I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to this article in the Wall Street Journal by Jonah Lehrer: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425561952689390.html

I usually place my references and sources at the end of a post, but this article is so compelling and affirms so well my observation on the effects of Power, that I wanted everyone to read it first.

Have you read it now? Good.

Here’s my point. No, we were not wrong in voting for a political candidate, or putting our faith in a religious leader, or placing our trust in a business associate… If we were disappointed and felt betrayed by their later actions it is probably because THEY changed.

Success breeds intolerance. It can be a very slow process and barely noticeable as it happens.

It happened to me when I started my own business… and succeeded beyond my hopes. Although on a very small scale compared to the mega-powerful, I nevertheless experienced the Paradox as successes accumulated.

The first indication that this Power Paradox is occurring is when the person in power starts spending more time with those that agree with them than with those who do not. Now, I realize we ALL tend to lean toward like-minded people. But we tolerate, and indeed often seek out, other opinions more than those in the throngs of the Power Paradox. Close associates that had once urged a more conciliatory tone are no longer given as much time to voice their opinions. And new ‘friends’ start to rise to the top. ‘Loyalty’ is translated into ‘my will be done’, rather than allowing a slow and deliberate analysis of solutions.

As time goes on, the feeling that the power holder is above reproach, and their subordinates owe them their daily bread, begins to erode the balanced and measured personality that we all admired when we first found ourselves supporting them.

Often, the person in power knows that they are changing. They know that their tolerance and reason are eroding. But, the ends justify the means as success grows. Philanthropy, in those with the most power, becomes a way for the person to cope with their own selfish goals – a selfless act that will balance the scales of their conscience.

You can tell when a person in power knows they are engaging in ‘wrong minded’ things. They will advertise their philanthropic activities and hide, very effectively, their more underhanded dealings. This proves beyond a doubt that they KNOW they are doing wrong, but the Paradox now has them in a tight grip and they are lost to it.

Take for example the Koch brothers. Jane Mayer writes in an article for the New Yorker magazine “Covert Operations; The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama”, about two very successful brothers that took over their father’s business and built it into one of the most profitable privately held corporations in the world. Worth over $35Billion, Koch Industries has gas, oil, refining and milling operations all over the U.S. and the world. Their under-the-table funding for Tea Party and Libertarian groups is unsurpassed. The reason? Their companies are some of the biggest polluters and environmental diversionists on the planet. While Ms. Mayer’s article alleged a war against ‘Obama’ it is actually a war against liberal democracy. Any policy to the left of absolute dissolution of taxes and government regulations will receive Koch money.

Yet, the Koch brothers give millions to charitable organizations, the arts, medicine,… And they willfully take center stage at nearly all their philanthropic events. However, they stay well hidden in their funding of right wing extremism. Because they KNOW it’s wrong.

The Power Paradox can cause good hearted and god fearing people to evolve into a Jekyll and Hyde existence wherein they try to balance their willful neglect of humanity with their generosity. Of course their generosity is targeted to their ideological equals. You’ll never find the Koch brothers supporting a soup kitchen or homeless shelter.

Lastly, let’s be truthful here. The Power Paradox is equally applied to the left of center politic and such organizations as Greenpeace and the Civil Liberties Union. The necessary balance between democracy and capitalism is lost on many of the ideological left. Policies that create a fundamental welfare state or subordinate religious freedoms are often supported by the extreme left. And they have their secret benefactors as well.

I spent many years working on government projects as a civilian contractor. I’m here to tell you that the great majority of the people that work for the government of the United States are dedicated, patriotic, loyal Americans that thoroughly believe in their work and their country. I get very upset by the left wing anti-establishment types that think the government is a militaristic Orwellian conspiracy.

I guess the point I’m trying to make here, is that “We the People” is the one thing that can bring balance back to government. It can negate the Power Paradox by frequently pumping fresh blood into the political process. If we, as citizens of this fine country, can break with tradition, we can drag down the walls of hate and fear and prudence that have been fabricated by the Power brokers.

I still hold on to hope that Obama can, in the end, remain in office for two full terms.  This hope has less to do with his political ideals than his appeal as an individual. You see, he is the first president in over 50 years to be elected without Power money behind his campaign. In many ways, he is the first president elected by “We the people” in a very long time. The Powerful are very aware of this fact. The danger to the status quo is palpable to them. They are scared stiff. The relentless campaign to paint him as a Marxist Muslim is the complete fabrication of the Powerful.  And they keep their involvement in this assault as quiet as possible, because they know that are doing wrong.

My suggestion to you is to vote for an Independent political candidate. Allegiance to a political party is as detrimental to a free people as dedication to a commercial or special interest – or their money.

“The People” are not Democrats or Republicans… We are Americans. We are not ‘left’ or ‘right’ we are men and women. We are not white, black, Hispanic or Asian. We are of one race.. Human. Let’s start acting like it and take back the democratic process from the Powerful. We alone can remove the money from politics and the politics from policy.

JB

Sources and References

Lehrer, J. (2010). The Power Trip, The Wall Street Journal, August 14, 2010. retrieved August 28, 2010 from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425561952689390.html

Mayer, J. (2010). Covert Operations; The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama, New Yorker, August 20, 2010, retrieved August 28, 2010 from: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?printable=true

Rich, F. (2010). The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party, The New York Times, Aug 28, 2010, retrieved August 28, 2010 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

Not a comment to AN, but to an article in the New York Daily News…. [click to enlarge]

You’ve heard about the Arizona “Immigration” law (who hasn’t).  Overall, it’s not a big deal. But there’s one provision hidden in the small print that has everyone concerned.  It allows anyone to SUE the state or local police if they do NOT comply (or appear to comply) with the new law requiring police to check the legal residence status of individuals.  It also restricts the use of ‘racial profiling’

This idiotic juxtaposition of regulations (no profiling – must comply) means the ONLY way to make this law work is to check the residence status of EVERY SINGLE person that is stopped or questioned in any case.

The most conflicting language is that officers MUST check the residency status of any individual that they have “reasonable suspicion” is illegal.  If profiling is not to be used, then the only way to apply the law – so that you do not get sued – is to check EVERYONE.

I don’t know how many of you have ever been to a bar or club that ‘cards’ you at the door, but recent actions and laws have become so restrictive on these club owners, that many now card everyone – even people in their 60s.  That is how they protect their business from frivolous legal attempts at making them the fall guy when someone underage ‘says’ the club served them – even if they did not.  If the club is selective in who they card, there is always a ‘reasonable doubt’ that they missed someone.

Now in Arizona, illegal immigrants are being sought – and the lawyers are chomping at the bit.  The first case brought to court wherein the cop will take the stand and say he/she does not require proof of citizenship for everyone – and bingo – Reasonable Doubt.

As long as politicians come from the ranks of attorneys and political parties, they will think with their heads up their asses.  They simply don’t get it.  Arizona now must require proof of residency; or citizenship; or legal status (e.g. a visa) – for everyone in their state, or passing through their state, if they are truly going to enforce this law without profiling.  Thus, the logic holds, that the state must provide to every resident a method of obtaining such document(s) needed. I don’t know about you, but I have no way of proving I’m a citizen without a Passport.  Less than half the citizen population has passports. And fewer yet carry them wherever they go.

So I’m going to Arizona.  I’m going to go 10MPH over the speed limit and catch me a cop.  My attorney will promptly sue the State of Arizona for not requiring me to provide proof of citizenship (a drivers license is not proof).  However, if they DO ask for proof of citizenship I will sue the State of Arizona for not providing me with any.

My attorney’s name and contact information is available to all who would like to follow suit. Pun intended.

JB

Sources:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/04/22/20100422arizona-immigration-bill-police-impact.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5je28hmgbQV7AumzArZS7M_OWoF-wD9F7VHS00

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/apr/22/ariz-immigration-bill-may-have-broad-implications/

Rarely does a ‘convention’ that draws 600 people get top billing in the media, but the recent ‘National Tea Party Convention’ has accomplished it. By comparison, the annual Star Trek convention in Las Vegas draws 15,000. The costumes are pretty much on par though.

Billed as a Tea Party Convention for ‘delegates’ of the ‘Party’, speakers included some defunct politicians, lead by Sara Palin; and out-and-out racists, like former U.S. representative Tom Tancredo (Colo.).

Nevertheless, I read a lot of the coverage – especially those that posted comments from the attendees. It appeared to me that there are two distinct types of people that consider themselves Tea Party Patriots.

The first type is genuinely worried about a socialist leaning government. They cannot offer one shred of evidence that this administration is any more ‘left’ of center than any previous Administration. And they often admit most all their concern raises from congressional actions (or the lack thereof) rather than any policy or proclamation from the Obama Administration.

The second type is simply the racist bigots. These are usually the more ‘religious right’ – or should I say ‘religious white’ – wherein Obama’s ethnicity is a specter of evil. They interpret Obama’s election as paramount to handing over this white Judeo-Christian U.S.A to a Black Muslim Marxist bent on the destruction of American ideals.

These two will not be able to spend much more time in bed together, no matter how hard the matchmakers at Fox News and the RNC try to keep them in line until the next election.

The political issues we face today – even the lilt of the 2011 budget – gathered steam entirely in the Republican era from 2000-2008. The ground was cultivated, however, by both parties as early as 1984. But the economic history lesson can wait until another time. The point here is that Obama is not, and has never been, the problem for those who genuinely study the facts of the present economic crisis and monumental deficit. They KNOW it has been the right of center policies that lifted controls on financial institutions – and the left of center policies that tried to subsidized the American Dream for millions of unqualified home buyers.

Hopefully soon the two odd fellows in this movement will split and those that recognize the true issues at hand will stop trying to recruit ‘Republican’ converts and start empowering Independent political candidates. For, you see, just 3 Independent U.S. Senators can eliminate the party based inertia syndrome, wherein voting along party lines is the norm and filibuster threats cause political lethargy.

Many believe the grass roots of this country cannot make Washington change. That is wrong. The Tea Party pundits at least have that much right. A complete revolution in all 50 States is not required for significant change to occur. A few well placed votes can upset the status quo. However, they cannot be ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ votes. THAT is what will maintain the status quo, not change it.

I look forward to the day when the sane members of the Tea Party movement join the rest of us that rally against the political status quo in Washington. Together we can get our country back on track and elect a few good Americans that work for the People rather than a Party.

JB

References & Sources:

Berger, J. (2010). Article: Tea Party Convention Gives Boost to Newcomer Politicians, FOXNews.com, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/05/tea-party-convention-gives-boost-aspiring-elected-officials/

Creation Entertainment. (2010). Promotion: The Official STAR TREK Convention 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada, Creation Entertainment, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.creationent.com/cal/stlv.htm

Gerhart, A.; Rucker, P. (2010). Article: The Tea Party is still taking shape, The Washington Post, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020501694.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Meacham, J. (2010). Article: How the Tea Party Could Help All of Us, Newsweek, Retrieved Saturday, February 6, 2010 from: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233182

I’m sitting here this evening watching the CNN election returns on the Massachusetts Senate race. You know the one to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s seat. And to my amazement – the Democrat lost!  How could this be –OMG!!!.

I am just a guilty as any other intellectual leftist that thought the election in Mass was not much more than a formality.  The Tea Party wackos were not going to have any effect on this race!

Sorry ol’ timer… wrong again.

Republican Scott Brown successfully heaped fears of big government, excessive costs, huge tax increases and “nationalized medicine” on Mass voters… and it worked.  Never mind that many of the trappings of the healthcare package were formulated from very successful state insurance commissions and statutes. Never mind that much of the core principles of the healthcare bills – both House and Senate – were those that Ted Kennedy fought for – for decades.  And never mind that both Republican and Democratic controlled congresses have tried to get many of these same laws enacted.

His challenger made absolutely no attempt to give this information to the public. And, Massachusetts is the Insurance Company capital of the U.S.  The Lobby money was absolutely intense.  And yet Obama and the Democrats fiddled.

Brown was effective because Democratic leadership – including Obama – thought that their liberal base would follow their lead. They did not have to educate anyone on the workings of the proposed legislation.  There was no need for the Party to combat the Insurance lobby’s ad campaign.  Not to mention the Right Wing’s scare campaigns – led by crackpots like Limbaugh and Beck – had no chance of swaying the savvy intellectual left.

Right.

If there is one thing that is always going to be true in politics – its that if you ignore someone long enough they will flip on you.  From lobbyists to constituents, it is a political law of nature.   They will switch to the Nazi party if it treats them with respect. I’d keep this from Lieberman.

Obama may be the best communicator since Reagan. But he has not instilled that ‘fire-side chat’ type of trust that you had with Regan or even Roosevelt.  He never quite developed that ‘connection’ to the average American that we all thought he embodied back in 2008.

Most representatives and senators vote however they are told to vote by the party brass. They blindly follow in hopes of getting a treasure trove of support for their next election. There are a few however who think for themselves.  Not getting at least a few independent thinking members of the opposition on board with your policies is usually a recipe for failure.

I truly believe that the Left was so enamored with their sweeping victories in 2008, that they became incongruous persecutors of Republican ideals.  Pelosi and her ilk felt so sure of their superiority that they failed to maintain the essence of the election. That essence was “HOPE”.  They’ve took it away by making a partisan mockery of the problems before us.  They have not tried to keep the hope alive. They needed constant communication with their constituents to inform, educate and solicit feedback. They closed the door and made their deals amongst themselves – sans Republicans, C-SPAN, et al.  The vision of hope, blurred beyond all recognition, was waiting to be resurrected.

And a Republican did it.

So, as one of my favorite mentors would say, my Democratic friends: “We have been presented with an opportunity”.  Not to be viewed as a setback but rather an awakening (imagine if Democrats had not considered this until the mid-terms!).  The Democratic Party has been given a slim chance of resurrecting that which was. The message of hope. A change in the way we face problems and develop solutions.

Mr. Obama… The ball is in your court.  A change in congressional leadership may be in the offing.  But, more to the point, you need to spend time with the American people. News conferences (you remember those) , Q&A sessions (where you do not control the ‘Q’ only the ‘A’ – and try to shorten the ‘A’… boring!), and some good old ‘debates’. Yea, debates. You need to take some of the Republican leadership on – in a public forum – and debate the facts of stimulus, healthcare reform, financial reform, foreign policy… you name it. The time to take your view of government to the people is not ONLY during a political campaign anymore.

Oh, by the way – if you do not have a good argument for the debate at hand… it’s probably not a good position to keep.

We are in the “Information Age”. I thought you Mr. President, of all people, would know that. And keep this in mind, Mr. President, we voted you into office not because we wanted more government – we wanted better government.

Better start ‘informing’ or your whole agenda will be out the window right along with the hope we are losing…

JB

Dwyer, D. (2010). Article: Republican Scott Brown Defeats Democrat Martha Coakley in Mass. Senate Race; ABC News; Retrieved January 19, 2010 from:  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-scott-brown-defeats-democrat-martha-coakley-massachusetts/story?id=9602776

Babington, C. (2010). Analysis: GOP win forces review of Obama’s mandate; Associated Press; Retrieved January 19, 2010 from:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011903444.html

There’s certainly no lack of political pundits, on the right and left, second-guessing Obama’s 2009 attempts at diplomacy.  From The Middle East to Europe and from Asia to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, he is on a mad carousel that gives the term ‘whirlwind diplomacy’ a whole new intensity over the last 10 months.  It seems a lot longer, doesn’t it?

Being a bystander, like so many of us bloggers are, and watching with interest something we know next to nothing about, has its benefits.  It gives one a certain detachment and allows you to see a bigger picture as causes and affects seem to come together.  A ‘method for madness’ seems to form as results come into focus.  Obvious successes and failures can be identified.

We can also easily pick out the idiots.

John Bolton may have been the worst UN Ambassador in history and his recent article in the Taipei Times is clear evidence that he continues to be a pitiful excuse for a political or diplomatic activist.  His bashing of Obama’s Asian trip as a ‘submissive’ & ‘post-American’ exercise was underscored by this quote:

“…Obama’s trip truly was a disappointment. On economics, the president displayed the Democratic Party’s ambivalence toward free trade, even in an economic downturn, motivated by fear of labor-union opposition. On environmental and climate change issues, China, entirely predictably, reaffirmed its refusal to agree to carbon-emission limitations, and Obama had to concede in Singapore that the entire effort to craft a binding, post-Kyoto international agreement in Copenhagen had come to a complete halt.” – John Bolton

A week later China announced the most significant commitment to carbon emission reduction ever made by that country (or any developing country for that matter).

“China actually promised Thursday [26 Nov, 2009] to reduce its ‘carbon intensity,’ a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product, by 40% to 45% by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.” – L.A. Times

What Bolton, and those that share his ideology, seem not to understand, is that these types of concessions and agreements are best served cold.  Months of negotiations and planning preempt these types of successes.  Often a government does not like the connotation that they were ‘strong-armed’ into making a concession. They want it to appear as if it was a product of their diligence, not America’s insistence, that brought about change.

“It’s amazing how much one can accomplish when no one cares who gets the credit.” – Ronald Reagan

Bolton has always been about ‘credit’. Obama’s statements in Singapore were obviously crafted and aligned with Chinese diplomatic needs that required their decision to be unexpected and completely their responsibility.  A move more like genius than naiveté; and a move to which the Bush administration would never have agreed.

In Afghanistan, one can see a change in language and rhetoric emerging as the Obama Administration tries to redefine Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ to a more palatable “combating extremism”.  In his recent speech on Afghanistan, the President cited the “al-Qaeda’s terrorist network” and “acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people”, but not once did he mention the now defunct ‘War on Terror’.  The term used by the Bush administration to justify any transgression, from the invasion of Iraq to the imprisonment of anyone even suspected of extremist sympathies, made the term ‘War on Terror” the laughing stock of the Islamic world.  The very people that are needed if we are to succeed in stopping state sponsored terrorism.

Obama’s biggest critics are, like Bolton, some of the same people that got us into this mess with their fascist style of foreign diplomacy.  None other than Dick Cheney remarked, during his long winded speech defending his “Interrogation techniques”, and other constitutional atrocities in the name of the ‘War on Terror’, that setting an exit strategy would be viewed by Afghans as a weakness.  No one ever told him that not setting one is viewed as an ‘occupation’.  Cheney and his “right blind” ilk have been getting it wrong for 7 years, they need to shut up and let this administration try to fix the mess they made.

While Cheney and others bashed Obama for setting a troop pull-out ‘begin’ date (a date, by the way, purposely ambiguous) NATO and ISAF allies this week announced they will add 7,000 more troops to the cause.  Now why would they do that for this administration while under Bush they made no new commitments since 2006?

Because there was a commitment to a real strategy – rather than an occupation.

Why will the Afghan army make more progress in the next 18 months than they did in the last 6 years?  Because, like Iraq, the knowledge that they are being given the responsibility and accountability for success – will bring about a pride and resolve not demonstrated while under foreign command.  Let us not forget, that the pull-out date in Iraq did not come about until the left wing politic and a presidential candidate by the name of Obama made it a populist movement in the U.S..  The resulting changes in the Iraq army competence and commitment were nothing less than extraordinary.

We also need to discuss the apparent failures of Obama diplomacy.  Like so many before him, Obama appears to have failed to find a simple solution to the Palestinian issue or placate the ‘Arab Street’.

An intractable stance by an Israeli government that considers most of the West Bank and all of Jerusalem part of their ‘Jewish state’, has made a confrontation between Israel and the West in general – and the U.S. in particular – inevitable.  An inevitability that Obama cannot yet address.  His administration is stretched to the limit, as is the U.S. military and world economy.  The Palestinians will have to continue to wait.

However, behind the scenes, where real diplomacy is exercised, the pressure on Israel mounts. The EU has threatened to recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian State. A move that undoubtedly has the hesitant blessings of Obama foreign policy engineers. The chess pieces are being strategically positioned. Don’t be surprised if someone in Israel gets the ‘credit’ for breaking the impasse by 2012.

Iran continues to befuddle even Iranians.  While completely void of outward progress, efforts to limit Iran’s threat to a Middle East nuclear arms race have been ponderous at best. Iran has strategic advantages in not only oil production; but the capability of closing – or at least restricting – the Strait of Hormuz; a key choking point in the world’s oil supply.  The world economy cannot afford a confrontation that threatens the Strait.

What’s going on behind the scenes in Iran is anyone’s guess; but the fact that such a relatively simple goal as freeing three American hikers from Iranian spy charges, has not been achieved, I’d say we are just as frustrated as the Iranian people where their government is concerned.

Both Iran and Israel are extreme opposite examples of how self-delusional ideology can turn into self defeating policy.  These countries, for differing reasons via differing cultures, pose similar threats for dissimilar reasons.  They both invite some type of intervention to break a sociopolitical impasse.  In some cases it simply makes no difference how good a diplomat or negotiator you are, the only real chance for a breakthrough will come from within these countries – not from without. The most important thing a diplomat can do is recognize when intervention will help and when it will not. Know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em.  Obama is waiting for the flop.

I’m no diplomat. But all-in-all I think the biggest difference between Obama foreign policy and Bush foreign policy is the difference itself.  We are simply not accustomed to treating other nations as equals and allowing others to take credit for success.  We also have not been willing to let other nations clean up their own messes. We may be seeing a change in that approach.  An approach the Bush administration’s so-called professional ‘diplomats’ never thought of.

I just wish our President would learn to do a proper Japanese bow. That one to the Emperor was tragic.

JB

Sources & References:

AKI (2009) Mideast: EU ‘ready to recognise East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital’, AND Kronos International, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.4058204456

Bolton, J. (2009). Obama’s self-defeating Asia tour, The Taipei Times, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/11/29/2003459714

ISAF. (2009). ISAF placement – Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://operatsioonid.kmin.ee/public/files/isaf_placemat.pdf

McChrystal, S. (2009). Commander’s counter insurgency guidance, International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] Kabul Afghanistan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf

MOFA (2009). Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements, Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MOFA] of Japan, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/index.html

Pierson, D.; Tankersley, J. (2009). China makes a pledge on greenhouse gas emissions [Corrected], Los Angeles Times, , retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-china27-2009nov27,0,3694292.story

Pilling, D. (2009). Hong Kong tiptoes towards democracy, Financial Times, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f8086b4-df77-11de-98ca-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=9c33700c-4c86-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1

PRA (2009). Profile of John Bolton; Political Research Associates, retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Bolton_John

Sheridan, M. (2009). NATO allies pledge 7,000 more troops for Afghanistan mission, The Washington Post, Retrieved December 5, 2009 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120400621.html

Every President and Vice President must invoke the “SPT” at least once every 90 days or so. I think that is written somewhere in the Presidential Job Description Digest (more popularly known as the PJDD).

Now, the PJDD has several sections on SPT.  They range from idiocy -

“It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.” [Vice President Dan Quayle]

To verbal missteps –

“…attraction of capital – that is really the best antidote for poverty.” [G.W. Bush]

To insensitivity –

“A tree is a tree. How many do you need to look at?”  [Reagan when opposing National Forest Preservation bill]

“African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do.” [Bill Clinton remarking about the new BET television channel]

And misinformation –

“No public money was used.” [Reagan when explaining the $4Million price tag for his elaborate inauguration]

I am not the only one in history that has found it ironic that the very people we entrust our futures and security to are often less than thoughtful.  Congress is so full of choice stupidity that there is certainly a CJDD for them as well -

“Suppose you are an idiot,” Mark Twain offered, “and suppose you are a member of congress. But I repeat myself.”

We can’t entirely blame our representatives – for they are us and we are them. In 1998 a senatorial candidate from Oklahoma died a month before the election. He received 56,000 votes.

All this brings me the reason for this post.

In my opinion, Obama is one of the best presidents we have had in recent memory (and I have a long memory) – but he apparently is also bound by the SPT directives in the PJDD.   This is evident by his foot-in-mouth position in the case of the arrest of a seriously contentious Harvard professor friend of his; to the declaration that “We must sustain a balanced budget” – the day after he pushed a deficit laden $700Billion stimulus bill through congress.

But maybe his best SPT to date is the latest. One in which he insists that businesses will hire more workers if congress passes healthcare reform legislation.

In all five (5) bills now being studied in congress, no actual ‘reforms’ will take place for two years.

I’m not sure which SPT section of the PSDD this belongs in.  Maybe Obama is trying to get points for multiple section compliance. Maybe “Missteps, Insensitivity and Misinformation” all at once.

Those that have read these proposed bills and those millions that have lost – and continue to lose – jobs, find none of this funny or truthful – and certainly not reassuring.

JB

More to Read:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1202059″>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1202059

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/10/03/Obama_says_businesses_will_hire_more_workers_if_Congress_pas/

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:_dl7a7hzVRAJ:www.just-english.ru/politicians_errors.doc+dumbest+things+said+president+clinton&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

While Obama was making the talk show circuit this last weekend, Bill Clinton was on Larry King (CNN) and he fielded many questions with a certain candor. But one thing I found interesting; when asked if conservatives disagreed with Obama because he was African-American or a Democrat, Clinton remarked “I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now, would be opposing him then.”

I tend to agree. The larger question is: would Republicans that oppose him still oppose him if he were Republican? I say Not.

While a discourse on some of the disillusioned “Town Hall” bigots – that have no clue what health reform is or could even understand it if they read any of the proposals – is a popular shock-jock talk show topic; the bigger problem is all those old white folks in congress that hate all the other old white folks in congress – because of their party affiliation.

Politics is always messy. But it gets downright chaotic if you sprinkle some lobbyist money around (like $3Billion in the last 90 days!) on misleading infomercials and downright lies in scare mailings to senior citizens. Stir up some racial bigots, then put on the pressure from the National Committee, the campaign contributors and the party leadership – and well you have an unthinking, kneejerk jerk congressman or senator, representing you in one the most critical moments in American history.

According to the Washington Post, Ninety 90% of ALL House members vote the party line on ALL legislation. Ninety three 93% of the Democrats’ and eighty seven 87% of the Republicans ALWAYS voted against the other party. No matter WHAT the topic or legislation before them. The Senate is within about 4% of the same numbers.

To show you how immature and arcane this process is, imagine getting 20 people off the street. Let’s say our only criteria are that they are educated and ‘normal’ – whatever that is. Twenty average Joes and Janes, like you and me. Average everyday folks. Just to equate things better – let’s make them 18 non-African-American and 2 African-American. That’s close to the mix in the congress (House & Senate).

We need to keep them apart – they do not know about any of the others. They must act independently.

Now, ask their opinion on a range of issues. Have them vote their conscience and belief. How probable do you think it would be to always get 11 for and 9 against? Or 9 for and 11 against? Or frequently – 10 for and 10 against?

Now imagine that most of those that vote against a proposal ALWAYS vote against ALL proposals – and most that vote for a proposal ALWAYS vote in favor of EVERY proposal?

Almost sounds impossible does it not? If these people had no outside influence and no affiliation with anyone involved in the decision making process – the statistics cited in the Washington Post would be nearly impossible to achieve – outside of politics.

Those Joes and Janes I cited here are what politicians call constituents. They can be lied to, promised anything and bought off with political influence. Once their vote is cast or their contribution is collected, Joe and Jane have little, if any, influence on a politicians actions once in office. Once there, the Party, and the Party’s suitors, take over. Vote against the Party and your last election will be, well – your last election.

I don’t think it is within the power of us Joes and Janes to change partisan politics. But it is within our power to elect more Independent candidates. That is not easy.  Party resources are extensive and the influence of special interests on behalf of these Parties is enormous. Smear campaigns and misinformation campaigns can be formulated at the drop of a hat. Huge amounts of money can buy expert ‘opinions’ and manufacture ‘facts’ that no unprepared individual can defend against.

Political reform can only come from the grass roots. That’s you and me. Do us all a favor in the next election – look close and long at the Independent candidates. Draw your own conclusions and resist media blitz campaigns by the Parties. If true reform ever comes, it will come when neither of the national Parties have a majority.

JB

More to Read:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/21/bill.clinton.larry.king/index.html

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/party-voters/

Our future is our children. We have heard that a million times. I’m here to tell you that our future is still in jeopardy.  It may even be in grave danger.

On Tuesday, September 8^th, 2009 President Barak Obama is scheduled to telecast a message to all elementary students in public schools in the U.S.  Many conservative republicans have labeled the speech subversive – aimed at indoctrinating the fragile youth of America.

This telecast has been in the works for some time.  The U.S. Department of Education and the White House have been discussing the key factors involved in school drop outs, low test scores, drug use, etc.  Obama, a social worker in the streets of Chicago, knows all too well the challenges facing parents and teachers in today’s violent and polarized world.

Politically, I have issues with some (not all) of Obama’s views. But I am secure in the knowledge that the President does not make laws, the congress does. He does not levee or remove taxes, the congress does.  Even the Education Secretary had to be approved by congress.  So if I have an issue – I know who to talk to: The people who actually write the laws and build social reforms, enact legislation, levee taxes.. You know – the ones who are always complaining about Obama… Humm.. I think I see a pattern here.

But I digress… Back to this subversive speech…

The speech will have an impact. Two impacts to be precise.

The first will be on black youth in America.  They will listen because Obama is an icon of the equality they so desperately seek.  They will listen and many may very well be saved from a life of ignorance, crime and poverty because of it.

The second impact will be on children of racist white parents.  Those parents that have unleashed their poison racial hatred under the guise of political opposition. They call themselves “conservative republicans” that fear “socialist brainwashing” of their children.  When in reality, they are the brainwashers of children. Their own. They teach them hate with a constant bombardment – daily – of anti-government sentiment and anti-black rhetoric.  I hear it all the time. If they are strangers I usually say something. I’m not one to back down from a fight. But when they are family… I stay quiet.  Too much rests on keeping my mouth shut.

Our children are in danger; not from a one hour long speech from a historic president – but from years of indoctrination, political dogma and racial hatred of the “right wing Christians” with such inane remarks as: “I don’t want our school turned over to some socialist movement.” [Brett Curtis, Pearland Texas]; or “I wouldn’t let my next-door neighbor talk to my kid alone; I’m sure as hell not letting Barack Obama talk to him alone.” [Chris Stigall, Kansas City]; “Indoctrination” say pundits on FoxNews; “Brainwashing” is the word of the day on Rush Limbaugh… and it goes on and on.

I have this to say to these idiots.  First.. Mr. Curtis, most ‘movements’ take longer than an hour; second; Mr. Stigall, where I grew up all the neighbors looked out for each other.  Everyone’s kids were at everyone’s homes ALL THE TIME. We ate with our childhood friends and neighbors, we slept over, went to the drive in – with whichever family was going… it was a “neighborhood”.  Because of people like Mr. Stigall and Mr. Curtis, we have a much less rich and much more ‘brainwashed’ set of children today. Parents control their kid’s thoughts and their aspirations like nothing I can remember in my life.  And I grew up during the Cold War when we had nuclear bomb “hide under your desk” drills every month. Tell me that didn’t freak out a 12 year old.

Yes “conservative republicans” – or whatever you un-American racists are calling yourselves these days – your children are in danger – from the person in the mirror.

JB

Sources & References

McKinley, J. (2009). Some Parents Oppose Obama School Speech, New York Times, retrieved September 5, 2009, from:  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/04school.html?em

ED.gov. (2009). President Barack Obama to Make Historic Speech to America’s Students, U.S. Department of Education, retrieved September 5, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html

CNN (2009). White House set to release text of controversial Obama school speech, CNN Wire,retrieved September 7, 2009, from: http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/white-house-set-to-release-text-of-controversial-obama-school-speech-2/

Downloadable video of the speech will be made available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/mediaresources/ as well as on www.ed.gov . C-SPAN.org  will provide archived and “on-demand” viewing options

Ok, so how many ‘clunkers’ will this C4C Act actually take off the road?  Let’s do some math (a practice lost on many of the unwashed bloggers out there).

With the recent injection of another $2Billion, the C4C program now has $3billion.  It provides from $3,500 to $4,500 guaranteed trade in. Only 7% of the entire $3bl can be used for light trucks – it’s meant as a ‘family car’ stimulus.  Many reasons for this, not the least of which are: Truck sales are withstanding the downturn much better; there are less inventories of trucks; and the difference in gas mileage between a 20yr old F150 and a 3yr old F150 is nominal.

For sake of this illustration we will use an average of $4,000 per vehicle; or 750,000 vehicles ($3Bil / $4k = 750,000). So we are looking at taking about three quarters of a million clunkers in trade for new cars.

As of 2005 the U.S. alone manufactured about 5 million cars and 7 million trucks annually (12mil vehicles a year). Looking at just cars (the C4C target) we will assume the U.S. manufactured about 4 million autos a year for the last 25 years – That’s a nice round 100million vehicles produced in the U.S. Imports roughly matched exports over the period, so we will stick with roughly 100million autos ‘on-the-road’ since 1984.

If we assume that 80% of that production is still on the road, we have about 80million clunkers – as defined by the 25yr rule in the C4C Act.  That means the cash for clunkers program affects less than 9/10ths of one percent (.0095% to be exact) of the production over the 25yr period.

So the C4C is obviously not about minimizing ‘clunker impact’ on the environment.  Although, the 4 to 10 mpg higher MPG requirements will have an impact, of sorts, on gas consumption. In example, an overall average gain of 7mpg for each of the 750,000 vehicles would amount to 5,250,000 more miles per gallon.  Not a bad number.

Ok, we can put down the calculators now.  I just wanted to make a point: The C4C program is all about reducing inventory of new cars. Period. It has some nominal side effects, but its target is the auto glut in the nation’s dealerships.

Here’s some facts around the auto inventory:  For those of you that cry about U.S. manufactured vehicles not given favoritism; foreign car makers manufacture a lot of vehicles in the U.S., and 60% of the auto industry employment in the U.S. comes directly or indirectly through foreign auto sales.  U.S. auto manufactures (both U.S. owned and foreign owned) export more vehicles that we import (81.5% of production exports vs. 71.8% imports) so the affect of foreign auto manufacturing, sales and export on this economy is greater than the affect of U.S. auto industry – especially after the recent plummet in manufacturing at GM & Chrysler. If C4C were focused only on U.S. brands, it would fail as a stimulus.

There is also a myopic view by some right wingers that stimuli that “favor some industries at the expense of others” is ineffective and somehow unfair. This view fails to take into consideration all the supply chain and service chain functions that follow manufacturing and employment – no matter what the industry.

As inventories decline, demand will have the effect, in time, of reigniting manufacturing.  In turn, the suppliers to these manufactures will start seeing their excess inventory of parts and components dwindle as manufacturing ramps back up.  Industry suppliers will need to soon replenish through the extensive Just-in-Time (JIT)  supply chains that support the industry.  Even at below normal manufacturing output, employment and the services that support the employees will be better off than at zero output – as many manufacturing plants have all but stopped production with the current inventory glut.

I also read a blog from a pretty good blogger (you know, one of those that finds time to research and actually ‘think’) about the loss of the clunker as a social crutch for the poor (can’t afford new cars – must buy used) with all the inventory of clunkers being traded in (the C4C requires the vehicles be recycled – they cannot be resold).  But as I noted before, the real impact on the used care market (that has its own inventory glut right now anyway) is less then 1%.

This same blogger must be my age. He remembers “the art of reviving and coaxing old cars as a boyhood ritual” – and laments the loss of ‘all those clunkers’ that today’s youth will not be able to keep running after their prime.  Have you looked under the hood of the vehicles made in the last 20 years?  You need a computer degree, a plumber’s license and a shop full of unique tools & equipment for each component on the vehicle.  I’ll challenge any shade tree mechanic out there to change the spark plugs on a 2001 Taurus in the 15 minutes it took me to change the ones on my 1966 Plymouth Valiant slant six!

I installed my own Hurst shifter, Holly 4BBL Double pumper and Hooker Headers on my ’71 Mustang Fastback 351 Cleveland – now THAT was a car! I looked under the hood of a 2009 Mustang at a dealership not long ago. I cried for a week.

My friend, the C4C is not what has ruined “the art of reviving and coaxing old cars as a boyhood ritual” – it’s Technology.

JB

References and Sources

CARS. (2009). Helpful Q&As for Consumers, The Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), retrieved August 8, 2009 from: http://www.cars.gov/faq

Miron, J. (2009).  Commentary: Cash for clunkers is a clunker, CNNPolitics.com, retrieved August 8, 2009 from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/03/miron.clunkers/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

NationMaster. (2009). North America; United States; Industry – Manufacturing, NationMaster.com International Statistics, retrieved August 8, 2009 from: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/ind-industry

Raach, C. (2009). Clunkers used to build American pride; The Daily News Journal, retrieved August 8, 2009 from:  http://www.dnj.com/article/20090807/OPINION02/908070316/RAASCH++Clunkers+used+to+build+American+pride