Monday, November 10, 2008

Eugene O'Neill Said It Best in 1933 in the Play "Days Without End"

"I listen to people talking about this universal breakdown we are in and I marvel at their stupid cowardice.

It is so obvious that they deliberately cheat themselves because their fear of change won't let them face the truth. They don't want to understand what has happened to them. All they want is to start the merry-go-round of blind greed all over again.

They no longer know what they want this country to be, what they want it to become, where they want it to go. It has lost all meaning for them except as pig-wallow. And so their lives as citizens have no beginnings, no ends. They have lost the ideal of the Land of the Free.

Freedom demands initiative, courage, the need to decide what life must mean to oneself. To them, that is terror. They explain away their spiritual cowardice by whining that the time for individualism is past, when it is their courage to possess their own souls which is dead — and stinking!

No, they don't want to be free. Slavery means security — of a kind, the only kind they have courage for. It means they need not to think. They have only to obey orders from owners who are, in turn, their slaves!

◦ John: Act 3, Scene 2

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Election Day 2008

Dear Children:

Today is election day 2008. As time goes by, some will want to cast this election as the most important in a generation or more. I want you to know that as I sit here this morning, I don't agree with that. Every election is important in its own way. One is no more critical than another. Whether its an election for mayor, sheriff, water district representative or president, what matters most is that you participate and vote.

If anything, what made this election important is that voters are paying more attention. And that's exactly what you need to do, pay attention. We have all seen what kind of leaders we get when do the opposite.

You need to vote because:

1. It's how you demonstrate that you are a responsible citizen.

2. It's respectful to the candidates who have sacrificed time with their families, friends and their own personal time to step into a hot spotlight to lead.

3. And, voting is how you pay homage to the millions of people over the past two hundred years who have bled, suffered and died so that you might have the legacy of freedom to vote as you see fit.

It matters not a wit whether the next president of the United States is Barack Obama or John McCain or Barney the Purple Dinosaur. What matters most is that your voice is part of the chorus. It's fine to be frustrated or even cynical about the process we go through in this country to elect our leaders. It's very chaotic and dynamic, multivariate and even maddening. It can also make you want to just ignore it and cloak oneself in apathy. And, many do.

Your father must confess that he waited until the last possible moment to vote in this particular election. At one point, I was so disgusted by the volume of vacuous media coverage, that I actually considered not voting at all. For someone who has been politically active and aware since the age of eight, that was a bit of a surprise.

Our media decided a year ago that the country needed Barack Obama, so it seemed that if I voted for Obama I would be a just one more tool of the manipulators in the media. If I voted for John McCain then maybe I'd be throwing my vote away. After careful consideration, I made a decision to consider one simple issue first before all others. That issue for me was/is my own subjective measure of each candidate's honor and integrity. Honor to himself, his family, and his country. Honor to something bigger than himself. Integrity in his ability to sacrifice himself repeatedly for a higher purpose.

None of the candidates could reach the high bar that your grandfathers, grandmothers, aunts and uncles set long before you arrived in this world. Those people put their families before themselves time after time and gave me thousands of reminders of the value of honor and integrity and sacrifice. Political candidates more often than not consider themselves over their families. Running for and holding a political office is extremely time-consuming and requires a significant sacrifice. Ambition is not the best trait for leading and nurturing a family. So, it was challenging to pick through what was left.

In the end, the candidate I chose was deeply flawed, but their honor and integrity had been long-tested, is consistent and more substantive than their rivals and their record shows that they are willing to consider the greater good over their own ambitions a good deal of the time. I'll let you determine who that was. In America we have the right to keep our vote private and I intend to do just that. Who I voted for is not nearly as important as voting itself.

Our country is not perfect. It is the sum of its parts; imperfect people generally all striving in cumbersome unison for a few noble ideas. Those ideas include protecting freedom and free choice and the need for humans to maintain a voice in how their lives are organized, managed and led. It's your job to stay involved in your democracy no matter how much you might find the effort inconvenient, irritating or even insulting. Your vote does matter and it counts.

Monday, October 20, 2008

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis - A primer

Thanks to my friend, Bryant, for sending this clever presentation on the subprime crisis.

http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Sarah Palin Holds Her Own. Biden/Palin a Draw

Dear Ones,

Seems like Governor Palin dodged a potentially fatal political bullet tonight. Senator Biden did well, too. So, what was being touted as the most watched vice presidential debate in history (does the media ever tire of superlatives?), turned out to be nothing more monumental than the kind of debate you might engage in at a cocktail party.

Every American should be gratified that these two people acted like fine Americans and not like guests on Jerry Springer. I think we can also see in Sarah Palin the kind of leader we saw in Ronald Reagan: an unflappable belief in the power of hope and belief in America. It's dogmatic, but the schtick works like a charm.

No question that Senator Biden's experience is far and away more impressive and significant than Governor Palin's. But, perhaps this election is not about what we should've done, but what we can do when we first believe that we can.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Henry Paulson, Would You Please Go Now

“I think the danger is to just look through that lens, to lose a sense of perspective and rush toward harsh regulations that are unnecessary. Some regulation will be necessary, some changes in accounting rules.” -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, after a previous Wall Street scandal.

Please, folks, let's get real here and demand that Henry Paulson move along. His kind of self-serving leadership is what got us in to the mess we are in now. His first instinct when Lehman Bros. and AIG began to unravel was to protect his friends first. His instinct now is to save his own reputation which upon close examination, needs a good scrubbing. I know I need a bath just thinking about the rhetorical jibberish he's been spouting over the past couple of weeks (a "bail out" is now a "rescue?" Are you kidding me?)

The fact is that a wolf is not what we need guarding the hen house any longer. Where is Ralph Nader when we need him? Or, a successor to his early approaches of holding powerful people accountable (cira 1970; not the Ralph Nader of 1998).

Our Congress is doing a good job of asking tough questions. I am glad they stalled for a few days to allow some of the Paulson-engineered fog to clear. I am equally pleased to see the U.S. Senate approve a bill that makes a good deal more sense than the first one even though it is far from perfect. Naturally, every American should be looking very closely at this bill as, at the end of the day, it was passed by a chamber that is comprised of some of the richest people in the world.

Our media needs to continue to ask tough questions of people like Mr. Paulson and our President, who looks more like a cooked duck than a lame one these days. The only reporter out there asking the tough questions so far is Lou Dobbs of CNN. He knows Wall Street better than almost any reporter. He's been calling for Mr. Paulson's resignation for days. Perhaps someone is listening?

Monday, September 29, 2008

How to explain what's happened on Wall Street to my third grader

Here's what happened, son.

First, people like me took money we earned and we put into a bank. Remember this past summer when we took the money you made selling cookies and lemonade and put it in to your savings account? We put our money in the bank because we wanted our money to be safe. In other words, we didn't want a bad person to take it from us. The bank took our money and gave it to another bank. You see banks need even safer places to put the money we give them and there's nothing safer than a bigger bank.

These big banks then took our money and gave it to some really smart people, many of whom are trustworthy, thoughtful folks. A good number of them, though, are not. And that's where things have gone terribly wrong.

You see, son, the really smart people -- many of them in a city far from here -- decided that if they took our money and gave it to their friends to use as they wished, we wouldn't mind. They were wrong. They needed to tell us what they were doing with our money. They didn't. Our government, which is elected by all of us to watch our money, among other things, was supposed to be keeping an eye on things. They didn't do a very good job and so we need to elect new leaders who can keep an eye on our money.

The bad bank people were hiding their behavior from the government and were using our money to gamble and place bets. What has made the current situation even worse is that far too many people were gambling with money that was technically not there's. You could argue that the money was stolen and being used in ways that your dad is, frankly, to simple to understand fully. You'll need to get a little older to understand human psychology and economics before you can begin to appreciate what occurred here.

I can tell you this, though, when you bet with someone else's money and lose that money, you have to pay it back. When you are already in debt to other people, it makes it VERY hard to pay back the money you borrowed. It's like drowning in a swimming pool. The more you struggle, the more tired you become and the less strength you have to get to safety.

What's the lesson here? That's hard to say. I would not urge you to stop putting money in your bank account. A bank is the safest place for your savings. However, I do think you need to ask questions about where your money goes when you put it in your bank. Remember, banks put money in other banks. You want to know who those banks are and what they plan to do with your money. It's a fair question. Ultimately, the more curious you are, the better. Asking questions forces people to answer them. And as they answer them you can decide whether they are lying or telling the truth.

It's a universal problem: trying to decipher lies from truth. In the world in which you are growing, it's an important and critical skill to master. I don't think any of us can afford to stop asking questions anymore. My hope is that as you grow, you will learn to be curious about things that at first seem simple and mundane. Often, things that seem to be too good to be true are often just that and nothing more.

Congress Needs to Hold Fast With a Firm NO to the Bailout

Seems like these investment bankers have rigged this game pretty well. Let's see, spend years creating credit derivative schemes to play games with other people's money, then when it comes flying back in your face, hand the bill to the very suckers you've been fleecing all of these years. Wow. Why didn't I think of that?

$700 billion. Let's let that roll around the tongue a bit. Seven...hundred...bill...yon. Well, shit honey, that's a hell of a lot of barbeque and baby back ribs. And since no one in charge in Washington or New York really knows what happened to get us into this stinking cesspool, I think we should consider bringing in some people who do. Sarah Palin anyone? Why don't we just all pile on to the plunger in a wild orgy of self-destruction. The last two hundred and thirty two years have been a good run. No need for anyone to feel responsible for what's happened. Afterall, taking responsibility is for suckers. It's every capitalist American's right to fleece his fellow citizens. We were taught that in grade school.

OK, I'll let that rant fester for a moment while I turn my mind to more pungent matters...

Which of these wankers would lend any of us simple Americans one dime if we'd proven we could not responsibly manage the money we'd previously been given? The answer to that is as plain as the bag I will be drinking from later this week. You gotta love these guys, though. They are slick. They've got every angle covered. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, we are told that our entire civilization is in danger of collapse. Boy, these guys have huge balls. Perhaps I'm just too dumb to really get it. And here I thought our president was not too bright. Wrong! He's f'in brilliant for coming up with this latest play to save his secret society buddies from potentially having to sell one their family homes. Having declared that...

It's completely ass backwards that we would seek to bail out Wall Street when there seems to be no real plan for spurring the mule that brought them to the corral in the first place. These scumbag banker's don't need the money; the American small business person needs it. Afterall, as George Bailey might have said, we are the people doing "most of the working, living and dying" in this place. The Mr. Potter's of Manhattan stole our deposits and now they claim we owe them? Whiskey tango foxtrot?

America's credit is in the toilet, so you hear all of the politicians fluffing us about how we are the most (pick a word) "creative, industrious, hard-working, resilient, admired, etc.," workers in the world. Yeah. Yeah. Heard that all before. What they really mean to say is "Please, dear Lord, don't let the American working folk pull back our clothes and expose us for what we really."

Of course it's not really that simple. Real people are getting hurt while the charlatans at the top lick their wounds in relative safety. I feel sorry for everyone who has been misled and is being left with nothing in the wake of this scandal. In a different time, us common folks would be storming the castle and demanding a piece of the booty. Hell, I don't know why most of us don't get down to lower Manhattan right away and open up an enormous can of whoop ass on some of these people. The problem is, it's so damned hard to point the finger through all of the smoke and mirrors. So, until this fog clears...

I hope Congress sticks to its decision. We need to wake up and see Wall Street for what it really is: a scam that has for too long been held unaccountable for its boorish behavior. My fellow Americans, I urge us all to wise up. The safest place for your money is not in the hands of some whiz kid in Manhattan. Great investments abound in your own communities and neighborhoods. Time to learn about micro-investing and how to help your local coffee shop entrepreneur. Enough of this sending your hard-earned money to a group of people only interested in their own short-term gains. There's no short path to success unless you want to steal from someone else.

And if this rant wasn't enough, I toss in this radish to my diatribe salad:

The Henry Paulson view of throwing more good money after bad does not float. It's a reactionary move designed to cover one narrow sectors butt: and that sector is full of Mr. Paulson's pirate friends. Witness his invitation to Goldman Sach's chairman to a private meeting two weeks ago to discuss options that only us saps could dream about. I am sure the lunch was catered. Who got the bill for that, Mr. Paulson?

Sunday, September 28, 2008

What is Goldman Sachs Doing?

I don't know about the rest of you out there in America, but I think I've had just about enough of Wall Street. Does anyone believe for a minute that if the country were in trouble, Wall Street would be rolling up their sleeves to help any one of us?

According to The New York Times today, two weeks ago there was a private meeting at the Federal Reserve office in New York. "The only Wall Street chief executive participating in the meeting was Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Mr. Paulson's former firm."

The media needs to investigate this relationship. Who is Lloyd Blankfein and what was he doing at that meeting?

Who was he representing? Was his participation a violation of the spirit, if not the intent, of Sarbanes Oxley rules? And, why in heaven's name would our Treasury Secretary be including only ONE member of the investment banking community?

Title IV of the Sarbanes Oxley Act describes enhanced reporting requirements for financial transactions, including off-balance-sheet transactions, pro-forma figures and stock transactions of corporate officers. It also requires timely reporting of material changes in financial condition and specific enhanced reviews by the SEC or its agents of corporate reports. Source: Wikipedia.org

I am a shareholder of Goldman Sachs stock and even I'm shocked at the cozyness of the relationship between the company and a government official who is now considered to be the most powerful treasury secretary since Alexander Hamilton held the post over 200 years ago.

Where does Henry Paulson get off having secret meetings to protect his former company's tail -- and the backsides of his friends -- at the expense of tax payers? And, who are the regulators really interested in protecting? Apparently it's not me.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

How to break the cycle of poverty. It only takes one interruption to break a circle.

As I sit here in a Native reservation coffee shop in faraway Atlantic Canada sipping coffee, I get an email from a friend in Portland, Oregon. There is going to be a meeting on how to address the cycle of poverty there in the coming weeks and he wanted me to know about it. It got me to thinking about why this is a perennial subject to address for non-profits.

Where are the answers? It's one thing to talk about statistics and issues. It's another thing entirely to consider fully what one can really do. I don't have the answer any more than the average person does. I do know that there are some maps for what we can do. Here's one...

Oxfam Canada has some pretty impressive thoughts on human rights that any conversation should include:

Oxfam believes the following five human rights are central to true and sustainable development:

The right to a sustainable livelihood –
We support people to achieve food and income security, decent working conditions and increased protection of the natural resources on which they depend.

The right to basic services –
We support people to gain access to basic health care, clean water and education for all.

The right to life and security –
We support people caught in the middle of war, violence, natural disasters and the displacement they cause to live safe from abuse, harm, suffering, illness and death. Where necessary we advocate for international intervention.

The right to be heard –
We support people to achieve their civil and political rights, have their voices heard and influence decisions that affect their lives.

The right to an identity –
We support people who are marginalized because of their gender, religion, ethnicity or cultural identity to live free from discrimination and enjoy equal rights and status with others.

Poverty is always going to be around because some people can't or won't work. It's not the "cycle of poverty" that we need to confront, it's a social contract that consistently believes a hand out followed by a slap down is better than a hand up. For some, we MUST give a hand out. The elderly grandparents raising their grandchildren, for example. A single mother who needs to feed her children, is another. America should absolutely have universal conscription like Israel, by the way. But, you should have a choice of whether to go into the military or a non-profit job. That's another matter.

Minimum wage jobs are important to any economy. But, they must not be the only labor opportunity for the poor. Canada certainly has many problems with its poor and homeless. I saw some terrible sites this winter in Montreal. People sleeping on grates in the subzero cold was pretty sobering. But, what is at the root of that? At the root is a society that wants everything cheap, fast and easy - a society that does not believe in the basic human right of a sustainable livelihood. The cycle of poverty, in other words, is nothing but the uglier twin to the cycle of narcissism.

And I'm not talking about the kind of narcissism one sees on Wall Street or in Hollywood. No, I'm talking about the cycle the cycle that everyday American's indulge in. Example: A parent who insists on buying cheap Chinese-made, flashy, clothing from Target so her kid can look dazzling at elementary school. Anyone who buys anything on sale at WalMart. Or, business owners who can afford to pay benefits, but do just the minimum allowed by law so they can make a payment on their timeshare. Someone has to pay the price for cheap goods and it's ultimately all of us in terms of joblessness, crime rates and hopelessness.

We are a society literally clawing, scratching and biting over each other to get to some imaginary "top." And while aspiration is what makes America powerful, it also is the source of its greatest ills. A cycle needs to be broken in only one spot to stop itself. That spot needs to start with basic healthcare for everyone, in my view. Some basic human rights- codified since ancient times -- include those listed above. If we simply start with a firm belief in any one of them, though, we could literally break the circle and begin a new circle of tapping real human potential for good.

I have more to consider on this, clearly. Perhaps that's best for another post.


Thursday, August 14, 2008

Finally, a law even a dog can agree with

Below is an announcement from the good folks at the Generic Animal Drug Alliance. These folks are working hard to get generic drugs -- with the obvious price advantages -- into the hands of veterinarians and animal owners. Check it out. If you are a pet owner, this is good news for you.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
GADA Applauds the Presidential Signing of the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act of 2009; Act will help get affordable medications to ranchers, farmers and pet owners

Washington, DC, August 14, 2008—The Generic Animal Drug Alliance (GADA) today announced that President Bush signed into law the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act of 2008 (Title II of H.R.6432). Under the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act (AGDUFA), generic animal health companies for the first time will pay user fees to provide essential resources to improve generic animal drug review times—getting high quality, affordable generics to veterinarians, and animal and pet owners, faster.

Farm animals and livestock, and the majority of pets, are not covered by health insurance. Ranchers, farmers, and pet owners pay out-of-pocket for prescription medications. In contrast to human medicine where generics enter the market as soon as a drug’s patents expire, few veterinary drugs have FDA approved generic versions, even years after patent expiry. Although both new animal drugs and generic animal drugs are reviewed and approved by the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), the review times for generic drug applications average more than four times as long as those for new animal drugs—preventing generic versions of medications that have long been off patent from getting to veterinarians.

“The success of AGDUFA will allow the review process for generic animal drugs to become more efficient and predictable while continuing to meet the rigorous standards for drug approval” stated Stephanie Batliner, Chair of the Generic Animal Drug Alliance and Director of Regulatory Affairs at IVX Animal Health, a GADA member company. “Generic animal drugs are essential to both pet owners and
food producers to reduce costs and increase accessibility to medications.”

Jean Hoffman, CEO of Putney, a GADA member company, commented “The AGDUFA legislation marks the beginning of a new era for animal health. Much as generics have changed the face of human healthcare—making drugs more affordable for Americans—the timely availability of animal generics will help ranchers and farmers manage the cost of caring for our country’s food and production animals, and allow pet owners access to lower cost medications for their companion animals who are considered members of the family.”

About Generic Animal Drug Alliance
The Generic Animal Drug Alliance (GADA) is an independent professional trade organization that represents the interests of generic animal health companies before Federal regulatory agencies and Congress. Member companies are focused on the development, approval and marketing of high quality generic drugs for animals and pets—making the cost of care for all animals affordable for ranchers, farmers and pet owners.

Contact: Shannon Bennett, (207) 553-4451, sbennett@genericanimaldrugalliance.org

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Social Venture Partners Portland. An incubator for corporate philanthropy

Allow me to share some kind words about my friends at Social Venture Partners Portland, a philanthropic service organization that is part of an international network.

This group of socially-responsible business and civic leaders have been helping non-profits in Portland, Oregon, for the last seven years. They've given over $1 million in grants so far and far more than that in calculated value to their Investees (not to mention uncalculated value to the community.) I am borrowing some words here from an internal memo to the partners circulated by the hardworking new executive director, Mark Holloway. A fine man and dynamic leader originally from Louisiana.

In that email, Mark shared congratulations to the Portland City Council and mayor in recognizing the value of CASH Oregon’s good work in the community and funding it in their budget with $50k. Sam Adams’ office came to bat repeatedly for CASH, so big thanks to him, his staff and SVPP Partner Bruce Murray for all his work in securing that funding.

Note: My company helped CASH gets its wings three years ago. We developed the initial business and communications plan for the organization and one of our staff, Libbi Loseke Winter, served as an advisor to their board for the past couple of years. They're helping return millions of dollars in earned income tax credits back to families who need the cash. Jim Harper, the executive director, is one of the finest gentlemen you will ever meet. It has been a pleasure to be acquainted with him.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

No prisons in Afghanistan. How about jobs and a little more creativity instead?

The New York Times reports this morning that our government wants to build a "super prison"

in Afghanistan because the Afghan government does not have the ability, apparently, to incarcerate their own criminals. Well, we certainly have a lot of experience and expertise building prisons. So, I guess on one level that makes sense - but only if you are a prison builder who stands to gain from the opportunity. The rest of us would like to understand a few things first.

Memo to our government: have you considered first providing job programs (obviously we have, but $1 billion is hardly a drop in the bucket and is equivalent to 3 Raptor Jets if anyone is paying attention), training, or even promoting television programs and radio programs focused on entrepreneurs in Afghanistan? How have you first creatively celebrated and promoted the "doers" versus used our great power and our money to punish the "takers?" My God, I sincerely hope our government has more creative range. Where did the visionaries from the days of the Marshall Plan go? Are they all tools now of our military industrial personality complex? Or, is the last bastion of creative thinking only reserved for certain floors of buildings in the financial district of New York?

Seriously.

Surely John McCain has more sense than to endorse such an idea. We build more prisons in this country and house more prisoners than any democratic nation in the world per capita. We do this in an arrogant and ass-backward belief that building more prisons deters more crime. It doesn't.

Statistics repeatedly show that if we provide proper early education for children, vocational training and support systems for teens moving in to adulthood and programs designed to help reduce criminal recidivism, society saves seven dollars for every one we spend in terms of the future costs of housing any individual as a prisoner, managing parole programs and paying for law enforcement. It's called an investment strategy - a type of activity that we pay trillions of dollars for to train and educate our most villainous and, yes, celebrated financial whizzes on Wall Street.

Our society has an investment mentality when it comes to wealth and opportunity. When it comes to people, we have a split personality. We'd rather pay through the nose for secret government programs designed to kill people all in the name of national defense, than carve off a few more dollars for an intelligent investment strategy to educate, train and prepare our children for the future in an increasingly complicated world.

Granted, we live in a land of opportunity and choice. If one chooses a negative path, the punishments can be severe - apparently not so severe that it keeps about 1 out of 100 of us in a federal or state prison. Anyone who reads the Fatal Shore will tell you that mental illness, poverty and hopelessness are the root causes of crime (in almost all cases but a few). Oh, and if you'll permit a little woo woo thinking - the lack of love in one's life.

Think about it.

When it comes to paying a few more dollars in taxes to give our children the finest education money can buy, we're more comfortable blaming teachers and the teacher's unions for being greedy. I have a question born from an admittedly old chivalrous piece of my rapidly shriveling Y chromosome: What kind of coward do you have to be beat up on a teacher?

Are we so lost that we don't give a wit of thought to the notion that each one of us blithely pays for bombs, guns and bullets to kill people at a rate never seen in human history all in the name of "keeping democracy safe" but we can't seem to realize that the best long-term "weapon" we can send out into the world is a well-educated, culturally-astute, intelligent, citizen. Bombs and guns and bullets are nothing when compared to that kind of power.

So, can we consider - please - this idea of building a prison in Afghanistan and consider first how to help the Afghan children envision a better life for themselves through more hopeful means than a concrete prison wall? Apparently the Afghan landscape is dotted with the crumbling walls of past efforts to punish the wicked rather than focusing on rewarding the just. Could there be a more stark reminder of what history is telling us?

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

How can we support the war on terror? Redefine modern warfare.

It's easy if you try.

I was thinking today -- in light of the protests against "the war," in cities throughout the U.S., -- that maybe we've lost our way. Maybe our leaders, influenced by war profiteering capitalists and the global supply chain for energy, can't see our way clear. Certainly some portion of this statement is true but...

... then I get an email message from the Associated Press sharing the news that Bin Laden (does he even need a first name any more) is threatening "severe actions" against Europeans who publicize political cartoons to mock, satirize or make light of Islam or The Prophent Muhammad. Frankly, I think it's pretty crass 0r even downright racist to paint unflattering caricatures of someone elses Deity, prophet or holy person. But, free speech -- however abhorrent some of its byproducts -- trumps the protestations of Bin Laden and others like him who claim to know what God wants and expects.

Where religion goes kooky is when self-righteous practitoners of one faith or another claim to know what God wants. The satirization Bin Laden refers to was offensive. I found it offensive. But, I also went on with my day recognizing that it was just a twisted creative outlet for some frustrated artist. The artist and his patrons were able to vent some creative steam and no one was physically injured. Moreover, intelligent viewers of these cartoons were left to debate the issues raised with their friends, colleagues or just in their own heads. Or, they could completely ignore it. Or they could write a letter to the editor sharing their approval or disgust. But to plot the deaths of people on an entire continent because some in their society have no manners is quite beyond extreme.

I don't very much appreciate -- even if I find the cartoon offensive -- the idea that I might be blown to bits while sipping a latte on the Champs Elysee just because I did not participate in the fatwa against the artist. Someone needs to familiarize his assanine-ness with the sticks and stones adage me thinks.

So, why would Bin Laden and his ilk threaten physical violence, death and destruction over a political cartoon? Does he really believe that a drawing is the only sign of the anger, revulsion frustration and fear that many people, regardless of religious affiliation, have against him, his followers and radical Islam in general? And, can he really believe that by condemning cartoons he is making a rational declaration of his beliefs? Does he not further understand that with 200 million of his fellow Middle Easterners coming into the work force by 2015, that what these people need is a job, not another overbearing, boarish, death-mongering Mullah? And, as he dwells in caves these days does he not consider that had he followed his brothers into his father's construction business he might be a great deal more influential with only downside being relative obscurity?

It's no revelation that Bin Laden is history's most famous coward. His followers bringing up the horses hind end on that account. Stopping the war on terror would be signaling that terror has merit as a political solution. What needs to happen is that the war on terror become broader, not thinner. The issue is over the definition of what is considered modern tactics of war. I'd argue that job creation in sectors like housing and community building, instead of just weapons manufacturing, is one possible weapon to successfully combat radicalism. Our new warn needs to take the form of government-sponsored agriculture programs and regional infrastructure planning and transportation logistics and technology development and education and, well, you get the point.

I am not opposed to using bullets when required, but what about books, bricks and the building blocks of cultures. It has recently come to light that the ancient Egyptian kings may not have used very much -- or any -- slave labor to build their pyramids, tombs and other wonders. They may have been built as massive public works projects knowing then that idle hands are the devils workshop. It's time for governments and multi-nationals to start putting war profits to work for people in ways that give them meaning, purpose and hope.

Note: We can learn a great deal from the way the U.S. Government provided funding for Louisiana's Road Home Program. Mostly we can learn what not to do. The contractor selected to run the program, a Beltway Bandit by the name of ICF, seems to have felt that the contract to help people get resettled in Louisiana was their own private gravy train (bonuses of $2.7 million were paid out to directors of the company in December 2006 just as they were going public and celebrating a the win of a $765 million contract from the State of Louisiana). I am sure there are some well-meaning people in their company. Their parts, in other words, may not be as evil or inept as their sum. But rather than rip them to shreads for doing what pigs naturally do at troughs, we should take a closer look at what can be learned from their approach to solving big challenges like the one in Louisiana.

Someone said id you want to be successful, you should double your error rate. They did not suggest that you triple or quadruple it which is what we are apparently doing in many places around the world. It's time, therefore, to change the tactics of our war, not end the war itself. Please tell me one of our presidential candidates is thinking about this in some way. If not, then we are all going to lose faith and hope and the only winner will be radicalism, extremism and the profiteers of the status quo.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Eliot Spitzer. A hero to the common man.

Governor Spitzer,

You are a hero, sir. It's time to use up all of those political favors to maintain your hero status. It's time to prove, like Bill Clinton before you, that no resume can be trumped by a mere moral indiscretion. Like so many seemingly flawless leaders over the eons you have stand up and affirm that to err is human and to apologize quickly is a political necessity if you are to continue to keep your public vehicle and driver.

I urge you to stand firm. Don't allow the moral relativists in the press to rattle your resolve to continue to lead. Hookers are expensive -- especially the good ones. And, Lord knows you work hard and deserve a break from the mundane now and again. Besides, everyone knows that you can't get a good piece of ass in Albany. So, I applaud your decision to settle for something better in the end (if you'll pardon the expression). The taxpayers have no idea how challenging it is to be "on" 24/7/365. You need a vice because, let's face it, golf is boring as hell and fat white men in towels bragging about tee shots is not particularly stimulating.

I do feel for your wife and daughters, though. Surely they deserve better behavior from their bread winner. I have done a good number of stupid things in my life. So, I am not trying to stand on falsa firma here. Railing publicly against prostitutes while paying for the services of the same is Olympian in its chutzpah, though. I urge you to see a urologist as I fear you must have a problem walking and or sitting comfortably.

If you resign from office, you will no longer be a hero. You will be just another testosterone-producing schlub who could not hack through real politik. If, on the other hand, you shout to the world, "Yes, I got jiggy with some high class hookers and I don't give a damn what you think!" then you will have my vote for President. But, I'll only shake your hand while wearing rubber gloves. One can't be too careful these days.

Friday, February 29, 2008

Matt Drudge Should Be Sent to Afghanistan

Do Prince Harry and his soldiers deserve the potentially deadly outing they received by one of the world's biggest (insert your own colorful expletive here), Matt Drudge? Is anyone else outraged that, once again, in the name of the "public right to know," Britain's Prince Harry will be lucky to get out of Afghanistan in one piece?

A line has been crossed in society when one person's narcissism is allowed to trump another's safety. So, here's what the penalty should be...

Matt Drudge should be picked up in a Humvee by special forces soldiers at his home, given a canteen, some MRE's and a rifle and dispatched via a HALO drop into southern Afghanistan. He should be photographed every moment as he wanders the countryside in fear of his life and his GPS coordinates should be posted to an internet site to show his position every sixty seconds.

Matt, pack your bags.

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Musings on Pakistan

Did Musharaf order the murder of former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto? I suppose anything is possible. But for a politician with Musharaf's skill, it hardly seems his style. Rumors abound that Al Queda and the Taliban have the protection of the Pakistani Government in Northern Pakistan. This may very well be true to some degree. Some have blamed this cozy relationship for the slipshod protection of Bhutto. No matter who killed her, she's not coming back. What seems important now is to determine not just WHO killed her but WHAT forces manipulated the assassination and WHY?

I understand the Musharaf would have a motive for seeing Bhutto dead. It's far too easy to point to him as the originator of the hit. Maybe that's reason enough to believe he did order it. Kind of a "hide in plain site" alibi. "Surely everyone knew I wanted her dead," he might respond, "but murder of this kind is despicable to me." And so Poirot is left considering the less obvious suspects.

There is no question that Bhutto had lots of enemies. She was a woman leader in a male-dominated society. She was a destabilizing force in a very unstable region. She had an international following and world-wide recognition. Even in this country where we foolishly believe we are more enlightened, we fear a powerful woman taking a supreme leadership role.

The Pakistani people have some soul-searching to do along with their search for Bhutto's killers. Likewise, we in America have to consider our own outdated ways of thinking about women leaders. It's far past time to grow beyond where we've been.