Posts
When I first heard on Friday about the spending bill being put before the Senate, I felt a sense of disgust. Once again our elected officials are blatantly ignoring the needs of their constituencies for the sake of pork barrel spending. The current bill includes more than 5,000 pet projects, the most ridiculous of which have already been exposed by the major news organizations.
As I read more about the bill however, I realized that it has its good side. The main purpose of the measure, known as an omnibus bill, is to pay for vital programs in areas such as veterans, health and education. That’s the stuff we need. As much as I hate to admit it, a flawed government is still better than no government.
However, the ugly part of the situation is the most outrageous. This is the mindset of the Congress, which views profligate spending as a virtue to be praised. Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois reminded all of us that the individual spending bills were given bipartisan support by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Isn’t that wonderful?
Both parties agree that irresponsibly raising the national debt to reward campaign contributors is an admirable end.
As the New York Times reported yesterday, there is more of this behavior yet to come. The next major bill to come before Congress is a $600 billion measure that will pay for the operations of the Pentagon for the next year. Since no one in Congress would vote against keeping the Pentagon in business, there are plans being made to attach other wasteful spending projects to this measure.
Included in those measures is one provision to raise the federal debt limit by $1.8 trillion. What sense does it make to have a debt limit if Congress is just going to raise it every year to cover their own irresponsibility? Think about what would happen if the average homeowner was allowed to do that on an annual basis. In some sense, that’s exactly what did happen, and look where we are now.
I have to wonder if Congress is aware or at the very least cares about the ugly image it displays to the general voting public. Their approval numbers don't seem to mean much to them. They are mortgaging our future for the sake of the few and flipping the rest of us the bird at the same time. They only reasons they do it are because no one holds them accountable and because they are so insulated from the plight of the average citizen that they listen only to those who throw the most money at them.
Let’s hope that changes before the well runs dry, before the credibility of the United States turns into a impudent joke at a Russian vodka party.
*Source information for this article is from The New York Times December 13th edition
Monday, December 14, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
President Obama, Are You Listening?
In an announcement I loved reading this morning out of Great Britain, Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling proclaimed a 50% tax on all bank bonuses over 25,000 pounds, translating into $40,800. That low limit effectively captures the vast majority of bonuses that will be paid.
I found it very curious that within a half hour of that announcement, a member of the board of Goldman Sachs, William George, was quoted as saying that his firm is taking a “very hard look” at whether to pay people less because of public outrage over bonuses. My educated guess says they will do one of two things: One, they will impose a temporary restraint until the outrage dies down; Two, they will decide that their pay policy can’t be changed because it will result in a “talent exodus,” a matter which I have addressed before.
Indeed, the reaction of the US financial community supported the latter conclusion. “We don’t think it is at all likely that Treasury-IRS would impose a 50 percent tax on banker bonuses,” said David Schmidt, a senior consultant for New York-based compensation firm James F. Reda & Associates. “This pay cut would likely cause an exodus of talent.” I have stated repeatedly in the previous columns that while it may be true that there would be a temporary exodus of talent, the attitude that that talent cannot be replaced is utterly ridiculous.
The only voice quoted that agreed with the idea of a US bonus tax is the one I respect the most. Clyde Prestowitz, whose book, Three Billion New Capitalists, was a warning shot across the economic bow of the country when we still believed that what has happened could not happen, called the bonus tax “a great idea that is justified by the taxpayer supported bailouts.” He added, “There’s a lot of pain and agony out there because of their malfeasance.”
His statements are confirmed by a Bloomberg National Poll released today that almost two thirds of Americans rate bankers lower than Congressmen, lawyers and insurance companies. With polls released in the past few months showing favorable ratings of Congress hovering in the teens, I suspect that the true number of people who give bankers that low a rating is closer to 80%. Bloomberg’s study only polled 1000 adults, hardly enough to produce a completely accurate reading.
Is President Obama listening? Is Tim Geithner? Mr. Geithner recently paid lip service to the “irresponsibly high bonuses” being paid on Wall St. this year, but no further action is currently being contemplated, and it’s obvious that the people paid to watch the banking system also expect nothing to be done.
I suggest that Mr. Prestowitz is correct. It is time to follow the lead of the British and impose a bonus tax of at least 50%. This would accomplish two important objectives: First, it would show that those elected to govern are listening to the will of the people who elected them. Second, it would send a clear signal to Wall St. that their actions are wrong and completely out of touch with economic reality. This is something the majority of Americans already seem to know.
Finally, it is worth remembering that last year, in the immediate wake of the banking crisis that started this economic turmoil, British bankers apologized for their irresponsibility. American bankers had the nerve to blame “excessive regulation” for the crisis. It’s time to remind them that the fallout from their willful transgressions is far from forgiven.
**The source of all quotes in this article is Bloomberg.com
I found it very curious that within a half hour of that announcement, a member of the board of Goldman Sachs, William George, was quoted as saying that his firm is taking a “very hard look” at whether to pay people less because of public outrage over bonuses. My educated guess says they will do one of two things: One, they will impose a temporary restraint until the outrage dies down; Two, they will decide that their pay policy can’t be changed because it will result in a “talent exodus,” a matter which I have addressed before.
Indeed, the reaction of the US financial community supported the latter conclusion. “We don’t think it is at all likely that Treasury-IRS would impose a 50 percent tax on banker bonuses,” said David Schmidt, a senior consultant for New York-based compensation firm James F. Reda & Associates. “This pay cut would likely cause an exodus of talent.” I have stated repeatedly in the previous columns that while it may be true that there would be a temporary exodus of talent, the attitude that that talent cannot be replaced is utterly ridiculous.
The only voice quoted that agreed with the idea of a US bonus tax is the one I respect the most. Clyde Prestowitz, whose book, Three Billion New Capitalists, was a warning shot across the economic bow of the country when we still believed that what has happened could not happen, called the bonus tax “a great idea that is justified by the taxpayer supported bailouts.” He added, “There’s a lot of pain and agony out there because of their malfeasance.”
His statements are confirmed by a Bloomberg National Poll released today that almost two thirds of Americans rate bankers lower than Congressmen, lawyers and insurance companies. With polls released in the past few months showing favorable ratings of Congress hovering in the teens, I suspect that the true number of people who give bankers that low a rating is closer to 80%. Bloomberg’s study only polled 1000 adults, hardly enough to produce a completely accurate reading.
Is President Obama listening? Is Tim Geithner? Mr. Geithner recently paid lip service to the “irresponsibly high bonuses” being paid on Wall St. this year, but no further action is currently being contemplated, and it’s obvious that the people paid to watch the banking system also expect nothing to be done.
I suggest that Mr. Prestowitz is correct. It is time to follow the lead of the British and impose a bonus tax of at least 50%. This would accomplish two important objectives: First, it would show that those elected to govern are listening to the will of the people who elected them. Second, it would send a clear signal to Wall St. that their actions are wrong and completely out of touch with economic reality. This is something the majority of Americans already seem to know.
Finally, it is worth remembering that last year, in the immediate wake of the banking crisis that started this economic turmoil, British bankers apologized for their irresponsibility. American bankers had the nerve to blame “excessive regulation” for the crisis. It’s time to remind them that the fallout from their willful transgressions is far from forgiven.
**The source of all quotes in this article is Bloomberg.com
Thursday, November 26, 2009
A Thanksgiving Thank You
The holiday season is upon us and being the manic depressive that I am, I find myself with typically conflicting thoughts. It seems to me that the whole country is sort of manic depressive in a way. The extremes are getting more extreme. I’m sure that right now there are people drinking toasts to their decadent excesses, feeling no guilt, while other people are feeling as if they are in a hole miles deep because they know their standard of living has dropped and shows no sign of a quick rebound.
It has always been this way in America and maybe it always will be. But if my less than glamorous existence is emblematic of America, then the way I am dealing with it is no less indicative of the resilience of the American spirit. I push on every day. I face personal crises on a daily basis and my soul bleeds likes a festering wound but I remain optimistic. What else can any of us do?
It is sad that the socially maladjusted minority regularly grabs the spotlight of the mainstream media. It is equally sad that many other people find these fringe dwellers with a perverse need for attention so fascinating. The ones who are ignored in all of this are the citizens who plod along on a daily basis and raise their children uneventfully, instilling them with a sense of values and dignity. This doesn’t make the newsreel highlights, and there is always talk of changing values and the erosion of the family, but certain things remain constant, and that still is and always will be the backbone of this manic depressive nation.
So this editorial is a shout to you, the ignored, the decent, the stressed and the children who are struggling to understand their existence while the world shifts beneath their feet. As John Lennon sang forty years ago, love is the answer. I know that to include such a cliché in an editorial is a literary sin but the truth of that statement will resonate through every generation. No matter what your situation, if there is love, there is hope. And I think the people of this country whose lifestyle has been so cruelly and abruptly disrupted realize that. They are the collective force for good that hold this country together against an ugly tide of corruption and greed. If we are to restore our simple sense of morality, untainted by manic depressive extremism, then those people will be our ultimate salvation and I want to thank them for it in advance, and let them know that their efforts do not go unrecognized, no matter whether the mainstream media pays any attention to them. I see examples of it every day, in the way a mother and child look at each other as they hold hands on the street. In the way a gentleman with twenty items in his shopping cart lets me go ahead of him because I only have three items. In the way that someone I don’t know compliments my singing in the church choir on Sunday. These simple gestures say so much about who we are as a society. I pray that we never reach the point where that kind of civility goes out of style. Thank you, and I hope everyone enjoys their turkey and football with a sense of moderation and civility.
It has always been this way in America and maybe it always will be. But if my less than glamorous existence is emblematic of America, then the way I am dealing with it is no less indicative of the resilience of the American spirit. I push on every day. I face personal crises on a daily basis and my soul bleeds likes a festering wound but I remain optimistic. What else can any of us do?
It is sad that the socially maladjusted minority regularly grabs the spotlight of the mainstream media. It is equally sad that many other people find these fringe dwellers with a perverse need for attention so fascinating. The ones who are ignored in all of this are the citizens who plod along on a daily basis and raise their children uneventfully, instilling them with a sense of values and dignity. This doesn’t make the newsreel highlights, and there is always talk of changing values and the erosion of the family, but certain things remain constant, and that still is and always will be the backbone of this manic depressive nation.
So this editorial is a shout to you, the ignored, the decent, the stressed and the children who are struggling to understand their existence while the world shifts beneath their feet. As John Lennon sang forty years ago, love is the answer. I know that to include such a cliché in an editorial is a literary sin but the truth of that statement will resonate through every generation. No matter what your situation, if there is love, there is hope. And I think the people of this country whose lifestyle has been so cruelly and abruptly disrupted realize that. They are the collective force for good that hold this country together against an ugly tide of corruption and greed. If we are to restore our simple sense of morality, untainted by manic depressive extremism, then those people will be our ultimate salvation and I want to thank them for it in advance, and let them know that their efforts do not go unrecognized, no matter whether the mainstream media pays any attention to them. I see examples of it every day, in the way a mother and child look at each other as they hold hands on the street. In the way a gentleman with twenty items in his shopping cart lets me go ahead of him because I only have three items. In the way that someone I don’t know compliments my singing in the church choir on Sunday. These simple gestures say so much about who we are as a society. I pray that we never reach the point where that kind of civility goes out of style. Thank you, and I hope everyone enjoys their turkey and football with a sense of moderation and civility.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Range of Human Behavior
There have been two incidents in the past two days that showed the extremes people are capable of in stressful situations.
The first, more prominent incident occurred at Fort Hood, Texas. An army major, trained in psychiatry, and scheduled to be deployed to a war zone, snapped and tried to murder as many people as he could before he was taken down by this incident’s hero, Kimberly Munley.
Sgt. Munley is a trained firearms expert and has also served in the military. She committed a selfless act of bravery by confronting a man who had already committed multiple murders and suffered serious wounds while disabling him. She responded immediately and without hesitation and placed herself in mortal danger to save the lives of others. She is the mother of two young children, but upon recovering consciousness at the hospital, her first question was about the lives she had saved. This woman deserves the utmost respect and the highest honor this country can hand out.
The perpetrator of this incident, Major Nidal Malik Hasan is an army psychiatrist who spent most of his time counseling and comforting soldiers who suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of exposure to combat situations. It is unclear whether he planned to kill himself after he satisfied his lust for slaughter, but he had apparently authored several recent posts on the Internet about suicide bombers and had been giving his belongings away. The prospect of his upcoming deployment pushed him past his breaking point. The magnitude of his violence speaks volumes about the darkest capabilities of the human condition.
The second incident occurred at a Florida prison. Deputy Ken Moon was on duty and alone on a unit when he was assaulted by an inmate. The inmate had Deputy Moon in a choke hold which may have resulted in the deputy’s death if not for the quick action of four inmates who came to deputy’s rescue.
These men had nothing to gain by helping the deputy. When asked why they helped him, they responded by saying they liked him, nothing more, nothing less. It was a simple act of kindness in a place where that is usually in short supply. It was unclear why Deputy Moon was attacked, but when a man is in a murderous rage, clear thought is non-existent. The extent of his violence differs from Major Hasan’s only by degree.
I am not in any way trying to equate the heroism of Sgt. Munley with that of the inmates. However, just as the violence is different only in degree, so is the heroism. It shows the range of reaction that is possible when people are exposed to stressful situations. Violence and heroism have been constants throughout history. Until we can learn to live with each other peacefully, we must pray that the heroism of brave individuals will never succumb to the violence of the disturbed.
The first, more prominent incident occurred at Fort Hood, Texas. An army major, trained in psychiatry, and scheduled to be deployed to a war zone, snapped and tried to murder as many people as he could before he was taken down by this incident’s hero, Kimberly Munley.
Sgt. Munley is a trained firearms expert and has also served in the military. She committed a selfless act of bravery by confronting a man who had already committed multiple murders and suffered serious wounds while disabling him. She responded immediately and without hesitation and placed herself in mortal danger to save the lives of others. She is the mother of two young children, but upon recovering consciousness at the hospital, her first question was about the lives she had saved. This woman deserves the utmost respect and the highest honor this country can hand out.
The perpetrator of this incident, Major Nidal Malik Hasan is an army psychiatrist who spent most of his time counseling and comforting soldiers who suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of exposure to combat situations. It is unclear whether he planned to kill himself after he satisfied his lust for slaughter, but he had apparently authored several recent posts on the Internet about suicide bombers and had been giving his belongings away. The prospect of his upcoming deployment pushed him past his breaking point. The magnitude of his violence speaks volumes about the darkest capabilities of the human condition.
The second incident occurred at a Florida prison. Deputy Ken Moon was on duty and alone on a unit when he was assaulted by an inmate. The inmate had Deputy Moon in a choke hold which may have resulted in the deputy’s death if not for the quick action of four inmates who came to deputy’s rescue.
These men had nothing to gain by helping the deputy. When asked why they helped him, they responded by saying they liked him, nothing more, nothing less. It was a simple act of kindness in a place where that is usually in short supply. It was unclear why Deputy Moon was attacked, but when a man is in a murderous rage, clear thought is non-existent. The extent of his violence differs from Major Hasan’s only by degree.
I am not in any way trying to equate the heroism of Sgt. Munley with that of the inmates. However, just as the violence is different only in degree, so is the heroism. It shows the range of reaction that is possible when people are exposed to stressful situations. Violence and heroism have been constants throughout history. Until we can learn to live with each other peacefully, we must pray that the heroism of brave individuals will never succumb to the violence of the disturbed.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
What Happened in Richmond, CA: Anomaly or Symptom?
The recent gang rape of a 15 year old girl outside a school dance in Richmond, CA would be an ugly incident all by itself. What makes it even uglier, however, is the fact that a crowd of teenagers stood around watching, cheering and taking pictures during the time this poor girl was being brutalized.
A spokesman for the school in question has disclaimed responsibility by saying it is not our job “to take these students home.” They immediately retreated to the “cover thy ass” position most likely to deflect the massive lawsuits that will be coming their way once this whole ugly incident is sorted out. I can’t blame them for doing that, and while it is very easy to place the blame squarely on the school for not having proper security, I think the blame lies elsewhere.
This is certainly the most heinous case of criminal apathy that I have come across. There have been other incidents where young people overdose at parties and the other kids just leave them there, not caring whether they live or die, but this case reaches a new low. That is something our society seems to be getting better and better at.
I still remember being a teenager, centuries ago, and I remember getting mighty drunk a few times, but I can’t remember ever getting the urge to gather a group of friends together and finding a girl to gang rape. I wonder, how does this mindset occur? Where does the notion come from that this kind of act is acceptable? Can you classify anyone who does think this is acceptable behavior as human?
That last question applies to those who watched as well as those who participated. Who has failed to demonstrate a proper set of values to these children? I think the better question is, where does the blame end? We are all in some way responsible. We allow for the set of circumstances where children can become so desensitized to the suffering of others that this type of behavior becomes possible.
So, is this incident an anomaly, not likely to be repeated, or is this a symptom of the mindset that prevails in today’s young people, where the dehumanization of an innocent young girl is shrugged off and considered unsurprising? The shock factor will remain acute for some time to come, but once that wears off, what are we left with? It could be interpreted as a generation of children without a functional moral compass.
Since Americans find it so necessary to blame someone for incidents like these, I have a suggestion for you. Go look in the mirror, wipe the sleep from your eyes, and do something to counter the endless tide of violent images that are sweeping our children into an immoral cesspool.
A spokesman for the school in question has disclaimed responsibility by saying it is not our job “to take these students home.” They immediately retreated to the “cover thy ass” position most likely to deflect the massive lawsuits that will be coming their way once this whole ugly incident is sorted out. I can’t blame them for doing that, and while it is very easy to place the blame squarely on the school for not having proper security, I think the blame lies elsewhere.
This is certainly the most heinous case of criminal apathy that I have come across. There have been other incidents where young people overdose at parties and the other kids just leave them there, not caring whether they live or die, but this case reaches a new low. That is something our society seems to be getting better and better at.
I still remember being a teenager, centuries ago, and I remember getting mighty drunk a few times, but I can’t remember ever getting the urge to gather a group of friends together and finding a girl to gang rape. I wonder, how does this mindset occur? Where does the notion come from that this kind of act is acceptable? Can you classify anyone who does think this is acceptable behavior as human?
That last question applies to those who watched as well as those who participated. Who has failed to demonstrate a proper set of values to these children? I think the better question is, where does the blame end? We are all in some way responsible. We allow for the set of circumstances where children can become so desensitized to the suffering of others that this type of behavior becomes possible.
So, is this incident an anomaly, not likely to be repeated, or is this a symptom of the mindset that prevails in today’s young people, where the dehumanization of an innocent young girl is shrugged off and considered unsurprising? The shock factor will remain acute for some time to come, but once that wears off, what are we left with? It could be interpreted as a generation of children without a functional moral compass.
Since Americans find it so necessary to blame someone for incidents like these, I have a suggestion for you. Go look in the mirror, wipe the sleep from your eyes, and do something to counter the endless tide of violent images that are sweeping our children into an immoral cesspool.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
I Hope Everyone Reads This
This will be a short entry. This one doesn't need to be long.
The text of President Obama's speech can be found through this link:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDqQJuGAC0Xb5hUlwfuOZ-0hr5_gD9AJ0AK80
This speech was so awesome and both simple and significant at the same time. Anyone who was opposed to the President's speech should wear a bright white T-shirt with bold black lettering that says "I am an idiot." All the crap that was being spread around about the President trying to indoctrinate students into some political agenda was just that, crap.
There wasn't a single political element to the President's speech. It was a much needed and overdue call from the rightful leader of this country to the young people who represent the future to focus on themselves for the good of the country. It's too bad the parents of this country don't provide the same kind of leadership to their children.
I applaud the President for making this speech. It may not be recorded as a significant event in the history books of the future, but it still sent a much needed message to the young people who are constantly bombarded with negativity and escapism by a sensationally addicted media. President Obama should make a speech like this every month of the school year until each student is convinced that he or she is important to the future of this once great country and that each of them can make a positive contribution toward reversing the decline that my failing generation is passing on to them. They must take responsibility for themselves and my generation must take responsibility for failing the those who will come after us with our complacency, laziness and collective willingness to embrace ignorance.
The text of President Obama's speech can be found through this link:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDqQJuGAC0Xb5hUlwfuOZ-0hr5_gD9AJ0AK80
This speech was so awesome and both simple and significant at the same time. Anyone who was opposed to the President's speech should wear a bright white T-shirt with bold black lettering that says "I am an idiot." All the crap that was being spread around about the President trying to indoctrinate students into some political agenda was just that, crap.
There wasn't a single political element to the President's speech. It was a much needed and overdue call from the rightful leader of this country to the young people who represent the future to focus on themselves for the good of the country. It's too bad the parents of this country don't provide the same kind of leadership to their children.
I applaud the President for making this speech. It may not be recorded as a significant event in the history books of the future, but it still sent a much needed message to the young people who are constantly bombarded with negativity and escapism by a sensationally addicted media. President Obama should make a speech like this every month of the school year until each student is convinced that he or she is important to the future of this once great country and that each of them can make a positive contribution toward reversing the decline that my failing generation is passing on to them. They must take responsibility for themselves and my generation must take responsibility for failing the those who will come after us with our complacency, laziness and collective willingness to embrace ignorance.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
A Bad Decision
I have been away from this blog for too long. I have been posting poetry on my other blog. Call it my summer vacation. If Congress can do it, I can too.
Today, the decision was handed down by the California parole board denying Susan Atkins compassionate release. I advocated for her release in one of my last blog entries. I stand by that position.
When I saw the headline on the NY Times blog I was curious to see the comments that would be posted. I was not surprised by the attitude of vengeance and outright bloodthirstiness that was displayed. The question that keeps coming to my mind is, do these people, who aren't afraid to say that Susan Atkins should die in prison, call themselves Christians? They certainly are not thinking in a way that Jesus Christ would find acceptable.
Granted, there were some compassionate and enlightened people posting more thoughtful entries and I applaud them for the depth of their thinking. What is a shameful reflection on our society is that these comments were a small minority of the total.
This is the entry that I posted to the blog this afternoon:
"Shame on all of you people. Maybe you all should try spending an extended time in prison and see if you like it. Susan Atkins is no threat to anyone and her life was taken from her by a long prison sentence. She did commit a terrible crime and she showed no mercy. All of this is true. But are you people not capable of showing mercy yourselves? Do you think that Susan Atkins still has no regrets over what she did? For you to simply brush her off and say that she should die in prison shows the same lack of compassion she displayed to her victims, albeit to a lesser degree. Society needs to move away from this vengeful attitude. With maturity is supposed to come wisdom.The release of the Lockerbie bomber and his subsequent hero’s welcome home should not color the opinion of anyone who looks at this case. It is completely separate and must be examined in a moral vacuum. What lesson do you wish to teach your children, an eye for an eye, or something more noble? I wish all of you haters luck and pray that you never have to face the loss of freedom ms atkins has had to suffer."
My post was directly responded to by a woman named Pam. This was her entry:
"Gee Don, I am pretty sure that all of us “haters” will not face the “loss of freedom ms atkins has had to suffer” given that we are not likely to take part in butchering innocent people who were simply sitting in their own homes.
What lesson are you teaching your children –that no matter what you do, eventually you get out of jail? How much time do you think Susan Atkins should have served, or is it simply the fact that she has cancer that you think justifies her release? Have you ever lost anyone to violent crime?
I didn’t think so."
The first thing that should jump out at you is the condescending tone of her response. She is sarcastically dismissing what I said without taking any of what I wrote seriously. This is a typical anti-intellectual response. It also reflects a lack of understanding of the fact that given the right, or wrong circumstances, depending on how you see it, anyone can end up in prison. People are not just put in prison for murder. This is the point I was addressing when I said that I pray that the haters never have to face the loss of freedom Ms. Atkins has.
Second, she lectures me about loss without knowing anything about me. I called the purveyors of vitriol haters based on their comments. Pam attempts to make a value judgment on my life without knowing what I have gone through and the losses I have suffered. This is, of course, an attempt to deflect my argument away from its essential point, that the matter needs to be examined in a moral vacuum, without emotional aspects injected. This is the only way to discuss a philosophical argument, which is exactly what this discussion should be, not an opportunity for bloodletting.
Third, she asks me what lesson I am teaching my children. The answer to that is simple. If I had the opportunity to teach my children, I would teach them to value self respect and love for others above all else. That IS what Jesus Christ intended for us. If you can adopt an attitude of vengeance and sleep well at night, then you lack a basic ingredient of wisdom and you need to think hard and long about what you are teaching your children.
Finally, to address the question Pam raises about someone who has lost a loved one to violent crime. Has she not heard of the many examples of survivors who have visited those who killed their loved ones in prison and come to forgive them for their crimes? This is the road I would pursue for the sake of intellectualism and personal growth. I would find this alternative far more preferable than living my life while hatred for a single individual ate away at my soul. That is the antithesis of love and life and the road to personal hell, something which I have already extricated myself from.
Today, the decision was handed down by the California parole board denying Susan Atkins compassionate release. I advocated for her release in one of my last blog entries. I stand by that position.
When I saw the headline on the NY Times blog I was curious to see the comments that would be posted. I was not surprised by the attitude of vengeance and outright bloodthirstiness that was displayed. The question that keeps coming to my mind is, do these people, who aren't afraid to say that Susan Atkins should die in prison, call themselves Christians? They certainly are not thinking in a way that Jesus Christ would find acceptable.
Granted, there were some compassionate and enlightened people posting more thoughtful entries and I applaud them for the depth of their thinking. What is a shameful reflection on our society is that these comments were a small minority of the total.
This is the entry that I posted to the blog this afternoon:
"Shame on all of you people. Maybe you all should try spending an extended time in prison and see if you like it. Susan Atkins is no threat to anyone and her life was taken from her by a long prison sentence. She did commit a terrible crime and she showed no mercy. All of this is true. But are you people not capable of showing mercy yourselves? Do you think that Susan Atkins still has no regrets over what she did? For you to simply brush her off and say that she should die in prison shows the same lack of compassion she displayed to her victims, albeit to a lesser degree. Society needs to move away from this vengeful attitude. With maturity is supposed to come wisdom.The release of the Lockerbie bomber and his subsequent hero’s welcome home should not color the opinion of anyone who looks at this case. It is completely separate and must be examined in a moral vacuum. What lesson do you wish to teach your children, an eye for an eye, or something more noble? I wish all of you haters luck and pray that you never have to face the loss of freedom ms atkins has had to suffer."
My post was directly responded to by a woman named Pam. This was her entry:
"Gee Don, I am pretty sure that all of us “haters” will not face the “loss of freedom ms atkins has had to suffer” given that we are not likely to take part in butchering innocent people who were simply sitting in their own homes.
What lesson are you teaching your children –that no matter what you do, eventually you get out of jail? How much time do you think Susan Atkins should have served, or is it simply the fact that she has cancer that you think justifies her release? Have you ever lost anyone to violent crime?
I didn’t think so."
The first thing that should jump out at you is the condescending tone of her response. She is sarcastically dismissing what I said without taking any of what I wrote seriously. This is a typical anti-intellectual response. It also reflects a lack of understanding of the fact that given the right, or wrong circumstances, depending on how you see it, anyone can end up in prison. People are not just put in prison for murder. This is the point I was addressing when I said that I pray that the haters never have to face the loss of freedom Ms. Atkins has.
Second, she lectures me about loss without knowing anything about me. I called the purveyors of vitriol haters based on their comments. Pam attempts to make a value judgment on my life without knowing what I have gone through and the losses I have suffered. This is, of course, an attempt to deflect my argument away from its essential point, that the matter needs to be examined in a moral vacuum, without emotional aspects injected. This is the only way to discuss a philosophical argument, which is exactly what this discussion should be, not an opportunity for bloodletting.
Third, she asks me what lesson I am teaching my children. The answer to that is simple. If I had the opportunity to teach my children, I would teach them to value self respect and love for others above all else. That IS what Jesus Christ intended for us. If you can adopt an attitude of vengeance and sleep well at night, then you lack a basic ingredient of wisdom and you need to think hard and long about what you are teaching your children.
Finally, to address the question Pam raises about someone who has lost a loved one to violent crime. Has she not heard of the many examples of survivors who have visited those who killed their loved ones in prison and come to forgive them for their crimes? This is the road I would pursue for the sake of intellectualism and personal growth. I would find this alternative far more preferable than living my life while hatred for a single individual ate away at my soul. That is the antithesis of love and life and the road to personal hell, something which I have already extricated myself from.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
As Dumb As Us?
I was talking with a few people recently about a subject that has shaped how I view the world. The greatest book I have ever read is still The Will to Power by Friedrich Nietzsche. It explains the framework by which the world operates. To put it succinctly, people don’t really care about each other. We prey on each other, we cheat each other, we have no consideration for each other. It’s sad, but it’s true.
Nietzsche called Christianity a blight on mankind. He proclaimed in definitive fashion that people were not bound by any sense of morality which society imposed upon them. When I was 22 and read this, I was astounded to realize that people could think this way. What a liberating idea. I adopted that philosophy wholeheartedly and slowly got further and further away from the framework under which I was raised. Of course, I fooled myself into thinking that I was still adhering to a Christian set of values. But in reality I made a few token gestures of humanity but despised most people. Back then anger was my main motivation. I was angry at myself, angry at my Dad and angry at the world. It cost me dearly.
I had to hit bottom with a thud to realize that abandoning values granted me freedom but left me in a great abyss. As I slowly reconstructed myself, I discovered that the values I had scoffed at as a young man were the only way to live. To be morally grounded, to see the world as a place that needs to be improved and saved, was the only path to love, and as John Lennon stated, love is the answer.
To apply that sentiment to the practical world is to encounter confounding frustration. The world does operate in an amoral fashion, just as Nietzsche described. Adherents to one religion or another make up the majority of the human population, but people still really don’t care about each other.
The evidence is everywhere. In one of my favorite movies, Billy Jack, the title character says, near the end, I am paraphrasing, you show me one place on earth where people really care about each other and I’ll never do another violent thing. That film was made in 1971. The statement is still just as valid. There are pockets of humanity, there are people who labor for the common good, but they are far outnumbered by those who serve only their self interest to the detriment of others. In many cases, they realize what they are doing and they take no steps to correct themselves.
This brings me to the book I am reading, Hot Flat and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman. I’m only 65 pages in, but so far I have a major point of disagreement with Friedman’s premise. He says in a number of places that the developing economies of the world have every right to enjoy the same type of lifestyle that we have in America. The statement is a celebration of the accomplishments of capitalism, which has clearly been shown to be a faulty system. But do these people have the right to develop their economies in the same foolish, haphazard manner that we did?
The answer to that is no. While we may not have evolved much in the past century, we have learned some painful lessons. The US is mainly responsible for the impending environmental disaster. As Mr. Friedman correctly points out later in the book, the only way for the US to regain its position of economic pre-eminence is to reclaim its moral authority and lead a green revolution to stem or at least mitigate the environmental effects which have been set in motion. I have heard Mr. Friedman’s viewpoint repeated ad nauseum by foreigners who feel entitled to their piece of the expanding economic pie. But in light of what we have learned, do they have the right to be as dumb as we were? Again, the answer is no. In the rush to spread the benefits of wealth among their citizens, foreign leaders are adopting the same polluting technologies which caused the problems we are now facing.
In the US, the enormous costs of leading a green revolution are seen as prohibitive in the current economic situation. If we were to publicly state that our handling of the environment has been disgraceful and that we are urging other countries not to follow our path and adopt more environmentally sound economic growth programs, would it make any difference? The question may be completely moot, because the odds of the US making such a statement can only be stated in astronomical terms.
What does this say about all of us and our world? What are foreigners saying when they follow the US lead in economic growth? Screw the environment; screw the losers who still live on less than $2 a day! We want our pie and we want it now! This is selfishness, this is hypocrisy, this is willful ignorance. It is darkness. It is not a compliment to the human condition. It proves Nietzsche correct, no matter how strenuously anyone may disagree with him.
Where does the future lie? It lies in science fiction. It lies in the kind of utopian vision that has been laughed off for a hundred years. It lies in love. The economic costs are secondary, and pale in comparison to the costs of inaction.
When will people wake up and realize this? I see no evidence of any enlightenment. The forces of darkness and stasis are strong, and they are experts at deflecting blame. I wish everyone luck on their journey and if you have young children, prepare them early to be activists, to respect others and to value love over money. The future of the world lies in the overthrow of the Nietzschean ideal.
Nietzsche called Christianity a blight on mankind. He proclaimed in definitive fashion that people were not bound by any sense of morality which society imposed upon them. When I was 22 and read this, I was astounded to realize that people could think this way. What a liberating idea. I adopted that philosophy wholeheartedly and slowly got further and further away from the framework under which I was raised. Of course, I fooled myself into thinking that I was still adhering to a Christian set of values. But in reality I made a few token gestures of humanity but despised most people. Back then anger was my main motivation. I was angry at myself, angry at my Dad and angry at the world. It cost me dearly.
I had to hit bottom with a thud to realize that abandoning values granted me freedom but left me in a great abyss. As I slowly reconstructed myself, I discovered that the values I had scoffed at as a young man were the only way to live. To be morally grounded, to see the world as a place that needs to be improved and saved, was the only path to love, and as John Lennon stated, love is the answer.
To apply that sentiment to the practical world is to encounter confounding frustration. The world does operate in an amoral fashion, just as Nietzsche described. Adherents to one religion or another make up the majority of the human population, but people still really don’t care about each other.
The evidence is everywhere. In one of my favorite movies, Billy Jack, the title character says, near the end, I am paraphrasing, you show me one place on earth where people really care about each other and I’ll never do another violent thing. That film was made in 1971. The statement is still just as valid. There are pockets of humanity, there are people who labor for the common good, but they are far outnumbered by those who serve only their self interest to the detriment of others. In many cases, they realize what they are doing and they take no steps to correct themselves.
This brings me to the book I am reading, Hot Flat and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman. I’m only 65 pages in, but so far I have a major point of disagreement with Friedman’s premise. He says in a number of places that the developing economies of the world have every right to enjoy the same type of lifestyle that we have in America. The statement is a celebration of the accomplishments of capitalism, which has clearly been shown to be a faulty system. But do these people have the right to develop their economies in the same foolish, haphazard manner that we did?
The answer to that is no. While we may not have evolved much in the past century, we have learned some painful lessons. The US is mainly responsible for the impending environmental disaster. As Mr. Friedman correctly points out later in the book, the only way for the US to regain its position of economic pre-eminence is to reclaim its moral authority and lead a green revolution to stem or at least mitigate the environmental effects which have been set in motion. I have heard Mr. Friedman’s viewpoint repeated ad nauseum by foreigners who feel entitled to their piece of the expanding economic pie. But in light of what we have learned, do they have the right to be as dumb as we were? Again, the answer is no. In the rush to spread the benefits of wealth among their citizens, foreign leaders are adopting the same polluting technologies which caused the problems we are now facing.
In the US, the enormous costs of leading a green revolution are seen as prohibitive in the current economic situation. If we were to publicly state that our handling of the environment has been disgraceful and that we are urging other countries not to follow our path and adopt more environmentally sound economic growth programs, would it make any difference? The question may be completely moot, because the odds of the US making such a statement can only be stated in astronomical terms.
What does this say about all of us and our world? What are foreigners saying when they follow the US lead in economic growth? Screw the environment; screw the losers who still live on less than $2 a day! We want our pie and we want it now! This is selfishness, this is hypocrisy, this is willful ignorance. It is darkness. It is not a compliment to the human condition. It proves Nietzsche correct, no matter how strenuously anyone may disagree with him.
Where does the future lie? It lies in science fiction. It lies in the kind of utopian vision that has been laughed off for a hundred years. It lies in love. The economic costs are secondary, and pale in comparison to the costs of inaction.
When will people wake up and realize this? I see no evidence of any enlightenment. The forces of darkness and stasis are strong, and they are experts at deflecting blame. I wish everyone luck on their journey and if you have young children, prepare them early to be activists, to respect others and to value love over money. The future of the world lies in the overthrow of the Nietzschean ideal.
Free Susan Atkins
Susan Atkins was part of one of the most shocking crimes of the 20th century. She was originally sentenced to death, later commuted to a life sentence and a life is what she has served. Now she is near death, a mere shell of the woman she used to be and I believe it is time to grant this woman some penance and allow her to return home to die in peace.
Society is very quick to punish. We hand out life sentences and pat ourselves on the back for our evolved system of justice and our humanity. Yet there is something very paradoxical about the nature of this punishment. We kick up dust and have endless arguments about taking a life for a life, but the fact remains that a life sentence amounts to the same thing, just a slower and more painful process.
Anyone who disagrees with me should try being put in prison on an open ended basis with no idea when they will be released. I’m sure their opinion of the necessity of harsh sentences would be changed. At least when I did my time, I always had a release date in the back of my mind. It still didn’t make it any easier.
Economic points are being raised, but if this issued is going to be examined in a vacuum, on a philosophical basis, then economics is irrelevant. The question is about the dignity of life and the compassion we have as a society.
It’s true that Susan Atkins said she had no mercy for her victims. She was young. She came from an abusive situation, and became immersed in a dysfunctional situation. Are we so comfortable and smug that we can allow ourselves to show no mercy towards her after she has served forty years in prison and not feel a single pang of guilt? I have to seriously question the psyche and motivation of someone who feels that way. I read over the first eight years of Susan’s record of her prison behavior and after her initial adjustment period, she was consistently seen as a model prisoner, often being complimented for the calming and positive effect she had on other inmates. Even the families of her victims have acknowledged her good works and the clear change in her personality. Can’t we, as a supposedly impartial society, do the same thing?
If we allow Susan Atkins to return home to die, do we diminish ourselves in any way? I think it has the opposite effect. I think it shows growth. Let us allow ourselves the chance to grow instead of remaining in lock step with the path of least resistance. Susan did not allow her victims to choose the manner of their deaths. Do we need to adopt that same misguided attitude in order to feel safe? Let us more evolved people choose the noble path and allow her to die at home in peace.
Society is very quick to punish. We hand out life sentences and pat ourselves on the back for our evolved system of justice and our humanity. Yet there is something very paradoxical about the nature of this punishment. We kick up dust and have endless arguments about taking a life for a life, but the fact remains that a life sentence amounts to the same thing, just a slower and more painful process.
Anyone who disagrees with me should try being put in prison on an open ended basis with no idea when they will be released. I’m sure their opinion of the necessity of harsh sentences would be changed. At least when I did my time, I always had a release date in the back of my mind. It still didn’t make it any easier.
Economic points are being raised, but if this issued is going to be examined in a vacuum, on a philosophical basis, then economics is irrelevant. The question is about the dignity of life and the compassion we have as a society.
It’s true that Susan Atkins said she had no mercy for her victims. She was young. She came from an abusive situation, and became immersed in a dysfunctional situation. Are we so comfortable and smug that we can allow ourselves to show no mercy towards her after she has served forty years in prison and not feel a single pang of guilt? I have to seriously question the psyche and motivation of someone who feels that way. I read over the first eight years of Susan’s record of her prison behavior and after her initial adjustment period, she was consistently seen as a model prisoner, often being complimented for the calming and positive effect she had on other inmates. Even the families of her victims have acknowledged her good works and the clear change in her personality. Can’t we, as a supposedly impartial society, do the same thing?
If we allow Susan Atkins to return home to die, do we diminish ourselves in any way? I think it has the opposite effect. I think it shows growth. Let us allow ourselves the chance to grow instead of remaining in lock step with the path of least resistance. Susan did not allow her victims to choose the manner of their deaths. Do we need to adopt that same misguided attitude in order to feel safe? Let us more evolved people choose the noble path and allow her to die at home in peace.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
WHY THIS COUNTRY IS DOOMED-The Macro and the Micro
I hope I am being facetious here but I am really worried about the future of this country and it’s not necessarily for the reasons that most people are worried. First let’s look at the macro picture.
Paul Krugman, another NYT writer that I respect immensely, recently had a column talking about the vote on the recently passed Waxman-Markey climate change bill. The bill passed the House by a narrow margin. The reason, as Mr. Krugman points out, is that there are a large number of elected representatives who actually reject the notion that something must be done to reverse the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, in other words, the whole notion of global warming. I was flabbergasted as I read this. At this point in time, 2009, when the evidence of global warming is so evident, being reported everywhere, here are men and women who purport to call themselves intelligent telling us they don’t believe in the concept of global warming. How did these people get elected to any position of responsibility? How can you take a single word that comes out of their mouths seriously?
As Mr. Krugman points out, these people aren’t just disputing one argument with another, they are wholly rejecting the idea that a crisis even exists. It’s absolutely unbelievable that stupidity of that magnitude is tolerated in the halls of Congress or anywhere else. If we as a nation are willing to put up with that kind of stupidity, we are doomed. The triumph of fundamentalism is anti-intellectualism. Someone is so afraid to admit they are wrong that they willfully choose ignorance and denial. That, to me, constitutes mental illness, and it is apparently rampant among our elected representatives.
Now, the micro picture. As I have said before I have a very unglamorous job as an inside consultant for an energy company. In plain and simple terms I am a telemarketer. Fine, hate me if you will. But I am not selling newspapers or magazines, I am selling energy efficiency. In effect, I am giving away money. For nothing, I will have someone come to your business and let you know if we can help you reduce your energy bills. But it is a very hard job, and it’s made harder by the fact that people consider it perfectly acceptable to be rude, and I mean terribly rude. They have a good time being rude.
If they would take 30 seconds and listen, my company could help them insure the viability of their business going forward. But just like the elected representatives they would much rather remain rude and ignorant. Asking them to think is just too much of a burden for them to bear. I don’t when the country took this turn or who raised the people I call, but this is not the way I was raised. My dad, God rest his soul, would have had no problem admonishing me in public if I displayed rudeness to anyone. As an adult, I learned that courtesy and respect are hallmarks of self respect. You cannot expect anyone to show you respect if you so clearly demonstrate that you don’t respect yourself or others. And yet, this is how the people I call conduct themselves. It’s a miracle they make dollar one. And don’t try to tell me that indications of this kind of rudeness aren’t reflected in other aspects of their lives. It has to come to the surface in other unsociable ways.
Now, I know that these people are pounded by cold callers all day and the market we are working in is the busiest in the world. But that is not an acceptable excuse. How do you expect society to function if people can’t at least be courteous to one another? The spirit of civility that used to be the norm in this country has evaporated. Will it ever come back, I don’t know. Maybe the country needs to go through another depression to discover its civil soul. Maybe when everybody is in the same boat and we realize that we all need each other to make this country function again, we’ll remember that civility matters.
I hope it doesn’t come to that. But at this point in time, I don’t hold out much hope for the immediate future because people prefer to be ignorant. That is actually the most distressing fact. There was a time in the world when you had no choice but to be ignorant. Knowledge was scarce. But this is 2009. The entire world’s knowledge is right at your fingertips. All you have to do is type and click. But people don’t want to do it. Their personal growth is limited by their lack of perception. Their world revolves only around their immediate needs, and change, the only constant in life, is something to be feared and disputed. God help us all.
Paul Krugman, another NYT writer that I respect immensely, recently had a column talking about the vote on the recently passed Waxman-Markey climate change bill. The bill passed the House by a narrow margin. The reason, as Mr. Krugman points out, is that there are a large number of elected representatives who actually reject the notion that something must be done to reverse the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, in other words, the whole notion of global warming. I was flabbergasted as I read this. At this point in time, 2009, when the evidence of global warming is so evident, being reported everywhere, here are men and women who purport to call themselves intelligent telling us they don’t believe in the concept of global warming. How did these people get elected to any position of responsibility? How can you take a single word that comes out of their mouths seriously?
As Mr. Krugman points out, these people aren’t just disputing one argument with another, they are wholly rejecting the idea that a crisis even exists. It’s absolutely unbelievable that stupidity of that magnitude is tolerated in the halls of Congress or anywhere else. If we as a nation are willing to put up with that kind of stupidity, we are doomed. The triumph of fundamentalism is anti-intellectualism. Someone is so afraid to admit they are wrong that they willfully choose ignorance and denial. That, to me, constitutes mental illness, and it is apparently rampant among our elected representatives.
Now, the micro picture. As I have said before I have a very unglamorous job as an inside consultant for an energy company. In plain and simple terms I am a telemarketer. Fine, hate me if you will. But I am not selling newspapers or magazines, I am selling energy efficiency. In effect, I am giving away money. For nothing, I will have someone come to your business and let you know if we can help you reduce your energy bills. But it is a very hard job, and it’s made harder by the fact that people consider it perfectly acceptable to be rude, and I mean terribly rude. They have a good time being rude.
If they would take 30 seconds and listen, my company could help them insure the viability of their business going forward. But just like the elected representatives they would much rather remain rude and ignorant. Asking them to think is just too much of a burden for them to bear. I don’t when the country took this turn or who raised the people I call, but this is not the way I was raised. My dad, God rest his soul, would have had no problem admonishing me in public if I displayed rudeness to anyone. As an adult, I learned that courtesy and respect are hallmarks of self respect. You cannot expect anyone to show you respect if you so clearly demonstrate that you don’t respect yourself or others. And yet, this is how the people I call conduct themselves. It’s a miracle they make dollar one. And don’t try to tell me that indications of this kind of rudeness aren’t reflected in other aspects of their lives. It has to come to the surface in other unsociable ways.
Now, I know that these people are pounded by cold callers all day and the market we are working in is the busiest in the world. But that is not an acceptable excuse. How do you expect society to function if people can’t at least be courteous to one another? The spirit of civility that used to be the norm in this country has evaporated. Will it ever come back, I don’t know. Maybe the country needs to go through another depression to discover its civil soul. Maybe when everybody is in the same boat and we realize that we all need each other to make this country function again, we’ll remember that civility matters.
I hope it doesn’t come to that. But at this point in time, I don’t hold out much hope for the immediate future because people prefer to be ignorant. That is actually the most distressing fact. There was a time in the world when you had no choice but to be ignorant. Knowledge was scarce. But this is 2009. The entire world’s knowledge is right at your fingertips. All you have to do is type and click. But people don’t want to do it. Their personal growth is limited by their lack of perception. Their world revolves only around their immediate needs, and change, the only constant in life, is something to be feared and disputed. God help us all.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The End of the First Debacle or the Beginning of the Second
We have just barely begun to turn the corner in the worst financial crisis in 60 years and the big banks are determined to plant the seeds of the next one. They haven’t learned a thing, except that the big brother government they all love to rail against will bail them out of any crisis they create. So the cycle begins anew. The banks are raising salaries again. This may seem like nothing at first glance. The banks have been through a harrowing experience, they have been humbled and they need to bounce back. It’s a truly capitalist phenomenon. It’s also very sad to see.
Anyone who thinks that the big banks recklessness will stop at raising salaries back to pre-crisis level is obscenely naïve. The culture of greed is still thriving. As we begin to put some distance between ourselves and the bottom of this crisis, the old risk taking behaviors will resurface. The so-called geniuses who designed the financial derivatives that brought us to the brink of disaster want another shot at it. This time, they will think they can correct their mistakes and we won’t end up back in the same situation. Their financial models will help them hide the truth that once the dice start tumbling in the wrong direction, they lose control. It doesn’t really matter to them, they feel no responsibility. They’ve never apologized for creating the crisis in which we are now mired. Remember the executives from AIG who blamed the regulations for their failure.
President Obama cannot ignore the implications of this return to normalcy. His biggest responsibility to the American people is to make sure that no later generation of Americans has to go through what we are going through now. The big banks don’t care about us. They are a bureaucracy like any other and the only purpose they serve is to perpetuate themselves. Unless President Obama issues a clear signal the excesses in risk that brought us here need to be eliminated from the system, it is inevitable that we will have to suffer through a crisis like this again at some point. The question will then be, will the United States have the financial ability and the world support we need to pull us through again? When we arrive at that moment in the future, President Obama’s legacy will then be blackened (no pun intended) for all time, in the same way that Alan Greenspan’s has been. That is not the way a man of vision like President Obama should be remembered.
Anyone who thinks that the big banks recklessness will stop at raising salaries back to pre-crisis level is obscenely naïve. The culture of greed is still thriving. As we begin to put some distance between ourselves and the bottom of this crisis, the old risk taking behaviors will resurface. The so-called geniuses who designed the financial derivatives that brought us to the brink of disaster want another shot at it. This time, they will think they can correct their mistakes and we won’t end up back in the same situation. Their financial models will help them hide the truth that once the dice start tumbling in the wrong direction, they lose control. It doesn’t really matter to them, they feel no responsibility. They’ve never apologized for creating the crisis in which we are now mired. Remember the executives from AIG who blamed the regulations for their failure.
President Obama cannot ignore the implications of this return to normalcy. His biggest responsibility to the American people is to make sure that no later generation of Americans has to go through what we are going through now. The big banks don’t care about us. They are a bureaucracy like any other and the only purpose they serve is to perpetuate themselves. Unless President Obama issues a clear signal the excesses in risk that brought us here need to be eliminated from the system, it is inevitable that we will have to suffer through a crisis like this again at some point. The question will then be, will the United States have the financial ability and the world support we need to pull us through again? When we arrive at that moment in the future, President Obama’s legacy will then be blackened (no pun intended) for all time, in the same way that Alan Greenspan’s has been. That is not the way a man of vision like President Obama should be remembered.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Only in Texas
A policeman in Texas gave a wonderful demonstration today of the lack of self respect that pervades the American psyche. At what should have been a routine traffic stop, an officer felt he needed to subdue a 72 year old great grandmother with a taser gun. The absurdity of the situation was caught by the officer’s dashboard camera. Because the woman was less than fully cooperative, the officer began barking commands at her like a Nazi drill instructor. When the woman had the nerve to stand up to the verbal abuse of an officer who has sworn to serve the public good, she was subdued by the use of a device which disrupts the heart beat of the victim, rendering them temporarily helpless.
The officer’s supervisor was interviewed and stated flatly the officer in question acted properly and that he would have done the same thing. He stated emphatically that you don’t talk back to the police, and that the officer was acting to make sure that the woman didn’t wander into traffic and get herself killed.
There are a couple of things wrong with that statement. First, if a policeman feels he has the authority to treat an elderly woman in such careless fashion, with no consideration for her possible health condition, then that officer needs a little sensitivity training. Second, unless the woman demonstrated signs of dementia, I would assume that there is a very low probability of her willingly wandering into traffic. That renders the supposed reason for tasering the woman utterly invalid.
Granted, the woman in question did not behave like a recent charm school graduate. But that still does not give that officer the right to use such overwhelming force when he is not threatened in any way.
Let me point out something that should be obvious. Lack of self respect cannot be hidden beneath an overinflated ego. If that man was forced to switch places with the woman he so carelessly tasered, he might begin to appreciate the senselessness of his action. I say might, because a man so drunk with power would probably have a hard time assimilating new behaviors.
Just another reason why I never want to go to Texas.
The officer’s supervisor was interviewed and stated flatly the officer in question acted properly and that he would have done the same thing. He stated emphatically that you don’t talk back to the police, and that the officer was acting to make sure that the woman didn’t wander into traffic and get herself killed.
There are a couple of things wrong with that statement. First, if a policeman feels he has the authority to treat an elderly woman in such careless fashion, with no consideration for her possible health condition, then that officer needs a little sensitivity training. Second, unless the woman demonstrated signs of dementia, I would assume that there is a very low probability of her willingly wandering into traffic. That renders the supposed reason for tasering the woman utterly invalid.
Granted, the woman in question did not behave like a recent charm school graduate. But that still does not give that officer the right to use such overwhelming force when he is not threatened in any way.
Let me point out something that should be obvious. Lack of self respect cannot be hidden beneath an overinflated ego. If that man was forced to switch places with the woman he so carelessly tasered, he might begin to appreciate the senselessness of his action. I say might, because a man so drunk with power would probably have a hard time assimilating new behaviors.
Just another reason why I never want to go to Texas.
Obama's Missed Opportunity
President Obama is truly missing an opportunity to do some long term good. Today he appointed Kenneth Feinberg as a “compensation czar” at the Treasury department to oversee the pay of top executive at companies that have received federal bailout money. He should have gone much further. The compensation of upper management at all corporations needs to be regulated. The coupling between compensation and reason has been severed. There is no moral or economic justification for anyone who manages others to be paid hundreds of times more than the people he or she manages. All the talk thrown around in conservative circles about the need to design exorbitant pay packages to retain top people is absolute garbage. It completely reinforces the social inequity that has become ingrained in the consciousness of corporate America. As I pointed out in my previous post, the concept of shared sacrifice has disappeared from the vast majority of American minds.
Only when the culture of greed is purged and the dollar becomes an instrument for social improvement instead of an end in itself will we start on the long road toward recovering our self respect and repairing our wounded economy.
Only when the culture of greed is purged and the dollar becomes an instrument for social improvement instead of an end in itself will we start on the long road toward recovering our self respect and repairing our wounded economy.
Republican Party Suicide and the Concept of Shared Sacrifice
The Republican Party continues to slit its own throat by planting the psychological seeds for the failure of President Obama’s economic recovery program. No one can tell whether or not the plan will produce the desired results or lead us to a lower standard of living that will last for generations. But it should at least be given a chance and there have been some positive signs lately of the beginnings of a recovery.
There are three things I do know for sure. First, if Obama was taking a laissez faire approach and allowing the economy to stand or fail on its own, Republicans would be screaming that he is a “do nothing President.”
Second, I haven’t seen one credible alternative plan presented by the President’s opponents. All Republicans can do is talk about stimulating spending and investment by cutting taxes, the same plan that did nothing to prevent the current crisis from happening. It’s a failed philosophy but it plays well among those who would benefit most from further tax cuts.
Third, there is no way we are going to get out of this current crisis and sustain anything near the standard of living we have become used to without raising taxes. Yesterday, I watched an appearance on Good Morning America by Peter Peterson, a billionaire, who pointed out that the unfunded, “off balance sheet” liabilities of the US government total 56 trillion dollars. Yes that’s trillion folks and it’s five times the amount of the known, more publicized national debt. This is the shameful legacy of apathy and complacency that we have left to our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Peterson made a comment that I have written about many times before. He talked about the concept of shared sacrifice and the fact that it has become career suicide for any politician to suggest that we all have to join together as a national community and accept the fact that the economic landscape has been permanently, negatively altered. Of course, in order to make this point to the American people, both political parties would have to admit to their failure of leadership and we all know that is not too likely. The Republicans embody this reality by pandering to their ever shrinking base through proposals that will increase the economic inequality that is at the root of our current problems.
The most amusing part of the story was that the Republicans were happy to have an actor speaking at their function and agreeing with them, as if having one representative of moral bankruptcy on their side validates their judgment of the President’s performance to date.
It would be so nice if they came up with something original instead of pointing fingers and calling names like testosterone filled teenagers in a locker room. But I am not holding my breath.
There are three things I do know for sure. First, if Obama was taking a laissez faire approach and allowing the economy to stand or fail on its own, Republicans would be screaming that he is a “do nothing President.”
Second, I haven’t seen one credible alternative plan presented by the President’s opponents. All Republicans can do is talk about stimulating spending and investment by cutting taxes, the same plan that did nothing to prevent the current crisis from happening. It’s a failed philosophy but it plays well among those who would benefit most from further tax cuts.
Third, there is no way we are going to get out of this current crisis and sustain anything near the standard of living we have become used to without raising taxes. Yesterday, I watched an appearance on Good Morning America by Peter Peterson, a billionaire, who pointed out that the unfunded, “off balance sheet” liabilities of the US government total 56 trillion dollars. Yes that’s trillion folks and it’s five times the amount of the known, more publicized national debt. This is the shameful legacy of apathy and complacency that we have left to our children and grandchildren.
Mr. Peterson made a comment that I have written about many times before. He talked about the concept of shared sacrifice and the fact that it has become career suicide for any politician to suggest that we all have to join together as a national community and accept the fact that the economic landscape has been permanently, negatively altered. Of course, in order to make this point to the American people, both political parties would have to admit to their failure of leadership and we all know that is not too likely. The Republicans embody this reality by pandering to their ever shrinking base through proposals that will increase the economic inequality that is at the root of our current problems.
The most amusing part of the story was that the Republicans were happy to have an actor speaking at their function and agreeing with them, as if having one representative of moral bankruptcy on their side validates their judgment of the President’s performance to date.
It would be so nice if they came up with something original instead of pointing fingers and calling names like testosterone filled teenagers in a locker room. But I am not holding my breath.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Wasteful and Disgusting
We have seen example after example of greed in corporate America, even as the standard of living in the country is going down for at least the next decade. Of course, there have always been greedy, egotistical politicians, but lately corporate pigs have been an easier target. Today, we got a reminder that lack of moral leadership is alive and well in Washington, providing the perfect example for corporate pigs to follow.
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania apparently feels that it is his duty to take taxpayer funds and waste them on an airport named after him in his Congressional district. His defense of this monumental waste is that the aiport is a lure for companies to relocate there, thus increasing economic activity in his district. Never mind the fact that the airport is hundreds of miles from any major business center and handles an average of twenty people on any given day. The airport has three daily flights, all of which go to Washington, DC. I guess this is in case Rep. Murtha ever wants to make three round trips to DC and back in one day.
It's no wonder that Americans' faith in government continues to evaporate. I would love to ask Rep. Murtha, how much federal funding have you secured to improve the schools in your district? Do you feel that diverting taxpayer money to your namesake airport is more important than making sure that every person in your district has a decent shot at living the now nearly bankrupt American dream? If you made the average salary of the residents in your district, would you be upset at the amount of money being spent with no positive economic impact whatsoever?
Even when the arrogance of this man is exposed he displays no remorse. There is no better indicator of lack of character. And this man has served 19 terms in Congress. The people of his district are just as much to blame for the existence of this economic black hole. This is the main reason that wasteful bureaucracy has allowed to proliferate to such a degree. Shame on every one of us.
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania apparently feels that it is his duty to take taxpayer funds and waste them on an airport named after him in his Congressional district. His defense of this monumental waste is that the aiport is a lure for companies to relocate there, thus increasing economic activity in his district. Never mind the fact that the airport is hundreds of miles from any major business center and handles an average of twenty people on any given day. The airport has three daily flights, all of which go to Washington, DC. I guess this is in case Rep. Murtha ever wants to make three round trips to DC and back in one day.
It's no wonder that Americans' faith in government continues to evaporate. I would love to ask Rep. Murtha, how much federal funding have you secured to improve the schools in your district? Do you feel that diverting taxpayer money to your namesake airport is more important than making sure that every person in your district has a decent shot at living the now nearly bankrupt American dream? If you made the average salary of the residents in your district, would you be upset at the amount of money being spent with no positive economic impact whatsoever?
Even when the arrogance of this man is exposed he displays no remorse. There is no better indicator of lack of character. And this man has served 19 terms in Congress. The people of his district are just as much to blame for the existence of this economic black hole. This is the main reason that wasteful bureaucracy has allowed to proliferate to such a degree. Shame on every one of us.
Monday, April 13, 2009
More Evidence of Nothing Changed
There were two very telling columns in yesterday's New York Times. Frank Rich, whom I have come to admire greatly since he stopped writing about trivial subjects like style, wrote a column about how he hoped the culture of greed would change now that we seem to coming out the other end of the worst economic crisis in 75 years. In the other column, Graham Bowley and Louise Story wrote about the exodus of so-called "top talent" from Wall St. firms that have received government funds and are now subject to compensation restrictions to new upstart firms and foreign instititions who are hoping to continue the culture of greed and reap extraordinary, unnecessary profits from the kind of market activity that precipitated the crisis in the first place.
I read the Bowley and Story column first because Mr. Rich's column is sometimes hard to find in the online version. I was thoroughly disgusted to see that the lessons Mr. Rich hopes have been
learned are being discarded for the continuation of the status quo.
One insinuation in the Bowley and Story column was that the "top talent" is irreplaceable and represents a very small percentage of the people who work in the financial industry today. This is completely ridiculous. Every day many smart people go to work in America in positions that require them to be extremely talented and saavy. To imply that there are very few people alive who can replicate or repair the incredible crisis created by these elite minds and continue to manufacture the unrealistic returns that contributed to the bubble that burst is absurd. An Ivy League education does not automatically anoint you as a Master of the Universe. We do not need these people to perpetuate the financial system.
What we do need is a discussion about the subjects that both Mr. Rich and I have raised before.
The culture of greed must be purged. Allowing people to make a billion dollars in one year leads to excess and not just excess income. It also leads to the type of mentality Mr. Rich talked about where the dollar becomes an end in itself. This is a relatively new phenomenon in America. We used to be a cohesive society with shared values. Now the unfettered capitalism brought about by thirty years of deregulation has brought us to ruin and the so-called "top minds" don't want to change a thing. I don't call that intelligence or innovation, I call that greed and blindness. They are playing the government for saps.
It is clear that to demonstrate the visionary leadership necessary to rid us of the culture of greed a socialistic approach needs to be adapted. There should be compensation limits imposed on every business operating in the country. Any pay in excess of a certain amount should be collected and placed in a fund to improve the infrastructure and school systems. That would also include the cost of a higher education. To place the advantages of a higher education out of the reach of those who make less income is social injustice in its highest form and does nothing to solve the world's problems. No wonder so many young people grow up feeling that they are powerless and their lives mean nothing. What's amazing to me is that the so-called "top minds" have so little understanding or concern for the long term implications of their insatiable greed.
Of course, these so called "top minds" would also be the ones leading the fight against the kind of societal change which is clearly needed in the aftermath of our current crisis. I fear that even President Obama does not have the courage to do what is necessary to combat this ingrained greed for fear it will be politically suicidal. But doing so would instantly rank him near the President he has already been compared to: Abraham Lincoln. Let's hope our new President can demonstrate the kind of leadership necessary to show those who are wrongly called "top minds" what vision really means.
I read the Bowley and Story column first because Mr. Rich's column is sometimes hard to find in the online version. I was thoroughly disgusted to see that the lessons Mr. Rich hopes have been
learned are being discarded for the continuation of the status quo.
One insinuation in the Bowley and Story column was that the "top talent" is irreplaceable and represents a very small percentage of the people who work in the financial industry today. This is completely ridiculous. Every day many smart people go to work in America in positions that require them to be extremely talented and saavy. To imply that there are very few people alive who can replicate or repair the incredible crisis created by these elite minds and continue to manufacture the unrealistic returns that contributed to the bubble that burst is absurd. An Ivy League education does not automatically anoint you as a Master of the Universe. We do not need these people to perpetuate the financial system.
What we do need is a discussion about the subjects that both Mr. Rich and I have raised before.
The culture of greed must be purged. Allowing people to make a billion dollars in one year leads to excess and not just excess income. It also leads to the type of mentality Mr. Rich talked about where the dollar becomes an end in itself. This is a relatively new phenomenon in America. We used to be a cohesive society with shared values. Now the unfettered capitalism brought about by thirty years of deregulation has brought us to ruin and the so-called "top minds" don't want to change a thing. I don't call that intelligence or innovation, I call that greed and blindness. They are playing the government for saps.
It is clear that to demonstrate the visionary leadership necessary to rid us of the culture of greed a socialistic approach needs to be adapted. There should be compensation limits imposed on every business operating in the country. Any pay in excess of a certain amount should be collected and placed in a fund to improve the infrastructure and school systems. That would also include the cost of a higher education. To place the advantages of a higher education out of the reach of those who make less income is social injustice in its highest form and does nothing to solve the world's problems. No wonder so many young people grow up feeling that they are powerless and their lives mean nothing. What's amazing to me is that the so-called "top minds" have so little understanding or concern for the long term implications of their insatiable greed.
Of course, these so called "top minds" would also be the ones leading the fight against the kind of societal change which is clearly needed in the aftermath of our current crisis. I fear that even President Obama does not have the courage to do what is necessary to combat this ingrained greed for fear it will be politically suicidal. But doing so would instantly rank him near the President he has already been compared to: Abraham Lincoln. Let's hope our new President can demonstrate the kind of leadership necessary to show those who are wrongly called "top minds" what vision really means.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
A Chance for Real Leadership
The culture of Wall Street will never learn. The New York Times reported today that AIG executives are to be paid bonuses totaling $165 million dollars after receiving $170 billion dollars in bailout money from the government. This is another clear example of the divergence between morality and law.
The arguments being made in favor of the payments are ludicrous. The lawyers for the firm said the firm had no choice but to make the payments. The government owns 80% of the firm. They should simply say no bonuses and the people they were promised to have no right to sue for them. End of story.
The second argument is an old one and a discredited one. The firm said that the bonuses have to be paid in order to retain the most skilled executives. The lion’s share of the bonuses is being paid out to the people in the financial products division, the same division that brought the firm and thousands of people to their knees. Where is the skill in that? How can they even call these people skilled? Is there no performance measurement parameter tied to these bonuses? Some of these people, and not just AIG executives, should be in jail instead of worrying whether their bonuses are going to be paid. They created financial products without properly calculating the risks and then the executives of the firm blamed the regulatory structure for the disaster they created. The article states that the financial products division is being wound down. A firm doesn’t do that unless they know there’s no hope. So the executives are being paid bonuses to preside over a financial funeral.
What is missing and unexamined in the midst of this ridiculous dust storm is the issue of patriotism, of national unity. This is a crisis situation. President Obama’s inaugural address called for a new sense of shared purpose, a new era of personal responsibility. There was the example of the banker in Florida who paid bonuses to employees who didn’t even work for him after he sold the firm and reaped a huge profit. That man should be Time Magazine’s man of the year, even though the title has been rendered meaningless. Where is the sense of personal responsibility in these AIG workers? How they can accept this money with a clear conscience? I know I couldn’t. These people, if they had any character, would issue a joint statement saying that we acknowledge our mistake, that we know we created a financial debacle and we will accept no bonus compensation until the firm is back on firm financial footing and it is certain that no further government bailout money is needed. That would instantly win them the respect of the American people and send a clear signal that Wall St. is serious about changing its culture. It would also show a much needed willingness to work in the national interest, instead of their own obviously misguided self interest.
This is the kind of spirit we need in this country today. Day after day we hear stories of despair, incompetence and unbridled greed. This country used to have the ability to pull together. It doesn’t seem to be there anymore. We have lost faith in our government and each other. As I have said before, it’s a sign of lack of self respect.
If President Obama were to act with a firm hand and forbid the payment of any bonuses to employees of firms who have received government bailout money, his popularity would soar and people would see that it is possible for justice to be done. That’s the kind of leadership I expect from a man who has been proclaimed a visionary.
The arguments being made in favor of the payments are ludicrous. The lawyers for the firm said the firm had no choice but to make the payments. The government owns 80% of the firm. They should simply say no bonuses and the people they were promised to have no right to sue for them. End of story.
The second argument is an old one and a discredited one. The firm said that the bonuses have to be paid in order to retain the most skilled executives. The lion’s share of the bonuses is being paid out to the people in the financial products division, the same division that brought the firm and thousands of people to their knees. Where is the skill in that? How can they even call these people skilled? Is there no performance measurement parameter tied to these bonuses? Some of these people, and not just AIG executives, should be in jail instead of worrying whether their bonuses are going to be paid. They created financial products without properly calculating the risks and then the executives of the firm blamed the regulatory structure for the disaster they created. The article states that the financial products division is being wound down. A firm doesn’t do that unless they know there’s no hope. So the executives are being paid bonuses to preside over a financial funeral.
What is missing and unexamined in the midst of this ridiculous dust storm is the issue of patriotism, of national unity. This is a crisis situation. President Obama’s inaugural address called for a new sense of shared purpose, a new era of personal responsibility. There was the example of the banker in Florida who paid bonuses to employees who didn’t even work for him after he sold the firm and reaped a huge profit. That man should be Time Magazine’s man of the year, even though the title has been rendered meaningless. Where is the sense of personal responsibility in these AIG workers? How they can accept this money with a clear conscience? I know I couldn’t. These people, if they had any character, would issue a joint statement saying that we acknowledge our mistake, that we know we created a financial debacle and we will accept no bonus compensation until the firm is back on firm financial footing and it is certain that no further government bailout money is needed. That would instantly win them the respect of the American people and send a clear signal that Wall St. is serious about changing its culture. It would also show a much needed willingness to work in the national interest, instead of their own obviously misguided self interest.
This is the kind of spirit we need in this country today. Day after day we hear stories of despair, incompetence and unbridled greed. This country used to have the ability to pull together. It doesn’t seem to be there anymore. We have lost faith in our government and each other. As I have said before, it’s a sign of lack of self respect.
If President Obama were to act with a firm hand and forbid the payment of any bonuses to employees of firms who have received government bailout money, his popularity would soar and people would see that it is possible for justice to be done. That’s the kind of leadership I expect from a man who has been proclaimed a visionary.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Another Moral Failure
An article in the New York Times from Wednesday was another sad reminder of where the culture of de-regulation has brought us. The article says the EPA has been studying whether to regulate coal ash for 28 years. It goes on to say they don't have a schedule for implementing regulation at this time. Of course, there's also the obligatory statement from a coal industry spokesman saying that the industry needs no further regulation.
You can't make this stuff up. If you were to examine the issue in a vacuum, the question would be, is it permissible to allow toxic substances to be dumped into the ground without any regulation? Only coal industry spokesmen would say yes. Everyone else would laugh at the fact that the question even needs to be asked.
The lack of regulation in the financial industry has brought us to the edge of ruin. Will it really take a major environmental disaster for us to act on this issue? We had to have Exxon Valdez and Three Mile Island before those industries were properly supervised. What has to happen before the coal industry wakes up to its environmental responsibilities?
Just as with every other failure of moral courage in this country, there is no one person responsible. We are all responsible. Complacency has bred a spirit of buck passing that allows each person to shed their responsibility in favor of the assumption that someone is watching the store. Well, it has become clear that no one is watching the store. Concern is apparently not enough to create action.
Taking a proactive attitude toward this and other environmental issue would demonstrate to our citizens and to the world that we are serious about protecting the environment for our ourselves and our posterity. Having to tell our grandchildren that we could have done something but instead we chose to study the problem for more than three decades is a fate no one should have to face.
President Obama was elected to rekindle the hope and spirit of Americans after nearly thirty years of permissiveness and stupidity. I pray to my God that he is able to shoulder the enormous burdens he has been entrusted with. Only through a show of unfailing support and rare unity will he know that he can move forward in bold fashion to make the kind of changes that this country needs to reconcile itself to its own deficiencies. It is a sad fact that so many people feel that they should not be told how to live, but then demonstrate that they have no idea what conducting themselves in moral, responsible fashion is all about. Emotional development and real action are passed over in favor of boosting the ratings of American Idol so a false feeling of unity can be created. We can do so much better. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to start immediately.
You can't make this stuff up. If you were to examine the issue in a vacuum, the question would be, is it permissible to allow toxic substances to be dumped into the ground without any regulation? Only coal industry spokesmen would say yes. Everyone else would laugh at the fact that the question even needs to be asked.
The lack of regulation in the financial industry has brought us to the edge of ruin. Will it really take a major environmental disaster for us to act on this issue? We had to have Exxon Valdez and Three Mile Island before those industries were properly supervised. What has to happen before the coal industry wakes up to its environmental responsibilities?
Just as with every other failure of moral courage in this country, there is no one person responsible. We are all responsible. Complacency has bred a spirit of buck passing that allows each person to shed their responsibility in favor of the assumption that someone is watching the store. Well, it has become clear that no one is watching the store. Concern is apparently not enough to create action.
Taking a proactive attitude toward this and other environmental issue would demonstrate to our citizens and to the world that we are serious about protecting the environment for our ourselves and our posterity. Having to tell our grandchildren that we could have done something but instead we chose to study the problem for more than three decades is a fate no one should have to face.
President Obama was elected to rekindle the hope and spirit of Americans after nearly thirty years of permissiveness and stupidity. I pray to my God that he is able to shoulder the enormous burdens he has been entrusted with. Only through a show of unfailing support and rare unity will he know that he can move forward in bold fashion to make the kind of changes that this country needs to reconcile itself to its own deficiencies. It is a sad fact that so many people feel that they should not be told how to live, but then demonstrate that they have no idea what conducting themselves in moral, responsible fashion is all about. Emotional development and real action are passed over in favor of boosting the ratings of American Idol so a false feeling of unity can be created. We can do so much better. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to start immediately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)