dangerous military confrontation with Iran.
This is no delicate moral dilemma; it is a case of common sense. Picture your child caught in the middle of a busy expressway with traffic speeding recklessly in both directions. Would you send the rest of your children out there to stand in the middle of the road to stop traffic? Or would you take immediate steps to get your child out of harm’s way? If the traffic is going to continue anyway and will involve collisions, removing your child from a dangerous situation at least removes the prospect that your child will be killed or injured in the collision. It is not rocket science; it is logic and common sense.
There must be some kind of force field around Washington, DC that dissolves the backbones and saps the consciousness from legislators. They start out from their home districts with a clear message that they are dispatched to deliver and job they are hired to perform. Once they reach the Capitol, however, they become mindless and spineless tools of lobbyists and political pollsters. They react out of fear, rather than act out of principle. This is a time when the need for true leadership is most evident. Someone is required who understands principle above political expediency. We need someone who is prepared to stand up and do what is right, rather than just what seems the easiest. Those candidates who aspire to occupy the White House should be measured by their response [or lack thereof] to the current funding situation. There is an old adage that is you will not stand up for something, you will fall for anything. That is not the kind of spineless individual that this country needs.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
“Just Because You Are Paranoid….”
Some, including a large segment of the Iranian people, have described the Iranian President Amadinajad as bellicose and overly confrontational. They view his public profile as doing little to promote the real issues facing the Iranian government and Iranian society. Others critics view him as a paranoid and overly defensive reactionary who acts upon fears of conspiracies and plots by the US to invade Iran (as they have done in Iraq) for the purpose of regime change. While current development of nuclear capability in Iran is on a path toward atomic energy production, Amadinajad’s rhetoric keeps fanning the suspicion that there may be underlying intent to divert research and development toward nuclear weapons capability.
Those in the Persian Gulf region who criticize the Iranian President recognize that Iran has tremendous resources and potential influence in the area, if employed in a prudent and constructive manner. These assets give Iran leverage and bargaining power to broker and participate in both economic and political deals that could help stabilize the region and promote economic development. The major forces working against such progress are religious extremism, tribal feuds and external bigotry and antagonistic policies like the Bush Administration stance toward Iran and Islam generally. These critics believe that Amadinajad is squandering the potential leverage Iran holds by his public histrionics and confrontational dialogue.
The Bush Administration hostility toward Iran goes beyond diplomatic prudence to unjustifiably irrational levels. While the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons capability should be of some concern to the rest of the world, it is no more dangerous than Israel having such capabilities. Indeed, some Arab nations have exposed the duplicity of US policy by demanding that any non-proliferation accord should call for a nuclear free “region.” This would combine a demand for Iran and Pakistan to eschew nuclear weapons with a commitment by Israel to relinquish its nuclear arsenal. In addition, the neighbors of Iran have more immediate concerns regarding Iran’s path of nuclear development than does the US. The constant drumbeat of the Bush led “Crusades” against Islamic nations, which appear to attack religion and ethnicity more than political policies, obliges Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other neighbors to defend Iran rather than spend energy on a peaceful solution.
Now the daily breaking news that Bush has ordered nine additional warships into the Gulf of Oman for “training exercises,” when added to the Battle groups already stationed in the region , lends support to the fears that the US may indeed be staging military personnel and equipment for an assault. There is no evidence of any impending threat of a hostile third party attack upon any US ally in the region that would warrant such a military buildup. At the same time Bush has issued a secret directive for the CIA to commence a covert “Black Operation” to attempt to destabilize the Iranian government regime. When considering an Iranian response, this brings to mind the old maxim: “Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you.” In light of the overtly hostile and unnecessary actions by the Bush Administration to provoke and intimidate the Iranian government, a defensive response by Teheran could be viewed as quite rational and prudent.
Why Bush would, at this point in time, seek to provoke or initiate warfare on a third front when he is so poorly handling the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan is a great mystery. The philosophy of "unilateralism" as employed by Bush has failed miserably and been condemned in the international community and at home. World leaders, including Great Britain who has been his closest ally, are all maintaining a prophylactic distance from Bush. The US Congress has declared that they want Bush to end the Iraq conflict rather than continue or expand it. And his GOP colleagues have told Bush that he has absolutely no credibility. The Military leadership have acknowledged that the US military has been stretched to the breaking point by current demands and commitments. In this context, launching an offensive to embroil the US in yet another unnecessary military conflict would seem the irrational ravings of someone having taken leave of their senses. But the invasion of Iraq based upon lies in order to “get” Saddam Hussein was in many respects the same.
Just because the actions of Amadinajad may seem defensive and paranoid, the behavior of George W. Bush and his Administration tends to support the notion that Bush is “out to get” Amadinajad and that the US government is planning to invade Iran.
Those in the Persian Gulf region who criticize the Iranian President recognize that Iran has tremendous resources and potential influence in the area, if employed in a prudent and constructive manner. These assets give Iran leverage and bargaining power to broker and participate in both economic and political deals that could help stabilize the region and promote economic development. The major forces working against such progress are religious extremism, tribal feuds and external bigotry and antagonistic policies like the Bush Administration stance toward Iran and Islam generally. These critics believe that Amadinajad is squandering the potential leverage Iran holds by his public histrionics and confrontational dialogue.
The Bush Administration hostility toward Iran goes beyond diplomatic prudence to unjustifiably irrational levels. While the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons capability should be of some concern to the rest of the world, it is no more dangerous than Israel having such capabilities. Indeed, some Arab nations have exposed the duplicity of US policy by demanding that any non-proliferation accord should call for a nuclear free “region.” This would combine a demand for Iran and Pakistan to eschew nuclear weapons with a commitment by Israel to relinquish its nuclear arsenal. In addition, the neighbors of Iran have more immediate concerns regarding Iran’s path of nuclear development than does the US. The constant drumbeat of the Bush led “Crusades” against Islamic nations, which appear to attack religion and ethnicity more than political policies, obliges Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other neighbors to defend Iran rather than spend energy on a peaceful solution.
Now the daily breaking news that Bush has ordered nine additional warships into the Gulf of Oman for “training exercises,” when added to the Battle groups already stationed in the region , lends support to the fears that the US may indeed be staging military personnel and equipment for an assault. There is no evidence of any impending threat of a hostile third party attack upon any US ally in the region that would warrant such a military buildup. At the same time Bush has issued a secret directive for the CIA to commence a covert “Black Operation” to attempt to destabilize the Iranian government regime. When considering an Iranian response, this brings to mind the old maxim: “Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you.” In light of the overtly hostile and unnecessary actions by the Bush Administration to provoke and intimidate the Iranian government, a defensive response by Teheran could be viewed as quite rational and prudent.
Why Bush would, at this point in time, seek to provoke or initiate warfare on a third front when he is so poorly handling the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan is a great mystery. The philosophy of "unilateralism" as employed by Bush has failed miserably and been condemned in the international community and at home. World leaders, including Great Britain who has been his closest ally, are all maintaining a prophylactic distance from Bush. The US Congress has declared that they want Bush to end the Iraq conflict rather than continue or expand it. And his GOP colleagues have told Bush that he has absolutely no credibility. The Military leadership have acknowledged that the US military has been stretched to the breaking point by current demands and commitments. In this context, launching an offensive to embroil the US in yet another unnecessary military conflict would seem the irrational ravings of someone having taken leave of their senses. But the invasion of Iraq based upon lies in order to “get” Saddam Hussein was in many respects the same.
Just because the actions of Amadinajad may seem defensive and paranoid, the behavior of George W. Bush and his Administration tends to support the notion that Bush is “out to get” Amadinajad and that the US government is planning to invade Iran.
Monday, May 21, 2007
President Carter Remarks - Sad, But True!
Former president Jimmy Carter spoke candidly in a couple of highly publicized interviews over the past weekend. In one interview, he was quoted as characterizing the current Bush Administration as the worst in history in its adverse impact on foreign policy. He explained his criticism by noting that the United States foreign policy, under George W. Bush was a:
”radical departure from all previous administration policies” [with the Iraq war]. “We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered.”
In a BBC interview, Carter also expressed strong criticism of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He noted that if Blair had not acted in such a subservient manner to Bush and followed blindly in the invasion of Iraq, the situation there would not have been as protracted or as bad as it is now.
The White House responded to the stinging rebuke by attempting to trivialize Carter and thereby reduce the force of his comments. A White House spokesperson stated that Carter’s remarks were “sad” and suggested that Carter was becoming “irrelevant.” The White House response, however, appears rather weak and ineffectual for a couple of reasons. First, Bush has shone a remarkable ability to ignore and disregard any realistic and serious criticism of his decisions or his policies. So we should not be surprised that Bush would brush off criticism from one of the few living people on the planet who have personal knowledge and experience regarding the responsibilities of the office of US President, and therefore the most expertise on the subject. Second, calling Carter “irrelevant” is both petty and ineffectual. It is the ideas and the rationale that Carter spoke that are important. Carter did not seek to aggrandize himself or to even give direction or advice to Bush. He was asked for his honest opinion based upon his experience on a subject and he did so. Regardless of any personal attack by the White House on Carter, his views and opinion are manifest for all to evaluate on their merits.
It is indeed sad that a former President could look upon the actions of his successor and find them so badly flawed. Remember that Carter had far more justification for an invasion of the Middle East than did Bush. Iran had captured the US Embassy and was holding US diplomatic personnel hostage. In many quarters, such an act would be tantamount to a declaration of war. But Carter took the heat and refused to invoke war powers. Despite all the bluster by the current Bush Administration about what it believes that Iran may be planning to do regarding nuclear weapons development, Iran is still not an immediate threat to the US. And despite Bush’s reluctance, it looks like the US will take steps to re-establish dialogue with Teheran that could be useful in defusing rather than escalating tensions. The saddest aspect of Carter’s comments about the current Administration is that they are so accurate.
Carter is not the shrinking violet when it comes to addressing major public issues. He wrote a book expressing his dismay at the way that “religious right” extremists have hijacked the political sphere and steered the American political process in directions that are decidedly “unchristian” and often self contradictory and self serving. We now see each GOP candidate for President trotting off to visit Ralph Reed, and Bob Jones University to genuflect and pray for support in their run for the prize.
Carter also spoke out against the policies of Israel that seem to be geared toward establishing and maintaining a system that is more like apartheid than democracy respecting the Palestinians. He opined that as long as Israel continued on that path, there was no real prospect for a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. He faced a firestorm of complaints from highly partisan pro Israel quarters. But as a key player in the Camp David Accords, his knowledge and observations concerning that sphere should not be so easily shunted aside because expressing them was unpopular with strong lobbying groups. The label might have been harsh, but a reasoning view might search for the truth in his commentary and see whether there might be room for improvement in Israel’s foreign policy. After all, the current approach certainly is not working.
Similarly, Carter’s disapproval of Bush's departure into the sphere of "unilateral regime change" and "pre-emptive war," policies that have generally been deemed war crimes in the international community, was not an outrageous statement on its merits. That it broke the “code” of former Presidents not openly criticizing sitting Presidents may have been impolite and sad, but Carter’s comments were all too true and most certainly relevant.
”radical departure from all previous administration policies” [with the Iraq war]. “We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered.”
In a BBC interview, Carter also expressed strong criticism of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He noted that if Blair had not acted in such a subservient manner to Bush and followed blindly in the invasion of Iraq, the situation there would not have been as protracted or as bad as it is now.
The White House responded to the stinging rebuke by attempting to trivialize Carter and thereby reduce the force of his comments. A White House spokesperson stated that Carter’s remarks were “sad” and suggested that Carter was becoming “irrelevant.” The White House response, however, appears rather weak and ineffectual for a couple of reasons. First, Bush has shone a remarkable ability to ignore and disregard any realistic and serious criticism of his decisions or his policies. So we should not be surprised that Bush would brush off criticism from one of the few living people on the planet who have personal knowledge and experience regarding the responsibilities of the office of US President, and therefore the most expertise on the subject. Second, calling Carter “irrelevant” is both petty and ineffectual. It is the ideas and the rationale that Carter spoke that are important. Carter did not seek to aggrandize himself or to even give direction or advice to Bush. He was asked for his honest opinion based upon his experience on a subject and he did so. Regardless of any personal attack by the White House on Carter, his views and opinion are manifest for all to evaluate on their merits.
It is indeed sad that a former President could look upon the actions of his successor and find them so badly flawed. Remember that Carter had far more justification for an invasion of the Middle East than did Bush. Iran had captured the US Embassy and was holding US diplomatic personnel hostage. In many quarters, such an act would be tantamount to a declaration of war. But Carter took the heat and refused to invoke war powers. Despite all the bluster by the current Bush Administration about what it believes that Iran may be planning to do regarding nuclear weapons development, Iran is still not an immediate threat to the US. And despite Bush’s reluctance, it looks like the US will take steps to re-establish dialogue with Teheran that could be useful in defusing rather than escalating tensions. The saddest aspect of Carter’s comments about the current Administration is that they are so accurate.
Carter is not the shrinking violet when it comes to addressing major public issues. He wrote a book expressing his dismay at the way that “religious right” extremists have hijacked the political sphere and steered the American political process in directions that are decidedly “unchristian” and often self contradictory and self serving. We now see each GOP candidate for President trotting off to visit Ralph Reed, and Bob Jones University to genuflect and pray for support in their run for the prize.
Carter also spoke out against the policies of Israel that seem to be geared toward establishing and maintaining a system that is more like apartheid than democracy respecting the Palestinians. He opined that as long as Israel continued on that path, there was no real prospect for a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. He faced a firestorm of complaints from highly partisan pro Israel quarters. But as a key player in the Camp David Accords, his knowledge and observations concerning that sphere should not be so easily shunted aside because expressing them was unpopular with strong lobbying groups. The label might have been harsh, but a reasoning view might search for the truth in his commentary and see whether there might be room for improvement in Israel’s foreign policy. After all, the current approach certainly is not working.
Similarly, Carter’s disapproval of Bush's departure into the sphere of "unilateral regime change" and "pre-emptive war," policies that have generally been deemed war crimes in the international community, was not an outrageous statement on its merits. That it broke the “code” of former Presidents not openly criticizing sitting Presidents may have been impolite and sad, but Carter’s comments were all too true and most certainly relevant.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Let’s Play “Boggle” the Mind!
They say that when you cannot find the ability to laugh, the very spirit of life is lost. In these troubled times, it is indeed difficult to find humor in the machinations of the US Government halls. However, there occasionally comes a revelation that gives one no choice but to chuckle, if not break out in peals of laughter. There used to be a game in which the objective is to come up with some idea or explanation that was so far fetched or preposterous as to boggle the mind. The story or explanation would be so outlandish as to almost be believable. That game comes to mind when reading about a recent interview with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. During that interview reported by the Associated Press, Gonzalez explains that his close and very longstanding relationship with George W. Bush is a “good thing” because it makes it easier to say “no, Mr. President, we cannot do this.” To start, the idea that Gonzalez has ever told the President that he could not do something that the White House had set out to do is, well, mind boggling.
From the early days when Gonzalez lied for the President regarding a court conference in order to shield the then Texas Governor Bush from having to testify under oath about his drug use and alcoholism in college, Gonzalez has been the consummate “Yes Man.” As White house Counsel, he accosted an invalid Attorney General John Ashcroft recuperating from surgery in his hospital bed to try to get Ashcroft to approve the President’s illegal domestic wiretapping program. Gonzalez co-wrote the astonishing legal memo that advised the White House that the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete" and that torture was an appropriate tactic to use against detainees in the President's “war on terror.” In the role of Attorney General, Gonzalez was willing to do White House bidding in the firing of US Attorneys and replacing them with candidates chosen based upon partisan loyalty and willingness to pursue voter fraud lawsuits against Democrats that could help sway elections in favor of the GOP in key states.
When asked by a reporter during the recent interview whether he could actually recall an instance in which he had, in fact, told the President that something was prohibited, Gonzalez replied, yes. He would not, of course identify or elaborate on what that might have been, attorney-client privilege, national security, classified information, etc. But here is the mind boggling question. If Gonzalez has told the president that torture, illegal domestic wiretapping, kidnapping and “extraordinary rendition,” denial of habeas corpus and access to counsel to detainees and other practices are legally permissible, can we imagine what the president must have asked about in order for Gonzalez to tell him that it was NOT allowable? It is difficult to imagine what type of cruel and inhuman or corrupt practice would spark some semblance of conscience or moral threshold in Gonzalez to force him this Yes Man to tell President Bush “No,” Think about it.
From the early days when Gonzalez lied for the President regarding a court conference in order to shield the then Texas Governor Bush from having to testify under oath about his drug use and alcoholism in college, Gonzalez has been the consummate “Yes Man.” As White house Counsel, he accosted an invalid Attorney General John Ashcroft recuperating from surgery in his hospital bed to try to get Ashcroft to approve the President’s illegal domestic wiretapping program. Gonzalez co-wrote the astonishing legal memo that advised the White House that the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete" and that torture was an appropriate tactic to use against detainees in the President's “war on terror.” In the role of Attorney General, Gonzalez was willing to do White House bidding in the firing of US Attorneys and replacing them with candidates chosen based upon partisan loyalty and willingness to pursue voter fraud lawsuits against Democrats that could help sway elections in favor of the GOP in key states.
When asked by a reporter during the recent interview whether he could actually recall an instance in which he had, in fact, told the President that something was prohibited, Gonzalez replied, yes. He would not, of course identify or elaborate on what that might have been, attorney-client privilege, national security, classified information, etc. But here is the mind boggling question. If Gonzalez has told the president that torture, illegal domestic wiretapping, kidnapping and “extraordinary rendition,” denial of habeas corpus and access to counsel to detainees and other practices are legally permissible, can we imagine what the president must have asked about in order for Gonzalez to tell him that it was NOT allowable? It is difficult to imagine what type of cruel and inhuman or corrupt practice would spark some semblance of conscience or moral threshold in Gonzalez to force him this Yes Man to tell President Bush “No,” Think about it.
Search For "Honest Man" Continues - Hope Fades
Like Demosthenes in ancient Greece, we search among the top officials of the US government for an “honest man.” As we search among the list of federal agencies and top appointees, we are hard put to find an agency, organization or commission that has not yielded corruption on the part of top political appointees. Almost every day produces another example of the broad and pervasive reach of venality and self serving abuse of authority among these officials serving at the behest and at the pleasure of President Bush. Scooter Libby has shone us a glimpse of the level of pettiness and corruption in the halls of the White House. From that center, the malaise seems to have spread across the entire federal bureaucracy.
The malfeasance in the context of foreign affairs has been widely exposed, ranging from those involved in arranging lucrative no bid contracts in return for bribes and special favors to those approving the use of torture against prisoners and chemical weapons against civilians in violation of international law and treaties. On the domestic front, we have been shone the incompetence of FEMA and the corruption within the Corps of Engineers who are entrusted with the mission of helping prevent disasters and supporting civilian aid and recovery in the event of natural disasters. The Department of the Interior has been headed by appointed officials intent upon selling off protected natural wilderness and wildlife habitats and who has been seeking to facilitate oil exploration in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Reserve. The Environmental Protection Agency had to be forced by the courts to undertake rulemaking on carbon emissions because its leaders were so deep in the pocket of oil and energy producer industries that they refused to accept that global warming exists as a real problem.
Even the Justice Department, the executive agency most heavily relied upon for adherence to and enforcement of the “rule of law” in this country, is under intense scrutiny by Congress because of potentially illegal conduct involving its top officials. US Attorneys were fired and replaced by officials at the top of the DOJ because they were not aggressive in filing indictments and lawsuits designed to influence election outcomes in favor of GOP candidates, something the US Attorneys viewed as unprofessional and unethical. The President of the World Bank resigned over direct conflict of interest violations in awarding a huge pay increase to his girlfriend and then lying about it. Now the Chief Inspector at the Department of Commerce is under fire for retaliation against his subordinates who blew the whistle on his improper use of agency funds for personal trips and entertainment. Keep in mind that his primary job is to protect whistleblowers and to investigate claims of improper conduct by employees of the Commerce Department.
Throughout the entire cauldron of alphabet soup we find example after example of illegal actions, politically motivated misconduct and avaricious self dealing. The FDA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, EPA, DOI, CPSC, NOAA, OSC and on and on. It has been said that the true power of a President and the character of an Administration lies not in any one particular milieu he may govern, but in the moral tone that he sets for those to whom he delegates responsibility. Whether a leader exhibits a character of holding himself accountable for his decisions and actions, or instead seeks to deflect blame and responsibility until he gets caught red handed is a message that gets transmitted to those appointees chosen to carry out the directives of that leader.
As we go down the list of agencies and organizations, crossing off one after another, the hope of finding leadership that can pass the simple test of honesty and integrity grows dimmer and dimmer. To be sure, each corrupt official, like Wolfowitz, protests that he acted in good faith. Actions, however, speak louder than words. We continue to hope that there is some public agency led by an honest public servant, and so we continue to search as did Demosthenes. The philosophy of Demosthenes can be applied by a very simple litmus. “You cannot have a proud and chivalrous spirit if your conduct is mean and paltry; for whatever a man's actions are, such must be his spirit.”
The malfeasance in the context of foreign affairs has been widely exposed, ranging from those involved in arranging lucrative no bid contracts in return for bribes and special favors to those approving the use of torture against prisoners and chemical weapons against civilians in violation of international law and treaties. On the domestic front, we have been shone the incompetence of FEMA and the corruption within the Corps of Engineers who are entrusted with the mission of helping prevent disasters and supporting civilian aid and recovery in the event of natural disasters. The Department of the Interior has been headed by appointed officials intent upon selling off protected natural wilderness and wildlife habitats and who has been seeking to facilitate oil exploration in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Reserve. The Environmental Protection Agency had to be forced by the courts to undertake rulemaking on carbon emissions because its leaders were so deep in the pocket of oil and energy producer industries that they refused to accept that global warming exists as a real problem.
Even the Justice Department, the executive agency most heavily relied upon for adherence to and enforcement of the “rule of law” in this country, is under intense scrutiny by Congress because of potentially illegal conduct involving its top officials. US Attorneys were fired and replaced by officials at the top of the DOJ because they were not aggressive in filing indictments and lawsuits designed to influence election outcomes in favor of GOP candidates, something the US Attorneys viewed as unprofessional and unethical. The President of the World Bank resigned over direct conflict of interest violations in awarding a huge pay increase to his girlfriend and then lying about it. Now the Chief Inspector at the Department of Commerce is under fire for retaliation against his subordinates who blew the whistle on his improper use of agency funds for personal trips and entertainment. Keep in mind that his primary job is to protect whistleblowers and to investigate claims of improper conduct by employees of the Commerce Department.
Throughout the entire cauldron of alphabet soup we find example after example of illegal actions, politically motivated misconduct and avaricious self dealing. The FDA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, EPA, DOI, CPSC, NOAA, OSC and on and on. It has been said that the true power of a President and the character of an Administration lies not in any one particular milieu he may govern, but in the moral tone that he sets for those to whom he delegates responsibility. Whether a leader exhibits a character of holding himself accountable for his decisions and actions, or instead seeks to deflect blame and responsibility until he gets caught red handed is a message that gets transmitted to those appointees chosen to carry out the directives of that leader.
As we go down the list of agencies and organizations, crossing off one after another, the hope of finding leadership that can pass the simple test of honesty and integrity grows dimmer and dimmer. To be sure, each corrupt official, like Wolfowitz, protests that he acted in good faith. Actions, however, speak louder than words. We continue to hope that there is some public agency led by an honest public servant, and so we continue to search as did Demosthenes. The philosophy of Demosthenes can be applied by a very simple litmus. “You cannot have a proud and chivalrous spirit if your conduct is mean and paltry; for whatever a man's actions are, such must be his spirit.”
Friday, May 18, 2007
We Gotta Get A New Job Recruiter!
In searching for high level career placement, professional ladder climbing and personal wealth, one could hardly do better than the recruiter that resigning World Bank President Wolfowitz must be using. First of all, this recruiter got Wolfowitz a very high profile and high paying position as head of the premier poverty fighting organization on the globe without any special expertise other than a disdain for the poor and non-white people. The placement package was so solid that Wolfowitz could hold down the job amidst continuing turmoil over his lack of effective leadership and poor management skills in running the World Bank. He could contrive with impunity to provide a 40% salary raise to his girlfriend [from $133k to over $190k] in violation of World Bank policies. (Perhaps Wolfowitz believes that at $133K per year, his girlfriend was impoverished and in need of special economic aid.) When the proverbial spam hit the public fan, he first claimed having nothing to do with the promotion, then retreated to the position that there was nothing wrong in it, and then further retreated to the position that he “acted in good faith.” Most of us would find it hard to grasp how granting a grossly obscene salary increase to ones girlfriend in a conflict of interest situation could sincerely be believed to be “in the best interests of the institution.” But the World Bank Board accepted his explanation. All the while, George W. Bush, that Master at assigning highly qualified personnel to highly sensitive official positions, expressed full confidence in Wolfowitz. A letter of recommendation from the Leader of the Free World is a handy resume enhancer. “Heck of a job Wolfie!”
As a parting expression of regard for his services, the World Bank will be giving Wolfowitz a $400k bonus on June 1 and keeping him around on a paid “consulting” basis until his successor is in place. Such legerdemain is truly remarkable on the part of that illusive recruiter orchestrating the Wolfowitz career. Most people would have no chance at all to head a major world institution having no critical skills or experience and a philosophy that directly opposes the mission of the employer. But political connections and cronyism seem to be a very useful substitute when Bush Administration HR Department screening is involved.
Consider the appointment of Bolton to the US Ambassador post and Brown to head FEMA as solid precedent. Looking at their collective attributes, being a bully, being incompetent in technical as well as diplomatic skills and being without conscience seem to rank as desirable traits. Wolfowitz earned his credentials in deliberately lying to Congress, the United Nations, the American people and the World in order to orchestrate the US invasion of Iraq. His success in that mission helped to create millions more displaced and impoverished people in Iraq and surrounding areas. So what better job for him to take than to frustrate the delivery of economic aid and reconstruction support to those people?
Most of us would be quite happy to get a somewhat less rarified job than Wolfowitz had, even the job that Wolfowitz’s girlfriend vacated in order to accept the modest $60k raise. My mission going forward in seeking a new career opportunity, therefore, has to be to identify and try to engage whoever the recruiter is that Wolfowitz is using. I realize that I may not be nearly as qualified for high positions because I cannot rid myself of a conscience and probably cannot completely disregard common sense, integrity and a belief in basic respect for other human beings, regardless of their socioeconomic status or political party affiliation. But even a lower level position for, say $250K per year salary and a $300k bonus for failure or getting caught violating employer policies, would be acceptable. When I find out who that recruiter is, I will be sure to let you know.
As a parting expression of regard for his services, the World Bank will be giving Wolfowitz a $400k bonus on June 1 and keeping him around on a paid “consulting” basis until his successor is in place. Such legerdemain is truly remarkable on the part of that illusive recruiter orchestrating the Wolfowitz career. Most people would have no chance at all to head a major world institution having no critical skills or experience and a philosophy that directly opposes the mission of the employer. But political connections and cronyism seem to be a very useful substitute when Bush Administration HR Department screening is involved.
Consider the appointment of Bolton to the US Ambassador post and Brown to head FEMA as solid precedent. Looking at their collective attributes, being a bully, being incompetent in technical as well as diplomatic skills and being without conscience seem to rank as desirable traits. Wolfowitz earned his credentials in deliberately lying to Congress, the United Nations, the American people and the World in order to orchestrate the US invasion of Iraq. His success in that mission helped to create millions more displaced and impoverished people in Iraq and surrounding areas. So what better job for him to take than to frustrate the delivery of economic aid and reconstruction support to those people?
Most of us would be quite happy to get a somewhat less rarified job than Wolfowitz had, even the job that Wolfowitz’s girlfriend vacated in order to accept the modest $60k raise. My mission going forward in seeking a new career opportunity, therefore, has to be to identify and try to engage whoever the recruiter is that Wolfowitz is using. I realize that I may not be nearly as qualified for high positions because I cannot rid myself of a conscience and probably cannot completely disregard common sense, integrity and a belief in basic respect for other human beings, regardless of their socioeconomic status or political party affiliation. But even a lower level position for, say $250K per year salary and a $300k bonus for failure or getting caught violating employer policies, would be acceptable. When I find out who that recruiter is, I will be sure to let you know.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Cleaning House – George W. Bush Style
The chorus of complaints against Karl Rove has been long and constant. The White House has dismissed the criticism as unsubstantiated political sniping, sour grapes from the losers. With each chapter and each episode of behind the scenes corruption and abuse of authority that becomes public, the White House defense grows weaker and weaker. No one can quite explain why Rove still holds a security clearance after having admitted to intentionally leaking classified information regarding Valerie Plame. Such actions, by law require removal of clearance for top level security information. And that is only one of the myriad hijinks that Rove has been involved in.
Now, however, Rove is directly implicated in a couple of scandals that involve violations of law that do not seem to sweep so easily under the Oval Office rug. There is no GOP controlled Congress to deliberately look the other way as the laws are disdainfully ignored. Evidence has come forward through insiders and former White House and Justice personnel that Rove and other White House aides have been using an "underground" e-mail system. This secret communications channel, run through the Republican National Committee offices, was set up and operated specifically to circumvent the Presidential archives law requireing that all records of communications involving the operation of the White House be archived. After the Nixon experience, the country needed to assure that there would be a mandatory paper trail. In a related scandal, Rove involvement in the Justice Department’s strategic firing and replacement of US Attorneys in order to install political loyalists has come to light after repeated denials of White House involvement. Both strands are unraveling yet intertwined because some proof of the Rove involvement in the Justice Department scandal may lie in the underground e-mails.
Bush apparently has decided to clean up the matter by assigning Scott Bloch of the Office of Special Counsel to investigate the matter. He is charged with investigating the source and content of the e-mails, whether improper political motives were behind the firing of the US Attorneys, and the extent of White House involvement of those firings. Appears to be a very logical and responsible move, doesn’t it?
Before you answer that question consider the background. Scott Bloch is currently under investigation by the Inspector General of the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) based upon whistleblower allegation that he fired subordinates in his department for purely political reasons. Staff were not hired or removed because of relative competence or actual performance, but on the basis of whether they disagreed with Bloch's heavily Right Wing GOP philosophies. Hiring or firing staff largely based upon their agreement with his own political views and beliefs would be clearly improper and probably illegal. Consider also that the OSC has no independent power to enforce subpoenas, and therefore his "investigation" would have no ability to actually compel any witness to come forward and comply with document requests or testify. The White House has already offered to allow key witnesses like Rove to testify, but only if they are not under oath and there is no transcript. This same testimony will, no doubt, be offered to the OSC in their inquiry. Is the picture coming into focus?
The White House “investigation” of the matter is hoped to provide a “report” that whitewashes the controversy to distract the public from a Congressional finding of corruption. The Congress moves more slowly than the OSC could move. And Block has a very strong incentive to find no wrongdoing, as this would not only allow Bloch to avoid the wrath of the White House, but also set an "acceptable" standard of behavior and political corruption that would help in the OPM investigation against him.
The style of house cleaning being conducted by Bush and the White House is like trying to clean the barn with a manure spreader. There will be a lot of activity and noise, and there will be a lot of dust flying. The only thing guaranteed, however, is that the end result will stink to the high heavens.
Now, however, Rove is directly implicated in a couple of scandals that involve violations of law that do not seem to sweep so easily under the Oval Office rug. There is no GOP controlled Congress to deliberately look the other way as the laws are disdainfully ignored. Evidence has come forward through insiders and former White House and Justice personnel that Rove and other White House aides have been using an "underground" e-mail system. This secret communications channel, run through the Republican National Committee offices, was set up and operated specifically to circumvent the Presidential archives law requireing that all records of communications involving the operation of the White House be archived. After the Nixon experience, the country needed to assure that there would be a mandatory paper trail. In a related scandal, Rove involvement in the Justice Department’s strategic firing and replacement of US Attorneys in order to install political loyalists has come to light after repeated denials of White House involvement. Both strands are unraveling yet intertwined because some proof of the Rove involvement in the Justice Department scandal may lie in the underground e-mails.
Bush apparently has decided to clean up the matter by assigning Scott Bloch of the Office of Special Counsel to investigate the matter. He is charged with investigating the source and content of the e-mails, whether improper political motives were behind the firing of the US Attorneys, and the extent of White House involvement of those firings. Appears to be a very logical and responsible move, doesn’t it?
Before you answer that question consider the background. Scott Bloch is currently under investigation by the Inspector General of the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) based upon whistleblower allegation that he fired subordinates in his department for purely political reasons. Staff were not hired or removed because of relative competence or actual performance, but on the basis of whether they disagreed with Bloch's heavily Right Wing GOP philosophies. Hiring or firing staff largely based upon their agreement with his own political views and beliefs would be clearly improper and probably illegal. Consider also that the OSC has no independent power to enforce subpoenas, and therefore his "investigation" would have no ability to actually compel any witness to come forward and comply with document requests or testify. The White House has already offered to allow key witnesses like Rove to testify, but only if they are not under oath and there is no transcript. This same testimony will, no doubt, be offered to the OSC in their inquiry. Is the picture coming into focus?
The White House “investigation” of the matter is hoped to provide a “report” that whitewashes the controversy to distract the public from a Congressional finding of corruption. The Congress moves more slowly than the OSC could move. And Block has a very strong incentive to find no wrongdoing, as this would not only allow Bloch to avoid the wrath of the White House, but also set an "acceptable" standard of behavior and political corruption that would help in the OPM investigation against him.
The style of house cleaning being conducted by Bush and the White House is like trying to clean the barn with a manure spreader. There will be a lot of activity and noise, and there will be a lot of dust flying. The only thing guaranteed, however, is that the end result will stink to the high heavens.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Middle East Menu: US Style Freedom and Democracy? No, Thanks!
A recent study based upon extensive polling of Arabs in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon was released publicly by the head of the Arab American Institute and delivered to Congressional Foreign Affairs Subcommittees. The basic findings were that many Arabs still admire the stated values of the American people, but that they dislike and distrust the current US policies that seem at odds with those values. Dr. Zogby, head of the Institute, testified that in almost every category reflecting Arab perception of America, US policies were the decisive factor driving up the negatives.
[Dr. Zogby] told the Congressional committee that the survey showed the most significant policy issues shaping negative attitudes were "our treatment of the Palestinians, our policy in Iraq, and our overall treatment of Arabs and Islam in general - sometimes citing specific practices (detention, torture, etc.) These negative behaviors combine to call into question our adherence to our stated values."
Among respondents from Arab groups most likely to look favorably upon the US, the solid majority rejected the idea of US intervention and US assistance in promoting “freedom and Democracy” within their countries. The response was favorable to traditional types of foreign aid to assist in education, health care and building capacity to improve the standard of living in Arab countries but which respected sovereignty. However, even those who value (America's) "freedom and democracy" did not want the US style of meddling in their countries internal affairs to promote those values.
Saudi Arabians, probably the closest allies to the Bush Administration, indicated by a 52% majority that they admired the values of freedom and democracy, but only 8% approved of US Arab policies. In Egypt, 60% approved of American people, but only 1% approved of US policies regarding Arabs and Palestinians. And in recent months, that favorable rating of the American people has dropped to 23%. Similar survey results were found across the Arab world.
"Make no mistake," Zogby declared. "The situation of the Palestinians, (US) actions and policies in Iraq, (America's) perceived complicity in last year's war in Lebanon, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, and last year's Dubai Ports World debacle have taken and continue to take a toll on America's standing" in the Arab world.
Such results are reminiscent of the statement by Vladimir Putin to George W. Bush that the US could keep their brand of “freedom and democracy,” as represented by the current US foreign policy. The results also reflect the predicted "who will be next?" fear arising from the US invasion of Iraq. Those who detested Saddam Hussein still question what is to stop Bush from invading their country for the purpose of regime change in the guise of the so-called "war on terror."
[Dr. Zogby] told the Congressional committee that the survey showed the most significant policy issues shaping negative attitudes were "our treatment of the Palestinians, our policy in Iraq, and our overall treatment of Arabs and Islam in general - sometimes citing specific practices (detention, torture, etc.) These negative behaviors combine to call into question our adherence to our stated values."
Among respondents from Arab groups most likely to look favorably upon the US, the solid majority rejected the idea of US intervention and US assistance in promoting “freedom and Democracy” within their countries. The response was favorable to traditional types of foreign aid to assist in education, health care and building capacity to improve the standard of living in Arab countries but which respected sovereignty. However, even those who value (America's) "freedom and democracy" did not want the US style of meddling in their countries internal affairs to promote those values.
Saudi Arabians, probably the closest allies to the Bush Administration, indicated by a 52% majority that they admired the values of freedom and democracy, but only 8% approved of US Arab policies. In Egypt, 60% approved of American people, but only 1% approved of US policies regarding Arabs and Palestinians. And in recent months, that favorable rating of the American people has dropped to 23%. Similar survey results were found across the Arab world.
"Make no mistake," Zogby declared. "The situation of the Palestinians, (US) actions and policies in Iraq, (America's) perceived complicity in last year's war in Lebanon, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, and last year's Dubai Ports World debacle have taken and continue to take a toll on America's standing" in the Arab world.
Such results are reminiscent of the statement by Vladimir Putin to George W. Bush that the US could keep their brand of “freedom and democracy,” as represented by the current US foreign policy. The results also reflect the predicted "who will be next?" fear arising from the US invasion of Iraq. Those who detested Saddam Hussein still question what is to stop Bush from invading their country for the purpose of regime change in the guise of the so-called "war on terror."
In what some have called an egotistical and vainglorious attempt to build a personal legacy, George W. Bush has pursued a strategy of “cowboy” diplomacy and uninvited intervention into the affairs of other sovereign nations to promote what he calls “democracy.” Bush apparently assumes that the Arab world is blind or lacks intelligence. In this global information age, people all over the world are well aware of serious issues that have arisen regarding GOP tampering with US elections [and allegations of having attempted to do so in Mexico and other Latin American countries] and Bush government intrusion on domestic civil rights and liberties of American citizens. How valuable and durable is a system being promoted, they ask, when it can be so easily broken by a single administration? Add to these perceptions the evidence of how the US has behaved internationally [condoning torture - Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Secret Prisons; illegal kidnapping - Extraordinary Renditions, the Italian Incident, etc.; condoning use of chemical weapons - " willie pete" in Fallujah, Israeli attacks in Southern Lebanon; execution and rape of civilians - eg. Haditha] and it is no mystery why the stature of the US government has fallen so steeply abroad.
Shirin Abadi, the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to win the Nobel Peace prize succinctly described the current problem with the credibility and reputation of the US under Bush: “Democracy promotion is seen as a euphemism for regime change. You cannot deliver democracy with guns and bombs."
Dr Zogby testified to the Congressional Subcommittees that the most effective first step to resurrect the reputation of the US government in the Arab world is to listen to what the Arab people, collectively, are telling us. This resounding message is not tied to any particular conflict or political party or relationship with a specific leader. The obvious message that comes through from the voices of Arabs across the entire spectrum reflects their rejection of the Bush Administration policies toward the Arab world. But President Bush has not shown a significant capacity to listen to the views, opinions or advice of others that do not agree with him. So, as long as he continues to serve up his brand of “freedom and democracy,” the Arab world will continue to respond, NO THANK YOU!
Shirin Abadi, the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to win the Nobel Peace prize succinctly described the current problem with the credibility and reputation of the US under Bush: “Democracy promotion is seen as a euphemism for regime change. You cannot deliver democracy with guns and bombs."
Dr Zogby testified to the Congressional Subcommittees that the most effective first step to resurrect the reputation of the US government in the Arab world is to listen to what the Arab people, collectively, are telling us. This resounding message is not tied to any particular conflict or political party or relationship with a specific leader. The obvious message that comes through from the voices of Arabs across the entire spectrum reflects their rejection of the Bush Administration policies toward the Arab world. But President Bush has not shown a significant capacity to listen to the views, opinions or advice of others that do not agree with him. So, as long as he continues to serve up his brand of “freedom and democracy,” the Arab world will continue to respond, NO THANK YOU!
Monday, May 07, 2007
Sports Break: What the Hell Were They Thinking?
Picture top round draft choices who have made the roster on NFL teams and obtained contracts assuring them seven figure incomes over the next three years. These athletes have undergone years of training and hardship, often playing through pain and injury to reach their goal of an NFL contract. Now picture these same individuals tossing all that opportunity by being arrested for illegal gun possession, felony drug possession and drunken driving. What could they possibly be thinking?
Let’s just do a quick survey [by no means comprehensive] of cases reported in the media in the past six months. Pacman Jones, Ahmad Carroll, Chris Henry, Gerald Sensabaugh and Charles Sharon were all arrested on multiple charges including gun possession. Add to them Kalif Barnes and Brian Williams arrested for speeding and reckless driving while drunk. Under the NFL’s newly imposed rules, teams will be held accountable for the behavior of their players. A clause in player contracts that allowed teams to cut players and void contract payments if the player engaged in criminal activity that brought disrepute on the team has been a hotly debated issue for years. Now the NFL has stepped in and declared that whether or not the teams include such restrictions on the players directly, the team will be sanctioned for the such behavior of its players.
It is true that many of these players came from rough circumstances and that they may have "friends" who are drawn to weapons, drugs and other criminal lifestyle elements. Many of these athletes come from college backgrounds where true education and intellectual maturation was a mere afterthought. But it is long past the time for such excuses to carry any substantial weight. These athletes know what they are seeking and should know [or be advised] that there are responsibilities that go along with the prize. There are many young disciplined athletes who do have the discipline to make the necessary choices that go along with getting a contract with an NFL team. If they can discipline their bodies to perform at highest levels to compete on the field, they can also discipline their lifestyles to avoid drugs and weapons charges. Those who cannot exercise such discipline deserve to step aside and let others step forward.
We might ask why on earth a player would actually need to carry an unregistered weapon. In 99% of all instances of their daily lives, they could and should avoid any situation where a gun might even be useful or necessary for personal defense. [When would they ever need it as an offensive tool?] If there were a legitimate risk or need to have a weapon, what would prevent the player from obtaining a legal permit? More to the point, if a player felt it necessary to go into an environment where his personal safety might be at risk, he could contract with a bodyguard who is licensed and trained in the use of weapons for a mere fraction of the player’s annual income. There are responsible bodyguards who would be happy to work for a salary of $50,000 per year. And for an athlete making more than $500,000 a year plus incentive bonuses, such a precaution would seem cheap in comparison to risking your entire career. So, what the hell were they thinking?
Let’s just do a quick survey [by no means comprehensive] of cases reported in the media in the past six months. Pacman Jones, Ahmad Carroll, Chris Henry, Gerald Sensabaugh and Charles Sharon were all arrested on multiple charges including gun possession. Add to them Kalif Barnes and Brian Williams arrested for speeding and reckless driving while drunk. Under the NFL’s newly imposed rules, teams will be held accountable for the behavior of their players. A clause in player contracts that allowed teams to cut players and void contract payments if the player engaged in criminal activity that brought disrepute on the team has been a hotly debated issue for years. Now the NFL has stepped in and declared that whether or not the teams include such restrictions on the players directly, the team will be sanctioned for the such behavior of its players.
It is true that many of these players came from rough circumstances and that they may have "friends" who are drawn to weapons, drugs and other criminal lifestyle elements. Many of these athletes come from college backgrounds where true education and intellectual maturation was a mere afterthought. But it is long past the time for such excuses to carry any substantial weight. These athletes know what they are seeking and should know [or be advised] that there are responsibilities that go along with the prize. There are many young disciplined athletes who do have the discipline to make the necessary choices that go along with getting a contract with an NFL team. If they can discipline their bodies to perform at highest levels to compete on the field, they can also discipline their lifestyles to avoid drugs and weapons charges. Those who cannot exercise such discipline deserve to step aside and let others step forward.
We might ask why on earth a player would actually need to carry an unregistered weapon. In 99% of all instances of their daily lives, they could and should avoid any situation where a gun might even be useful or necessary for personal defense. [When would they ever need it as an offensive tool?] If there were a legitimate risk or need to have a weapon, what would prevent the player from obtaining a legal permit? More to the point, if a player felt it necessary to go into an environment where his personal safety might be at risk, he could contract with a bodyguard who is licensed and trained in the use of weapons for a mere fraction of the player’s annual income. There are responsible bodyguards who would be happy to work for a salary of $50,000 per year. And for an athlete making more than $500,000 a year plus incentive bonuses, such a precaution would seem cheap in comparison to risking your entire career. So, what the hell were they thinking?
Hurricane Disaster Redux?
Four of the most tragic words in the English language for one to hear would be: “I told you so.” To face a terrible disaster and know that it could clearly have been avoided if one had only chosen to listen to sound advice given beforehand would be most disheartening and shameful. One need only look to the specific and clear warnings being given about the readiness of the Gulf Area for another hurricane to wonder whether such a tragedy will befall the Bush administration.
Beyond the Katrina Hurricane disaster, we have a shameful failure on the part of the Bush Government to live up to its express promises of aid and reconstruction of the devastation in New Orleans and the Gulf Areas. After first ignoring the problem, Bush went personally to New orleans to promise swift and bold action to aid the reconstruction of New Orleans. Nearly two years after the natural disaster ravaged the delta areas, the populace are still struggling and staggering to regain their footing. And that is the good news.
The hurricane season of 2007 begins next month, and New Orleans is ill prepared to deal with another storm. As with celebrated reconstruction projects orchestrated by the Bush Administration in Iraq, the celebrated levee repairs and reconstruction in New Orleans are showing serious defects. A report on levee construction funded by the independent National Science Foundation found serious flaws in the Army Corp of Engineers levee repairs, including erosion that could lead to failures in the event of significant flooding pressure. Photographs of the hurricane protection levee system can be found on the National Geographic Magazine website [ngm.com/levees].
The other lynch pin of the hurricane protection system is the network of pumps intended to remove flood waters from low lying areas in New Orleans. A previous report found that millions of dollars had been paid in no bid contracts for installation and repair of these pumps to a company owned by a previous business partner of Jeb Bush. The pumps installed by that company, however, were found defective and unable to provide the required protection even for flooding less severe than the Katrina levels.
The advance warnings are clear and unmistakable. Shoddy workmanship and opportunistic cronyism and profiteering have been endemic to projects managed by the Bush Administration. Unless massive efforts are undertaken immediately to address the defective levees and pump systems, the citizens of New Orleans and the gulf areas will be left without reasonable protection as the hurricane season returns. Whether the area can withstand another natural disaster is doubtful at best. But if another major hurricane strikes and proves fatal to New Orleans, the fault will lie not solely with Mother Nature, but also with the Bush administration which has failed miserably in providing the promised relief and protections that were both promised and deserved. And the tragedy will be that no one will be able to say that the President has not been warned.
Beyond the Katrina Hurricane disaster, we have a shameful failure on the part of the Bush Government to live up to its express promises of aid and reconstruction of the devastation in New Orleans and the Gulf Areas. After first ignoring the problem, Bush went personally to New orleans to promise swift and bold action to aid the reconstruction of New Orleans. Nearly two years after the natural disaster ravaged the delta areas, the populace are still struggling and staggering to regain their footing. And that is the good news.
The hurricane season of 2007 begins next month, and New Orleans is ill prepared to deal with another storm. As with celebrated reconstruction projects orchestrated by the Bush Administration in Iraq, the celebrated levee repairs and reconstruction in New Orleans are showing serious defects. A report on levee construction funded by the independent National Science Foundation found serious flaws in the Army Corp of Engineers levee repairs, including erosion that could lead to failures in the event of significant flooding pressure. Photographs of the hurricane protection levee system can be found on the National Geographic Magazine website [ngm.com/levees].
The other lynch pin of the hurricane protection system is the network of pumps intended to remove flood waters from low lying areas in New Orleans. A previous report found that millions of dollars had been paid in no bid contracts for installation and repair of these pumps to a company owned by a previous business partner of Jeb Bush. The pumps installed by that company, however, were found defective and unable to provide the required protection even for flooding less severe than the Katrina levels.
The advance warnings are clear and unmistakable. Shoddy workmanship and opportunistic cronyism and profiteering have been endemic to projects managed by the Bush Administration. Unless massive efforts are undertaken immediately to address the defective levees and pump systems, the citizens of New Orleans and the gulf areas will be left without reasonable protection as the hurricane season returns. Whether the area can withstand another natural disaster is doubtful at best. But if another major hurricane strikes and proves fatal to New Orleans, the fault will lie not solely with Mother Nature, but also with the Bush administration which has failed miserably in providing the promised relief and protections that were both promised and deserved. And the tragedy will be that no one will be able to say that the President has not been warned.
Fear of Justice and Freedom
With each new step the Bush Administration takes, we are further removed from the fundamental principles of jurisprudence and civil rights that have defined the American system of justice. What is it that we fear so much? Certainly, the public is rapt in the thrall of a constant and pervasive drone of fear mongering. The majority of Americans surveyed now believe that “terrorism” is one of the most important issues that we face today. The facts do not support the hype, except that global terrorist attacks have risen markedly after the commencement of the disastrous invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration. The American people are less safe from terrorist attacks after the President’s declaration of war on terrorism than they were before it was announced. However, terrorist attacks within the United States and against US citizens have not changed significantly in character over the past decade, and (with the exception of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center) are not typically characterized by plots or actions by Arabs and Muslim extremists. However, the nature of the threat is distinct from the question of principles that define our response to the alleged perpetrators. It is said that the true test of character is not what bad things happen, but rather how one responds to and deals with such adversity.
The character of a nation is defined by its institutions and system of justice established to protect a way of life. These principles and systems represent the embodiment of the collective moral fabric of the society. Let us take an easy example. In war, there is no question that our troops will be faced with mortal danger and encounter enemy combatants. When confronted with the capture of an enemy soldier, our military personnel have choices in responding. The rules of engagement, the principles of international law and the Code of Military Justice impose moral imperatives that prohibit cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners. Torture is illegal, not just because of the pain it would inflict upon prisoners but also because of how it would define our military and our society. The strength of a system of justice lies not in the severity of punishments that it can impose as consequences for conduct violating accepted boundaries of social behavior. True strength lies in the collective faith by the society that the consequences will be meted out to those proven to warrant such sanctions and that the punishment will fairly fit the crime involved.
In America, we have refined and developed a set of fundamental principles designed to assure that those who are punished are guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires, under our system of justice, that the accused be accorded certain basic procedural rights. These procedures are logical and not onerous for the government. Prisoners are entitled to be advised of the charges and evidence asserted against them, the right to challenge those accusations in an impartial forum and the right to counsel to assist in their defense when their liberty is threatened. Some in American society decry the fact that this system is imperfect and may on occasion allow the guilty to escape punishment. There is, indeed, no question that the implementation of the system has seen many flaws and miscarriages of justice. However, the great majority adhere to the belief that a fair and balanced system should risk the guilty going free in order to reasonably assure that the innocent are not unlawfully deprived of their liberty. That belief is embedded in our Constitution. Most of the miscarriages of justice have come from a failure to uphold the principles of justice rather than because of the principles themselves.
The Bush Administration system of justice being adopted in response to the so-called “War on Terror,” is eroding and in some instances brutal dismantling the traditional system of American Justice we have painfully and proudly developed over centuries. Worse, the citizens of this nation seem to have acquiesced in tearing down our valued principles.
The fundamental right of habeas corpus, the right to demand that officials present a reasonable justification for holding the accused captive, is rooted in the Magna Carta and was a principal motivation for rebellion against arbitrary imprisonments by King George IV of England. Yet by simply labeling a person a potential “enemy combatant,” George W. Bush has stripped these human beings of that fundamental right. So called “enemy combatants” have been held for years without even the ability to challenge whether there are any reasonable grounds for detaining them. Many are in fact known to have no association whatsoever to combat, insurgent or terrorist organizations, yet are denied the opportunity to contest the reason for their imprisonment. What is to be feared from requiring the government to establish probable cause to hold someone in jail for years at a time? Is the fact that these individuals are Arab or Muslim or that they might be “bad” people now the functional standard of American jurisprudence for imprisonment without charge or conviction?
Most recently, the Bush Administration wants to require that all communications between the detainees and their lawyers be monitored by the government officials that are holding them in prison and prosecuting the detainees. In addition, they wish to impose a limit that the attorney can visit with a detainee client only three times. The government argues that communication with attorneys is causing unrest among the inmates. They also contend that the attorneys may be passing information about terrorism events that may facilitate further acts of terror. These arguments are beyond weak. First, it is not unreasonable to expect that inmates being advised by counsel of their legal rights and the actions by the US government to restrict such rights might be upset and frustrated. Second, the attorneys are officers of the court and can be seriously disciplined if any actual evidence of complicity in terrorist activities can be shown. The arguments put forward by officials do not begin to support the gross deprivation of fundamental access to counsel that lies at the foundation of the American system of jurisprudence.
The United States has faced threats to our public welfare in the past without the need to tear down our system of justice. The so-called “war on drugs” has been waged for years, and yet those accused of drug trafficking are not stripped of their Constitutional rights when prosecuted for crimes. During the Prohibition Era, when bootlegging and gun running were common activities of organized crime, the government did not suspend the Constitution in order to combat those crime waves. Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski and other “Public Enemies” responsible for horrible mass murders were all dealt with in the context of our traditional justice system. Many would argue that the steadfast reliance and trust in the inherent durability and fairness of our system of justice through these trying times made our nation stronger.
Why then is it so necessary to dismantle that justice system, suspend Constitutional protections and ignore fundamental principles of fairness in order to deal with the current alleged crisis? If the Government has evidence of probable cause to show that GITMO detainees are involved in criminal activity, why are they afraid to put it forward? Few citizens would criticize the Government for detaining individuals where such proof exists. Why is the Bush Administration so averse to complying with the minimal restrictions provided by Congress before engaging in domestic spying and wiretapping of communication by US citizens? The negative implication is that the Government lacks even the minimal justification for holding certain prisoners or for conducting secret surveillance. And this reasonable suspicion is a cancer upon the American Justice System.
Without some adherence to a fundamental system of justice and moral standards, the US imprisonment of detainees in GITMO and the various “secret prisons” around the world is difficult to distinguish from Soviet Gulags and the Nazi concentration camps. The same is true of pervasive domestic spying as was done by the KGB and the Nazis. The extent to which such repulsive analogies are close to the Bush Administration practices is what the American people ought to truly fear. Is it necessary to destroy the principles upon which this country was built in order to protect it? History has proven that the true answer is NO. But President Bush was never a good student, least of all a student of History, I’m afraid.
The character of a nation is defined by its institutions and system of justice established to protect a way of life. These principles and systems represent the embodiment of the collective moral fabric of the society. Let us take an easy example. In war, there is no question that our troops will be faced with mortal danger and encounter enemy combatants. When confronted with the capture of an enemy soldier, our military personnel have choices in responding. The rules of engagement, the principles of international law and the Code of Military Justice impose moral imperatives that prohibit cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners. Torture is illegal, not just because of the pain it would inflict upon prisoners but also because of how it would define our military and our society. The strength of a system of justice lies not in the severity of punishments that it can impose as consequences for conduct violating accepted boundaries of social behavior. True strength lies in the collective faith by the society that the consequences will be meted out to those proven to warrant such sanctions and that the punishment will fairly fit the crime involved.
In America, we have refined and developed a set of fundamental principles designed to assure that those who are punished are guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires, under our system of justice, that the accused be accorded certain basic procedural rights. These procedures are logical and not onerous for the government. Prisoners are entitled to be advised of the charges and evidence asserted against them, the right to challenge those accusations in an impartial forum and the right to counsel to assist in their defense when their liberty is threatened. Some in American society decry the fact that this system is imperfect and may on occasion allow the guilty to escape punishment. There is, indeed, no question that the implementation of the system has seen many flaws and miscarriages of justice. However, the great majority adhere to the belief that a fair and balanced system should risk the guilty going free in order to reasonably assure that the innocent are not unlawfully deprived of their liberty. That belief is embedded in our Constitution. Most of the miscarriages of justice have come from a failure to uphold the principles of justice rather than because of the principles themselves.
The Bush Administration system of justice being adopted in response to the so-called “War on Terror,” is eroding and in some instances brutal dismantling the traditional system of American Justice we have painfully and proudly developed over centuries. Worse, the citizens of this nation seem to have acquiesced in tearing down our valued principles.
The fundamental right of habeas corpus, the right to demand that officials present a reasonable justification for holding the accused captive, is rooted in the Magna Carta and was a principal motivation for rebellion against arbitrary imprisonments by King George IV of England. Yet by simply labeling a person a potential “enemy combatant,” George W. Bush has stripped these human beings of that fundamental right. So called “enemy combatants” have been held for years without even the ability to challenge whether there are any reasonable grounds for detaining them. Many are in fact known to have no association whatsoever to combat, insurgent or terrorist organizations, yet are denied the opportunity to contest the reason for their imprisonment. What is to be feared from requiring the government to establish probable cause to hold someone in jail for years at a time? Is the fact that these individuals are Arab or Muslim or that they might be “bad” people now the functional standard of American jurisprudence for imprisonment without charge or conviction?
Most recently, the Bush Administration wants to require that all communications between the detainees and their lawyers be monitored by the government officials that are holding them in prison and prosecuting the detainees. In addition, they wish to impose a limit that the attorney can visit with a detainee client only three times. The government argues that communication with attorneys is causing unrest among the inmates. They also contend that the attorneys may be passing information about terrorism events that may facilitate further acts of terror. These arguments are beyond weak. First, it is not unreasonable to expect that inmates being advised by counsel of their legal rights and the actions by the US government to restrict such rights might be upset and frustrated. Second, the attorneys are officers of the court and can be seriously disciplined if any actual evidence of complicity in terrorist activities can be shown. The arguments put forward by officials do not begin to support the gross deprivation of fundamental access to counsel that lies at the foundation of the American system of jurisprudence.
The United States has faced threats to our public welfare in the past without the need to tear down our system of justice. The so-called “war on drugs” has been waged for years, and yet those accused of drug trafficking are not stripped of their Constitutional rights when prosecuted for crimes. During the Prohibition Era, when bootlegging and gun running were common activities of organized crime, the government did not suspend the Constitution in order to combat those crime waves. Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski and other “Public Enemies” responsible for horrible mass murders were all dealt with in the context of our traditional justice system. Many would argue that the steadfast reliance and trust in the inherent durability and fairness of our system of justice through these trying times made our nation stronger.
Why then is it so necessary to dismantle that justice system, suspend Constitutional protections and ignore fundamental principles of fairness in order to deal with the current alleged crisis? If the Government has evidence of probable cause to show that GITMO detainees are involved in criminal activity, why are they afraid to put it forward? Few citizens would criticize the Government for detaining individuals where such proof exists. Why is the Bush Administration so averse to complying with the minimal restrictions provided by Congress before engaging in domestic spying and wiretapping of communication by US citizens? The negative implication is that the Government lacks even the minimal justification for holding certain prisoners or for conducting secret surveillance. And this reasonable suspicion is a cancer upon the American Justice System.
Without some adherence to a fundamental system of justice and moral standards, the US imprisonment of detainees in GITMO and the various “secret prisons” around the world is difficult to distinguish from Soviet Gulags and the Nazi concentration camps. The same is true of pervasive domestic spying as was done by the KGB and the Nazis. The extent to which such repulsive analogies are close to the Bush Administration practices is what the American people ought to truly fear. Is it necessary to destroy the principles upon which this country was built in order to protect it? History has proven that the true answer is NO. But President Bush was never a good student, least of all a student of History, I’m afraid.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Protecting and Supporting Our Soldiers
With the sad report of another handful of US soldiers killed in Iraq, a look at what the US is actually doing there again comes to mind, causing us to ask why and how much longer this can continue. What can be said, with any integrity to the families opf the slain soldiers and the families of soldiers still deployed? The mantra of the Bush Administration, its supporters and apologists is that the current “mission” in Iraq must be continued and that totally unrestricted funds must be appropriated to “support the troops.” However, taking the time to examine the situation in any detail suggests that these arguments are little more than false and unreflective jingoism.
Let us first look at the funding issue. A rash of recent reports detail how profligate the Pentagon and the Bush Administration have been as stewards of past funding allocated to the Iraq mission. While troops were coping with and dying from lack of adequate body armor, personal protective equipment and lack of armor for their vehicles, the Pentagon was paying millions of dollars in fraudulent overcharges to Halliburton for supposed "supply services" to the troops. Seven of the eight reconstruction projects that the Bush administration has touted as “successes” that are to help build citizen support for US troop presence are in serious disrepair or totally dysfunctional.Vital equipment and machinery have no maintenance and break down for simple failure to put oil in them, and generators are sitting idle or have been stolen. Millions of dollars of money that was supposed to pay Iraqi recruits our troops are to train remain unaccounted for and unavailable to support the mission. The long list continues, but the picture clearly emerges. Let’s just stop lying and kidding ourselves that it makes any sense to grant the Bush Administration a blank check to further conduct his Iraq adventure. The request is either a blatant request to keep the trough full for his porcine cronies to slake their insatiable greed, or an open acknowledgement that the Administration needs a blank check because it is totally incompetent to properly direct and account for the funds that they are provided.
More to the point, however, is the duplicity that underlies the declaration that current efforts and policies of the bush administration are designed to support the troops themselves. Consider a very recent report that prolonged and repeated troop deployments of 6-9 months or more, without interim periods out of theater for at least a year, are causing serious mental deterioration of our military manpower and readiness. More than 30% of soldiers deployed in Iraq are returning with serious mental illness issues, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [“PTSD”]. Lacking the bodies to fill recruitment quotas, the military has lowered the bar and is accepting new troops by overlooking or ignoring criminal records, mental illness histories and inability to meet previously imposed academic standards. Officers are being appointed and promoted at unprecedented rates and without time in grade experience previously required. This advancement is necessary because of the number of experienced officers who are electing to leave military service in light of the current deployment strategies.
Is it unreasonable to expect that a train that is run excessively without rest, maintained with substandard parts and driven by inexperienced engineers will be more likely to experience a train wreck? That is the current state of the US military. This is what the experienced military brass are telling the Bush Administration and Congress.
Consider also that a recent survey by the military revealed that more than a third of soldiers believe that torture of enemy captives would be acceptable if it might save the life of a fellow soldier. At least a third of soldiers reported that they would not report abuses of captives or civilians by their peers that they witnessed, and approximately half of Marines reported the same response. Both responses are directly at odds with formal rules of engagement and international law. If we assume that the soldiers that are recruited and sent to Iraq are not deliberately chosen because of a weakness in ethical fiber, then we have to conclude that the circumstances and stress of the battle theater is taking a toll on their morale and judgment. This is the experience that was seen in Viet Nam and led to massacres like My Lai. Unfortunately, the “military way” is to punish the front line soldiers who break under such pressure rather than to hold accountable the officers and officials who placed them in those circumstances.
The message both GOP and Democratic Congressional representatives sent to President Bush with the Iraq funding bill was that Congress is willing to support the troops with funding, but that there must be accountability on the part of the administration as to how the funds are used. There must be a clear and coherent strategy to achieve predefined progress and end the occupation that is putting our troops in such terrible straits. If there is no clearly demonstrable plan that is likely to improve the situation, then the greatest support of the troops is to bring them home. The US cannot solve the internal problems of the Iraqis by itself, we can only assist them. And there is no military solution, as even top US military brass have acknowledged. If the Iraqis are not inclined to resolve their own problems and they do not want us there to assist, the only sane response is to withdraw our troops. Neanderthal chest pounding rhetoric about "win at all costs" and "never accept surrender" coming form safe offices in Washington, DC, is not only irresponsible, but also fails to acknowledge the real problems that our troops face on the ground daily.
Experts have opined that US presence in Iraq is an irritant and a catalyst for the sectarian violence. Others have opined that our military presence provides an excuse for the various competing political factions NOT to work out a compromise. Were the US to withdraw its presence, or even set a deadline for withdrawal, the politicians in the Green Zone would be forced to sit down and hammer out compromises or risk losing whatever leverage they believe they now have.
The US military is one of the best trained, disciplined and capable forces in the world when they are managed in accordance with best practices as established in military regulations and deployed on missions that have some reasonable purpose and coherent strategy. The Iraq mission meets none of those criteria and is more likely to destroy the reputation and integrity of the US military than to support the troops.
Let us first look at the funding issue. A rash of recent reports detail how profligate the Pentagon and the Bush Administration have been as stewards of past funding allocated to the Iraq mission. While troops were coping with and dying from lack of adequate body armor, personal protective equipment and lack of armor for their vehicles, the Pentagon was paying millions of dollars in fraudulent overcharges to Halliburton for supposed "supply services" to the troops. Seven of the eight reconstruction projects that the Bush administration has touted as “successes” that are to help build citizen support for US troop presence are in serious disrepair or totally dysfunctional.Vital equipment and machinery have no maintenance and break down for simple failure to put oil in them, and generators are sitting idle or have been stolen. Millions of dollars of money that was supposed to pay Iraqi recruits our troops are to train remain unaccounted for and unavailable to support the mission. The long list continues, but the picture clearly emerges. Let’s just stop lying and kidding ourselves that it makes any sense to grant the Bush Administration a blank check to further conduct his Iraq adventure. The request is either a blatant request to keep the trough full for his porcine cronies to slake their insatiable greed, or an open acknowledgement that the Administration needs a blank check because it is totally incompetent to properly direct and account for the funds that they are provided.
More to the point, however, is the duplicity that underlies the declaration that current efforts and policies of the bush administration are designed to support the troops themselves. Consider a very recent report that prolonged and repeated troop deployments of 6-9 months or more, without interim periods out of theater for at least a year, are causing serious mental deterioration of our military manpower and readiness. More than 30% of soldiers deployed in Iraq are returning with serious mental illness issues, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [“PTSD”]. Lacking the bodies to fill recruitment quotas, the military has lowered the bar and is accepting new troops by overlooking or ignoring criminal records, mental illness histories and inability to meet previously imposed academic standards. Officers are being appointed and promoted at unprecedented rates and without time in grade experience previously required. This advancement is necessary because of the number of experienced officers who are electing to leave military service in light of the current deployment strategies.
Is it unreasonable to expect that a train that is run excessively without rest, maintained with substandard parts and driven by inexperienced engineers will be more likely to experience a train wreck? That is the current state of the US military. This is what the experienced military brass are telling the Bush Administration and Congress.
Consider also that a recent survey by the military revealed that more than a third of soldiers believe that torture of enemy captives would be acceptable if it might save the life of a fellow soldier. At least a third of soldiers reported that they would not report abuses of captives or civilians by their peers that they witnessed, and approximately half of Marines reported the same response. Both responses are directly at odds with formal rules of engagement and international law. If we assume that the soldiers that are recruited and sent to Iraq are not deliberately chosen because of a weakness in ethical fiber, then we have to conclude that the circumstances and stress of the battle theater is taking a toll on their morale and judgment. This is the experience that was seen in Viet Nam and led to massacres like My Lai. Unfortunately, the “military way” is to punish the front line soldiers who break under such pressure rather than to hold accountable the officers and officials who placed them in those circumstances.
The message both GOP and Democratic Congressional representatives sent to President Bush with the Iraq funding bill was that Congress is willing to support the troops with funding, but that there must be accountability on the part of the administration as to how the funds are used. There must be a clear and coherent strategy to achieve predefined progress and end the occupation that is putting our troops in such terrible straits. If there is no clearly demonstrable plan that is likely to improve the situation, then the greatest support of the troops is to bring them home. The US cannot solve the internal problems of the Iraqis by itself, we can only assist them. And there is no military solution, as even top US military brass have acknowledged. If the Iraqis are not inclined to resolve their own problems and they do not want us there to assist, the only sane response is to withdraw our troops. Neanderthal chest pounding rhetoric about "win at all costs" and "never accept surrender" coming form safe offices in Washington, DC, is not only irresponsible, but also fails to acknowledge the real problems that our troops face on the ground daily.
Experts have opined that US presence in Iraq is an irritant and a catalyst for the sectarian violence. Others have opined that our military presence provides an excuse for the various competing political factions NOT to work out a compromise. Were the US to withdraw its presence, or even set a deadline for withdrawal, the politicians in the Green Zone would be forced to sit down and hammer out compromises or risk losing whatever leverage they believe they now have.
The US military is one of the best trained, disciplined and capable forces in the world when they are managed in accordance with best practices as established in military regulations and deployed on missions that have some reasonable purpose and coherent strategy. The Iraq mission meets none of those criteria and is more likely to destroy the reputation and integrity of the US military than to support the troops.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Of Chips and Cars
While not professing to be any form of expert in materials science or manufacturing, there are some larger common sense observations that any average American can be draw from news about technological progress. IBM just announced that it has developed a new material created by a process using heat that enables manufacture of microchip processors in mass quantities that could yield up to 35% faster processing speed and that consume 15% less energy than chips currently employed in computers. IBM is pushing to refine the process and manufacturing capabilities as soon as possible in order to compete for market share in the highly competitive computer chip industry.
Now imagine a company that has developed and patented technology that allows for the manufacture of a durable consumer good that is lighter weight, as fast and powerful as currently used goods of the same class, but that would be 30 to 60% more efficient in terms of energy consumption. This company, unlike IBM, has chosen to sit on this new technology and use aggressive measures to prevent other companies from developing the superior technology. At the same time, the company has continuously lost market share as the consuming public steadily seeks out more efficient goods of this type.
The latter company is not hypothetical. In fact, the former “Big Three” US automakers have held patents for technology that would enable production of lighter weight and more fuel efficient cars for decades. They have fiercely defended those patents from attempts by other companies to use similar technologies to produce more lightweight and fuel efficient cars. They have grudgingly introduced minimal bits of the technology as “upgrades” in their traditional models only if actually forced to do so to meet competition. At the same time, Japanese and other foreign car manufacturers have developed alternative technologies that also achieve greater fuel efficiency, and have aggressively incorporated those technologies in their products. The consumer response is clear and convincing. This year, Toyota became the top auto manufacturing company in the world.
While some may still be scratching their heads as to the cause for decline of auto manufacturing dominance of US companies, it really does not require a "scientist" or an economist. The traditional and common sense model of commercial competition – “Build a better mousetrap and get it to market” – is what has led to huge leaps in technology, huge growth in sales volume and very significant improvements in efficiency and environmental benefit in the computer chip industry. Toyota and other foreign auto manufacturers have used the same model to grab large enough market shares from US auto manufacturers to topple the Big Three. More significantly, much of the gain they have achieved is in the United States, right in the back yard of the Big Three.
There are signs that the Big Three have finally begun to recognize the reason for their downfall. The mystery, however, is why Big Three executives have remained in some clouded obscure "other" world, unable to see what each of us average consumers has seen for decades. US automakers' negligence might be excusable if they lacked the technology and were simply losing the race to obtain and incorporate new developments. However, there is no excuse for their failures when that have had access to technology that, if employed, could have helped maintain their competitive advantage and significantly improved the environment.
Unfortunately, the "loss" from their negligence has been more serious than just company profits. Tens of thousands of workers have lost employment permanently. Jobs have been exported to other countries where cars that consumers actually want are being produced. And the Environment of this world continues to be damaged by the excessive use of hydrocarbon fuels. One expert on Global Warming suggested that the increase in Global Warming could be stopped in its tracks if the United States would simply adopt and enforce fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles that are currently imposed in Europe. Even if such substantial gains could not quite be accomplished, there is little doubt that the economy and the circumstances for the thousands of displaced autio workers would have been better had the Big Three executives not been so arrogant and misguided.
Now imagine a company that has developed and patented technology that allows for the manufacture of a durable consumer good that is lighter weight, as fast and powerful as currently used goods of the same class, but that would be 30 to 60% more efficient in terms of energy consumption. This company, unlike IBM, has chosen to sit on this new technology and use aggressive measures to prevent other companies from developing the superior technology. At the same time, the company has continuously lost market share as the consuming public steadily seeks out more efficient goods of this type.
The latter company is not hypothetical. In fact, the former “Big Three” US automakers have held patents for technology that would enable production of lighter weight and more fuel efficient cars for decades. They have fiercely defended those patents from attempts by other companies to use similar technologies to produce more lightweight and fuel efficient cars. They have grudgingly introduced minimal bits of the technology as “upgrades” in their traditional models only if actually forced to do so to meet competition. At the same time, Japanese and other foreign car manufacturers have developed alternative technologies that also achieve greater fuel efficiency, and have aggressively incorporated those technologies in their products. The consumer response is clear and convincing. This year, Toyota became the top auto manufacturing company in the world.
While some may still be scratching their heads as to the cause for decline of auto manufacturing dominance of US companies, it really does not require a "scientist" or an economist. The traditional and common sense model of commercial competition – “Build a better mousetrap and get it to market” – is what has led to huge leaps in technology, huge growth in sales volume and very significant improvements in efficiency and environmental benefit in the computer chip industry. Toyota and other foreign auto manufacturers have used the same model to grab large enough market shares from US auto manufacturers to topple the Big Three. More significantly, much of the gain they have achieved is in the United States, right in the back yard of the Big Three.
There are signs that the Big Three have finally begun to recognize the reason for their downfall. The mystery, however, is why Big Three executives have remained in some clouded obscure "other" world, unable to see what each of us average consumers has seen for decades. US automakers' negligence might be excusable if they lacked the technology and were simply losing the race to obtain and incorporate new developments. However, there is no excuse for their failures when that have had access to technology that, if employed, could have helped maintain their competitive advantage and significantly improved the environment.
Unfortunately, the "loss" from their negligence has been more serious than just company profits. Tens of thousands of workers have lost employment permanently. Jobs have been exported to other countries where cars that consumers actually want are being produced. And the Environment of this world continues to be damaged by the excessive use of hydrocarbon fuels. One expert on Global Warming suggested that the increase in Global Warming could be stopped in its tracks if the United States would simply adopt and enforce fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles that are currently imposed in Europe. Even if such substantial gains could not quite be accomplished, there is little doubt that the economy and the circumstances for the thousands of displaced autio workers would have been better had the Big Three executives not been so arrogant and misguided.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Are You Kidding Me?
There have been few professional comedians able to state the most outrageously stupid, ironic or just plain funny with a completely straight face. Jack Benny and Henny Youngman were masters; more recent masters have been Bob Newhart, and Cedric the Entertainer does pretty well. But a new challenger has emerged – George W. Bush. The President of the United States came before the cameras to veto the Iraq War Funding legislation passed by Congress and stated the following, with as much of a straight face as he can muster:
The bill is unacceptable because it “substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders,” the president said in a nationally televised address to explain why he was vetoing a bill that would also provide $100 billion in emergency spending for the war.
He was sure to have them rolling in the aisles with such buffoonery. After all, was it not the politician George W. Bush who substituted his own opinions for those of the seasoned military brass when he decided to launch the invasion of Iraq without sufficient personnel, equipment or planning? And didn't the politician Donald Rumsfeld, Bush’s hand picked Secretary of Defense [actually Cheney picked him; Georgie had to go along or get a spanking] who substituted his opinion for the expertise of the entire senior military ranks by deciding to launch “Shock & Awe” without a clue as to how to manage the aftermath of the invasion?
Bush and Cheney, who collectively have “zero” military battlefield experience, stepped in like self styled movie directors with delusions of Peckinpaugh or Scorsese and launched a military adventure that has caused countless scenes of death and destruction. They dispensed with any knowledgeable General who uttered a discouraging word of expertise or common sense. The mess they created is for the “stagehands” to clean up when the two of them are through playing. They must assume, as when the two of them play video games in the White House rec room, that the destruction and devastation are not “real,” and that the blood and deaths will disappear when they hit the "restart" button for a new game.
So when the news came that Bush actually used the line about “politicians substituting their opinions” as his excuse for a veto of legislation that tried to thoughtfully require some rational restrictions and some accountability regarding the blank check Congress has previously given Bush to fund the Iraq quagmire, my first response was: “You’re putting me on. Are you kidding me?” I was waiting for the punch line or for the media in the room to burst out laughing.
Unfortunately, the “joke” is on me and the rest of the American people. Bush apparently was dead serious when he coughed up that classic tidbit of irony. The statement was not only absurd, but it was also one that George W. Bush actually believes enough to declare with a straight face. When we realize that the President of the United States is so out of touch with reality and that the lives of more than 130,000 US troops [not including the nearly 3500 already dead] and countless Iraqi civilians are in serious jeopardy because of that dislocation our laughter stops cold.
The bill is unacceptable because it “substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders,” the president said in a nationally televised address to explain why he was vetoing a bill that would also provide $100 billion in emergency spending for the war.
He was sure to have them rolling in the aisles with such buffoonery. After all, was it not the politician George W. Bush who substituted his own opinions for those of the seasoned military brass when he decided to launch the invasion of Iraq without sufficient personnel, equipment or planning? And didn't the politician Donald Rumsfeld, Bush’s hand picked Secretary of Defense [actually Cheney picked him; Georgie had to go along or get a spanking] who substituted his opinion for the expertise of the entire senior military ranks by deciding to launch “Shock & Awe” without a clue as to how to manage the aftermath of the invasion?
Bush and Cheney, who collectively have “zero” military battlefield experience, stepped in like self styled movie directors with delusions of Peckinpaugh or Scorsese and launched a military adventure that has caused countless scenes of death and destruction. They dispensed with any knowledgeable General who uttered a discouraging word of expertise or common sense. The mess they created is for the “stagehands” to clean up when the two of them are through playing. They must assume, as when the two of them play video games in the White House rec room, that the destruction and devastation are not “real,” and that the blood and deaths will disappear when they hit the "restart" button for a new game.
So when the news came that Bush actually used the line about “politicians substituting their opinions” as his excuse for a veto of legislation that tried to thoughtfully require some rational restrictions and some accountability regarding the blank check Congress has previously given Bush to fund the Iraq quagmire, my first response was: “You’re putting me on. Are you kidding me?” I was waiting for the punch line or for the media in the room to burst out laughing.
Unfortunately, the “joke” is on me and the rest of the American people. Bush apparently was dead serious when he coughed up that classic tidbit of irony. The statement was not only absurd, but it was also one that George W. Bush actually believes enough to declare with a straight face. When we realize that the President of the United States is so out of touch with reality and that the lives of more than 130,000 US troops [not including the nearly 3500 already dead] and countless Iraqi civilians are in serious jeopardy because of that dislocation our laughter stops cold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)