Al Gore

I have to tip my hat to Al Gore, at the end of the day he has proven to be a true Capitalist, and has shown that Milton Freedman's views of the capitalist system are fundamentally sound.

In true free market fashion, Al and his partners created a product and then found someone to buy it, making for themselves a handsome profit.  He even went so far in his embrace of the system  to try and expedite the sale so he wouldn't suffer the tax penalties that came with the arrival of the new year.

The unfortunate part of this American riches to riches story is that he had convinced so many people into believing he wasn't what he really was.  He had played his supporters into believing he stood for the environment, the redistribution of wealth, and the unions.  His passion to fight against those nasty oil barons and sheiks, and the politicians that supported them, was for the good of the world.  As it turns out his complaints about George Bush and Dick Chaney, and their ties to the oil companies, wasn't so much a political difference as it was envy.

So again, I say to Mr. Gore, congratulations on being a Capitalist, albeit one that is more than happy to bite the hand that feeds you.

I Wonder What If...

I wonder what America would be like today if instead of having our founding fathers concerned about individual liberties they had bought into the idea of a state religion like England and France?  What if we didn’t have a first amendment and the state could censor our press?  What would all those people who don’t want religion involved in Government be doing?

What if George Washington had liked the idea of being King?  Who would have succeeded him and what line of monarchs would be on the throne?

What if the representatives had addressed the issues of slavery with the founding of our country?  Today would there be two different countries, or would we have avoided our civil war/war of northern aggression?

The USS Maine had not exploded in Havana Harbor, what pretext would we have used for the Spanish American war?

The Wright Brothers had focused on their bicycle business…

There was a congressional amendment that limited the amount of debt the US could have?

Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Jr. had not died when OPERATION APHRODITE bomber exploded before he could bail out?

There had never been a prohibition? 

The Congress had not deregulated the airline industry?

Not broken up Bell Telephone?

The sound barrier really was a barrier?

Service Before Self

One of the core values for the US Air Force is Service Before Self.  This is intended to instill in our young airman, our officers and our commanders a sense that the whole is greater than the individual parts.  That we must consider something bigger than us before we worry about our individual desires and needs.  As we look at this value I see an interesting thing.  The younger troops usually buy into it and give 100% of themselves to whatever is asked of them.  Sometimes so much is asked they give their “last full measure of devotion” to quote Abraham Lincoln.  But as time goes on, little by little and bit-by-bit, they are tarnished and jaded by the society around them, and the older leaders appointed above them.  Those older people who have found ways to game the system, or manipulate it to their benefit.

For example, we read in the news of the Generals who’ve been asked to retire, or to step down due to abuse of the system, or are being tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for abuse of their subordinates.  Fortunately they are few in number, but we as a military can only be as strong as our weakest links.

I think our society reflects this same problem.  At some point the idealism of youth is stolen away and most of us become focused on what’s in it for me.  Some may seem to be great humanitarians as they fight to have someone else, like the government, solve all the inequities of the world, but when it comes right down to it, they still expect to get everything they deserve.

For example, I read about how much tenured professors and college administrators make.  I see them arguing for greater benefits for the disadvantaged, and how everyone should have a college degree, but are they willing to cut their own salaries to lower the cost of higher education or would they rather have the government fund more college loans so the students graduate with a staggering debt?  I think the answer here should be obvious.  Unless the media has failed to cover some new trend I don’t see these professors rising up en masse to reduce the cost of education.

I truly believe most Representatives and Senators actually seek election initially with the hopes and aspirations of doing good things for those who have put their faith in them.  But once elected how soon many believe they are entitled to special treatment and after years of this treatment no longer put the good of their constituents first?  We see instances where this need for recognition without regard to cost shows the arrogance of our professional legislators.  For example, should the Speaker of the House expect and demand that military aircraft fly him or her home each weekend, or should they take commercial flights like the rest of the members?  In the history of this nation the record is filled with hundreds of instances of sanctions and acts where once caught with their hands in the cookie jars the institution was forced to take action or face public condemnation.

In today’s world of ad hominem attacks I am afraid none of our senior politicians are capable of placing the Nation’s good above themselves.  Every choice, every statement, every agreement is based on what is personal benefit is the politician or bureaucrat likely to achieve.  This is only fueled to greater strength by the media who is looking to stoke the passions of their listeners or viewers.

My Thoughts on a Winter's Day

I saw an exchange this morning that summed up the problem with personality politics.  On the one side when the Congress allows a temporary tax holiday to end, and SS withholding return to the rate paid since 1990, the Republicans are criticized for increasing taxes and ending an “Obama benefit.”  Yet I don’t see much criticism of the Democrats who voted for it (it was, after all, a bi-partisan vote in both houses).

When the President and his supporters entered into the end of year negotiations with the demands that the only option was to increase taxes on the wealthy, and not look at cutting spending, how can this country believe that things like this wouldn’t be quietly slipped into the mix?

When the President originally campaigned in 2008, he ran on the promise of transparency.  There has been nothing in this administration's handling of government that reflects any real support of transparency or open government.  So why would anyone expect that this late night agreement would be any different.

If we are going to all get upset over having to pay extra dollars in increased SS withholding (or tax if you like) then put the blame where it belongs.  The President took the credit for driving home this agreement with the Republican’s, shouldn’t he accept credit for this choice as well?  Obviously, he won’t and his supporters will again blindly blame those they don’t like as solely to blame.

With more fiscal cliffs ahead it looks like it will be a very long year for the working middle class, and our economy.

In the Quiet, at Year's End

As we bring to a close this year of 2012, I would like to spend a moment or two considering what it may look like in our history books.

Politics:

            The year began with the Republican Party staging its primaries to determine the next candidate for President.  With one or two notable exceptions the field was made up of aging white men, who showed almost immediately they were out of touch with the key groups that would become instrumental in deciding the election.  The party settled on a relatively moderate candidate who had to show he was a staunch conservative to fulfill party expectations.  With the assistance of Jimmy Carter’s nephew he fatally shot himself in the foot.  The astute political analysts at Fox News showed they too had no understanding of how Mr. Romney’s changing positions would play out in the general population.

            The President, on the other hand, had an easy ride into the nomination, but still spent most of his time campaigning on the class warfare issues he had begun in the first two years of his term.  He encouraged radical debate with the #OWS crowd, and reinforced the position that Tea Party conservatives were racially biased radicals bent on the destruction of the United States.  He was aided in this with media support on MSNBC, CNN, and the other main stream media, who claimed almost any criticism of the President was a racial attack.

            In the course of the campaign both sides raised, and I assume spent, more than a billion dollars to secure this great position of public service.  We saw the left attack the super PAC concept, made legal in the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission that overturned sections of the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (AKA McCain-Feingold Act),  saying Super PAC involvement corrupted the political process.  Meanwhile labor unions contributed millions of dollars to support Democratic candidates without much fanfare, but that is a much more historical approach to buying political influence.

            When the Republican Governor of Wisconsin set into motion the overturning of the Teacher’s Union contracts and rights on collective bargaining there was a huge and ugly labor movement attempt to recall him, and reinstate the rights of the Union to force local governments to meet teacher demands before all else.  The recall election failed, and the state seems to be moving towards a more fiscally stable situation, although the Unions continue their protests at the state capital in Madison.

Financial:

            As part of the last budget crisis, when we reached the debt ceiling, Congress implemented a Sword of Damocles approach to supposedly force them to take action on addressing the balance between Federal income versus expenditure.  They established a bipartisan commission to look at solutions.  The commission made its report and the Congress immediately rejected them.  We continue to spend more than we take in, and tomorrow I expect we will fall off this financial cliff, and for the Executive Branch we will experience sequestration, although no one has actually defined what that means.  Of historical note: during the second Presidential debate President Obama made the declarative statement that “sequestration would not happen.”  It is easy to make promises when no one expects you will actually have to keep them.

Social:

            Facebook had a big initial public offering (IPO) that made the initial investors in the company billionaires.  The stock immediately lost a goodly part of its value for those who just had to be part of the IPO.  The finger pointing continues on that one.

            Gay rights continue to expand, and more states are approving the right to marry.  While I am personally not a big fan of this, I view it as the appropriate course of action for our country.  This should be a States issue and the Federal Government should not interject itself in the rights of a state to govern its citizens in those areas not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

            In the military the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was, at the end of the day, a big yawn.  All the nay saying of the senior leaders proved to be unfounded.  Moral and discipline seems to be about the same place it was before the new approvals were implemented.  The military is predominately made up of young people, and they have accepted this change without the reservations and hostilities the older officers and civilian leaders showed.  Interestingly, one of the sticking points for fully implementing these new rules is the Defense of Marriage Act.

September 19^th remains Talk Like a Pirate day.

Medical:

            The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare).  As we enter into the New Year it will be interesting to see what kind of economic impact the new taxes have on our businesses, and their employees.

            Robotic surgery continues to quietly expand with devices like De Vinci and I think the time is not far off where our doctors are not even in the same hospital as the patient.

Science:

            We have a new rover on Mars, and man has broken the sound barrier, this time without a plane to protect him.

            The world didn’t end with the end of the Mayan calendar; apparently it was only the desk version and not the whole thing.

I hope everyone has a great 2013.

Do More Laws Improve Citizen Safety?

Chicago police confirm 'tragic number' of 500 homicides, on December 28^th.   The Los Angeles Homicide Map shows 517 deaths by December 9^th.    NYC murders reach record low in 2012 with 414 homicides.  The vast majority of these were committed by the deadly force involving a firearm.

Three major metropolitan areas, three separate states and significantly different gun control policies.  Which one offers the greatest protection to its citizens through the strict control of gun ownership, registration and use?  Hmmmm, lets see.

Starting in reverse order.  Frequently asked questions about NY State Gun Control Laws.   In summary, NYC requires all rifles, shotguns and pistols to be licensed and registered, and their owners must have a permit to carry them.  There is up to a six-month wait to acquire a permit to purchase a handgun.

About.com in its page, What are the gun laws in California? says California residents do not need to register or license rifles and shotguns, but do need to register handguns.  A concealed carry permit is required.  A 10-day waiting period before delivery of a firearm is required. Additionally there are a variety of laws in place dealing with minors and felons possession of firearms.

Finally, About.com shows that Illinois has, by far, the most restrictive laws, especially when you are in Chicago.  A firearms owner identification (FOID) card is required to purchase and carry rifles, shotguns and pistols.  Chicago requires all firearms be registered with them.  Carrying a concealed weapon is prohibited entirely.  A 24-hour waiting period is required for a rifle or shotgun and a 72-hour wait is required for a pistol.  The seller of a firearm must retain a record of the transfer for 10 years.  You cannot possess either guns or ammunition without a FOID.  There are also laws dealing with the issues of juvenile possession, and child access, as well as by felons and those with mental defect.

So of the three areas in question, NYC’s laws seem the simplest, yet it has the lowest homicide rate?  On simple comparison there does not seem to be a direct correlation between the number of laws and restrictions associated with gun ownership and the safety of the population at large.  It appears that those using firearms don’t seem too interested in complying with the laws as currently written.  So can someone in favor of more laws and restrictions just explain to me how the new laws will improve safety, if the real issue seems to be one of criminal non-compliance with the existing ones?

The Conspirator

The other day I watched The Conspirator, a 2010 movie directed by Robert Redford for the American Film Company.  A historical film dealing with the trial of Mary Surratt by a military tribunal, it goes to considerable length to show the abuse of power by the Secretary of War, Edward M. Stanton, in the name of protecting the nation, as the principle antagonist to the hero, a Union Army Veteran and lawyer.  The hero, Frederick Aiken, must confront the rigged system while attempting to prove his client’s innocence.  Needless to say he is thwarted at every turn.

For those who may be unfamiliar with this brief bit of history, Mrs. Surratt was accused of being one of the principle conspirators with John Wilkes Booth, in the assassination of President Lincoln at Ford’s theater.  She became the first woman executed for a crime in the United States.

In listening to Secretary Stanton’s reasoning, I was reminded of Joseph McCarthy and his pursuit of Communists from the 50’s.  I believe the similarities were intended by Mr. Redford, as he portrayed the abuse of power and the rationalization of it being done for a greater good.  How often do we hear that reasoning for abuses by government?

For me, the movie reinforced my belief that governmental power must be limited, for when it is not it will be abused.  But I am left confused by the willingness of so many to relinquish individual rights to the government, in the hopes of some greater good.  But I digress… I liked the movie and recommend it as a way to spend a couple of hours.