Science and Stories

Science and Stories are Different

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, Dec. 8, 2021, p. A6
“The good thing about science,” the bumper sticker began, “is that even if you don’t believe it, it’s still true.”

Aristotle could have written that, if there were cars with bumpers in his day (384-322 BC).

Aristotle came upon a group of men engaged in heated argument. Upon his inquiry, they reported the disagreement involved the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth. To which he replied, “Let’s go find a horse and count them.”

As Mason Williams confessed in the last line of his lyrics for “The Exciting Accident,” “this is not a true tale, but who needs truth if it’s dull.”

Like professional journalists in search of truth, scholars repeat similar versions of the story – as a parable – while disagreeing about the who, what, where and when it was first told.

I like the Aristotle version because he relied on personal observation in much of his writing, including “The History of Animals” in which he reported the number of teeth in horses.

Upon hearing Kellyanne Conway’s concept of “alternative facts,” Aristotle would have sided with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who famously said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts.”

Sadly, what seemed obvious to Aristotle over 2300 years ago, and to the research scientists among us today, has not been internalized by large percentages of our Homo Sapiens species. (Photo credit: See SOURCES - Photo/Info, below.)


High school and college courses in physics, chemistry, biology, and other sciences necessarily require some awareness of the vocabulary and current knowledge base of these sciences.

Some students develop a passion for science. Some avoid these courses. Others take them but leave school singing Sam Cooke’s lyrics, “Don't know much biology/Don't know much about science book.”

But what the National Science Teaching Association headlines is, “Science classes enable students in grades 9-12 to develop the critical-thinking skills required to make informed decisions about public policy, evaluate claims made in the media, talk to their doctors, and navigate an increasingly technological world.”

Whether it’s called “the scientific method” or “critical thinking,” these are lifetime skills that can be taught in any course and utilized by all of us every day.

In 1946, James B. Conant, among many other roles a chemist and one-time president of Harvard University, spun his Yale Terry Lectures into a little book called, “On Understanding Science: An Historical Approach.” He was suggesting, in effect, to understand science first understand scientists, what they do, how and why they do it, and the language they use to talk about it.

Framing answerable questions that suggest how they might be answered. Recording observations. Revising hypotheses and theories as necessary.

Homo Sapiens have been telling each other stories for millennia – often as lessons for children – from Aesop’s Fables around 600 BC to Watty Piper’s “The Little Engine That Could” in 1930.

Nothing wrong with that – unless we’re unable to see the difference between a fact and a phony, a story and a science-derived statistic.

And what’s that difference? American COVID deaths approaching 800,000.
______________
Nicholas Johnson is former co-director of the Institute for Health, Behavior and Environmental Policy; contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #
SOURCES
Bumper sticker. Google search: bumper sticker "the good thing about science"

Mason Williams (“not a true story”). Mason Williams, “The Exciting Accident” Lyrics, AZLyrics.biz, https://azlyrics.biz/m/mason-williams-lyrics/mason-williams-the-exciting-accident-lyrics/

Scholars & parable. “Q: Searching for source of “horse’s teeth” parable (No Answer, 1 Comment) Google Questions/Answers] Subject: Searching for source of "horse's teeth" parable, Category: Reference, Education and News > Teaching and Research Asked by: slblack-ga, List Price: $100.00, http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=713157

Aristotle & horse’s teeth. Google, People also ask … “How many teeth does a horse have Aristotle?” The Greek philosopher Aristotle was one of the first to document the anatomy of the equine mouth in 'The History of Animals' written in 333BC 1. Aristotle correctly numbered the teeth at 44 in the adult and even described periodontal disease in the horse, which is still a common problem today. Oct 6, 2015 https://www.google.com/search?q=aristotle+horse+teeth
…
“Q: Searching for source of “horse’s teeth” parable (No Answer, 1 Comment); Google Questions/Answers] Subject: Searching for source of "horse's teeth" parable, Category: Reference, Education and News > Teaching and Research Asked by: slblack-ga, List Price: $100.00, http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=713157

“There was once a part of Greek thinkers -- this was around the time of Aristotle -- who sat up all night having a furious argument about the number of teeth in a horse's mouth. Unable to agree, they went out and collared a passer-by -- an Arab. He listened attentively to all their arguments, and then without saying a word, he walked away. He returned in a few moments, however, and told them the correct answer. 'How did you decide?' they cried. 'Whose was the better argument, the sounder logic?' 'Logic be damned,' he says, 'I've just been round the back to the stable and counted 'em.'"
--"Chemical Plant" by Ian Williamson
CHRISTIAN ORIGINS
http://www.christianorigins.com/crossan.html

Aristotle, History of Animals.
These appear to be derived from the writing of Aristotle: History of Animals- Book 6, Part 3, By Aristotle
http://people.cornell.edu/pages/dtc24/piece/151/History-of-Animals--Book-6,-Part-3.htm

Google Search: Aristotle, "History of Animals"

Aristotle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle, 384–322 BC (62)
"His data in History of Animals (333) Generation of Animals, Movement of Animals, and Parts of Animals are assembled from his own observations,[67] statements given by people with specialized knowledge such as beekeepers and fishermen, and less accurate accounts provided by travelers from overseas.[68]"

Alternative facts.
“Alternative Facts,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts, “’Alternative facts’ was a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway, during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance numbers of Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer would ‘utter a provable falsehood,’ Conway stated that Spicer was giving ‘alternative facts,’ Todd responded, ‘Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods.’”

Not entitled to own facts.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own facts.” Quoted in, Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 38, Thursday, March 6, 2008, House, pp. H1402-H1408. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2008-03-06/html/CREC-2008-03-06-pt1-PgH1402-2.htm

Don’t know much.
Cooke, “Don't Know Much About History Lyrics,” http://www.songlyrics.com/sam-cooke/don-t-know-much-about-history-lyrics/

Science courses.
Google search: teaching science in high school

“Science” as “critical thinking.”
National Science Teaching Association. https://www.nsta.org/levels/high-school (“Science classes enable students in grades 9-12 to develop the critical-thinking skills required to make informed decisions about public policy, evaluate claims made in the media, talk to their doctors, and navigate an increasingly technological world.”)

James B. Conant.
“James B. Conant,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Conant

Aesop’s Fables.
“Aesop’s Fables,” (“Aesop's Fables, or the Aesopica, is a collection of fables credited to Aesop, a slave and storyteller believed to have lived in ancient Greece between 620 and 564 BCE. “ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop%27s_Fables

Little Engine That Could.
“The Little Engine That Could,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Engine_That_Could (“The Little Engine That Could is an American folktale (existing in the form of several illustrated children's books and films) that became widely known in the United States after publication in 1930 by Platt & Munk. . . . The story's signature phrases such as 'I think I can' first occurred in print in a 1902 article in a Swedish journal. . . . The best known incarnation of the story The Little Engine That Could was written by 'Watty Piper,' a pen name of Arnold Munk, who was the owner of the publishing firm Platt & Munk.”)

COVID deaths.
Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, US Deaths, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/, Dec. 2, 2021 (782,201)

Photo Credit/Info.
"FMN Laboratory researcher in the process of assembling a neuromorphic processor based on a photonic integrated circuit that allows computations at the speed of light. To manufacture such optical devices, FMN Lab developed technological processes aimed at achieving extremely low losses. The whole cycle of creating a processor includes several stages: from preparation of the surface of a silicon wafer and deposition of multilayer thin film coatings to fabrication of nanoscale circuit topologies and automated assembly of fiber optic processor modules and components.
FMNLab; Creative Commons Attribution 4.0; FMN Lab team (2).jpg; [[File:FMN Lab team (2).jpg|FMN_Lab_team_(2)]]; 3 March 2021, 13:19:41; 6,607 × 4,405; image/jpeg

# # #

Law, Social Norms and Trump

"That's not nice. Next"
When I was a very young boy, and my mother was making a meal, or otherwise engaged, I'm told she'd turn to anyone handy and say, "Go find Nicky; see what he is doing and tell him to stop it."

That's how more and more traditional Republicans -- and Americans generally -- are coming to feel about Donald Trump.

The week of September 25 was a good example, from his ignoring advice on how to minimize self-inflicted harm during the Monday night debate with Hillary Clinton to his pre-dawn Twitter tirade Friday attacking Alicia Machado (the former Miss Universe).

"There ought to be a law," you say. But there's not.

Abraham Maslow may not have realized it, but he said something relevant to first-year law students when he observed, "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." Many of those law students are too quickly tempted to start thinking of all human behavior as a product of legal rights and responsibilities.

There are a number of Trump's controversies that may have legal significance. David A. Graham has listed 19 in a recent Atlantic article: The Beauty Pageant Scandals, Racial Housing Discrimination, Mafia Ties, Trump University, Tenant Intimidation, The Four Bankruptcies, The Undocumented Polish Workers, Alleged Marital Rape, Breaking Casino Rules, Antitrust Violations, Condo Hotel Shenanigans, Corey Lewandowski [former campaign manager], Suing Journalist Tim O'Brien for Libel, Refusing to Pay Workers and Contractors, Trump Institute, Buying Up His Own Books, Undocumented Models, The Trump Foundation, and The Cuban Embargo. (For each he provides "where and when," "the dirt," "the upshot," and "read more.") David A. Graham, "The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet," The Atlantic, September 30, 2016.

But like the law students, we would be wrong to assume our only means of corralling the wild Trump involves courts, judges and lawyers.

Whether we are conscious of it or not, most of what regulates our behavior, to the extent anything does, is not the law as such, but rather social norms: what we eat and how we eat it; the distance we maintain when standing and talking to another; the clothes we do (or don't) wear for various locations, occasions and situations; the verbal and body language we employ when talking to contemporaries or supervisors. Most social norms are unwritten and evolve over time. Some come from our parents, our friends and neighbors in a small community, a religious organization, or our fellow workers at a university or business.

Just as there are penalties for violating the law, so too are there penalties for violating social norms -- including what the community may consider inappropriate speech. (See, Nicholas Johnson, "Was It Something I Said? General Semantics, the Outspoken Seven, and the Unacceptable Remark," October 30, 2010.) Is this a possible course for those concerned about Trump's hateful outbursts? It just may be.

In the summer of 1969, when the Los Angeles creative community -- actors, writers, directors, producers -- became concerned about what some of them thought of as "censorship" of their work by the networks, the FCC eventually agreed to hold a hearing on the matter. The witnesses who appeared were mostly white, male, network lawyers and lobbyists in suits.

The last one to appear was decidedly not a member of that club. It was my friend, Emmy and Grammy winner Mason Williams, head writer for the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," a highly-rated CBS variety program with social and political content. Given the 1960s, Tom and Dick Smothers had generated both a large, loyal following of fans, and significant levels of network executives' anxiety -- anxiety that took the form of New York executives' close review and removal of some portions of the scripts created in LA.

Mason arrived with open shirt and beads, carrying a guitar, and copies for the FCC commissioners of what he called "The Mason Williams FCC Rapport," July 23, 1969. As he played and sang his way through his testimony he read from his "Rapport" some of the brain-bursts he'd entered in his journals (e.g., "Network television wants to keep you stupid so you'll watch it;" "Winning an Emmy from television is like getting a kiss from someone with bad breath"). [Photo credit: Wikipedia, public domain, Ken Kragen & Friends; Mason Williams, 1969.]

One of those brain-bursts, relevant to Donald Trump's speech, posited that someone had leveled an offensive and possibly erroneous charge against the President. (I won't repeat the offensive speech here. It can be found at page 66 of the "Rapport.") Rather than a network censoring the remark, Williams said:

Someday I hope that someone could appear on television and say [the offensive speech] and the public would individually be able to say, "That's not right. And that's not a nice thing to say. Next."

In other words, rather than have the FCC and networks censor creative content speech that violates social norms could be uttered, because society would have evolved to the point that we would simply reject it -- "that's not a nice thing to say" -- and either change channels, or go on to the next item, with the command, "Next."

Have we reached that point? Hardly. Indeed, many are concerned, as I am, that Trump's approach to political campaigning may be seen as a new normal by both the young and those with sufficient celebrity status to consider running for office themselves with a Trump-like campaign.

But there are hopeful signs that social norms regarding speech are beginning to join the other objections to Trump's candidacy -- his lack of political and governing experience, the character of his staff choices (some of whom had to be replaced), his policy proposals (e.g., building the wall, deporting 11 million, use of nuclear weapons), his untruthful utterances, his refusal to reveal his tax returns, and the 19 items involving his business practices noted above.

One source of those signs is what some solidly Republican newspapers have been writing in the course of not endorsing him:

The Dallas Morning News, which has never endorsed a Democratic Party presidential candidate since 1940, wrote: "We reject the politics of personal destruction. . . . He [Trump] plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best." Editorial, "We Recommend Hillary Clinton for President," The Dallas Morning News, September 7, 2016.

A couple weeks later the Cincinnati Enquirer, which had never endorsed a Democratic Party presidential candidate since 1916, joined the Dallas Morning News with its endorsement of Hillary: "We've condemned his childish insults; offensive remarks to women, Hispanics and African-Americans; and the way he has played on many Americans' fears and prejudices to further himself politically. . . . Trump tears our country and many of its people down with his words so that he can build himself up. Trump has toned down his divisive rhetoric, . . .. But going two weeks without saying something misogynistic, racist or xenophobic is hardly a qualification for the most important job in the world. Why should anyone believe that a Trump presidency would look markedly different from his offensive, erratic, stance-shifting presidential campaign?" Editorial, "It Has to be Hillary Clinton," Cincinnati Enquirer, September 23, 2016

More would come in rapid order. The Arizona Republic, which has never endorsed a Democratic Party presidential candidate since it began publication in 1890 (as The Arizona Republican), wrote: "Trump mocked a reporter’s physical handicap. Picked a fight with a Gold Star family. Insulted POWs. Suggested a Latino judge can’t be fair because of his heritage. Proposed banning Muslim immigration. Each of those comments show a stunning lack of human decency, empathy and respect. Taken together they reveal a candidate who doesn’t grasp our national ideals. . . . She [Hillary Clinton] can move us beyond rancor and incivility." Editorial, "Endorsement: Hillary Clinton is the Only Choice to Move America Ahead," The Arizona Republic, September 27, 2016.

Here's what The Detroit News had to say: "[Donald Trump] rubs hard against the editorial board’s values as conservatives and Americans. [He] is unprincipled, unstable and quite possibly dangerous. .... Trump has attracted support from too many of those who represent the worst of human nature .... Few groups have been spared from his bile. . . . But the most worrisome thing about Trump is that he is willing to stir the populace by stoking their fears of sinister forces at work from within and without to tear down their traditions, values and families .... His sort of populism has led to some of history's great tragedies." The News, which has only endorsed Republican Party presidential candidates since it began publication in 1873, rather than endorsing Hillary Clinton, instead chose to skip Trump for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate. Editorial, "Libertarian Gary Johnson for President," The Detroit News, September 29, 2016.

The next day the Chicago Tribune followed the Detroit News' example with its endorsement of Gary Johnson. This was only the third time in the last 169 years that it had endorsed any presidential candidate who was not a Republican (the two prior were both Chicagoan Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012). Its editorial said: "Trump has gone out of his way to anger world leaders, giant swaths of the American public, and people of other lands who aspire to immigrate here legally. He has neither the character nor the prudent disposition for the job." Editorial, "A Principled Option for U.S. President: Endorsing Gary Johnson, Libertarian," Chicago Tribune, September 30, 2016.

Finally, USA Today, one of America's national newspapers, took a different approach -- urging voters to not vote for Trump, while not endorsing any of the other three (Clinton, Johnson, or Stein). (Its editorial board only expresses consensus, and there was no consensus for an alternative.) This is the first time in the paper's 34-year history that it has expressed an editorial opinion for or against a candidate in any presidential election.

The Board wrote: "Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents. . . . From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals. . . . He speaks recklessly. . . . He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we." Editorial, "Trump is 'Unfit for the Presidency,'"> USA Today, September 30, 2016. And see generally, Tim Dickinson, "5 Conservative Newspapers That Just Went 'Never Trump;' Why Papers That Have Backed Republicans for Decades Broke Ranks With This GOP Nominee," Rolling Stone, September 29, 2016.

(The USA Today editorial is also one of the most thorough in discussing the range of reasons not to vote for Trump, with the following headings: He is erratic; He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief; He traffics in prejudice; His business career is checkered; He isn't leveling with the American people; He speaks recklessly; He has coarsened the national dialogue; He's a serial liar.)

It is significant enough that solid, conservative newspapers that have never lifted a figment of type to help a Democratic presidential candidate, or oppose a Republican, are now opposing Trump -- and sometimes even endorsing Hillary Clinton. And most, like USA Today, have identified and enumerated categories of reasons why he is unacceptable.

But what I find most heartening is the growing formulation of a set of social norms, or political norms, regarding what is, and is not, acceptable speech in presidential campaigns. If this continues, it may just save us from future political candidates assuming Trump-style campaigns are the new normal.

Here's what you and I can do:

Next time you see Trump on TV, listen to what he says, and if you find it unacceptable, say so. Say to whomever is with you -- or out loud even if you are alone -- "That's not right. And that's not a nice thing to say. Next."

# # #

Shooting the Messenger

June 11, 2013, 11:30 a.m.

This series includes: "Lavabit Confronts 'Complicit or Close?' Levison Closes," August 9, 2013; "A Simple Matter to Drag People Along," August 6, 2013; "The Future of Surveillance and How to Stop It," August 4, 2013; "Surveillance: Differences of Degree and of Kind," July 3, 2013; "Shooting the Messenger; Should Government Be Able to Keep Its Abuses Secret?," June 11, 2013; "From Zazi to Stasi; Trusting a Government That Doesn't Trust You," June 9, 2013; "Law's Losing Race With Technology," June 7, 2013.

Should Government Be Able To Keep Its Abuses Secret?

I'd call the cops, but they're already here.
-- Mason Williams

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded . . .
Everybody knows the fight was fixed . . .
Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied . . .
And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it's moving fast . . .
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there's gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
-- Leonard Cohen, "Everybody Knows"

It’s very, very difficult, I think, to have a transparent debate about secret programs approved by a secret court, issuing secret court orders, based on secret interpretations of the law.
-- Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) Chris Strohm and Gopal Ratnam, "NSA Leader Seeks Openness on Secret Surveillance Orders," Bloomberg News, June 12, 2013

And what's the response when the cover of secrecy is breached? They lie:

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: No, sir.
-- Connie Cass, "Mangled facts, secrecy, confusion leave Americans unsure what to believe about NSA programs," AP/Washington Post, June 13, 2013

[H]e [Edward Snowden] appears to be a product of . . . the apparently growing share of young men in their 20s who are living technological existences in the fuzzy land between their childhood institutions and adult family commitments. . . . [Their] life is not embedded in a series of gently gradated authoritative structures: family, neighborhood, religious group, state, nation and world. Instead, it’s just the solitary naked individual and the gigantic and menacing state. . . . For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions . . ..
-- David Brooks, "The Solitary Leaker," New York Times, June 11, 2013, p. A23; To which an unidentified Times reader responds with the online comment:

I find it somewhat disingenuous to criticize the younger generation for cynicism and mistrust without acknowledging the wider atmosphere that's responsible for creating such attitudes in the first place. . . . [A]uthorities and institutions have betrayed us at every turn. We have witnessed our political system become hobbled by polarization and corruption, our economy crippled by financial elites, our media devolve into petty bickering and mindless infotainment, our liberties eroded by the unending War on Terror and War on Drugs, our social safety net cut to shreds, our incomes stagnate while the wealthy hoard, our jobs disappear while the stock market soars, our natural environment raped in the name of profits and convenience, our friends and relatives sent off to wars built on lies, and our privacy systematically invaded by corporations and the government. And you ask . . . why we have lost our respect for authority and trust in institutions?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" . . .. It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, "Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963

_______________
Whom do you call when the cops are the criminals? Where can a military woman find justice when she is raped by her superior, and even if he is found guilty his superior can overturn the conviction?

And, more to the point today, what is the most appropriate response of a democratic society to its whistle-blowers when what they believe they need to reveal regarding a governmental abuse has been classified "secret"? [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

As Senator Udall has reminded us (quoted above), "It’s very, very difficult, I think, to have a transparent debate about secret programs approved by a secret court, issuing secret court orders, based on secret interpretations of the law." Does that make the case for whistle-blowing about secret, questionable programs stronger or weaker? With all that has been, and will be, written about Edward Snowden's revelations, this is an issue that requires much more discussion among Americans and their elected officials. This blog essay is intended as a stimulus to a beginning of that discussion.

Senator Ted Kennedy said of his brother, at Robert Kennedy's memorial service, "My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it . . .."

In a world governed by former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn's advice to new House members, "If you want to get along, go along," a whistle-blower who "sees wrong and tries to right it" -- as an employee of a hospital, corporation, university, or military unit -- knows there will be a price to be paid: at a minimum, things will no longer be the same with their employer and colleagues. They may be fired. They may find it impossible to find work anywhere within their former industry. As an FCC commissioner challenging some of America's most powerful corporations with revelations about their practices, I knew that I would probably never again be either reappointed to the Commission or employed by law firms in Washington.

Most of us, faced with the choice between what we believe is our moral obligation to at least reveal, if not stop, things we believe to be illegal or otherwise wrong, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to remain silent and continue to be paid, will not casually choose the former over the latter. We have an endless list of our rationalizations for averting our eyes from what, as Leonard Cohen reminds us, "everybody knows."

But the question confronting America today is much more serious than the matter of how we treat everyday, conventional whistle-blowers. All they usually risk is unemployment and ostracism. Few, if any, must consider the possibility that their conscientious act will result in their death, with or without a trial, or life in prison.

That was the potential price that Edward Snowden knew he might pay. As he told The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald:

Yeah, I could be, you know, rendered by the CIA. . . . And that’s a fear I’ll live under for the rest of my life, however long that happens to be. You can’t come forward against the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies and be completely free from risk, because they’re such powerful adversaries that no one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they’ll get you, in time. . . .

If I had just wanted to harm the U.S., . . . you could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that’s not my intention. And I think, for anyone making that argument, they need to think, if they were in my position, and, you know, you live a privileged life -- you’re living in Hawaii, in Paradise, and making a ton of money -- what would it take to make you leave everything behind?

"You're Being Watched": Edward Snowden Emerges as Source Behind Explosive Revelations of NSA Spying," Democracy Now, June 10, 2013 -- along with a transcript.

I'm not suggesting that those who make classified information public should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. But neither do I think they should all be knee-jerk labeled "traitors" guilty of "treason" and "espionage" and thrown into the trash pile along with terrorists and felons. ("U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Monday called self-professed National Security Agency surveillance plans leaker Edward Snowden a traitor. . . . 'I don't look at this as being a whistle-blower. I think it's an act of treason,' said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee." UPI, June 10, 2013.)

But what are we to make of our Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who flat-footed lied to the Senate regarding the existence of the NSA program that collects the metadata from millions' of Americans' phone records, quoted above? (Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" To which Director Clapper unambiguously responded, "No, sir.") Which is the greater treason? Who is the biggest traitor? Clapper, who lied? Or Snowden, who told the truth?

Note how our First Amendment protections work. Little to no actual harm came from Edward Snowden's conversations with, and gift of documents to, The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald. As a result of Snowden's actions only one additional person knew "the secrets."

The harm charged by our government, if any there be in fact, only came later. It came when Greenwald, his editor, and publisher, decided to tell all their subscribers -- knowing that other papers would pick up and run with the story, thereby ultimately spreading the secrets to millions. And yet no U.S. official, so far as I know, has argued that The Guardian, The New York Times, The Washington Post, or other papers telling the story of the government's secret spying programs should be prosecuted for treason. As the Pentagon Papers case [New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)] demonstrated, once the media is given information, however much the government would like to restrain its publication, the courts believe the First Amendment forbids them to permit the government to do so. The media may exercise self-restraint, including in response to government appeals that publication would threaten national security, but the media cannot be restrained against its will from publishing by government or the courts. The newspaper owner is not prosecuted, nor the editor who approved the story, nor the journalist who got the information from the source, conducted the interviews, and did the research.

One can at least ask, if the values of the First Amendment are so overpowering as to trump the government's judgment that the publication of secrets should be restrained, why are those First Amendment values not equally applicable to the source of that information, so valuable to a democracy -- namely, the whistle-blower?

We also, as a civilized society, recognize acts of conscience -- including with laws providing at least some protection for whistle-blowers. (The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 forbids retaliation against government employees who report misconduct.)

In Dr. King's "Letter," quoted and linked above, he says of civil disobedience, "One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

One of the most serious tests of respect for conscience occurs in wartime, when our government has recognized the right of "conscientious objectors" to decline to be drafted into front line killing of other humans -- substituting community service of some kind as an alternative.

The "Right to Life" folks believe that doctors, pharmacists and others who consider all abortions to be "murder" should be free to act on that belief.

So when Edward Snowden trades in a $200,000-a-year job in Hawaii for the possibility of death and the probability of prison time, I think we have to recognize that as an act of conscience.

I'm with Dr. King. I don't think one should be able to do anything, claim it was compelled by conscience, and thereby escape any recrimination.

However, the issue in Edward Snowden's case is one of the government's own making.

It is saying to potential whistle-blowers, in effect, "You are free to report our run-of-the-mill misconduct; but if you believe our misconduct to be sufficiently serious to constitute a constitutional violation, we can declare our activities to be secret and classified, and thereby reserve the right to prosecute you for treason or espionage if you reveal what we are doing."

Checks and balances? The whole point of whistle-blowing, as with reports of rape in the military, is that the system and requirements of "going through channels" and "following procedure" and "oversight" and "Inspectors General" often fail. Even if the Congress and courts were doing their job of protecting us from the NSA, everything the overseers are doing is also treated as so highly classified as state secrets that they can't tell us enough to reassure us. And, open or closed, there are at least allegations that the NSA sometimes refuses to provide the Intelligence Committees with requested information, and that the Committees have performed more as lapdogs than watchdogs. The FISA "court," some report, has been almost exclusively a rubber stamp for whatever the NSA wants to do. And the executive branch (regardless of who's sleeping in the White House) seems to have been more interested in expanding than restraining its powers.

And with the controversial, litigated, and revised Patriot Act Section 505 gag orders accompanying "National Security Letters" (searches without warrants), American citizens (and their legislative representatives) have even been forbidden to hear from those being searched. The only analogy to that procedure that comes immediately to mind is the pedophile who threatens his victim with severe punishment should he or she ever reveal to anyone how they have been abused.

I'm more interested at this point in stimulating a national debate about revelations of "secrets" than in particular solutions. But here are some of the questions, or standards, I think we might want to consider.

1. Intent. Intent is an element of most crimes; it's one of the differences between "manslaughter" and "murder" -- even though both bring about the death of one person as a result of the actions of another, the defendant. We need to distinguish between revealing state secrets to foreign spies with an intent to aid an enemy, in time of war, and revealing them to a journalist, with an honest intent to prevent government wrongdoing to American citizens.

2. Restraint. In free speech cases we speak of the "least restrictive alternative" standard in evaluating governmental action that impacts speech. In revelations of state secrets we might ask, did the whistle-blower use the most restrictive alternative. That is, did he or she release only enough information to make their point? Did they make an effort to minimize possible harm to the government, or specific individuals? Did they hold back and not disclose some documents, or redact names and portions of others? Or, worst case, did they deliberately try to maximize that harm? Did they personally publicize raw data and documents, or did they filter what was released, both personally and by knowing it would be processed through a responsible media organization, its journalists, editors, and owners?

Snowden told Greenwald, "[A]nybody in the positions of access with the technical capabilities that I had could, you know, suck out secrets, pass them on the open market to Russia. You know, they always have an open door, as we do. I had access to, you know, the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we have, what their missions are and so forth." The point is, as he's quoted earlier in this blog essay as saying, "If I had just wanted to harm the U.S., . . . you could shut down the surveillance system in an afternoon. But that’s not my intention."

3. Personal responsibility. Did the whistle-blower act behind the curtain of anonymity, or did they come forward, acknowledge, and take responsibility for their revelations -- in the spirit of civil disobedience?

It would seem to me, based on what I now know, that in the case of Edward Snowden he has fully satisfied at least all of those standards.

I am less clear as to the answer of the "So what?" question. I do think we may need new legislation to address that question, and that, at a minimum, meeting these -- and other standards that may be proposed -- ought to take such cases out of the category of "terrorism," "treason," and "espionage," and radically reduce such punishments as might otherwise be appropriate.

For purposes of my question, it is far from decisive -- indeed, it may be not even relevant -- how the American people feel about their government spying on them. (Pew's recent update of its survey indicates we are about equally split, depending on the question -- and, for partisans, which Party occupies the White House.) My question simply addresses the matter of punishment for whistle-blowers who, as a matter of honest conscience, must, in order to be a whistle-blower, reveal things the government considers secret.

There is already a growing support for Snowden (as well as growing disapproval). The photo depicts a demonstration of support in New York City yesterday [June 10]. Robert Johnson, "Rally Held In New York City Supporting 'Hero' NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden," Business Insider, June 10, 2013.

The White House maintains a Web site where citizens can start, and others can support and sign, petitions. On June 9 one was posted with the headline, "Pardon Edward Snowden," and went on, "Edward Snowden is a national hero and should be immediately issued a a full, free, and absolute pardon for any crimes he has committed or may have committed related to blowing the whistle on secret NSA surveillance programs." By this morning it was already nearly halfway to it's goal of 100,000 supporters (a number that triggers a self-imposed White House requirement that it respond to the petitioners). It's here. [On July 5th it had already surpassed its July 9th drop dead deadline goal, with 127,663 supporters.]

As of this morning [June 11] the Progressive Change Campaign Committee had already raised $20,000 for Snowden's legal defense fund. [By July 5th it stood at $32,000.]

For your further reflection, here is Amy Goodman's report, and reproduction of Glenn Greenwald's interview of Snowden, "You're Being Watched": Edward Snowden Emerges as Source Behind Explosive Revelations of NSA Spying," Democracy Now, June 10, 2013 -- along with a transcript.



# # #

WWPD? Pat Paulsen on Guns

February 1, 2013, 8:20 a.m.

Comedy and Concerns from Pat Paulsen's Writer
Quick Internal Links to Content
Introduction/Background: Mason Williams, Smothers Brothers, and Pat Paulsen

Mason Williams, "Pat Paulsen's Solutions for Gun Violence and Other Challenges"

Mason Williams and Nicholas Johnson Offer Gun Violence Solutions

Remember the wrist bands, "WWJD," for "What would Jesus Do"?

They came to mind the other day as I was thinking about what we might succeed in accomplishing as we try to reduce the 30,000 annual suicides and homicides involving firearms. With President Obama's inaugural address still echoing in my brain, my thoughts drifted back to less well-known presidential candidates during my lifetime, and the question, "What would Pat Paulsen do?" [Photo/poster credit: "Pat Paulsen for President."]

Because I had run into a grocery store clerk in Galveston the week before who had no memory of the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" (he was also unaware of which grocery aisle contained the store's offering of bread), it occurs to me that perhaps you, too, would appreciate a little background.

You remember "the Sixties," right? No? OK. Well, the 1960s and early 1970s were times of great creativity and upheaval in America. We had more "movements" then than . . . you get the idea. Large numbers of citizens were involved in protesting, demanding, and often obtaining their rights and goals regarding African-Americans' civil rights, women's rights, and bringing a halt to the Viet Nam War. Whether life imitates art, or the reverse, it was also a time of innovation in graphic art, music, literature, drama -- and television programming.

Given that my term as an FCC commissioner ran from 1966 through 1973, my "15 minutes of fame" pretty much overlapped these years, and caused me to be involved in one way or another with many of the passions of these times -- including one of those innovative TV programs, the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," one of CBS' most popular shows throughout the 1966-68 seasons.

There were conflicts between the show, primarily Tom Smothers, and the CBS' "censors," primarily involving politically edgy content. Ultimately, CBS' Chair Bill Paley ordered the cancellation of the program in April 1969. A film depicts those controversies, "Smothered: The Censorship Struggles of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," in which I play a bit part, and a summary of which is presented, ironically, on "The Paley Center for Media" Web site.

I believe it was during that time frame Tom Smothers flew to Washington and visited with me in my FCC office. My memory is that he said CBS was telling him that he was violating National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and FCC requirements.

As Mason Williams recalls, I explained to Tommy, and later to Mason, that the NAB Code (NAB "Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters) was a 1951 set of ethical standards, with something almost literally a copy of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, seldom if ever taken seriously (and subsequently abandoned by the NAB in 1983, following pressure from members), with no specified sanctions for violation.

I also reassured him that so far as I knew, there would be no commissioners or staff, many of whom (including myself) were fans of the show, who would be able to find anything in the show that was forbidden by the Communications Act of 1934, or FCC regulations.

That conversation ultimately led to my occasionally visiting the set and meeting a number of those involved with the program. Among them, I spent the most time with Mason Williams, Emmy-award-winning head writer, and composer of "Classical Gas" -- one of the most played pieces in the history of American music. [Photo of Tom Smothers, Mason Williams, Dick Smothers. Photo credit: MasonWilliams-online.com]

If you'd like to know more about this historic and influential program and its place in American television history, here are some links: The Smothers Brothers' Web page; "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," wikipedia.org; "Smothers Brothers," wikipedia.org; Mason Williams' Web page; and "Mason Williams," (including discography), wikipedia.org.

All of which, at long last, brings us to Pat Paulsen and the Pat Paulsen for President campaign, and ultimately Paulsen's proposals for dealing with gun violence. See, e.g., "Pat Paulsen for President," and "Pat Paulsen," wikipedia.org. Tom Smothers has said that Pat Paulsen "was the most important comedic talent I’ve met in my life.” [Photo credit: "Pat Paulsen for President," and other sources.]

There are a couple of videos that will give you a better sense of what that part of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was all about than I can recreate in words. But to give you a start, some early video manipulation enabled the candidate to, literally, talk out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. One of his campaign events involved climbing the highest mountain in Kansas with the governor. Another was, as I recall, an 89-cent fund raising bean dinner in Los Angeles -- with Carl Reiner acting as master of ceremonies. You get the idea. [Photo/poster credit: Mason Williams.]







Here are the videos:


This one is narrated by Henry Fonda:


This next one is a memorial tribute (Paulsen lived 1927-97), with "Classical Gas" as the soundtrack, Pat Paulsen's rendition of "God Bless America" as a close, and a couple of brief bits from the prior video:



As the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour head writer, it fell to Mason Williams to write material for Pat Paulsen as well. So who better to ask than Mason Williams how Pat Paulsen might go about controlling gun violence.

As it turns out, although Pat Paulsen has not been with us in a temporal sense since 1997, Mason Williams is still able to channel Paulsen's thoughts from the great beyond. Here, then, is . . . ____________________
Pat Paulsen's Solutions for Gun Violence and Other Challenges
by Mason Williams

[Photo credit: Wikipedia.org.] Solving the gun control issue, less paper work & reduced pressure on hospital emergency rooms

“I’d pass a law that states that from here on, anyone who wants to buy a gun has to be willing to be shot with it. It would be a little like the “golden rule” in reverse: “Do unto yourself what you might do unto others.” In this case, I’d probably call it the “lead rule”. This would solve several aspects of our gun control problems.

1. It would probably get rid of anyone wanting to own ten guns.

2. You wouldn’t need a permit, you’d have the scar from the bullet-wound. No need for a permit means less bureaucracy and therefore less paperwork. This would save a lot of time & money.

3. Local gun shows would probably have to go out of business. You wouldn’t want to buy a gun from some guy who would take you out behind the building and shoot you with it before he sold it to you. You would want go to a reputable dealer who’s a good shot, a marksman.

4. As to the part of the body where you would be shot, that would of course be your decision. This is, after all, a free country.

Pat is asking Congress to act quickly and pass this proposal into law, not just to save lives, but in order to clear the decks for his other proposals. He is concerned about the indication a number of public prosecutors are planning on bringing an "aiding and abetting" criminal behavior case against the National Rifle Association. The theory of the case is that the NRA's efforts to increase the sales of their members who are gun manufacturers and gun show owners, while weakening such regulations as exist, and stonewalling efforts to staff the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, have the effect of aiding and abetting the crimes of those who use guns in the course of robberies or as the preferred instrument for homicides. Candidate Paulsen is concerned that the focus on these protracted and contentious criminal prosecutions, and their attendant publicity and public participation, will detract from what he considers essential legislation for the American people.

Here are some of his other proposals.

Education vs. The escalating cost of putting young people in prison. We need to spend more money and effort to provide a better education for our young people. A great many of today’s high school student’s drop out early only to begin a life of crime. We need to convince kids that if they stay in school and get smarter they’ll be less likely to get caught. This obviously means fewer kids going to prison. This will take a lot of pressure off of the costs of running our prisons.

The smarter kid is a fiscally responsible crook for us all! Who knows, they could even go on to have a career on Wall Street.

Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. It's the Republicans who are, for the most part, anti-abortionists. They have no qualms about butting into your personal life, but they do have the basic philosophy of staying out of private business affairs.

Therefore, I’d recommend passing a law to have all of the women in America become corporations. This way, if the hypothetical Jane Doe Corporation got pregnant & decided to “downsize” it would be strictly her “business,” and the Republicans, being honor-bound to abide by their tradition of staying out of people’s business affairs, would have to make her business decision none of their business.

Given the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United (that turned all corporations into persons), although the women would no longer be able to rely on the Nineteenth Amendment for their voting rights, they could simply vote as corporations.

And here’s the “two-fer,” since there are approximately 150,000,000 women in the United States, this would provide an enormous business opportunity for the lawyers of America.

Drugs and Social Security. I’d solve our nation’s drug problems & our Social Security problems in one fell swoop.

I’d propose that only Senior Citizens deal illicit drugs! (They could certainly use the money!) Think of the big load this would take off of the Social Security Reserves.

They’d probably even be willing to report their income and pay taxes on it!

It would also probably stop much of the violence associated with drug dealing. Who’s going to blow away somebody’s grandmother? Sure, there might be a walker-by-swatting with a handbag once in a while, but I’m sure the cops could handle it. I also think that older, wiser people would be more apt to show a little concern for their clients: “Now sonny boy, don’t take too many of these at once!” Or, “No downers with alcohol.” “These together will kill you.”

So there’s an extra, additional bonus here! The users won’t overdose and cost us, the taxpayers, a fortune in treatment and rehabilitation. In this case you get three solutions for the price of one!

# # #
There you have it, folks. Mason Williams channeling Pat Paulsen from the great beyond, bringing solutions to a political Washington seemingly mired in mud, members of Congress accorded less respect by the American people than the regard they have for cockroaches and communists. We are desperately in need of the leadership only Pat Paulsen could provide.

Now . . .

But seriously, folks . . .
Nick: Mason, why do you think people want assault rifles?

Mason: Don't you see? You can't paint everyone with the same brush, but some of them act like fathers who are afraid their daughters will end up dating someone who is like they were. They know they are out there! They want to be able to protect themselves from people who have assault rifles. In other words, they want to be able to protect themselves from people who think like they do. If nobody, including them, had assault rifles, they wouldn't need to protect themselves from themselves. [Photo credit: Mason Williams.]


Nick: OK, good point. What else?

Mason: I think we ought to encourage and enlist the NRA members to help police themselves.

Nick: Are you serious? How is that going to work?

Mason: The goal would be to encourage the NRA to help solve gun violence problems rather than resisting all solutions. Not that they should go out hunting for criminals -- no good guys with guns going after bad guys with guns -- but agreeing to intensified restrictions that are inconvenient to all when they're applied.

Nick: Lots of luck with that one.

Mason: No; listen now. Suppose in a town like Butte, Montana, there are very few, if any, firearm suicides and homicides. Why should the gun owners in Butte be inconvenienced with regulations and prohibitions on gun ownership? My guess is that most of the congressional opposition to gun controls come from communities, counties, and states like that. Eliminate that opposition, focus the regulations on localities where they are needed, make sense, and could save lives, and the whole effort becomes more politically possible.

The NRA claims to be willing to back sensible regulations that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopathic killers. Giving the NRA a base on balls in that 75 percent or more of geographic America where responsible gun owners outnumber the armed criminals and psychopaths might just be attractive to them.

Nick: Hey, you may actually have something there. But how would it work?

Mason: Well, once a community reaches a certain threshold of gun violence, that would trigger a set of laws and regulations. But they would only apply to that area. It would be like conditions triggering a curfew; something nobody wants to happen. Maybe Congress or the FCC could require radio and TV stations to report firearm deaths, and broadcast what we used to call public service announcements about shootings.

For example, if the selective enforcement would come into play maybe those who own hunting rifles or pistols would not be bothered, but those who own assault rifles would be subject to more scrutiny.

Don't you see? This would provide an incentive for NRA members to do everything possible to keep these rules from going into effect, an incentive to be left alone. In fact, the whole community would have a vested interest in not bringing these Draconian measures down on itself.

But I see a couple possible problems.

Nick: What's that?

Mason: Nick, it's always the same dilemma. You can't legislate common sense or personal responsibility. Laws tend to be absolutes. The reason is, you can't have loopholes without absolutes, and folks like loopholes. Common sense doesn't have any loopholes.

Besides, could Congress do that? Can you have different standards that apply in different ways to different areas of the country?

Nick: The first example that comes to my mind is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon Johnson when I was a part of his administration. It was an effort to outlaw voting practices throughout the South that resulted in the disenfranchisement of African Americans.

That Act had a built-in formula for distinguishing various areas of the United States. What the Act called "covered jurisdictions" were forbidden to make any changes in their voting laws without the Justice Department's prior approval, or "pre-clearance." Covered jurisdictions were states and counties in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote, and that had used a "device" to restrict voting. Other parts of the country were not subject to that review, and triggering of restrictions.

That doesn't answer your question, but it's at least an example of something somewhat similar. Another might be the FCC regulation, when I was there, that exempted the smallest radio stations from the burden of lengthy paperwork for their license renewals. They could just submit a postcard. That didn't involve geographical areas, but did provide a disparate standard in the application of the law and regulations.

Mason: Those examples hit the mark; they establish legal precedents.

I remember reading an article in the New York Times opinion section that was about how, more and more, people are coalescing into what is called groups of "like minded people," like organizations, or gated communities. And one of their findings was that the larger the group got, the more it embraced the views and perspectives of its most extreme and radical members, rather than the collective average of the group. ("[W]hen like-minded people get together, they tend to end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before . . . [a] kind of echo-chamber effect . . .. '[B]iased assimilation' . . . means that people assimilate new information in a selective fashion. . . . [I]nformation that supports what they initially thought [is given] considerable weight. . . . [I]nformation that undermines their initial beliefs, they tend to dismiss . . .." Cass R. Sunstein, "Breaking Up the Echo," New York Times, September 18, 2012, p. A25.)Maybe the NRA has fallen into this category. Maybe the NRA is just a group of like minded people who are held hostage by the extremist views of its most radical members.

# # #

Now What? Organize to Pressure Congress

November 7, 2012 3:25 p.m. -- Note: The latest blog entry, November 8, 2012, regarding the failed proposal for a bond issue-funded new Johnson County Justice Center, is embedded at the beginning of the October 15 blog entry on that subject (which also contains the Press-Citizen op ed column): "Prisons: The Costs and Challenges of Crime," and can be found there.

"When the People Lead, the Leaders Will Follow"

-- Mahatma Gandhi (attributed, but no source)

"The role of citizens in our democracy does not end with your vote. America’s never been about what can be done for us; it’s about what can be done by us together, through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self- government. That’s the principle we were founded on."

-- President Barack Obama, "Election Night Speech," Chicago, November 6, 2012

(And, from 2008: "This victory . . . is not the change we seek; it is only the chance for us to make that change. . . . It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice." President Barack Obama, "Victory Speech," Chicago, November 4, 2008.)

President Obama won re-election. The morning after the night before, how are you feeling about that? Joyous? Depressed? Ho, hum?

Regardless of your answer, we all have a lot of work to do.

The Challenges

We're still not dealing meaningfully with climate change.

We still have troops in 150 countries, the remnants of two wars, and a Defense Department budget that's greater than the military expenditures of the next ten largest countries' combined.

Unemployment. Meager growth. Rotting infrastructure.

We're paying more, and getting less, for increasing healthcare costs that produce life expectancy and infant mortality stats near the bottom of the industrialized world.

We get similar comparative results for our K-12 educational expenditures.

Those most responsible for our economic difficulties haven't been prosecuted, nor have their successors been effectively restrained from personally profiting by creating the same disaster all over again.

Taxes have been driven down to levels that require us to put our ongoing expenses on a credit card. This creates annual deficits in the $1 trillion range, which have accumulated into a national debt of $16 trillion. We're quickly coming to the place in the road where Congress last kicked the can, the so-called "fiscal cliff" of program cuts and tax increases that most concede will be disastrous if we don't change course.

You undoubtedly have many more challenges you could add to this list.

Impediments to Solutions
My point is not that "it's hopeless; we're doomed." Quite the contrary. Solutions for each of these, and more, can be created and proposed with the application of reason, rational analysis, and the use of science, data and best practices. Solutions are not "easy," but they are possible. That's not our problem.

The problem is Washington gridlock, and the money and lobbying power of special interests. The problem has been that one party controls the House and has the capacity to prevent action in the Senate -- and that it chooses to use this power to obstruct any proposals from the White House that might contribute to President Obama serving more than one term.

That goal is no longer available. President Obama has been elected to a second term, and the Constitution prevents his being elected to a third. But continuing obstruction may still be perceived as an attractive way to maintain that party's House and Senate control. Nothing said so far suggests the likelihood of any change in party strategy. With so many of the obstructionists coming from safe districts, meaningful challenges to their longevity only come from primaries in which they are attacked from the right for not being conservative enough. Intransigence may be seen by their constituents as a virtue.

A Possible Strategy

There's an anecdote regarding President Franklin Roosevelt's response to advocates of various progressive ideas. He would listen, and then tell them, in effect, “I agree with you. Now you go out there and make me do it” -– at least with Frances Perkins (Social Security) and A. Philip Randolph (civil rights legislation), and probably many more. His point, of course, was a variant of the old adage, “When the people lead, the leaders will follow.” It’s very difficult to pass legislation over the opposition of the special interests without overwhelming popular awareness, involvement and support.

One of those efforts to "make him do it," was "Cox's Army." "In January 1932, Cox led a march of 25,000 unemployed Pennsylvanians, dubbed 'Cox's Army,' on Washington, D.C, the largest demonstration to [that] date in the nation's capital. He hoped the action would stir Congress to start a public works program and to increase the inheritance tax tax to 70%." "James Renshaw Cox," wikipedia.org.

I have been, and remain, hopeful that Senator Obama, as president, will follow President Roosevelt's example. I base this on a conversation I had with Obama in April 2007, his experience as a community organizer, his 50-state-strategy during the 2008 primary, and his millions of ground troops, contributors and email addressees in 2012.

Marches on Washington, and other creative and peaceful demonstrations are still effective. But the Internet and mobile networks can be even faster, cheaper and more effective to organize -- as we saw during "the Arab spring." "Asmaa Mahfouz: Democracy's Heroine." There are Web pages, blogs, email, text messages, Skype video conversations, Tweets, Facebook, and the possibility of "circulating" petitions online to pick up thousands of signatures in the course of a day. Those who might be unwilling or unable to take three or four days off from work to travel to Washington, are often able to take 15 seconds to sign an online petition.

When a president can't legislate, he can at least educate. "Legislating, Educating: Obama as Community Organizer."

If President Obama was willing, able, and comfortable doing so, he might pick one to a half-dozen things he wants to accomplish during the next four years that will require some measure of Congressional support, pick one at a time, and tour the country as if back in campaign mode -- focusing on the states and districts of those elected officials who are providing the most opposition. He, and preexisting organizations with some coordination, could email those officials' constituents likely to support the proposal, who could then engage in demonstrations, phone, mail, and email communications focused on the official.

This is the way defense contractors, and other large manufacturers, do it with their suppliers and customers, and it ought to be at least somewhat effective for the rest of us.

I wish it were otherwise, but it's not. Executive branch agencies, and so-called "independent regulatory commissions," tend to be covered by a pro-industry trade press, rather than general media. The congressional committees that determine the agencies' appropriations, legislation, and oversight tend to be made up of elected officials who come from areas impacted by those industries, and whose campaigns are funded by them. The agencies' employees are wined and dined by representatives of the industry. (In the case of the agency responsible for monitoring BP prior to the Gulf oil spill, it turned out the employees were literally sleeping with industry representatives.) And industry representatives often have easier access to the supervising cabinet officers and White House staff than the agency heads themselves.

As The Smothers Brothers' head writer Mason Williams once said, "You can't fight the system from within, because the system is from within." It's one of those observations that rings true even though you can't quite figure out what it means. The point is simply that with the pressures on, and from within, Washington, it is not likely that any one individual can do much to change that one-industry town's institutional behavior -- even if that one person is the President of the United States.

If not "any one individual," then who? The initially small group created by that individual, one that expands into a larger group, whether one thousand or one million, that's who. For dozens of examples see the "List of protest marches on Washington, D.C.," wikipedia.org. As Margaret Mead put it, "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." "Margaret Mead, wikipedia.org.

Yesterday was Barak Obama's "last hurrah." At this point he's just running for the history books. For four years he's tried Mr. Nice Guy. He's tried executive orders. If he has a better option than Community Organizer-in-Chief, educating and then legislating -- with our help -- let us know what it is and we'll join him in that effort.

But Washington, as it is, cannot save us. We have to save ourselves. The list of crises is just growing longer each day. "Mr. President, please lead, follow, or get out of the way." Here we come.

# # #

Quick Fix for the Economy

December 12, 2008, 5:30 a.m.

$14 Billion Bridge Loan to Nowhere Collapses
Why? Now What?
And Today's Quick Fix for . . . The Economy
Brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com
Why did the $14 billion loan to Chrysler and GM fail to pass?

Because rational analysis prevailed over political expediency.

Great.

What's next?

Now let's apply the same kind of tough love to a review of the financial industry's bailout -- a proposal that the House and Senate readily accepted with little or no insistence on onerous conditions, business plans or detailed proof of probable success. It was after all, as you'll recall, a proposal to drop 50 times as much taxpayer money ($700 billion vs. $14 billion) on Wall Street as on Detroit.

Who by name bears greatest responsibility for bringing on the current financial disaster? Who should go to prison for what they did?

There are various figures -- from $700 billion to $7.7 trillion -- regarding how much we're talking about from the Treasury and Fed for corporate welfare. Where is the detailed accounting and oversight? Precisely how much of the bailout went to whom, for what, with what effect? How much was spent for purposes other than what was intended? How much was "loans" and how much was cash? What is the likelihood of those loans being repaid? How much equity do taxpayers now have in the enriched institutions? To what extent have taxpayers simply been duped into paying for worthless, toxic trash? Which companies/CEOs that received taxpayer money have increased executives' pay (by whatever means), continued to travel in corporate jets, or spent some of it on luxury resorts?

Will the Republican (and Democratic Party) members of the House and Senate bring as much enthusiasm and commitment to these questions -- with at least 50 times the impact on the taxpayers -- as they brought to their efforts to kill off yet one more union?

What was wrong with the auto proposal?

The proposed auto industry loan involved "a proposal that was simply unacceptable to the vast majority of our side because we thought it frankly wouldn’t work,” according to Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Minority Leader. David M. Herszenhorn, "Senate Abandons Automaker Bailout Bid," New York Times, December 12, 2008.

I've been saying as much in blog entries here ever since the idea first reared its head, e.g., "Trust Your Instincts, Auto Bailout's Terrible Idea," November 14, 15, 16, 2008; "Auto Bailout: An Open Letter to Congress," November 19, 2008; "Auto Loan Makes Too Few Dollars Even Less Sense," December 4, 2008.

Are there a lot of businesses and jobs dependent on the auto industry? Absolutely. As Smothers Brothers head writer and musician ("Classical Gas") Mason Williams once observed, "Los Angeles is a city built by Detroit." That is to say, when GM bought up LA's light rail, destroyed it, and substituted auto dealerships and freeways, it was but one example of the reality that "America is a country built by Detroit."

It involves automobile and parts manufacturers, steel and glass manufacturers, dealerships, gasoline refineries, pipelines, filing stations, cement companies and highway contractors, earth moving equipment manufacturers, parking lots and garages, and an army of mechanics from "shade-tree" to the highly trained and uniformed in spotless facilities. It's stunt drivers in Hollywood and NASCAR drivers and their fans everywhere. It's every teenagers' dream of a driver's license and that first car. (Mason Williams also wrote an Autobiography that was the story of the automobiles in his life.)

(In case you were wondering why we don't enjoy the cost, environment and energy-saving benefits of the kinds of passenger and freight rail networks of other industrialized nations try adding up the collective political power reflected in the prior paragraph.)

Automobile sales are down approximately 40%. Does that have an impact on our economy in general and the auto-dependent portions itemized above? Absolutely.

But to argue that an additional 3 million will be thrown out of work if GM is forced to operate while in Chapter 11, rather than continue as it is, with $60 billion in debt, for another two or three months with $14 billion of taxpayer money is a wild and irresponsible stretch.

Americans are only going to buy so many new cars in 2009. They will buy them from dealers who will get them from automobile manufacturers where they will be made by UAW members and non-union workers, using parts from suppliers (here and abroad). The number of new car sales -- and thus the impact of the auto-related industries on America's economic decline -- is the metric by which to measure the severity and significance of the auto industries' retrenchment, not whether more of those cars now come from a well-managed Ford than a diminished GM. If there's a demand for new cars they will be manufactured; if there's not, they won't. And that's what will determine the welfare of those "3 million workers," not the future of GM.

And those sales figures, as I have argued here all along, will be a function of the money in potential customers' pockets, not the pay of auto company CEOs.

Today's "quick fix" for . . . the economy:
"It's the consumers, stupid!"

You want a quick fix for the auto industry -- and the rest of the economy?

o See to it that every able-bodied American is either (a) employed, and paid, doing the highest skilled task of which they are capable (i.e., recognize the economic burden (for the employee) and loss (for the economy) of "under-employment" and "part-time employment" as well as "unemployment"), or (b) provided some proportion of an equivalent amount of support until they are put in such a job.

o Institute universal, single-payer health care as rapidly as possible. It is an economic as well as moral tragedy that we are one of the few industrialized nations that does not provide this fundamental care to all of its citizens. The high costs (and for many unavailability) of health care and insurance are contributing to mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies, an unhealthy population and workforce, and a diminished ability of American manufacturers to compete on the world market with companies that do not need to embed workers' health care costs into the prices of their products.

o Do whatever is necessary to keep home owners in their homes rather than assuming that money for investment and commercial banks, new home buyers, developers and home builders will somehow "trickle down" for all. There are many potential ways of doing this that I won't describe in detail (e.g., permit the equivalent of the Chapter 11 solutions offered to businesses; lengthen the mortgage terms, reduce the interest rates, adjust the home value to current market levels, and so forth).

Only when we put more money in the hands of consumers (or permit them to keep more of what they have) will there be any true rescue of the auto -- or any other American -- industry. This is one of those times when even if your only goal is to further enrich the wealthy, the only way to do it is to let the money trickle up, not down.

Once again it turns out that doing the right thing, the moral thing, the humane thing for all of our fellow Americans is also the most efficient and effective way of slowing, and then reversing, the downward economic spiral brought on by selfishness, stupidity, greed and corruption.

# # #