September 13, 2008, 11:30 a.m.
FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Trials, Business and 'Student Athletes,'" September 11, 2008.
"University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present (incorporating and updating original blog entry, "UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9).
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Alcohol Update," September 6, 2008.
"How Much Do You Owe the Chinese?" September 8, 2008.
"Hawkeyes' Criminal Record Lengthens," February 25, 2008.
"A Strategy For PUMAs," September 9, 2008.
"Who's The Reason?" September 5, 2008.
And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries
Rumors, Reporting and Reputations
[And note today's updates to "A Strategy for PUMAs" and "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08."]
Throughout its reporting about the events since October 14, the Press-Citizen often includes a line similar to that in Hermiston's September 12 story, below: "Because it is the Press-Citizen's policy not to identify alleged sexual assault victims, it has not named the mother."
Many media organizations follow that policy. It reflects a sensitivity toward the alleged victim. It reduces at least one of the many disincentives that discourage victims from reporting assaults. And it doesn't really interfere all that much with the ability of the media to tell the story.
The question is, why not apply a similar standard to the accused? There may be a reason. I'm not saying there's not. I'm just asking, what is it?
A person's reputation is a very fragile -- and valuable -- thing.
There are many elements of "defamation," but it is, in general, the utterance or repetition of a falsehood that is damaging to the subject's reputation. (Related "causes of action," as lawyers refer to theories for law suits, might include "false light," "public disclosure of private facts," and "intentional infliction of emotional distress" -- in short, personal harm that can sometimes come from truth as well as falsehood.)
Clearly, for the mass media to spread far and wide that someone has committed a crime, or other disreputable act -- let alone one that is as highly charged emotionally as "sexual assault" -- when the subject of the charge is innocent, or before it can be known whether or not they are innocent, is to inflict a form of punishment that is often far more severe than the punishments handed down by a court. It is a way of holding up someone to shame and ridicule in a community; although different physically, in its effect on one's reputation it is something not unlike the earlier use of stocks for public humiliation (a wooden structure, in a public place, in which an offender's arms, legs and head could be held in place).
Once one's reputation is besmirched it is almost impossible to redeem it. As Mark Twain is credited with saying, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Or as I sometimes quote, but cannot now find the source for: "The truth is a notoriously slow runner in its race with the lie."
Indeed, in many countries for a newspaper or broadcast station to engage in the kind of reporting we've had about this alleged assault would constitute a form of contempt of court for which the media's reporters and owners would be punished with fines and imprisonment. (The concern is not just for the reputation of the accused, but for the legal process itself, since pre-trial publicity may so taint the public's understanding of a case -- before any evidence has even been marshaled, not to mention admitted during a trial -- as to make it virtually impossible to find that "impartial jury.")
I suffer no illusions that we'd ever adopt such a policy here. But considering it as a theoretical matter, why not? There are good reasons for the media to report on what various aspects of our government -- from the military to the judiciary -- are up to. After all, "checking value" is one of the basic values of, or reasons for, the First Amendment (i.e., the media's ability to look for, investigate and report on institutional abuses -- not just governmental units, but corporations, trade unions, hospitals, and so forth. Other values include "marketplace of ideas/search for truth," "self-governing," "safety valve" (i.e., an alternative to violence), and "self-actualization.") A self-governing democracy requires that the citizenry have the opportunity to know what its government is doing.
So I don't think we'd want to bar the media from reporting about the courts, judges, trials and accused defendants. But that doesn't answer: how much would we, the public, lose if the media (a) could investigate and gather information about courts/trials whenever it wanted, but (b) could not report what it knew until either the conclusion of the trial, or at least after it was started, and (c) could not reveal the names of accused defendants until they'd been found guilty?
For purposes of monitoring the operation of government, does the public really have to know these details any earlier? Maybe they do. But, if so, why?
The folks least able to reply, or otherwise protect themselves, are those who are not in the public eye, with easy access to the mass media. But I've discussed elsewhere the need to do something about the latter as well. We've seen it during this presidential campaign. Is there nothing that can be done to prevent, or at least minimize, the lies and deliberate misrepresentations that pollute the public's participation in elections -- as well as whatever harm they may do to the personal reputations of candidates and others? See, "Defamation of Public Figures: Rethinking New York Times v. Sullivan" in Nicholas Johnson, "It's Biden -- for 'Experience'?" August 23, 2008.
The consequences from gossip and serious, unproved assertions, are complicated by the fact that few among us, it seems, are able, or if able, inclined and willing, to apply the distinctions between an allegation and proof, an inference and a fact, an hypothesis and a theory, an assertion and data, ideological faith and policy analysis, a rumor and a report, rhetoric and research. My sense is that if we're spending time on such distinctions in our K-12 curriculum they're not being applied by a good many graduates years later.
Secondly, if the lie could travel halfway round the world in Mark Twain's day, today's Internet makes it possible to cover the world with lies in a small fraction of the time he had in mind.
As it happened, I came upon a couple of authors' efforts to explore these issues recently.
Here are excerpts from the first, written by someone who seems able to truly internalize "innocent until proven guilty":
"Those vicious thugs brutally raped that poor girl and left her bloody and beaten!"
So I remember one caller confidently proclaimed on a local talk show in reference to the alleged sexual assault in a university dormitory. After what seemed like a long pause, the host stated, "Well, remember these allegations are still unproven and we should refer to the accuser as alleged victim."
Left unchallenged were the words "vicious thugs," "brutally raped" and "bloody and beaten."
I never read those descriptions among the few details that have been released to the public by the police. Yet, even though the start of the defendants' trial is a long way off, the caller, and apparently the host, were confident in their condemning judgments extrapolated from unproven allegations. . . .
I close with my own opinions of others' guilt.
Given that the trial concerning the alleged rape has not even started, I currently think the two defendants are innocent.
The entire op ed is well worth a read: Jay Christensen-Szalanski, "Presumption of innocence," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 11, 2008
The other is a book that will be published next month: Daniel J. Solove, The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet (Yale University Press, 2008), available October 6, excerpt (Chapter 1) now available.
From that excerpt and the table of contents it looks like Professor Solove is struggling -- perhaps with some success -- in addressing what possibly can be done to moderate the potential harm to reputations that's been exacerbated by the Internet, while retaining its open access, diversity and wild west character.
There are no obvious answers -- at least they're not obvious to me. But we'd all better be looking for some, because it's going to get worse before it gets better.
# # #
September 11, 2008, 7:30 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Alcohol Update," September 6, 2008.
"How Much Do You Owe the Chinese?" September 8, 2008.
"Who's The Reason?" September 5, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Solving Illegal Behavior Problems by Making It Legal," August 20, 2008.
"University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present (incorporating and updating original blog entry, "UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9).
"Important Things in Politics," August 29, 2008.
"How to Build an Indoor Rain Forest," July 10, 2008.
"A Strategy For PUMAs," September 9, 2008.
"Iowa City's 'Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,'" September 22, 2007.
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"City's Moral Compass is Spinning," August 27, 2008.
"Gangs and Gambling," August 25, 2007.
And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries
Updates
UI Alleged Sexual Assault The Web site, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present, has been updated with items since August 31.
Whose Business is Business Anyway?The Gazette's "Money" section had an unusual report the other day worthy of commendation: George C. Ford, "Who Owns What in the Corridor," The Gazette, September 7, 2008, p. D1.
Our local papers provide us plenty of what amounts to free advertising disguised as "news" about local businesses: promotions and awards received by local business persons; the opening of new businesses or other upbeat descriptions of the persons and properties involved; a new factory coming to town. But there's relatively little in the way of information beyond that.
Like, most basic, who owns Iowa City? Noam Chomsky quotes America's early John Jay as saying that "those who own the country should govern it." Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), Part X: Action. Whether they "should" do so is worthy of debate. But that they do is beyond much question. It's true in most communities and states as well as for our nation. And, that being the case, it seems to me "the Fourth Estate" (the media) owes those of the local citizenry who constitute its readers at least a little information about who their real governors are and what they're up to.
Anyhow, what The Gazette did, in one sense is no big deal. It just reported on the ownership of nine major malls and other facilities in Cedar Rapids and Iowa City. What was striking about the feature was simply how rare something like that is.
I would think the papers' readers would be interested in the laundry list of benefits businesses receive from our local governments and utilities -- the city employees who clean up the vomit outside our plethora of local bars rather than requiring the bar owners to pay for it; the city property turned over to bars and restaurants on city sidewalks formerly used for walking; the extensions of roads and water mains; the deep discounts offered for industrial users of water and electricity over what the rest of us have to pay; the cash, TIFs and other subsidies and tax breaks awarded the favored few.
Wouldn't some itemization and reporting about those things be of as much interest to readers as a complete directory of the salaries of all government employees? I would think so.
Why is it we can name the athletes arrested for offenses related to alcohol abuse, but many of us would be hard pressed to name the owners of Iowa City bars who profited off the sale of the alcohol that contributed to that behavior?
At a time when we need all the land in greenbelts and greenways we can possibly obtain, for a whole variety of reasons -- not the least of which is as one means to reduce or eliminate the economic loss from future flooding -- who are the developers buying up that land with the intention of building the malls, parking lots, roads, homes and businesses that will add to the rapid runoff, intensity and frequency of the future floods that will produce even more economic loss than that from which we've just suffered? Isn't that something you'd like to know? I would.
So a "Hat's Off Award" to The Gazette, along with hopes it may inspire more coverage of one of the most important, and least reported, stories in any community.
"Student athletes" search for study time.And on the football front, Scott Dochterman provided some insight into how little time for studies is available to those "student athletes" who are producing handsome salaries for their coaches. Scott Dochterman, "Learning Time Management a Must for Hawks; Demands of Classes, Football Make Life hectic for Players," The Gazette, August 28, 2008, p. C1 (with a sample daily schedule).
# # #
September 9, 2008, 8:00 a.m.; September 13, 2008, 5:00 p.m.
Maria Houser Conzemius, Deepak Chopra, and Molly Ivins
Our local PUMA ("Party Unity My A**"), popular and often insightful Press-Citizen blogger, has announced today why she is leaving the Democratic Party: the Party's failure to bestow its nominations for either president or vice president on Senator Hillary Clinton. Maria Houser Conzemius, "Why I've left the Democrats," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 9, 2008.
By September 13 the Press-Citizen had received enough response to the column to devote an entire page to columns and letters of rebuttal -- linked at the bottom of this blog entry.
She is expressing a frustration, and taking action on the basis of it, that many Democrats and Republicans have felt over the years with regard to one disappointment or another.
There is a progressive wing of the Democratic Party -- sometimes called "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" -- the members of which feel a great deal of frustration with "the corporate wing of the Democratic Party." These are the folks who feel the Party has turned its back on its natural constituencies of poor, working poor, working class, and lower middle class -- and ask their Party's leaders, "So, how's that working for you?" Because their abandonment has happened to coincide with a good many lost elections, when in the progressives' view, had the Party stood by them it could have won virtually every position in the country from court house to White House. They feel they are being taken for granted, that the Party leadership believes it can ignore them because they have nowhere else to go.
But the reality is that they really don't have anywhere else to go -- except to third parties.
How to reconcile their dilemma? The late Molly Ivins advised disaffected progressives, when Ralph Nader was running: (1) determine how close the Democratic Party-Republican Party race is in your state; (2) if it's close, vote Democratic; (3) if not (either way) vote for Ralph.
Isn't this another case where the PUMAs can "have it all"? Rather than not voting at all, or voting for McCain-Palin, why not apply the Ivins' rule?
If you're an angry Hillary Clinton supporter who lives in a state that's "too close to call" vote Democrat. If the polls indicate either McCain or Obama are going to win in a walk, by a wide margin, write in Senator Hillary Clinton for president.
Wouldn't that be a more effective way to make your point? You'd actually get to vote for Hillary -- at least in some states, making your point, and your frustration, much more specific and clear than by not voting, or voting for McCain. But you'd also avoid turning the country over to the right wing, anti-feminist ideology and programs, the continuation of the Bush Administration, represented by the McCain-Palin ticket.
This is gratuitous advice, I recognize. I don't have a dog in this particular fight. But I can relate to Maria's frustration and just think there may be more effective -- and less destructive -- ways for her and other PUMAs to vent it.
Deepak Chopra is a controversial guy. I don't want to take responsibility for all he's ever said and written any more than I'd endorse everything ever said by a visiting minister in my church. But I've always been more interested in judging ideas on the basis of their content than on the basis of their source. And I thought his take on the significance of the differences between Palin and Obama -- not unrelated to Maria's column -- worth excerpting this morning.
Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. . . . Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. . . .
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. . . . Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
Deepak Chopra, "Obama and the Palin Effect," The Huffington Post, September 4, 2008.
For a view that is, while not identical, certainly not inconsistent with that of Chopra, see George Lakoff, "The Palin Choice: The Reality of the Political Mind," Tikkun Magazine, September 4, 2008.
I'm not saying Chopra's "right" -- after all, how could you ever "prove" or "disprove" such an hypothesis to the satisfaction of the scientific community? I'm just saying I found it something worth reflecting upon this morning as I continue to try to make sense of this year's presidential election.
The September 13th Response
Lisa Krotz, "Palin comes at too much of a price," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17 ("Conzemius quotes a pro-Hillary blogger saying she looks forward to a day when the Democratic party is 'willing to nominate and support female candidates.' Was she asleep during all of 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro was running on the democratic ticket for vice president? If Conzemius chooses to vote against Obama for political, ideological and issues-based reasons, that is certainly her prerogative. But voting against . . . what appear to be her own self-interests serves little purpose.").
Lenore Holte, Brenda Pearson, Amy Correia, Dixie and Phil Ecklund, Kathy Gloer, Linda Louko, Niki Neems and Tricia Zebrowski, "Making life fair for women everywhere," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17 ("McCain's choice of Plain as a running mate appears to us to be less a commitment to the political future of women and more a diversionary tactic to try: To appeal to disillusioned Clinton supporters, To appease rightwing social conservatives; and To distract the electorate from the fact that he has an abysmal record in supporting causes important to women.").
Chris Owen, "Don't judge just in terms of party," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Leroy Powell, "Obama campaign is falling apart," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Holly Hart, "PUMAS should be voting Green," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Jean Justice, "Cut off your nose to spite your face," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Gary Gussin, "Column must have been satire," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Amy Dobrian, "Columnist insults Clinton's legacy," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
Dale Bingham, "Conzemius is a traitor to Dems," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17.
And Maria's response:
Maria Houser Conzemius, "Conzemius responds to her critics," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2008, p. A17 ("The battle strategy of voting for McCain/Palin is not a game to us PUMAs; it's war. We've had enough. We're not stepping aside anymore. We're not going to the back of the bus anymore.").
# # #
September 6, 2008, 8:20 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present (incorporating and updating original blog entry, "UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9).
"Who's The Reason?" September 5, 2008.
"Important Things in Politics," August 29, 2008.
"Governor Sarah Palin," September 4, 2008.
"Solving Illegal Behavior Problems by Making It Legal," August 20, 2008.
"Riverside's Deeper Gambling Debt," November 11, 2006.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Abolish Bar Exams?" August 22, 2008.
"Alcohol Update," September 6, 2008.
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"City's Moral Compass is Spinning," August 27, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007.
"Greenbelts, Greenways and Flood Prevention," June 16, 2008.
"Tell Me a Story," August 30, 2008.
And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries
Size Matters
We need a third standard for evaluating when firms are "too large." The antitrust laws' standard (adverse impact on market competition), and what Congress originally intended to be the FCC standard for broadcast stations (a robust "marketplace of ideas") are no longer adequate.
The third standard? Institutions should not be permitted to become so large that the impact of their collapse on our national economy would be so severe that taxpayers must be asked to pay for their bailout.
It's not that our nation's founders didn't know better. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "I, however, place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."
This morning we're dealing with yet another case study of why we need this new standard: the potential $200 billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, described by the New York Times as an "extraordinary" bailout that "could become one of the most expensive financial bailouts in American history."
I remember when I was involved in the Administration of President Lyndon Johnson how insistent the President was one year that the federal budget not go over $100 billion. He felt there might be a significant public and media backlash were that cap to be exceeded.
Yes, I know, there's been some inflation over the past few years; $100 billion isn't what it used to be. Still it's something of a shocker to realize that the mere interest on the national debt was $430 billion in 2007 -- over four times the entire federal budget when I was in government.
There are some basic terms here that need to be distinguished and understood, and are often and easily confused. (The details, and "off budget" expenditures, make it even more confusing; I'm not even going there -- except to note that the total, long term costs of the latest Iraq War are projected to be something on the order of two-to-three trillion.)
The "federal budget" is what the government projects it's going to spend during the next fiscal year (October to October).
A "budget deficit" is what the government incurs for a given year if the government spends more than it takes in. It's what you have during any year that you put more debt on your credit cards than you pay off.
The "national debt" is what the government has, or what keeps increasing, when those budget deficits accumulate year after year. The same thing applies to your credit cards: spend more than you pay off and your total "credit card debt" increases.
"Interest on the national debt" is what the government has to pay, just as you have to, to those from whom it's borrowed. Were it to fail to pay these interest payments -- even if it has to borrow even more money to pay the interest on its former loans -- it would result in a collapse of our own entire economy, and very likely that of Japan and European countries as well. Of course, paying interest doesn't reduce the debt; it just keeps the Chinese from refusing to loan our government the money it borrows each year to keep the country running. It's like your making large enough payments to the credit card company each month to cover the interest you owe -- while your total balance owing continues to rise.
"Unfunded obligations" are what's coming in the future that the government has no way of paying, and has no plans for addressing -- in our government's case a couple major examples are Medicare and Social Security. It would be like your taking out a second mortgage on your house to pay off your credit card debt with no realistic way to make the mortgage payments when they come due; or a low monthly payment mortgage on a house with an enormous "balloon payment" obligation down the road you have no way of paying off.
So what are these numbers?
Budget. President Bush this year (2008) presented Congress with a budget of $3.2 trillion (over 30 times what it was in my day).
Budget deficit. Whoever occupies the White House next year will inherit from President Bush a $482 billion budget deficit.
National debt. Our current national debt is about $9.7 trillion. (If you'd like to track its increase day by day check the "Debt Clock." or the U.S. Treasury page.)Interest on the national debt, as noted above, is now well over $400 billion a year.
Unfunded obligations -- hold onto your hat -- are now about $53 trillion.
What does all this mean?
Let's start with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The bailout plan for the companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a seismic event in a year of repeated financial crises followed by aggressive federal intervention, places the companies in a government conservatorship, much like a bankruptcy reorganization. The plan also replaces the management of the companies.
The rescue package represents an extraordinary federal intervention in private enterprise. It could become one of the most expensive financial bailouts in American history . . . [as it] commits the government to provide as much as $100 billion to each company to backstop any shortfalls in capital. . . .
Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, and Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, along with many other critics, have long maintained that the companies were too powerful politically and financially, and that their huge portfolios posed enormous risks to the financial system. . . .
[Treasury Secretary Henry M.] Paulson has sought to avoid taking sides in the debate, but in recent months came to the conclusion that the companies’ conflicting missions of providing federally backed financing for affordable housing while serving shareholders were untenable.
“Market discipline is best served when shareholders bear both the risk and the reward of their investment,” Mr. Paulson said on Sunday.
Stephen Labaton and Edmund L. Andrews, "In Rescue to Stabilize Lending, U.S. Takes Over Mortgage Finance Titans," New York Times, September 7, 2008.
CNN's Glenn Beck refers to our nation's unfunded future obligations as a $53 trillion asteroid hurtling toward Earth, the first impact from which is scarcely 10 years away. Glenn Beck, "The $53 Trillion Asteroid," CNN, March 14, 2008.
No one in Washington, or those headed that way, seems willing to talk about it, but the United States is headed for a severe shaking up from this asteroid. Although we are the primary target, rather than the whole of planet Earth, no country will escape the impact of our failing economy -- including our major creditor, China.
Former Comptroller General David Walker has been riding around the country on his horse shouting "the asteroid is coming, the asteroid is coming," but we either haven't heard him or can't internalize the significance of what he's saying. (Here's his July 2007 segment on CBS' "60 Minutes.")
What does this mean to my family?
If you count Mary and me, our seven children, five grandchildren and three great grandchildren, that's 17 people.
There are as of this morning about 304 million people living in the United States if you count everyone from new-born babes to the terminally ill. Divide $53 trillion by 304 million and you get a per-person share of those unfunded obligations of $174,342 per person. Multiply that by our family of 17 and you get a . . .
. . . family share of that national debt of $2,963,815!
I don't know about your family, but when I see the Chinese government's REPO Man coming up the walk to knock on the door I'm going to know that this family is in deep, deep trouble.
Talk about "our chickens coming home to roost"!
How much does your family owe the Chinese?
Isn't it about time we insist our public officials -- city council members granting TIFs as well as Congress bailing out wealthy shareholders -- heed Secretary Paulson's wisdom: "Market discipline is best served when shareholders bear both the risk and the reward of their investment.”
Now this bailout is being sold as in the consumer's best interest, making mortgages and car loans once again available at more reasonable rates and terms. It's pointed out that the shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have seen a real reduction in the value of their stock. True enough.
But what about the millions of profit that have already been made by the CEOs of Wall Street firms, by banks, mortgage companies, realtors; what about the future income that will now be coming their way? Those responsible for their profits -- and everyone else's losses -- aren't paying any of those costs. The taxpayers are. And that's wrong.
(Note that all we're talking about here are the "bailouts." That's only one aspect of our system of "socialism for the rich and free private enterprise for the poor." See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Who's The Reason?" September 5, 2008. There are also the tax breaks, subsidies, defense contracts, tariffs, price supports, earmarks and other dozens of ways government functions to transfer taxpayer money to the political parties' largest contributors.)
It's not like this was some big surprise, like critics weren't pointing out that "their huge portfolios posed enormous risks to the financial system." Those profiting from those risks showed little concern for the rest of us until they, too, began to suffer some losses -- at which point they wanted the taxpayers to bear the risk and the loss.
Once we permit firms to reach such a size that a reasonable argument can be made they cannot be allowed to fail because of the far reaching consequences for our economy it's already too late.
No firm should be permitted to reach a size such that Secretary Paulson's wisdom -- "Market discipline is best served when shareholders bear both the risk and the reward of their investment.” -- can no longer be applied.
# # #
September 6, 2008, 8:20 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present (incorporating and updating original blog entry, "UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9).
"Who's The Reason?" September 5, 2008.
"City's Moral Compass is Spinning," August 27, 2008.
"Abolish Bar Exams?" August 22, 2008.
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Important Things in Politics," August 29, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Governor Sarah Palin," September 4, 2008.
"Tell Me a Story," August 30, 2008.
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007.
"Ted, TED, Michelle and City Owned Hotels," August 26, 2008.
"Earthpark, Editorials and Beating Dead Horses," August 15, 2008.
And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries
Learners' Permits?
There is much to praise in UI President Sally Mason's alcohol op ed. Sally Mason, "U of I Working to Dilute Drinking Culture," Des Moines Register, September 5, 2008. (And see the excellent, "Alcohol Awareness," University of Iowa Police Crime Prevention News, September 2008.)
While much more than a public relations gesture, even that is not to be disparaged. Citizens of Iowa, especially those who are parents of UI students, need to know that the University recognizes there's a problem, is making some efforts at solving it, and that -- as so often is the case from K-12 through graduate school -- there is no substitute for parental involvement.
Here are some excerpts:
Excessive drinking by students, including underage students, is closely connected with campus crimes such as property destruction and sexual assault. For many students who fall into the drinking culture, alcohol consumption becomes a major barrier to learning and academic achievement.
A group of college presidents recently called for a national debate about the effectiveness of the minimum legal drinking age of 21. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix. . . .
You can help us by setting a good example for your children and by making responsible, legal alcohol consumption a regular topic of discussion with them. Far too many of our students arrive on our campus with a habit of excessive drinking. According to a recent study, Iowa ranked seventh in the nation in the amount of alcohol consumed by youth age 12 to 20.
The UI's "AlcoholEdu" course for the entering class and increased parental notification are but two examples she lists of University efforts.
And she's also right that the University can't fairly be charged with all the blame for the behavior of college students who have been abusing alcohol throughout high school and that behavior continues once they reach Iowa City.
Nor is the University the only institution with responsibility for the problem once it arrives here.
The Iowa City City Council is responsible for the wink and a nod it all too often gives to Iowa City's alcohol industry -- the radical increase in number of bars close to campus, the drink specials and other practices designed to encourage excessive student drinking, the failure to lift liquor licenses for violations, and the (what better phrase than "idiotically ridiculous") policy of permitting underage students into bars, the sole business purpose of which is to profit from the sale of alcohol -- presumably assuming that they're not going to drink once there. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Why'21-Only' Isn't," October 19, 2007 ("In fact, if illegal sales were not being made, if bar owners' underage patrons were not consuming alcohol illegally, why would bar owners care if the additional (19- and 20-year-old) underage students had to leave at 10:00 p.m.? Why would the 10:00 p.m. expulsion of those who shouldn't really be there at any time of day have an adverse impact on the economy or "vibrancy" of the downtown? The only reason it might have an economic impact is because bar owners have been flagrantly violating the law all along and would like to be able to continue to do so 24/7.").
Of course the bar owners, organized as the Alcohol Advisory Board, are another very powerful institution in this community. But the recent resignation of co-chairwoman Leah Cohen (owner of Bo James) points up the City Council's failure to be of assistance when Cohen has to complain of the City Council's failure to regulate the alcohol industry strictly and effectively enough! Jennifer Hemmingsen, "I.C. Alcohol Board Co-Chair Resigns," The Gazette, September 6, 2008, p. C1.
But it's also no secret that this blog contains a number of blog entries urging that some much more serious, effective, courageous and imaginative steps are required if any meaningful change in community "culture" regarding alcohol is to result.
They need not be draconian.
Following the entry about the university presidents' proposal everyone eliminate the problem by simply making the behavior legal (lower drinking age to 18), see Nicholas Johnson, "Solving Illegal Behavior Problems by Making It Legal," August 20, 2008, I had some email exchanges with those suggesting some interesting ideas.
Some made the point that the line "if you're old enough to go to war you ought to be old enough to buy a beer" is only half loony.
To understand the loony half, consider:
The fact that "if you're old enough to go to war you ought to be old enough to drive a car" doesn't protect you from the fact that driving drunk, or enough speeding tickets, may result in the loss of a driver's license.
The fact that "if you're old enough to go to war you ought to be old enough to buy a gun" doesn't permit you to buy a gun if your string of felony convictions, or serious mental illness, suggests that your having a gun is likely to cause harm to yourself or others.
I don't know if it would be administratively feasible, but is there some analogy here for the drinking age?
The problem is not, after all, the 18-year-old who has one beer with dinner. It is that he consumes a pitcher of beer with no dinner. It is his habit of drinking to get drunk -- with all the consequences President Mason refers to, and more -- that is the problem, not his legal ability to purchase a beer. Clearly, that 18-year-old regularly demonstrates with his behavior that he is not "old enough to buy a beer."
President Mason mentions one analogous approach by the University: "We are expanding the application of our Code of Student Conduct to include some off-campus violations, and will increase the sanction for 'two-strike' policy violations (OWI, public intoxication and possession of controlled substance). Students found guilty of a second violation will be suspended for one year, up from the previous one-semester suspension."
Perhaps bar entry could be limited to those who have either (a) an ID proving them to be 21 or over, or (b) an 18-year-old "drinker's permit" of some kind -- always subject to revocation for abuse (e.g., OWI, alcohol-related offenses, public intoxication, etc.). Such an approach would reduce the appeal of "getting away with something" (since their drinking would be perfectly legal), and encourage the more responsible behavior that would be a condition of retaining the privilege.
Anyhow, a lot more has been written since my "Solving Illegal Behavior Problems" blog entry, linked above.
The Director of the Presley Center for Crime and Justice Studies, University of California, Riverside, pretty much savages the university presidents' 18-year-old drinking proposal and shreds their data:
The 128 college presidents who have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative apparently are unaware of the extensive research that documented the decade of carnage that followed [the reduction of the drinking age in the 1960s and 1970s] -- not just on our highways but in our bars, streets and neighborhoods. Rates of alcohol-related traffic deaths soared. Rates of alcohol-related violence among those 18 to 20 increased. And as alcohol got more accessible to teens, more 12- and 13-year-olds started drinking.
Beginning in the late 1970s, the states, led by Minnesota, restored the drinking age to 21, and they saw corresponding drops in alcohol-related car accidents and crash-related deaths. There also eventually were reductions in youth homicide, which resulted in part from the decreased access to alcohol, both within the 18- to 20-year-old group and those under 18. . . .
[T]he Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did an analysis of 49 studies. Looking at them together, the CDC found that increasing the drinking age was an effective intervention that had significantly reduced harm and death among young people. . . .
[T]he presidents seem to have settled on approaches that will increase profits for alcohol companies at the expense of young people's lives and health.
Moreover, reducing the drinking age to 18 apparently also has a significant impact on reducing alcohol abuse of those who are younger ("for those age 12, the decline is a significant 38%").
Robert Nash Parker, "Colleges' misguided plan for drinking; College presidents are wrong. Data clearly show the damage done by letting 18- to 20 year-olds drink," Los Angeles Times, August 27, 2008. (The Gazette ran the piece as "College Presidents Dumb Move," September 2, 2008, p. A4.)
And the Register had a useful series of columns on the subject September 1:
Editorial, "Lower Drinking Age From 21?" Des Moines Register, September 1, 2008.
Michelle Coles, "Keep 21 law: It saves lives," Des Moines Register, September 1, 2008 (victims' advocate for Mothers Against Drunk Driving).
Gary W. Kendell, "Delaying use of alcohol benefits society," Des Moines Register, September 1, 2008 (director of the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy).
James E. Collins, "What's clear: Current approach isn't working," Des Moines Register, September 1, 2008 (president of Loras College).
Meanwhile, as a part of the UI football program's outreach efforts:
An arrest warrant has been issued for a former University of Iowa football player charged with armed robbery last month in a Detroit suburb.
Advertisement
Dominique Douglas, 20, was charged Aug. 1 with armed robbery, motor vehicle fraud and carrying a concealed weapon . . ..
Douglas pleaded guilty in December to unauthorized use of a credit card after he and teammate Anthony Bowman stole credit cards from U of I students and used them to make online purchases. The men were given deferred judgments, which allowed them to avoid jail and have their convictions erased if they completed a two-year probation.
Douglas is accused of violating his probation with the Michigan charges, according to the complaint. If found guilty, Douglas could serve up to two years in an Iowa prison and be fined up to $6,250. . . .
Douglas and Bowman were charged in August 2007 with unauthorized use of credit cards after attempting to go on a $2,000 shopping spree with stolen cards. While awaiting trial on that charge, Douglas was charged with fifth-degree theft for stealing DVDs from Wal-Mart. He pleaded guilty and paid a $100 fine.
Erin Jordan, "Former Hawkeye charged with armed robbery in Detroit," Des Moines Register, September 5, 2008; and next day, Erin Jordan, "Ex-Hawk Now Faces Charges in Michigan," Des Moines Register, September 6, 2008.
# # #
September 5, 2008, 9:30 a.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"UI Sexual Assault Update" is now embodied in, and being updated as, a Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present; although the original blog entry (July 19-August 9) has not been removed,"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9. Both remain among "most popular."
"Tell Me a Story," August 30, 2008.
"Abolish Bar Exams?" August 22, 2008.
"City's Moral Compass is Spinning," August 27, 2008.
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"UI Held Hostage Day 451 - Open Letter to Regents," April 17, 2007.
"Important Things in Politics," August 29, 2008.
"Earthpark, Editorials and Beating Dead Horses," August 15, 2008.
"Ted, TED, Michelle and City Owned Hotels," August 26, 2008.
"Solving Illegal Behavior Problems by Making It Legal," August 20, 2008.
"Governor Sarah Palin," September 4, 2008.
And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries
Looking for "The Reason"
Loretta Lynn and Conway Twitty sing a song in which they search for the reason their lives (and their children) are what they are. It begins:
Conway: You're the reason I'm a-ridin' around
on recapped tires.
Loretta: And you're the reason I'm hangin'
our clothes outside on wires.
Loretta Lynn, "You're the Reason Our Kids Are Ugly"
and goes on from there.
Have you ever asked yourself those kind of questions?
Like, who's the reason my car get 24 miles to the gallon instead of 50 or more? Indeed, why am I even still buying gasoline? Why am I not already in an electric, hydrogen fuel cell, or natural gas car? Or better yet, using the kind of train system that other countries seem to have?
Who's the reason I'm watching TV commercials for "illegal drugs" -- drugs the pharmacist cannot legally sell me without a prescription? And when I buy them, why are they so much more expensive than in other countries? How come my health insurance doesn't cover the cost? Or, better yet, why do I have to bother with insurance at all; why don't we have the universal single-payer health care other industrialized countries give their people -- with superior results in infant mortality and life expectancy and at far less cost?
Who's the reason, If we want to cut taxes, that our government spends more on the military than many retired officers say we need, more than the next few nations combined -- including some weapon systems the military doesn't even want?
Who's the reason?
Well, actually there are a lot of folks who are the reason.
And a goodly number of them were gathered in Denver last week and Minneapolis-St. Paul this week.
But if I had to pick one, as a symbol of the phenomenon I'm talking about, it would be this man. [Photo credit: Associated Press.] Don't recognize him? Read on.
Surely you watched at least some of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions over the past couple weeks.
They were carefully choreographed to make you feel good about America, our political and governmental systems, and -- if you were a political activist who worked for a candidate or party -- that it was all worthwhile and rewarding. There wasn't all that much talk of "issues" or the parties' platforms, but there were, after all, platform committees and an opportunity to participate, along the way (in Iowa, from precinct caucus to state convention) in creating them.
It was left to ABC News to cover what I consider the real story, the portrayal of how Washington actually functions, what I sometimes discuss as Washington's "sub-governments." See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), pp. 82-83, 95-96.
Only ABC offered its viewers an answer to "Who's the reason?" and "What is this convention really about, anyway?" and "Who's calling the shots here when it comes to what our taxes are going to, why we don't have the social programs and services from government we need, and why we have to pay so much in the marketplace?"
"Who's the reason?" are the folks who offered more than $100 million in "soft money" to cover the costs of putting on these conventions -- many of whom paid both the Democrats and the Republicans. "Who's the reason?" are the folks who paid millions more for private parties where lobbyists could press their demands on governors, senators and members of Congress. "Who's the reason?" are the folks who got the upscale hotel rooms, and watched the conventions from skyboxes, with free gourmet food and open bars, rather than from seats on the floor.
ABC's pictures and commentaries about these goings on were, in my opinion, a far more accurate explanation of our government and politics than anything ever discussed in a K-12 (or college) classroom about our "three equal branches of government" or that gets played out on a political party's convention floor, or most newspaper and television "news" coverage throughout the year.
I've already included in an earlier blog entry excerpts from ABC's "The Money Trail" series on the Democratic National Convention in Nicholas Johnson, "Important Things in Politics," August 29, 2008 (quoting Marc Hanna's observation that "There are two important things in politics. The first is the money and I can’t remember the second.").
Today's blog entry contains excerpts from ABC's similar coverage of the Republican National Convention.
So, for me, "The Person of the Week," to use another ABC feature, is not from among Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, McCain or Governor Palin. It is -- have you guessed yet? -- Jack Abramoff.
Because the highlight of the last two weeks, the culminating event, the symbolic portrayal of what it's all about, was the sentencing of this famous lobbyist to four years in prison. Matt Apuzzo, "'Broken man' Abramoff gets 4 years in prison," Associated Press, September 4, 2008 ("Defense attorney Abbe Lowell [acknowledged Abramoff] corrupted politicians with golf junkets, expensive meals and luxury seats at sporting events. . . . With Abramoff's help, the Justice Department has won corruption convictions against former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles and several top Capitol Hill aides. Defense lawyers predicted more convictions would follow.").
OK, OK, I know. Abramoff did things that were illegal. Much of what the lobbyists, corporations and other institutions were doing the last two weeks are within the law.
Of course, as I often say, the problem with corporate power is not that corporations violate the law, it's that they don't have to because . . . well, they wrote the law. The "soft money" loophole is there because they want it there. They get their 1000-to-one to 2000-to-one return on these soft money "investments." (For documentation see "Either Way It's 'Public Financing of Campaigns,'" in Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008).) Who wouldn't want to create, and hang onto, that kind of return?
Far be it from a law professor to minimize distinctions between what is and is not legal.
But the fact is, as Matt Apuzzo's AP story, linked above, notes, "In The Perfect Villain: John McCain and the Demonization of Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Boston journalist Gary Chafetz portrays Abramoff as an innocent man who excelled in an already corrupt system and was undone by biased prosecutors, reporters and political enemies."
You don't have to believe that Abramoff was "innocent" to agree that he "excelled in an already corrupt system."
The distinction between capital C Coruption and small c corruption is the difference between who is inside, and who is outside, of prison. It's an important distinction; a legal distinction with significant consequences.
But the fact remains that our political/governmental system is a small c corrupt system, in which the elites with money and power, and views from skyboxes, are able to, and do, with what's sometimes called "influence peddling," bend the government to their own economic benefit. It's the sort of thing that led Warren Buffett to acknowledge as a matter of course, “There’s class warfare, all right,but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
So Jack Abramoff is my "Person of the Week." Keep his image before you as you read these excerpts from ABC News' additions to its "The Money Trail" series, this week coming to us from the Republican National Convention.
Emma Schwartz, "Conventions 2008: Brought to You By Whom?; Unlimited Money and Little Disclosure at Political Conventions," ABC News, August 24, 2008 ("The contributions that fund the massive, four-day affairs come mostly from businesses, unions and other organizations which often have business before lawmakers. And their contributions to the fetes can run into the millions of dollars, unlike money given to candidates, political action committees or national parties. While many donors tout their sponsorship, by law the host committees don't have to disclose their donors until roughly two months after the convention -- just days before the presidential election. That means that most voters will go to the polls without knowing which interests gave millions to boost the candidates and buy access. . . . And the committees are certainly taking advantage of it. Their fundraising strategy has been geared with one clear message: the bigger the donor, the better the access to events and members of Congress. . . . [A]t least 173 organizations – largely companies and trade unions – have given money to the conventions so far. Of those, 48 have given to both party conventions. Those 173 companies have spent $1.3 billion in lobbying expenditures over the past three years, according to a report by the Campaign Finance Institute. And during that same period, those companies' political action committees and employees have contributed $180 million to federal candidates and political parties – all perfectly legal.").
As residents of New Orleans were fleeing Hurricane Gustav . . . many corporate sponsors and their lobbyists carried through with plans for lavish entertainment of GOP lawmakers and others despite calls from the campaign of Sen. John McCain that Republicans should tone down the convention festivities. . . .
Yet, last night lobbyists for the National Rifle Association, Lockheed Martin and the American Trucking Association put on a raucus six-hour party at a downtown bar featuring music by the band "Hookers and Blow." There was no evidence of any actual prostitutes or cocaine.
Congressman Bill Shuster (R-PA), a GOP House deputy whip, was seen meeting with a group of lobbyists who bemoaned McCain's call to tone down the parties which had already been paid for.
Shuster said . . . there was no need to curtail corporate parties until after the Hurricane hit land.
Along the Mississippi last night, corporate lobbyists for the chemical industry were entertaining Ohio Republicans on two large yachts.
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), one of about 700 guests, said he "could not remember" who paid the costs of the river cruise. . . .
Saturday night, 22 big corporations sponsored a pig roast and "booze cruise" for California Congressmen and delegates on Lake Minnetonka, west of Minneapolis. . . .
Many delegates at a party Saturday night for GOP convention CEO Maria Cino said they saw no reason to stop the good time because of events in New Orleans.
"Everyone goes through hard times," said Wisconsin delegate Jeff Larson.
More than a hundred people jammed a Minneapolis restaurant where waiters wore pink wigs and guests danced through the night as they wrapped themselves and their partners with pink boas.
Five pink spotlights were set up outside of the invitation-only party. ABC News reporters were told they could not enter.
Asked about the appropriateness of the gathering, Republican National Committeeman Tony Parker walked away from ABC News cameras, saying, "I don't want to talk with you."
Another Republican guest hid his face from cameras, wrapping a pink boa around his eyes and nose. . . .
At least 200 parties had been scheduled by corporate executives and lobbyists for the Republican gathering . . ..
Brian Ross, Rhonda Schwartz, Avni Patel, Asa Eslocker, and Anna Schecter, "Money Trail: What Hurricane? Lobbyists, GOP Party On; As NOLA Residents Flee, Republican Party Officials Don Pink Boas and Swig Vodka Shots," ABC News, September 1, 2008.
Tom DeLay, the former House GOP majority leader whose connections to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff brought scandal and disgrace to the Republican party, returned to the spotlight in Minneapolis last night, helping to host a private party that drew hundreds of delegates and Republican officials. . . .
DeLay arrived at the Minneapolis night club for his party last night in a gold mini-van . . ..
He declined to answer questions from ABC News as he entered the back door of the club through a loading dock.
[T]he featured entertainment at DeLay's party was the band Smash Mouth.
Asked his reaction to DeLay's appearance in Minneapolis, Cong. John Mica (R-FL) declined to answer and then head-butted the ABC camera. . . .
Ethics watchdog groups were appalled that DeLay would be back in the spotlight at the Republican convention.
"Why would they welcome back one of the most obvious examples of corruption," asked Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation . . ..
No longer in office, and awaiting trial on state election law violations in Texas, DeLay disappeared from the Washington scene two years ago after deciding not to seek re-election from his Congressional district south of Houston. . . .
The convicted lobbyist, Abramoff, who once boasted of his close ties to Delay, is cooperating with authorities.
Abramoff is scheduled to be sentenced Thursday by a federal judge in Washington. . . .
"Why one of the most disgraced members of Congress would think that he had an opportunity now to redeem himself is beyond me," said Miller of the Sunlight Foundation.
Brian Ross, Rhonda Schwartz, Asa Eslocker, and Emma Schwartz, "Money Trail: He's Baaaack! Tom DeLay Hailed as GOP Hero; Despite Scandal, Indictment, 'The Hammer' Big in Minneapolis," ABC News, September 2, 2008.
From the moment they arrived at the Twin Cities airport, Republicans have been reminded that this convention is being brought to them by corporate America.
Including a Swiss-based bank, UBS, under investigation by the government for allegedly helping the rich avoid billions of dollars in US taxes. The bank says it is cooperating with Congressional and federal authorities.
"I think it's very clear that those who give to the host committees are getting access and influence that they desire, said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.
In addition to spending millions on lavish parties, big corporations have put up $58 million dollars for the Republican convention. . . .
Nine conventions after Nixon, many of the corporate sponsors still try to keep what they're doing from being seen by the press or the public.
But inside, the corporations make sure the Congressmen know just who is responsible for the good times.
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the top House Republican, was seen dancing at the "Best Little Warehouse Party", an event put on by corporate lobbyists close to Boehner at the last four conventions.
In some places around town this week, the corporate logos were even flashed on giant TV screens. . . .
"We have to have campaign finance reform and return the government to the people and take it out of the hands of special interests," McCain said in 2000.
Yet, at his nominating convention this week, the big money donors were seated in the prime skyboxes overlooking the proceedings below. . . .
"If we don't do anything about the way the conventions are financed, we have a danger that our democracy is going to be severely damaged by unequal access and unequal influence by convention donors," said Steve Weissman, of the Campaign Finance Institute.
Brian Ross and Avni Patel, "Money Trail: Big Business Means Big Fun for Congress Members at RNC; Corporations Spoil Congressmen, Throw Lavish Parties All Thanks to a Federal Loophole," ABC News, September 4, 2008.
Want to bet on the odds -- whoever wins -- we're going to see meaningful campaign finance reform, or anything remotely close to government either "of the people" or "by the people" or "for the people," let alone all of them?
# # #
September 4, 2008, 9:40 a.m., 12:30, 6:15 p.m.
Currently Most Popular Blog Entries
"Random Thoughts on Law School Rankings," April 29, 2008.
"Tell Me a Story," August 30, 2008.
"City's Moral Compass is Spinning," August 27, 2008.
"Abolish Bar Exams?" August 22, 2008.
"UI Sexual Assault Update" is now embodied in, and being updated as, a Web page, "University of Iowa Sexual Assault Controversy -- 2007-08," July 19-present; although the original blog entry (July 19-August 9) has not been removed,"UI Sexual Assault Update," July 19-August 9. Both remain among "most popular."
"Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves," May 9, 2008.
"Ted, TED, Michelle and City Owned Hotels," August 26, 2008.
"Solving Illegal Behavior Problems by Making It Legal," August 20, 2008.
"Reactions to Obama's Telecom Immunity Vote," July 9, 2008.
"Jails: 'Overcrowding' Not the Issue," August 21, 2008.
And see, Database Index of 500-plus blog entries
Palin by Comparison
I like Sarah Palin.
No, I don't mean what I now understand to be her positions regarding tax cuts and federal deficits, energy policy, abortion (valuing the life of a fetus over the life of a mother), teaching creationism in the schools, utilization of earmarks, guns, global warming, gay marriage and civil unions, relying on abstinence as a birth control method in reducing teen pregnancy -- among others. I suspect were we to spend an evening "vetting" each others' positions on issues we'd find relatively little we agree on. (I've said the same, and more, about Governor Mike Huckabee. Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), Part II. Candidates/Governor Mike Huckabee. I really like Mike Huckabee, and his opening last evening was another demonstration of one of the reasons why.)
Nor do I mean that I liked "her" speech.
Don't get me wrong. It was a great speech (though I'm not fond of substituting snide attacks on one's opponent for a discussion of the issues). I mean it probably served well the Republican campaign. Matthew Scully, who wrote it, is a master wordsmith. After all he wrote President George W. Bush's first four State of the Union messages, among other political writing over the years. Who better to write the speeches and talking points for "Bush's third term"? I just mean it wasn't "her speech." (For a kind of "truth squad" evaluation of some of the charges see, Jim Kuhnhenn, "Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention," Associated Press/Yahoo! News, September 3, 2008, 11:48 p.m. ET.)
That's certainly not a criticism of Governor Palin. Senator Obama is not unfamiliar with the teleprompter. And Senator McCain's constant looking down at notes only draws attention to the fact he's uttering someone else's words as well as significantly impairing his effectiveness as a speaker. Public officials, especially during a campaign sometimes requiring ten appearances a day, can be excused for relying on speech writers. And she, Senator McCain -- indeed the entire Republican Party -- had an enormous amount riding on it being a good performance.
Which it was. Being able to deliver a speech not entirely one's own to a very large crowd -- persuasively, emotionally, and with humor -- is an ability not unrelated to one's effectiveness as president. I thought she really "sold the lines," as we say, and did everything she was called upon to do.
Things had, after all, moved rather rapidly -- for her, the media, and the rest of the nation. Elisabeth Bumiller, "Palin Disclosures Raise Questions On Vetting," New York Times, September 1, 2008 ("Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin."). (I have a memory of having read, or heard, somewhere that the Times, challenged by the McCain campaign on this story, is standing by it.)
One of the most knowledgeable and insightful persons to comment about her qualifications is a member of the Alaska legislature -- who also likes her. Mike Doogan, "She's Nice -- but Not Ready," Washington Post, September 3, 2008, p. A15 ("Palin brings some pluses to the campaign. She's a woman. She's young. She's from outside the Beltway. The Christian right likes her. She's comfortable on TV -- she has a degree in journalism -- and is adept at connecting with people on a personal level. And she is very, very competitive. . . . [H]er role in killing the ballyhooed 'Bridge to Nowhere'? Turns out that she was for it before she was against it, and that, well, she kept the money anyway. . . . [T]he state government isn't running all that well: commissioners and key staffers jumping or being pushed. The operating budget growing 10 percent a year. . . . The governor and her aides being investigated by the legislature. You can see why it's not clear she's a competent governor of Alaska, let alone qualified to take over the reins of the national government."). And see, Brian Ross, Joseph Rhee and Len Tepper, "Fired Alaskan Official Says Palin Hasn't Been Truthful; Monegan Says He Was Fired For His Refusal to Fire Governor's Former Brother-In-Law," ABC News, September 4, 2008; Brian Ross and Joseph Rhee, "Another Controversy for Sarah Palin; Former Police Chief Says He Was Fired for Challenging Palin's Campaign Contributors," ABC News, September 3, 2008; Justin Rood, "Palin Fought Polar Bear Protections; Governor Discounted the Findings of Nine Recent USGS Studies," ABC News, August 31, 2008.
So she was coached on the delivery. I suspect that wasn't the first time that has occurred either.
Anticipating the importance of Palin's debut before a national audience, McCain speechwriter Matthew Scully spent days working on the speech, and she rehearsed it repeatedly as McCain aides offered coaching. Before she delivered it, they began an all-out effort to defend her and take the offensive against her critics, mobilizing surrogates to tell her story and accusing journalists of creating a "faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee."
Here's the link to that Post page-one story, Michael D. Shear, "Palin Comes Out Fighting; GOP Nominates McCain After Running Mate Attacks Obama on Experience," Washington Post, September 4, 2008, p. A1.
And here's the Times' take: "The speech was the first public emergence for Ms. Palin since arriving here Sunday, two days after Mr. McCain named her as his running mate. Ms. Palin has spent her time in a hotel suite with her husband, Todd, and their five children preparing for her speech and the questions on foreign policy, national security and family matters that she will face from the news media when the McCain campaign makes her available to reporters. . . ." Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, "Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party," New York Times, September 4, 2008.
I used to like Bill Clinton, and stopped as a result of his campaign tactics against Senator Obama. The same thing could happen with my reactions to Governor Palin if she keeps up the ad hominum attacks on Obama and continues to avoid issues. Understand, I'd never vote for her, and frankly the thought of her having to walk into the oval office alone scares me a little. But I still like her. She's got spunk. She's articulate (especially when permitted to speak without scripts and coaches). She's attractive. And she's going to be appealing to a lot of voters, I think.
Aside from partisanship, and aside from the chattering classes and policy wonks, the reactions to her are going to turn on folks comfort zone -- as they did for me in my congressional primary race. I always felt those who voted for me, and those who preferred someone else (numbers that, by my count, differed by only six), both saw me accurately. Those who voted for me liked the idea of someone who (at that time only) had a modest measure of celebrity, contacts in Hollywood (some of whom came to the district to help with the campaign), Washington and the financial community in New York that could be drawn upon to help the District (my memory -- often faulty -- is that the Wall Street Journal reported at one point that I had more up front money from contributors, including Republicans, than any other newcomer running for Congress that year). They thought someone like that was just what the district needed. Young professionals, including even some Republicans, were attracted to that. On the other hand, there were slightly more who found that discomforting, something they found it hard to relate to. They preferred someone more like their neighbor down the road. Not incidentally, after the primaries were over, and the general election was held, the person they ended up choosing was a former state legislator, and now our own Iowa Senator, Chuck Grassley.
I think the choice between Palin and Obama is going to be like that. Both will be perceived relatively accurately by voters. Many -- whether it turns out to be "most" will decide who ends up in the White House -- will feel much more comfortable with what they see in Governor Palin. They'll like what I like about her -- and either also like her ideology and policy positions, or be unaware of what they are. Others will be more comfortable with what they see in Obama, what he represents (in every sense), and their attraction to Michelle as well.
The "Experience" Debate is Getting Silly
Senator McCain "told ABC News in an interview on Wednesday that 'Sarah Palin has 24,000 employees in the state government' and was 'responsible for 20 percent of the nation’s energy supply.'” Elisabeth Bumiller and Michael Cooper, "Palin Assails Critics and Electrifies Party," New York Times, September 4, 2008.
Last evening on Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," former Speaker Newt Gingrich was the guest. Stewart noted that some Republicans are arguing that Palin has foreign policy credentials because Alaska is close to Russia. Gingrich responded that when comparing the executive experience of Palin to that of Obama and Biden "You can't find a single executive decision that either has made in their entire career." To which Stewart responded that the same would have to be said about McCain -- to which Gingrich candidly acknowledged, "That's exactly right." (The exchange occurs at roughly 3:30-4:00 minutes into the interview.)
Similarly, Fred Thompson acknowledged last evening during his speech at the Convention, "Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be president." (He went on to say, "but it does reveal character.") It's something the McCain campaign needs to consider.
Senator Joe Biden once said of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, "Rudy Giuliani, probably the most under-qualified man since George Bush to seek the presidency . . . I mean, think about it! Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11. There's nothing else!"
The McCain campaign risks a similar attack when it brings every question back to McCain's POW status. ("How many homes does he have? Seven? You forgot to count the 'Hanoi Hilton.'") Military service should be honored; and it's certainly not irrelevant to a president's understanding of war and defense budgets. But it's not even the equivalent of having served as Secretary of Defense, let alone president. Fred Thompson's right; it doesn't qualify someone to be "commander-in-chief," or to deal with the other responsibilities of the U.S. president. In fact, McCain's military service is demeaned by making more of it than is credible.
(For a Palin-favorable to neutral explanation of the job of the Alaska governor, and how the state differs from others, see Kirk Johnson, "The Unusual Challenges Palin Faced in Alaska," New York Times, September 3, 2008.)
I've written at some length about the relevance of "experience" to the responsibilities of a president, what we should mean by "experience" in that context, and how, why and when it can appropriately be used, and with what weight, in comparing the qualifications of candidates for office prior to selecting the one you want to support. Nicholas Johnson, Are We There Yet? (2008), Part III. Experience. So I'm not going to repeat all of that here beyond this summary.
I do not think that "experience," however defined, is necessarily the most important quality to weigh in picking a candidate. I think raw intelligence, a liberal arts education from a good, though not necessarily most prestigious and expensive school (that is, at least a smattering of knowledge about a wide range of subjects), world travel (if observant and open to new experiences), the capacity of "a quick study" (that is, while knowing one's limitations, the ability to quickly pick up enough understanding of a new subject to ask the most appropriate questions of those who are more knowledgeable), a judicious mind (that is, the ability to base decisions on data and science rather than ideology, and to hold judgments in abeyance without knee-jerk conclusions until having heard all sides), a genuine liking for people and the capacity for empathy and understanding of their lives and challenges, and at least a dollop of "common sense-wisdom-judgment." Of course a basic honesty, commitment to transparency in government, ethical and moral sense -- and since the president is, above all else, the nation's personnel director, an ability to judge people, and to choose those who will make the president look good because they are better than the president, rather than because, by comparison, the president is clearly better than them.
So I can imagine someone with virtually no "experience" in the sense we talk about it nonetheless not only being "qualified" to be president, but being more qualified than someone with superior "experience." Vice President Dick Cheney may be one of the best examples from among many. After all he had an understanding of White House operations as a result of having served as President Ford's White House Chief of Staff, he had the legislative experience, and knowledge of the Congress, from six terms in the House and his service as minority Whip, his experience with the federal executive branch included having served as President George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense (which also provided him some understanding and "experience" with regard to national defense), and his experience at administration/management of large institutions included, in addition to Secretary of Defense, having served as CEO of Halliburton. Notwithstanding all of that "experience," I suspect that there are some Republicans, as well as the Democrats, who would find him lacking on the other qualities just enumerated.
If one is to consider the "experience to be president," "passing the commander-in-chief" test, ability to handle that "3:00 a.m. phone call," what's most relevant, in my view, is a breadth of experience. What city, county and state government are like -- especially in their relations with the federal. The various branches of federal government -- cabinet departments, independent administrative agencies, the judiciary, the Senate and House, and the White House. Foreign relations experience (as distinguished from foreign policy experience, as Secretary of State (or other high position in the Department), UN ambassador, work with the World Bank or other international organization, or ambassador to any country, work on negotiating treaties, and so forth. An understanding of the military that comes, not just from service (which is also of value), but from having been National Security Adviser, Secretary of Defense (or other high position in the Department), Director of the CIA, and so forth. Finally (or perhaps first), is managerial/administrative experience. Not the experience of overseeing a senator's office staff, or McCain's time as a squadron commander, or any other administrative position that's pretty "hands-on," where you know and work directly with those you are supervising. But the experience of leading, of administering, an institution with thousands of employees, and tens of thousands of other stakeholders, where you simply out of necessity must use means other than personal contact with everyone (such as CEO of a major corporation, one of our nation's largest universities, or hospitals, governor of a state, mayor of a big city -- as well as federal cabinet, or even sub-cabinet, positions).
Measured by these standards none of the senators prominent in this year's primaries, and ultimately selected -- Senators McCain, Obama, Biden and Clinton -- can offer any "experience" other than legislative, and that, for three of them, limited to the U.S. Senate. (Ironically, Senator Obama can claim the most, by these standards, because he has gained some insight into state-federal relations by having served in a state legislature as well as the Senate.) All of which raises the question (the question, not the irrefutable answer) of the extent to which even this very limited (in terms of breadth) "stovepipe" experience is an example of the difference between "twenty-five years' experience, and one year's experience twenty-five times."
And I might add, by these standards, Governor Palin trumps them all -- including, as Speaker Gingrich conceded last evening -- her own presidential running mate, John McCain. However small the town, however few people live in Alaska, however short the time she's served as mayor and governor, she does have "experience" that none of the four senators do.
Does that mean I think she's the most qualified to be president? Absolutely not. The notion of her having to move into the oval office sometime in 2009 frightens me. I would feel much more comfortable with Senator Biden having to assume that role -- notwithstanding the fact he's never been a mayor or a governor.
So who else might McCain have picked? Until yesterday the thought never crossed my mind (I'm embarrassed to confess, since I should have thought of it), but I'm suddenly encountering more and more people who are now asking me, "Don't you think Dr. Condoleezza Rice would have been a more sensible choice?" The only downside I see to that idea would be her ties to the Bush Administration. Aside from that I think she'd be dynamite. Can you imagine the contrast between her and Governor Palin going toe-to-toe with Biden over foreign policy?
Well, we're off and running. Exactly two months from today we'll find out what this multi-billion-dollar campaign has produced.
# # #
