Update from the Heartland
No.411
26.10.09 – 1.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.411
26.10.09 – 1.11.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- France has decided to spend another €20M to renew the search for the wreckage of Air France Flight 447 [391, 394] in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. I certainly laud the tenacity of the French government. As an aviator, I truly hope they are successful. Yet, as with many such events in life, there comes a time when we must recognize reality. Again, I hope the French are successful this time.
-- The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act [245, 264-66, 281-83, 289, 297, 309-10] was finally signed into law when the President approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 [PL 111-084; H.R.2647; Senate: 68-29-0-3(0); House: 281-146-0-6(2)], which makes any hate crime on the basis of sexual orientation a Federal crime. I doubt the law will improve the safety of non-heterosexual citizens in the short-term, but it is a start toward a better day. Violent bigotry takes several generations to be dampened or eliminated. We have a long way to go.
-- The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the House’s revised, consolidated, version of health care package – all US$894B worth. [396 & sub] The new proposal is comparable in size and breadth as the Senate’s consolidated version. As this legislation moves inexorably toward its final form, we must step up our vigilance, focus and interaction. It is our duty afterall.
An interesting and valuable representation of presidential popularity tied to significant events from Truman to Obama.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm
An informative assessment of the tenuous triangle:
“Russia, Iran and the Biden Speech”
by George Friedman and Peter Zeihan
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: October 26, 2009; 17:26 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091026_russia_iran_and_biden_speech?utm_source=GWeeklyA&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091026&utm_content=readmore
Circa Wednesday midnight, President Obama flew to Dover AFB, Delaware, to solemnly recognize and honor our fallen – soldiers and DEA agents – upon their return home from Afghanistan. Also in the line were Attorney General Eric Holder, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, and acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart. The President stood straight and tall with a flawless, salute form. He arrived back at the White House at 04:45 EDT to begin another busy day as Commander-in-Chief. Well done, Mister President! At occasions such as this, I am always reminded of President Lincoln’s letter of condolence to Missus Lydia Bixby – a widowed woman who lost all five of her sons during the Civil War. There are no words to soften the extraordinary loss of our patriots’ precious blood. Perhaps the President’s generous gesture will provide even just a modicum of solace to the families of the fallen.
The public hand-wringing over the President’s private deliberations regarding United States strategy in the Battle of Afghanistan continues unabated and just the progression alone is being construed by his detractors as inability. As I have confessed previously, I am an “any action is better than inaction” kinda guy. Nonetheless, I am confident and thankful the President is taking his time with this one. I have stated my opinion. All other factors aside, I would rather fight the jihadistanis “over there” than anywhere closer to home; but, it is not up to me. One of the President’s primary tasks in waging war successfully is public support. In some respects, he is at the mercy of We, the People. Yet, more importantly, he shapes public opinion. Barack Obama has rare rhetorical skills that can and should be used to accomplish his task in waging war successfully. In that process, a major factor in his decision must be his ability to focus public support for winning the Battle of Afghanistan. If he decides that such support is beyond his capacity, then withdrawal is the logical choice. If we pull back from the fight in Afghanistan, then the next question is and should be, where? Africa, Europe, Asia, the continental United States? Where? Where do we draw the line and fight the inevitable battle?
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (AKA the ethics committee) completed its confidential, preliminary report of the investigation into allegations against more than 30 Representatives, including Representative Todd Tiahrt for the 4th District of Kansas since 1995, and now candidate for the Senate. The report was leaked. Whether inadvertent and intended, this government leak is as foul and onerous as all the other leaks of classified information. This is not how freedom is supposed to work. As much as I want corruption in Congress rooted out and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, these citizens are entitled to due process. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Regardless, my opinion is not a court of law.
In 1778, John Adams wrote in his diary, “The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.” I cannot imagine many of us would argue with the venerable statesman and former president. Yet, it seems to me, we have lost our way and forgotten Adams’ wisdom. Morality, like integrity it is said, is what each of us does when no one is watching or can see us. Morality includes many elements; however, there is at least one common denominator – respect for others. As Adams observed, if children are not taught from birth to respect the person and property of others, they will mature with a distorted and immoral attitude toward life and citizenship. Morality can never be legislated or codified, as so much of what makes up life is hidden from public view. Of course, the advent of modern technology gives government unprecedented and even unimagined ability to penetrate the private domain of our “castle” as well as our bodies – the vessel of our personhood. We have the ability to pass laws enabling government’s use of those technologies to enforce our vision of morality, but I really do not think we want to go there. Thus, we can or should focus on public safety and public conduct as reflections of each citizen’s morality rather than attempt to dictate private behavior. A thief does not respect another person’s property. A murderer or rapist violates another citizen’s person. These “morality” laws are easy to justify and rationalize. They are, after all, steeped in millennia of civilized conduct. Where we appear to get crosswise comes when we extend our desire to control morality into the private domain of person or property. As the old adage goes, one person’s pain is another person’s pleasure, and therein lies the rub. The very essence of Liberty is our individual pursuit of Happiness free from interference by the government or our neighbors. Yet, anarchy is freedom taken to its logical extreme. So, where should we draw the line, i.e., where can we permit individual freedom while protecting public safety? Our dalliances with the law into the private domain have diminished our freedom whether we choose to recognize reality.
Why am I ruminating over morality, the law, and citizenship? A coalescence of unconnected events, thoughts, worries and concerns would be my succinct answer. The health care reform debate and the serious uncertainty as to how much farther into the tent the camel’s nose of government is going to reach is the predominant factor. I recently wrote a rebuttal letter to the editor of our local newspaper regarding repeal of the fireworks prohibition law that sparked my consternation. This same argument can be extended to so many other social issues – gambling, prostitution, smoking, seat-belt usage, consumption of psychotropic substances including common intoxicants, motorcycle helmet usage, high fat content foods, carbonated drinks, ad infinitum. To me, the public solution to virtually all of the “self-infliction” sins rests on freedom of choice. As long as no one else is injured, an individual citizen should be able to make his choices in life without interference from the rest of us. We may not like his choices. We may even see the adverse outcome in stark, clear terms, but that does not give us the right to take away his freedom of choice. We waste extraordinary resources in a vain attempt to control private conduct, i.e., personal morality.
Our focus should be clearly on the public domain and the intersection of the public and private domains. We should prohibit smoking in closed, common, public spaces; however, attempting to ban consumption of tobacco products is wrong in just about every way beyond our revulsion of the practice. Operating a motor vehicle, from a motorcycle to an airliner or a ship, while under the influence of intoxicants presents a very real danger to public safety independent of passengers and must be regulated. One of the most intimate of these intersections remains abortion – the conflict between a woman’s most fundamental right to privacy and control over her bodily functions and the perceived “rights” of the rapidly dividing cells to which her body has become host. We clearly have not found a balanced solution. I am convinced an equitable solutions exists; we just have found it yet.
In my most humble opinion, we have been fighting the wrong fight; focused on the wrong things, simply because they are obvious, or offensive, or otherwise disgusting. As long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by peripheral, salacious, façade issues, we will never have the capacity to focus on the genuine intersection issues.
As Dennis Miller so eloquently said, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
In the spirit of honesty, candor and forthrightness, I confess my failures [112, 171] as well as my successes. In this instance, I acknowledge my failure to make the cut in the Washington Post’s “Next Great American Pundit” contest. I wrote four pieces, chose one, tweaked it up as best I could, and submitted it. Friday evening, the Post notified the contestants. I share my submittal and their rejection.
Roman Polanski’s 1977 “mistake,” and the morality clash between the glitterati of Hollywood and the remainder of this Grand Republic, triggered a series of public and private debates regarding his crime and punishment. We even have the victim, now 45, then only 13-years-old, along with the former prosecutor, urging forgiveness, which muddies the water to the point of coagulation.
Beyond the obvious that has garnered so much public attention, I am struck by a critical, nay crucial, missing element in this sordid affair. Where were her parents? How and why did she wind up in Jack Nicholson’s home alone with Polanski? I am troubled by these questions, not to lessen, condone or mitigate Polanski’s crime, but for what they say about us – We, the People.
We seem to have a deep and prevailing penchant to blame everyone else except ourselves, to look to government to solve our problems and resolve our differences. Yet, I simply cannot get past the notion that parents are ultimately responsible for the conduct and welfare of their children – not schools, not the government, not a village, not the police or prosecutors – just us.
Roman Polanski did a bad thing, took advantage of a young girl, and showed terribly bad judgment for hedonistic self-gratification, but at the end of the day, it was that 13-year-old girl’s father and mother who ultimately failed her.
As President Obama likes to say, “This is a teaching moment.” Perhaps we can all take away some introspection about our parenting, about our children, about our place in society.
For reasons we know not, Susan Gailey did not see the signs, did not teach Samantha about the risks, or perhaps inflated Samantha’s curiosity with her adoration of fame.
The school yard bully does not spontaneously happen. The careless litterer or blatant turnstile jumper does not just sort of appear out of the ether. We are all a product of our parents, of the teachings of our childhood.
In the years leading up to that March day in 1977, Samantha’s parents failed her, failed us, and we should be as outraged at them as we are at Roman Polanski. Until we decide as a society, as a body of law, to hold parents accountable for their contribution to the conduct of their children, we shall continue to realize faux-satisfaction for a bandage on the symptoms rather than treating the root cause.
The Post’s rejection:
“Thank you for entering the first season of the America’s Next Great Pundit contest. You didn’t make the judging easy for us. Not only did we get nearly 5,000 entries, but a great many of those entries were really quite excellent -- smart, interesting, funny, well written and well argued. So while we’re sorry to say that we can’t include you as one of our ten finalists this time around, we hope this isn’t the last time we hear from you. We hope you’ll follow the rest of the contest and participate as voters. But even more important, we hope you’ll pitch us more of your work. The various ways you can send various types of pieces are outlined here:
“Thanks again for giving this a try. We enjoyed reading.”
Best,
The Editors
Perhaps, I chose the wrong topic or words – too controversial, too direct, too blunt, not fresh, not funny. Perhaps my opinion was just not well written or up to the standards of the Washington Post. Who knows? Oh well, at least I tried.
I also submitted a short essay to the Strategic Forecasting, Inc., opinion contest, which is actually individual perspective regarding an interesting retrospective hypothetical question. Here is my opinion to their question.
Question: What would be the thrust of U.S. foreign policy today if the 9/11 attacks had never occurred?
The aftermath of the 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union brought realignment of U.S. and Allied foreign policy since the end of World War II. The Soviets and their expansionist endeavors had been the single paramount threat to which the United States constructed its approach to international affairs. After the collapse, by necessity, the Russians turned their attention to minimizing the perceived consequences to their security, induced by the breakaway republics. With the Soviet Union no longer a security threat, commerce moved up the scale of American international interests.
The turmoil of the 2000 election altered the dynamic of federal politics by amplifying the divisions within the country. Perhaps George W. Bush would have taken an introspective approach regardless of the closeness and dispute of the election. Perhaps one of his first actions once inaugurated would still have been Executive Order 13199 – his faith-based organizations initiative – and the associated outreach to religious groups for community activities. President Bush seemed to be more interested in his socially conservative domestic agenda rather than in foreign policy. The principal exception during those months prior to 9/11 was the confrontation with the People’s Republic of China regarding the intercept, mid-air collision and subsequent detention of the U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance aircraft and its crew. Even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld concentrated on reformation of his massive organization, its approach to warfighting, and the ever burdensome acquisition process.
With domestic affairs attracting Executive Branch attention, the foreign policy would not have changed substantially. Islamo-fascism has been growing steadily from the recognition of Israel, and took on greater, more expansive and ominous dimensions after the Iranian revolution and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Even the warnings from American and Allied field operatives who recognized the threat posed by bin Ladin and the birth of al-Qaeda did not fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy. The 9/11 attack provided that catalytic re-direction. Thus, without 9/11, the Bush administration most likely would have been content to muddle along as the previous five administrations had done. His administration would not likely have performed differently. There would still be a unilateralist bent.
The wildcard in such a revisionist question is al-Qaeda as the embodiment or at least moniker for the Islamo-fascist movement. If 9/11 had been thwarted, bin Laden and his brethren would have continued escalating attacks on U.S. interests throughout the world as they had done since they created al-Qaeda. They sought violent jihad. If the supposition is correct, al-Qaeda would have continued escalating attempts until they achieved the success they wanted. A 9/11-like event was inevitable and only a matter of time. The response, even by a late second-term Bush administration would not likely have been appreciably different. The response by an Obama or subsequent administration probably would have been different in detail but not objective. The Islamo-fascist threat would still have dominated U.S. foreign policy.
The other wildcard is clearly the People’s Republic of China. The PRC has matured as an economic engine and as a player in international affairs. Fortunately, so far, the Chinese have relied on their economic strength to purvey their interests. While the specter of Chinese military projection remains a cause for vigilance, it remains a rather distant cloud on the horizon. Since Mao’s passing, the PRC has moved steadily and with success toward competing directly with the United States in the arena of international commerce, and stands in contrast to the Soviets and even the contemporary Russian actions.
If we assume the United States would have pacified the Islamo-fascist movement and the Chinese would remain commercially oriented, socio-environmental issues would dominate U.S. foreign policy. The inevitable pressure of population growth, balanced against agricultural production and efficiency, will demand progressively more attention and will become a paramount national security challenge. Regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis or the human-inducement corollary, mankind must face the pollution issue – water, air, land. The only question is priority, i.e., what is the greatest threat to the security and well-being of the American people.
The Islamo-fascist threat has dominated U.S. foreign policy for nearly ten years. Without that threat, the perception regarding socio-environmental threat would have taken the paramount position. The Bush administration would still have moved away from the Kyoto Protocol and tried to distance the nation from the international environmental movement. Likewise, the Obama administration, as it is doing, would extend its hand to the international community and strive to convince the American people the short-term economic impact was the responsible thing to do and would yield long-term benefits by reducing ominous elements of the socio-economic situation.
Nonetheless, layers upon layers of conjecture do not alter the bottom line reality. The rooting and growth of the Islamo-fascist movement will dominate U.S. and Allied foreign policy for at least the next several decades just as Soviet expansionism dominated international affairs for nearly half a century in the post-world-war era. The Islamo-fascist threat is real, violent, here today, and not going to be dampened or deflected for many years. The 9/11 attack happened to be the dog that bit, but if not 9/11, there would be some other comparable event.
News from the economic front:
-- A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests Americans are growing increasingly pessimistic about the economy after a mild upswing of attitudes in September. Of those polled, 58% say the recession still has a ways to go, up from 52% in September and back to the level of pessimism expressed in July. Only 29% said the economy had “pretty much hit bottom,” down from 35% last month.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that GMAC Financial Services and the Treasury Department are in advanced talks to shore up the lender with its third dose of taxpayer funding – a stark reminder of how some battered financial firms remain dependent on government lifelines. According to the Journal, the USG is likely to inject another US$2.8-5.6B into the Detroit company, on top of the US$12.5B that GMAC has received since December 2008.
-- The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – the output of goods and services – increased at 3.5% annual rate in the 3rd Quarter, ending a full year of decline – an unofficial confirmation that the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression has ended.
-- A day later, the USG reported consumer spending decreased 0.5% in September – the largest drop in nine months – reflecting the end of the “clunkers” program and continued stress in the labor and credit markets. The USG also reported that personal incomes for September remained unchanged, which when combined with the decrease in spending suggests improving confidence.
L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Longtime friend of and investor with Bernie Madoff, Jeffry Picower, 67 [388, 407], drowned in the pool of his Palm Beach, Florida, home as a result of a massive heart attack. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has been investigating Picower and others in a criminal probe regarding knowledge of or complicity in the fraud. I trust the investigation will continue and every attempt will be made to recover ill-gotten gains, if any.
Comments and contributions from Update no.410:
“One of my rare responses, born of an increasingly cynical attitude based on empirical evidence gathered painfully from biased leftwing and rightwing news coverage:
“Let's keep it simple.
“1. Repandercrats try but cannot outpander Democrats. The only current potential political solution to our rapid slide into socialism and ultimate demise as a free nation lies in the Libertarian Party, but because of some of its unpopular platform planks there is little hope there. When Obama gets through loading the federal and Supreme Courts, that second branch will speed up the process by which our Congress is becoming irrelevant compared to the executive branch. Constitutional government is no longer a reality in the U.S.A.
“2. The so-called public option is designed and destined to eventually make it financially stupid to buy more expensive private health insurance. The market will prevail, and short-sighted "free choice" will favor socialism. Only daring non-partisan congressional independence will stop this tragedy, and there are no daring non-partisan politicians.
“3. As an Episcopalian more than fond of our general open mindedness and our hope for an Anglican Communion of non-uniform churches, I have no time for hand-wringing over narrow-mindedness or Roman imperialism. I say let the 1000(?)-year-old trend of splitting off denominations continue, with its contribution to secularism. It looks like we'll all be under Muslim control in another century anyway, because our Creator has given us the power to chose our poison.
“4. The Nobel prize is what it is. Inflation has cheapened everything.
“5. I wish I could properly credit whoever first said ‘We are drowning in information and starving for wisdom.’
“6. ...but keep up the dialogue! The intelligent minority can at least go
down fighting. I may feel better tomorrow...”
My response:
1. This is a cycle, as has existed since citizens involved themselves in republican governance. For many years now, I have seen the two principal political parties as colors of the same thing – they both seek bigger & bigger government to further their political power and value as political currency; they both spend like there is no limit or reason; they seek political divide and encourage extremists of their color to ensure the divide is maintained. This caustic and toxic political environment is corrosive to the very foundation of this Grand Republic. That said . . . I am not quite so dire or morose regarding the future of this Grand Republic.
2. As I have written, I am not so pessimistic regarding some version of the public option to cover those less fortunate. If not structured or managed properly, it certainly could turn into a debacle; but, I am not yet willing to throw in the towel.
3. One could argue the “splitting” of the Christian religion took demonstrable form 1,700 years ago, or perhaps more appropriately 400 years ago with the Reformation and the genesis of Protestantism. Nonetheless, there is an ebb-n-flow to these things. What I find disconcerting is the intransigence of some theological ideology and the inability to rationalize theology with republican governance, freedom and Liberty. If there is an undoing of religion, it will be its dictatorial stance regarding freedom of thought and choice. Perhaps, Liberty is a poison; I think not.
4. Indeed, the Nobel Prize is what it is; its value was diminished dramatically when Yasser Arafat became a recipient.
5. Can’t help you yet with a citation for the quote, but I do ascribe to its message.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- France has decided to spend another €20M to renew the search for the wreckage of Air France Flight 447 [391, 394] in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. I certainly laud the tenacity of the French government. As an aviator, I truly hope they are successful. Yet, as with many such events in life, there comes a time when we must recognize reality. Again, I hope the French are successful this time.
-- The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act [245, 264-66, 281-83, 289, 297, 309-10] was finally signed into law when the President approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 [PL 111-084; H.R.2647; Senate: 68-29-0-3(0); House: 281-146-0-6(2)], which makes any hate crime on the basis of sexual orientation a Federal crime. I doubt the law will improve the safety of non-heterosexual citizens in the short-term, but it is a start toward a better day. Violent bigotry takes several generations to be dampened or eliminated. We have a long way to go.
-- The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the House’s revised, consolidated, version of health care package – all US$894B worth. [396 & sub] The new proposal is comparable in size and breadth as the Senate’s consolidated version. As this legislation moves inexorably toward its final form, we must step up our vigilance, focus and interaction. It is our duty afterall.
An interesting and valuable representation of presidential popularity tied to significant events from Truman to Obama.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm
An informative assessment of the tenuous triangle:
“Russia, Iran and the Biden Speech”
by George Friedman and Peter Zeihan
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Published: October 26, 2009; 17:26 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091026_russia_iran_and_biden_speech?utm_source=GWeeklyA&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091026&utm_content=readmore
Circa Wednesday midnight, President Obama flew to Dover AFB, Delaware, to solemnly recognize and honor our fallen – soldiers and DEA agents – upon their return home from Afghanistan. Also in the line were Attorney General Eric Holder, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz, and acting DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart. The President stood straight and tall with a flawless, salute form. He arrived back at the White House at 04:45 EDT to begin another busy day as Commander-in-Chief. Well done, Mister President! At occasions such as this, I am always reminded of President Lincoln’s letter of condolence to Missus Lydia Bixby – a widowed woman who lost all five of her sons during the Civil War. There are no words to soften the extraordinary loss of our patriots’ precious blood. Perhaps the President’s generous gesture will provide even just a modicum of solace to the families of the fallen.
The public hand-wringing over the President’s private deliberations regarding United States strategy in the Battle of Afghanistan continues unabated and just the progression alone is being construed by his detractors as inability. As I have confessed previously, I am an “any action is better than inaction” kinda guy. Nonetheless, I am confident and thankful the President is taking his time with this one. I have stated my opinion. All other factors aside, I would rather fight the jihadistanis “over there” than anywhere closer to home; but, it is not up to me. One of the President’s primary tasks in waging war successfully is public support. In some respects, he is at the mercy of We, the People. Yet, more importantly, he shapes public opinion. Barack Obama has rare rhetorical skills that can and should be used to accomplish his task in waging war successfully. In that process, a major factor in his decision must be his ability to focus public support for winning the Battle of Afghanistan. If he decides that such support is beyond his capacity, then withdrawal is the logical choice. If we pull back from the fight in Afghanistan, then the next question is and should be, where? Africa, Europe, Asia, the continental United States? Where? Where do we draw the line and fight the inevitable battle?
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (AKA the ethics committee) completed its confidential, preliminary report of the investigation into allegations against more than 30 Representatives, including Representative Todd Tiahrt for the 4th District of Kansas since 1995, and now candidate for the Senate. The report was leaked. Whether inadvertent and intended, this government leak is as foul and onerous as all the other leaks of classified information. This is not how freedom is supposed to work. As much as I want corruption in Congress rooted out and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, these citizens are entitled to due process. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Regardless, my opinion is not a court of law.
In 1778, John Adams wrote in his diary, “The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.” I cannot imagine many of us would argue with the venerable statesman and former president. Yet, it seems to me, we have lost our way and forgotten Adams’ wisdom. Morality, like integrity it is said, is what each of us does when no one is watching or can see us. Morality includes many elements; however, there is at least one common denominator – respect for others. As Adams observed, if children are not taught from birth to respect the person and property of others, they will mature with a distorted and immoral attitude toward life and citizenship. Morality can never be legislated or codified, as so much of what makes up life is hidden from public view. Of course, the advent of modern technology gives government unprecedented and even unimagined ability to penetrate the private domain of our “castle” as well as our bodies – the vessel of our personhood. We have the ability to pass laws enabling government’s use of those technologies to enforce our vision of morality, but I really do not think we want to go there. Thus, we can or should focus on public safety and public conduct as reflections of each citizen’s morality rather than attempt to dictate private behavior. A thief does not respect another person’s property. A murderer or rapist violates another citizen’s person. These “morality” laws are easy to justify and rationalize. They are, after all, steeped in millennia of civilized conduct. Where we appear to get crosswise comes when we extend our desire to control morality into the private domain of person or property. As the old adage goes, one person’s pain is another person’s pleasure, and therein lies the rub. The very essence of Liberty is our individual pursuit of Happiness free from interference by the government or our neighbors. Yet, anarchy is freedom taken to its logical extreme. So, where should we draw the line, i.e., where can we permit individual freedom while protecting public safety? Our dalliances with the law into the private domain have diminished our freedom whether we choose to recognize reality.
Why am I ruminating over morality, the law, and citizenship? A coalescence of unconnected events, thoughts, worries and concerns would be my succinct answer. The health care reform debate and the serious uncertainty as to how much farther into the tent the camel’s nose of government is going to reach is the predominant factor. I recently wrote a rebuttal letter to the editor of our local newspaper regarding repeal of the fireworks prohibition law that sparked my consternation. This same argument can be extended to so many other social issues – gambling, prostitution, smoking, seat-belt usage, consumption of psychotropic substances including common intoxicants, motorcycle helmet usage, high fat content foods, carbonated drinks, ad infinitum. To me, the public solution to virtually all of the “self-infliction” sins rests on freedom of choice. As long as no one else is injured, an individual citizen should be able to make his choices in life without interference from the rest of us. We may not like his choices. We may even see the adverse outcome in stark, clear terms, but that does not give us the right to take away his freedom of choice. We waste extraordinary resources in a vain attempt to control private conduct, i.e., personal morality.
Our focus should be clearly on the public domain and the intersection of the public and private domains. We should prohibit smoking in closed, common, public spaces; however, attempting to ban consumption of tobacco products is wrong in just about every way beyond our revulsion of the practice. Operating a motor vehicle, from a motorcycle to an airliner or a ship, while under the influence of intoxicants presents a very real danger to public safety independent of passengers and must be regulated. One of the most intimate of these intersections remains abortion – the conflict between a woman’s most fundamental right to privacy and control over her bodily functions and the perceived “rights” of the rapidly dividing cells to which her body has become host. We clearly have not found a balanced solution. I am convinced an equitable solutions exists; we just have found it yet.
In my most humble opinion, we have been fighting the wrong fight; focused on the wrong things, simply because they are obvious, or offensive, or otherwise disgusting. As long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by peripheral, salacious, façade issues, we will never have the capacity to focus on the genuine intersection issues.
As Dennis Miller so eloquently said, “That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
In the spirit of honesty, candor and forthrightness, I confess my failures [112, 171] as well as my successes. In this instance, I acknowledge my failure to make the cut in the Washington Post’s “Next Great American Pundit” contest. I wrote four pieces, chose one, tweaked it up as best I could, and submitted it. Friday evening, the Post notified the contestants. I share my submittal and their rejection.
Roman Polanski’s 1977 “mistake,” and the morality clash between the glitterati of Hollywood and the remainder of this Grand Republic, triggered a series of public and private debates regarding his crime and punishment. We even have the victim, now 45, then only 13-years-old, along with the former prosecutor, urging forgiveness, which muddies the water to the point of coagulation.
Beyond the obvious that has garnered so much public attention, I am struck by a critical, nay crucial, missing element in this sordid affair. Where were her parents? How and why did she wind up in Jack Nicholson’s home alone with Polanski? I am troubled by these questions, not to lessen, condone or mitigate Polanski’s crime, but for what they say about us – We, the People.
We seem to have a deep and prevailing penchant to blame everyone else except ourselves, to look to government to solve our problems and resolve our differences. Yet, I simply cannot get past the notion that parents are ultimately responsible for the conduct and welfare of their children – not schools, not the government, not a village, not the police or prosecutors – just us.
Roman Polanski did a bad thing, took advantage of a young girl, and showed terribly bad judgment for hedonistic self-gratification, but at the end of the day, it was that 13-year-old girl’s father and mother who ultimately failed her.
As President Obama likes to say, “This is a teaching moment.” Perhaps we can all take away some introspection about our parenting, about our children, about our place in society.
For reasons we know not, Susan Gailey did not see the signs, did not teach Samantha about the risks, or perhaps inflated Samantha’s curiosity with her adoration of fame.
The school yard bully does not spontaneously happen. The careless litterer or blatant turnstile jumper does not just sort of appear out of the ether. We are all a product of our parents, of the teachings of our childhood.
In the years leading up to that March day in 1977, Samantha’s parents failed her, failed us, and we should be as outraged at them as we are at Roman Polanski. Until we decide as a society, as a body of law, to hold parents accountable for their contribution to the conduct of their children, we shall continue to realize faux-satisfaction for a bandage on the symptoms rather than treating the root cause.
The Post’s rejection:
“Thank you for entering the first season of the America’s Next Great Pundit contest. You didn’t make the judging easy for us. Not only did we get nearly 5,000 entries, but a great many of those entries were really quite excellent -- smart, interesting, funny, well written and well argued. So while we’re sorry to say that we can’t include you as one of our ten finalists this time around, we hope this isn’t the last time we hear from you. We hope you’ll follow the rest of the contest and participate as voters. But even more important, we hope you’ll pitch us more of your work. The various ways you can send various types of pieces are outlined here:
“Thanks again for giving this a try. We enjoyed reading.”
Best,
The Editors
Perhaps, I chose the wrong topic or words – too controversial, too direct, too blunt, not fresh, not funny. Perhaps my opinion was just not well written or up to the standards of the Washington Post. Who knows? Oh well, at least I tried.
I also submitted a short essay to the Strategic Forecasting, Inc., opinion contest, which is actually individual perspective regarding an interesting retrospective hypothetical question. Here is my opinion to their question.
Question: What would be the thrust of U.S. foreign policy today if the 9/11 attacks had never occurred?
The aftermath of the 1991 disintegration of the Soviet Union brought realignment of U.S. and Allied foreign policy since the end of World War II. The Soviets and their expansionist endeavors had been the single paramount threat to which the United States constructed its approach to international affairs. After the collapse, by necessity, the Russians turned their attention to minimizing the perceived consequences to their security, induced by the breakaway republics. With the Soviet Union no longer a security threat, commerce moved up the scale of American international interests.
The turmoil of the 2000 election altered the dynamic of federal politics by amplifying the divisions within the country. Perhaps George W. Bush would have taken an introspective approach regardless of the closeness and dispute of the election. Perhaps one of his first actions once inaugurated would still have been Executive Order 13199 – his faith-based organizations initiative – and the associated outreach to religious groups for community activities. President Bush seemed to be more interested in his socially conservative domestic agenda rather than in foreign policy. The principal exception during those months prior to 9/11 was the confrontation with the People’s Republic of China regarding the intercept, mid-air collision and subsequent detention of the U.S. Navy EP-3 surveillance aircraft and its crew. Even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld concentrated on reformation of his massive organization, its approach to warfighting, and the ever burdensome acquisition process.
With domestic affairs attracting Executive Branch attention, the foreign policy would not have changed substantially. Islamo-fascism has been growing steadily from the recognition of Israel, and took on greater, more expansive and ominous dimensions after the Iranian revolution and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Even the warnings from American and Allied field operatives who recognized the threat posed by bin Ladin and the birth of al-Qaeda did not fundamentally alter U.S. foreign policy. The 9/11 attack provided that catalytic re-direction. Thus, without 9/11, the Bush administration most likely would have been content to muddle along as the previous five administrations had done. His administration would not likely have performed differently. There would still be a unilateralist bent.
The wildcard in such a revisionist question is al-Qaeda as the embodiment or at least moniker for the Islamo-fascist movement. If 9/11 had been thwarted, bin Laden and his brethren would have continued escalating attacks on U.S. interests throughout the world as they had done since they created al-Qaeda. They sought violent jihad. If the supposition is correct, al-Qaeda would have continued escalating attempts until they achieved the success they wanted. A 9/11-like event was inevitable and only a matter of time. The response, even by a late second-term Bush administration would not likely have been appreciably different. The response by an Obama or subsequent administration probably would have been different in detail but not objective. The Islamo-fascist threat would still have dominated U.S. foreign policy.
The other wildcard is clearly the People’s Republic of China. The PRC has matured as an economic engine and as a player in international affairs. Fortunately, so far, the Chinese have relied on their economic strength to purvey their interests. While the specter of Chinese military projection remains a cause for vigilance, it remains a rather distant cloud on the horizon. Since Mao’s passing, the PRC has moved steadily and with success toward competing directly with the United States in the arena of international commerce, and stands in contrast to the Soviets and even the contemporary Russian actions.
If we assume the United States would have pacified the Islamo-fascist movement and the Chinese would remain commercially oriented, socio-environmental issues would dominate U.S. foreign policy. The inevitable pressure of population growth, balanced against agricultural production and efficiency, will demand progressively more attention and will become a paramount national security challenge. Regardless of the validity of the global warming hypothesis or the human-inducement corollary, mankind must face the pollution issue – water, air, land. The only question is priority, i.e., what is the greatest threat to the security and well-being of the American people.
The Islamo-fascist threat has dominated U.S. foreign policy for nearly ten years. Without that threat, the perception regarding socio-environmental threat would have taken the paramount position. The Bush administration would still have moved away from the Kyoto Protocol and tried to distance the nation from the international environmental movement. Likewise, the Obama administration, as it is doing, would extend its hand to the international community and strive to convince the American people the short-term economic impact was the responsible thing to do and would yield long-term benefits by reducing ominous elements of the socio-economic situation.
Nonetheless, layers upon layers of conjecture do not alter the bottom line reality. The rooting and growth of the Islamo-fascist movement will dominate U.S. and Allied foreign policy for at least the next several decades just as Soviet expansionism dominated international affairs for nearly half a century in the post-world-war era. The Islamo-fascist threat is real, violent, here today, and not going to be dampened or deflected for many years. The 9/11 attack happened to be the dog that bit, but if not 9/11, there would be some other comparable event.
News from the economic front:
-- A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests Americans are growing increasingly pessimistic about the economy after a mild upswing of attitudes in September. Of those polled, 58% say the recession still has a ways to go, up from 52% in September and back to the level of pessimism expressed in July. Only 29% said the economy had “pretty much hit bottom,” down from 35% last month.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that GMAC Financial Services and the Treasury Department are in advanced talks to shore up the lender with its third dose of taxpayer funding – a stark reminder of how some battered financial firms remain dependent on government lifelines. According to the Journal, the USG is likely to inject another US$2.8-5.6B into the Detroit company, on top of the US$12.5B that GMAC has received since December 2008.
-- The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – the output of goods and services – increased at 3.5% annual rate in the 3rd Quarter, ending a full year of decline – an unofficial confirmation that the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression has ended.
-- A day later, the USG reported consumer spending decreased 0.5% in September – the largest drop in nine months – reflecting the end of the “clunkers” program and continued stress in the labor and credit markets. The USG also reported that personal incomes for September remained unchanged, which when combined with the decrease in spending suggests improving confidence.
L’Affaire Madoff [365]:
-- Longtime friend of and investor with Bernie Madoff, Jeffry Picower, 67 [388, 407], drowned in the pool of his Palm Beach, Florida, home as a result of a massive heart attack. The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan has been investigating Picower and others in a criminal probe regarding knowledge of or complicity in the fraud. I trust the investigation will continue and every attempt will be made to recover ill-gotten gains, if any.
Comments and contributions from Update no.410:
“One of my rare responses, born of an increasingly cynical attitude based on empirical evidence gathered painfully from biased leftwing and rightwing news coverage:
“Let's keep it simple.
“1. Repandercrats try but cannot outpander Democrats. The only current potential political solution to our rapid slide into socialism and ultimate demise as a free nation lies in the Libertarian Party, but because of some of its unpopular platform planks there is little hope there. When Obama gets through loading the federal and Supreme Courts, that second branch will speed up the process by which our Congress is becoming irrelevant compared to the executive branch. Constitutional government is no longer a reality in the U.S.A.
“2. The so-called public option is designed and destined to eventually make it financially stupid to buy more expensive private health insurance. The market will prevail, and short-sighted "free choice" will favor socialism. Only daring non-partisan congressional independence will stop this tragedy, and there are no daring non-partisan politicians.
“3. As an Episcopalian more than fond of our general open mindedness and our hope for an Anglican Communion of non-uniform churches, I have no time for hand-wringing over narrow-mindedness or Roman imperialism. I say let the 1000(?)-year-old trend of splitting off denominations continue, with its contribution to secularism. It looks like we'll all be under Muslim control in another century anyway, because our Creator has given us the power to chose our poison.
“4. The Nobel prize is what it is. Inflation has cheapened everything.
“5. I wish I could properly credit whoever first said ‘We are drowning in information and starving for wisdom.’
“6. ...but keep up the dialogue! The intelligent minority can at least go
down fighting. I may feel better tomorrow...”
My response:
1. This is a cycle, as has existed since citizens involved themselves in republican governance. For many years now, I have seen the two principal political parties as colors of the same thing – they both seek bigger & bigger government to further their political power and value as political currency; they both spend like there is no limit or reason; they seek political divide and encourage extremists of their color to ensure the divide is maintained. This caustic and toxic political environment is corrosive to the very foundation of this Grand Republic. That said . . . I am not quite so dire or morose regarding the future of this Grand Republic.
2. As I have written, I am not so pessimistic regarding some version of the public option to cover those less fortunate. If not structured or managed properly, it certainly could turn into a debacle; but, I am not yet willing to throw in the towel.
3. One could argue the “splitting” of the Christian religion took demonstrable form 1,700 years ago, or perhaps more appropriately 400 years ago with the Reformation and the genesis of Protestantism. Nonetheless, there is an ebb-n-flow to these things. What I find disconcerting is the intransigence of some theological ideology and the inability to rationalize theology with republican governance, freedom and Liberty. If there is an undoing of religion, it will be its dictatorial stance regarding freedom of thought and choice. Perhaps, Liberty is a poison; I think not.
4. Indeed, the Nobel Prize is what it is; its value was diminished dramatically when Yasser Arafat became a recipient.
5. Can’t help you yet with a citation for the quote, but I do ascribe to its message.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
1 comment:
Thank you very much for your generous words.
All topics are open in this forum, so no worries about "off-topic" here.
Post a Comment