We'd like to believe that people are rewarded for being good and punished for being bad. It's a foundational element of our American culture, even if in reality it has often not been true. Consequently, the idea that those responsible for many of America's current problems have not got their just desserts is grating on the rank and file. I share main street's angst.
I'm outraged that so many of those who enabled and operated the sub-prime mortgage industry are living well on their profits while the rest of us suffer, either without jobs or getting no interest on our savings.
I'm incredulous that George W. Bush and his cronies got off scot-free after starting a very expensive war for no good reason.
I don't understand why my tax dollars bailed out GM and its retirees, both of which lived large for many years on extravagant wages and benefits as the company's products deteriorated and its market dried up.
It irks me that some of America's largest institutions, including the fossil fuel consortium and the teacher/public employee unions, are successfully lobbying to head off progress toward 21st century paradymes in their sectors of the economy.
And, maybe most of all, I'm sick of the U.S. congress - both parties - for standing around bickering when so many national issues need attention. The situation makes me wonder if our form of government makes sense anymore.
What to do? Beats me! That's why it's so frustrating. Perhaps widespread public anger will result in some positive change. That's our only good hope.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Haiti Update
I told you so. Haiti is a total mess, not only from the earthquake but because there are no Haitians in charge. Over the past 20 years, most people with any competency and integrity have left the country, leaving those without it to manage the place. Oh, and "manage" means manage the corruption. There is no national or local government with any standing as far as the people are concerned. As a beleagured Haitian said it on NPR yesterday, "We need aid, but don't give it to the government because we'll never see it." It's true.
So, where does that leave things? Well, there are lots (10-15 thousand) of international relief workers and American soldiers doing rescue and immediate relief activities right now. The dead will be buried before long, the injured will get some sort of treatment, and food/water distribution will be figured out. When that's over, about 3 million Haitians will be left standing around the rubble wondering what to do next. That's when the next big problem becomes apparent.
If you recall, General Colin Powell said before the Iraq War, "You break it, you own it." Well, it could also be said that, "You relieve it, you own it." At this point, the U.S. government and private agencies have committed to about $250 million in relief spending in Haiti. If 3.5 million Haitians were affected, that works out to about $71 per Haitian, many of whom lost whatever home they had. In other words, even if this aid number doubles, it's a spit in the ocean.
There is already talk of making Haiti a U.N. Protectorate - in other words, the U.N. would take over the governing role for Haiti until a competent Haitian authority could be put together. This means years, not months. The U.S., of course, would be the primary muscle and money behind the Protectorate, since no other countries really care about Haiti despite words to the contrary. We are in this for the long haul, it appears, and it's a bad thing.
Why is it bad? Did you know that there were 45,000 Americans in Haiti when earthquake struck? That's one American for every 200 Haitians, and most Amercans were doing humanitarian work. Despite this level of involvement, which has been going on for many years, Haiti remained a poor, unsuccessful, backward country. Part of the problem is its unique "Creole" language, a blend of French and native tongues; it's hard to modernize when you can't talk to anyone. Another part is the level of pride Haitians exhibit; they may be poor, but they don't like listening to foreigners. These issues will haunt us, because we have excessive expectations and the Haitians now have a claim on us - we must keep them alive indefinitely.
We are stuck. In order for Haiti to manage itself, it must change. If we try to force change, we will be accused of killing their culture. It's a recipe for unending stagnation and unending support of that population. If Obama was smart, he'd announce right now that we'll give our best efforts for three years and we're out of there, governmentally speaking. If the NGO's want to stay and help out, fine; they've been there forever, anyway.
The U.S. could do amazing things in three years, infrastructure-wise. Reliable power, good and accessible drinking water, some sort of sewage collection and treatment, for example. We could build cement plants to convert the rubble into new concrete blocks, and we could try to organize some sort of workable government process at all levels. In the end, though, the country belongs to the Haitians, and we should give it back to them. We didn't cause the earthquake, and we have no obligation to attempt a huge "nation-building" project there. President Obama, the time to say "goodbye" is now.
So, where does that leave things? Well, there are lots (10-15 thousand) of international relief workers and American soldiers doing rescue and immediate relief activities right now. The dead will be buried before long, the injured will get some sort of treatment, and food/water distribution will be figured out. When that's over, about 3 million Haitians will be left standing around the rubble wondering what to do next. That's when the next big problem becomes apparent.
If you recall, General Colin Powell said before the Iraq War, "You break it, you own it." Well, it could also be said that, "You relieve it, you own it." At this point, the U.S. government and private agencies have committed to about $250 million in relief spending in Haiti. If 3.5 million Haitians were affected, that works out to about $71 per Haitian, many of whom lost whatever home they had. In other words, even if this aid number doubles, it's a spit in the ocean.
There is already talk of making Haiti a U.N. Protectorate - in other words, the U.N. would take over the governing role for Haiti until a competent Haitian authority could be put together. This means years, not months. The U.S., of course, would be the primary muscle and money behind the Protectorate, since no other countries really care about Haiti despite words to the contrary. We are in this for the long haul, it appears, and it's a bad thing.
Why is it bad? Did you know that there were 45,000 Americans in Haiti when earthquake struck? That's one American for every 200 Haitians, and most Amercans were doing humanitarian work. Despite this level of involvement, which has been going on for many years, Haiti remained a poor, unsuccessful, backward country. Part of the problem is its unique "Creole" language, a blend of French and native tongues; it's hard to modernize when you can't talk to anyone. Another part is the level of pride Haitians exhibit; they may be poor, but they don't like listening to foreigners. These issues will haunt us, because we have excessive expectations and the Haitians now have a claim on us - we must keep them alive indefinitely.
We are stuck. In order for Haiti to manage itself, it must change. If we try to force change, we will be accused of killing their culture. It's a recipe for unending stagnation and unending support of that population. If Obama was smart, he'd announce right now that we'll give our best efforts for three years and we're out of there, governmentally speaking. If the NGO's want to stay and help out, fine; they've been there forever, anyway.
The U.S. could do amazing things in three years, infrastructure-wise. Reliable power, good and accessible drinking water, some sort of sewage collection and treatment, for example. We could build cement plants to convert the rubble into new concrete blocks, and we could try to organize some sort of workable government process at all levels. In the end, though, the country belongs to the Haitians, and we should give it back to them. We didn't cause the earthquake, and we have no obligation to attempt a huge "nation-building" project there. President Obama, the time to say "goodbye" is now.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Hopeless Haiti
The big earthquake that hit Port au Prince has caused casualties in the hundreds of thousands, but Haiti has hardly any hospitals and some of those likely have collapsed. Even with the best relief efforts of other countries, only a small fraction of injured Haitians will be able to access professional health care during the next few weeks. It's going to be really ugly over there.
Having been in Haiti on two occasions in the early 1990's, I can easily envision the chaos that has ensued following the earthquake. Almost all buildings were constructed of substandard concrete block with little or no reinforcement, so they fell down when the first big shake occurred. The sharp, heavy blocks were perfect for killing or maiming people. And even in the best of times, injured people relied on friends to get them to the hospital because the few ambulances served only the very rich. Today, most of the injured have no place to go and no way to get there, anyway. The unmitigated agony must be surreal.
Haiti's warm climate and the inputs of cheap food and clothing from outside has allowed its millions of poor citizens to live at a very low standard. Developed counties send used clothing to Haiti, so even the poorest have something to wear. Shelter from heat and rain can provided by a corrugated metal panel supported by whatever will hold it up, with concrete blocks being the upscale solution. Typical food for the poor is basic, such as rice and beans with a tasty flavoring; meat is available for those who have money, as are tropical fruits such as plantains. Water is often provided by communal supplies that people access with bottles and buckets. In normal times, therefore, millions of Haitians live on the edge but survive because they have what they need to stay alive. However, nobody wants to get sick or injured because medical care is spotty at best.
The Haitian economy is primitive. When I was there, it was a cash or barter economy for most people. However, a few oligarchs controlled the few industries that can operate in Haiti - rum production and small factories, mostly, and the oligarchs lived well. In addition, many people received payments from funds transferred in by family members living in the U.S. or elsewhere outside the country. Small businesses such as corner stores and bars were common, all protected by iron bars on windows and doors to ward off theft. People got around by walking or paying to ride on brightly painted trucks of all sizes that had large platforms with wooden seats built into their beds. The population was very resourceful, however, and most people found ways to earn the small amounts of money they needed to survive. Charities often provided a buffer for the destitute.
One would be amazed at the lack of infrastructure in Haiti. Few areas had running water or sewers, and electricity was often not available due to the rationing of power from generating stations. Food was usually cooked on charcoal stoves, the charcoal coming from what few trees were left in a country once 97% forested. Most roads were hard-packed gravel, and major highways were two lanes wide. Rainstorms in the rainy season often created wash-outs, and I remember seeing a major stream running down the main street of the town where I worked; one walked across the street by stepping from large stone to large stone amidst the running water. This was normal.
From the above description, you may better understand the impact of the earthquake. In a subsistence economy there are no resources for dealing with emergencies. Damaged water supplies and roads prevent people from accessing the basics needed for life, so even those who were not harmed by the earthquake will be desperate. With millions needing assistance, the relief efforts must be massive to deal with immediate needs. Who knows how long it will take to get the country back to "normal"? It will be a long time.
I found the Haitian people to be friendly, very nice looking, and generally happy despite their deprivation. Many, including the poor, were quite intelligent and creative. Their problems were mostly related to living in a country that had little to offer in terms of output; where there is no production and no valuable natural resources, there is no money. Yet the availability of basics made it possible for Haitians to grow the population, thereby limiting the resources available to each individual. Under these conditions, I saw little that would give the average person any hope for getting ahead. Now, the earthquake has crushed whatever hope there was. The "failed state" of Haiti has descended into a state of hell.
What can be done? In my view, only a benevolent dictator regime can pull Haiti out of its mess over a long period. With no internal resources, foreign aid is the only hope - but endemic corruption will result in the looting of this aid unless extremely tough standards are applied. Because the society has ingrained corruption and few who are trained managers, outsiders would need to provide most of the leadership during the recovery period. However, I doubt Haitians would accept such an approach unless it was maintained by a level of force that would make liberals cringe. Even concepts such as enforced birth control would have to be considered in this dire situation. Who would impose such a regime? Probably nobody. So, don't pay much attention to those who predict Haiti will recover. The best outcome will likely be a return to a client state supported by international aid and living on the edge - until the next crisis again brings chaos.
Having been in Haiti on two occasions in the early 1990's, I can easily envision the chaos that has ensued following the earthquake. Almost all buildings were constructed of substandard concrete block with little or no reinforcement, so they fell down when the first big shake occurred. The sharp, heavy blocks were perfect for killing or maiming people. And even in the best of times, injured people relied on friends to get them to the hospital because the few ambulances served only the very rich. Today, most of the injured have no place to go and no way to get there, anyway. The unmitigated agony must be surreal.
Haiti's warm climate and the inputs of cheap food and clothing from outside has allowed its millions of poor citizens to live at a very low standard. Developed counties send used clothing to Haiti, so even the poorest have something to wear. Shelter from heat and rain can provided by a corrugated metal panel supported by whatever will hold it up, with concrete blocks being the upscale solution. Typical food for the poor is basic, such as rice and beans with a tasty flavoring; meat is available for those who have money, as are tropical fruits such as plantains. Water is often provided by communal supplies that people access with bottles and buckets. In normal times, therefore, millions of Haitians live on the edge but survive because they have what they need to stay alive. However, nobody wants to get sick or injured because medical care is spotty at best.
The Haitian economy is primitive. When I was there, it was a cash or barter economy for most people. However, a few oligarchs controlled the few industries that can operate in Haiti - rum production and small factories, mostly, and the oligarchs lived well. In addition, many people received payments from funds transferred in by family members living in the U.S. or elsewhere outside the country. Small businesses such as corner stores and bars were common, all protected by iron bars on windows and doors to ward off theft. People got around by walking or paying to ride on brightly painted trucks of all sizes that had large platforms with wooden seats built into their beds. The population was very resourceful, however, and most people found ways to earn the small amounts of money they needed to survive. Charities often provided a buffer for the destitute.
One would be amazed at the lack of infrastructure in Haiti. Few areas had running water or sewers, and electricity was often not available due to the rationing of power from generating stations. Food was usually cooked on charcoal stoves, the charcoal coming from what few trees were left in a country once 97% forested. Most roads were hard-packed gravel, and major highways were two lanes wide. Rainstorms in the rainy season often created wash-outs, and I remember seeing a major stream running down the main street of the town where I worked; one walked across the street by stepping from large stone to large stone amidst the running water. This was normal.
From the above description, you may better understand the impact of the earthquake. In a subsistence economy there are no resources for dealing with emergencies. Damaged water supplies and roads prevent people from accessing the basics needed for life, so even those who were not harmed by the earthquake will be desperate. With millions needing assistance, the relief efforts must be massive to deal with immediate needs. Who knows how long it will take to get the country back to "normal"? It will be a long time.
I found the Haitian people to be friendly, very nice looking, and generally happy despite their deprivation. Many, including the poor, were quite intelligent and creative. Their problems were mostly related to living in a country that had little to offer in terms of output; where there is no production and no valuable natural resources, there is no money. Yet the availability of basics made it possible for Haitians to grow the population, thereby limiting the resources available to each individual. Under these conditions, I saw little that would give the average person any hope for getting ahead. Now, the earthquake has crushed whatever hope there was. The "failed state" of Haiti has descended into a state of hell.
What can be done? In my view, only a benevolent dictator regime can pull Haiti out of its mess over a long period. With no internal resources, foreign aid is the only hope - but endemic corruption will result in the looting of this aid unless extremely tough standards are applied. Because the society has ingrained corruption and few who are trained managers, outsiders would need to provide most of the leadership during the recovery period. However, I doubt Haitians would accept such an approach unless it was maintained by a level of force that would make liberals cringe. Even concepts such as enforced birth control would have to be considered in this dire situation. Who would impose such a regime? Probably nobody. So, don't pay much attention to those who predict Haiti will recover. The best outcome will likely be a return to a client state supported by international aid and living on the edge - until the next crisis again brings chaos.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Working Together
It's a new year, normally a time when one is optimistic about the future. I can be optimistic about my own life, since I'm relatively secure, pretty healthy, have a good support system of wife and friends around me, and have interesting work and play opportunities. However, my psyche is always affected by what is going on outside my little cocoon, that that stuff does not engender much optimism for 2010. The problem is that we humans seem to have a lot of difficulty working together, and that is the source of most of our problems.
In one of his most profound statements, Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Reciprocity...it's such a simple concept, but hard to implement. Selfishness stands in the way, prompting us to see life as a zero sum game where we each must fight to keep what we have. We fail to see that, working together, we can create far more for everyone.
I'm astonished that obvious communal efforts are so often neglected, since the evidence that it works is all around us. In fact, our entire "modern world" is a result of groups of people working together to achieve common goals. Why is it, then, that we resist dealing in concert to solve so many issues that threaten our country and the world? As a pragmatist, I'm perplexed. Can we start to turn this around in 2010? It seems unlikely.
I heard yesterday that in many parts of the undeveloped world pregnant women suffer from an iodine shortage that robs their offspring of 10-15 IQ points due to iodine-deficient brain development. Providing iodized salt to these people would seem so easy to do, yet it is not being done. What a tragedy! Would I be writing this blog if my IQ was 15 points less? Why are countries that suffer from this problem not making it easy for other countries to provide this simple solution? Beats me! We just don't seem to be able to work together.
Nowhere is this problem of conflict more obvious than in American politics. Working together requires a common set of facts, to begin with, but our politicians seem allergic to facts but addicted to partisanship and special (read "selfish") interests. Both parties are smoking dope instead of identifying the core problems that American must deal with, gathering pertinent facts, and working together to find solutions in the common interest.
If it was up to me, I'd fire every sitting member of congress and replace them all with people who've shown little interest in politics and lots of ability to accomplish difficult tasks. In six months we could have a new congress that would remake America in ten years and leave few people unhappy with the outcome. That's because solving difficult problems makes everyone optimistic for the future. We really do have people who could lead us up this road.
So, I am very concerned about our ability to work together. For the moment, though, my attention is focused on "Abel". Abel is a 23 year old refugee from Burma who's been in the U.S. for eight months. Starting with no English, he now reads easily (pronounced and understood the word "idiomatic"), and speaks English pretty well. Perhaps this fluency results from his prior knowledge of two Chin dialects, Burmese, and some Chinese and Malay. He's taken his GED already, and likely will pass it. If he does, he will enter a good college in Rochester - for free.
Abel has been through hell in his young life (just believe me), but he wants to become a civil engineer. I'm making it my project to get him there, and enjoying the hell out of it. It helps that he's a hard working (two jobs) guy with a great smile. I love helping those who are willing to help themselves! Perhaps that's why I admire my own three sons, all of whom stand on their own two feet while helping others. Abel is a surrogate, perhaps, since the boys are all grown up.
Selfishness may kill America. Seniors complain about any reduction in their benefits, even if they are comfortable. Wealthy folks complain about higher taxes, even though taxes are relatively low. Kids complain about increases in state college tuitions, even though those tuitions are an incredible bargain. Union members complain about efforts to bring their job requirements and overall compensation in line with their abilities and their industry counterparts. Inner city parents and students have no clue and violence rules their streets; their future is bleak, but they seem indifferent to whatever they might do to change this. All of us seem to acknowledge that progress requires sacrifice, concerted efforts, and hard work - but few seem interested in becoming part of the solution.
Many say this century will belong to the countries of the far east, and they are probably right. I hope those countries do well, but I also wish that America would do well. Sadly, I'm not optimistic. We've lost our ability to work together, so we will decline together. In the meantime, though, I can help Abel achieve the kind of life he always deserved. I can be optimistic about that, at least. Call me if you know about any other, more promising, options for how I should spend my spare time. And, Happy New Year!
In one of his most profound statements, Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Reciprocity...it's such a simple concept, but hard to implement. Selfishness stands in the way, prompting us to see life as a zero sum game where we each must fight to keep what we have. We fail to see that, working together, we can create far more for everyone.
I'm astonished that obvious communal efforts are so often neglected, since the evidence that it works is all around us. In fact, our entire "modern world" is a result of groups of people working together to achieve common goals. Why is it, then, that we resist dealing in concert to solve so many issues that threaten our country and the world? As a pragmatist, I'm perplexed. Can we start to turn this around in 2010? It seems unlikely.
I heard yesterday that in many parts of the undeveloped world pregnant women suffer from an iodine shortage that robs their offspring of 10-15 IQ points due to iodine-deficient brain development. Providing iodized salt to these people would seem so easy to do, yet it is not being done. What a tragedy! Would I be writing this blog if my IQ was 15 points less? Why are countries that suffer from this problem not making it easy for other countries to provide this simple solution? Beats me! We just don't seem to be able to work together.
Nowhere is this problem of conflict more obvious than in American politics. Working together requires a common set of facts, to begin with, but our politicians seem allergic to facts but addicted to partisanship and special (read "selfish") interests. Both parties are smoking dope instead of identifying the core problems that American must deal with, gathering pertinent facts, and working together to find solutions in the common interest.
If it was up to me, I'd fire every sitting member of congress and replace them all with people who've shown little interest in politics and lots of ability to accomplish difficult tasks. In six months we could have a new congress that would remake America in ten years and leave few people unhappy with the outcome. That's because solving difficult problems makes everyone optimistic for the future. We really do have people who could lead us up this road.
So, I am very concerned about our ability to work together. For the moment, though, my attention is focused on "Abel". Abel is a 23 year old refugee from Burma who's been in the U.S. for eight months. Starting with no English, he now reads easily (pronounced and understood the word "idiomatic"), and speaks English pretty well. Perhaps this fluency results from his prior knowledge of two Chin dialects, Burmese, and some Chinese and Malay. He's taken his GED already, and likely will pass it. If he does, he will enter a good college in Rochester - for free.
Abel has been through hell in his young life (just believe me), but he wants to become a civil engineer. I'm making it my project to get him there, and enjoying the hell out of it. It helps that he's a hard working (two jobs) guy with a great smile. I love helping those who are willing to help themselves! Perhaps that's why I admire my own three sons, all of whom stand on their own two feet while helping others. Abel is a surrogate, perhaps, since the boys are all grown up.
Selfishness may kill America. Seniors complain about any reduction in their benefits, even if they are comfortable. Wealthy folks complain about higher taxes, even though taxes are relatively low. Kids complain about increases in state college tuitions, even though those tuitions are an incredible bargain. Union members complain about efforts to bring their job requirements and overall compensation in line with their abilities and their industry counterparts. Inner city parents and students have no clue and violence rules their streets; their future is bleak, but they seem indifferent to whatever they might do to change this. All of us seem to acknowledge that progress requires sacrifice, concerted efforts, and hard work - but few seem interested in becoming part of the solution.
Many say this century will belong to the countries of the far east, and they are probably right. I hope those countries do well, but I also wish that America would do well. Sadly, I'm not optimistic. We've lost our ability to work together, so we will decline together. In the meantime, though, I can help Abel achieve the kind of life he always deserved. I can be optimistic about that, at least. Call me if you know about any other, more promising, options for how I should spend my spare time. And, Happy New Year!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Sick of the Unions!
Unions have done a lot for the worker class, I'd be the first to admit. They won reasonable working hours, better working conditions, and better pay and benefits for their members. They also got processes that protected workers from capricious firing by managers. Despite the corruption that has plagued unions throughout their history, it's hard to argue that unions haven't been a major factor in the democratization of our country. Unfortunately, they now seem bent on bankrupting our country by standing in front of changes that are unavoidable - changes that primarily have to do with efficiency and accountability.
Hardly a day passes when I don't read another major story that, often unintenionally, describes a union that seems bent on driving its employer base into failure or subjecting its customers to substandard services. These stories are not in republican screeds or shouted out on Fox News; they are on the front pages of local newspapers and on media outlets like NPR. Union leaders have no shame, which apparently is a condition they've mutated into as a result of too many years in a closed shop. In my view, a monopoly of labor is just as pernicious as a monopoly of employers, and in many areas of our economy labor has just such a monopoly.
Today the New York State Troopers Union strongly objected to the state's decision not to have a new troopers class in 2010 to replace troopers who have retired. They complained about the larger geographies that troopers must cover with fewer people, and they criticized the governor for having about 200 troopers assigned to security details. What they failed to mention was that the total number of troopers was at a record level just last year, and that the state is facing a giant deficit for 2010. Could we expect these people to be part of the solution until the budget woes are controlled? No way.
The New York City school system has a "rubber room" where 700 teachers under suspension for a variety of accused misdeeds await their fate while receiving full pay. The cost is $65 million per year. Some of these teachers have been reporting to the "rubber room" for more than seven years while their cases proceed through the labrinthine process that the union somehow negotiated. Change this unwieldly process? No way. The process for dismissing an ineffective teacher also contains so many steps, documentation requirements, and appeals to higher and higher authorities that few principals have the time or interest to use it. It's obvious that teachers unions have little interest in the quality of education that their members deliver, even though bad teachers are often pariahs even in the teacher ranks of their own schools. This is what happens when unions gain so much political power that only candidates who support even their outrageous demands will get their funding support.
Today I listened to a co-worker describe a post office screw-up of a deposit for business reply mail. This was the third consecutive time that this type of transaction had been improperly processed by this local post office. If a private company had screwed up in this manner, it would have been easy to find a manager, explain the situation, and get the problem fixed. When it comes to the post office, you just shrug your shoulders and sigh, wishing that they'd go bankrupt and be sold off to FedEx or UPS after their union contracts were scrapped.
In Rochester, New York, the school system is run by a local school board of hacks who each get a few thousand dollars for their part time efforts. The drop out rate is ridiculous, and Rochester's teenage pregnancy rate leads the nation, so the mayor is making noise about getting permission to take over the system. In addition to citing the poor academic performance, he's concerned about the waste in the central administration of the system. Where is the teacher's union on this? Screaming! They see a disaster coming when an excellent mayor might get into their knickers after replacing a bunch of hacks who are easily bought off. Why should we be surprised?
Last year it cost the federal government over $60 billion to save GM and Chrysler, both of which were crippled by unions who fought the company's effort to become competitive. Well, we haven't seen anything yet. The public employee unions will be the death of the blue states before its over. Maybe unions were once good citizens, but now they are simply out to protect obsolete jobs and poor performers. I'm sick of them, and I'm going to vote for anyone who has the guts to take them on.
Hardly a day passes when I don't read another major story that, often unintenionally, describes a union that seems bent on driving its employer base into failure or subjecting its customers to substandard services. These stories are not in republican screeds or shouted out on Fox News; they are on the front pages of local newspapers and on media outlets like NPR. Union leaders have no shame, which apparently is a condition they've mutated into as a result of too many years in a closed shop. In my view, a monopoly of labor is just as pernicious as a monopoly of employers, and in many areas of our economy labor has just such a monopoly.
Today the New York State Troopers Union strongly objected to the state's decision not to have a new troopers class in 2010 to replace troopers who have retired. They complained about the larger geographies that troopers must cover with fewer people, and they criticized the governor for having about 200 troopers assigned to security details. What they failed to mention was that the total number of troopers was at a record level just last year, and that the state is facing a giant deficit for 2010. Could we expect these people to be part of the solution until the budget woes are controlled? No way.
The New York City school system has a "rubber room" where 700 teachers under suspension for a variety of accused misdeeds await their fate while receiving full pay. The cost is $65 million per year. Some of these teachers have been reporting to the "rubber room" for more than seven years while their cases proceed through the labrinthine process that the union somehow negotiated. Change this unwieldly process? No way. The process for dismissing an ineffective teacher also contains so many steps, documentation requirements, and appeals to higher and higher authorities that few principals have the time or interest to use it. It's obvious that teachers unions have little interest in the quality of education that their members deliver, even though bad teachers are often pariahs even in the teacher ranks of their own schools. This is what happens when unions gain so much political power that only candidates who support even their outrageous demands will get their funding support.
Today I listened to a co-worker describe a post office screw-up of a deposit for business reply mail. This was the third consecutive time that this type of transaction had been improperly processed by this local post office. If a private company had screwed up in this manner, it would have been easy to find a manager, explain the situation, and get the problem fixed. When it comes to the post office, you just shrug your shoulders and sigh, wishing that they'd go bankrupt and be sold off to FedEx or UPS after their union contracts were scrapped.
In Rochester, New York, the school system is run by a local school board of hacks who each get a few thousand dollars for their part time efforts. The drop out rate is ridiculous, and Rochester's teenage pregnancy rate leads the nation, so the mayor is making noise about getting permission to take over the system. In addition to citing the poor academic performance, he's concerned about the waste in the central administration of the system. Where is the teacher's union on this? Screaming! They see a disaster coming when an excellent mayor might get into their knickers after replacing a bunch of hacks who are easily bought off. Why should we be surprised?
Last year it cost the federal government over $60 billion to save GM and Chrysler, both of which were crippled by unions who fought the company's effort to become competitive. Well, we haven't seen anything yet. The public employee unions will be the death of the blue states before its over. Maybe unions were once good citizens, but now they are simply out to protect obsolete jobs and poor performers. I'm sick of them, and I'm going to vote for anyone who has the guts to take them on.
Napolitano Should Be Fired
Anybody who's been a manager knows that things go wrong. Policies and procedures can be deficient, or people charged with implementing them can make mistakes. Obviously, in the wake of learning all the information about the latest attempted airline bombing, something went terribly wrong and the process must be fixed. I don't blame Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, for the problem, since she is not personally responsible for every failure within her organization, but I do believe she should be fired for her failure to respond appropriately to the bad news. In short, the system did not work, contrary to her representations on TV this weekend. We cannot accept leaders whose first reaction to bad news is to "purfume the pig".
Napolitano, even in the absence of complete information, should have simply reported that the system did not work and consequently, the lives of hundreds of Americans were jeopardized. She should have announced her plans for a complete and prompt review of the security breach, and her intent to correct the problems that caused the failure. That's what effective leaders do, and she did not do it. The correct response was left to the president, some three days after the incident occurred.
Napolitano's response shows that she does not have the right stuff. Obama should ask her to leave, and he should appoint a replacement who sets a no-compromise, no-excuse tone when it comes to airline security and security in general.
I recognize there will never be a foolproof system in place to safeguard the American people from every terrorist attack. There are too many vulnerabilities, and the resources to deal with them are not unlimited. We are left with "doing the best job that we can", and accepting that a future tragedy will probably occur. That said, there is no way that an identified potential terrorist should have been allowed to board a plane bound for the U.S. or keep his tourist visa. The system was broken, for sure, but Napolitano just didn't have the guts to tell it like it was. It's time for you to go, Janet.
Napolitano, even in the absence of complete information, should have simply reported that the system did not work and consequently, the lives of hundreds of Americans were jeopardized. She should have announced her plans for a complete and prompt review of the security breach, and her intent to correct the problems that caused the failure. That's what effective leaders do, and she did not do it. The correct response was left to the president, some three days after the incident occurred.
Napolitano's response shows that she does not have the right stuff. Obama should ask her to leave, and he should appoint a replacement who sets a no-compromise, no-excuse tone when it comes to airline security and security in general.
I recognize there will never be a foolproof system in place to safeguard the American people from every terrorist attack. There are too many vulnerabilities, and the resources to deal with them are not unlimited. We are left with "doing the best job that we can", and accepting that a future tragedy will probably occur. That said, there is no way that an identified potential terrorist should have been allowed to board a plane bound for the U.S. or keep his tourist visa. The system was broken, for sure, but Napolitano just didn't have the guts to tell it like it was. It's time for you to go, Janet.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
A Christmas Coincidence
Yesterday morning I needed to stop at the local credit union before driving to downtown Rochester to do some church bookkeeping work.
As I waited at a red light near the credit union, I looked to my left and saw a man slowly walking down the snowy roadside toward me, using a cane. He wore an overcoat, carried a briefcase, and hobbled uncertainly because one of his legs was covered with a large brace. I wondered where he was going at such a slow pace, but then the light changed and I went on my way.
After finishing my banking, I departed by another way and soon approached another nearby intersection. There, waiting for the light to change, was the same man. I pulled over, stopped my car, and shouted, "Do you need a ride?" He replied, "Where are you going?" I said, "Anywhere you want to go! Hop in!" He smiled, hobbled over to the passenger door, and strugged into the passenger seat with his stiff leg. I noticed that he appeared to be of Hispanic origin and that he was well dressed.
"I was going up to Monroe Avenue", he said as I started out again. "Where, exactly, are you headed?", I asked. He said he needed to catch a bus to downtown where he worked. I knew Monroe Avenue was almost one mile away. Quite a walk for a man with a cane on a windy, snowy morning! We chatted some more; he said his office was in the Times Union Building, which was directly on my route to the church. He was happy when I said I'd be delivering him to his office door.
We conversed during the twenty minute drive. He told me he was an attorney in general practice, mostly working with low income people who had legal problems. He said he often took payment in barter services, or took clients who could not pay him. He didn't have a car, which didn't matter since he couldn't drive because of his stiff leg. He laughed when he said he had recently re-injured a chronically bad knee when he made a poor decision to dance at a party. I marveled at his pleasant demeanor, his obvious high intellect, and his courage in attempting the challenging walk to the bus stop. He gave me his card as we approached Times Union Building, and he said, "Please let me know if I can ever do anything for you." I waved goodbye.
Why did I stop for him? Well, as I've walked the Appalachian Trail for many years, I've had to ask many favors of strangers. I've thumbed a lot of rides in and out of small towns, I've had a lady wash my hiking clothes, for free, after she explained there was no laundromat in her town, and I've also been able to help a few strangers that had needs no one else was going to address. I've become accustomed to dealing with obvious needs, whether or not I knew the person in need. I always seem to benefit from these experiences in some unexpected way.
As I look back on yesterday morning, it seems like quite a coincidence that I had a chance to observe this man and evaluate his plight some minutes before I was presented with the choice to either stop for him or go on my way. Was this just a regular coincidence, or was it a Christmas coincidence? I'm still pondering why his destination was exactly where I was planning to go, even though I intended to transport him wherever he needed to go. What do you think?
As I waited at a red light near the credit union, I looked to my left and saw a man slowly walking down the snowy roadside toward me, using a cane. He wore an overcoat, carried a briefcase, and hobbled uncertainly because one of his legs was covered with a large brace. I wondered where he was going at such a slow pace, but then the light changed and I went on my way.
After finishing my banking, I departed by another way and soon approached another nearby intersection. There, waiting for the light to change, was the same man. I pulled over, stopped my car, and shouted, "Do you need a ride?" He replied, "Where are you going?" I said, "Anywhere you want to go! Hop in!" He smiled, hobbled over to the passenger door, and strugged into the passenger seat with his stiff leg. I noticed that he appeared to be of Hispanic origin and that he was well dressed.
"I was going up to Monroe Avenue", he said as I started out again. "Where, exactly, are you headed?", I asked. He said he needed to catch a bus to downtown where he worked. I knew Monroe Avenue was almost one mile away. Quite a walk for a man with a cane on a windy, snowy morning! We chatted some more; he said his office was in the Times Union Building, which was directly on my route to the church. He was happy when I said I'd be delivering him to his office door.
We conversed during the twenty minute drive. He told me he was an attorney in general practice, mostly working with low income people who had legal problems. He said he often took payment in barter services, or took clients who could not pay him. He didn't have a car, which didn't matter since he couldn't drive because of his stiff leg. He laughed when he said he had recently re-injured a chronically bad knee when he made a poor decision to dance at a party. I marveled at his pleasant demeanor, his obvious high intellect, and his courage in attempting the challenging walk to the bus stop. He gave me his card as we approached Times Union Building, and he said, "Please let me know if I can ever do anything for you." I waved goodbye.
Why did I stop for him? Well, as I've walked the Appalachian Trail for many years, I've had to ask many favors of strangers. I've thumbed a lot of rides in and out of small towns, I've had a lady wash my hiking clothes, for free, after she explained there was no laundromat in her town, and I've also been able to help a few strangers that had needs no one else was going to address. I've become accustomed to dealing with obvious needs, whether or not I knew the person in need. I always seem to benefit from these experiences in some unexpected way.
As I look back on yesterday morning, it seems like quite a coincidence that I had a chance to observe this man and evaluate his plight some minutes before I was presented with the choice to either stop for him or go on my way. Was this just a regular coincidence, or was it a Christmas coincidence? I'm still pondering why his destination was exactly where I was planning to go, even though I intended to transport him wherever he needed to go. What do you think?
Monday, December 21, 2009
"The ONE", Examined
I'd be the first to agree that a lot of air has gone out of Obama's balloon. Doing the job is a lot harder than running for it, actually, and idealism must be subordinate to pragmatism when things have got to be done. The Left is raging; their savior has turned out to be mortal after all.
But I like Obama's family image (please, Barack, don't be a Tiger!), his clear statements of American values, and his stamina and ability to deal with lots of big issues at the same time. Sometimes, though, I wish he'd just come on a bit stronger when the bad guys, domestic and foreign, act up. But he's a diplomat, and maybe that's best in the long run.
What really bugs me, though, is all the trash talk from the Right regarding Obama. They've set him up as "the ONE", a Matrix-like persona whose goals are the destruction of America as we know it. You would not believe all the bad things Obama has planned for us!!! Somehow, though, there isn't any evidence that he's pushing any of this stuff. It's the classic case of setting up a false target, then shooting it full of holes - but the fools on the Right love it. It's just what they want to hear, and who cares if it's true or not. Closet racism at its finest!
This would be a joke to me, just another reason to poke fun at the nutcakes who proliferate the red states and infect the blue ones...except that some of my friends actually push this crap. They're neither stupid nor heartless, but they've got it in for Barack. Therefore, I've concluded that everyday exposure to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity does, in fact, constitute brainwashing. There really is a right wing conspiracy, and it's right in front of our eyes.
But I like Obama's family image (please, Barack, don't be a Tiger!), his clear statements of American values, and his stamina and ability to deal with lots of big issues at the same time. Sometimes, though, I wish he'd just come on a bit stronger when the bad guys, domestic and foreign, act up. But he's a diplomat, and maybe that's best in the long run.
What really bugs me, though, is all the trash talk from the Right regarding Obama. They've set him up as "the ONE", a Matrix-like persona whose goals are the destruction of America as we know it. You would not believe all the bad things Obama has planned for us!!! Somehow, though, there isn't any evidence that he's pushing any of this stuff. It's the classic case of setting up a false target, then shooting it full of holes - but the fools on the Right love it. It's just what they want to hear, and who cares if it's true or not. Closet racism at its finest!
This would be a joke to me, just another reason to poke fun at the nutcakes who proliferate the red states and infect the blue ones...except that some of my friends actually push this crap. They're neither stupid nor heartless, but they've got it in for Barack. Therefore, I've concluded that everyday exposure to Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity does, in fact, constitute brainwashing. There really is a right wing conspiracy, and it's right in front of our eyes.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Huge Cost of "Prevention"
Rochester, NY, just decided to install 60 red-light cameras to curb the endemic running of red lights in the city. Violators will get a $50 ticket through the mail, and the city will get what's left over after paying almost $4,000 per month to the company that owns and operates the cameras. If the city breaks even, $2,800,000 will be transferred from the pockets of violators to the pockets of the camera vendor. This program is a great example of the many "prevention" programs that drain our economy and go far to make us uncompetitive in the world.
As an ambulance worker, I know firsthand the danger presented by red-light runners. Just before Christmas several years ago, I helped clean up a three car collision caused by a younger man who ran a red light. The injuries were severe, and the Christmas plans of several families turned from celebration to mourning. I still grit my teeth when I think of that young man, and I shudder every time I see an unthinking person run a red light. Perhaps the cameras will prevent some horrible events from occurring.
The problem is that $2,800,000 now will be spent to control reckless stupidity rather than being spent on more beneficial consumption, or perhaps even saved. Certainly the violators would have better options for spending their $50, wouldn't they? And, doesn't the U.S. have more important industries than the one that makes red-light cameras? All those $50 fines, for example, could have been spent on energy-efficient light bulbs or college textbooks.
Formal economics training educates us about the trade-off's we make. "Guns or butter" is the classic example for comparing the choices we must make. Every penny that goes into preventing adverse voluntary behavior represents a penny that could be spent on something more useful to society. So, we understand that every dollar spent on a hugely expensive warplane that never fires a shot in anger could have been spent elsewhere. Similarly, the cost of police posted in schools and any number of other "preventive" measures aimed at curbing voluntary behavior such as school violence precludes spending on other, more useful, programs. In total, the cost of "prevention" represents a huge anchor on our economy, an anchor that countries who have less law-breaking do not need. So, we are less competitive than they.
I believe that we need fewer laws but uncompromising enforcement. In addition to "slap on the wrist" $50 fines for running a red light, we should increase the fine to $500 for the second violation and confiscate the car after three violations. I'd apply the same logic for all other conduct that we truly wish to control, and scrap the laws that we don't wish to enforce with truly punitive measures.
The fact is that the great majority of citizens obey the law, but they bear a huge cost to prevent unlawful behavior by a small minority. This "hidden tax" funds the bloated government bureaucracies that sap our economy by using our money for only symbolic "prevention". If our citizenry really understood this giant problem, maybe we'd change direction and free up an enormous amount of dollars for better uses.
As an ambulance worker, I know firsthand the danger presented by red-light runners. Just before Christmas several years ago, I helped clean up a three car collision caused by a younger man who ran a red light. The injuries were severe, and the Christmas plans of several families turned from celebration to mourning. I still grit my teeth when I think of that young man, and I shudder every time I see an unthinking person run a red light. Perhaps the cameras will prevent some horrible events from occurring.
The problem is that $2,800,000 now will be spent to control reckless stupidity rather than being spent on more beneficial consumption, or perhaps even saved. Certainly the violators would have better options for spending their $50, wouldn't they? And, doesn't the U.S. have more important industries than the one that makes red-light cameras? All those $50 fines, for example, could have been spent on energy-efficient light bulbs or college textbooks.
Formal economics training educates us about the trade-off's we make. "Guns or butter" is the classic example for comparing the choices we must make. Every penny that goes into preventing adverse voluntary behavior represents a penny that could be spent on something more useful to society. So, we understand that every dollar spent on a hugely expensive warplane that never fires a shot in anger could have been spent elsewhere. Similarly, the cost of police posted in schools and any number of other "preventive" measures aimed at curbing voluntary behavior such as school violence precludes spending on other, more useful, programs. In total, the cost of "prevention" represents a huge anchor on our economy, an anchor that countries who have less law-breaking do not need. So, we are less competitive than they.
I believe that we need fewer laws but uncompromising enforcement. In addition to "slap on the wrist" $50 fines for running a red light, we should increase the fine to $500 for the second violation and confiscate the car after three violations. I'd apply the same logic for all other conduct that we truly wish to control, and scrap the laws that we don't wish to enforce with truly punitive measures.
The fact is that the great majority of citizens obey the law, but they bear a huge cost to prevent unlawful behavior by a small minority. This "hidden tax" funds the bloated government bureaucracies that sap our economy by using our money for only symbolic "prevention". If our citizenry really understood this giant problem, maybe we'd change direction and free up an enormous amount of dollars for better uses.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Strong Feelings!
Obama's acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize was one of the best speeches I've ever heard, not so much for the delivery as the content. Obama described the world as it is and the world most of us would like it to be. Unfortunately, war must be the last resort when evil (is there a better word?) refuses to back down, and the world must deal with incipient evil before it gains enough strength to do massive harm. At the same time, it's critical to maintain idealism and strive to accomplish tasks that elevate humanity or safeguard the world. In addition to speaking in philosophical generalities, the president touched on many real problems and described practical ways for addressing them.
Obama's speech was applauded by many on both sides of America's political divide, but this moment of near-unanimity was only momentary. The unbridled competition and angst that characterizes our political discourse continues unabated, thereby itself becoming the subject of debate rather than the underlying problems that politicians are supposed to be addressing.
Strong feelings are a necessary component in the process of making progress. That "fire in the gut" provides the determination to overcome the inertia of the status quo. But, too often in today's America, the strong feelings are aimed at personalites rather than issues. For example, yesterday I was disappointed in the reaction several of my friends had to Obama's speech. They were unable to discuss its content because they were totally focused on their dislike for the man. We need to get past this simple pettiness which I believe our media has caused to flourish.
Is it possible to begin channelling our political objectives in a more positive way? Yes. "Leadership" is the answer. Only if top political figures on both sides of the aisle begin challenging the hyperbole and character assassination practiced by their own side will temperatures begin to cool down and an environment for resolving differences emerge. Sadly, I'm not optimistic about the chances for this change of attitude. Perhaps the stresses created by America's many intractable problems are at the root of the unending animosity. If so, God help us! But God will not do this; it's still up to us.
Obama's speech was applauded by many on both sides of America's political divide, but this moment of near-unanimity was only momentary. The unbridled competition and angst that characterizes our political discourse continues unabated, thereby itself becoming the subject of debate rather than the underlying problems that politicians are supposed to be addressing.
Strong feelings are a necessary component in the process of making progress. That "fire in the gut" provides the determination to overcome the inertia of the status quo. But, too often in today's America, the strong feelings are aimed at personalites rather than issues. For example, yesterday I was disappointed in the reaction several of my friends had to Obama's speech. They were unable to discuss its content because they were totally focused on their dislike for the man. We need to get past this simple pettiness which I believe our media has caused to flourish.
Is it possible to begin channelling our political objectives in a more positive way? Yes. "Leadership" is the answer. Only if top political figures on both sides of the aisle begin challenging the hyperbole and character assassination practiced by their own side will temperatures begin to cool down and an environment for resolving differences emerge. Sadly, I'm not optimistic about the chances for this change of attitude. Perhaps the stresses created by America's many intractable problems are at the root of the unending animosity. If so, God help us! But God will not do this; it's still up to us.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Reid was Right
I've seen the clip of majority leader Reid comparing the republican senators' blocking of health care reform with those, years ago, who delayed freeing the slaves and allowing womens' suffrage. I've also seen the outrage of those he called out. Reid was right. Health care is no longer a luxury only for those who can afford it; it's a human right.
If you read my blog you know that I don't believe in unlimited rights. Those who abuse the system need to be restrained, and there are many who try to abuse it. I believe that those who fail to put in a day's work don't deserve a job, for example. I believe that those who abuse their bodies shouldn't get expensive care to fix what they have done to themselves. Being responsible is important.
On the other hand, being born into a family with limited means should not prevent any child from getting whatever preventive or corrective care that will improve their chances of being a productive citizen. Being a working class person without company-paid insurance should not prevent an adult from seeing a doctor before their health problems become severe.
We need health care reform. If I had my way, we would go well beyond the legislation now being proposed. For example, I would divert many of the dollars now going to treat older, chronically ill people toward preventive education and care for all citizens regardless of ability to pay.
Reid was right. The republicans have no plan. Their customers are members of the "big money" culture who are prospering under the current system, or they are citizens who have theirs and could care less for those who don't - just like the slave owners. Way to go, Reid!
If you read my blog you know that I don't believe in unlimited rights. Those who abuse the system need to be restrained, and there are many who try to abuse it. I believe that those who fail to put in a day's work don't deserve a job, for example. I believe that those who abuse their bodies shouldn't get expensive care to fix what they have done to themselves. Being responsible is important.
On the other hand, being born into a family with limited means should not prevent any child from getting whatever preventive or corrective care that will improve their chances of being a productive citizen. Being a working class person without company-paid insurance should not prevent an adult from seeing a doctor before their health problems become severe.
We need health care reform. If I had my way, we would go well beyond the legislation now being proposed. For example, I would divert many of the dollars now going to treat older, chronically ill people toward preventive education and care for all citizens regardless of ability to pay.
Reid was right. The republicans have no plan. Their customers are members of the "big money" culture who are prospering under the current system, or they are citizens who have theirs and could care less for those who don't - just like the slave owners. Way to go, Reid!
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Bring on the Bold!
We Americans are naive. We think that we should be able to solve all our problems with guaranteed solutions that don't upset our routine too much. We have a low threshold of success.
Yes, most of us get through each day, and most companies and institutions stay in business from year to year. Perhaps many of us count this "muddling along" as success. I don't. Success is accomplishing the big things, the difficult things, the things that are important to achieve but have uncertainties big enough to sink the ship. Few of us, and few organizations, have the stuffing even to attempt these things. We've grown cautious and complacent.
America now has many problems that I would consider "big things". Education, infrastructure, health care, international competition, global warming, and inner city deterioration all call out for solutions that go beyond band-aids. "Muddling along" is always the solution proposed by entrenched bureaucracies and special interests, but it will not result in success. Success will require upsetting the applecart, taking big risks, and changing the rules. Who will lead the charge? Certainly not those to whom we've been entrusting our future.
It's time to support those who bring forth the bold solutions, those who have vision, intelligence, dedication and the willingness to take some risk to achieve great results. Success is not beyond our capability, but it seems to be beyond our comfort zone. That needs to change. We've got citizens who carry genes that crossed oceans and opened a frontier, that got us to the moon. Let's find them and give them more than a little rope. The taste of success would be sweet!
Yes, most of us get through each day, and most companies and institutions stay in business from year to year. Perhaps many of us count this "muddling along" as success. I don't. Success is accomplishing the big things, the difficult things, the things that are important to achieve but have uncertainties big enough to sink the ship. Few of us, and few organizations, have the stuffing even to attempt these things. We've grown cautious and complacent.
America now has many problems that I would consider "big things". Education, infrastructure, health care, international competition, global warming, and inner city deterioration all call out for solutions that go beyond band-aids. "Muddling along" is always the solution proposed by entrenched bureaucracies and special interests, but it will not result in success. Success will require upsetting the applecart, taking big risks, and changing the rules. Who will lead the charge? Certainly not those to whom we've been entrusting our future.
It's time to support those who bring forth the bold solutions, those who have vision, intelligence, dedication and the willingness to take some risk to achieve great results. Success is not beyond our capability, but it seems to be beyond our comfort zone. That needs to change. We've got citizens who carry genes that crossed oceans and opened a frontier, that got us to the moon. Let's find them and give them more than a little rope. The taste of success would be sweet!
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
What if We Don't?
Obama made his speech last night, pledging to beat down the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This morning, critics on the right and left are pounding on him. The right is upset about the withdrawal plan, the left about his not deciding to get out. Who knows who is right?
I've been listening to so many "experts" during the past few months that I may know more about that part of the world than I know about my own town. Unfortunately, I still don't know the right answer. That part of the world has frustrated many great military powers, starting with Alexander the Great and, more recently, the Soviet Union. Will we be the next to fail?
Perhaps.
As a former executive, I'm keenly aware that every decision must be based on assessing the benefits and the risks. There are few "sure things", and there are always unintended consequences. Decision makers do their best to come out on the smart side of the big questions. They have a really tough job, a job that most non-leaders fail to appreciate. To think that conscientious leaders don't do their homework or take decisions lightly is crazy; I recall taking many runs around my neighborhood at 3 a.m. as I, unable to sleep, went out to sort my thoughts on major issues as I jogged off the tension. Obama, no doubt, has been agonizing over his choices on Afghanistan.
I've been against escalation because I have little faith in the Afghan people. There has never been an Afghan "nation"; Afghanistan is a collection of local ethnic groups with little allegiance to a central government. Overcoming this obstacle, which is exacerbated by pervasive corruption in the government and illiteracy in the populace, will be extremely difficult. Obama's troops and diplomats will need some magic if they are to create a country out of this mess. The risk is that we waste a huge amount of money and many lives in a failed enterprise.
The stated benefit of escalation is that the Taliban will be prevented from establishing a solid base of operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If their objectives were simply to hold that territory, we should certainly get out of the fight - it would be a civil war. However, there is substantial evidence that Al Queda has objectives far beyond holding ground; they wish to establish fundamentalist Muslim societies after overthrowing governments in the Middle East and other places, and they wish to bend other countries' policies to accomodate them. They are not kidding about being our implacable enemies; hosts of suicide bombers put an exclamation point on their dedication to this cause. Can we give them a secure base by leaving Afghanistan?
Obama has made his decision. He's got more information and more advice on this topic than anyone else in the world, and his decision is not one primarily based on politics. His critics, on both the right and left, are far more subject to criticism for being politically influenced, so I discount them. Obama must be practical, above all, and he knows he'll be personally secure whether or not he succeeds in this war. At the end of the day, he decided that the risk of allowing Al Queda and similar groups a safe haven was too great to walk away from. I can live with that, and I wish him and our military the very best.
I've been listening to so many "experts" during the past few months that I may know more about that part of the world than I know about my own town. Unfortunately, I still don't know the right answer. That part of the world has frustrated many great military powers, starting with Alexander the Great and, more recently, the Soviet Union. Will we be the next to fail?
Perhaps.
As a former executive, I'm keenly aware that every decision must be based on assessing the benefits and the risks. There are few "sure things", and there are always unintended consequences. Decision makers do their best to come out on the smart side of the big questions. They have a really tough job, a job that most non-leaders fail to appreciate. To think that conscientious leaders don't do their homework or take decisions lightly is crazy; I recall taking many runs around my neighborhood at 3 a.m. as I, unable to sleep, went out to sort my thoughts on major issues as I jogged off the tension. Obama, no doubt, has been agonizing over his choices on Afghanistan.
I've been against escalation because I have little faith in the Afghan people. There has never been an Afghan "nation"; Afghanistan is a collection of local ethnic groups with little allegiance to a central government. Overcoming this obstacle, which is exacerbated by pervasive corruption in the government and illiteracy in the populace, will be extremely difficult. Obama's troops and diplomats will need some magic if they are to create a country out of this mess. The risk is that we waste a huge amount of money and many lives in a failed enterprise.
The stated benefit of escalation is that the Taliban will be prevented from establishing a solid base of operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If their objectives were simply to hold that territory, we should certainly get out of the fight - it would be a civil war. However, there is substantial evidence that Al Queda has objectives far beyond holding ground; they wish to establish fundamentalist Muslim societies after overthrowing governments in the Middle East and other places, and they wish to bend other countries' policies to accomodate them. They are not kidding about being our implacable enemies; hosts of suicide bombers put an exclamation point on their dedication to this cause. Can we give them a secure base by leaving Afghanistan?
Obama has made his decision. He's got more information and more advice on this topic than anyone else in the world, and his decision is not one primarily based on politics. His critics, on both the right and left, are far more subject to criticism for being politically influenced, so I discount them. Obama must be practical, above all, and he knows he'll be personally secure whether or not he succeeds in this war. At the end of the day, he decided that the risk of allowing Al Queda and similar groups a safe haven was too great to walk away from. I can live with that, and I wish him and our military the very best.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Bad News and Good News on China
The TV program last night showed dramatic footage of much land in northern China turning into desert due to overgrazing and over-watering, and the water table is falling fast in some places due to exuberant irrigation. Farmers who thought they had a good thing going are now crying the blues as their fields blow away in giant dust storms. It's sad, and bad for China.
Now the good news. We owe them lots of money, and it looks like they'll be needing to import a lot of food in the coming years. We've got lots of agricultural capacity, and we'll have a lot more when we get out of the silly corn ethanol business. Selling our crops to them might be a winner.
But it still hurts me to see their country disappearing in great brown clouds...
Now the good news. We owe them lots of money, and it looks like they'll be needing to import a lot of food in the coming years. We've got lots of agricultural capacity, and we'll have a lot more when we get out of the silly corn ethanol business. Selling our crops to them might be a winner.
But it still hurts me to see their country disappearing in great brown clouds...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
