Adrift in a Sea of Sharks

I've enjoyed a few political conversations over the last few weeks that have got me thinking about why things are the way they are. So join me on a bit of picture painting of the mind.

Imagine if you will a picture perfect flat ocean, reflecting the sunlight. Adrift on that ocean is a small raft with people on it. Some are red, some are blue, some are purple. Almost all of the people are standing on a large see-saw that is perched atop the raft, the ends of which both protrude far beyond the edges of the raft. The only way that the raft stays afloat is if the people standing on the see-saw, and the few that are sitting on the raft, managed to keep it balanced. The people on the see-saw, the reds on the right, the blues on the left and the purples in the middle are engaged in a high-stakes game of tug-o-war. It's a scary ride on this raft but it's been afloat for a very long time.

Swimming below and around the raft are sharks. Lots and lots of sharks. You'll recognize the names of these sharks, anarchy, monarchy, socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism, despotism, oligopolies, monopolies, etc. The people playing tug-o-war on the see-saw on the raft can only see the sharks they particularly fear. So, the blues only see evil corporations trying to take away the people's rights and freedoms. The reds only see evil big government sharks trying to control the populace. The purples have a better view point and can see all the sharks.

Because of their view point, the purples spend their lives running back and forth between the red side and the blue side desperately trying to keep the raft in balance. The purples are attacked from both sides of the see-saw as flip-floppers, accused of having no moral compass or not standing for anything.

In the last 150 years or so we've been witness to all the sharks circling in the water. We've seen the evils of socialism and communism in the old USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. People being enslaved by their governments. Enslavements that only end with violent overthrow of those governments.

We've also seen the evils of corrupt capitalism with the monopolies of early 20th century America, people working for corporations, being paid in script that can only be spent at the company store, paying rent to the company for housing, child labor, etc.  In short, enslavement that was ended through organized labor movements, government intervention and sometimes, violent conflict.

The thing that the reds and blues on our raft seem to be missing is the monopolist and the communist both want the same thing, your freedom. Slowly but surely both will bleed away the blessings of freedom that our founders built into the structure of the nation.

  Both political parties are guilty. The freedoms stolen in the Patriot act signed under the Bush administration, and expanded during the Obama administration, passed with bi-partisan support in congress. Both parties feel perfectly at ease feeding the American public a line of horse hockey about giving up a little freedom for better security. We were warned about that. Well meaning people say really stupid things like "if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have to worry about it."  The line between that position and "let me see your papers" is exceedingly short. If you're not doing anything wrong why should you worry about showing your papers to a government police agency? Anybody ready to sign up for that?

 The Supreme Court ruled against the government's mandate in the Hobby Lobby case. But, the European high court recently ruled that a French law requiring Muslim women to remove their head wear was acceptable because it improves security. There's that bug-a-boo again. Don't worry, it's just a little religious freedom for a little security, imagine how much safer you'll be if you comply. Here, just wear this arm band and all will be well.

One of the lessons I learned in business school is that free resources will be utilized until exhausted. That's true of the environment and people. Competition keeps corporations honest in the dealings with the people and limited regulation keep them honest with the resources they exhaust. But don't kid yourself, we can see the result of chummy business/government interactions in present day Russia.

And lest we forget, the supreme court issued another ruling this last month, particularly interesting to me, saying the government can't force part-time home health care workers to join the public sector unions. The suit was brought by a stay-at-home mom who draws a stipend from a government program to care for her disabled son. Prior to the ruling that stipend came with the requirement to pay dues to the union. Unions once represented the people who joined them. I think today they are part and parcel of the problem. They'll shack up with business or government or both for self-perpetuation. The days of unions being a voice against management are waning and the days of unions becoming the slave drivers of big government and/or big business are looming.

America is an exceptional place because the founders trusted the government to the people. They threw off the bonds of monarchy for the blessings of freedom. They understood the risks of extremism from either end of the spectrum and trusted the people to be smart enough to realize it as well. It's time for the people to take back their turf.

(NSA Sidebar: These opinions are mine alone. If anybody actually reads this rant it was only out of curiosity, like looking at a car accident on the highway. My family has nothing to do with my ramblings either, chances are they'll deny knowing me if you come calling. You already know my phone number so give me a call if you'd like to chat.)

Small town mid-west America

Thanks to the Newark Fire Protection District volunteers for remembering. I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't realize the date this morning.

Payback coming our way

Blagojevich, Burris, reality

So, the Governor of the wonderful State of Illinois has appointed Roland Burris to fill the Senate seat previously held by President-elect Obama. Everybody is screaming and throwing a fit about not seating Mr. Burris because of Blagojevich, while at the same time praising the career of Mr. Burris. Let's look at some facts:

1. Blagojevich was duly elected by the People of Illinois as Governor.
2. The Governor's power to appoint is written in law, not the Illinois constitution.
3. The power of impeachment is in the Illinois Constitution.
4. The General Assembly did nothing to remove the Governor's power of appointment nor did they do anything on impeachment based on all the other things the Governor has been accused of doing.
5. The new Senate will be sworn in next Tuesday, January 6, 2009.
6. Regardless of Senator Reid's grandstanding there's really not much he can do either.
7. In our Justice System a man is innocent until proven guilty.

So, we have a sitting Governor, who is innocent until proven guilty. The law gives him the power to appoint replacements to the Senate in just this type of situation. The General Assembly, for all their protestations now, has been inept for years, spending their time wringing their hands instead of doing anything. I blame Madigan but that's the subject of another post.

The Governor did exactly what he should have done. And let's be honest, it's a safe pick. At the risk of being a racist, Mr. Burris is black, and would be the only black member of the Senate. After the election of Barak Obama will Democrats in the U.S. Senate refuse to seat a qualified black man? No. Will Jessie White refuse to certify Mr. Burris? Probably, but it's a meaningless protest as he admitted in a NPR interview just last night.

Mr. Burris is 71 years old. He'll serve out the remainder of Obama's term. Will he stand for re-election in 2010? Maybe, but it will likely be his only run and the Republicans in Illinois will lash him to Blagojevich for the whole campaign. Not to mention Blagojevich's trial will probably be in full hyperbolic news coverage by the time the 2010 campaign really gets going.

Now, let's talk about our Lt. Governor, Pat Quinn. He's made his career as an outsider screaming at the machine. When the Governor was arrested he almost immediately called for a special election. A few days later, after the Democrat brain-trust (and I use the word brain loosely) put their heads together they realized they'd lose a special election. Suddenly Mr. Quinn was preaching the gospel of impeachment and that the Governor should step down so he could make the appointment. He may not be a crooked Chicago politician, but he certainly has all the necessary skills to fit the roll.

Ms. Madigan, our Attorney General, is no better. She's the silver spoon daughter of the Illinois Speaker of the House, Mike Madigan. While she may be a fully qualified lawyer, she's the AG because of daddy and his connections. Her stunt of going to the Illinois Supreme Court to get the Governor removed, using a clause of the constitution clearly designed for things such as medical disabilities, was simply a stunt to start her run for Governor in 2010. I suspect she did it at daddy's urging as much as from original thought. Brovo to the Illinois Supreme Court for telling her to go away.

So, what's an Illinois resident to do. If you vote Democrat you're stuck with Chicago machine politicians picked by Daley, Madigan and the rest of the crew. If you vote Republican you get what, Jim Ryan and Alan Keyes? Nice. I'm moving to Iowa.

MN=FL?

At least according to this story from CNN.

But seriously, I think the folks in MN must be totally frozen at this point. Al Franken for cryin' out loud. You think they'd have learned their lesson with Jessie.

Signs of the Times

Yeah, I know the headline is cheesy, but, here's an interesting picture from Yahoo with credit to Reuters (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/San-Francisco-December-9/photo//081217/photos_bs/2008_12_17t070957_450x376_us_usa_poll//s:/nm/20081217/us_nm/us_usa_poll). I especially find the "Will blog 4 food" sign telling. Although I work in IT and spent a number of years at an ecommerce managed service provider, our service/electronic economy simply doesn't seem to hold water. As our manufacturers struggle for survival perhaps we need to rethink our economy completely.

Perspective

A little market perspective based on my adult lifetime.

On Jan. 2, 1980 the Dow opened at 838.74, the S&P 500 opened at 102.09. Assuming an 8% annual growth rate the Dow should be at 7235.90, the S&P at 880.74. Now, I'm not being pollyannish in thinking things can't get a lot worse, but, it's pretty clear the 1990s and the first years of this century saw market growth at simply unsustainable rates. Don't jump off the ledge just yet.

I Want You...

No, I don't remember where I found it. See previous Uncle Sam poster post for continuity of funniness and a positive spin on the changes of the last century.

Funny Posters

Funny posters at Son of the South

Immigration and Season Labor

The NY Times reports in this article about the potential cut back in services due to the business owner's inability to hire seasonal laborers.

I suppose you can argue this both ways. Pro-immigration folks will say "see, we need immigration, legal or otherwise, to keep our economy humming along." Anti-immigration folks will say "if the employers paid a living wage American people would take these jobs."

I realize this is the NY Times and that the article only samples a couple of businesses. That said, I suspect both sides have legitimate points and I'm sure the reality is somewhere in between. It is interesting that the Hispanic Caucus in Congress appears to be part of the road block.

I'm linking to this Doonsbury image from Yahoo! so please consider this appropriate attribution. I do not claim this as my original work and give all appropriate deference to the author.

That said, I thought it particularly interesting because from my perspective it sums up the Democratic Primary Election well. We do have a tested and experienced leader in Sen. Clinton. I use the word leader loosely because she seems to be a bit of a control freak in many ways. We have an eloquent visionary in Sen. Obama. The criticisms of Sen. Obama are fair; no experience in Washington, no experience in Foreign Affairs, and some questionable Illinois political ties. But, hey, it's Illinios, or more appropriately Chicago.

How is one to choose? Should we choose on who is most able to defeat Sen. McCain? Should we choose on who would be most able to deal with the entrenched bureauacracy in Washington? Should we choose on who we think has the best ideas? Is an "Obamary" or "Hillama" ticket the ultimate option? Hard to tell from where I sit.

Equal rights and I'm tired of hearin' it

Non Sequitur presents an interesting cartoon the sentiment of which says that a woman should jump at the chance to marry an unemployed man because of her opportunity to show her support for equal rights.

I've recently noticed what seems like an increased number of radio stories talking about women and their challenges going to Iraq, trying to be mother and soldier, etc. Granted, this has been mostly on NPR but also from other outlets. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing it.

We have an all volunteer military. Every woman going to Iraq signed up of her own accord, be it National Guard duty or regular military. They should have thought about the ramifications on their civilian life before they signed the contracts.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure the challenges are immense and the pressure unbearable. I'm also sure the women featured in the stories I've heard are serving honorably. But, the challenges and sacrifices required of the military are no secret. One may join the military for the benefits, college programs or the opportunity to travel the world. In the end though the military has but one purpose; to travel where required and fight. That's the job.

Women have been fighting for equal rights for at least a century. This is what it looks like. Get over it.

I once was a democrat....

OK, I probably still am a democrat, but, the older I get, the more I begin to identify with the republican party. Here are two articles that explain why.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/NEWS/711010360/1006/NEWS

The University of Delaware has an orientation class that defines all whites in the U.S. as racists. Defines, no debate or deliberation of fact. Simply stated, you're white and American, therefore racist. I happen to work at a University and can vouch for the open hostility to SWAMs. You know, Straight White American Males.

http://www.colbsa.org/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.asp?LinkKey=12731&orgkey=1853

The openly gay Philadelphia City Solicitor has succeeded in getting the Boy Scouts evicted from the building they've occupied for 80 years. Not only a building they occupy but BUILT! Granted, they have a $1 lease from the city for the land. Like it or not the Supreme Court ruled the BSA a private institution with the right to set membership requirements. Philadelphia can kick the BSA out of the building but it won't stop the BSA from building young men of character.

The continued destruction of values and organizations that promote values will be the end of our nation.

So, if anybody from the DNC is reading, guess what. I'm a white 45 year-old man. I have a job, pay taxes, support my family, serve my community and church, and I VOTE. It's this type of New England politically correct stupidity that makes all the non-costal states red. Get a clue. For now, I guess I'm officially in support of Mike Huckabee.

A few more articles

Links to a few more articles that highlight the current tension between free speech, patriotism, religion, and loyal opposition:

School Board decides to ignore Illinois state moment of silence law (Chicago Tribune)

Berwin's Morton West HS suspends and considers expelling protestors (www.chicagosuburbannews.com)

Protests, public speech, incivility

I know, I'm still being captain obvious. I wanted to post this essay from an email list called "sightings" that's run by the Martin Marty Center of the University of Chicago Divinity School. It's an interesting discussion about the intersection of freedom of speech, religion, jingoism, and grief. I think the "hate group" label may be to strong but the article made me think. Unfortunately they don't have it posted on the sightings web page yet so here it is in it's entirety:


Sightings 11/08/07

Public Wrongs and Rites
-- Barbra Barnett

There is a small church based in Topeka , Kansas , consisting primarily of a founder and his many children. Maybe you've heard of it. Members claim to have proclaimed their message in all fifty states: It is too late to pray for the good of the USA or the redemption of her inhabitants. We have ignored the mandate to repent and so we perish, increasing the population of hell with each death. Our sin? Bestowing societal acceptance on the "soul-damning, nation-destroying sodomite lifestyle." Those who "prance around yelling about the evils" of gay marriage are just as doomed; we are all to be punished for our nation's sin. God's wrath is manifest in the September 11th attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and other national tragedies. The most visible efforts of this group have been its demonstrations at soldiers' funerals, where members rejoice at American deaths on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan as God's retribution for our irredeemable corruption.

I hesitate to name the church, Westboro Baptist, here. Hate groups feed on publicity, and this group has received a lot of it in the past week. On October 31st a jury in a Baltimore federal district court ordered the church to pay $10.9 million to the father of a marine killed in Iraq for invasion of privacy and intent to inflict emotional distress, after the group demonstrated outside the marine's funeral and posted disparaging statements about him on its website. The verdict will translate into little actual cash for the marine's family, as Westboro Baptist has few assets. But the church calculates the value of free publicity generated by the verdict at over $10.9 billion: They boast on their website that in less than twenty-four hours their words have spread to every corner of the earth.

This church's thirst for publicity and its legal battles raise important questions about the shape and scope of freedom of speech today. The activities of this group also raise questions about religious freedom, but First Amendment scholars focus on the speech question because any claims by Westboro Baptist most likely would be brought under the constitutional framework for dealing with public protests. Public discourse is the foundation of democratic society, and our society protects the rights of all voices to be heard, even those that are distasteful and offensive. First Amendment jurisprudence on free speech has struggled with the problem of hate groups and whether it is possible to disable their corrosive effect on public discourse without destroying robust public discussion.

When confronted with attempts by local jurisdictions to regulate public protests, the Supreme Court has prescribed content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions as the only constitutional method of restricting the assembly and speech of such groups. States cannot regulate the content of the message expressed. Several dozen states and the U.S. Congress have introduced laws restricting demonstrations at funerals, noting the importance of respecting families in their time of grief. However, constitutional scholars have expressed concern that such measures may exceed these content-neutral requirements, and may even restrict or favor speech on the basis of the point of view of the speaker. For example, if members of Westboro Baptist can be arrested for their activities while members of a family (or invited guests such as the Patriot Guard Riders) are free to counter-protest, with signs and songs proclaiming the patriotism of the deceased, the government unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of one side of the issue and against another.

If state criminal statutes that ban funeral protests are potentially unenforceable because they violate the U.S. constitution, then civil cases like the one brought against Westboro Baptist by the marine's family, that allege defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, can be seen as a sort of end-run around the constitutional restrictions. Thus, some scholars question whether the recent verdict will withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Hate groups such as this one take full advantage of the protections guaranteed to them by the U.S. constitution. However, in order for public discourse to serve as the foundation of democratic society all voices should be heard, muffled sobs as well as angry shouts. Whether the recent verdict against Westboro Baptist is eventually upheld or overturned, one thing is clear: The marketplace of ideas has exploded into a cacophonous din of voices, with little or no effort by participants to foster either civility or reasoned engagement with issues of public import. The result is the deterioration of a common forum wherein not only controversial convictions but also the solemnity and grief of public burial rites can be expressed.


Barbra Barnett is a PhD candidate in Ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School, and received her JD from the George Washington Law School ('96). She is a Junior Fellow in the Martin Marty Center , and an adjunct professor in the Theology and Religion Department at Elmhurst College.

Lessons from Katrina or differences in socio-economic status?

Here's an interesting set of articles from cnn.com. They talk about the volunteerism happening in the SoCal fires, the amount of supplies available, and the general lack of anger/chaos caused by the evacuations, etc.

So how do we interpret this information? At one level we might think that FEMA learned valuable lessons from the Katrina/Rita disaster in New Orleans. The crisis, while definitely intense, is probably less intense than Katrina. Many critical services (water, electricity, etc.) are still functional in SoCal. Although I'm seeing estimates of over 1 million evacuees, the number is still smaller than New Orleans. That said, it also appears that people were more amenable to the evacuation orders in SoCal and perhaps better prepared since major fires swept the area only a few years ago.

More cynically we might think that FEMA (and the U.S. and State Governments in general) responded more quickly to a crisis in a state with a popular republican governor. Even more cynically might think they responded more quickly to caucasions in distress in a state with a popular republican governor.

I suspect the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. FEMA likely did take lessons learned from Katrina and apply them to SoCal. The Bush administration probably did respond more quickly to SoCal than Katrina (but I'll withhold judgement as to why/how). I do believe the situation in SoCal is less intense than the situation was in New Orleans, however, I also believe there is a good argument to be made that the people evacuated have taken better control of the situation they are in. I'll let you decide why.

Wait there's more!

Widespread Radioactivity Monitoring Is Confirmed - New York Times

Secret monitoring programs. Can the administration spell fourth amendment? Here, let me help:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Scared Yet?

- Domestic spying without warrants, even though FISA allows for 72 hours of spying before a warrant is issued.
- Funding cuts for medicare, medicaid, student loans and early childhood education coupled with tax cuts for capital gains and on the top marginal rate
- A war justified on the threat of WMDs but the inability to find any
- Secret prisons in Europe where we sent people for interrogation
- An indictment brought against Padilla after 3 years, just as the case is headed to the Supreme Court for review, but absent of the sensational charges leveled when he was arrested.
- No bid contracts for Haliburton in Iraq

In the words of Ben Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

Worst part is we aren't giving it up it's being stolen and for reasons that escape comprehension we're allowing it to happen and asking for more.

Amazing, just amazing

I'm sitting in my office at home this afternoon watching TV. Not on my TV mind you and not my local stations. I'm watching local news from New Orleans and Houston while writing this post. Now there's nothing new about this and those of you who might happen across this post on the net, or are under the age of say 30, are going to say "well duh!" Well, take it from an aging guy who grew up watching 3 channels, and served as a human remote control, this is amazing.

Now, the question becomes is it good? In general I believe more information is better than less information. That said, instant information can be a double edged sword. On the upside, anybody who cares can get all the information they desire from a variety of sources previously unavailable to them. However, instant access has degraded the quality of journalism and has clearly contributed to the sensationalization of journalism. It has created the concept of "scud studs" and "hurricane heros" and with the possible exception of NPR and PBS has all but eliminated in depth reporting.

That said, am I contributing to the dilution of news? I haven't watched this much TV news in some time and if it weren't for the storm I probably wouldn't be today. Are the media simply giving us what we've asked for?

That 70's Politics

So my first post in May had to do with the 30 year anniversary of the fall of Viet Nam. Now we learn the identity of "Deep Throat." Anybody feeling a 70's flashback? I wonder if I can find my leisure suit.......