Thursday, December 26, 2013

The War against Boxing Day

Today is Boxing Day.  It’s doesn’t involve gloves, rings or a round that start and end with a bell.  According to Wikipedia it is “traditionally the day following Christmas Day when servants and tradesmen would receive gifts from their bosses or employers, known as a ‘Christmas box.’ … It is believed to be in reference to the Alms Box placed in places of worship in order to collect donations to the poor. … This custom is linked to an older English tradition: since they would have to wait on their masters on Christmas Day, the servants of the wealthy were allowed the next day to visit their families. The employers would give each servant a box to take home containing gifts and bonuses, and sometimes leftover food.”  In modern day America the day is mostly when people flock to the malls to return or exchange gifts received.
 
Over the past several weeks the media has feasted on “The War Against Christmas.”  It is a notion perpetuated by a handful of colorful personalities who claim that the “politically correct” are out to take the “Christ” out of “Christmas ” – or something like that.  Throw in claims of Santa being of one race, creed or color and it’s been a cornucopia of nonsense.  Way back in 2005 Congress even voted on it:  “The House ‘strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas’ and supports Christmas symbols and traditions.“  Christmas now represents two different things.
There is the commercial, Santa-driven, economic Christmas that uses nostalgia, tradition as a way to mark the occasion.  It drives a huge part of the global economy.  You don’t have to be of a particular religious denomination to participate in holiday parties, “Secret Santa’s” and other such festivities.
Then there’s the Christian, religious observation of Christ’s birth, preceded by Advent – a 4 Sunday period of contemplation before the “coming” of Jesus, and followed by Christmastide – more commonly known as the 12 Days of Christmas – from Christmas to the Epiphany. 
Of course while there are two focuses – they are not mutually exclusive. 
 
And there is no war on Christmas.  There’s no bloodshed, combat or pain like in a real war.  It's more of  a disagreement about how much prominence one definition should have over another.  Where there has been a total deterioration of tradition, however, is in the spirit behind Boxing Day…of taking care of those who take care of us.
 

The service class today is not Downton Abbey-esque.  Today it is made up of professionals in a range of sectors – from restaurants and hospitality to support staff in offices to health care workers.  At a time when we debate how sacred to make a holiday – let’s take a moment to acknowledge those who help us.  Thanks to all who give of yourselves to others. 

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Hell-O

200 people on an enclosed metal tube chit chatting away on cell phones is one form of purgatory.  (It might even be more effective than water boarding.)  It’s hard enough for me to endure a flight when two strangers get seated together and one tries to pick the other up…or one decides to share their life’s story with another.  Shrinking personal space between seats and the ever creative fee structure makes getting from point a to point b more and more of an endurance test.  With the acknowledgement that cell phones do not interfere with flight operations, various government agencies began hearings last week  are considering lifting the ban on phone calls.  Congress has even voted to ban the calls. 
 
 
Do we really need the U.S. Government to determine whether citizens can make a phone call?  Or where it's permissible to talk?  It’s bad enough that the NSA tracks the calls, who’s call who, for how long, etc.   I’m not advocating the use of phone calls in the air.  I’m just not sure that the FCC or the DOT or some other alphabet agency should be deciding.
Why not let the airlines decide?  Delta announced yesterday that even though it is illegal under federal law to have a cell phone conversation in flight, they would nonetheless ban them.  There is a cost to add equipment, weight to that machinery that will increase the cost of fuel per flight.  On the other hand many customers may like the ability to ring or text somebody and let them know that they’re early, late or on-time.  One airline might want to be the friendly-chatty airline, while another promotes their “silence is golden” ride. 


 
 
Amtrack (as well as many international trains) have “quiet” cars – areas designated as no-talk, no-cell phone areas.  Given the airlines penchant for fees, they could charge extra to be in a non-talk area…or even extra to be in a talk-designated area.
Capitalism works when the marketplace is allowed to make decisions.  Government should not be dictating when phone calls can be made.  Airlines could even work with wireless companies to have a surcharge on calls made in-flight if they wanted to...a perfectly justifiable use of ‘roaming’ fees.  And let's not forget that for many years phones were embedded in the back of seats for people to swipe a credit card and chat with whomever.  There wasn't an outcry then or a demand for Government to ban those calls.  Weren't those people obnoxious too?
The airline industry is over-regulated as it is.  If a passenger talks back to a flight attendant, that is a federal offense, punishable by huge fines and even jail time in a federal prison.  That seems excessive.  Why not let an airline decline service to a customer who has been problematic in the past?  That would solve the issue in a heartbeat, and keep the punishment proportionate to the crime.
Do we really want to jail citizens for making phone calls?  There is an over-criminalization of annoying behavior.  According to the Washington Post Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO issued a letter: “Passengers engrossed in calls would miss safety announcements and terrorists could use phones for coordination.”
If terrorism is going to increase because phone calls area allowed on planes, then the world is in even worse condition than the histrionics already claim.  It’s annoying, it’s probably even a bad idea – but it shouldn’t be illegal and it won’t put the nation’s security at risk.  The hyperbole and panic of lawmakers is more annoying than a boor sitting next to me chattering away for 6 hours.  Let's let the market decide as a small gesture that the U.S. economy is still capitalist driven and not centrally decided by the State.
 

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Fueling the fees

Winter Wonderland hit much of the country this past week through various storms.  The first major snow and ice-storms of the season remind commuters of the inadequacies of the transportation system.  Having driving across the US over the past couple of years I found most of the roads in pretty lousy condition.  To help remedy the situation Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) last week announced his sponsorship of a bill to raise the gas tax 15-cents per gallon and have those funds allocated towards road and highway improvement.  This would be a near-doubling of the current 18.4 cents a gallon.  Each State, of course, adds their own tax and fee.
 
Alaska boasts the lowest tax at 26.4 cents while New York charges 69.6 cents, just .6 cents more than California.  Combined with the Federal tax the NY and CA more than one-quarter of the cost of a gallon of gas is going towards the fee...and it doesn’t seem to be nearly enough.  The Federal excise fee raises approx. $25 billion a year and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s annual budget (expenditures) is approx. $72 billion.
The Washington Post story reports:   “Congress hasn’t dealt seriously with the funding issue for 20 years,” Blumenauer said. “With inflation and increased fuel efficiency, especially for some types of vehicles, there is no longer a good relationship between what road users pay and how much they benefit. The average motorist is paying about half as much per mile as they did in 1993.”
For years one of the arguments for higher gasoline taxes was environmental.  The more it cost to drive then it was likely to encourage carpooling, push manufacturers to come up with more fuel efficient vehicles and generally save the world.  According to Wikipedia, hybrid auto sales in 2011 hit 2 million.  According to the Congressman that’s had such an impact that more money is needed because fewer fees are being collected.
There’s little question that the U.S. infrastructure is in need of some significant overhaul.  ASCE’s quadrennial report card on U.S. infrastructure grades the country at a D+:  “Infrastructure is the foundation that connects the nation’s businesses, communities, and people, driving our economy and improving our quality of life. For the U.S. economy to be the most competitive in the world, we need a first class infrastructure system – transport systems that move people and goods efficiently and at reasonable cost by land, water, and air; transmission systems that deliver reliable, low-cost power from a wide range of energy sources; and water systems that drive industrial processes as well as the daily functions in our homes. Yet today, our infrastructure systems are failing to keep pace with the current and expanding needs, and investment in infrastructure is faltering.”
The Executive Summary of the report claims nearly $2.2 trillion in unmet projects – nearly the entire budget for the entire U.S. economy for one year.

 
 
Government has a vital role to play in public infrastructure.  It is one of the (few) things that the state should be doing for the citizenry, and therefore it should be funded fully.  Funding should come based on usage.  Rather than an arbitrary fixed amount per gallon, why not a percentage?   When the 18.4 center per gallon was instituted, the average gas price was $1.11 a gallon – so the tax was 16.5%.  Today’s average gas price is $3.30 – so instead of a tax of 5.5% at 18.4 cents, the same allocation would be generating $0.55.
There’s very little that Government does right – and an efficient and effective spending of tax revenue on infrastructure projects is unlikely in the current design of Government.  That, however, is a different problem and issue that should be remedied separately. 

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Malevolence Mirror

On November 27, 1978 Harvey Milk and George Moscone were murdered, vaulting Diane Feinstein from a Board Supervisor to the Mayor of San Francisco.  More than a political advance, the way that she handled the issues put her in the good graces of many – and allowed her to build a moderate reputation and the respect of many constituents.  She held that position for a decade, then after a narrowly lost Gubernatorial bid, was elected Senator for California and has been reelected four times.  In the 2012 election she claimed the record for the most popular votes in any U.S. Senate election in history, having received 7.75 million votes.  I voted for her in three of the four elections and even contributed to her campaigns.  At 80 she is the oldest currently serving Senator.  Despite her popularity and positions of power within the Washington establishment – her performance this past weekend shows that her time is up.
On CNN’s “State of the Union” this past Sunday, Candy Crowley  asking, “Are we safer now than we were a year ago, two years ago?”  
“I don’t think so,” Feinstein replied. “I think terror is up worldwide, the statistics indicate that. The fatalities are way up. The numbers are way up. There are new bombs, very big bombs. Trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnetometers. The bomb maker is still alive. There are more groups than ever. And there is huge malevolence out there.”
“So, senator, I have to say, that is not the answer I expected. I expected to hear, ‘Oh, safer,” Crowley said.  So would I, especially given:
·         US Intelligence spending has doubled since 9/11 to more than $56 billion per year – according to The Guardian
·         Nearly 5 million people (1.6% of the population) of the US hold security clearances – according to The Atlantic
·         1.4 million people hold Top Secret clearances – according to The Atlantic
On the 12th Anniversary of the 9/11 bombings, TheWashington Post ran a comprehensive analysis pulling data from Government’s own published findings showing that the frequency and impact of terrorist attacks in the U.S. have dropped dramatically since 2001, to the point of being statistically negligible in the past several years. 
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/02/daily-chart-7?fsrc=scn/tw/te/dc/dangerofdeath
 
“In the last five years, the odds of an American being killed in a terrorist attack have been about 1 in 20 million (that's including both domestic attacks and overseas attacks). As the chart above from the Economist shows, that's considerably smaller than the risk of dying from many other things, from post-surgery complications to ordinary gun violence to lightning.”
 
 
Senator Feinstein has been a staunch supporter of George W. Bush’s and President Obama’s policies.  As Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee she has endorsed the secret courts that do not allow those charged to know of their charges, be represented by counsel or have any of the other Constitutional protections we assume all defendants have.   This court also directed private companies to turn over consumer information without any warrant or probable cause.  Billions of dollars are spent on intelligence and are not transparently reported to the public. 
So despite the huge allocations of money, the statistical decline in attacks – the Senior Senator from California believes that the U.S. is in worse shape security wise than two years ago?  The easiest way to solve that is to eliminate the programs that she’s endorsed and supported and return America to the freedom it extols to others.  And that begins by looking at the malevolence she claims is there and look instead in the mirror.
 

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Leaving Syracuse

I left Syracuse in May of 1987 as flurries fell.  I missed my own graduation I was so anxious to cross the country and start my post-college life (and escape the never ending snow).  I have not returned to my alma matter nor to the city which seems fortuitous since to enter the city via the airport you now need TSA authorization.  According to both NBC News and the Daily Mail passengers can’t leave the arrival area at Syracuse airport without approval from the TSA.  Passengers must now enter a pod and wait for the TSA to electronically authorize them to leave the terminal – from which they can’t return.  

 
Way back in the last century when I would go from Boston to Syracuse I flew the nascent airline People’s Express before Continental ate them up only to later merge with United.  The flight attendants would come up and down the aisle collecting payment and all the fares were fixed and flat.  (Bit of trivia: They were also the first airline to charge for checking a bag:  $3 and snacks cost you $0.50.)  It was the predecessor to Southwest and so many other discount airlines.  Of course in those days you went right up to the gate without having to undress, justify your travel plans to a government official or have your possessions searched for the privilege of going from point A to point B in your own country.
Now it seem the old days are 2013 when TSA agents would staff the exit areas by the gates to insure that passengers don’t turn around after crossing a particular point (arbitrarily chosen by some committee somewhere no doubt).  How many of these agents have we all seen dozing off, reading books, talking to other agents?  I didn’t realize they were the last line of defense in the U.S. security protocol against terrorism.  Now very expensive looking pods will require each passenger to step in, and then a robotic voice will authorize their departure or direct them to be detained.  The TSA claims that this will save costs for staff and improve security.  Likely it won’t save time for passengers and will make flying even more festive than it is today.
I’ve done some search engine looking to see what security breaches have occurred with passengers turning around at the end of the gate area and causing mayhem, harm and threats of terrorist activity.  While Bing and Google aren’t the most definitive way to identify all cases that fall in that definition, it is noteworthy that the bots couldn’t find one.  So it’s unclear what the agents, and now the pods are protecting against. 
TSA agents are paid between $17,083 per year and $24,977.  (The more senior you are the wages can go up to $120,326.)   The pods at Syracuse’s Hancock Airport were installed as part of a $60 million upgrade – the actual pod cost wasn’t identified – but suffice to say each pod likely cost more than the cost of paying $75K per year (3 shifts of agents per day).




Earlier this month (Nov 2013)  the Government Accountability Office completed its investigation into the $1 billion (with a b) TSA program to observe and talk with passengers as a deterrent to terrorism.  The report said the results were “no better than chance.”  Put another way:  the TSA could have flipped coins and gotten the same impact as the billion dollars it spent on the program.  I’m comforted by the TSA’s sudden concern for thrift.
Cost-effectiveness doesn’t appear to be a priority for the TSA when the full body scanners that showed people naked were abandoned back in 2007.  Now those units are being sold at $0.10 on the dollar to prisons.  The money the TSA is suddenly concerned about saving is all pass-through dollars anyway – fees and taxes charged specifically to cover security costs have increased the cost of air travel for every ticket, every leg since 9/11.  Doubtful that those fees will be reduced with all this cost savings going on.
Electronic devices have now been authorized by the TSA.  The freedom to use a Kindle was hard fought and took many years.  What will it take to restore the freedom to leave the airport without proving your innocence?  (Or to at least get enough people outraged about being literally held prisoner by the government.)

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Death of Hope

I’m a child of the post-Camelot America, being born a year after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.  This week the world notes the 50th anniversary of the murder, and with it come reflections, analysis and not a few conspiracy theories.  There’s little debate, however, that November 22, 1963 in Dallas marked the death of hope for a generation.
 
 
The rest of the 1960’s were marked by often violent clashes between groups – whether it was over issues of war, poverty or a rash of other issues as America broke free of its 1950’s constraints.  More assassinations followed so that the death of an inspirational leader (like Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy) became part of the landscape of America.
In February of 2008 in the midst of the primary campaign Barack Obama was suddenly surging ahead of then front-runner and expected nominee Hillary Clinton.  I remarked to a friend: “I hope he don’t win.”  My friend, expecting a rash of policy invective from me was surprised when I gave my reason: “They’ll probably kill him.”  My own cynicism and years of seeing violence as a tactic in American politics had led me to the likelihood that a smart, successful, passionate leader of color would more likely be killed than serve as President.  It certainly wasn’t a glowing commentary on the state of race relations in America and likely reflected some innate racism of my own.  Of course I didn’t want that to happen (then or now or ever), nor was I predicting it, but in my mind I was somehow expecting it.
 
 
The junior Senator from Illinois went on to best the former First Lady and sweep past a war hero to become the 44th President.  He did so with a carefully crafted campaign that instilled hope, optimism and brought millions of young citizens into the political process.  Five years on, barely a year after his reelection, President Obama carries his lowest personal and job approval ratings ever.  The rollout of his signature legislative victory has been a fiasco.  Gridlock in the nation’s capital is so extreme that partisanship bests policy.  The economy continues to stagnate as Congress is unable to pass a budget, let alone agree to fund the debts it has already incurred without performing a three-act Opera.  Fingers are pointed and responsibility is abdicated.  The notion of hope that Obama preached is a bittersweet memory from those who most supported him and those of us who didn’t, but still wanted him to succeed.
 
Had my remark come to fruition, I wonder whether the spirit of Obama would have prevailed more than the reality.  There’s some debate over the effectiveness of JFK as an actual President versus his impact as a martyr and the slew of legislative victories that followed under President Johnson’s tutelage.  Could Joe Biden have gotten bipartisan support for health care, economic reforms, etc.?  Would Hillary have been tapped and appointed as VP?  We’ll never know, and it’s rather morbid to hypothesize.  As we mark the 50th Anniversary of the death of the Camelot-era – we do so against a backdrop of the birth and death of hope for today’s generation.  In this case, though, the leader lives on and is the one who killed his own dream.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Dishonoring Veterans


Millions of Americans took at least a moment on Monday, November 11 to salute Veterans on the day originally set aside to remember the World War I Armistice, later known as Armed Forces Day and now celebrated as Veterans Day.  The social network messages were authentic – and on my feed I learned about family members of friends who bravely served the U.S.  Veterans are those men and women who have served the United States militarily – in a range of roles and purposes over a variety of wars, military conflicts and interventions.  They have taken orders and fought for the principles of freedom and democracy.  My own pacifism and abhorrence of war does not mitigate my appreciation, respect and honor for those who have served.  Unfortunately the very government that lauds their service has undermined their contributions while basking in their bravery.
 
 


Nearly gone from this week’s celebrations is the 2013 summertime discovery that some 600,000 Veterans have up to a year to wait for benefits they are entitled to.  The contract that the government makes with soldiers, sailors, infantry and everybody in between is in exchange for service, you are entitled to healthcare and other benefits.  I may not like war, and I may think that the Government is too bloated in too many ways – but taking care of those who have served is something this Libertarian believes is the Government’s role.  The benefits need to be effective - in delivery of service and cost.  They're not now.  In addition to the extensive waits those returning from duty have for physical health care, USA Today earlier this month reported that more than 1/3rd of Veterans waiting mental health care have to wait longer than the VA’s own goals for wait times.
Conditions at VA hospitals have been an ongoing challenge.  Complaints go back to 2007 when unsanitary conditions were found at Walter Reed Hospital and others.  Five years later CNBC this week just completed a four-month investigation and found that pieces of bone were left on instruments at a VA hospital because they weren’t cleaned properly.  (The administrators at that hospital received generous financial bonuses for their work.)
 
Approx. 60,000 veterans are homeless, and according to Stars & Stripes this week, Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki still hopes to eliminate homelessness amongst veterans by 2015, but is no longer convinced it’s possible.
According to Wikipedia The United States Department of Veterans Affairs is second largest government department, after the Department of Defense.  In 2009 its budget was $87.6 billion and they employed nearly 280,000 people at hundreds of Veterans Affairs medical facilities, clinics, and benefits offices and is responsible for administering programs of veterans’ benefits for veterans, their families, and survivors.  The VA 2014 Budget request for 2014 is $152.7 billion.
There are approximately 21.2 million Veterans in the US today.  Based on the 2014 budget request – the budget allows for $7,202.83 per Veteran.  Adequate financial resources does not appear to be the problem with a near doubling of the budget in four years.
In my lifetime the military has been staffed by volunteers.  I have not had to choose between my faith and beliefs and fulfilling my responsibility and obligation as a citizen by serving in the military (which may not be as incongruent as I think they are.)   I’ve written extensively about the financial costs and the political costs of war.  The biggest cost, however, is the human one.  Death is certainly a horrible consequence of war, but for those who survive must be treated with respect, dignity and appreciation.  Not just on the 2nd Monday of November, and not just with patriotic appeals – but at the very least by delivering what was promised by the Government they risked life and limb for.  That would be the honorable thing to do.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

Robama

26 years ago the hit movie RoboCop envisioned a near-future where humans and machines would come together to create the police force of the future and save the world.  It’s a half-man, half-machine story that spawned two sequels, a TV series, two animated TV series, a mini-series, video-games and a slew of adaptions/crossovers.  The essential idea that the good guys need to be super-human, a combination of the best of machinery and the best of humanity to beat back the evil bad guys.  It’s a classic Hollywood story and makes for an amusing way to while away time.  Life is now trying to imitate fiction.
 
Drone warfare (half-human, half-machine) is a missile remote controlled by people and has been quite effective at eliminating scores of people.  President Obama is quoted in the new book Double Down by Mark Halperin and John Heilman.  In CNN’s review the President ”once told aides that he’d gotten ‘really good at killing people.’”
The President keeps a kill list.  He holds meetings but he alone determines who will live and who will die – American, non-American, doesn’t seem to matter.  No evidence needed because there’s no trial.  It's not public because we're "at war."  The President is judge, jury and executioner.  Prior blogs have examined the legality, morality and prudence of this policy.  The fact is that the President’s aggressive use of his self-appointed right to kill people is U.S. policy and nobody in the Legislative nor the Judicial branches are challenging it.  But let's be absolutely clear:  It is beyond stunning to have the President of the “free” world acknowledge that he’s “really good at killing people.”
The review goes to great lengths to frame the comment in a context where the President wasn’t boasting, and, in fact how he might even be “regretful” at how skilled he had become using drone technology.  I have not read the book, and at the risk of commenting on something out of context, it matter nil whether he was boasting or was bemoaning the fact.  He spoke the truth.  He is very good at killing people.  And that should shock, anger…nay infuriate the American public.
Republicans and the political chattering class are beside themselves that President Obama said repeatedly that “if you like your health care plan, keep it” and now it turns out the health insurance companies are canceling plans left and right.  It was not the most accurate thing the President has ever said, and it may even have been a deliberate obfuscation.  Anybody who has ever dealt with insurance knows that the company renames and redoes plans every year.  Annoying? Yes.  Deceitful?  Perhaps.  Worse than killing people without due process?  Not by a longshot.
The National “Security” Administration has vacuumed up bits of data including telephone calls, emails, texts and a whole array of digital footprints on Americans and all of our friends and enemies around the world.  The President, Congress and the Supreme Court have aligned on this strategy.  Legal?  Apparently.  Deceitful?  Absolutely.  Worse than killing people without due process?  Not by a longshot.
Exporting American film, television and digital content is one of the few industries that have a positive trade balance for the United States.  As good as that is for the American economy (direct cash and indirect impact on global culture) – let's not have The Kill List adapted for the screen.  It’s time for President Obama to become more man than machine.  That would save the world...or at least due process.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

What buck?

President Truman (D) had a sign on his desk that said “The Buck Stops Here.”  According to his Presidential library the saying “derives from the slang expression 'pass the buck' which means passing the responsibility on to someone else. The latter expression is said to have originated with the game of poker, in which a marker or counter was used to indicate the person whose turn it was to deal. If the player did not wish to deal he could pass the responsibility by passing the "buck," as the counter came to be called, to the next player.”  Truman often referred to the sign, so much so that in his final address to the nation he said:  “The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.”  President George W. Bush (43) took that to the extreme dubbing himself “The Decider.”  President Obama on the other hand is more likely to say:  “What buck?”

 
 
The job of President has become gargantuan.  The imperial Presidency of modern times has the Executive Branch involved in virtually every element of day-to-day life of Americans.  The role of President is one that cuts to the core of “big" vs "small" government debates.  With such a broad portfolio of issues, it’s not surprising that many details are not passed by the President.
 
 
 
Republicans are salivating this week at the idea that President Obama’s administration is crumbling.  CNN’s homepage shrieked “Obama Under siege” – something even Fox News wasn’t claiming.  The issues of the day were:  the computer program to process healthcare applications was not working as advertised and the President told the American public he was unaware how bad the system was on his signature piece of legislation.  Then the Edward Snowden leaks continue to embarrass the White House with the President stating the he only learned of his administrations surveillance of German Chancellor Angela Merkel from news reports.
 
It’s not surprising that Obama didn’t know about the condition of the sign-up process for insurance – it seems the bulk of the administration didn’t know how poorly the system worked.  As it relates to the bugger-in-chief, though, it's a different story.  Here's a man who keeps his own kill list and chooses which person to kill on his own.  His claim that he didn’t know his government’s highly controversial spy program included foreign leaders just doesn't pass the smell test - let alone the walk-like-a-duck test.
The default response of having the President feigning ignorance may trace to Watergate and subsequent issues where the favorite question from media and opposition leaders seems to be:  “What did the President know and when did he know it?”  Everything is so partisan, so cantankerous, and so litigious in politics today that the safest course of action is to claim ineptness and stupidity rather than owning a decision.
George Bush (43) made 8 years of bad decisions, but at least he stood by them and was accountable for them.  It’s time for President Obama to follow in the Truman tradition and realize that the buck stops at his desk and his alone.  ("What desk?" he'd respond!)

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Legislating Common Courtesy

I’m about to celebrate six smoke free years.  The November after my Dad’s stroke I quit my pack a day habit cold turkey.  I had stopped before, many times.  I was introduced to the habit around age 8 by my brother and then kept it up.  My grandmother, in an effort that failed miserably, let me smoke with her under the hopes that the rebellion would end.  It didn’t, legitimizing it instead, so much so that for years we sat smoking and chatting together.  After college I took a 7 or 8 year hiatus, my longest smoke-free stint ever, before being sucked back in. 
 
I was never a reluctant smoker – I enjoyed the taste, the habit and the various accoutrements that went with it.  I had a collection of lighters, and cigarette cases – selecting them for a day as carefully as some select ties and shoes.  I was a Marlboro Man – at my most addictive two packs of red per day – the soft-pack of course because the hard pack had butts that were a few millimeters shorter.  I have prided myself on not being a finger-wagging ex-smoker, who are often the worst most intolerant and unsympathetic people around.  Since moving to Boston, though, I am becoming what I detest:  a smokin’ mad righteous ex-smoker.
During the many years in Los Angeles that I did smoke, I was the leper.  Laws were passed that required people to smoke hundreds of feet away from public spaces.  You can’t puff away at outside cafes anymore.  Even smoking inside your own apartment was outlawed in the People’s Republic of West Hollywood.  The criminalization of a legal habit was a factor in quitting, along with the gargantuan taxes levied against the product that doubled the cost.  Seeing the effects of a massive stroke with my Dad had the most impact on a habit that often leads to stroke.  When I did stop smoking it was as much for my health and wealth as to be able to partake in society again.
My 9-month stint in the Twin Cities in Minnesota didn’t trigger many issues.  The weather there is so heinous in both the summer and winter that one doesn’t need to smoke to try and kill themselves, Mother Nature is ready to do it most of the year for you.
In my year in Boston, it’s a different story.  I can’t leave a building in the city without inhaling a waft of smoke.  Any time – day or night.  As I acclimated to the city I realized that some of it is geographic:  in both CA and MN you have to use a car or public transport to get around.  Boston, however is a smaller city where walking is often faster and more direct in getting from point a to point b.  With smoking laws on the books people can only smoke outside – so the difference is that there are more people on the street and use the transport time to also be the time to smoke.

 
 
According to the CDC (www.cdc.gov/tobacco) out of the 3 states, MA has the highest rate of smokers, so there is empirical support that shows there are more smokers in Boston.  (In CA and MN it’s in the 11% range, while MA is nearly 19%.)
It’s been as disconcerting as imaginable to find myself become that which I resist most:  an anti-smoker.  I’m not an ex-smoker, I’ve become anti.  Even on a cruise now the ships set aside outside areas, but the handful of folks who smoke off their decks or in other public spaces disrupt the environment for all.
In town there are days where you just can’t escape it, and it’s very unpleasant to inhale other people’s debris.  Sure there’s the second-hand smoke argument, but for somebody who has spent the majority of his life smoking, it’s a hollow argument.  I like to think I was a considerate smoker, blowing smoke and going out of my way not to disrupt people, but I’m sure I failed as often as I succeeded.  Changing the law isn’t the answer – legislating behavior is a bad idea.  People (including myself) must be allowed the right to do stupid things.  What would be nice, though, is legislating common courtesy.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Representative Coalition

Amazon Video recommended I watch “The Manor the other day, probably as a result of my affection for “Downton Abbey,” “Upstairs Downstairs” and an embarrassingly high number of whodunnits from the other side of the pond.  This “reality show” was filmed in 2001 and put everyday 21st Century people in the various household roles – from the Butler down to the Hallboy and the Housekeeper to the Scullery Maid.  None of them had ever done any work like it before.  The “family” was a real well-to-do family from who were elevated to the role of Lord and Lady of the House.  Nobody was voted off or eliminated – the point of the “project” was to see how 19 volunteers from the modern world would adapt to life in 1905.  It was a fascinating and entertaining look at how order and chaos came out of a rigorous set of mores and rules of the time and the difficulties – both Upstairs and Downstairs – in applying them.  Adapting to an Edwardian lifestyle brought out the best and worst in people.  A dozen years after the six episode series aired I found it riveting, humorous and relevant to today’s political situation in the US.

 
 
The impotence of today’s politics in Congress is rooted in the past.  The battle between Thomas Jefferson’s Republicanism (not to be confused with today’s iteration) and Thomas Hamilton’s Federalist Party from the days of the country’s founding continues to fought.  Jeffersonian Democracy theory is very grass roots, involves people from all parts of government, puts the legislative decisions above all others and is rooted in liberty at all costs, guaranteed by the cornerstone of free expression.  Hamilton's ideas followed a more aristocratic model where the Supreme Court was able to overrule Congress, where the Executive Branch could be modeled after the British Monarchy, and there was a more ordered way of making decisions.  It’s this version of democracy that has survived largely intact, despite the lip service given to Jeffersonian ideals.

Neither the ideas of Jefferson nor the legislative victories of Hamilton have resulted in an effective governance structure for the U.S. Government today.  Quasi-shut-downs, fake-furloughs, and the inability to craft, pass and implement a budget has ground the idea of government to a halt.  More and more everyday people are angry and disgusted – and fewer and fewer will participate in the process.  For decades we’ve had a minority of voters electing representatives.  The result is fewer people are engaged in the discourse, and fewer still actually participate.  This downward spiral of participation allows the most vocal – and not the most representative – views to win the day.
 
The fracture in Washington DC is actually a good representation of the country overall.  Americans do not agree on the size or impact of government.  There is a fundamental schism.  Though fairly represented, the views have become so entrenched that there is no give, no movement, no compromise, no solution –so the least represented view (of doing nothing) is the one that ultimately wins.  How’s that for irony?
 
Congressional districts should be crafted by commissions, not by politicians.  Voting should be as easy and as prevalent as using an ATM.  It’ll be messy, loud and further fractured.  Leaders would have to come from those who could build a representative coalition, not from party loyalty – a bygone notion from a bygone era.  It’s not dissimilar to other democracies that are forced to build coalition governments.  It’d make for terrible television because the narrative would be so complex --- but it would be good for the country.  With these ideals, maybe I was meant for a Manor House way of life?