Craig's Corner

Sorry! Really and truly.

2012-03-15T11:57:00.000-07:00

I spent my junior year in England and unconsciously adopted some of the British peculiarities such as referring to the elevator as a lift, and mumbling ‘right’ and ‘sorry’ as part of virtually every sentence. As a kid I enjoyed playing the board game Sorry!, racing game pieces around the board faster than any other. As an adult and an executive I recognize the importance and value of authentic acknowledgment of one’s errors. Maybe I should go for elective office!

President Obama earned a reputation early on in his Presidency as the Apologist President. The Heritage Foundation went so far as to put together a list of the top 10 apologies that ‘humiliated’ America. The Washington Post (some eighteen months later) put the claims through it’s ‘FactChecker’ and determined that the “apology tour” Republicans claimed defined his foreign policy never actually occurred.

Recent events won’t appease those who think the President is overly apologetic. The New York Times reported that a U.S. service member was seen firing on several houses, killing 16 Afghan civilians. Two days later, President Obama apologized saying: “The United States takes this as seriously as if it was our own citizens and our own children who were murdered. We’re heartbroken over the loss of innocent life. The killing of innocent civilians is outrageous and it’s unacceptable. It’s not who we are as a country, and it does not represent our military. And for that reason, I’ve directed the Pentagon to make sure that we spare no effort in conducting a full investigation.”

Diplomatically it is proper apologize when innocent people are killed. Unfortunately, based on the President’s own statement, the facts do not yet support the conclusion that something wrong was done. An investigation hasn’t been conducted so the apology seems to be designed to stymie International outrage.

The real outrage, though, is the war itself. The United States is in the eleventh year of the military action. 2,916 military people have died in Afghanistan alone – tens of thousands more if you count civilians. Nearly a trillion dollars has been spent with no end in sight. Afghans did not do anything to the U.S. The justification at the time was retaliation for 9/11. The hijackers of the planes that day were Saudi, a country that has suffered no consequence for its participation and where America continues to buy plenty of oil. Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind, was found in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Why are American (and some minor coalition) troops still there? According to the Obama (and Bush) Doctrine: To save the Afghan people from the evils of the Taliban. Self-determination is apparently no longer a valued trait.

Bob Woodward’s book “Obama’s Wars” is a brilliant behind-the-scenes look at how a young President made the strategic and military decisions in Afghanistan. The book has been out for a couple of years, but it is chilling to see the threats that forced Obama to take the policy over and literally hand write the directives. I do not agree with the President on virtually any of his policies. I must acknowledge his tenacity and moral resolve in maintaining his approach to Afghanistan…given the political and military resistance he underwent that the book chronicles.

The President flexed his Commander-in-Chief muscles again last week saying that he is prepared to go to war with Iran. He dialed back the rhetoric the next day, but, still the message he sent was loud and clear – just like George W. Bush invading two countries last decade. War in Iran? Why? The reason will be very compelling in the moment, just like it was under President Bush.

Two time Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne (RIP) predicted that the Middle East wars would be disasters. He posted his concerns and claims online. He was pilloried, even by many stalwart supporters. The website Truth About War outlining all of the concerns remains up, frozen in time, as a bold reminder of what could have been prevented. Harry was right and his critics owe him a debt of gratitude for speaking the truth.

Where’s the apology for entering into military conflict under false pretences? Ooops…sorry…must have regressed to that childhood board game!

History Redoux

2012-03-08T09:29:00.000-08:00

In the 1993 movie “Groundhog Day” Bill Murray plays Phil Connors, an egocentric Pittsburgh TV weatherman who, during a hated assignment covering the annual Groundhog Day event in Punxsutawney, finds himself repeating the same day over and over again. The movie title has become a modern-day equivalent to déjàvu, the French word for “already seen.” This week’s news reports of the happenings in Russia personify the expression “history repeating itself.”

First things first, though. Congratulations to Vladimir Putin! After a 4 year respite from his 8 years as President to serve as Prime Minister, he took 62% of the vote this week with his nearest competitor at just 17% to regain the top spot in the country. The other 3 candidates were all in single digits. He was emotional in victory. Much of the Western news coverage has been skeptical of the validity of the vote. Tens of thousands of younger Russians protested the vote, a sight that warms the spirits of Westerners with Jeffersonian Democracy ideals.

Each generation has its own picture of Russia. For my parent’s generation Nikita Khrushchev's banging of his shoes at the U.N. General Assembly and the Bay of Pigs incident exemplifies the tensions and dangers that was the Cold War. Ronald Reagan’s calling the country an “Evil Empire” and his demand in 1987 for Mikhail Gorbechev to “tear down this wall” is a pivotal moment actually resulted in the Berlin Wall being dismantled in 1989.

I have been fortunate to travel to Russia on three occasions. In 1985 as a student I spent a week in Moscow and Leningrad – Mr. Gorbechev had only months before taken the reigns of power and the country was still clinging to its Communist roots. In 1999 I produced and directed a documentary following the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles to Moscow and St. Petersburg and several other cities. In 2008 Mr. Putin left the Presidency and the country elected Dmitry Medvedev to succeed him, I visited St. Petersburg on holiday.

My own experiences have seen the country and the cities transform. For a freedom loving, unabashed Libertarian – there is little more satisfying than seeing the mighty Soviet Union disintegrate and reemerge as a vibrant, chaotic, somewhat corrupt living, breathing capitalist society. And it’s heartbreakingly tragic and deflating to see little by little the vestiges of the Union come back together.

Etched in my memory is the emotional reaction of the singers and the audience in October 1999 when 100 gay men sang Tchaikovsky in flawless Russian to a sold out, standing room only crowd in Tchaikovsky Hall. The next night they performed at Glinka Cappella in St. Petersburg, one of the preeminent concert halls in the world that was originally established in 1479. The current building dates to 1773, before the colonies became United. Babushka women cried openly during the concert and Russian soldiers crowded the balcony.

Beyond the momentary impact of these events, there was a real sense that history was being made and the world was changing. The streets were alive with energy, the media covered these events and organizations were being formed. Only a few years before the tour when Boris Yeltsin took power, his first act was to establish a new constitution where homosexuality was legalized. For years the Russian constitution provided more freedom that the U.S. until the Supreme Court decision in Bowers v. Hardwick outlawing sodomy laws caught up.

In a cruel flashback to pre-Glastnost days, St. Petersburg's local legislature passed a bill last week banning propaganda to minors about homosexuality or pedophilia. If the bill (which still must be signed by the city's governor) goes into effect it will rule out nearly all public events carried out by or on behalf of LGBT people and organizations and their reaching out to the media and the Internet, severely curtailing the publication of anything relating to LGBT rights or providing assistance or advice.

Whether the bill becomes law or not, there will inevitably be a chilling effect on the people of St. Petersburg and other Russian cities. It’s a huge disconnect from the cosmopolitan and stunningly beautiful city that I had fallen in love with over the past twenty five years. It’s a city steeped in artistic and creative triumphs that spans centuries. So anxious was the city to move away from its past they abandoned the name Leningrad in 1991, months after Glasnost took root.

Perhaps the cyclical nature of history will be faster this time around and equality will triumph again. We can only hope.

Seeing Red

2012-03-01T09:08:00.000-08:00

Filing taxes is the annual reminder that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any legitimacy on policy issues relating to taxes. I did my civic duty this week with the assistance of software. The tax code is so complex that unless you have the simplest of situations either a tax preparer or an interactive computer program is needed to sort through all of the various options. After many hours of answering totally irrelevant questions (that the dang Turbo Tax should already know after all the years we’ve spent together) I got an error message I haven’t before. “A tax return with the same Social Security number has already been submitted.”

Joy to the world. My doppelganger is under the illusion that it’s 2007 and not 2012 when my (financial) identity might have been worth stealing...or even borrowing. Hopefully my situation is just this year’s system glitch from Intuit. The Federal Trade commission reported this week that $1.52 billion is bilked from 1.8 million people each year. The FTC said: “Government benefits fraud was the most common form of reported identity theft, at just over one in four cases.”

That actually makes sense. Approximately 125 million people receive a government check (29 million welfare/food stamps, 28 million unemployment, 11 million federal & government employees, 2.8 million military, 54 million social security) . That’s nearly half of the American population. (The actual breakdown is likely less than half given that somebody might be receiving multiple checks from multiple agencies.) So it makes sense for thieves to go where the money is.

President Obama has been accused of being a socialist. In popular parlance socialism is equated to communism – a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production. As much as I disagree with nearly all of the President’s policies, he is not a socialist. In fact his policies are often the polar opposite.

Statism describes the belief that government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree. This makes both the President and the eventual Republican nominee political doppelgangers. There has been and will be plenty of political rhetoric about taxes and protecting Americans in this election season claiming a wide gulf between the two. Much of it is noxious gas.

The practice of the Republicans and Democrats is markedly different from their stated goals. Rewards are built into the tax code for companies and individuals to behave in certain ways. Some call them incentives. Others call them loopholes. No matter the descriptor, it is government incentivizing action through financial benefit. There are 71,684 pages in the tax code. In 2006 there were 16,845 pages. No wonder the tax preparation field is a growing industry. 2013 marks the centennial of the introduction of the modern day tax code. Wouldn’t it be a good time to put it out of our misery?

Driving Ms Irony

2012-02-23T09:13:00.001-08:00

My car is officially a Minnesotan. It was registered last week in an effort that leaves me wondering why the entire populace hasn’t converted to Libertarianism. My local DMV is located on the second floor of Sears. (I didn’t even know that Sears was still in business!) Is it convenient or irony that the entrance is just off of the luggage department?

My number got called and for the next forty minutes I got to learn along with the clerk how to transfer a lease from out of state – something she’d never done before. This being Minnesota, everybody was terribly nice, which made the big sign “Profanity not allowed” another paradox. I complimented the clerk on her handwriting since none of the forms could be put into the computer system sitting on the desk. All forms had to be hand written and legible. When I gird myself to get the driver’s license, it’s a whole other building in another part of town. And in the event a physical driving test is required, that’s in a third building in a third part of town. I checked the calendar and was relieved to see it was still 2012.

My information will get into the state system, and it will then be shared with some other states and ultimately with the federal government. There has been a long march towards a National ID card. In 2005 Congress passed the REAL ID Act, which set forth certain requirements for state driver's licenses and ID cards to be accepted by the federal government for "official purposes." By 2008 all 50 states asked for either an extension for compliance or declined to participate. This brief victory won’t last long. Currently the PASS ID Act is a revised version of REAL ID and awaits congressional action.

With the states and the public resistant (even hostile) to having a national identification system, Congress turned its focus to accomplishing its same goal (tracking all citizens for national security purposes) in a more palatable way. Illegal immigration has been a hot button political issue for centuries – going back to my Irish kinfolk coming over to America (and before). E-Verify is an innocuous sounding program that seems to make a lot of sense – verify if a potential employee has a valid social-security number and is eligible to work in the U.S. Run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the program analyzed 559,815 cases in 2001. In 2011 17,400,000 cases were reviewed. The program has many new enhancements, one of the most touted is self-check – where residents can check their own eligibility.

Less prominent is the “improvement” where drivers license checks are conducted along with employment verification. Mississippi holds the distinction of opening up its database to the federal government. States Rights – a campaign mantra for many candidates – is becoming a catch phrase rather than a principled stand since its impact is diminishing. Why does the U.S. Federal Government need to have access to whether I got a parking ticket? It’s not that I have anything to hide – it’s another shift from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt.

'The United States of America, I hear you knocking but you can't come in'

As a civil libertarian the idea that the Government keeps records on its citizens is an anathema. I reconcile that belief with the reality that driving (for example) is a privilege and not a right – so complying with rules of the road, licensing requirements, etc. are all part of the trade off.

Philosophically I veer towards open borders as a solution to immigration issues where dignity has been sacrificed for so many who want to live in the US. “If you want to come to the good ole USA, pack a bag and hitch a ride. All are welcome. We’ll sort it out when you get here.” Even for my Libertarian brethren this is a bit much because the world doesn’t have the luxury of pure philosophy – it needs practical application. In an era where billions have been spent on the Border Fence the concept of open borders is alien to nearly all. It is another irony (bordering on hypocrisy) that the same politicians who insist that the U.S. needs to have fences and borders are equally determined to invade other sovereign nations and occupy them.

In 2008 as the economy collapsed, fear determined US foreign policy, and Republicans fumigated on security – states said “no” to sharing all of our information with the federal government. Today under a Democratic President with an improving economy let’s hope that State’s independence and individual privacy aren’t lost. No, that isn't a punchline...it's hope.

Season of Love

2012-02-16T09:21:00.000-08:00

The season of love was upon us this week. On Monday Washington state Governor Chris Gregoire signed into law a measure that legalized same-sex marriage in Washington state, making it the seventh in the nation to provide gay and lesbian couples the right to wed. That was right in time for Valentine’s Day – another holiday with origins in the Church that has been commercialized. I missed my tradition of going out with unattached friends to a romantic restaurant to celebrate our singleness while mocking the lovebirds we’re surrounded by. Our annual fun wasn’t always universally appreciated. Oklahoma State Senator Constance Johnson can relate to people not getting the joke.

In response to a ‘personhood bill’ Senator Johnson offered an amendment that said: “Any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.” The blogosphere lit up that Oklahoma was outlawing masturbation. Some people still don’t quite get that the amendment was designed to be outrageous.

The issue of abortion is one which divides the nation, families and communities. One’s position is impacted by the totality of one’s human experience – faith, custom and societal considerations amongst a whole range of criteria.

A powerful argument exists that a woman’s body is hers and she must controlled it. Ask anybody who has gone through or been around a pregnancy and there’s a powerful argument that life begins at contraception. These two statements are not as diametrically opposed as they appear. It’s when politics gets involved that it gets messy.

The Democratic platform says: “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”

The Republican platform says in part: “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

The Libertarian platform states: “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”

According to the CDC the abortion rate in the U.S. in 2008 was 1.6%, constant from the prior year. 91.4% of the procedures were performed prior to 13 weeks. The CDC’s statistics indicate that 98.4% of pregnancies are completed, and a microscopic 1/100th of pregnancies undergo a later term procedure. The energy, effort and dollars that are aligned with both ‘sides’ of the abortion issue seem to be disproportionate to the impact abortions actually have.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation nearly destroyed themselves by circuitously wading into the abortion issue when they attempted to revise the funding of mamograms. Republicans threatened to shut down the U.S. government last August over funding of Planned Parenthood. In both of these instances the proponents of one political perspective have tried to win the political debate by eliminating access. Abortion is legal. There are three branches of government that could be utilized to address the issue. Trying to short circuit the process takes an already emotional and volatile issue just distorts it further.

I celebrate life and am the proud Uncle and Godfather to my niece and nephew. I passionately believe in individual liberty and in a woman’s right to control her own body. I acknowledge the dichotomy of these statements. I’m not unique in the conundrum. My desire in this season of love is that the reconciling of this issue happen individually and privately.

OK Dokey BK

2012-02-09T08:45:00.000-08:00

This week I joined an illustrious echelon. I am now in the same ranks as General Motors, Donald Trump’s companies and millions of Americans. I am bankrupt. This is not something that I’m particularly proud of, but I’m also not embarrassed by it. My favorite document, the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."

Going bankrupt is an oft-misunderstood process. For individuals there’s a misnomer that the process is akin to a law procedural on television. It’s not. It’s all about paperwork. There are reams of it to fill out before filing – listing all of one’s possessions and all of the debts owed. Copies of bills, bank statements, tax returns: anything that is listed need to be provided. Several times.

The 2005 revision to the code requires some education so that individuals learn from the experience and don’t have to repeat it. The first course is about a half-hour and pretty self-explanatory. After the initial filing but before the formal hearing a second course is required. The course is 5 to 6 hours --- and sections are timed to make sure that you don’t go too fast. It makes Driving School seem like a afternoon at the beach.

The Hearing is run by an appointee of the Trustee – a fancy way of describing a clerk. It’s held in a large auditorium style room – no witness boxes in sight. There’s 8 to 10 questions that get asked (out of maybe 15 total rotating questions). Some people get grilled further, others not. The average hearing took 90 seconds. Mine might have eeked closer to 2 minutes after I heard about 30 cases. In a few months when some more paperwork wends its way through the Federal bureaucracy it’ll be official.

According to the Bankruptcy Court in 2011 71% of all filings were fully liquidated, 28% reorganized individual’s debt and 1% were corporate restructurings. This statistic reinforces the fear that when a business goes bankrupt there’s a fear that it will disappear. The majority of the reorganizations, however, are of the large companies.

Take Tribune. It’s been in the court system for three years – one of the longest in history. (Dow Corning is the longest at 9 years.) The lawyers have pocketed $231 million so far. Numerous plans have been rejected from one creditor group or another. Compare that to the GM bankruptcy – the fourth largest in U.S. history. It went through in 33 days thanks to some unorthodox rulings by the courts that stripped some creditors of their rights.

Nobody has a right to good credit – it’s earned. If you pay your bills reliably the reward is a high credit rating and low interest payments if you borrow money. My credit rating was 810 at one point…out of 850. Today it’s half – in the low 420’s. That’s the consequence of not paying bills – credit is taken away, if reinstated it will be at usurious rates because the risk will be perceived to be higher.

The U.S. Government’s credit rating was downgraded in August 2011. A whole range of reasons have been identified, many of which have merit. The bottom line, though, is that the debt that the U.S. carries now equals the total size of the annual U.S. economy – and by the end of this year the debt will exceed income. Imagine owing $110 but only earning $100 --- no matter if you turned over everything you earned you couldn’t pay the debt. As a result those who are owed the debt get concerned and raise the interest rate.

It’s ironic, then, that the largest bankruptcy in history is of a financial institution. Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008 not only stands shoulders above WorldCom ($639B to $104B) but it also has the distinction of being the catalyst for the Financial meltdown of 2008.

When used properly the bankruptcy code allows individuals who have gotten into trouble an opportunity to be set on a new or revised path. Medical bills cause 60% of all bankruptcies according to CNN. preventing foreclosure is the next significant reason, often from unemployment or changing circumstances. Last year (2011) 1.37 million people filed, an 11.9% drop from 2010 and an even larger drop from 2005 when 2 million people filed.

The core structure of the U.S. Government’s budget is broken. Our forefathers envisioned a need to allow people a structure to start over. Maybe it’s time for leaders from the Executive and Legislative branches to come together and restructure like so many businesses and individuals do when circumstances change. I know that won’t happen, especially in an election year. But if they don’t, they risk one of our creditors stepping in and forcing a restructuring. When that happens history will record it as the launch of World War III.

Privacy Lost and Found

2012-02-02T22:23:00.000-08:00

I hate to get lost. Whether it’s the actual reality of not knowing where I am or whether it’s a control issue, nothing ignites my Irish temper like being lost. GPS is one of the world’s most vital inventions and untold wasted hours have been saved, let alone my emotional equilibrium. It’s value far outweighs the irony that the Government invented the system for military purposes. I was at crossroads when this incredible tool is used by authorities to track people. Last week privacy was very much in the news with Twitter caving to Governmental authority, Google introducing its consolidated policy and the Supreme Court ruling that the Fourth Amendment still has relevance.

The U.S. Supreme Court took a stand for privacy last week and ruled that if government agencies want to use GPS to track somebody, they need a warrant. Perhaps more stunning than the constitutional reinforcement, was that it was unanimous. The Court has been polarized in recent years with many controversial issues being decided 5-4, reflecting the country’s political divide. Plenty of cases with the current court have been unanimous, but it is rarer for a decision that tackles the role of government to find commonality. It is tremendously reassuring that in a philosophical tug-of-war between government and individual liberty that the Fourth Amendment protections are intact.

The decision was nuanced in that the GPS device the police used in the case is not like the Tom-Tom or ap on one’s Smart Phone, but rather a separate device surreptitiously planted on a car to follow people. The more complex issue of authorities tapping into devices that everyday people are using was sidestepped. Government intrusion into individual liberty was central to Twitter’s revised policy that was immediately (and wrongly) labeled censorship.

When a Government goes to Twitter and says “Take down this post” – the new policy of the company is to take it down for that region only. An anti-government tweet in China may not be seen there, but would still be seen in other areas of the world. The company’s approach is geared towards keeping the totality of their service operational while mitigating the impact of censored data. In August 2011 the British Government considered shutting down Blackberry’s Messenger service as a way to control the riots. Given that as an alternative, Twitter’s post-by-post censorship policy actually seems reasonable. An important distinction here is that Twitter isn’t doing the censorship, a Governmental authority is.

The U.S. Government announced it is looking into Google’s new 85-word consolidate privacy policy. What chutzpah! The U.S. Government has created an entire subset to the economy based on secrecy – best explored by the award winning series “Top Secret America” by the Washington Post that was a newspaper series, a documentary and now a book. These experts in hiding information from the public are now going to launch an investigation into a private company.

When Google’s new policy comes into effect on March 1, information from most Google products will be treated as a single trove of data, which concerns privacy advocates. It makes sense that a for-profit company would find value in leveraging all of their products together. They even explain how they define “evil” in their corporate philosophy page. Google’s products and services are ubiquitous but there are other alternatives available and there is always the option of just not logging in!

In mid-January major Internet companies protested the proposed Internet censorship regulations. In November 2011 I wrote about the proposed legislation. In August 2011 I wrote about censorship in foreign lands and in the US. In May 2011 I wrote how Americans value secrets with nearly a million of our citizens carrying Top Secret clearances. My blog posts show a long term passion for privacy – where a GPS was nearly required to find examples of victories for freedom. Let’s hope that #trend is changing.

Inaugurating Elections

2012-01-26T05:03:00.000-08:00

Last month as I drove from Los Angeles to Minneapolis I spent several hours crossing through Iowa. It was days before the Caucuses and the national media had parked themselves throughout the state. Several of the candidates had been active in the state for years. I was tempted to pull into Des Moines and sit at a diner and claim to be an undecided farmer just to see the circus reaction…but I’m more comfortable in the role of blogger than agitpropist... though some may say they’re not all that different!

Inauguration Day is just about a year away – Sunday, January 20, 2013. In the next year political prognosticating will consume Cable TV, newspapers, magazines and terabits of data on the Net. Candidates from dog catcher to President will make this the most expensive electoral season ever, with predictions that the race for the White House alone exceeding a billion dollars. The end result will look a lot like what exists today: a deeply and sharply divided country.

In 2010 the voting eligible population in the U.S. was 41.6%. Nearly every Presidential election over the country’s history has had the popular vote pretty evenly split between the major parties so elections are won by as little as 21% of the voting pool. When compared to the entire population – which is nearly 2.5 times the voting population – the percent needed to win goes down to just 8.75%. That’s how a minority make decisions that impact the majority.

Voter apathy, election funding schemes and a continuous news cycle all contribute to the problem. Electing a U.S. President is comparable to launching a new brand via a reality show. Is there a better way?

Every four years there is much hand-wringing about whether Iowa and New Hampshire “should” be first in the nation. From each state’s perspective there is much pride taken in their role and the individuals take the process seriously and put the candidates through months and years of rigorous one-on-one questioning.

Rotating the “first in the nation” to other states may not result in that populace taking the same rigor to the candidates that Iowa and New Hampshire do. A California first-in-the-nation contest would yield a very different campaign and candidate since it is the most populous state and also one of the most diverse. New Hampshire is #43 and Iowa #31.

Like it or not today the Presidential race is all about media and branding. The policy result is problematic with highly complicated and nuanced issues being ignored or simplified to sound bites. This trend won’t change. Recognizing that the selection of a party’s nominee isn’t about retail politics allows for some different approaches.

Primaries should be held regionally – the East Coast on one Tuesday, the South on the next, the Midwest the following and the West the next. Let New Hampshire go first on a Monday and the rest of the East the next day on a Tuesday to keep the narrative and historic value of being first in the nation in place. Regions would have much more of an impact – and a “winner” wouldn’t be necessarily clear until every part of the country could weigh in.

Limit the primaries to six months before Election Day – so no balloting before May of the Election Year. That won’t stop the prediction derby of the political class, but it will narrow the attention spans of the electorate and might increase participation.

Financing: people who can vote for a candidate are the only one’s who can fund them. Corporations, unions, PACs can’t vote so they couldn’t give money. Out of district people can’t fund a candidate…only in district people can. Fully disclose donors within 24 hours on the Internet.

The political power brokers would never allow these easy to implement proposals to kick in. Maybe we need an agitpropist to push ‘em?

Religious Discrimination

2012-01-19T11:03:00.000-08:00

I’m Church shopping. It doesn’t have quite the same impact as racing out at midnight for a Black Friday sale, but there are more similarities than you’d think. There’s not too much pushing and shoving, but window shoppers like me are eyed warily by the shopkeepers. I’m looking for certain specific liturgical traditions inside of my life long denomination but I’m equally interested in finding a community of people to connect with in my new city. It’s an interesting process and allows me to evaluate whether I’m drawn to a particular type of service out of habit and tradition, or out of spiritual fulfillment. Much as I miss my home Parish, I get to choose my Church, a wonderful opportunity. After last week’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, however, religious institutions are now able to choose the people they welcome. Religious institutions can now legally discriminate.

Discriminate is a loaded word and implies judgment. The New York Times reported that the Court made a sweeping change to the law – allowing religious institutions to fire somebody if they aren’t able to adhere to the dogma of that Church. Employment laws before the ruling required equal treatment regardless of an organization’s philosophical beliefs on a bevy of social issues had to treat its employees equally. Institutions that believed women should be in the home were required to hire women. No longer. Today a gay musician working at a denomination that believes gay marriage threatens the future of humanity (as the Pope said last week). Under the unanimous ruling by the Court, the musician can be fired for no other reason than their orientation conflicts with Catholic teachings.

The Court took steps to make sure that it was clear that only people who perform ministerial functions were impacted by this decision. It left the delineation of ministerial functions to the lower courts to sort out. In many traditions music is an integral part of the liturgy and certainly would be defined as part of the ministry. Judge Clarence Thomas wrote: “The question whether an employee is a minister is itself religious in nature, and the answer will vary widely.”

The Universal Life Ministry will ordain anybody online for free. 20 million have done so. That’s a lot of ministers with a lot of opinions.

In the United States, thanks to the First Amendment, Government is prohibited from making any law impeding the free exercise of religion. For 235 years the courts have respected and honored this core principal while balancing individual rights with universal employment laws. The balance has now shifted.

In 2008 the Mormon Church played a significant role in California’s Proposition 8 campaign. They were fully involved against the effort to legalize gay marriage – funding, promoting, and producing propaganda.. Their historic involvement in the political campaign was documented in the award winning film “The Mormon Proposition.”

Minnesota will be voting on gay marriage this November. No matter how the vote goes gay marriage will still be illegal after the election – the issue is whether the constitution should be amended in the event that gay marriages should be considered in the future. Talk about proactive. In the midst of the campaign the Catholic Bishop told his priests to "toe the line on marriage or keep your mouth shut."

It seems in the instances of personal liberty issues, especially related to LGBT issues, many different religious denominations have quite a bit to say and quite a few rules to be followed. They’ve worked hard to pass laws that dictate how people are to live and interact with each other. Could it backfire? The next possible manifestation of the law could be to allow a GLBT organization to fire somebody when it is discovered that the person is Catholic or Mormon.

When it comes to adhering to societal standards of fairness in employment religious institutions can now be left alone to practice their faith. These same institutions should be consistent and stay out of political campaigns and allow people to be left alone to live their lives. I'll add it to the shopping list.

An Inconvenient Calculation

2012-01-12T10:00:00.000-08:00

I have talked about the weather more in the brief time I’ve lived in Minnesota more than I ever did in California. Maybe it’s because it’s easy small talk or more likely because it’s something that has a very real impact on everybody’s day to day existence. My lack of practice in the subject could be because Los Angeles is perceived has not having weather while the Twin Cities are famed for their winters. Not this year. We’re in the midst of the mildest winter here in recent memory with daytime highs in the 50s in a city used to sub-zero January’s. I have taken credit for bringing the warm weather with me. Maybe Al Gore is right – and Global Warming is the reason?

His Oscar winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” laid out a powerful narrative about how the climate has changed globally. Relax, I’m not going to argue against nor deny climate change. Perspective in today’s hyper-partisan country (and world) is all about how an issue is framed than its basis in facts. From the National Climate Data Center run by the U.S. Government: “Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century.” This quote from a highly regarded agency could be easily and legitimately used to dispel the idea that temperatures have gone up. The opening paragraph of their website concludes: “seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.” Using that quote exclusively similarly wouldn’t tell the whole story.

The inconvenient truth is that facts can be manipulated and used to support whatever one’s point of view is. Consider taxes. Under President Reagan the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70.1% to 28.4%. According to the Cato Institute, on 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. The economy produced a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Reaganomics also took the U.S. from being the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation, tripling U.S. debt and starting the current pattern of deficit spending. Wages stagnated or decreased to the point that dual-incomes were no longer a political rallying point of the Women’s equality movement, but instead an economic reality. Government spending soared. Taxes increased on the Middle Class with increased payroll withholdings to fund Social Security.

All of these facts are true – the economy grew because of deficit spending and the wealthy were relieved of significant amounts of tax burden and businesses grew. The consequence was a more bloated government and the start of living off of credit that has lasted for 30 years.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said: “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. “ Catchy and valid, the quote ignores that selective choosing of facts to support an opinion is what helps to polarize U.S. politics. There will never be unanimity on any issue. Centuries later evolution continues to be debated.

Knowing that for each point there is a counter-point it’s possible to stagnate. Compromise is the ideal … except when it requires us to give up too much of our perspective. Common ground is the missing ingredient. On climate change there can be common ground that changes in temperature and weather patterns has a consequence on the environment. On taxes there can be common ground that revenue is required from individuals and businesses to support government functions. The devil is in the details of what to do to mitigate environmental hazards and in who gets taxed and by how much. Politicians and their constituents have failed in compromising because the common ground that unites us has all but disappeared from the equation. It’s time to recalculate.

Hotel Minnesota

2012-01-05T06:28:00.000-08:00

Living in a hotel has its perks. Everything you needs is provided: kitchenette, desk, bureau, bed, TV and recliner. Housekeeping comes by weekly and there’s laundry on site. Utilities are included. They even plow the road. Pricing is good as tourism in January in Minnesota is low. It’s a perfect solution for me moving to a new city on short notice. It gives me the opportunity to discover the Twin Cities on my timetable before making the big determination as to where I’ll settle.

Imagine my surprise, then, to learn that where I ultimately settle has as much to do with government regulation as with my own personal preferences. I thought Los Angeles’ regulation of hedge height and West Hollywood’s house color palette recommendations was intrusive. As of January 1 West St. Paul, MN has a new ordinance that limits the number of rental units in certain geographic areas of the city. It’s a variable on neighboring towns which cap rentals at 30% of housing inventory.

Rental units are considered negatives for neighborhoods because they are not owner-occupied and perceived to be maintained poorly and impact housing prices. There may be elements of truth in the diagnosis, but the remedy punishes responsible landlords, is anti-capitalist, and likely illegal.

What is the Government’s role in Housing? St. Paul has decided that 10% of a block can be rental. If the unit is on a nicer street in a good location rents will soar, artificially increasing the cost of living for renters since the supply of available units will dwindle. The remaining 90% of units must be owner occupied, even if that owner would benefit from renting out a room or two to prevent foreclosure.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as part of his New Deal, got the Government involved in housing. The Federal National Mortgage Association bought mortgages from banks, allowing the banks to have ready cash to lend to other people who would in turn buy their own house. Previously the bank would lend to somebody to buy a house, collect the money from them and eventually lend to somebody else. With the government buying the mortgages the banks had immediate liquidity to lend more money faster since they didn’t need to wait for repayment. More people bought houses, driving up the demand.

Construction workers, building suppliers and a slew of related industries blossomed. The Real Estate industry was born and millions of people over nearly a century have benefited from available housing, jobs and trillions of dollars have been generated, expanding the economy. Over the years the government programs changed – many names and variations, but their essential role remained the same. Today Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee the vast majority of U.S. Mortgages. To see if yours is by Fannie, click here for Freddie, click here. (Happily for this Libertarian, my mortgage is privately owned!)

Conventional wisdom blames the 2008 financial crisis on the housing collapse. (It certainly played a part, but the roots of that crisis and the anemic recovery are much more complicated than just one sector of the economy and the subject of other blogs.) When people were buying homes who didn’t have the financial wherewithal to do so, the banks kept going because the Government was largely on the hook, not the bank. The relatively small amounts that the banks were on the hook were remedied through various bailouts.

Fannie & Freddie were nationalized by the U.S. Government on July 8, 2008 and are the beneficiary of the largest bailout in history. According to CNN, the net cost to taxpayers was reduced in October to $124 billion, down significantly from prior estimates of $193.

It’s never been a good idea for government to take on the role of banker. During Ronald Reagan’s Presidency the U.S. went from being the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation – and then as banker for mortgages the government began using borrowed money. (It’s sort of like when you use your Visa Card to pay your car loan.)

Nor is it a good idea for government to tell people how to live. Since the introduction of the Income Tax in 1913 every President and Congress has used the tax code to encourage home ownership through deductions and incentives that drive behavior encouraging home ownership.

It’s time for the Government to get out of the housing business – remove the mortgage deductions and hundreds of other incentives that favor home ownership. It’s time for the U.S. to stop being the primary funder of mortgages and spin off Freddie and Fannie to commercial banks and hold them responsible for all lending. Until that happens good thing I’m enjoying hotel living, eh?

Exits and entrances

2011-12-22T07:58:00.000-08:00

Exits and Entrances is another way of saing that life is full of beginnings and endings. We generally compartmentalize our lives into sections – often by years or major events. In my case the first 23 years … the formative ones … were spent on the East Coast largely in various educational pursuits. The next 24 years … the growing ones … have been spent in Los Angeles applying that learning to various entrepreneurial efforts. Right after Christmas I move to St. Paul, Minnesota to begin the next phase of my life.

I exit Los Angeles conflicted. Half of my life has been spent in LA and the city is part of my DNA. Friends, extended family, colleagues and clients will be missed. I am overjoyed to enter a new city on a great adventure. I shall be serving as the Executive Director of a leading arts organization in a region that celebrates the arts and culture in a way that LA doesn’t. It’s not just a job – it’s a calling that will use my professional skills and my personal passions together. It won’t be easy, but it’ll be fulfilling and challenging…and I’m eager to make a difference.

The ten days since the offer was made and accepted have been largely filled with logistics, but I have had a chance to reflect a bit on the journey of the past three years. Laid off from an executive position in January 2009, I joined the now 26 million Americans who are out of work. For 99 weeks I benefitted from the insurance my employers had paid with an Unemployment check. Once that dried up the investments, retirement fund and savings accumulated over a lifetime sustained me. They are now long gone. I’ve lived the Great Recession and it hasn’t been pretty.

In the first year I spent about a week every month-and-a-half in Massachusetts helping my parents. My father had suffered a stroke in 2005 and was deteriorating. Having spent their nest egg on his medical care I helped transition them from their home to a shared facility where Dad could be taken care of in a Nursing Home and Mom could continue her active lifestyle in a Retirement Condo. We unraveled dozens of years of financial planning in order to accommodate Medicaid.

Once settled, the second year became about supporting their new situation. Dad passed in August 2010, the month this blog began. He would be tickled that I write each week…he wouldn’t agree with many of my political conclusions…but he’d celebrate my effort. I miss that we don’t have that interaction, given his passion for writing.

During this time I worked to sustain my faith community. Over the three year period over 25% of the time my Church was without a priest in active residence. Lots more time was spent in and out of the transitions. That left much of the day to day issues to the ‘lay leadership’ of which I was a member. This was a difficult period for my own spiritual path. I put in so much work there that I ultimately listed the volunteer position as my most recent job on my resume!

Resumes were sent out from the day after I was laid off. Over 1,000 of them. Until the past few months (where I was fortunate to have several options) there were just a handful of interviews, only one in person. I applied only to jobs that I saw myself in --- things that I said “Yea, I could do that and I’d like to do that.” So finding 1,000 of them over 3 years is pretty good – nearly 1 a day. Virtually all got a customized letter. I never heard from 99.9% of them. It saps your spirit.

The way people are hired today is different than at any other time in my life. Technology determines your match for the position – software scans and searches for key words in resumes and cover letters. Employers can list 15 requirements and if you have 14.5 of them, you’re out of the running because there is an ample pool of candidates who have all 15. Having an eclectic background as I do – a fine arts education and real world experience as an employee, volunteer and consultant in for profit, not for profit, large and small companies as a corporate executive – doesn’t fit any computerized analysis easily.

When I saw the opportunity to lead this arts organization I further customized my correspondence, reached out to colleagues in the industry to make calls on my behalf, and relentlessly researched and studied the organization so that when given the opportunity to interview I knew as much as I could. Forget the emotion of rejection and the roller coaster of excitement about each found opportunity: looking for work is hard and requires a lot of effort. Anybody who thinks it’s easy to just “go out and get a job” simply is not in tune with the realities of the changed economic environment.

Life will be different in Minnesota. I’ve already had more conversations about the weather than I have had in years! I move into the 74% in this country who are fully employed (26% are unemployed, under employed or have fallen off of the charts). My perspective will change but my politics won’t. Stay tuned…until then…I wish you a prosperous, joyous and wonderful start to 2012.

D’oh Ray Me

2011-12-15T08:12:00.000-08:00

There is great entertainment value in stupidity. Movies starring Adam Sandler, Ben Stiller or Steve Carrell tend not to be intellectually stimulating which is virtually a crime with some of their talent. Criminals have their own brand of smarts. Violating societal rules that results in being locked away in a cage is inherently problematic, but there are some who have earned the moniker of “Stupidist Criminals.” There are so many of them that many websites are dedicated to them and even the Huffington Post has an entire section detailing their antics.

Case in point: last week two South Florida women are accused of stealing Christmas decorations from their neighbor's yard. They were caught when they put the stolen decorations up in a yard less than a block away.

Actions such as these are an easy indictment of the educational system.

Today’s concept of compulsory schooling has its roots in the Reformation, but in the States it became standard in the early 1900s as a response to the Industrial Revolution needing more skilled labor.

The result is 99% literacy rate in the U.S. with 85% graduating from high school and 27% obtaining a post-high school degree. Over $900 billion is spent combined on public and private education.

Peter Thiel, the co-founder of Paypal, made headlines earlier this year when he named 20 Fellowship winners who would each be paid $100,000 not to go to college. With a list of success stories like Bill Gates (Microsoft), Steve Jobs (Apple), Henry Ford (Ford) and Mark Zuckerburg (Facebook) amongst others – many have been making the argument that the automatic path to college may not make sense anymore.

Students are graduating college with record amounts of debt. Student loans are $1 trillion...five times what it was just 10 years ago. The unemployment rate amongst recent college graduates is at its highest level ever: 9.3% and within the arts disciplines that grows to 16.2%. (Nursing is the best option at 2.2%.)

Both major political parties are committed to education. The GOP 2008 party platform said in part: “Education is a parental right, a state and local responsibility, and a national strategic interest.”

The Democrats platform says in part: “Democrats share with all parents the commitment to prepare our children to lead lives of happiness and success. That’s why we’re dedicated to ensuring the next generation has access to a first-rate education and the tools to drive our economy forward. Our country is strongest when our workers are trained with the knowledge and ingenuity to perform at the highest levels.”

The words are a bit different and the funding approach varies between the parties. Whether education is financed at the local level or from federal dollars – the essential commonality is that some form of taxation is envisioned by both parties to deliver education to the masses.

This one-size-fits-all approach to education on the part of mainstream politicians misses a more nuanced reality. What role should formal education play in American society? Certain professions demand extended training. Doctors already undergo many years of study, but they might even need more specialized training than they currently get. Society benefits when lawyers, judges and politicians are knowledgeable about an array of subjects. Truth be told, though, is that everybody doesn’t need a broad based education.

Johns Hopkins University released a study last summer that proved that some people are born good at math and others not so much. How much time and effort should be invested in having that student become proficient at something they’re not good at? Would those same dollars and efforts be better utilized on the student’s strengths: History, English, etc.? And vice-versa – why drill a student who is born gifted at math on a subject they may not be capable of? Teach, nurture and foster the strengths that people inherently have…not to the exclusion of everything else...but shifting the current equality for everybody to a more balanced and individual approach. Establish a baseline literacy in subjects that all must achieve and then based on one’s interests and gifts a more intense and specialized course of study is pursued.

America would benefit by a more customized approach to education. We’d wind up having plumbers and mechanics who will have been on their chosen path just like lawyers and doctors. Student debt would not just accumulate but be an investment that can actually yield a return. We’d become a smarter and more dynamic country because we’d be investing in individual strengths rather than general ideals. Homer, the great Greek philosopher and no intellectual slouch, would support his cartoon namesake in supporting this fresh approach. D’oh!

Prediction time

2011-12-07T21:46:00.001-08:00

“Psych” on USA is a delightful piece of escapist entertainment. Young police consultant Shawn Spencer solves crimes with powers of observation so acute that the real detectives think he's psychic. There are plenty of hi jinx and foils that the hour usually zips by. Psychics, palm readers, tarot card readings are easily available in Los Angeles with shops on nearly every block. Miss Cleo may have given up her pay-per-call service in 2003, but there are plenty of others. Serious policy people tend to mock the seeming frivolity of the mystic world…yet then they turn on Cable TV news and settle in for hours and hours of fortune telling.

Media critics complain about the trivialization of serious issues. Critics usually determine it’s a content issue – where news outlets seem to prefer to cover stories that are “sexy” and “tabloid” versus more “serious” news. While there’s certainly merit to that criticism, each of the major news networks do put their fair share of time into reporting on politics and issues even though they are skewed.

The coverage is slanted --- that’s a given. Opinion hosts give their opinions, that’s part of the show and is to be expected. News reporters may aspire for objectivity, but the framing of any question or any fact inevitably shows the underbelly of some sort of slant. Taking a fact and presenting it in two ways doesn’t alter the fact, it frames the discussion. Consider the big news from last week: “Unemployment rate falls to 2 ½ year low” OR “26 million Americans still out of work...more than half over a year.” Both facts are correct, how they are presented shows some degree of bias.

Eliminating bias isn’t realistic, and isn’t possible. Individuals bring their own experiences to everything, including news. Accepting and distinguishing bias is a shared responsibility between writer and reader – but ultimately it is up to the reader to interpret the information.

A few weeks back GOP Candidate Rick Perry created an ad with a quote from President Obama about how Americans got lazy. Nearly every media outlet condemned the ad because it took the President’s words totally out of context. Reading or listening to the entire sentence the President was noting American exceptionalism and that we needed to keep working to maintain that. To properly cover the story, however, most news outlets ran the ad and then wagged their proverbial fingers at the distortion. It’s like when Janet Jackson had a ‘wardrobe malfunction’ and the news media was up in arms over the outrage...and then ran pictures of her pixilated boob for months! In this case the Perry campaign got millions of dollars of free airings of their skewed ad, reinforcing the candidate’s narrative and winding up the liberals and media elite. The actual news story is that the Perry campaign created an ad, didn’t pay for it to be aired and was deliberately using the President's words out of context to draw attention to his campaign. Not juicy enough. Much better for the story to have everybody expressing mutual outrage but actually saying nothing.

When not running outrageous conflict driven stories (where the conflict is mostly theoretical), when it comes to politics speculation seems to be the order of the day. Regardless of network, the guests for a daily discussion of politics tend to be fellow journalists and political consultants. The subject matter discussed is the issue of the day. The substantive time of analysis, however is spent on talking about what the issue “might mean” for the candidate, how the voters “might” respond to this statement or that action. Sometimes an action can portend the future – and that’s worth noting. The minutae of one moment ‘derailing’ a campaign puts a disproportionate magnifying glass on every moment.

The consequence is that candidates retract from the media, fearing any blooper. Voters don't see the humanity of the candidates and it all becomes a TV show and expectations for a TV solution (in one-hour please) is heightened. Long term solutions to major issues can't be addressed. What might happen becomes the news rather than an actual event and its context in people’s lives. The hypothetical becomes what’s important simply because so much attention is paid to it and the what happened is passé...literally.

Look at the time of year we’re in. For months Christmas is front and center – the anticipation builds and builds - hyperbole on high. By noon on Christmas Day decorations are taken down, and the focus is on the next holiday. Our lack of attention as a society is translated to our politics. No sooner are the votes counted for one election than candidates are lining up for the next one.

The viewer has the same responsibility as the reader…each are the consumer. The customer is always right! Let’s demand that actions and events that actually occur be covered. We can have a media environment where serious policy issues can be discussed in an entertaining, intelligent and lively manner and people are moved to stay engaged with their communities. It says so right here in my fortune cookie.

Do Nothing Congress? If only!

2011-12-01T08:14:00.001-08:00

President Obama has been channeling Harry Truman and has been railing against the 112th Congress as a “do nothing Congress” in his bid for a second term. Some facts support the claim. This Congress (only half-way through their term) has passed 60 laws. The 111th (2008-10) passed 383 while the 110th (2006-08) passed (460). The volume of passed bills shouldn’t be the barometer of a productive legislative session and not every bill that passes becomes law, certainly, but most do. The latest egregious bill dismantles “Posse Comitatus Act” that prevents the military from doing law enforcement on U.S. soil without an act of Congress.

WATCH VIDEO SUMMARY

The ACLU reports that the National Defense Authorization Act has two sections (1031 and 1032 in the 600 page legislation) that transfers enforcement powers from the Justice Department to the Department of Defense. Once passed, American citizens and lawful resident aliens can be held indefinitely and jailed without charges. Others can be taken by the military, without benefit of habeas corpus or trial…while on U.S. soil. Those captured can also be shipped off to a foreign judicial system. Congressed passed the Act and the Senate approved it on a bipartisan basis on Tuesday 60-38. President Obama has threatened to veto it. Don’t hold your breath.

Since the Justice Department will apparently now have time on their hands, they have proposed to Congress that any violation of a Terms of Service (those obnoxious multi-screen legalese forms that you have to click in order to do anything on the Internet) be reclassified as a Federal Crime. Imagine this: a news story about extending the “Bush Tax Cuts” is online. I decide to be my clever self and post a comment that since President Obama extended them in 2010 he should really get some of the credit as they are now his tax cuts. In a rush I sign my comment via a short-hand family nickname – Coogs. In this scenario I will have now violated Federal law and could be jailed for ‘assuming a false identity.’ First Amendment? Pshaw. The Justice Department proposes taking a private legal agreement between a user and a provider of that service and take it over and convert it into a criminal issue. Who knows what else is in those Terms of Service that we violate because none of us ever read each one thoroughly to make sure we understand what we’re agreeing to. Congress has held hearings and is actually considering the change even though they have not dealt with their primary fiduciary responsibility by passing a budget.

Congress created the “Super Committee” on August 2, 2011 as part of the debt ceiling debacle that consumed Washington DC for the summer. The group included an equal number of prominent and distinguished politicians from the two major parties. Conditions were built into the structure that if they ‘failed’ then “draconian cuts” (less than 2% that don’t kick in until 2013) would give them no other alternative but to make serious and significant structural changes to the budget. “A once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity to take politics out of budgeting” some claimed.

The committee deadlocked on party lines and disbanded having barely met but a handful of times. The failure is a good thing. To empower 12 people to do the work that the Constitution demands the entire Congress do was too far reaching and bad governance. They were also potentially making decisions without any public hearings or input from others – which is never a good idea and, if successful, would have set a dangerous precedent. In fact, the Constitution provides a “checks and balance” system which has served the country well for 235 years. Taking no action supports the claim of a “Do Nothing Congress.” Consider it from a different perspective. The 12 members acted by not coming to an agreement, allowing Government programs to continue to be financed at constant levels via Continuing Resolutions. By doing nothing Congress, actually agreed to $1.5 trillion in deficits through 2012.

What does any of this matter? If you haven’t done a crime then does it really matter if those who have are captured by the police or the Army? If you go online and don’t do anything wrong then it wouldn’t impact you if any violation of a Terms of Service Agreement is a Federal crime or not. Congressional inaction on the budget doesn’t mean the Government is going to shut down, it means that things will continue as they have been. Each one of these items appear innocuous enough – but they continue the pattern that is turning ‘innocent until proven guilty’ on its head. This fundamental principal of the American system of jurisprudence is what sets us apart in the world. The onus is on Government to prove a crime, not to have every activity classified as a crime. Please, Congress, stop! Do nothing. For real.

Free for now...Free for now...

2011-11-22T20:07:00.001-08:00

The famous words to the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" are being sung by today by corporations. “Corporations are people” said GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney this summer. The Supreme Court started the idea a few years ago when it struck down provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” The hat trick in personifying corporations is the Protect IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in Congress.

This legislation allows the government to order service providers to block websites for infringing links posted by any users. It becomes a felony with a potential 5 year sentence to stream a copyrighted work that would cost more than $2,500 to license, even if you are a totally noncommercial user, e.g. singing a pop song on Facebook. Thousands of sites that are legal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act would face new legal threats. The DNS privacy currently enjoyed will change so that sites can be tracked. China and Iran already use the revised DNS process.

VIDEO VERSION

Recently I’ve been doing a shortened version of this written blog as a 3-minute video. As I’m recording let’s say one my neighbors has a party and they crank up the volume to some really popular song and because my windows are open a snippet of the music gets recorded in the background. Once I upload my video, I’ve just committed a felony and am going to jail. If that wasn’t silly enough, the Government could then direct Google, Bing, Yahoo and service providers like Time Warner, Verizon, etc. to remove my blog from the Internet. Extreme and hyperbolic? Maybe, but that’s what these bills allow for.

Today when somebody is upset, frustrated or want to make a point, the Internet is the soapbox of choice. Think of virtually any major product or company and there will exist a “ihateFILLINBLANK.com” version of their site or a “FILLINBLANKsucks.com” that details the complaints. Because the FILLINBLANK is the trademark and copyright name of a corporate entity, this legislation would permit the government to shut down the site. I could ask the government to shut down www.CraigCooganSucks.com and send those people to jail.

I’ve spent the majority of my professional career working in and around major entertainment studios and providers. As a blogger I am a content creator. There is tremendous value in protecting the creator’s legal and fiscal recourse to their work. Do some people use copyrighted material for their own financial gain? I’m sure there are plenty of examples. Should it be stopped? Of course. This legislation isn’t the answer to any legitimate complaint or issue of misused copyright. It’s about control and further equalizing business interests with individual rights.

Corporations are not people. They are entities made up of people. Corporations serve a vital function in society by providing goods, services, employment and, yes, profit to the shareholders and communities they serve. Let’s not diminish their importance and role in society. The granting of an entity equal standing with individuals is, however, extremely problematic. This legislation is the most recent example where individual rights (freedom of expression) are supplanted by corporate protection.

The “fair use” principle allows for the protection of copyrighted work while giving limited exceptions based on a series of tests. The concept originated in 1709 and is embedded in the Constitution. It has been modified over the years, and perhaps now in the Digital Age a further clarification of “fair use” is in order.

Instead of a common-sense modification of “fair use” 38 members of the Senate and 23 members of Congress are cosponsors of these Acts that would strip away fundamental freedoms. How could this happen? 54% of the Senate and 36% of Congress are lawyers. It is not unexpected with so many lawyers in an institution that makes laws that creating new laws is the path chosen as opposed to modifying existing processes. With corporate funding legal for political races it is also not surprising that bills to protect those corporations sprout up.

It seems ridiculous…Onion-like, or even a sketch from Saturday Night Live…that such clear violations of freedom of speech could be seriously considered, let alone that so many elected leaders would support legislation that undermines the First Amendment in such a boldfaced fashion. That is the disconnect that exists in today’s politics. That is why Congress has a 9% approval rate. That is why you, dear reader, must give thanks this Thanksgiving for the freedoms that we still have and you must, please, contact your legislator and tell them to keep the Internet free forever, free forever, God Almighty keep it free forever.

Puritan Sex

2011-11-16T15:28:00.001-08:00

Sex sells. (The sun also rises every day.) This marketing and journalistic mantra has infiltrated all elements of society. The outfits (or lack thereof) on many of the local news’ Weather and Traffic women leave little to the imagination. Suggestive models and seductive music are used to promote everything from hamburgers to insurance. Americans’ relationship with sex is complicated. On the one hand that sex entices people is good because it draws viewers, attention and dollars. But on the other hand there is a prurient attitude that suggests issues of sex, sexuality and sexual expression should not public. That inherent conflict is bound to cause problems.

VIDEO SUMMARY

Anybody who has had even the most remote interaction with children knows that there is a delicate balance between setting boundaries and creating an invitation to naughtiness. So it is not surprising that using the allure of sex is impactful – since it’s considered a no-no in polite society. Just like telling the little tyke not to do something or to do something distasteful in order to build strong ‘character.’

Institutions and individuals that hold themselves to a ‘high moral standard’ are often those who are later discovered engaging in the very thing which they purport to condemn. The most recent exhibit: Germany’s largest bookseller (after Amazon) is wholly owned by the Catholic Church and sells thousands of pornographic titles (Call Me Slut!, Take Me Here, Take Me Now! and Lawyer's Whore) and lingerie.

Creating and selling erotic materials is not illegal. It is, in fact, an industry that generates billions of dollars each year. The disclosure about the German publisher is only interesting and compelling because of the apparent hypocrisy of its owner, the Catholic Church. Three days after the public disclosure the Church issued a statement condemning pornography “saying the practice denigrates women and represents ‘a serious lack of humanity.’" Prior to this particular discovery the Catholic Church has a long history of stringent statements and behavior restrictions on human sexuality.

Closer to home sex has derailed plenty of political careers. From Representative Anthony Weiner sending pictures of himself to others to former Presidential Candidate Gary Hart’s extramarital affair there are example and example of individuals doing things with others that they don’t want to be public. Herman Cain is the latest to have an accusation hurled at him for inappropriate behavior. It seems almost a guarantee that if a politician claims ‘strong family values’ that there will inevitably be some claim that disproves the concept. Maybe it’s time that the role of sex in American life no longer be considered private, but rather public and OK to talk about. (Cue fire & brimstone.)

It is vital that we distinguish what a sex scandal is, though. Too often incidents fall under the ‘sex scandal’ umbrella when they, in fact, having nothing to do with sex. Accusations such as rape, assault and molestation of children do not belong in the more palatable ‘scandal’ descriptor. If somebody has consensual sex with another person outside of their marriage commitment, that might be a ‘sex scandal’ and is certainly amusing to peep into. If somebody attacks another – that is a crime. The media must accurately report on newsworthy items, but it is not appropriate for the media to decide what is a scandal and what is a crime.

Religion and government have been arbiters of what is permissible between people since the dawn of humankind. Societies have different standards on the same issue. Look at the age of consent for sexual relations. Angola’s age of consent is 12. China it’s 14. In the US it’s anywhere from 16 to 18 depending on the state.

How can one society determine that a 12-year old can have sex while in another country that same 12-year old would be a victim? The simplistic answer is that each of these communities has made determinations based on what works for them. Tradition, education and communal expectations are all contributors to how an individual’s sexual expression and guide the rules of that society.

We only need to look at the issue of homosexuality in America for an example. The past 30+ years of the modern gay rights movement has had an impact on people’s opinions. Gallup shows that support for consenting adults to engage in gay/lesbian relations has gone from 43% approving in 1978 to 64% approving in 2010. This shift has occurred because of visibility of LGBT people and experiences in the media, ongoing political discussion and legions of people coming out. And there’s more to go.

Issues around sex could use the same open airing as LGBT issues have had. Our politics should be about the policy and not the policy-maker. Naïve? Probably. Likely to change? Not any time soon. Puritan sex wins.

I’ve got your number

2011-11-09T14:51:00.000-08:00

What a week! Earth welcomed its 7 billionth person. (Hi to Danica May Camacho!) Global debt hit $40.6 trillion. (Putting millions, billions and trillions into context: the average person takes 672 million breaths in a lifetime.) In the U.S. there are 300 million people and total debt just passed $15 trillion. That’s essentially $50,000 per person. Given that the average American household income per the U.S. Census Bureau is $49,455 - each American basically owes one dollar for every dollar they earn in a year. But the really important number is that there are 350 shopping days until Election 2012.

video summary of Blog

This week marks the one year point when the quadrennial Presidential contest will be held. This election season is estimated to cost $8 billion, up from the $5.3 billion from 2008. The 2008 Presidential winner, Barak Obama, spent $7.39 per vote. McCain spent $5.78. If the estimate for 2012 is right then the winning candidate will spend approximately $10 per vote.

What will Americans get for all of this money? A constant barrage of back-and-forth between the two major parties. “The rich must pay their fair share.” “We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.” Democrats will accuse Republicans of being heartless capitalists out to balance the books on the backs of the poor and needy. Republicans will accuse Democrats of being tax and spend liberals who have recklessly destroyed capitalism and are steering the nation towards socialism and extinction. For all of the hyperbole it's all rather predictable.

Election 2012 will produce a popular vote that is nearly 50/50 as they have been for most the history of the USA. There will be a hard fought fight over a few thousand votes in Florida or Nevada or some other “swing state” that will determine the Electoral College victor. It’s guaranteed. The campaigns (most of which have been in full swing for over a year) are angling for every possible vote.

A recent New York University School of Law analysis by the Brennan School for Justice found that new voting restrictions may affect more than 5 million votes. 63% of the electoral votes in 2012 (191 out of 270) are impacted by a change in the voting rules since the 2008. Both parties are trying to jerry-rig the results. (The harder it is for people to vote, the easier it is to control the result?) From the Brennan study:

34 states introduced legislation that would require voters to show photo identification in order to vote. Eleven percent of American citizens do not possess a government-issued photo ID.
At least 13 states introduced bills to end highly popular Election Day and same-day voter registration, limit voter registration efforts, and reduce other registration opportunities.
At least nine states introduced bills to reduce their early voting periods, and four tried to reduce absentee voting opportunities.

The voting age population turnout in 2008 was 56.9%. Just over half of Americans over 18 who could vote did so. Compare that to Tunisia. In December 2010 the small country bordered by Algeria and Libya launched the “Arab Spring” with its people demonstrating for change and peacefully overthrowing the ruling party. In late October 2011 the emerging democracy held its national election. More than 90 percent of eligible voters voted.

Americans no longer perceive voting as impactful. (That may be because it isn't!) More likely the political stalemate results in little change. It may be because the promise of candidates are rarely met with their results as elected leaders. Money is an element. So is cynicism. It may be after 236 years it’s no longer considered a vital component of being a citizen.

I have a friend who loves going to the polling station on Election Day, waiting in line and going into the cardboard and plywood booth to color in the circles of the ballot. The pageantry and ceremony of the process is exciting. Once. Maybe twice. Then most people just want to do their duty. Voting should as easy as using an ATM, not like going to the Post Office.

Democracy is the process by which we measure our freedoms. Participation is the contribution we make to preserve those liberties. We must as a nation, and as a people, practice our commitment to these ideals through more than lip service, sound-bite campaigning and expensive marketing and branding efforts that provide an illusion of patriotism. We must find ways to include people in the process. The cost of exclusion may well be democracy itself. That’s a number we can’t afford.

It’s all Greek to US

2011-11-03T08:31:00.000-07:00

I love Greece --- the country, though the 1970's musical is fun too. I enjoyed “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” and even went to see the quasi-sequel “My Life in Ruins” that aptly describes what is happening there now. I was fortunate to visit the beautiful islands of Santorini and Mykanos a few years back. I’m not a big fan of their Salad, but I do appreciate how they do the dishes.

The tradition of breaking of plates is considered a part of "kefi" - the irrepressible expression of emotion and joy. There has been little joy in Greece for some time. The financial crisis has been especially dramatic in Greece.

In 1974 Greeks, with the help of their Turkish neighbors, overthrew the military dictatorship that had ruled since 1967. Greek governments since then have run significant deficits in order to finance public sector jobs, pensions and other social benefits. Few people pay taxes. Since 1993 the country has had debt to GDP ratios in excess of 100% - meaning that the country borrows more than it brings in during any year.

The Euro was introduced in 1999 and is the official currency of the Eurozone which is made up of 27 countries. The Euro eliminated many different currencies and is the second largest economy in the world with more coins and banknotes in circulation than the U.S. Dollar. There are criteria that each member country agreed to in order to be part of the Eurozone and the currency…including having a debt ratio of less than 60%.

Greece joined the Eurozone in 2001 and converted the drachma to the Euro. During this period the government misreported the country's official economic statistics in order to stay in compliance with the monetary guidelines. Currently the debt to GDP ratio is 116%. ht

Financial rating companies like Standard & Poors converted the bonds that the Greek government had sold (the debt) to junk status. Investors wary of potentially losing their money stopped investing and the Greeks ran out of cash and had to turn to their neighbors in the Eurozone for help. Europeans helped out with a number of strings attached. So for the past couple of years every time Greece needed money the Eurozone would dictate austerity measures which impact the lives of everyday Greeks.

Finally after months of the possibility that Greece would default on all of its obligations and every investor would lose everything…the banks and Europeans agreed to take 50% reduction in what they are owed in order to loan new money but Greece would have to meet further austerity metrics. The world breathed a sigh of relief. And then this week the Greek Prime Minister said that he’d allow a popular vote by the people of Greece to either pass the proposal, stay in the Eurozone, or obtain some other approval – none of which is likely to pass given the protests and discord other austerity measures have had.

The essence of capitalism is risk/reward. If you invest in something and it pays off, then you get a great reward. If you invest in something and it tanks, then you take a loss. It really is that simple. The concept only works because there is a consequence for risk. Take a risk and it fails then there must be failure. That just hasn’t been the case since George W. Bush (#43) said to CNN in 2008: “I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” Bush instigated and supported a series of bailouts that took away any responsibility the institutions had for their own actions. President Obama continued and expanded them.

Today ordinary Greek citizens are living the consequence of their governments actions by losing lifelong pensions and other social promises that had been made over the past 40 years. Eurozone leaders are beside themselves over the idea of a popular vote to ratify the bailout. Since the Eurozone is passing a large part of the consequence onto the people, it will not be surprising when the people opt not to bear that responsibility alone and will want the rest of Europe (and the world) to do so. Nobody likes the risk side of capitalism.

The U.S. debt to GDP ratio was 92.7% in 2010 and is expected to exceed 100% in 2011. Standard and Poors dropped the AAA+ rating for U.S. bonds. Benefit programs that have been part of a social contract with Americans for generations are being changed. People are demonstrating in the streets. Will there be a consequence to the U.S. Government for its actions over the past 40 years? Or will free market principles be sacrificed again? Consider the Greek crisis a prequel of things to come. It’s all Greek to US.

Best. Blog. Ever.

2011-10-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

The blog you are about to read is the best ever. I have proclaimed it, thus it be so. October is American Cheese Month, Caffeine Addiction Recovery Month and Feral Hog Month. This month has some awkward recognitions: it’s National Bake and Decorate Month, National Popcorn Poppin’ Month and National Caramel Month while also being National Dental Hygiene Month. It’s also Pizza month and appropriately it’s also Sausage month. Nothing about Pepperoni. And not to leave anybody out it’s also National Vegetarian month which is not to be confused with November, National Vegan month. Seems like this blog should be in December which is Awareness Month of Awareness Months Month though I’m just celebrating October as National Sarcasm Month. (See full list.)

Video Version of Blog:

President Obama issues nearly 200 Presidential Proclamations per year…about on par with President Reagan. President Bush (#43) had approx. 120 and President Clinton averaged 125. In March I missed “National Poison Prevention Week” but escaped unscathed. That’s probably because I skipped “Read Across America Day.” I’m happy to have passed on “National Donate a Life Month.”

I suppose there’s nothing inherently wrong about establishing days/weeks/months to observe certain issues. Theoretically it raises awareness and provides a context to educate, inform and enlighten the population. For particular industries it probably helps justify certain lobbying costs. For example, May 28 is National Asparagus Day. Did you also know that in honor of the day each year there’s a National Asparagus Queen?

In these days of hyper partisanship governments at the local, state and federal level have few ways to acknowledge constituents. Anybody can order a flag that has been flown above the U.S. Capitol – but there is a fee. The flag will have only flown for a second or two because of the voluminous requests... 100,000 flags fly each year.

Presidential proclamations are not just ceremonial. Pardons are effected through the proclamation process, like President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon and President Carter’s pardoning of Vietnam Draft Evaders. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freeing 3.1 million of the country's 4 million slaves is perhaps the most significant.

An Executive Order from the President differs from a proclamation because it is usually made as a clarification or direction to an Act of Congress which authorizes the President to do so whereas a proclamation is a directive of established powers. Both have the weight of law. President Obama has issued 97 Executive Orders to date. George Bush (#43) issued 290, Bill Clinton 363. The champion, however, is Franklin D. Roosevelt who issued 3,728…573 in 1933 alone.

In and of themselves, most of the proclamations and executive orders facilitate the function of government. That changed significantly this week when President Obama said he will start issuing executive orders to forge new economic policies because "we can't wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. … Where they won't act, I will.”

The U.S. system of government has three equal branches of Government. By design. By intent. It’s a checks and balance system. It was born out of an abundance of caution in not wanting to replicate the parliamentary system of Britain. If we as a country want to throw it out, then we have a process to do so. But until that happens, it is wrong for one branch go around the other. No matter how frustrating things are.

Pundits, politicians and every day Americans bemoan the state of political discourse today. Both the “Occupy Wall Street” and the “Tea Party” movements give voice to the impotence that people feel about government’s ability to solve problems. Consider, however, that the system is actually working. Americans are divided on how to solve entrenched problems. The popular vote for elections have for generations shown a nearly 50/50 divide. It is therefore appropriate that the political system is also at an impasse.

The stalemate can either be accepted or solved through leadership. A leader is somebody who will come up with a way to navigate the impasse while maintaining their integrity, if not necessarily adhere to their orthodoxy. Leadership is not doing an end run around your opponent. It is not running a war by Executive Order as President Clinton did in Bosnia. Or fighting terrorism by Executive Order as President Bush did. Nor can Executive Orders fix the economy as President Obama hopes. Maybe they can all get in a room and figure it out on November 4 which is National Common Sense Day. If not, there’s always November 21 to 28: National Deal Week.

Fore for Four

2011-10-20T09:06:00.000-07:00

Click on Video above for Vlog summary. Full post with links and comics below:

Friday, October 14 was “Take out the Trash Day” at the White House. The expression, from and early episode of The West Wing, describes a strategy for releasing sensitive information that for one reason or another the Administration doesn’t want to draw attention to. It’s usually late on a Friday and there are a number of items bundled together. This past week it included the administration’s abandoning CLASS – the long term care option under ‘Obamacare.’ The administration authorized the use of military force to intercept planes out of Brazil that might be carrying drugs, even though Brazil has legalized individual use of most drugs. And, finally, the President released a letter he sent to Congress declaring war in Africa.

War in Africa? On October 14 the U.S. sent two combat equipped teams plus logistics personnel to Central Africa to remove Lord’s Resistance Army Leader Joseph Kony from power. He has brutalized his people for over two decades according to the White House letter. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (previously CIA Chief) justified the action to Scott Pelley of CBS News differently: “There are elements there that either have ties to al Qaeda or that represent the forces of terrorism on their own. And that's what's dangerous.” (Dick Cheney lives on.)

Under the 1973 War Powers Resolution the Executive branch must inform the Legislative Branch within 48 hours of entering into armed conflict and forbids troops from staying engaged beyond 60 days without Congressional approval. The administration opted not to do this with Libya. On March 19 U.S. forces were part of a coalition that attacked Libyan forces. Seven months later conflict continues in that country and President Obama has yet to notify Congress of U.S. involvement and Congress has yet to authorize the action. While not authorized, approved funding for the conflict is part of the also-announced-on-Trash-Day $1.3 trillion deficit for 2011, the second largest in history.

It is noteworthy that President Obama opted to follow the War Powers Resolution in the case of Africa. (It might have something to do with the 2009 Congressional resolution that called for the U.S. to support civilians and to remove Kony…so Congress was already on board with the action.) There is only 100 personnel going now. Even though they’re combat forces officials are saying the troops are going to be training and advising the Africans. On the surface that seems a whole lot less intrusive than lobbing missiles in Libya. Sherriff Barak Obama is coming to Africa’s rescue.

People in other regions of the world could use some help too. Syrians have been suppressed for many years and subject to terrible atrocities especially this year of the “Arab Spring.” China continues to top the list of Human Rights abusers. Then there’s Iran.

The Iranian people have suffered since the 1979 Revolution. The State Department’s annual Human Rights Report states: “The government severely limited citizens' right to peacefully change their government through free and fair elections, and it continued a campaign of postelection violence and intimidation.”

Last week a number of members of Congress and the Administration indicated that they believed that Iran had effectively declared war on the U.S. The alleged plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador at a Washington DC restaurant had rhetoric heated around the capital. The bizarre plot was unlikely to be realized given its structure – let alone the fact that it was hatched with the help of a U.S. informant.

Just so that we all understand the Doctrine of Nobel Prize winner Barak Obama: Increasing U.S. troops to 100,000 in Afghanistan to get rid of the remaining less than 100 Al Qaeda is a national priority. Combat forces in Iraq that were scheduled to leave by December 31 may not. Drones are considered an efficient and acceptable tool against terrorists even though they kill 10-15 civilians per militant target. Missiles are used to effect regime change in Libya. Navy SEALS are now tasked with killing specific individuals who have not been charged with any crime or atrocity but are presumed to be terrorists. Going to war against Iran for a John le Carresque plan is reasonable. Sending military equipment and personnel to Africa to kill somebody who has been in charge for over 20 years is suddenly important. And not one of these actions warrant the Congress to do its constitutional obligation and vote to declare war? We weren't forewarned that number four would happen…maybe it’s enough to prevent number five.

Slippery slope is very wet

2011-10-13T08:40:00.000-07:00

It must be pretty quiet at the White House these days. I would have thought that they’d be really busy with 3 (soon to be 4) active military conflicts, an ongoing global economic crisis, regulations to write and revise and the general activity of running a $3.4 trillion enterprise. Not to mention gearing up for a $1 billion campaign to keep the office. With all of that going on they still have time to monitor advertising of a private company and question it.

Ford Motor Company is a storied American company. The company embodies what Americans see in themselves: innovation, financial success and, like their long time ad campaign, quality. During the 2008 financial realignment, industry leader General Motors and also-ran competitor Chrysler went to Washington and asked for relief. Ford executives supported the concept of the bailout but did not require assistance themselves.

The company made and released an ad a few weeks ago where a customer explains why he chose to buy Ford. From the ad: “I wasn't going to buy another car that was bailed out by our government. I was going to buy from a manufacturer that's standing on their own: win, lose, or draw. That's what America is about is taking the chance to succeed and understanding when you fail that you gotta' pick yourself up and go back to work."

It’s an interesting strategy to sell cars. Usually automobile companies sell cars with loads of video of the vehicle in motion against some fabulous scenic backdrop. In the 1970’s Japanese cars took significant market share from Detroit based on the reliability of the car in spite of exhortations to “buy American.” Having an average American justify his brand selection based on whether the company received a Government subsidy seems ineffective.

The ad, however, won’t be widely seen to determine whether it was an effective strategy or not. The company pulled it. According to The Detroit News the White House questioned the company on the ad given that Ford’s CEO had supported (but didn’t take) the bailouts. The Obama administration’s support of bailing out GM and Chrysler might be a factor.

According to CNN, the Chrysler bailout cost U.S. taxpayers $1.3 billion so far and the company is now owned and run by Italian car maker Fiat. Approx. $7 billion is still due by 2014.

Reuters reports GM received $60 billion in bailout dollars that taxpayers hold as stock in the company. They didn’t use all of the funds so in April used some of the bailout dollars to repay the $4.7 billion loan. The $60 billion is currently worth less than $30 billion today. The Treasury Department has replaced two CEO’s at the company in the past 2 years.

Since the U.S. Government is now in the automotive business it makes more sense that they’d be attuned to the competition’s ad campaigns. Ford, of course, had the option of continuing to run its ads. The fact that the biggest shareholder of its largest competitor also regulates Ford’s business probably had something to do with the decision. Virtually every part of the manufacture of a car is regulated. Some are safety oriented so that headlights, tires, etc. meet minimum and consistent standards. Others are environmental determining minimum gasoline usage per gallon. Without debating the value of one regulation or another, the fact that a regulator can significantly impact the manufacturing process is a major incentive for companies to be compliant. In Ford’s case, its regulator is also its competitor.

There are many reasons that the Government should not be in the automotive business. The merits of bailouts, subsidies and loans are fodder for another blog. Human nature is probably most at play in this situation. Ford saw an opportunity to distinguish itself from the competition. The White House scratched its head and called up the company and asked some questions about why they were slamming a policy that they supported in testimony on Capitol Hill. The White House didn’t suggest that Ford stop running the ad. Getting call from Big Brother let alone being challenged by the White House Ford figured the path of least resistance would probably serve them best with their regulator was to pull the ad. It’s all understandable. It’s just terrible.

What’s next? Government telling cereal companies that cartoon characters can’t be on their boxes or in their ads? The House Energy & Commerce Committee actually had a hearing this week to evaluate guidelines for advertising for certain foods. The opted not to (for now). Some food companies will now second guess their marketing strategies because of the possibility of governmental intrusion. And that’s the tragedy here. The slippery slope of the State interfering with private industry is quite wet.

Third Branch or Third Wheel?

2011-10-06T08:30:00.000-07:00

The first Monday in October marks the day that the Supreme Court starts their session for the year. By June they will have rendered their decisions. The Supreme Court symbolizes the importance that the justice system holds in American society. Justice is revered by Americans around the world with the recent acquittal and release of Amanda Knox getting hurrahs from Americans and the media. It was just a few weeks ago that two Americans were released by Iran after having been accused of espionage but never given a trial. Punishing people without due process is outrageous to most Americans.

The framers of the Constitution intended the three branches of government to be a “checks and balances” system. The judicial branch oversees the court system of the U.S. Unlike a criminal court, the Supreme Court rules whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional. It is suppsed to be equal in stature to the legislative branch (which make laws) and the Executive branch (which makes laws official and then sees to their implementation).

What happens, though, when two of the branches of government undermine the third?

There are 95 judicial vacancies in the U.S. Federal Court system. Only 45 nominations have been approved by the 112th Congress (about 1/3rd). Of the 95 vacancies, the Executive Branch has only nominated 56 to fill them. So even if they were all magically approved, there would continue to be at least a 5% gap. The length which it takes a nominee to be approved is the longest in history: 78 days for consensus candidates. (It was 28 days under Bush #43).

Even more than the bickering and delays over filling the judiciary with qualified personnel, the foundation of the purpose of the judiciary is now in jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury … nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …”

U.S-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed last week in an air strike in Yemen by a joint CIA-U.S. military operation. This follows other targeted killings and the high profile assassination of Osama bin-Laden May 1.

None of the targets are people that I’d want to hang out with or probably even know. The hate they spew forth is repugnant and the crimes that they are accused of committing are as base as humanity knows. They are due every right under Due Process as anybody else before punishment is inflicted.

Wait. No way. We’re at war so we can kill them with impunity. The Fifth Amendment specifically carves out an exception! “…except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…”

The U.S. is not at war. Under that pesky Constitution, Congress must declare war, but it hasn’t. It’s relatively easy: go into session and vote. Majority rules. Done deal. That hasn’t happened since World War II. OK, so we’re not at war. But these guys are terrorists. Evil personified. They are a public danger!

Drug dealers push their poison on today’s youth. They take over parts of our cities and run them like their own fiefdom. Congress and many Presidents have called it a Drug War. The Government has spent trillions trying to win that war. Why not just shoot the dealers and be done with it? It’d clean up the streets, keep the prison population low, reduce drug use…an all around win-win. Drug Dealers are clearly a public danger.

11 Muslim students got up and disrupted a speech by an Israeli Ambassador. Instead of stripping the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly that got 10 of them sentenced to probation and community service, why not just kill them? Disrupting an important person’s speech is dangerous and puts the public at risk! (Following this logic, let’s do the same to those nutty Tea Party people…and those crazy Socialists.)

Silly? Extreme? Perhaps. The point is that under the U.S. Constitution it is not up to one person to decide whether another person lives or dies, no matter what they say or do. That’s our history. That’s our pride. That’s what defines and distinguishes America from other countries, and other democracies.

The beauty of a country based on the Rule of Law is that there is a system of punishment based on rules of evidence. It’s laborious. It’s messy. It doesn’t always work the way the public wants (OJ? Casey Anthony? Gore v Bush?). But it’s the system we’ve got and it worked pretty well for the last couple of centuries.

The U.S. killings of individuals is the most significant constitutional issue of our time. Where is the Supreme Court on all of this? Nobody has brought forth a case that allows them to weigh in. Sure there’s plenty of case law supporting that military action is fine during times of declared war, but what in times of undeclared but defacto war? Is that a distinction without a difference?

Just last week a man in Massachusetts was found testing out a drone to attack within the U.S. He was arrested. Not sure why he wasn’t just gunned down right then and there. By some miracle he is getting his day in court. Maybe the justice system isn't quiet the third wheel yet.

Crude Economics

2011-09-29T08:55:00.000-07:00

Driving through Beverly Hills the other day a sign caught my attention. In the visually cluttered metropolis of Los Angeles, that a sign was noticeable is interesting in and of itself. That the sign was from a gas station is even more surprising. That it listed gas at $5.05 per gallon was shocking. This station is in the heart of Beverly Hills, attendants help fill the tank and it was for premium grade. Regular was a bargain at $4.99. It got me to thinking about Michelle Bachman’s promise that if elected she’d bring back $2 gas.

Democrats and comics had a field day. The idea that the President could impact gasoline prices is just preposterous! Right? Don’t tell that to President Ford who created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 1975 as a response to the 1973 oil crisis. President Clinton stopped stocking the reserve in 1995, redirecting the funds to other energy projects. President George W Bush (#43) was the first President to tap the Reserve in 2001 as way to “provide energy stability” after the events of 9/11 and the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan. He also returned to the policy of the Government buying and storing oil. In June 2011 President Obama became the second President to use the Reserve – releasing 30 million barrels. He did so out of the uncertainty that the conflict in Libya was causing. Political critics interpreted the action as an attempt by the President to lower fuel costs and help the middle class. (30 million barrels lasted about a day and a half and had no noticable effect on pricing, though the news story showed that the President did something.)

The cost of crude oil only represents 68% of the price. Refining, marketing and taxes make up the rest. The cost of crude was stable for the majority of the last century, and only had wild swings during the first part of last decade (the Owes). Prices tripled from 2003 to 2008.

Why did crude go up so much? Some analysts suggest that because oil is a finite resource the laws of supply and demand are at work. Military conflicts in the Middle East (where most of the exploration is) could be a reason. Others imply nefarious conspiracies that oil prices increased so much under a President who had deep personal and business ties to the industry. Costs of exploration and extraction have increased. Likely there’s a combination of many factors that have resulted in the increase. Three years later it’s unlikely that prices will return to their historic average, and certainly there's no policy efforts from the U.S. Government addressing the issue.

Crude oil is the commodity that fuels the planet. It is not only used in various forms for energy and gasoline, it is the core component of synthetic materials such as plastic. The global economy has been structured around oil.

High crude prices mean high transportation costs. That impacts not only errands around town, but virtually every product and service. Bought a new shirt or blouse? Most likely it was manufactured in an inexpensive labor market like China – but it got to the store shelf via a barge and a series of trucks --- all dependent on gas. Most of us have gotten used to the “fuel surcharge” on a variety of services and goods that we buy.

The higher that fuel and transportation costs go – the economic benefits of outsourced manufacturing must be re-evaluated. There will be a tipping point where the lower wage and regulation costs outside of the U.S. are offset by increased transportation costs. Aggressive and nimble companies would be well served to look at towns and cities across America and reconsider the benefits of domestic manufacturing.

Free trade has had an extraordinary impact on the U.S. economy. Goods and services from virtually anywhere on the globe can be bought and sold in American stores. The idea is that if goods come into the U.S. and are sold from a particular country then that same country would also facilitate the sale of U.S. goods in their country – and not only do consumers around the globe benefit, but companies and countries as well. Good for one is good for all. The concept has failed in practice.

The U.S. has held a trade deficit – where Americans buy more than sell – since the late 1960’s, and monumental increases since 1995, and hitting its worst point in 2006 of $817.3 billion.

The global financial calamity of 2007-08 has been largely blamed by the “experts” on the bursting housing bubble. There’s no doubt that those issues contributed to the meltdown. But so did the trade deficit and a tripling of oil prices.

Politicians promise to fix things. A simple and effective solution would be to reinstate some tariffs on goods made outside of the U.S. Tariffs have been around forever, and officially part of the U.S. economy since 1792 when it was 15.1%. The fee hit a high of 44% in 1870. Since World War II ended the rates have been below 10%. 2011’s average tariff is at its lowest point in American history: 1.3%. Doubling of the tariff would mean $500+ billion to the U.S. treasury and restore the rate to 1995 (when the economy was pretty strong).

Increased tariffs, high oil and transportation costs would further incentive manufacturing to return to the U.S. That would mean jobs. People with jobs pay taxes and buy goods (that have to be made). People with jobs no longer require government programs, reducing government spending obligations. A 1% increase in the tariff would have an immediate, short term and long term benefit to the U.S. economy on multiple levels. Washington politicians will instead spend the fall having philosophical jousts - a crude irony when a solution is available.

Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest

2011-09-22T07:36:00.000-07:00

Stupidity sells a lot of tickets to the movies. It is the basis of many fiction and non shows on television. It’s a treasured tool in the blogger arsenal. Many websites (http://www.idiotlaws.com/, http://www.dumblaws.com/, http://www.stupidlaws.com/) exist that document the most egregious laws. In Fresno, CA it’s illegal if you’re a midget to dress like a lephercaun. (St. Patrick’s Day in Fresno must suck!) In Bethany Missouri, it is illegal for any black men to wear skirts while driving a truck. (I guess it's OK while driving a car or a motorcycle?)

California’s Legislature is the highest paid in the country. The state is one of the largest, so it’s not terribly surprising. What do we get for that? For 2011 the legislators convened January 3rd and recessed for the year September 9th. In between there were another 45 work days off for various holidays and recesses. It’s nearly 6 months out of the year that the legislature isn’t in session. They are considered a full-time entity though there have been attempts to convert to part-time, the most recent in 2009 that didn’t work. What would that look like – 3 months of work instead of 6?

Governor Jerry Brown has until October 9 to sign or veto bills that made it through the 2011 legislative process. One of the one’s that didn’t is SB432 which proposed requiring hotels use fitted sheets instead of flat sheets or pay significant penalties and fines.

The Unions were more successful with AB101. The “child care” act requires that babysitters join a union.

In the week since the Legislature left the Capitol 24,000 people have called the Governor encouraging him to sign AB376 – the bill that would ban the sale of shark fin in California.

In 2010 some 672 new pieces of legislation became law while 2011 just about 192 did. Governor Brown is considering the 600+ that passed for 2012 (which is nearly 3 per each day the Legislature was in session).

It’s easy (and perhaps a bit lazy) to make fun of legislation that protects just the fin of a shark, hotels right to choose the linen for their rooms or for teenage babysitters to remain non-union in order to help out with a neighbors toddler.

It would be convenient to conclude that the lack of intelligence is inherent in those who are in politics. There are actually lots of very smart people who are committed to serving their communities. Blame can also be placed on the legislative process. The process itself isn’t flawed, it’s been around for centuries. The dependence on special interest money impacts laws that are proposed and signed. There is a lot of truth that when legislators need to be in a constant campaign funding mode that those with the cash have influence.

The money problem is easily fixed. I’ve opined previously and still think it's the best solution: Simply the regulations so that anybody who is eligible to vote in a particular election can contribute however much they want to a candidate (allowing for reasonable verification that a babysitter isn’t giving beyond their means). Political representation would change instantly because people couldn’t contribute to candidates or issues outside of their districts and candidates would have to interact one-on-one with people for votes and funding. It would immediately re-democratize the process.

Arrogance, however, trumps the influence of money. Legislators, by the very nature of their role, believe that most problems can be solved by making law. Shark fin soup is a Chinese delicacy that is served at traditional events like weddings. 73 million sharks are killed each year. Is a law in only one state the best way to remedy the real impact on the shark population? Biology Letters did a census and found there are 219 Great White Sharks off of the California Coast. Why not educate people about ths issue? Or a tariff? Or some other solution that doesn’t criminalize fisherman?

Lawmakers are influenced by those whom they spend the most time with: unions and corporations because they have the resources that fund the campaigns. They also have the research staffs to provide data to short-staffed legislative offices. Politicians then propose laws to accommodate issues that are raised not out of a corrupt backroom deal, but out of an arrogance of believing that government can and should solve every problem. The result is trying to unionize teenagers. The real stupidity is that those lawmakers will be re-elected. The voters who do that that are the dumbest of all.