red sky in morning
Randy is a retired attorney who lives in Florida. He previously served as a legal advisor to the U.S. Mission in Vietnam and as County attorney for Monroe County Florida.

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Liberalism and Change
The theory of Divine Right was the bedrock of monarchy, the concept that the monarch was chosen by God to rule. This concept of arrogance, in watered-down form was the basis for class superiority, that the order of things was predestined, therefore proper and not to be questioned. For millennia, those at the bottom accepted this explanation, supported by governmental power and religion, as the reason for their condition. Complacency was the order of the day, in knowing and keeping your place there was at least safety. Calvinism enshrined the status quo as God’s plan, not to be questioned. The prospects for change in status were small to none.

When the prospects for change arrived with the age of enlightenment, the ground shook ! Questioning, not acceptance, became the order of the day and philosophies based on ideas of fairness began to flourish. The suggestion that everyone, not just the privileged classes, had fundamental entitlements began to gain acceptance, though by no means was such acceptance universal.

The establishment of democracy in America was a giant step forward, although the privileged classes held fast to their superior advantages, although fear of “mobocracy” as they viewed popular government, forced them to resist changes despite some necessary compromises. Concern for property rights trumped the rights of ordinary people and it was a slow climb to develop social conscience and equitable treatment for all people.

The French Revolution toppled the concept of Divine Right and destroyed the complacency of the privileged. Political reforms and the industrial revolution had destroyed the old order and in 1848 a series of revolutions swept across Europe changing the balance between haves and have-nots. De Tocqueville observed “Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy, and those who had anything united in common terror.” In the United States the Civil War brought about the previously unheard of result of converting property into people. The unbridled power of capitalism resulted in a new kind of slavery, with the working class being exploited and made to suffer appalling conditions, while the propertied wealthy grew richer.

What followed was a period of great unrest while the labor movement struggled to attain decent living and working conditions for ordinary people while the privileged struggled to maintain the status quo and put the progressive genie back in the bottle. The muckrakers, as some authors were known, brought workplace abuses to light, the labor movement achieved recognition for unions and protection for the rights and safety of the laboring class.

The progressives, later called liberals, fought for social change. They favored the abolition of slavery while the conservatives defended it as a property right. They opposed child labor while the conservatives defended it as a property right. The conservatives opposed the 40 hour work week as an infringement of property rights.

Liberal became the label applied to those who sought a more tolerant and open society tolerant of other points of view and supporting reform and change while those who opposed any change and defended the status quo came to call themselves conservatives.

For a time the liberal viewpoint prevailed, bringing about better working conditions, improvement in public health, regulation of trusts and corporate abuses, social security, public education and a host of social benefits.

Following W.W.II. the G.I. bill brought about a renaissance in public education and a new generation of well educated, well informed citizens which brought American Society to a new pinnacle of prosperity. We were the nation who saved the world from fascism, helped rebuild war torn Europe with the Marshall Plan, then set about helping the underprivileged peoples of the world with Point Four and the Agency for International Development.

When the Republic of South Korea was invaded by its neighbor to the north we responded by fighting a costly war to rescue the young republic. Although there is an ongoing debate about whether we won that war since no formal peace was ever achieved, the continued existence of South Korea as a prosperous, independent country seems answer enough.

Our initial involvement in Vietnam was an unwise attempt to assist the French in reestablishing their colonial empire in the face of a growing independence movement and an incipient civil war between the communist north and the francophile south. The ambiguity of our involvement tore a generation of Americans apart and cost the lives of tens of thousands of American youth. The effects of this conflict still echo in our body politic and serve as a divisive force in our country to this day. Part of the reaction in the post Vietnam war era was a retreat from the optimism of the immediate post W.W.II period. Confidence in our government and social institutions waned.

The reaction was to bring forth a wave of conservatism, to seemingly reduce the role of government while cynically rolling back the clock of progress. Social programs were canceled, and a slandering of things liberal commenced, Reagan making the use of the term the “L” word to connote something undesirable. While Reagan was smearing liberal causes he sold guns to Iran, and used the funds to oppose a revolution in Nicaragua, sent Don Rumsfeld to Iraq as a special envoy to facilitate the supplying of weapons to Saddam Hussein, invaded Granada for the hell of it, and turned America into a debtor nation. For this and other dubious achievements, the conservatives wanted to add his visage to Mt. Rushmore.

Another wrinkle added to the mix was that of privatization, the suggestion that the private sector could better administer the responsibility of government than could a beauracracy. The falsity in this suggestion is that it failed to take into account the introduction of a profit center into the cost of performing governmental functions. Certainly with the awarding of non-competed, cost-plus contract, replete with renegotiating possibilities and a lack of oversight supervision, the argument cannot be tested. The entrepreneurial mystique continues as if seeking profit at public expense will be, a priori, more economical that performing of a governmental function by government.

Meanwhile the conservatives dismantled civil service, bust unions, revamp the bankruptcy courts to accommodate the destruction of pension plans for the benefit of corporate stock holders, reduce aid to students and try to turn social security into a bonanza for the stock market. Corporations shift their operations overseas in search of cheap labor and American jobs are lost.

Liberalism is now a dirty word while the institutions created by liberals are dismantled, the poor remain poor, the middle class is disappearing and the rich become richer everyday.
Meanwhile the deficit and national debt climb to record heights. We have even seen the privatizing of the military by shifting the many functions of the Quartermasters Corps to corporations like Halliburton to their immense profit and our immense cost.

Perhaps the recent elections which changed the Congressional balance of power will be the beginning of a new enlightenment, where government will protect the rights of all people and preserve justice rather than pander to a political “base” and lade out profit and privilege to the few. The “L” word will once again be the badge of those who sponsor responsible government and an open society, the people who brought greatness to America.
posted by Randy at 1:04 PM 0 comments links to this post
Thursday, November 02, 2006

World Trade Center Memorial-Proportionality
Just as the concepts of scale, proportion, restrain and appropriateness are standards in the world of architecture and design they are equally appropriate in the selection and design of memorials.
While the memory of the world trade disaster is fresh in the minds of the citizens of America and its impact should not be minimized nor its uniqueness forgotten, neither should the memorial left to commemorate the event be so disproportionate to the other memorials which mark other tragedies in our history so as to suggest we have lost our sense of good taste and decency.
Without question the events of 9/11 are a great tragedy, the loss of so many lives is an event to be marked and remembered. So should the loss of life at the several U.S. Embassies which have been bombed, as well as attacks on our ships and the death of our many soldiers serving overseas. These are also great tragedies which should be remembered.
One point should be made in passing, however;and that is that there is a distinction between victims and heroes and it is inappropriate to blur the distinction between them. The police and firemen who died in trying to effect rescues in the 9/11 debacle are heroes the rest of those who died are victims.
What is now proposed as a fitting memorial is on a scale to compare with the pyramids, a colossal Taj Mahal of grief, dwarfing any tribute to honored dead heretofore made by the U.S. It’s proposed cost, in excess of one billion dollars should stagger any one’s sense of propriety. The plans of course, are a result of a number of architects each trying to outdo the others in gaudiness, bigness and importance.
Consider for a moment the war memorial to the 292,000 dead of WW II at a cost of 182 million.
The war memorial to the 55,000 dead of the Korean War at a cost of 1.62 million.
The war memorial to the 58,000 dead of the Vietnam war at a cost of 7 million.
One should also note in passing that these dead are heroes, the men in the uniformed forces who put themselves in harm’s way for the good of the country.
Memorials for victims are different in kind, they are not tribute to the courage and sacrifice of heroes, rather they are funereal tributes to the victims of a tragedy.
In Oklahoma City, a memorial to the 168 victims of that terrorist bombing cost $29 million, a large sum, yet the memorial is restrained and appropriate to demonstrate the individuality of the victims.
A further and not inappropriate comparison is the experience of Great Britain, whose civilian losses in the Blitz on London in 1940 cost the lives of 30,000 Londoners. The memorials are several, quiet, discrete and scattered all over London. It is doubtful that the Brits will soon forget the sacrifice of these victims.
I believe one of the root causes for these inflated expectations is the greatly excessive solatium given as compensation to the victims and families of victims of this tragedy. Without taking the time to obtain a reasonable fix on the magnitude of the losses, Congress rushed into the breach, appropriating the astronomical sum of SIX BILLION DOLLARS, to be paid , tax free, to surviving family members, and the injured. It then directed the appointment of a special master to distribute this amount to that narrow class of victims without setting any standards whatsoever, merely here is a big, a very big, bag of money. Go henceforth and do good. The result, as we all know, was payments averaging over TWO MILLION DOLLARS to each family of the deceased and physical injury awards up to 8 million for the injured, all tax free. By contrast the widow of a soldier killed in combat now receives $12,000, (half of which is taxable) plus $833 per month until she remarries, plus $211 per child until they reach 18 years of age.
It is small wonder that against this background of runaway generosity, the designers acted as if the sky was the limit, as it damn near is.
To all of this, I think the Italian expression, “BASTA” is most appropriate. Let us go back to the beginning and select a redesign that has some dignity and modesty appropriate to the occasion. The current proposal, replete with lakes, waterfalls, memorial walls, museums, a performing arts center. Other interests are “piling on “ in an effort to co-opt some of the attention and funding. Caveat--- before we wind up with a “Disneyland of grief” on lower Manhattan, it is time to say “BASTA” and start over.
posted by Randy at 11:42 AM 0 comments links to this post
Republican Congress and the Minimum wage
Hooray for the American economy. Last week the stock market hit an all-time high. Good news for the upper stock holding classes. What is the impact for those of the working classes, the families that are falling further behind, the families that need two paychecks just to stay even, or not fall behind too fast ? The President praises entrepreneurs and calls for more tax cuts. Not a word about relief for the working or middle class.

What about an increase in the federal minimum wage, an increase for those citizens at the bottom of the economy? The last minimum wage increase was passed 9 years ago when the Democrats were in the majority. Since then Congress have given themselves 8 wage increases, allegedly justified by increases in the cost of living, raising their annual salary from $133,600 per annum to $168,500 per annum.

When a recent proposed increase in the minimum wage came before the Congress their response was to hostage it to a proposal to abolish the estate tax, and further tax reductions for the rich, which they deemed more important that relief for the working poor.

A minimum wage increase would benefit an estimated 5.5 million employees at the bottom of the economy. In other words a modest increase in wages for the least prosperous of our citizens will pass muster with the Republican Congress only if a further tax cut amounting to billions of dollars for the wealthy is passed simultaneously. Ron Reagan’s voodoo economics, the trickle down theory is apparently alive and well.

The conservative attitude is let the market determine what the wage should be. Let us remember that there is no morality in the market, it is driven solely by motivation for wealth and profit. The Congress and the President have concern only for their wealthy base; they contend that a minimum wage increase will adversely effect the market, yes, that same market which is at an all time high. Of course a further giant tax cut will adversely effect the deficit and the ability to finance benefits for the working class, but as one member of the Bush family recently observed, the poor probably never had it so good as when on the soup line in the Houston Astrodome. Truly compassionate conservatism. And as long as the big campaign contributors keep rolling in who really cares?

I hope the people who work for a paycheck keep in mind where the priorities of the Republican party lays and vote accordingly. It really is time for a change.
posted by Randy at 11:40 AM 0 comments links to this post
Close of business
One of my favorite television events comes on at 4 P.M. on the news where they broadcast the close of the trading at the New York Stock Exchange. They always have a group of people on the balcony that begin to applaud when they announce the end of trading for the day. Exactly why they applaud I’m not sure, perhaps it is to pay tribute to those investors who made a lot of money that day or perhaps it is because they are happy that trading has ended and no one is loosing any more money for the time being. Perhaps it is just because they like money and are showing their appreciation for the money, you know, hooray for the money !

Then it finally came to me, it was the bell. Someone is ringing a bell. Ivan Petovich Pavlov, in heaven, rejoice---they have advanced you work to the point where now they can make a flock of turkeys applaud when a bell is rung.
posted by Randy at 11:39 AM 0 comments links to this post
Slandergate
The essence of slander is that it is an untrue defamation. It is by now obvious that the first casualty of the Bush presidency is the goddess of truth, butchered on the altar of expediency by Carl and the gang. Their skill at disseminating misinformation is legendary as is their ruthlessness in slandering anyone who disagrees with their policies or perceptions. One on their practices in deceit has now found its way into the language as a new verb, “swiftboating.” Currently, as their mantra “Stay the Course” has taken some heavy hits from evaluation of contrary evidence and rational thinking, They have ginned up another slogan, perjorative in nature, to imply timidity and cowardice to those who would disagree, i.e. “cut and run.” It is virtually impossible to watch the tv these days without encountering the image of Carl Rove, narrowing his eyes and suggesting that those people who would “cut and run” are disloyal to the country and theaten the very existence of this republic. Of course “cut and run” and it’s innuendo apply to everyone who advances an opinion with respect to how to bring about a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Since the right of open debate and dissent died shortly after the death of truth, such disagreement can only be evidence of cowardice and treason.No longer content to just demonize their critics, the gang now“ traitorizes” them.

Thus it is that a decorated marine with combat experience such as congressman John Murtha, who urges a planned withdrawal is called a coward and a traitor on the floor of the House of Representatives by one of the party’s character assassins. This individual later confessed that she didn’t know Murtha was a combat marine and she had been put up to making the charges by others in the administration. The RNC is planning a swiftboating to disrupt Murtha’s reelection campaign.

President Bush has vowed that we will stay in Iraq as long as he is President, leaving the questions of when and how American troops will be withdrawn as a problem for his successor to wrestle with.The critical thing that is being overlooked in this war of rhetoric is that the American military no longer have any tactical objective. They are now merely what is called “a force in being,” being daily killed by two’s and three’s, their lives being cut down by roadside bombs while they patrol up and down the roadways without any real tactical destination.

A compelling comparison is that of the hapless marine force stationed in Lebanon during the Reagan years with no mission except to “show the flag,” to act as sitting ducks, under orders not to load their guns, less it be taken as a sign of hostility. In this appalling posture a truck bomb entered their compound unopposed and killed some 250 of them. The orders that left these Marines in such a helpless posture came from Reagan’s Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger, another armchair general.

Marines learned long ago that a tactical retreat is not a defeat. The annals of the Marine Corps during the Korean War demonstrated that the ability of Marines to conduct themselves in a fighting retreat saved men and equipment who were able to fight again. The Marine Corps most decorated General “Chesty” Puller, then a colonel in command of the 1st Marines, was awarded his 5th Navy Cross for his heroic actions in making the retreat from the invading Chinese, a fighting tactical withdrawal rather than a disaster , demonstrates that retreat is not a “cut and run.”

One might inquire from Mr. Rove where he acquired all his military expertise and what he was doing during the Vietnam years, while his boss was keeping the skies of Alabama free of commie MIG’s ? The appalling aspect of all of this is that no rational discussion with the loyal opposition takes place. Better to call them traitors and cowards than to expose the emptiness of the “stay the course” approach and risk loosing seats in the next election. Meanwhile American losses continue to mount. Thus it is appropriate to refer to the era as “Slandergate.”
posted by Randy at 11:36 AM 0 comments links to this post
Recycling the U.S. Military
Only a blind man would fail to see what extensive damage is being done to the fabric of the American Military by the recycling of units, regular, reserve and national guard back to Iraq for the third time.

To keep sending these young men back to the meat grinder, to participate in a Kabuki dance without purpose, to have them continue to be maimed and killed, in the service of a flawed strategy is mindless and beyond criminal.

When the earliest consideration of invading Iraq, were being discussed in the highest offices, only those enthusiasts who supported the project were listened to. Generals who objected or set too high a list of requirements for a successful outcome were brushed aside and retired. It soon became clear that the path to promotion was to keep one’s mouth shut and go along. Criticism not welcome. Rather than determine how many men and what kinds were necessary to fight a war to a successful conclusion with appropriate plans for an orderly occupation, we followed Rumsfeld who said “You go to war with the army you’ve got,” rather than counsel, you amass an army capable of carrying out the mission for which it will be charged. Build the army you need.

We permitted the strategy to be mapped out by rank amateurs, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the like, people who specialize in wish gratification and spell binding rather than analysis of the nuts and bolts of a problem and the tools necessary to solve them.
We are now reaping a bitter harvest in Iraq, caught in the middle of a civil war, a real “tar baby”, with U.S. troops being killed daily and having no active mission other than show the flag and give support to the government while trying to stay out of the way while Sunnis and Shiite’s are butchering each other with enthusiasm.

Although our very presence has become an irritant to those very Iraqis we sought to help we still hear the hollow cries of “stay the course”. don’t “cut and run” as if these mantras can have any real meaning or help arrive at a workable solution. A mentality appropriate to the Alamo or some movie script where the cavalry charges over the hill in the last few frames seems to have seized the White house as if this mindset will somehow lead us out of the darkness. To listen to Carl Rove lecture about not dishonoring the dead, as if more dead will create more honor and glory is enough to sicken any thinking individual. The name of the game is to achieve an achievable objective, not look good while dying.

When the Marines were slaughtered in Beirut by the Hezballah they were without a mission, showing the flag as Reagan described it, standing around with unloaded weapons and targets on their backs, Our current situation is not much better, patrolling in the middle of a religious fight in which we cannot take sides, and daily taking casualties.

Aside from the needless losses we will sustain in extracting us from this tar baby, we have done irreparable damage to the force structure by recycling units 2 or 3 times back into action, exhausting their espirit and reducing their chances of getting home alive, and for
what ?

You will never see young American’s enlist in the Guard if it is to be used up in this fashion, in a pointless war, a war not sufficiently important to draft young men into service. Less political flack if we decimate the Guards and the Reserves.

The stark reality is that our forces are at an all time low, both in morale and material yet we send emissaries around the world posturing with implied threats of military intervention if
U. S. mandates are not conformed to, the reality is we don’t have enough of a military to undertake new adventures.

Time to stop calling other nations evil and endeavor to engage in dialogue which will lower the temperature and hopefully reestablish the world prestige which we once enjoyed.
posted by Randy at 11:35 AM 0 comments links to this post
The Dumbing Down of American Education
Early in the 1900’s educators realized that there were great disparities in the quality of education taught at American Universities. Harvard came up with the five foot shelf, a collection of classics spanning Socrates, the Greeks, Roman thought, the middle ages, history, philosophy, economics, English and European literature, poetry, the sciences, politics, theology from Confucius to Christ to Buddha and Mohammed to the modern classics.The theory was that truly well educated persons should have a good grounding in these works. It would give them a through understanding of our civilization and a large shared body of knowledge which would promote understanding.

Later, Robert Maynard Hutchins of the University of Chicago developed a study plan around the “Great Books” to broaden the average college graduate’s appreciation of his history and culture.This was largely developed to counter a growing tendency toward what was called vocationalism, a tendency to teach only that information necessary for proficiency in a narrow specialty or discipline, to the exclusion of the broader aspects of knowledge and information. Concerned that our colleges were rapidly becoming trade schools which produced narrow professionals and employees ready to enter the job market, Hutchins also developed something called the “core cirriculum” which was designed to give students a broader look at the world and remedy the deficiencies created by poor secondary schools which left gaps in the education of students who went on to university.

When I attended the University of Florida in the 1950’s we had a core cirriculum called the University College, which prescribed 64 credit hours of instruction in english, math, the sciences, philosophy, political science and the humanities. It covered the first two years of college and was an excellent grounding in how the world ticks and what makes it wonderful. Students then went on to pursue their chosen specialties and degrees.Prior to these courses, Hutchins once said that the average college graduate is presented with a sheepskin to cover his intellectual nakedness.

Unfortunately the resistance to the core cirriculum was almost immediate, largely coming from the professional schools, vocationalists who wanted to expand their subjects dealing with their particular expertise at the expense of the broader purposes of the core cirriculum. They co-opted the concept and reshaped their own “core curricula.” I recall one dorm mate, a young freshman, pre engineering student, who objected to the required english courses in his undergraduate program, arguing he should be taught something he called “engineering english.” We wondered what he would do if he had to communicate with someone outside of his field, for which he had no answer. Fortunately he had a change of direction and when I met him again years later he had the initials “M.D.” following his name and was practicing geriatric medicine in Sarasota. Presumptively his attitude regarding english had modified.

Within academe the pressure on the core cirriculum increased, both by lessening the number of hours required and developing a competing concept called distribution requirements which let matriculating freshmen choose courses from a large menu consonant with their interest. This, of course,was antipodal to the broad purpose of the core approach and tended to narrow rather than broaden the areas of information.

An even later development was that of the so-called survey courses which attempted to compress a universe of thought and data into a pamphlet sized presentation of a subject and left the student with a thin veneer, a smattering of data on a particular subject, sufficient to hold his own in a 10 or 15 minutes of superficial discussion of the subject but with no depth of knowledge of the area. Armed with the appropriate buzz words and canned opinions, they ventured forth, “pretend scholars.” It was as if their lack of depth presented itself like a “Potemkin Village” of the mind, like those two-dimensional fakes erected to fool Catherine the Great into thinking that her domain was being populated and prospering when in fact nothing was there.

Ultimately in 1978 at Florida , the college of Arts and Science swallowed the University College in fact and in concept. Now the vocational and professional schools have their own atrophied core cirriclum, more a conformity in form, than an ernest attempt to continue the original broadening mission. The next shibboleth to be advanced as a means to improve education is that of systematic testing. The very structure of this new enthusiasm for testing carries the seeds of it’s own destruction.

For example, when I graduated from the Florida College of Law in 1958, the Florida Bar Exam consisted of three days of essay questions, six essays a day for three days, 18 in all. We were allotted 45 minutes for each essay which would deal with a separate problem or area of law. Some essays would elicit a discussion of some broad field of law, others would target a particular issue. The graduate was expected to analyze each question in depth. After three days of this we felt rung out but had presented a pretty cohesive demonstration of our legal knowledge.

Now, the bar exam has shrunk to 2 days, the first day involving writing 3 essays then answering 100 multiple choice questions. The second day involves answering 200 multiple choice questions of a general country wide nature. Of course this makes the job of the Board of Bar Examiners vastly easier than before. Now a machine can do most of the grading and the opportunity to guess your way through the test is ever present. I must confess in almost 50 years of practicing law I never encountered a legal problem that lent itself to solution by multiple choice. The ability of a lawyer to express complex ideas and relationships in writing is critical to his ability to perform satisfactory services for his clients. Perhaps the multiple choice practice of law is why we see attorneys hawking their wares in TV commercials or singing their praises on roadside billboards.

Now we have invaded the secondary school system with the testing virus, with the F-CATS and the “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” sloganeering of the testers. Rather than inform and teach information systems to our students we now prepare them for passing tests. How much of the underlying information, the matrix of the educational process remains past examination day is dubious.

Testing is for putting kids into cookie-cutter like categories, not for filling their heads with useful information which will serve them for a lifetime. By tying the results of testing to the availability of funds for the schools we have taken a giant step backwards, subordinating the education of the students to achieving good statistical scores to please the politicians who hold the purse strings.

Now the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SATs) allegedly designed to test a student’s ability to perform at a college level is dissected and taught in cram courses, designed of course, to increase ones aptitude? No, to increase your score on a test which must be a poor measure of true aptitude if it can be increased by a few weeks of cramming.

With “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND” and the F-CAT requiring the teachers to teach to the test, a new field, new economic opportunities arise. Former First Lady Barbara Bush, always with an eye out to advantage her family, made a large charitable (tax deductible) donation to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund with specific instructions that the money may only be spent to buy software from the Ignite Learning program, produced by a company owned by her son Neil. Now we have a way to funnel money to her son’s enterprise, give him the inside track on selling to the fund and get a tax write off, all in one fell swoop. Never one to shy from a conflict of interest, this stratagem ties the school district to Neil Bush’s company for future procurement. With additional financing from such educational giants as Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and ex-con junk bond king Michael Milkin, Bush plans to sell “high tech teachers helpers”, plug in and play computer projects which display “lively videos and cartoons” which will help the students pass state testing. With his foot in the door Bush expects revenues of 5 million in 2006. One has to look back to the Kubrick classic, “A Clockwork Orange” to see the antecedents of Bush’s inculcation machines, a wonderful way to brainwash little minds so they may pass the tests without learning anything and not “get left behind!”Meanwhile Neil and friends are poised to suck millions out of an underfunded educational system to the greater enrichment of the Bush dynasty. It won’t be long before Governor Jeb Bush promotes his brother’s gadget to the Florida department of Education and the several school boards of the state. Blood is thicker than water and home is where the money is.
posted by Randy at 11:13 AM 0 comments links to this post
Some needed changes
Instead of lamenting endlessly about the abuses and inefficiencies of Congress and the Presidency it might be time to consider some small changes which could beget big results.
One major problem has been the profligate spending and waste fostered by congressional practices and poor management.

Firstly, we need to give the President a line item veto, a power employed by many Governors to limit wasteful spending by Congress. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that this cannot be achieved by legislation we should begin, at once, to enact a constitutional amendment to create such a power. This will destroy Congress’s power to sandwich bad proposals in necessary legislation and make it veto proof.

Congress must give up the power to “earmark” appropriations, a device which advances pet projects ahead of the generalized needs of the country. Also, a high visibility is needed in special legislation so that we stop appropriating millions for bridges to nowhere and tea cup museums which bleed dollars needed elsewhere out of the budget.

The practice called “logrolling” a legislative “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours,” has to stop. It is nothing less than selling one’s principles and office for a short term profit. Government and Congressmen should not be for sale, not to special interests and not to one another.

The practice of congressman, congressional and white house staffers leaving office and going to work as lobbyists at astronomical salaries has to stop. It is merely another way of selling their office and then selling their insider positions to the highest bidder. It is the government equivalent of “insider trading” and must be stopped. Legislation which would prohibit, even criminalize, such employment for say four or five years after leaving government would go a long way to achieve this end. So too should the custom of “floor privileges” a custom which gives former legislators access to the floor of the Senate or House be prohibited. It is nothing less than a devise to provide these gentlemen with an opportunity to use leverage on behalf of interest they represent informality although they are not registered as lobbyists.

The practice of letting one Senator or Congressman put a “hold” on legislation, keeping it from going forward to committee action or a floor vote is equally corrupt and should be outlawed. The process of considering and passing laws should not be subject to being frustrated at the whim of one legislator. No such power is granted by the constitution and no reason exists to support such a rule. Congress must stop acting like a private club and remind itself of its higher obligation to the nation.

A system similar to medical triaging is necessary to prioritizing legislation so that issues important to the nation are not put to one side while issues like apple pie day memorial resolutions and the like consume congressional attention. The last few do nothing and accomplish less sessions give ample proof that this is necessary. The “touchee feelee” crap to amuse the constituency should only be done on a time available basis.

The committee system whereby the majority party completely locks out the minority from excersing any power to act is damaging and counterproductive. Unable to call hearings, issue subpoenas, introduce legislation or schedule business, the minority, often representing 49% of the people, rather than 51% have been completely frozen out of the act. This only encourages arrogance and provides a cover for partisan greed and corruption. This is the basis for charging a member of the minority party seeking reelection that he has failed to enact any meaningful legislation, when in fact the opportunity never existed.

We have far too much secrecy in government where we need transparency and light to inform the public and regain their confidence. Of late, the administration is classifying information at a dizzying rate, not to protect the interests of the country, but to keep the public from being made aware of information which might be politically embarassing. This was never the purpose of the classification system and its use in this fashion creates secret government and opportunities to mislead the people and other corrupt opportunites.

Lastly, we must explore a possible constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling that spending huge amounts of money is but a manifestation of free speech. Without workable restrictions on campaign contributions and lobbying the government remains for sale to the highest bidder, a putrefacation of the ideals of democracy and an invitation to an oligarchy of the rich, a danger which has come perilously close to succeeding in recent years.

I would suggest that the sum total of these suggested changes would once again restore confidence in government and produce a system of which we can be proud .

These are not the suggestions of one who is naive in the ways of the world, but rather the suggestions of one who sees the utter necessity of such changes less the cynical money grabbers change us into the worlds largest banana republic.
posted by Randy at 11:11 AM 0 comments links to this post
Activists judges
The current diatribe against activist judges demonstrates a lack of understanding the development of the common law, which is the bedrock of our legal system, as well a failure to recognize the role of judges in its development. The common law is a centuries old history of problem solving, of judges examining wrongs or abuses in society and fashioning solution or remedies for these abuses. It is erroneous to think that all legal concepts of fairness are an outgrowth of the legislative process, of collective agreement of a representative society. While many of the larger movements in our law are a result of legislation on a particular issue, most of the smaller changes or adjustments of the law are the result of judge-made problem solving. It is easy to overlook the fact that the primary purpose of the law is to create rules or standards which enable people within a culture to deal equitably with one another and to resolve problems or conflicts without resort to violence or oppression. The system of writs, which numbered in the hundreds, well known to every lawyer and law student, was a procedural vehicle developed by judges to create a precedent for solving a particular problem and was thereafter applied to solve that problem. Collectively it became known as the common-law, which is the foundation of our laws, civil and criminal, to this day.

The most revered of our activist judges, John Marshall, in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, established the Supreme court’s power of judicial review of acts of congress to determine their constitutionality and thereby established the court as an independent branch of our government. Thus , the creation of this fundamental procedure is the product of an activist judge.

The state of Florida has long recognized the place of the common law, and with it activist judges, by enactment of Florida Statues 2.01 in 1829 which provides :
”The common law and statute laws of England ....down to the 4th of July, 1776 are declared to be of force in this state....provided the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States....”
In effect, it acknowledge that what had been our law during our colonial period continued to be our law unless modified by the legislature.

To suggest that judges now be blinded in one eye and reduced to merely determine legislative intent is to ignore and deny the noble history which gave birth to our laws in the first place and to deny the courts their histroic function in developing and shaping the law.
posted by Randy at 11:10 AM 0 comments links to this post
Ancient History or Cover-up ?
It is interesting to note the renewed public interest into the activities of those police agencies which investigate “cold cases”, i.e. cases which although not closed have nevertheless laid dormant for many years with little interest in solving or even continuing the investigations. One which springs to mind is JonBenet Ramsey’s murder of some ten years ago.

One which should spring to mind is the total lack of follow up on those questionable and possibly criminal activities involving the several acts of interference with the recount in Florida balloting in the Presidential election of 2000. What seemed to me the most outrageous event in this scenario was the arrival of several busloads of thugs who descended on the supervisor of elections offices in Dade County and attempted to mau-mau and force their way into the offices in such a manner as to terrify the poll workers doing the recount and so frighten them that, the recount stopped. 9,000 questionable votes hung in the balance. Enough to change the results of the election. Shortly thereafter Katherine Harris, serving concurrently as both Bush’s campaign manager and Secretary of State of the State of Florida, and seeing no conflict of interest, conveniently slammed the door and the rest is history. This was followed by oily utterances urging Americans to forget, move forward and “come together” for the sake of the nation.

No one even questioned why the FDLE and the U.S. Justice Department took no steps to ascertain where those busloads of thugs originated and precisely who inspired them, to act like the Nazi S.A. in the 1930’s. To date no investigation has taken place by any agency of any government although it is patently obvious that this was but one facet of an organized movement to highjack the electoral process and steal an election.

Perhaps if the recount had been permitted to run it’s course the results might have remained unchanged, but it is obvious that certain interests were not willing to let the democratic process play out. Winning, regardless of the method, was the only concern.
Let the punitive loser make gracious concession speeches to mollify the discontent, the winner was too busy claiming a “mandate” as a result of a 5-4 decision which prevented determining the will of the electorate.

It is not enough to say forget it, it’s done, it’s history. If we have a morality that required unflagging efforts to continue to investigate old unsolved crimes, then why not this one? Surely stealing the Presidency of the United States is as important as bringing an undetected murderer to the dock. The people are at least entitled to a continuing inquiry into who inspired those thugs to frustrate a recount in the most populous county in Florida, where the polling was highly questionable.

While it is not possible to turn back the march of history nor the balance of the scales of justice, it should be possible to determine whether someone had his thumb on those scales.
posted by Randy at 11:08 AM 0 comments links to this post
Iraq Withdrawal
Our earliest involvement with Iraq was during our rendering assistance with Iraq’s war against Iran. We gave Saddam Hussein equipment, training and technical support during this drawn out inconclusive battle with his near neighbor. Our objective in those days was to help prop up Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran, then in the throws of its Islamic revolution under Khomani.

Later, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, in his overreaching attempt to expand his power and seize their oil fields, we responded by organizing a coalition, called Operation Desert Shield, later becoming Desert Storm with extensive use of our air power to destroy Iraq’s command and control capabilities, the Iraqi army as well as substantial portions of the infrastructures such as highways, bridges, water systems, electrical grids and the like.

Thereafter we left Iraq, still in Saddam’s hands, but subject to a host of restrictions concerning commerce and internal affairs and prescribing no fly zones in which Iraqi aircraft were prohibited.

Frustrated by years of cat and mouse games with international inspectors endeavoring to determine whether Iraq had so-called weapons of mass destruction, we ultimately gave President Bush the authority to invade Iraq and destroy his weapons of mass destruction which proved to be nonexistent. In the process we again damaged Iraq’s infrastructure by bombing roads, bridges, water systems, commodity distribution systems and the like and then stood by while the fabric of the country disintegrated into looting and intracine violence.
We disbanded the Iraqi army and then made essentially ineffective attempts to restore peace and simultaneously fight the insurgents in the country who were trying to take advantage of the lack of security.

We then organized a coalition government which assumed sovereignty and slowly began to organize a process to help Iraqi reassume self government, following a model of our choice and preference.

Meanwhile intracine violence has expanded to religious civil war which seems to be beyond the ability of the Iraqi government to stop and frustrate our declared intention to pacify the country and turn security over to the Iraqi forces.

Most recently President Bush has decided to abandon his battle cry of “stay the course” either because we no longer desire to stay or we have lost track of the course. He now is huddling with his advisors and semanticists to structure a new mantra.

He still shrilly insists that “cut and run” is not an option, that it would leave Iraq in a desperate situation and reflect adversely on the credibility of the United States. By now the majority of the Iraqi’s would like us to leave their country, believing that the continued American presence is exacerbating the problems. Perhaps a different view of the nature of our departure would be more palatable to President Bush. How about coitus-interruptus ?
posted by Randy at 11:02 AM 0 comments links to this post
Iraqi government is an Illusion
The best kept secret in this election season is that the goverment of Iraq is like a Potemkin village; it is largely a two dimensional illusion facing toward the United States. While the current dialog is to the effect that there was a popular election and the Prime Minster has only been in office for five months, the other realities are that he is taking orders from a religous militia leader who seems to be calling the shots from having the P.M. ordering the U.S. Army to take down roadblocks to seizing the second largest city in Iraq by force of arms, destroying police stations and establishing his militia as the governing authority.

While the election brought a legislature into being it is largely a debating society in which Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds, all have representation, no consensus on any significant issues have been established, there is essentially no governmental infrastructure throughout the country, and both Iraqi’s military and police forces seem to be impotent in the face of militia and factional gang hostility. The loyalty of these forces is tribunal or regional and do not reflect any devotion to a central government.

The democratic government which we are supposed to turn control over to is at present an illusion, which like the two dimention villages, Russia’s Prime Minister Potemkin had constructed to deceive Catherine the Great into believing that certain areas were in fact settled when in reality no villages existed.

Now the purpose of the deception is to help President Bush convince the American people the Iraqi’s are making great strides in establishing a democratic state when in fact the civil war grows more apparent every day and real power is fragmented among the militias and other gangs. The rest of the world have no illusions as to the state of affairs in Iraq.

Real progress cannot be achieved until the mentality that creates suicide bombers, the jidhadists, is eliminated. The problem is political and philosophical and the number and disposition of American troops will not impact upon this problem until the Iraqis themselves come to terms with resolving their differences, not with weapons but by developing an accommodation for their internal differences and agreeing upon a direction for their country. Until then, Iraqi democracy will remain a Potemkin village.
posted by Randy at 10:56 AM 0 comments links to this post
About Me

Randy
View my complete profile
Links

Google News
Edit-Me
Edit-Me
Previous Posts

Liberalism and Change
World Trade Center Memorial-Proportionality
Republican Congress and the Minimum wage
Close of business
Slandergate
Recycling the U.S. Military
The Dumbing Down of American Education
Some needed changes
Activists judges
Ancient History or Cover-up ?
Archives

November 2006