Learning From History

In the ongoing conversations about American involvement in wars across the globe reference is often made to what is arguably our most important war, World War II.

In a recent article in the Providence Journal the writer referred to Japan's attack of the United States at Pearl Harbor in 1941. He drew a parallel to our current involvement in Afghanistan suggesting that we need to apply the same resolve now as we did then, when we fought the Japanese.

I would like to ask what might have been different if, as we fought and killed Japanese soldiers (and civilians, as happens in all war) there were created more and more Japanese soldiers? I know this is a silly question to ask about fighting Japan or Germany back then.

But it isn't so silly now. The number of terrorists and terrorist attacks appear to be increasing rather than decreasing according to every survey in an internet search. So one has to ask, should we change our strategy in the face of this evidence or continue to apply the World War II model to the present "war on terror"?

Maybe It's Just Me

There's a black man in the White House

With that pronouncement many feel really proud about how far we've come in our fight against racism and discrimination. Yet the statement itself shows how much farther we have to go.

President Barack Obama's genetic racial background is more white than black yet he still is described as a "black man". I guess it's better than being called black for one drop of African American blood but it's a far cry from where we need to be.

We have a long way yet to go.

Maybe It's Just Me.

Just Who Are They?

You know those folks that show up at the town hall meetings with those "We want our country back" signs?

I'd like to ask them, "Back from whom?" When they say 'our country' just who is the 'our'?

Do they want the country for white Christians? to get it back from blacks and foreigners? to take it back from the poor and needy? the unemployed and sick?

So just who is America anyway? And who is it for?

Are Corporations People?

It would be no exaggeration to suggest that Free Speech is fundamental to our American Democracy and one of the most basic rights protected by the first Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A continuing controversy persists about free speech when it relates to political speech however. For example, is a political contribution an exercise of free speech? Can contributions be excessive such that they might exert improper influence on the outcome of an election? If indeed, political contributions are considered the exercise of a First Amendment right can there be placed a limit on such contributions in the name or protecting free speech?

It gets even more murky when the 'free speech' is being exercised by a corporation. Are corporations people? In an April 2007 ruling Federal Judge Paul Barbadoro found that corporations, as legal persons, have "free speech rights that would be infringed . . . ." in a case involving doctors and drug companies.

It is no secret that corporations spend a lot of money in the support of particular candidates or legislation that is in their best interest. Is this free speech too? Should such campaign financing therefore be protected as free speech in such cases?

Central to this discussion is the decision in the late 1800's that established "the doctrine of corporate personhood -- the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings".

One might have serious doubts about such an interpretation of the First Amendment when one considers the different treatment of people and corporations in a court of law. One has to ask if a corporation has ever been or could be sentenced to life in prison (or even executed) should its deliberate and/or negligent actions be found to be directly responsible for the death of an individual, as would a person on trial in similar circumstances.

There is no shortage of articles describing corporate behavior which has directly caused serious injury or death of employees and customers. Tobacco, lead paint, mining disasters come to mind. Negligence in aircraft maintenance has been in the news recently with its tragic consequences.

In some cases individual executives have been singled out and punished but the standard response of courts has been some sort of fine or reprimand for the corporation.

Corporations do enjoy the privileges of 'personhood' but they certainly have few of the responsibilities or obligations of real people.

Clearly corporations are not persons and it's about time we stopped pretending that they are.

Maybe it's just me.

New job opportunity: Director of Fear Mongering

What in the world is going on around the country? Have we just become gullible and lazy or have we always been so? Sarah Palin calls a provision of the health care bill a "death panel", Sen. Chuck Grassley worries that people might think that the government can coerce an older person to choose to die so he advocates removal of the provision in the bill that offers to cover end of life consultations.

And many people believe them!

On the other hand, since when does a medical consultation have to include anything in particular? It's a voluntary private conversation between a doctor and a patient, isn't it? And they're covered by Medicare so why in the world did the drafters of the bill even have to bring it up?

Foolish decisions all around.

A Crime Against Integrity

Amazing.

So Rhode Island's Attorney General agreed on Thursday that there were two "bad checks", city employees behaved in a manner that was "unprofessional", "misguided", and "inexplicable" , and the superintendent of the state police called their behavior "unsettling".

On the same front page, the Board of Elections, also on Thursday, concluded that the Attorney General, in an unrelated matter, had not violated state statute by calling $9000 in his campaign spending "petty cash" when the law limits petty cash spending to $25.

In both instances complaints were dismissed and no crimes were found to have been committed.

I submit that there was a crime committed, a crime against integrity, a crime against the people who deserve to have admiration and confidence in their government.

I'd recommend that all involved read Stuart Chase's, "The Nemesis of American Business", written after the crash of 1929 during the Great Depression, especially Chapter 2, "The Luxury of Integrity"

Maybe it's just me.

Racism, Still

The Gates story is inflating beyond control. For anyone who doesn't know, it seems that a distinguished Harvard scholar, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct during a confrontation with a Cambridge, MA police officer investigating a reported break-in attempt at Gates' home.

From the newspaper account and the police report it would appear that Mr. Gates became outraged that a police officer would question him about the alleged break-in.

On the other hand the police office was indeed called by someone who witnessed two black men on the front porch apparently trying to break into the home on Ware St. in Cambridge.

Mr. Gates allegedly yelled at the police that the only reason he was questioned was that he "was a black man in America". In my view Mr. Gates was overly sensitive to his race as the precipitating factor in the officer's behavior which angered the officer.

On the other hand the police office should have used more common sense, and as soon as Prof. Gates' identity was confirmed he should have simply apologized for the misunderstanding and left the premises.

My take is that they both were guilty of feeling insulted and not accorded the respect to which each felt entitled.

All in all, a petty and provocative reaction by a Harvard professor and an over reaction by the police officer. In any case the latest news is that the charges have been dropped. Good.

There is plenty of real racism against which to fight without diluting and trivializing what in my opinion, is still the biggest problem facing this country, true racism.

The President didn't help either. He should have taken the opportunity to encourage dialogue on this most important issue facing the nation. Instead he took sides after saying he didn't know all the facts in the case. A missed opportunity, in my view.

Just Do It

Just how can any thinking person object?

I suggested some time ago that the Secretary of State modify the Voter Handbooks that are distributed prior to elections to include more information about the Proposals that appear on the ballot. Currently the information is expressed in limited terms, too technical and confusing to the average voter and neglects to present any possible negative consequences of the proposal.

I propose that the Handbook shall present explanations of each proposal, pro and con, drafted by supporters and opponents using language that is acceptable to the Secretary of State as being objective representations of each position.

Do we choose to know little or nothing about the matters before us or do we prefer making informed decisions on the matters that concern us?

If we read this and do nothing we have made our choice.

Needs Saying Again

I apologize to readers for bringing this up again but I believe that ethical government is the foundation of democracy without which everything else is window dressing.

Our Supreme Court has shown contempt for both Rhode Islanders and common sense in its recent 3-1 decision (William V. Irons v Rhode Island Ethics Commission).

It seems to me that unethical behavior of a legislator is of the greatest concern precisely where the Court claims it is no one else's business, during "speech and debate".

In 1986 the people passed by a huge majority, ethics legislation which amended the Rhode Island Constitution and the people have been ignored.

Tell Them We're Mad

The editorial in the Journal on Monday, June 8, illuminated a puzzle; why do we keep sending poor legislators back year after year?  One observation was that many  candidates run unopposed.  When voters are faced with such an option there is no way to express dissatisfaction other than to leave the candidate's name unchecked.

I'd recommend another option.  I'd like to see an option to vote against an unopposed candidate; a check box or arrow that indicates a NO vote.  It would be much more meaningful if the votes for an unopposed candidate elected with 2,400 votes looked like this instead:

YES     2,400

NO       4,400

We the people should have the opportunity to vote our dissatisfaction during an election other than by silence for an unopposed candidate. The candidate would still get elected but at least will know that people are mad.

Maybe it's just me.