Cleaning up the Economic Environment

For too long the pundits and so called “experts” have submitted to the obstructionist politicians who have cast environmental responsibility as the opponent of economic development. The two are not even inconsistent, much less antithetical, if one has the intelligence and willpower to think things through. Let us consider a fairly simple premise. If the economy can generate trillions of dollars based upon carbon emission producing technologies, is it not logical that at least billions of dollars could be generated on technologies that reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide emissions?

To be certain, the level of dependence that the world now has on carbon fuels and the existing supply lines for coal and petroleum suggest that such production and consumption will not go away in the near future. But much of the consumption that we are experiencing is a result of a lack of available alternatives. Let’s be clear, it is not a lack of viable alternatives, but rather a failure of the economy and vested corporate interests to make the viable alternatives available. Most of us are aware that automakers have owned and controlled fuel efficient technologies that they have buried and failed to make available in their products. It is also likely that the oil industry has patented technologies under control and hidden from the public that could reduce oil consumption. Power companies collectively have spent billions of dollars fighting regulations to retrofit coal fired plants with scrubbers and emissions cleaning technologies that have existed for decades.

There are signs of the air clearing a bit from this fog of polluted thinking. President Obama has signaled a desire and intention to seek a path toward more responsible environmental stewardship. In so doing, he has rejected the notion that such an approach would be too costly. Instead, he has posited that an aggressive investment in clean technologies provides an opportunity for economic growth and development. How refreshing to have a thinking President in the White House.

The United States, despite the declines in education and R&D over the past decade, still has the edge regarding the development of new technologies. This ingenuity, if supported by substantial investment, can develop and deliver technologies that are environmentally responsible and economically accessible. Young engineering students at MIT are developing solar energy systems that can be constructed from readily available used car parts. These inexpensive systems can be built and maintained in areas that are underdeveloped and provide clean energy sources for small factories that can employ local residents. Other bright young minds are developing water sanitation systems that are self supporting and can also be employed even in economically depressed areas.

The ramifications of these opportunities are staggering. Not only can such technologies help improve the environment, but they provide the opportunity for companies to manufacture, franchise and distribute these technologies throughout the world. On a global scale, the creation of jobs alone would be huge. The injection of new industries based upon clean and energy efficient technologies would boost the economies throughout the world. These are not environmental pipe dreams, but latent potential that we have simply failed to explore and exploit. The US has the chance to help the world recover economically from the economic disaster that it had a major role in creating, and in so doing reclaim a deserved position as leader of the free world.

The problem is that we have spent so much time looking down and staring at our feet that we have lost the ability to envision the sunrise. Moneyed interests have conditioned the people to limit their perspectives and to only focus on what serves the interests of those in financial control of the status quo. That control has widened the gap in socio-economic classes, destroyed economic opportunities and future prospects for the vast majority of middle and lower income families and continued the path of damage to the environment that Al Gore and environmental scientists have been warning us about for decades. It is time that we lifted our heads and elevated both our vision and our aspirations toward something better. We can revive the economy AND help to clean up the environmental damage at the same time. What better legacy to strive for and to leave to our grandchildren?

Piercing The Bubble

A recent article in the Washington Post illustrates an important issue regarding the modern process of governance in the White House, and the challenges that face President Obama as he seeks to deliver on his campaign promises. The article [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29448953/] details the nature of the seclusion and exclusion that envelops the President, all in the name of “security” and “efficiency.” These measures are what we commonly refer to as “the Bubble” inside which Presidents live. The challenge for Obama is to force Washington and the country’s politics to function in a different way, a new way, if the sad direction in which his predecessor took the country is to be altered. Yet how can a President effectively change the way business is done if he continues to do business in the same old ways? Surrounded by a large cadre of “assistants” and “Senior Advisors” who have an understandably vested interest in maintaining control of access to the President, because in the White House and in Washington access is power, the obstacle to objective leadership is in finding advisors who will tell him what he does not want to hear [but needs to know] as well as what he wants to hear.

Consider the quote from White House Staff Secretary Lisa Brown:
"The way I would frame the job is that I want to maximize his time," said Staff Secretary Lisa Brown, an assistant to the president who works out of an office on the ground floor of the West Wing. "So it's making sure that, when we send him something, it is what he wants to see, when he wants to see it, and we are helping him be as efficient as he could be."

While this formulation of the job is obviously well intentioned, it contains the seeds of serious problems. Who decides what and when Obama wants to see? Is it truly Obama or one of these staffers? Certainly, Obama does not have sufficient time to review all inputs that are sent to him. The array of issues and the amount of information needed daily is too vast for anyone to absorb in a day, a week or even a month. Yet there is also a maxim that Obama should recall, that he who frames the question controls the debate. In other words, if the options presented to Obama for decision are too biased or limited, then his thinking and decision making will be skewed in the direction that his staffers desire instead of being based upon the President’s own instincts, intelligence and beliefs.

Barack Obama has demonstrated his innate intelligence and we can only hope that he has taken the time to address this chronic problem. He has spent too much time seeking the Office and building the hopes of the country to allow that victory to be snatched from under him by a subverting staff. But a wise manager knows that sufficient time has to be spent on process if one seeks to assure effective and quality results. Obama needs to regularly review the staffing process in order to assure that his information input is not becoming skewed or myopic. In the tremendous power games of Washington, the forces seeking to control and delimit the options of the president are both strong and subtle. Obama has thrown down the gauntlet and publicly acknowledged that the lobbyist factions will attack his agenda any way they can and without scruple. But he must also recognize that within his circle of advisors there will be factions seeking to influence, if not control, his decision making.

It could easily be argued that his predecessor, George W. Bush, really did not know why he wanted to be President other than to acquire the Power and prestige of the position. Thus, it was fairly easy for Cheney and Rumsfeld to wrest control of the White House from him, effectively using ideology bound Senior Staff members who placed loyalty above competence. Their loyalty, however, was not to the president or the country, but rather to special interests who promised them hefty payoffs both during and after their time in the Bush Administration. In addition, Bush was not the brightest of men and was not intellectually active or curious. Consequently, he would have been unlikely to critically analyze what was going on around him and recognize that he was being “managed” instead of truly leading.

To date, Obama has shown that he is not entirely comfortable with the swarm of staffing that surrounds him and controls his time and movements. That is a GOOD sign, an instinct that he ought to preserve. As time and the pressures of the office begin to wear on Obama, as they inevitably will, he needs to revisit those instincts and determine whether it is truly HIS agenda that is being pursued. He must never forget that it is he that the people elected as President, and that his primary responsibility is to be himself. My own experience for decades as a lawyer and advisor, and working with other, has made me acutely sensitive to how easy it is for an advisor to forget that it is they who work for the client and not the reverse. Obama must seek to reaffirm and to remind the Staff and Senior Advisors that they work for him. It is not their place to set policy; rather they serve to assist the President in exploring all relevant options and ramifications in the process of helping HIM determine policy.

One of the major dangers of “the Bubble” is that one who is enveloped within it does not even recognize his occluded condition. Obama would do well to maintain, indeed insist upon, steps that fight against the seclusion and myopia that the traditional process creates. Trips outside the White House are important. But review of the internal process within the White House on a regular basis is perhaps even more important if Obama is to retain the reins of leadership in this Presidency.

Hope Rewarded, Faith Restored

With a single action, the stroke of a pen, President Barack Obama has initiated a ripple that may grow to a tidal wave of change impacting the US government, its citizens and the world at large. President Obama signed an Executive Order effectively declaring an end to the Bush “War on Terror.” In addition, he nullified legal opinions issued by Bush Administration lawyers regarding Presidential powers purportedly engendered by the “war” since September 11, 2001. The ramifications of this seemingly small action could be immense.

Many scholars and legal experts have questioned or challenged the basis upon which Bush grounded his claims of executive prerogatives and power, by simply declaring a “War on Terror.” To invoke true legal war powers, under the Constitution, there must actually be a war. Moreover, Congress holds a vital role in declaring such measures. That is how the US government is supposed to work. Instead, Bush contrived a phony peril, based upon fabricated “intelligence” information and hyperbolic Elmer Gantry style demagoguery, and duped Congress into authorizing military force in Iraq. Because the power grab could not be sustained or justified by the situation in Iraq alone, especially after the non-existence of “weapons of mass destruction” was revealed, Bush chose to declare war on an amorphous indefinable enemy – i.e. terror. Since the enemy could never be defined, it could never actually be defeated. That permitted Bush the opening to pursue a strategy of unbridled executive power for as long as he wished.

The strategy was as clever and cynical as it was evil and immoral. Any attempt to challenge or even uncover government actions of questionable legality could be met with a refusal to disclose information on the basis of “national security.” Any legal challenge to action that was revealed would be met with efforts to suppress or arguments that any restraint on executive discretion would harm efforts to fight “terrorism.” People were kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured and killed in the name of the US government and for the purpose of waging this war on an enemy that could not be identified or defined. In Joe McCarthy style persecutions, individuals with “alleged ties” to subversive or terrorist groups were held in prisons without charges and without any civil or human rights guaranteed under the US Constitution and the Geneva Conventions and protocols for humane treatment of prisoners. And the American people were told that it was too much of a security risk for the public to know what types of actions were being taken in its name.

Obama called a swift halt to this cynical mentality, as he presaged in his Inaugural Address. He had told us that it was a “false choice” to declare that protecting our safety and security required abandoning and ignoring the fundamental Constitutional principles the country was built upon and the standards of human decency that the International Community considers basic. To those who still harbored belief in the potential fidelity to democratic ideals and possible embodiment of humanity in US government policies, Obama rewarded their hope at a time when it seemed that the government was capable of stooping to almost unimaginable lows.

Apparently convinced that the standards, ideals and principles that have served reasonably well for centuries under severe testing could still serve to resolve any current threats, Obama reaffirmed the public’s faith in the principles that have allowed the US to claim moral world leadership for decades. Those principles had been ignored or abandoned by the Bush Administration, who brought the US to a level of disrepute not seen in many decades, if ever.

There is still much work to do in cleaning up the mess created by the prior Administration. However, this small initial act provides the impetus for a cleansing wave to wash away the stains left by the Bush Administration. Those still within positions of responsibility now know that the sophistry and lame excuses that were previously used to justify improper actions will no longer be considered valid. If a policy or practice is to be continued, it must be justified upon sound Constitutional principles and supported by the rule of law. As Obama told us this past Tuesday, only when government is responsible and accountable will the American people and the world be able to once again place faith and confidence in its actions and its leadership. But Obama has rewarded hope that a change for the better is possible; and he has reaffirmed faith that the ideals and principles of government by and for the people are not totally moribund. We can only hope that the small ripple will gain substantial momentum, for the magnitude of dirt and stain to be swept away is not yet known. Indeed, a tidal wave may well be what is required for the country’s honor to be washed clean again.

It Comes With the Job Description.

There has been much discussion regarding whether President-Elect Obama should or must authorize and initiate investigations and prosecution of illegal actions by President Bush and his Administration. All sorts of political dissembling have been advanced about “moving on” and letting bygones be bygones. Others argue that such investigations would be an unwelcome distraction when the nation faces a great deal of work simply to recover from the economic devastation wrought by unwise policies and unethical mismanagement by Bush officials. None of these arguments seem to carry as much weight as some more basic imperatives that, quite simply, cannot be avoided as part of the job Obama undertakes as he takes an oath of office.

Former Congressional Representative and former federal prosecutor from New York, Elizabeth Holtzman articulates perhaps the most compelling obligation in an article published in The Nation magazine:

There is another important reason for not "moving on." On January 20, Barack Obama will take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, which requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Much as President Obama might like to avoid controversy arising from investigations and prosecutions of high-level Bush administration officials, he cannot let them get away with breaking the law without violating his oath. His obligation to pursue justice in these cases is all the more serious given his acknowledgment that waterboarding is torture-which is a federal crime-and the vice president's recent admission of his involvement in and approval of "enhanced" interrogation techniques.
Moreover, under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, our government is obliged to bring to justice those who have violated the conventions. Although Bush smugly ignored his constitutional duty to enforce treaty obligations and laws that punish detainee mistreatment, Obama cannot follow the same lawless path.

Simply put, Obama swears to uphold the law and faithfully prosecute the laws of the United States. Where there is manifest probable cause and documented evidence of such violations, failure to investigate and to prosecute based upon strong evidence would be a dereliction of his Constitutional duty as chief law enforcement officer of the land. The recent Cheney public admission of authorizing measures that constitute torture, and the numerous other flagrant examples of obstruction of justice [including but not limited to concealing millions of e-mails that the law requires be preserved and held for public archives simply to impede court proceedings investigating corruption in the Justice Department] clearly constitute probable cause, if not veritable "smoking gun" evidence of criminality.

Holtzman goes on to argue that there are many reasons why this public responsibility should be honored, including the prospect that ignoring the violations will certainly encourage disregard for the laws and disrespect for law enforcement in the future. We are well aware that the notion of an “Imperial Presidency” was harbored in the breast of Cheney following the demise of his mentor, Richard Nixon. He clearly waited for the opportunity to advance the doctrine at a later time. It can be forcefully argued that fuller prosecution of the Nixon Administration, instead of the pardon, would have established the fallacy and illegality of that doctrine.
Moreover, the disregard – contempt even – for the public interest shown by Bush cronies and bank officials regarding the use of public bailout funds suggests a widespread belief in impunity for the rich and well connected, while the rest of the public is bound to comply with laws relating to unethical and illegal conduct. Only a thorough investigation of the misconduct, followed by appropriate prosecution for crimes when evidence suggests that prosecution is warranted, will break the spell of corruption and change the mindset that the US Government leadership is irretrievably corrupt.

The ability to truly “move on” in terms of implementing measures that will require huge sacrifice on the part of US citizens demands that some measure of faith be reestablished in the White House and its inhabitants. That process must begin with a Chief Executive who places high value in the oath of office that he takes to uphold and defend the Constitution and the rights that it guarantees to the citizens of the United States. Beyond this, the new President must show the world that there is a “new sheriff in town” and that past corruption and lawlessness will no longer be tolerated. Such bold steps are essential to reestablishing the belief of the world that the USA can still represent and stand up for the ideals and values embodied in its founding declarations. Otherwise, it is all just so much empty rhetoric. It is a tough course to follow, but it comes with the job description.

Fool Me Twice....

Sometimes the handwriting is so clearly on the wall that it is simply amazing that it remains unread. As the federal government prepares to dole out the second half of the $700 Billion bailout fund authorized by Congress, documented evidence – the little that we do actually know about what happened to the bailout money already given to financial institutions – shows that these banks have no intent to use the public funds to help with the public’s economic crisis. Instead, Bank executives are using the public funds received to cover their backsides and bolster their balance sheets. Public needs be damned! Consider the following quote from a bank receiving about $300 million in public bailout funds:

At the Palm Beach Ritz-Carlton last November, John C. Hope III, the chairman of Whitney National Bank in New Orleans, stood before a ballroom full of Wall Street analysts and explained how his bank intended to use its $300 million in federal bailout money.
“Make more loans?” Mr. Hope said. “We’re not going to change our business model or our credit policies to accommodate the needs of the public sector as they see it to have us make more loans.”

Before we condemn the bankers, we ought to put their actions in context. They have been led to believe that the bailout money is a no-strings payback for their loyal support of the GOP controlling majority in Congress and unflinching support of all policies that Bush has implemented. They do not see any contradiction in private use of these public funds. These banks never believed that the true purpose of the bailout was to help the public. Instead, they convinced themselves that their institutions were either “too big to fail” or that they were too connected to the Bush administration to be allowed to fail. The “business model” that is referred to above has led these institutions to the verge of collapse, but these executives remain committed to that model. What the heads of these institutions are effectively saying is that they deserve to be bailed out, despite their own incompetence and mismanagement. As the old cliché reminds us, it is not what you know but rather who you know.

One of the difficulties that the American public has repeatedly faced in dealing with the Bush Administration is a failure to understand and accept the level of venality and corruption that lies at the very core of its policies and actions. There seems to be a yearning to find some level of integrity and humanity that simply has not been evidenced. Early in the Bush Administration, excuses were offered that the President was being duped by cynical and conspiratorial “handlers” like Cheney and Rumsfeld. To some extent, these agents did have their own agendas that they were able to execute through manipulating power and resources within the Bush Administration. However, it is now fairly inconceivable that the magnitude of corruption that pervades the Bush Administration could have proceeded without the knowledge and consent, if not at the express direction, of the President.

Thus, as decisions are made regarding further bailout funding, careful examination of the true intended purpose is required. In addition, strict measures to ensure that the funds are actually used for a public purpose must be attached to the disbursement of any additional funds. The first half of the $700 Billion was spent for the purposes that the Bush Administration intended. It simply was not the purpose that the public was led to believe was being served. The deceit must come to an end. If not, shame on us.

Isn’t it Possible?

News reports of the current trip by President-elect Obama as he heads toward the Capitol for his historic inauguration raise feelings of exhilaration and hope. Perhaps more importantly than anything, his journey represents the manifestation of the “possible.” Many in the United States of America had not envisioned, though they had perhaps dreamed, of the possibility of a President of color. During the past eight years, clouded by contrived and amplified fear, the country has not been able to look forward. The country has been in the mindset of a crowd riding a sabotaged roller coaster over the crest and plunging toward the bottom. Scared out of their wits, the crowd’s only focus has been on whether it would survive the plunge.

The crowd has been unable to focus on what has actually been happening, oblivious to the deceit that led them to board the ride and unable to muster the discipline to halt the potentially fatal dive. Now the country is in the throes of the worst economic disaster it has faced in more than 70 years. In addition, the country has been further weakened by the wasted commitment of more than a trillion dollars to a manufactured “war.”

The preparations for the inauguration are unprecedented in terms of anti-terrorist measures. Tanks, barriers, electronic surveillance and much more have been planned and put in place to avert a terrorist attack. At the risk of cynicism or even naiveté, perhaps the truth is that the terrorist are not eager to destroy this opportunity for hope and a positive step into the future.

The secret service states that there are no credible threats of a terrorist attack relating to the inauguration. It would be foolish to discount the possibility of some lunatic who might plot to take the life of the incoming President. Yet is it not possible that Obama represents something quite different than did George W. Bush, and his “bring it on” arrogance and provocation? Rather than foolish bravado and divisive antagonism toward imagined and created “enemies,” Obama represents calm, intelligent and rational consideration of realistic problems.

The incoming President states that he will carefully assess problems that he faces and that he will sit down with both friends and enemies in order to attempt to find peaceful and constructive solutions. His predecessor, in contrast, views the world in terms of “good and evil” and refuses to even communicate with those that he has placed in the category of his “enemies.” The old President offers his opponents only the option of violence and vengeful response to hateful rhetoric and actions. The new president offers the possibility of new and different options. There is a reality to the cliche about "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword." One who casts the world and relationships only in terms of have, division and enmity will generate a corresponding level of fear, distrust and hatred against him. In many ways, the climate of fear and risk to security that pervades is the creation of the policies and attitudes of George W. Bush and his small minded politics. Obama has called upon the United States and the world to turn away from small minded and divisive politics and to look toward the possibility of a more enlightened future.

The headwinds of challenge into which Obama will step as he takes the oath of office suggest to us the monumental courage that the man who will become the 44th President has. Yet he seems confident, humble and prepared for the undertaking. And perhaps more than any President in recent history, there is a huge supporting population that yearns for his success, a cadre that dreams of the possible.

“All in All, It’s Just Another Stone in the Wall.” [Apologies to Zappa]

One day after a federal court judge ordered the Justice Department to undertake a sincere and thorough search for millions of White house E-mails that the Bush Administration has been contending “may” have been missing for the past 4 years, the Justice Department represented today in a sworn statement to the court that the E-mails have miraculously been “found.”

In an historic example of deliberate obstruction of justice at the highest levels of government not seen since the Nixon era, the Administration of George W. Bush has tacitly admitted to stonewalling Congress and the courts who were seeking to determine the Office of the President and Vice President involvement in and authorization of illegal and unconstitutional activities. Those activities ranged from exerting improper political influence on screening and appointment of government employees in the Justice department and other Agencies to sanctioning interrogation and spying activities that contravene the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

The logical and apparent reasons for stonewalling Congress and the judicial system were to avoid probable impeachment. The tragedy is that when the highest law enforcement official in the most powerful country on the planet corrupts the system in order to cover up his own criminal activity, the foundation of the system of representative democracy fails. The protection of the civil rights of each individual citizen lies in the principle that no man is above the law. Whether based upon pure arrogance or upon some contrived theory of an “Imperial Presidency,” the notion that the President can do whatever he chooses and is immune from constraints established in the laws of the nation is pure hubris.

Moreover, the audacity shown by the Bush Administration in withholding evidence that it was legally bound to disclose, for no reason other than to obstruct justice, is amazing. Even more stunning is that Bush and Cheney are likely to get away with the stonewalling and obstruction without even the least formal sanction. The press has proven a toothless watchdog at best, and a willing accomplice at worst. This, more than anything, shows the degree to which the system of government supposedly “by and for the people” and supposedly protected by "checks and balances" has been corrupted and degraded.

Some would argue that pursuit of Bush Administration officials for misconduct amounts to political retribution, payback by the victors for abuse by the GOP when it was in power. That is how GOP stalwarts and Bush apologists would like to see the scenario play out. Such dismissal would be cynical, untrue and unfortunate. It is natural and appropriate when serious damage has been done or a system has seriously malfunctioned as a result of a series of events to conduct a thorough inquiry to determine the cause of the damage and the nature of the malfunction. This is practical and remedial; it is common sense and not vengeance. Only by carefully examining what happened can we hope to repair the damage and to prevent similar harm in the future.

But all in all, the cynical and arrogant behavior of the Bush Administration is simply in keeping with its form for the past eight years. Vice President Cheney in his parting interviews bluntly challenged the American people, the press and the media with comments to the effect "what are you going to do about it? He admitted to authorization of activities that the rest of civilized society considers torture and was unrepentant. In establishing a bulwark between his elitist cronies and the rest of the American people, in erecting a protective barrier to prevent being held accountable for criminal and inhumane actions that have disgraced a nation, the obstruction of justice by withholding e-mails was just “another brick in the wall.”

Thou Dost Protest Too Much, Methinks.

In two separate pieces of political theatre in the past few days, we have been served up excellent examples of what causes us to distrust and dislike politicians and Washington, DC. If the politicians involved were able to step back from the blinding glare of their own narcissism, they might be able to see the foolishness of their behavior. Yet their life in a self created bubble apparently causes them to be oblivious to common sense and in some cases common decency.

In the first example, the leader of the opposition GOP forces suggested that the Republican minority might delay or impede the passage of a much needed stimulus package. Sen. John Boehner, in an act of political grandstanding, announced that his caucus was very concerned about the prospect of a projected “trillion dollar” national deficit as a result of a proposed stimulus. He complained that the price tag was so large that it would have to be “borne by future generations.”

Sen. Boehner did not, however, explain where this solicitude was hiding when he and his “Conservative” cohorts beat down every attempt [Democrat or GOP initiated] to restrain spending for the Iraq fiasco. Where was this concern when a multi-Billion dollar surplus was plundered by an incompetent administration and turned into a half-Trillion dollar deficit? The US Treasury was being looted by President Bush to pay for a military adventure and “phony war” while the Iraqi Treasury ran a multi-Billion dollar surplus. Boehner implicitly accused any dissenters as being unpatriotic and irresponsible for not backing the President. Meanwhile, the tab to be paid by present and future generations of taxpayers grew wildly.

Such public posturing and patent hypocrisy by so-called “Leaders” may be the reason why so many in the United States are turned off when the subject of public service comes up. Representatives like Boehner point out the inconsistency of the term, making it often appear an oxymoron. It would indeed be difficult to explain how Boehner’s position is in the interest of the public. It was nothing more than public grandstanding for self-aggrandizement, to show that he still considers himself a force to be reckoned with in Congress, despite the drubbing his party took in the polls and the disaster the country faces as a result of his cabal's failure of leadership.

More recently, former Illinois Attorney General Burris showed up at the inaugural of the new 111th Congress and was turned away because he lacked proper credential certification. This political theatre was intended to embarrass the new Democratic Congress in its refusal to seat a fellow Democrat. So Burris went outside and held separate press conferences posing as the badly treated stepchild and “victim” of unfair treatment.

Burris has been, up until now, a respected public servant and should have displayed more character. First, he knew full well that the Illinois Secretary of State had refused to certify his appointment to fill the seat vacated by President-Elect Obama. The reason is that the appointment was made by Gov. Blagojevich who is under investigation and impending indictment for attempting to sell the appointment for personal gain. No matter how qualified, the appointment of anyone by Blagojevich, is suspect and the person so appointed would fall under that shadow unless and until the matter is cleared up.

Second, knowing that the proper credentials were lacking, only an egotistical politician would choose to mar the historical event of the inauguration of the new Congress by drawing personal attention to a personal dispute that he knew could not be resolved. The Senate had previously informed him that he would not be seated that day. Greater character would have been shown by staying away and continuing to work with Senate leadership and the Illinois authorities to resolve the matter. There is no apparent evidence that Burris was involved in the scheming by Blagojevich. As a result, a formal process of inquiry would have cleared him and allowed the Senate to seat him free of any taint. Instead, Burris chose to act like a typical political clown and seek the spotlight to demand personal attention and to implicitly support the improper and corrupt behavior of Gov. Blagojevich. Such behavior can only lower public perception of Burris. It also might lower public opinion of politicians, if there were room for descent in the level of opinion the public now holds.

Obama and the Rule of Law

As Barack Obama enters office, he will be faced with one of many problems created by the Bush administration, the case of Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, No. 08-368 that will go before the US Supreme Court. The case involves a Qatari man who was captured while in the US legally and has been held indefinitely without charges as an “enemy combatant.” The case will challenge Obama to state his position with respect to the operation of the rule of law in the United States and the primacy of the US Constitution. Under a rule of law, a person has the right to know what crimes he is being charged with, the right to see and confront evidence against him and the right to defense in a speedy trial. None of these Constitutional protections have been afforded Al-Marri.

Bush administration officials claim that the man is “too dangerous” to be allowed free as he might provide aid to Al Qaida or other terrorist groups. Yet these vague assertions are not backed up by any coherent supporting facts. They amount to a standard that if a president declares someone dangerous, that person is stripped of all due process rights. The US judiciary has forced the Bush administration to defend its position by requiring the hearing on the Al-Marri case. Now Obama will be obliged to submit a brief stating his position on the matter. Looking for clues as to Obama’s approach, the New York Times cited the following in an article:

A year ago, Mr. Obama answered a detailed questionnaire concerning his views on presidential power from The Boston Globe. “I reject the Bush administration’s claim,” Mr. Obama said, “that the president has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”

However, this response partially sidesteps the core issue. Bush’s claim to authority is that he has the power as President that exceeds the US Constitution in times of war. This raises an old legal conceptual question whether an office can exceed the authority of the law or body that creates it. Traditional restraint and a desire to avoid the excesses of King George III that led to the American Revolution have caused the judiciary to reject such arguments of an “Imperial Presidency” in favor of protecting the balance of powers that is built into the fundament of US government and embodied in the Constitution.

Some of the legal issues have been obscured by racist antipathy because the detainee is Muslim. However, the strength of a legal system is not in its ability to deal justly with the popular cases, but rather with those that present unpopular contestants or issues. Much of the Bush argument is based upon fear mongering and deliberately fomented hatred of Arabs and Muslims precipitated by his own political agenda. Part of the Bush administration argument must rest upon the assertion that Al-Marri is not entitled to protection under the Constitution. However, many cases have established and upheld the principle that the Constitution speaks to the limits of authority of the government and the means that it may use to enforce laws. There is no clear legal answer why the detainee cannot be tried under traditional principles of jurisprudence and due process that this country has stood for in the past. If he has committed acts of terrorism or tangible support to terrorist organizations, let that be proven in court.

This, however, brings us to the tangled web of the Bush administration fiasco, again as cited in the New York Time article:

Another alternative for the new administration is to prosecute Mr. Marri as a criminal. But it is not clear that there is admissible evidence against him.

The basic problem is that the supposed evidence upon which the Bush administration would rely to imprison Al-Marri is based upon torture. This presents several major problems for Bush. First, to be required to present such evidence would expose the Bush administration to potential war crimes prosecution. Second, the evidence would be inadmissible as such evidence is deemed inherently unreliable. Third, to maintain prosecution on a theory that the government cannot charge the defendant and cannot prove the basis for his detention would stand basic principles of law and criminal jurisprudence on end. It is simply irrational. Beyond that, to continue to indefinitely detain a man without charges simply to avoid embarrassment to the Bush administration relating to its use of internationally outlawed interrogation practices would undermine basic principles of justice and human rights.

What makes very little sense from an objective standpoint is why the case even need reach the Supreme Court. There is no one man who is so dangerous that he cannot be subjected to the rule of law. If, as happens routinely, Al-Marri were acquitted because of illegal interrogation or police abuse, he would be one of the most scrutinized men on earth. It is doubtful he could ever present any real threat approximating the imaginary one concocted by the Bush administration. If the threat were genuine, the Bush administration would not be so reluctant to put it forward for judicial scrutiny. The case is about power and prerogatives, and about whether the President is subject to the Constitution. Even the purported “war” that the Bush administration uses to support its exercise of presumed war powers is a fabrication. So the Bush administration argument is a legal house of cards.

Hopefully, Obama will exercise his rigorous legal training and sense of integrity to submit a brief that disavows the expansive claims of the Bush administration. In doing so, he will make great strides toward bringing the country back onto the course of a “rule of law.” To fail to do so simply suggests that we can expect more of the same politically corrupted jurisprudence and sophistry that we have experienced under the Bush regime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insanity of War and Escalation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush’s Crowning Success

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plague of Fear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t just do something, Stand there!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exhaust Fumes [Smoke] & Mirrors

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

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

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

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

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

Thumb Twiddling in the Oval Office

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Modest Proposal - Minister of Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the Hiatus- I'm Back!

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

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

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

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

What We Have Regained…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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