Talk radio wonks, TV talking heads and self-declared political experts have all but destroyed the ability to glean any meaningful information out of the news coverage of the current presidential political campaign. By seizing on superficial and trivial “factoids” the media has turned the reporting of the campaign into something between reporting on the world series of gaffes, or a revitalization of the Gong Show. “Gotcha” journalism is all the rage.
Looking to churn conflicts on the most insignificant of questions, i.e. the appearance of lapel flags, the dress of the candidates or small comments of no consequence that will entertain become the subject of the campaign coverage. A bit of nonsense with “legs,” (journalese for a story of a several days duration ) will all but push important issues and positions out of the coverage. Then there are the endless, mindless polls, sometimes on obscurely convoluted questions which supposedly show the candidates standing de jure; although some disparage these as mere “snapshots. A change of position based on modified circumstances, new information or passage of time, once regarded as evidence of open-mindedness is now automatically dismissed as “flip flopping.” Clearly rigidity and inflexibility are now promoted as virtue and consistency.
In the past lawyers used to be accused of “fly specking,” mistaking fly droppings for punctuation marks, a metaphor for trivializing. Now the political press has taken the laurels in this regard, seeking to entertain or create false controversy. What seems to be overlooked in all this hilarious fun which is provided by the media is the fact that the very serious business of making a rational fact based choice for our next president is being submerged in a welter of nonsense and entertaining trivia. But as long as the Rush Limbaugh’s, Glenn Beck’s, Wolf Blitizer’s, Chris Matthew's and the like can spout their ill conceived opinions over the airways ad nauseam, that’s what counts.
Just where or how obfuscated is the public’s interest in all this ? How about some straight reporting, can the half baked editorials, stop explaining what the candidate meant, or meant to say. The country and the voters would be well served if the political press stopped reporting on the campaign like it was an on going sporting event .
A pundit was originally used to describe a person of great learning and wisdom. Not someone with big ratings.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Russia - Georgia
Watching C-Span’s coverage of the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) discussion of the current hostilities in Georgia created more questions than answers for me in trying to understand the causes for the current controversy. What was totally absent from the attempted analysis was any explanation of the motivation for the actions of Russia. I make no apology on behalf of the Russians but it is important to understand them.
One initial problem is the fact that the AEI is far from an unbiased entity, staffed largely with moribund cold war warriors who were suddenly resurrected and revitalized by the activity of the Russians. Some of their observations bordered on hysteria. Unfortunately, both we and the Russians come to our paranoia honestly.
I have come to understand that in order to analyze the dynamics of world events it is important to leave the concept of morality at the front door. For years, the point is missed if issues of sincerity or morals lead the discussion. The point of view of each of the participants must be examined in order to reach any understanding of the controversy.
So the initial inquiry should be what motivated the Russians ? I see a vague parallel to the U.S. participation in the Bay of Pigs episode in Cuba years ago, perhaps a blueprint to assist understanding. I think one must go back to the beginning of the Cold War, to really develop an understanding of what is happening, and do it in a cold and clinical way, absent injecting any moralizing to reach an understanding. Just as we viewed the advance of communist gains in the late 1940’s , the Russians must have seen the development of NATO as a threat to their security. The climate in those years was replete with distrust, paranoia rampant and morality held in abeyance. For the U.S. and the west it was the “domino theory” regarding each socialist development around the world as an immediate threat to the west. Similarly, the Russians (Soviets then) must have viewed and perhaps still view the expansion of NATO as a threat to their security. Our view of the redding of the Cuban revolution led to our involvement in the Bay of Pigs counter revolutionary attempt, which in turn brought us to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. The fact that we still expand NATO an entity created to contain Russia, recently considering adding Georgia to NATO must perforce be viewed by Russia as a continuation of the Cold War, albeit at a reduced level than in former years. The expansion of NATO on the borders of Russia is probably viewed as the equivalent of the threat we perceived in the “domino theory” in the last century. Certainly from the Russian viewpoint it cannot be perceived as a neutral move, without significance to their security in their neighborhood, what they perceive as their sphere of influence. Without knowing what precipitated Russia’s move against Georgia, we have to speculate and geopolitical issues do not lend themselves to being understood in terms of ill motive or lack of morality. I suspect the Russian view of Georgia, and its president, Saakahvili, bears a striking similarity to our view of Cuba and Castro in 1962. For good or ill, the Cold War and its shadow, still color our view of Russia and their view of us. That Russia will have as much whitewash to cover its motives as we did in the Bay of Pigs will only cloud the issues.
We need someone like Arnold Toynbee, the historian, and his cold blooded ability to examine the underlying issues, without the filter of self-interest and self involvement distorting our understanding. The interjection of our presidential election and the potential usefulness of exploiting this crisis for electoral gain will cloud our ability to reach an understanding of cause and effect. Some have already cited Kosovo and the separatist movement as a possible element in the controversy. What is clear is the viewpoint of the staff of AEI is not going to help flush up any real understanding of the precipitant cause of the current crisis.
One initial problem is the fact that the AEI is far from an unbiased entity, staffed largely with moribund cold war warriors who were suddenly resurrected and revitalized by the activity of the Russians. Some of their observations bordered on hysteria. Unfortunately, both we and the Russians come to our paranoia honestly.
I have come to understand that in order to analyze the dynamics of world events it is important to leave the concept of morality at the front door. For years, the point is missed if issues of sincerity or morals lead the discussion. The point of view of each of the participants must be examined in order to reach any understanding of the controversy.
So the initial inquiry should be what motivated the Russians ? I see a vague parallel to the U.S. participation in the Bay of Pigs episode in Cuba years ago, perhaps a blueprint to assist understanding. I think one must go back to the beginning of the Cold War, to really develop an understanding of what is happening, and do it in a cold and clinical way, absent injecting any moralizing to reach an understanding. Just as we viewed the advance of communist gains in the late 1940’s , the Russians must have seen the development of NATO as a threat to their security. The climate in those years was replete with distrust, paranoia rampant and morality held in abeyance. For the U.S. and the west it was the “domino theory” regarding each socialist development around the world as an immediate threat to the west. Similarly, the Russians (Soviets then) must have viewed and perhaps still view the expansion of NATO as a threat to their security. Our view of the redding of the Cuban revolution led to our involvement in the Bay of Pigs counter revolutionary attempt, which in turn brought us to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. The fact that we still expand NATO an entity created to contain Russia, recently considering adding Georgia to NATO must perforce be viewed by Russia as a continuation of the Cold War, albeit at a reduced level than in former years. The expansion of NATO on the borders of Russia is probably viewed as the equivalent of the threat we perceived in the “domino theory” in the last century. Certainly from the Russian viewpoint it cannot be perceived as a neutral move, without significance to their security in their neighborhood, what they perceive as their sphere of influence. Without knowing what precipitated Russia’s move against Georgia, we have to speculate and geopolitical issues do not lend themselves to being understood in terms of ill motive or lack of morality. I suspect the Russian view of Georgia, and its president, Saakahvili, bears a striking similarity to our view of Cuba and Castro in 1962. For good or ill, the Cold War and its shadow, still color our view of Russia and their view of us. That Russia will have as much whitewash to cover its motives as we did in the Bay of Pigs will only cloud the issues.
We need someone like Arnold Toynbee, the historian, and his cold blooded ability to examine the underlying issues, without the filter of self-interest and self involvement distorting our understanding. The interjection of our presidential election and the potential usefulness of exploiting this crisis for electoral gain will cloud our ability to reach an understanding of cause and effect. Some have already cited Kosovo and the separatist movement as a possible element in the controversy. What is clear is the viewpoint of the staff of AEI is not going to help flush up any real understanding of the precipitant cause of the current crisis.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Conditions on the ground
After listening to the latest debate on when we might withdraw forces from Iraq it is clear that the latest operative euphemism for determining when to leave is the “conditions on the ground” as viewed by the commanders on the ground. General Petreaus, after crowing on all of the successes resulting from the surge, cautioned that all of these results are “fragile” and could be reversed quickly. So much for finality and victory.
The political side of the problem, the one the Iraqis themselves were going to solve with the benefit of the additional time provided by the surge, seems equally elusive and beyond reach.
Suspecting a red herring, or school of them, I looked elsewhere, eager to determine what issues concerned the Iraqis and what progress toward resolution had been made. Iraqi’s former Prime Minister Allawi was appearing at a session of the Carnegie Endowment to speak on the surge, a golden opportunity. After listening to his rambling circumlocutionary diatribe, during which he tipped his hat to all the issues but suggested nothing concerning their resolution, I decided never to play poker with these guys, they don’t have any “tells.” Coming from a bazaari culture, this is somewhat understandable, since if you never take any position, you can never be accused of making a mistake and consequently cannot be held accountable if anything goes wrong.
I tried to narrow my concerns to what in the Iraqi mind would constitute political success to the point where the standing by of the United States Army was no longer required. Stability appears to be the next buzz word. Did that mean the complete settling of old scores and the guarantee that those presently in control of the government, would continue as the control group? Given the volatile nature of politics in general, of Arabian politics in particular and the fact that some major fractional differences still exist and will continue to exist in Iraq's body politics, the prospect for continued disagreement seems all but assured. Are we looking for an end to a chicken and egg argument when all disagreement is resolved and all dissent quashed ? Does conditions on the ground mean we stay at the ready until Iraq is as quiescent as Switzerland ?
Nothing happens in that part of the world without deadlines, and since all parties are in general agreement that 16 months seems reasonable, lets end the debate !
The political side of the problem, the one the Iraqis themselves were going to solve with the benefit of the additional time provided by the surge, seems equally elusive and beyond reach.
Suspecting a red herring, or school of them, I looked elsewhere, eager to determine what issues concerned the Iraqis and what progress toward resolution had been made. Iraqi’s former Prime Minister Allawi was appearing at a session of the Carnegie Endowment to speak on the surge, a golden opportunity. After listening to his rambling circumlocutionary diatribe, during which he tipped his hat to all the issues but suggested nothing concerning their resolution, I decided never to play poker with these guys, they don’t have any “tells.” Coming from a bazaari culture, this is somewhat understandable, since if you never take any position, you can never be accused of making a mistake and consequently cannot be held accountable if anything goes wrong.
I tried to narrow my concerns to what in the Iraqi mind would constitute political success to the point where the standing by of the United States Army was no longer required. Stability appears to be the next buzz word. Did that mean the complete settling of old scores and the guarantee that those presently in control of the government, would continue as the control group? Given the volatile nature of politics in general, of Arabian politics in particular and the fact that some major fractional differences still exist and will continue to exist in Iraq's body politics, the prospect for continued disagreement seems all but assured. Are we looking for an end to a chicken and egg argument when all disagreement is resolved and all dissent quashed ? Does conditions on the ground mean we stay at the ready until Iraq is as quiescent as Switzerland ?
Nothing happens in that part of the world without deadlines, and since all parties are in general agreement that 16 months seems reasonable, lets end the debate !
Ripping off Corporate Stockholders
In my senior year in law school, then Senator John F. Kennedy gave a speech to my legal fraternity on the importance of the fiduciary principle in the practice of corporate law, the ethical necessity of corporate lawyers to remain loyal to their client, the stockholders, whose money their corporations held in trust.
Kennedy was to repeat the earlier criticism of the corporate bar by Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, blaming the activities of that group as one of the causes of the collapse ofthe stock market in 1929. The Chief Justice's point was that the fiduciary obligation of a corporate attorney, his primary duty, was owed to the stockholders of the company, not the CEO's, nor the Board of Directors nor the Managers. These were merely hired help who owed a comparable duty to the investors who were the real owners of the corporation.
It was understood that the managers of the ventures would be compensated by the owners of the venture as other employees are compensated for their service but would be answerable to the owners. Governmental charters were issued, giving corporations legal status and the ability to contract and making the capital subscribed by the investors solely responsible for the debts of the corporation. This
was in outline the original plan.
It didn't take long however before the managers and attorneys, perceived the advantage of their position and that with their power to direct the day to day operations of the corporations, they were in a superior position to promote their own interests whether in harmony with the interests of the investor or not. The stockholders, having
entrusted operations of the corporation to their managers were not in a position to monitor the day by day operations of the corporation butinstead relied on the Boards of Directors and executives.
The architects of the corporate structures, and the corporate lawyers, quickly created opportunities for management to distance itself, indeed insulate itself, from the control of the stockholders. Although directors are nominally elected by the stockholders, the lawyers created staggered terms for the board members, thereby
limiting the effect of a given stockholder election. The lawyers too were willing to ignore the rights of the stockholders as long as the big retainers kept rolling in. Corporate attorneys, operating like stealth bombers; moved invisible to the radar of governmental regulation to promote the interests of the coporate elite. Attempts by stockholder groups to control their corporations have been largely frustrated by legal manuvering.
Formerly when stockholders were unhappy with the activities of their corporation they could vote out the directors and others and install individuals more in tune with their desires. Now virtually powerless, they are told if they don't like how the corporation is being managed they can sell their stock. No other remedy seems to exist.
To facilitate the ability to effect quick trades, many investors were induced to place their stocks in brokerage accounts, removing themselves even further from the actual control of the corporation. Over time the virtual totality of control shifted from the
stockholders to top management. When the executive committee decided to highjack the corporation corporate counsel drove the getaway car !
The prospectus, initially a straightforward document used to induce people to invest by describing the activities and expenses of the corporation, grew, in the hands of the lawyers, into a convoluted document of many pages, replete with deceptive statement and of such a volume that it was barely understood by the investors. Similarly,
proxy statement were misleading and deceptive.
Meanwhile, the attorneys devised a number of ways to legalize the highjacking and looting of the corporation. By layering page after page of procedural balderdash into the bylaws, they enabled the Board and executives to execute secret agreements, (not subject to the approval of the stockholders) to their enormous profit. Employment contracts with vague guidelines, not usually tied to performance provide the CEO and his gang with multimillion dollar salaries. Contracts usually for a term of years were virtually proof against cancellation and provided finally for what is euphemistically
described as a "golden parachute," usually a huge payment of money to the executive upon leaving, whether by termination or otherwise. Ostensibly this extra compensation is the executive suite's equivalent of unemployment or severance pay and also the rough equivalent of a pension but on a grand scales although for a relatively short period of service. The stockholders have no way to frustrate these virtual robberies since they are imbedded in the employment contract and were
part of the inducement to hire the executive in the first place.
Then too there are the neat little devises called stock options. In effect it transfers a piece of the corporate equity at no risk. When used in conjunction with insider trading, using confidential information known only to top management great profits were achieved at virtually no risk. With the help of well-compensated legislators, corporate counsels wrote the actual legislation which clothed these larcenous activities with a patina of legality. Corporate lawyers wrote retainer contract for themselves in megabucks, their share of the swag they obtained for top management.
To defend the now astronomical compensations received by top management the lawyers have created an organ of propaganda called "The Reason Foundation". This organ of disinformation advances a variety of ridiculous reasons why CEO's and other managers re entitled to make millions upon millions annually even if business is bad and cut backs and layoffs are necessary to cover the shortfall. Comparing themselves to movie stars or top professional athletes, they suggest that as the superstars of the corporate world their huge compensation is justified. As long as there is enough "trickle down" to keep the stockholders quiescent, who can complain about how many Ferraris the boss owns ? If they don't like it they can sell their stock. Whether the corporation prospers or not, big compensation and big parachutes are the rule. Setbacks or losses are always due to influences beyond the control of management, while when a company prospers, (usually due to a multiplicity of reasons )
the CEO will step forward and take all the credit and seek higher compensation, never once conceding that the coincidence of a good year during his presence may have nothing to do with his management. Now corporate presidents pay themselves millions of dollars annually regardless of the quality of their performance.
Most recently, corporate lawyers are designing a shift into hedge funds and equity groups to get out from under SEC regulations. Part of the argument is they have to be able to compete in the capital market against foreign entities . Goodbye government regulation and stockholder protection.
Kennedy was to repeat the earlier criticism of the corporate bar by Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, blaming the activities of that group as one of the causes of the collapse ofthe stock market in 1929. The Chief Justice's point was that the fiduciary obligation of a corporate attorney, his primary duty, was owed to the stockholders of the company, not the CEO's, nor the Board of Directors nor the Managers. These were merely hired help who owed a comparable duty to the investors who were the real owners of the corporation.
It was understood that the managers of the ventures would be compensated by the owners of the venture as other employees are compensated for their service but would be answerable to the owners. Governmental charters were issued, giving corporations legal status and the ability to contract and making the capital subscribed by the investors solely responsible for the debts of the corporation. This
was in outline the original plan.
It didn't take long however before the managers and attorneys, perceived the advantage of their position and that with their power to direct the day to day operations of the corporations, they were in a superior position to promote their own interests whether in harmony with the interests of the investor or not. The stockholders, having
entrusted operations of the corporation to their managers were not in a position to monitor the day by day operations of the corporation butinstead relied on the Boards of Directors and executives.
The architects of the corporate structures, and the corporate lawyers, quickly created opportunities for management to distance itself, indeed insulate itself, from the control of the stockholders. Although directors are nominally elected by the stockholders, the lawyers created staggered terms for the board members, thereby
limiting the effect of a given stockholder election. The lawyers too were willing to ignore the rights of the stockholders as long as the big retainers kept rolling in. Corporate attorneys, operating like stealth bombers; moved invisible to the radar of governmental regulation to promote the interests of the coporate elite. Attempts by stockholder groups to control their corporations have been largely frustrated by legal manuvering.
Formerly when stockholders were unhappy with the activities of their corporation they could vote out the directors and others and install individuals more in tune with their desires. Now virtually powerless, they are told if they don't like how the corporation is being managed they can sell their stock. No other remedy seems to exist.
To facilitate the ability to effect quick trades, many investors were induced to place their stocks in brokerage accounts, removing themselves even further from the actual control of the corporation. Over time the virtual totality of control shifted from the
stockholders to top management. When the executive committee decided to highjack the corporation corporate counsel drove the getaway car !
The prospectus, initially a straightforward document used to induce people to invest by describing the activities and expenses of the corporation, grew, in the hands of the lawyers, into a convoluted document of many pages, replete with deceptive statement and of such a volume that it was barely understood by the investors. Similarly,
proxy statement were misleading and deceptive.
Meanwhile, the attorneys devised a number of ways to legalize the highjacking and looting of the corporation. By layering page after page of procedural balderdash into the bylaws, they enabled the Board and executives to execute secret agreements, (not subject to the approval of the stockholders) to their enormous profit. Employment contracts with vague guidelines, not usually tied to performance provide the CEO and his gang with multimillion dollar salaries. Contracts usually for a term of years were virtually proof against cancellation and provided finally for what is euphemistically
described as a "golden parachute," usually a huge payment of money to the executive upon leaving, whether by termination or otherwise. Ostensibly this extra compensation is the executive suite's equivalent of unemployment or severance pay and also the rough equivalent of a pension but on a grand scales although for a relatively short period of service. The stockholders have no way to frustrate these virtual robberies since they are imbedded in the employment contract and were
part of the inducement to hire the executive in the first place.
Then too there are the neat little devises called stock options. In effect it transfers a piece of the corporate equity at no risk. When used in conjunction with insider trading, using confidential information known only to top management great profits were achieved at virtually no risk. With the help of well-compensated legislators, corporate counsels wrote the actual legislation which clothed these larcenous activities with a patina of legality. Corporate lawyers wrote retainer contract for themselves in megabucks, their share of the swag they obtained for top management.
To defend the now astronomical compensations received by top management the lawyers have created an organ of propaganda called "The Reason Foundation". This organ of disinformation advances a variety of ridiculous reasons why CEO's and other managers re entitled to make millions upon millions annually even if business is bad and cut backs and layoffs are necessary to cover the shortfall. Comparing themselves to movie stars or top professional athletes, they suggest that as the superstars of the corporate world their huge compensation is justified. As long as there is enough "trickle down" to keep the stockholders quiescent, who can complain about how many Ferraris the boss owns ? If they don't like it they can sell their stock. Whether the corporation prospers or not, big compensation and big parachutes are the rule. Setbacks or losses are always due to influences beyond the control of management, while when a company prospers, (usually due to a multiplicity of reasons )
the CEO will step forward and take all the credit and seek higher compensation, never once conceding that the coincidence of a good year during his presence may have nothing to do with his management. Now corporate presidents pay themselves millions of dollars annually regardless of the quality of their performance.
Most recently, corporate lawyers are designing a shift into hedge funds and equity groups to get out from under SEC regulations. Part of the argument is they have to be able to compete in the capital market against foreign entities . Goodbye government regulation and stockholder protection.
A plea for polytheism
Recently I watched some TV footage of some Islamic fundamentalists blowing up some very old statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. It brought to mind the very intolerance of these people for the beliefs of others, of their jihad mentality and their absolute hostility to other belief systems. In reflecting on this quality I must note that it is not unique to Islam; the history of the Crusades and the Inquisition are witness to the fact that Christianity has also had its eras of brutal intolerance and hostility to other beliefs.
The continuing role of missionaries of various stamps, bringing the word, the true and only path to god testifies to the unwillingness of “true believers” to tolerate those who disagree.
Perhaps before the popularity of monotheism, the centuries when many gods, many forms of worship were tolerated was a kinder gentler time to live. Without doubt there were conflicts in those days, disputes over survival and governments but I doubt there was so much brutality and hate over differences of belief and systems of worship.
Some of the most primitive cultures, like the Australian aboriginal peoples, whose marginal survival existence for 40,000 years before the coming of civilization had no history of killing over diverse beliefs. Perhaps we have lost something quite important in our progress to civilization, a core respect for differences.
The continuing role of missionaries of various stamps, bringing the word, the true and only path to god testifies to the unwillingness of “true believers” to tolerate those who disagree.
Perhaps before the popularity of monotheism, the centuries when many gods, many forms of worship were tolerated was a kinder gentler time to live. Without doubt there were conflicts in those days, disputes over survival and governments but I doubt there was so much brutality and hate over differences of belief and systems of worship.
Some of the most primitive cultures, like the Australian aboriginal peoples, whose marginal survival existence for 40,000 years before the coming of civilization had no history of killing over diverse beliefs. Perhaps we have lost something quite important in our progress to civilization, a core respect for differences.
A Short History of U.S. Mexican Relations
In viewing the current controversy concerning the illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States I feel compelled to reexamine the history of U.S. Mexican relations concerning our common border and the several conflicts between our two nations.
The first conflict was caused by large numbers of American migrating into that area of Mexico now known as Texas. Although now lionized in American history these immigrants agitated the Mexican authorizes which ultimately led to open warfare and resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Texas in 1836. Admitted to statehood in 1845, it was the first piece of Mexico to become part of the US.
President Polk sent a representative named John Slidell with an offer to “adjust the border with Mexico” and to purchase California and New Mexico. American war hawks, who wished to see slave holding territories extended argued for war and in 1846 General Zachary Taylor provoked a border incident by occupying Point Isabel at the mouth of the Rio Grande, which act ultimately led to the Mexican War. The successful prosecution of this war led to the 1848 treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo which deprived Mexico of what now is known as California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Kansas.Serandipitously gold discovered in California now became American gold. Grants of citizenship in the original treaty were striken before ratification. This overreaching grab of territory was justified by a cry of “manifest destiny” a popular American slogan of that era, the essence of which was it was America’s destiny to own all of the land to the shores of the Pacific. Mexican land grants were upset in many places, putting people off the land their families had farmed for centuries.
In 1852 James Gadsden, negotiated a further acquisition of land along the Southern boundary of New Mexico and Arizona, adding an additional 30,000 square miles of Mexico to the United States. A half century of civil wars and revoutions followed, displacing many Mexicans who came north in serarch of work and security.
In 1916 the US invaded Mexico in a unsuccessful attempt to capture Pancho Villa after his across the border raid into Columbus, New Mexico. During W.W.I Germany attempted, without success, to induce Mexico to go to war against the United States. Thereafter our relations with Mexico improved, largely to assist American economic interests utilize cheap Mexican labor as agricultural workers along the border.
Due to the need for agricultural workers, especial during and after W.W.II, Mexicans were induced to travel North to work on American farms and ranches under the bracero program. They were permitted to cross the border for many years without any restrictions and became the predominant minority in the American Southwest. We were happy to employ and exploit them until recent concerns surfaced, with respect to their numbers and the political implications of their presence.
You can easily distinguish Mexicans from Cubans or other hispanics. They are the soft-spoken, quiet ones with soft brown eyes who only ask, por favor, for a little compassion, some understanding since they have worked very hard and have waited for a long time. They are descendants of the Aztecs, brutalized by Spanish Conquistadors, overwhelmed by Texans, Frenchmen and a hundred years of mistreatment by their own, more fortunate countrymen.
We stole half of their country and treated them like second class people thereafter but what the hell. They lost and that was a long time ago. They were the defeated at San Jacinto, and at Chapultepec; they were the broceros who worked for substandard wages picking your crops by your invitation for generations; guest workers who you now call illegal immigrants. They ask that after years of faithful, and underpaid service, they are not treated like criminals, told to go back where you came from and reapply, go to “the end of the line”, pay a fine. They think they are being singled out for having the temerity to reach above their station, to think they could participate in the American dream, after being here for so long. Por favor, despite what Ross Perot said that Mexicans could aspire to nothing higher than owning their own outhouses, they tried to become participating members of the American society, not to stand to one side as second class persons, to be satisfied with their subservient position, to work and keep their mouths shut.
Those who now shout “no amnesty” refuse to make any distintion between those who have been here for many years and those that crossed the Rio Grande the day before yesterday. I think some of this hostility is a thinly disguised anti-Mexican bias which has always been latent in the culture of the Southwest. They are different, tan, speak spanish, not like us. Nevermind that once all of this land was Mexico, now it is the United States and we call the shots.
Even the concept of statutes of limitations seems not to apply. A forgiveness of all crimes, save murder due to passage of time will not be employed to excuse these Mexican who have had the temerity to stay here, to be gainfully employed and raise their families here, when they should have returned to the barrios of Mexico to starve out of sight.
After half a century of unregulated entry we are now concerned with the illegality of their presence and how others are disadvantaged thereby. While it is totally appropriate to be concerned with illegal entry into the U.S., our retroactive horror of the Mexican’s presence by invitation both facile and insincere. We have a problem of our own creation and now contend that those people who we were happy to exploit for almost 100 years are now the villains in the piece.
As a matter of justice I believe it is appropriate and necessary to consider the facts I have recited here, to take these matters into account in determing what would be a proper decision concerning Mexicans living in the United States.
A self rightous declaration that they have violated our laws and are therefore illegal is both reprehensable and not in accord with our finer sense of justice. A better solution must be found rather than to blandly and thoughlessly say “no amensty.”
The first conflict was caused by large numbers of American migrating into that area of Mexico now known as Texas. Although now lionized in American history these immigrants agitated the Mexican authorizes which ultimately led to open warfare and resulted in the establishment of the Republic of Texas in 1836. Admitted to statehood in 1845, it was the first piece of Mexico to become part of the US.
President Polk sent a representative named John Slidell with an offer to “adjust the border with Mexico” and to purchase California and New Mexico. American war hawks, who wished to see slave holding territories extended argued for war and in 1846 General Zachary Taylor provoked a border incident by occupying Point Isabel at the mouth of the Rio Grande, which act ultimately led to the Mexican War. The successful prosecution of this war led to the 1848 treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo which deprived Mexico of what now is known as California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Kansas.Serandipitously gold discovered in California now became American gold. Grants of citizenship in the original treaty were striken before ratification. This overreaching grab of territory was justified by a cry of “manifest destiny” a popular American slogan of that era, the essence of which was it was America’s destiny to own all of the land to the shores of the Pacific. Mexican land grants were upset in many places, putting people off the land their families had farmed for centuries.
In 1852 James Gadsden, negotiated a further acquisition of land along the Southern boundary of New Mexico and Arizona, adding an additional 30,000 square miles of Mexico to the United States. A half century of civil wars and revoutions followed, displacing many Mexicans who came north in serarch of work and security.
In 1916 the US invaded Mexico in a unsuccessful attempt to capture Pancho Villa after his across the border raid into Columbus, New Mexico. During W.W.I Germany attempted, without success, to induce Mexico to go to war against the United States. Thereafter our relations with Mexico improved, largely to assist American economic interests utilize cheap Mexican labor as agricultural workers along the border.
Due to the need for agricultural workers, especial during and after W.W.II, Mexicans were induced to travel North to work on American farms and ranches under the bracero program. They were permitted to cross the border for many years without any restrictions and became the predominant minority in the American Southwest. We were happy to employ and exploit them until recent concerns surfaced, with respect to their numbers and the political implications of their presence.
You can easily distinguish Mexicans from Cubans or other hispanics. They are the soft-spoken, quiet ones with soft brown eyes who only ask, por favor, for a little compassion, some understanding since they have worked very hard and have waited for a long time. They are descendants of the Aztecs, brutalized by Spanish Conquistadors, overwhelmed by Texans, Frenchmen and a hundred years of mistreatment by their own, more fortunate countrymen.
We stole half of their country and treated them like second class people thereafter but what the hell. They lost and that was a long time ago. They were the defeated at San Jacinto, and at Chapultepec; they were the broceros who worked for substandard wages picking your crops by your invitation for generations; guest workers who you now call illegal immigrants. They ask that after years of faithful, and underpaid service, they are not treated like criminals, told to go back where you came from and reapply, go to “the end of the line”, pay a fine. They think they are being singled out for having the temerity to reach above their station, to think they could participate in the American dream, after being here for so long. Por favor, despite what Ross Perot said that Mexicans could aspire to nothing higher than owning their own outhouses, they tried to become participating members of the American society, not to stand to one side as second class persons, to be satisfied with their subservient position, to work and keep their mouths shut.
Those who now shout “no amnesty” refuse to make any distintion between those who have been here for many years and those that crossed the Rio Grande the day before yesterday. I think some of this hostility is a thinly disguised anti-Mexican bias which has always been latent in the culture of the Southwest. They are different, tan, speak spanish, not like us. Nevermind that once all of this land was Mexico, now it is the United States and we call the shots.
Even the concept of statutes of limitations seems not to apply. A forgiveness of all crimes, save murder due to passage of time will not be employed to excuse these Mexican who have had the temerity to stay here, to be gainfully employed and raise their families here, when they should have returned to the barrios of Mexico to starve out of sight.
After half a century of unregulated entry we are now concerned with the illegality of their presence and how others are disadvantaged thereby. While it is totally appropriate to be concerned with illegal entry into the U.S., our retroactive horror of the Mexican’s presence by invitation both facile and insincere. We have a problem of our own creation and now contend that those people who we were happy to exploit for almost 100 years are now the villains in the piece.
As a matter of justice I believe it is appropriate and necessary to consider the facts I have recited here, to take these matters into account in determing what would be a proper decision concerning Mexicans living in the United States.
A self rightous declaration that they have violated our laws and are therefore illegal is both reprehensable and not in accord with our finer sense of justice. A better solution must be found rather than to blandly and thoughlessly say “no amensty.”
When did the rules change ?
By what measure is the conduct of President Bush deemed acceptable ? President Nixon was pressured to resign from office for his complicity in a burglary and subsequent cover-up. Impeachment proceedings were instituted against President Clinton for lying concerning his sex life in a deposition in a civil case.
We now have overwhelming and uncontroversial evidence that President Bush and his administration conspired to and did act in concert to induce the Congress of the United States to authorize him to institute a war based on false and misleading evidence. In short, he lied to the Congress and the people of the United States, willfully and repeatedly, in order to secure authorization to invade Iraq. In law, such conduct constitutes a fraud and is clearly within the definition of those activities described as “...high crimes and misdemeanors,” within the meaning of the Constitution.
Yet the public and Congress remain strangely silent with respect to this issue. The implicit reason for this is the perception that it would be improper to impeach the President in wartime, despite the fact that the war which is now perceived as the reason for insulating him from accountability is the very result of his criminality.
Is this paradox sufficient reason to excuse this act of presidential criminality or have we reached such a level of cravenness that we are fearful that our constitution is less important than the removal of a flawed, duplicitous leader? Are we fearful that our Vice President is equally guilty ? Add his name to the charges. Our constitution makes adequent provision for such a contingency. The 2008 elections are not too far away. Surely the republic would survive such a step, in fact, our respect for law and morality would be reinforced.
To buy in to the argument that regardless of how we entered the war, we are in it now and therefore cannot rectify those acts which improperly brought us to war is rank doublethink.
If it was proper to impeach a president for acting deceitfully with respect to his sex life, how can it be improper to impeach a president for fraudulently bringing us into a war which has resulted in thousands of deaths and the ruin of the economy of our county? Let’s stop pretending that nothing happened. This country was born out of courage, out of a refusal to accept the abuses of a king named George. We sent him a declaration, a bill of particulars cataloging the abuses of which we were aggrieved. It is time that a similar declaration be drafted, one by the Congress.
It is time to remind the Congress that their responsibility requires nothing less than a Bill of Impeachment to bring the circumstances of how we came to invade Iraq to public view and appropriate action.
Randy Ludacer is a retired Attorney. He previously served as Legal Advisor to the U.S. Mission in Vietnam and as County Attorney for Monore County Florida.
We now have overwhelming and uncontroversial evidence that President Bush and his administration conspired to and did act in concert to induce the Congress of the United States to authorize him to institute a war based on false and misleading evidence. In short, he lied to the Congress and the people of the United States, willfully and repeatedly, in order to secure authorization to invade Iraq. In law, such conduct constitutes a fraud and is clearly within the definition of those activities described as “...high crimes and misdemeanors,” within the meaning of the Constitution.
Yet the public and Congress remain strangely silent with respect to this issue. The implicit reason for this is the perception that it would be improper to impeach the President in wartime, despite the fact that the war which is now perceived as the reason for insulating him from accountability is the very result of his criminality.
Is this paradox sufficient reason to excuse this act of presidential criminality or have we reached such a level of cravenness that we are fearful that our constitution is less important than the removal of a flawed, duplicitous leader? Are we fearful that our Vice President is equally guilty ? Add his name to the charges. Our constitution makes adequent provision for such a contingency. The 2008 elections are not too far away. Surely the republic would survive such a step, in fact, our respect for law and morality would be reinforced.
To buy in to the argument that regardless of how we entered the war, we are in it now and therefore cannot rectify those acts which improperly brought us to war is rank doublethink.
If it was proper to impeach a president for acting deceitfully with respect to his sex life, how can it be improper to impeach a president for fraudulently bringing us into a war which has resulted in thousands of deaths and the ruin of the economy of our county? Let’s stop pretending that nothing happened. This country was born out of courage, out of a refusal to accept the abuses of a king named George. We sent him a declaration, a bill of particulars cataloging the abuses of which we were aggrieved. It is time that a similar declaration be drafted, one by the Congress.
It is time to remind the Congress that their responsibility requires nothing less than a Bill of Impeachment to bring the circumstances of how we came to invade Iraq to public view and appropriate action.
Randy Ludacer is a retired Attorney. He previously served as Legal Advisor to the U.S. Mission in Vietnam and as County Attorney for Monore County Florida.
The Menace of Metaphor
The use of metaphor is wide spread in the English language, usually considered a clever turn of phrase or figure of speech. What is not usually realized is that it creates a distortion in communication, a departure from actual facts to a mental picture or more accurately a cartoon of the fact or transaction being discussed. It is usually seductive or catchy. The real problem is that it is inaccurate and distorts the communication, often to the point of totally obscuring the reality it is intended to portray.
In poetry or prose it lends a certain appeal to a communication , and can make the mundane appear as art. My favorite metaphors in this context are in a poem called “The Highwayman”, saying “the moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas, the road was a ribbon of moonlight over the purple moor.” Pretty, no harm done.
In other contexts, such as the law, the metaphor promotes murky thinking and creates an image of something only hinted at rather than perceived with accuracy and precision. We talk of “bright line tests” meaning something of precise definition and easy to understand. A “chain of evidence” suggest a strong nexus between facts or events so as to be reliable and persuasive. A malfeasor who has violated some law or code of conduct is said to have “crossed the line.” Not really helpful but a verbal shorthand which is comfortable and does away with the need for careful analysis.
Sports metaphors, so popular with politicians, references to fourth downs, or early innings or early rounds are obvious oversimplifications and the refuge of the inarticulate. Recently, I heard two sportscasters discussing a football team’s possibility of having an unbeaten season as “running the table”, an image borrowed, unnecessarily, from the game of billiards. In making reference to a news item to be discussed shortly, the tv reporters say “straight ahead”, very hip and trendy but not really adding anything to having said “next.”
In recent use, the term “spin” is intended to describe a change in the way facts are presented when in fact it is a euphemism for falsification and distortion.
While an overused metaphor eventually becomes a cliché, it still does not facilitate understanding. Perhaps the only precise language is mathematics where a value expressed is singular and not requiring further encoding.
On one occasion I was arguing a case in an appellate court, dealing with the question of whether the abuse of a regulating agency had reached a point of actual menace, whatever that meant. Unfortunately some earlier judges had engrafted the use of a metaphor into the analysis, describing the menace as a sword, and for the entire duration of the oral argument the judges chattered about whether the sword had been raised, or was out of it’s scabbard, or brandished in a threatening manner. So enraptured with their judicially created conundrum that they never mentioned the underlying issue and seemed to determine the case on the angulation of the blade at the time in question. It was a scene worthy of “Gulliver’s Travels.”
We now use the term “war” as a methaphor; the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, etc. Real wars are not metaphors, they have a beginning and an end. An anti terror campaign can never end and one cannot be victorious in its application, only effective or successful.
From 1899 to 1903 we fought Fillipino insurgents, requiring 125,000 American troops of which 4,200 were killed. It was referred to as “ The Philippine Insurrection ,” not a war. President Bush talks of being victorious in the “war on terror. “ By what measures do we determine when such an objective is achieved ? Is there some objective standard that can be identified with precision or is there some new metaphor lurking beyond the horizon which will tell us that the objective has been achieved ?
As long as language is for communication, it would be useful if we all employed the same definitions.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Examining John McCain
After witnessing several weeks of the press micro dissect and parse every utterance of Barrack Obama I wonder why there has been no critical examination of the qualifications and policies of John McCain ?
I recall a recent TV broadcast in which McCain leaned toward the camera and grinningly reported “I know how to win wars.” Despite this amazing revelation no one in the media inquired further, to ask, “really, how ?” or “where did you acquire this knowledge?” or “have you seen fit to share it with anyone who is now conducting two wars overseas?”
Although the media insists that it is playing hardball in this campaign, McCain has so far been the beneficiary of “slow pitch.” Accordingly, I think it is past time to have a closer look at his qualifications to serve as president. What has been advanced on his behalf is that he was a fighter pilot, a prisoner of war, and an extended service as a senator from Arizona.
Deeply rooted in the American psyche is the romantic image of the fighter pilot. It has displaced the gunfighter of the old west as the ultimate macho icon. The risks inherent in being a fighter pilot and the quality of courage necessary to perform such a function are obvious. They must have the necessary ability to make split second decisions with life and death as the outcome. Just what bearing this has on the skills necessary to be a president are less obvious. While a president is required to weigh evidence and opinions carefully before committing the country to a course of conduct, the fighter pilot’s instincts are precisely the opposite, necessarily in the direction of quick and impulsive action. Enough said on this issue.
With respect to being a prisoner of war and having bravely suffered abuse, pain and indignity for more than five years, not enough can be said in tribute to McCain’s courage during his ordeal. America has manifested a kind of guilt complex, a feeling of shame that for so long we were unable to extricate our prisoners while they suffered continued brutality at the hands of their captors. In short, we could not do enough for them once their release had been obtained. Whether a seat in the Senate of the United States or the presidency of the country is the appropriate reparation for that suffering is quite another matter. His ability to bravely withstand torture and deprivation bears little relationship to the responsibility of a president and does not in any particular serve as preparation for the responsibilities which a president faces.
Lastly, let’s look at his service in the legislature over the last three decades. Rather than demonstrating any outstanding leadership, in initiating legislation or supporting important initiatives, McCain almost always voted with his party, not distinguishing himself in any particular but rather being a dependable vote in the Republican column. Reminiscent of the lyric in in Gilbert and Sullivan’s “When I was a lad”, he “...always voted at his party’s call.” Rather than having some 26 years of legislative experience, he has had 1 year of legislative experience 26 times.
Not until the possibility of a dark horse candidacy loomed on the horizon in 2000, did he decide to distinguish himself, suddenly taking on the mantle of “the happy warrior,” and bring himself to the attention of the press. After being trounced in the South Carolina primaries, he reconstructed himself, doing a 180 degree turn as it were, making up with those elements of the right who he “dissed” in 2000, and in short, getting right with the party regulars and retreating from any position which earlier brought him credit. Having made up with George Bush and given his unqualified support to Bush’s recent decisions we can only expect more of the same from a McCain presidency. He visits at Kenibunkport to show the faithful he is back in the fold, riding in the golf cart with George I and George II.
Now his lackluster campaign consists largely of bumper sticker clichés and cheap shots at his opponent, devoid of imagination and filled with posturing based on his supposed credentials.
And oh, yes. He has still failed to tell us how he knows how to win wars. Wrapping himself in the flag and declaring he is more patriotic than anyone else does not demonstrate the sort of judgment needed to lead this country.
I recall a recent TV broadcast in which McCain leaned toward the camera and grinningly reported “I know how to win wars.” Despite this amazing revelation no one in the media inquired further, to ask, “really, how ?” or “where did you acquire this knowledge?” or “have you seen fit to share it with anyone who is now conducting two wars overseas?”
Although the media insists that it is playing hardball in this campaign, McCain has so far been the beneficiary of “slow pitch.” Accordingly, I think it is past time to have a closer look at his qualifications to serve as president. What has been advanced on his behalf is that he was a fighter pilot, a prisoner of war, and an extended service as a senator from Arizona.
Deeply rooted in the American psyche is the romantic image of the fighter pilot. It has displaced the gunfighter of the old west as the ultimate macho icon. The risks inherent in being a fighter pilot and the quality of courage necessary to perform such a function are obvious. They must have the necessary ability to make split second decisions with life and death as the outcome. Just what bearing this has on the skills necessary to be a president are less obvious. While a president is required to weigh evidence and opinions carefully before committing the country to a course of conduct, the fighter pilot’s instincts are precisely the opposite, necessarily in the direction of quick and impulsive action. Enough said on this issue.
With respect to being a prisoner of war and having bravely suffered abuse, pain and indignity for more than five years, not enough can be said in tribute to McCain’s courage during his ordeal. America has manifested a kind of guilt complex, a feeling of shame that for so long we were unable to extricate our prisoners while they suffered continued brutality at the hands of their captors. In short, we could not do enough for them once their release had been obtained. Whether a seat in the Senate of the United States or the presidency of the country is the appropriate reparation for that suffering is quite another matter. His ability to bravely withstand torture and deprivation bears little relationship to the responsibility of a president and does not in any particular serve as preparation for the responsibilities which a president faces.
Lastly, let’s look at his service in the legislature over the last three decades. Rather than demonstrating any outstanding leadership, in initiating legislation or supporting important initiatives, McCain almost always voted with his party, not distinguishing himself in any particular but rather being a dependable vote in the Republican column. Reminiscent of the lyric in in Gilbert and Sullivan’s “When I was a lad”, he “...always voted at his party’s call.” Rather than having some 26 years of legislative experience, he has had 1 year of legislative experience 26 times.
Not until the possibility of a dark horse candidacy loomed on the horizon in 2000, did he decide to distinguish himself, suddenly taking on the mantle of “the happy warrior,” and bring himself to the attention of the press. After being trounced in the South Carolina primaries, he reconstructed himself, doing a 180 degree turn as it were, making up with those elements of the right who he “dissed” in 2000, and in short, getting right with the party regulars and retreating from any position which earlier brought him credit. Having made up with George Bush and given his unqualified support to Bush’s recent decisions we can only expect more of the same from a McCain presidency. He visits at Kenibunkport to show the faithful he is back in the fold, riding in the golf cart with George I and George II.
Now his lackluster campaign consists largely of bumper sticker clichés and cheap shots at his opponent, devoid of imagination and filled with posturing based on his supposed credentials.
And oh, yes. He has still failed to tell us how he knows how to win wars. Wrapping himself in the flag and declaring he is more patriotic than anyone else does not demonstrate the sort of judgment needed to lead this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)