Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
That was the Christmas you got the slot cars, or the Swiss Army knife, the table top hockey game, the talking doll that wet itself, the "fur" coat, or the new skis (for Southern Californians plug in surfboard).
As our memory progresses to our adult years we transition from gifts we received to gifts we gave. The necklace, the special book, the lavish vacation. Yes, giving is truly more satisfying and gratifying. The anticipation of the recipient's reaction, the excitement of not wanting to wait until Christmas for her to open it. The smugness of knowing a wonderful secret. Yes, the range of emotions we go through knowing we have a great gift to give far surpasses the emotions we have of receiving. Too bad those emotions aren't always put to use sooner in the gift giving process.
Few things match the feeling, you know you have an unforgettable gift, and cannot wait for it to be opened. But, like "amazing", "incredible" and "unbelievable", "unforgettable" isn't necessarily positive. Sometimes we give a gift and within a second of it being opened wish we had settled on "forgettable."
Christmas 1999 was our fifth as husband and wife and first as parents. Blaire had been born in September. We decorated the house and loved seeing four stockings above the fireplace (Cooper, the dog, already had one. Of course). We were receiving "Baby's First Christmas" ornaments and cards. Yes, our home was ready for Christmas, with a child and all.
Before we were married I lived in a small apartment in Belmont Shore and had several of the standard bachelor accouterments. In particular I had a small 19" color television whose primary purpose was that I could play Sony Playstation games while watching a game on the bigger television. Its secondary purpose was being able to watch two games at the same time--key during College Bowl Game Season. When I moved into our first home the set and the video games came with me. When we moved into the home we currently occupy in 1998 I upgraded to Playstation II and hooked it up to the big television in the family room.
For those without children yet, or those whose children have been grown for many years and may not remember, let me briefly give you what the routine is for new borns. First, while there is some accommodation to the clock, the clock they accommodate to has nothing to do with the one you are accustomed to using. Every three hours they eat. In Blaire's case this meant latching on to Leslie and nursing away. She never would take a bottle, why go recycled when you can get the real thing plus Mom fussing over you? After they eat they get sleepy. Now they have a few options. They can poop and then sleep or sleep and poop in their dreams--baby's choice. So before the next feeding in about two and a half hours, they are changed and put somewhere to sleep. Sometimes they choose another option, staying awake. They can't move, certainly at three months no walking, or crawling, or even rolling over. So if they are awake your options are to carry them around while you do things, or hold them while you sit down somewhere comfortable. Like on a couch. Watching a game. Or playing video games.
A few years BP (Before Parenthood) Leslie had given me a Gameboy for my birthday. Very cool. A little portable video game player with some games. One of the games was Tetris. "Uh, cool, Tetris..." Turns out Leslie really liked Tetris and on trips she would grab the Gameboy and play several games. No issues with me. My girl like video games.
Christmas 1999 for all its excitement for being Blaire's first Christmas was not without its challenges as well. Several days after Blaire was born partners and I formed a new company. We were working to have offices ready for business so when the new century opened so would we. There would be a prolonged period of little to no income as we kept payroll, rent and supplies paid. Uncertainty, nervousness and trepidation encroached on our economic planning. And also our gift buying budgets. Leslie and I had agreed on very small budgets for a gift for one another. Better to have reserves with the coming changes in our business than to wish later we had not been extravagant and splurging at Christmas.
Being a guy. Which most women know to read: simple-minded, short-sighted, ignorant person. Being a guy, I began to think, "What would be a simple gift that Leslie will really enjoy? What can I get her that she will be able to use with the baby in the house and allow her some time to relax and enjoy herself? What fulfills that and the budget?"
Hmmm. Well she likes jewelry. But jewelry is expensive.
She likes chocolate, but those go pretty quick.
She likes clothes, but what size to buy? The size she is now post-pregnancy? No, that won't due because then she will think I will think she will be this size long enough to get some use out of the clothes. I certainly can't buy clothes in her old size because then she will think I am telling her she is too big and needs to get back to her BP size.
Shoes? No because her feet got bigger too, I think she said that, I may not have been listening.
Speaking of listening, did she tell me what she wanted? No, I would have listened to that. Wouldn't I? I could ask her now, but asking makes it look like I don't know her, or worse didn't listen when she told me what she wanted. Plus asking your wife two days before Christmas what she wants for Christmas is akin to saying, "I have given absolutely zero thought to any gift from you." (See above description for guys.)
So back to our criteria: Leslie, baby, something she can enjoy with a baby that latches onto her boob every three hours, can't move, and she only has brief spurts of time for relaxing. What does she like?
What does she like.....
Tetris! She likes Tetris! On our vacation to San Diego she played it in the car! On our trip to the East Coast she played it on the plane! Yes, she likes Tetris.
So what to do about Tetris? Hey, I have the Playstation II set up in the family room. I can get her a Tetris game! It's a bit of a pain because the wires on the paddles don't reach the couch, but I can rearrange the family room. She can play Tetris while feeding Blaire! Genius!
Hey! What is THIS! Sony Playstation two Wireless Paddles!!! Fantastic! No more wires! Oh this is perfect Leslie can sit on the couch nursing Blaire, or just resting with her, and play Tetris on the Sony Playstation II with cordless controls! She'll love it! Double-double-double Genius!
As Leslie was opening her incredibly thoughtful present, I thought to myself, "This is truly an unforgettable gift."
Please feel free to comment below on any truly unforgettable gifts you have given.
Friday, December 18, 2009
For the week starting Saturday December 12, 2009 here are some questions I have had:
In Copenhagen, Obama and other leaders agreed to set a target of temperature increase of two degrees Celsius; has anyone told God?
Do you think it is funny when someone stumbles over the word “eloquent?”
Can you give Congress a synonym for “back home projects?”
Would you rather have opportunity or assistance?
If you go to a website to “unsubscribe” are you put on someone else’s list?
If there were to be a statue made of you what age would you want it to be and what would you be doing?
Kid #2 Question: Do you think sunsets are romantic?
Have you ever noticed how many things on your to-do list or your email in-box take care of themselves while you are attending to other matters?
Do you ever use your cell phone as a flashlight?
Crushed or cubed?
Kid Question #1: What is your favorite board game?
Does anyone really want to relinquish control of our economy to a group that gives a standing ovation to Hugo Chavez and whose primary supporters demonstrate under communist and socialist banners?
Have you ever had a white Christmas?
How do you feel about the future of our country’s health being decided by one man who is forcing his colleagues to vote on a bill no one except him has seen as he buys his votes and changes his bill?
Worst Christmas present you ever got? (Look for Monday’s post where I will detail worst one I gave…)
Kids school had pajama day today, if your work had pajama day what would you be wearing?
Are you like me and surprised no woman has come forward yet with a Tiger-child?
What makes a “great city?”
How many Mths in the Nth degree?
What is the one thing you want for Christmas this year that you haven’t told anyone?
Who else can get away with a hundred billion for homeless and call it “stimulus”?
What would you term an “Enterprise Zone” filled with vacant store fronts?
Cookies or Pie?
So those are the questions, what are your answers? Click on the comments button below and let us know what you think.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
There is much furor among left wing Democrats and the far left over Independent Senator Joe Lieberman standing in the way of the Senate passing the 2,000 page health care bill from Harry Reid. From the beginning Lieberman has said he will oppose any bill that expands MediCare or has a government insurance option. Evidently when Reid sent his minions to write his bill he either did not listen to Lieberman, figured Lieberman would not be able to discern the provisions in 2000 pages of legal gobbly-gook, or did not believe he would stand firm on his position. Playing political poker Reid included the provisions for both expanding MediCare and a public option; calculating Lieberman would not want to tick off Democrats and be the lone vote in the way for passing historic legislation.
Desperately needing Lieberman's vote to reach the magic number of 60 needed to end debate and get a floor vote on his bill, Reid publicly has made no statements regarding Lieberman and his position. Instead Reid has focused his ire on Republicans for blocking the legislation--comparing the Republican position to that held by Democrats in the 1800's who blocked anti-slavery legislation and 1950's Democrats who blocked Civil Rights legislation.
Reid has shown he is not the brightest person in the Senate. Lieberman owes nothing to him nor the Democrats. Reid forgets that in 2006 Democrats ran a candidate against Lieberman in the primary election for his Senate seat and defeated Lieberman. Immediately following the election Lieberman announced he would run as an Independent. Reid quickly announced that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee supported and endorsed Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont. The campaign was quite heated and vitriolic with Lamont and the Democrats tying Lieberman to President Bush in every speech, every campaign piece, every interview. For the DSCC and Lamont's campaign it was as if the Evil Axis crafting war on the American people was Bush-Cheney-Rove-Lieberman.
Lieberman won quite handily, beating Lamont and the GOP candidate combined. The people of Connecticut spoke, "We like Joe more than we like Harry." Back on Capitol Hill Lieberman received a chilly reception and many Democrats wanted Reid to yank his seniority on committees and any leadership positions he held. When 2008 came around and Democrats held 59 seats in the Senate plus Lieberman who has continued to caucus with Democrats everyone quickly realized that unless a Republican or two jump the aisle, Lieberman is critical to all Senate votes. He therefore needs to be listened to, everyone understands this but the Majority Leader, Harry Reid.
Hence where we find ourselves this morning. In order to get Lieberman's vote Reid needs to scrap, at minimum, the government insurance option and expansion of MediCare. In doing so he upsets the far left Senators and can lose more votes. While that fight goes on the next ones to rear their heads are the abortion provisions and costs. Some Democrats will not support a bill that provides any federal funds to pay for abortions or loosens regulations on abortions, other Democrats say they will not support any bill that does not include abortion assistance nor tightens regulations. Some Democrats actually care what the cost of this legislation is to Americans today and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and the day after that.
And on and on the battles within the party continue on this massive legislation. All the while trying to cobble together the 60 votes he needs from within his own caucus, Reid is blaming Republicans for blocking the legislation--such a bold false statement as to be comical. Members of Reid's caucus are balking at the cost, balking at specific provisions and balking at the lack of information, but because the Republican members of the Senate have stayed united thus far in opposition to such a massive bill and its costs it is their fault Reid cannot deliver a bill to President Obama.
This bill is a disaster as written and a disaster if passed. Politically it is guaranteed to cost many Democrats their seats in the 2010 elections, and again in 2012 and more in 2014 when the laws begin to take effect. Because it aims not to reform the health care system in our country but rather to build a brand new one at enormous costs it is destined to end many political careers. Ignoring that almost 60% of Americans oppose the bill, and the more than 45% who strongly oppose it, Reid and the majority of Senate Democrats continue blindly down the path of trying to pass a bill that has not yet been fully released and disclosed and not yet had a full and accurate Congressional Budget Office cost analysis.
From the beginning I have said this bill and effort by Democrats is too big to succeed. Politically the Democrats and the Obama Administration would be better off taking smaller steps in reforming health care. Put forth a legislative time line that goes beyond 2010 that would entice voters to re-elect their Senators and Representatives so they can maintain their majorities. Instead of a legislative mantra and mandate from the White House of "just pass something" it should be "one-step at a time."
Tackle first the biggest external cost to health care delivery: tort reform. Instead of going against the people who voted for you, go against the trial lawyers who contribute to your campaigns. Simple tort reform eliminates billions of dollars in defensive diagnosis, defensive tests and defensive procedures.
Then tackle insurance costs. Allow insurers to compete nationally. Democrats love to tout how the marketplace needs competition but they will not allow insurance companies to compete. The competition is restricted by federal and state laws.
Once these two low hanging fruit have been knocked down then tackle fraud and abuse in MediCare and MediCaid/Cal. Obama has admitted it costs Americans billions and billions of dollars (most estimates are 10% of the total program budgets). So do something about it separate from massive legislation. Instead of paying for the fraud and abuse by lowering payments to health care providers, save the money being wasted and stolen by cracking down on it.
If Obama were to lead a concerted, continuing and successful effort to pass health care reform piece, by piece, by piece, he would fulfill the promise so many put in him in November 2008. He would show leadership, foresight, vision and success. Re-election in 2012 almost guaranteed and poll numbers slipping into the low 40's turning into high 50's or low 60's. Instead he sits on the sidelines until the last minute when it appears his pre-written legacy may need some editing and admonishes, scolds and tries to frighten Legislators to quickly pass a bill. Time being more important than substance or consequence.
Joe Lieberman is taking considerable heat from Democrats and liberals for maintaining his stand, on the other side he is being applauded for sticking by his word--that he gave Reid very early on in this debate. Hopefully his stance and the resulting altering of Reid's bill will derail this current health care reform effort and we can start again. But smaller and in targeted detail that does not obfuscate the provisions nor costs from the American people.
In the meantime why all the heat on Joe for standing by his position and no heat on the other 59 Senators who caved into his position and abandoned theirs?
Monday, December 14, 2009
TARP was (and is) the centerpiece of discontent for many Americans who feel that the government should have just let troubled banks fail. One can imagine the size and depth of the ensuing recession had that occurred. More criticism was heaped on TARP when the Obama Administration used some of the TARP funds to prop up General Motors and Chrysler.
Through TARP the Federal government was able to add restrictions to recipients policies and procedures, mandate capital requirements and restrict lending practices. In several cases the Treasury, on behalf of the American people, became shareholders in banks receiving funds on a preferred stock basis. The largest of these stock holdings became Citi where the U.S. Government retained stock worth 31% ownership in the bank.
Last week, within hours after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner testified on TARP before a House Committee last week, Bank of America announced it has repaid $45 billion of TARP funds it received and has repurchased all preferred stock owned by the government. This morning's announcement that Citi has reached an agreement to repay its $20 billion in funds and repurchase government's holdings also stated that through the TARP period Citi paid $3.1 billion to the government in dividends and interest. By June Citi will have repurchased all preferred shares held by the Federal Government.
Of the big banks and firms that received TARP funds Wells Fargo is left with no announcement of a plan to repay the $25 billion received. Since Wells did not visit the TARP well twice it has been operating without many of the restrictions, including compensation limits, imposed on other institutions, as such it may not be in as big of a hurry to shove $25 billion in capital out the door.
When enacted TARP had a price tag of $700 billion. To date Secretary Geithner indicates $550 billion of the funds have been allocated and that by December 2010 $175 billion will have been repaid. Somehow through these numbers, $550 billion spent and $175 billion repaid, Geithner told Congress that the cost to the taxpayer has been recalculated from $341 billion to $140 billion. Where the gap of $135 billion gets made up ($550B spent $175B collected leaves $375B uncollected) I don't know.
The biggest question for me on this phase of TARP, repayment, is where will the repaid funds go? With Citi's announcement coming on the heels of Congress slamming through a $1.1 Trillion spending bill this weekend and Obama and Congressional Democrats talking about another $200-500 billion in "stimulus-but-don't-call-it-stimulus" funding and the on going multi-Trillion dollar debate on health care restructuring, I am a little skeptical the repaid TARP funds will be used to pay down debt or go back in the general fund.
While not perfect, thus far it appears the TARP investment in several of America's major financial institutions was a good bet. While GM and AIG are still out there to remind us that no investment is without risk, Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo and Chase have shown the infusion of funds kept them open and able to acquire weaker, troubled institutions, saving taxpayers, investors and depositors hundreds of billions, possibly trillions. They are not out of the woods yet however and face significant future risks and challenges, not the least of which will be whatever final legislation comes out of Congress on financial regulations and restrictions. This Congress and Administration has so far shown the ability to be over-reactive to issues and problems restricting markets and future growth, if this happens with banking credit will tighten further. Also on the horizon is the commerical paper on the banks' books, while the focus the past few years have been on residential foreclosures the other shoe is commerical loans that are coming due or facing major rate adjustments through their notes.
Hopefully the health of our lending institutions has recouped enough to withstand coming challenges and restore America's faith in the institutions that hold and protect their hard earned money.
Friday, December 11, 2009
For the week starting Saturday December 5, 2009 here are some questions I have had:
Now that we have enough for every month, will there be a Tiger’s Girls Calendar?
What is the population of the United States?
Why is President Obama so slow to inflict pain on foreign terrorists but so quick to want to inflict it on businesses and taxpayers?
Role models or lessons in morals and ethics?
(For SoCals) Have you noticed how many days a years we can see the mountains over the past several years, even in the summer?
Senate Health Care Plan is guaranteed to increase California State expenses by several billion dollars due to pushing more people into MediCal coverage, think the students and faculty protesting cuts to UC and CSU budgets know, care or understand the linkage?
Egg nog or spiced hot cider?
Why don’t the elitists meeting in Copenhagen who are going to chastise me and all of America and demand we use squiggly light bulbs that are extreme hazardous, not buy plasma televisions, drive French made Deux Chevaux, smoke Gallois, and carpool, why don’t they plane-pool and limo-pool for the conference?
Best sandwich in Long Beach area?
Newpapers and the AP report that Democrats are trying to “stall” or “block” health care reform despite having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and overwhelming majority in the House, is there any wonder their subscribers are dropping like Obama’s favorables?
If you were given the opportunity to name an SUV what would you name it?
Didn’t global temperatures have to rise to end the first Ice Age?
What intellectually stimulating game(s) do you like to play?
What would happen if our state and federal legislatures had to operate under the regulations they put on businesses?
Hard yolk or soft?
What is your biggest computer frustration?
Is there a bigger ass in American politics than Harry Reid?
How do they know what the exact temperatures were during the Paleolithic Age?
Do you think federal money should be used to fund abortions?
Do you play an instrument?
What was the cost to the city to change email addresses from email@example.com to firstname.lastname@example.org? What is the cost to everyone else who has to take the time and resources to make the change from an underscore to a dot?
Does this have a Soviet or Stalinesque ring to it: “"Proposals to Accelerate Job Growth and Lay the Foundation for Robust Economic Growth." ?
How long can a country be labeled “Developing” before it should be labeled “Failing”?
Cocoa or hot chocolate?
Is the gathering in Copenhagen Global Warmists or Socialists?
Who knew the nerdy science guys are conformists aggressively pursuing income and glory at the expense of independent research and exploration?
Did you see that Congress passed a spending bill that includes a $1.6 Billion subsidy to Amtrack?
Why do dry cleaners put men’s and women’s clothes in the same plastic bag?
Who will win the Heisman Trophy?
Cookies or Pie?
So those are the questions, what are your answers? Click on the comments button below and let us know what you think.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Is it ethical to create misconceptions for other people about someones behavior?
How ethical is it to destroy someone else's personal relationship?
Can people be trained to be ethical or are ethics learned as they are experienced?
If someone must attend "ethics training," whose ethics are they learning and how does he know the trainer is ethical?
If someone does something which you disagree with does that make them unethical, even that act is legal?
Whose ethics are more important, yours, mine, society's, whose?
Is it ethical to presume someone is misbehaving merely because they are in personal contact with someone you mistrust?
I love conversations about ethics. For the past three or four years I have had the honor of facilitating a discussion on how to define ethics for Leadership Long Beach's incoming class of participants. When a discussion on how to define ethics is started it quickly becomes apparent that ethics, like art, is hard to describe; we know it when we experience it. Or better yet in regards to ethics, we know it when we don't experience it.
The challenge with defining ethics, for me, boils down to "whose ethics?" Your personal ethics based upon your moral code, or my ethics based on my moral code? The ethics of your company or organization? While many like to purport a single standard of ethics, I challenge the assertion. A few simple questions shows that ethics are not universal. Is abortion ethical? Is the death penalty ethical? Is the confiscation of private property ethical? Is denying the homeless woman asking for food ethical? Is killing someone ethical? If they have broken into your home and endangering your children? Is something ethical just because it is legal?
Ethics, for me, are actions directed by morals that separate "good" from "bad." If we share the same morals then we probably share many of the same ethics. Companies and organizations have a culture that determines the ethics of that organization, typically based on the morals of the leadership and their values. As a society we have overlapping ethics, picture everyone walking around with the "ethics circle" surrounding them, some circles perfectly overlap and some are never touched--almost as if within society they have no circle. From the shared morals and ethics of the majority we derive our laws. Being a Republic our laws then govern us. Shared ethics codify in law.
Part of my ethics is understanding they are mine and may not conform to yours and vice versa. Therefore it is probable there are times when you consider me unethical, or I consider you the same. As long as neither of us is breaking the law and can disagree on what is ethical we can peacefully coexist. When you begin to feel that your ethics are more important than mine, that your moral compass is superior to mine, that I am being unlawful, immoral and unethical, in a situation where I feel I am not, when that happens we have a problem.
I am not a big fan of Conspiracists (don't look it up, I just typed it). Those who think every move made by someone in leadership or power is either unethical or illegal and done merely for self-advancement or monetary gain. You know the ones I am talking about, an elected official sneezes in their presence and they accuse them of trying to give them H1N1 to silence their criticism. The ones who find someone they dislike and then they create dislike and mistrust within the community. Using broad brushes they paint anyone who comes into contact with that person because to them he is unethical and always dealing in unethical matters. Conspiracists enroll others behind their attacks and accusations with the sole goal of discrediting other people's character and motives, essentially working to destroy careers. All under their banner of "ethics." Their perception of right and wrong. Because someone disagrees with them or wants to pursue an opportunity they do not like Conspiracists become personal in their attacks, move the discussion away from the opportunity or issue and instead try to make it a discussion on character. Conspiracists tend to be narcissistic and holier than thou, and me.
In the process they damage a community, create divides, breed contempt and facilitate mistrust. When they have accomplished this they smile and say, "look at what I have done, I have won."
For those not in the Long Beach area such a construction of false information and false accusations of unethical behavior is gripping our City Hall. Our City Council is immersed in discussions and debate and details to determine how to control individuals ability to speak with members of our government. A howl has arisen in our community demanding that anyone who leads a company, wants to create opportunities in our community for jobs and development, be limited in how and when and where they can present their ideas and opportunities to city officials. Our city is on the verge of codifying mistrust and declaring no one behaves "ethically" on their own, essentially saying the city is in the habit of hiring and electing unethical individuals whom we should mistrust.
This is all as a result of an over-reaction to a trip taken by two lifelong friends and their families. Two men who grew up together, whose wives and children are friends, had a weekend get-away with their wives as friends are apt to do. One friend is a consultant and represents a myriad of businesses and organizations who have businesses, or wish to have businesses, in the City of Long Beach. One friend works for the City of Long Beach and reviews and analyzes new projects and developments for the City Manager and Council. The families stayed at a hotel owned by one of the consultant's clients and at check out, without the city employee's knowledge or consent, issued a discount. We know this because upon returning to Long Beach and learning of the discount our ethical city employee repaid the discount and disclosed it to his bosses.
His ethics empowered him to action to do what was right. Now he is under scrutiny and an aura of mistrust and deceit is being built around him by the Conspiracists for they have long ago put his friend the consultant on their radar as someone to attack personally and professionally. By doing the right thing, by behaving ethically, our stalwart, competent and professional city employee has been tarnished.
Is it ethical to attack someone for doing what is right? Or would it be ethical to say, "this is what we expect of all of our employees, when they find out something happened that is not right to expose it, accept it and correct it?"
By their actions the Conspiracists have created an environment where future mistakes that are discovered may be covered up instead of exposed for fear of personal attacks and possible damage to their careers. By attacking two men who are life long friends for being friends the Conspiracists have made our city a bit more unfriendly to businesses, have created a bit more separation between City Hall and city residents and businesses, have created a bit more "Us" versus "Them" in our community. How is that for ethical behavior?
Ethics, I know them when I experience them, I know them more when I don't. Craig Beck is a good man who does good things for our city. Mike Murchison is a good man who does good things for our city. Both have good morals, good values and good ethics. Both work hard to improve our city and community. Neither deserves the treatment they are getting from the Conspiracists, who are getting too much press and exposure.
I hope there friendship continues for many, many years and it includes more trips together enjoying each others company and families. It isn't ethical to turn our backs on our friends when they have done nothing wrong.
Monday, December 7, 2009
It seems a few years ago the Long Beach City Council paid $69,000 to a consultant to look into the feasibility of putting street cars into Long Beach. Naturally the feasibility is great, otherwise the $69,000 would have been a waste. We'll just widen a street here, take out parking there, lay track at $25 million per mile, and once built the streetcars will be magical. Businesses will spring up along the tracks, Southern Californians will give up their cars and all of downtown's retail woes will be solved.
When it comes to the pro-streetcar crowd they love to quote development in other cities where streetcar lines have been added, and say things like, "streetcars aren't about transportation they are about development." That's good because like the data being released by the White House on jobs created by the Stimulus Package the numbers released by cities on the development resulting from streetcar lines is just as cooked. Take Portland for instance, the beacon of light for those who want to add a streetcar line to a city near you, or around you if you live in Long Beach. Portland boasts of $2.8 billion in new development because of its streetcar lines being put in; and politicians like Lowenthal are quit to quote the number. Has she bothered to Google the figures? Virtually every new development that has occurred within three blocks of the street car line are tossed into the $2.8 billion dollar number. Including hundreds of millions of dollars spent by Portland State Univeristy, millions spent on parking garages, new office buildings that were in planning stages before the streetcars went in, and on and on.
Also not mentioned are the subsidies spent by Portland, over $1 billion and counting, to sustain the streetcars and other light rail, encourage development and try to sustain the projects. But money is not the problem for Long Beach. Lowenthal says it won't cost Long Beach residents anything from the General Fund, we'll just use Federal dollars--it's not as if we pay Federal taxes so it must be OPM, Other-People's-Money. Not surprising for liberal politicians to consider Federal money "free money" to the recipients, Lowenthal is ready for the Democratic Caucus in Congress. If hundreds of millions of dollars are available to build a street car why is that same money not available to improve our current transportation system? Why not use those funds to improve existing corridors and bus routes? Why not let the Federal government keep the money, lower our taxes and extend credits to small businesses? Because it's not pretty and red and has a bell that goes clang-clang as it creeps down the street.
The purpose of the streetcars is development. Development of downtown Long Beach which has seen hundreds of millions of dollars spent on it behalf over the years, from shiny new upscale condo towers, to funky new lights, to redevelopment funds for businesses, to The Pike and Aquarium. And still Pine, Long Beach Boulevard, Atlantic, Broadway, etc have vacant store fronts and businesses that open and close before their first anniversary. Streetcars are the latest "thing" that will finally get a consistent and significant amount of spending by consumers downtown, supposedly. Streetcar development is dependent on high density housing. Downtown Long Beach has plenty of high density housing, unfortunately most of it in the immediate surrounding areas is high density use in low density buildings.
Until our politicians look at the reality and quit using poli-speech to describe problems the problems will never be addressed. Downtown retail is not a failure because there is no way for people from other parts of the city or region to get there--the 710 terminates downtown, several bus lines from Bixby Knolls to Belmont Shore terminate there, a bridge from the Harbor Freeway and San Pedro terminates there, the Blue Line terminates there, the Passport was created for there. Downtown retail is a failure because it is surrounded by low cost, overcrowded, gang infested housing and neighborhoods. While an upscale residential base has been increasing downtown, it is not enough to sustain any consistent retail development. In the meantime within half to three quarters of a mile of Broadway and Pine are over thousands of low income housing units that are overcrowded and surrounding downtown. A hundred thousand people, probably more, who don't shop downtown, don't eat downtown and cost downtown, and the rest of the city, millions in public safety, health and other services.
City Hall keeps approving and looking to add low cost housing to Long Beach, most of it around the downtown area, then on the next agenda item spend more money on more studies to try to find a way to get retail development downtown to take hold and succeed. Lowenthal's desire for streetcars is just the latest idea to syphon more funds in the future from the General Fund to sink into the downtown retail black hole--and along the way encourage high density development.
Maybe it is time for City Hall and council members from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th to take a look north of the 405 for a change. Take a look at Bixby Knolls and the redevelopment and re-invigoration that has been occurring along Atlantic Avenue. New businesses opening and while struggling are succeeding, despite the economic downturn. Vacant buildings being creatively used for the community. Clean streets. Building owners slowly renovating their facades and interiors. A very vibrant relationship between local businesses and surrounding communities. All without a streetcar and very little investment from the City, especially when compared to the investments made downtown and in other parts of the city. But it was all done with one common factor, Blair Cohn who is the leader of the Bixby Knolls Business Association. He was determined to forge a positive relationship between local businesses and local residents, and it is working. Where is that leadership downtown?
Instead of spending another $500,000 plus next year to continue the study of streetcar feasibility, and another $1 million plus the year after that to continue the process, it would instead behoove Lowenthal and her constituents to promote the use of current public transportation, including the Passport bus line that was created specifically for what Lowenthal wants the streetcars to achieve: bring people downtown. If you want downtown retail to succeed and people from Bixby Knolls, Belmont Heights, El Dorado Park Estates, Los Altos to go downtown and spend money, give them something to go for besides a few restaurants and a 7/11.
In the meantime, let's cut our spending losses on the streetcar idea before the city gets sucked into a spending hole for the future. It we don't Long Beach will have a streetcar nicknamed quagmire.
Friday, December 4, 2009
For the week starting Saturday November 28, 2009 here are some questions I have had:
Do you know what is on the back of pennies minted in 2009?
Would you rather have “first” or “best”?
What happens when oil goes back over $100 a barrel and gas over $4.00 a gallon at the pump? Will we get serious about domestic production then?
Whipped cream or ice cream?
Do you ever use your laptop on your lap?
Who is the most annoying person on television that you still watch?
Are the people reporting on the stimulus funds “running out” the same ones who covered the passage of the bill in February?
Are reporters stupid or do we just not get it?
What is “it” anyway?
Who or what inspired you this week?
Do you put on your left shoe or your right shoe first?
Do you prefer sunrises or sunsets?
Oldest piece of clothing you still wear regularly?
Dictator for a day how do you solve this problem: One mother on government assistance with multiple children by multiple fathers?
Should couples with no children pay lower taxes?
How many times a week is “Law and Order” on?
With today’s technology allowing almost infinite storage capabilities, why would scientists destroy and/or discard any raw data?
When you leave your phone number for someone on a voice mail do you say it slowly and repeat it at least once? If not why not?
How can you have a “jobs summit” and not invite the Chamber of Commerce?
Is politics about defending whistleblowers who blow the whistle on your enemies and asking prosecution of those who blow the whistle on your allies?
If the Executive Branch of government, at any level, is disorganized how is the rest of the structure?
Why would you invite labor leaders to a “jobs summit”, isn’t their purpose to limit the number of jobs in a given field or industry to those who are in a union?
Do you brush your teeth before or after you shower?
Senior year in high school; what song just popped in your head?
“And if there are things that we're doing here in Washington that are inhibiting you (from creating jobs/increasing employment.DCS), then we want to know about it”. Really? You really want to know about what you’re doing to inhibit job and economic growth?
Window or aisle?
Cookies or Pie?
So those are the questions, what are your answers? Click on the comments button below and let us know what you think.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
What if that statement said that the American people, in their righteous might, will depose a foreign leader and then leave right away? Or that the American people will enter into this fray, this war, but only for say one year, or maybe two?
"Exit Strategy" has become a cliche and policy talk that has moved from the MBA classrooms of Wharton and Kellogg to the committee rooms of Congress to the editorial rooms of the New York Times and Washington Post. Our nation is looked to be the International Police and Bank, if there is a trouble spot the United Nations and other nations look to the United States to supply relief, be it troops, food or funds. But not too much and not too long, they want our money but not our values of liberty, freedom and democracy. As such, to keep them happy we must now always have an Exit Strategy before we begin any international effort. This mentality has emasculated the power of the United States and increased the danger to American troops serving on foreign soil.
I am not sure if the Exit Strategy mentality started in Korea or Vietnam. Certainly in the first American and allied troops pushed to win gaining ground until China, fearing a North Korea defeat, entered the war supplying North Korea. Eventually a truce was reached, the famous 38th Parallel becoming the dividing line between the Koreas. The war resulted in returning to the status quo before the United States, the United Nations and China entered the conflict with two Koreas un-peacefully coexisting. In Vietnam as American involvement escalated to defend South Vietnam and prevent the Chinese backed North Vietnamese from overthrowing the South Vietnamese government, and then extend control and influence into neighboring countries, opposition grew in the United States. As a youngster I watched the evening news at dinner with the news clips and the body counts telling the American people how we were doing. Much later I learned that the American military fought the war with its hands tied by Congress and Washington not committed to winning the war, but rather committed to how to get out of the war. As a result disaster occurred with American troops withdrawing, the Communist Vietcong easily over taking the country and the beginning of human atrocities in Vietnam and Cambodia.
When an enemy knows when you are leaving they have no reason to make you stay. When success is defined by when you leave a conflict rather than when your opponent leaves the conflict, or is removed from it, then success becomes defined by how you fail. Thus the Exit Strategy philosophy is ultimately a strategy of controlled failure.
President Bush is criticized for not having an "Exit Strategy" before the invasion of Iraq. What exactly would that have been: we overthrow Saddam Hussein and we leave? We overthrow Saddam Hussein and we arrest some of his guys and we leave? How does anyone know how a war will go when it starts? How can you know how to end a war without total victory, i.e. have an Exit Strategy?
Bush's mistake, in my humble non-military opinion--but hey if members of Congress and the New York Times editorial board can espouse theirs I can espouse mine--was not committing enough early enough. Bush seemed to understand the difficulty the war would create at home and wanted to mitigate some of that. Sure he had almost unanimous backing by Congress, but rightfully knew that would probably be fleeting once politics got back to normal. Going into Iraq the strategists did not consider the tremendous number of foreign fighters that would enter the country to reign terror on the population and target American troops. In retrospect, always the best way to fight and critique a war, U.S. and Allied troops should have been, and I feel still should be, massed on the borders between Iraq and Syria and Iraq and Iran to prevent the flow of fighters and weapons. Once the country is more isolated then the clean up work and rebuilding can begin. Exit Strategy? Win, stabilize, then see what the geopolitics of the region dictate.
Now we have an Exit Strategy in Iraq, we give up and leave whether the nation is stable or not sometime in 2011, ahead of the 2012 elections--campaign promise kept. Exit strategy result? Vacuum created by exit of U.S. troops filled by terror groups from Syria and Iran who restart religious wars between Sunni and Shia; my guess is the importation of many chemical weapons taken out of the country while the U.N. dithered in 2001.
Apparently we now have an Exit Strategy for Afghanistan as well. Wait six months, increase the number of troops by some seemingly arbitrary number and then pull them all out twelve months later, ahead of the 2012 elections. Our enemies must be pleased with the time frame. They can go back to their day jobs for a year or so, wait for the vacuum created when U.S. troops leave and then re-enter Afghanistan and set up camp(s). Wipe out the progress made in protecting women and girls from barbaric treatment, wipe out gains in educating children, especially young girls, wipe out progress in building water and electric plants delivering services to greater portion of the populace. Wipe out the fledgling democracy taking foot.
In business having an Exit Strategy can be smart using goals, objectives, plans, benchmarks, strategy and implementation for a singular end, usually selling the company. Parenting should have a semi-Exit Strategy: ensure my children are properly educated, have strong morals and values, are able to commit and complete tasks and duties, are prepared to be productive members of society and contributors to their communities, are able to be self-sufficient.
Having an Exit Strategy before or during a war that is not total victory, or "absolute victory," is very much like having a pre-nuptial agreement. Yes I want this to work out but if it doesn't here is my exit strategy so we know how much it will cost us when we fail. Instill the thought of failure before the commitment and what will happen? How many marriages with pre-nuptial agreements last decades compared to those that last a few years?
American foreign policy power has been weakened considerably. Our enemies know we are unable to commit to the absolute victory declaration of Franklin Roosevelt following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They know that any conflict we enter will be done with great trepidation and criticism that will dictate our less than total commitment to victory but a complete commitment to when and how we will quit. Wait long enough and we will leave the fields of battle.
We are the greatest nation in human history. Do we have flaws? Certainly. But who else would be better at policing our globe? At recognizing evil and acting to free and liberate whole populations from that evil? Who else was able to defeat the totalitarianism of fascism and communism? What happened when we gave up the fights against dictators who commit atrocities and wholesale murder? What happens when our official foreign policy philosophy is based on Exit Strategies rather than absolute victory?
It is my belief that everyone deserves to live under the natural Freedoms and Liberty given to us, everyone. I further believe that it is the Destiny of the United States to promote, protect and support those striving for Freedom and Liberty against evil and barbarous rule and dictators. Currently in the world there is an ideology based on religion that is committed to absolute victory. An absolute victory that requires every nation on earth become one. One nation ruled by religious leaders enforcing ancient laws, enforcing misogynistic policies allowing rape and murder of girls and women, stripping all Liberty and Freedom.
Our enemy is committed to Roosevelt's "absolute victory" while we are committed to Exit Strategies. Unfortunately our commitment to this philosophy also commits us to an Exit Strategy of Freedom and Liberty for all.
Monday, November 30, 2009
In Washington the White House and Congressional Democrats are working on another spending spree that is meant to create jobs in 2010. Given their inability to understand the $787 billion "stimulus package" passed in February the American taxpayer, and worker, has cause for concern. You remember the stimulus package, it was supposed to limit unemployment to 8% (now over 10%) create or save millions of jobs (three and half million jobs lost since its passage) and help our economy recover.
It appears the Obama Administration and Democrats cannot remember what they passed since the bill was set up for almost none of the $787 billion to be spent in 2009. The spending from the stimulus package was meant to begin in 2010, to coincide with re-election plans in November and maintaining the majority in both Houses. Further, over $540 billion of the funds are not scheduled for expenditure until 2011. Ooops.
It is now evident that the severity of the economy was misjudged and perhaps more of the funds from the bill should have been spent this year. At the time the timeline was to inject some funds before the 2010 midterm elections and then have the bulk of the funding hit in 2011 so by the 2012 elections, including one for President, the economy will have recovered and Congress and Obama could point to the spending as being the cause.
Now looking at the political and economic landscape, the House Democrats up for re-election in 2010 are pressuring the White House to do something so they can pump more money sooner into their Congressional Districts before unemployed voters go to the polls and vote them out. Not willing to wait for the money already scheduled to be spent in 2010, some are worried their constituents (and by that we do not mean voters do we?) will be out of work, furloughed or otherwise facing reduced paychecks and with those reduced checks comes reduced support.
From a Press-Telegram article on the jobs issue here are some statements from Congressional Democrats showing how out of touch they really are:
The stimulus boosted employment but "did it in a way that was not as highly visible as a lot of people would like," said Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, one of the House members devising the jobs bill. "It did so in somewhat of a scattershot approach - a job here and a job there, trickled out over time. ..."
Ms. Sutton, it is not high visibility people want but actual jobs. When doling out pork the results tend to be scattershot, a skate park here, a walking path there, raises and not jobs over there...
"I hope we don't play around the edges with this and we do what will work. Invest the money now," said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus.
$787 Billion is playing around the edges? But when you voted for and passed the bill Obama said it would create millions of jobs, that's not the edges.
"The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they're not getting anything for it," she (Speaker Nancy Pelosi) said in a conference call.
No, we are angry about the deficit because we are having to pay for it, and we will not get anything for it today or tomorrow. It appears her approach is give something to everyone out of the public trough and we will be happy. Typical politician trying to find the price point when buying votes. This works for special interests, like unions and fellow government employees, but it fails for most Americans who think beyond today when they vote.
The one line in the article that really showed how limited the group intellect and how narrow-minded the thinking is in Washington was this:
"House members also are considering a plan to funnel aid to state and local governments with the assurance the money would be used to preserve jobs."
Whose jobs would they be preserving? State and local governments that are cash strapped and facing huge deficits need to cut spending, the number one expense as with any business is salaries and benefits. By giving a one time shot of cash to a state or city to "preserve jobs" are we putting off the inevitable correction to budgets for one year, and adding another year of future benefit payments? This is a direct payment to government employees, the only organized labor sector that has grown in the past decade, who vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and who would be able to keep their jobs until the 2010 elections.
Let's review the attack on jobs and businesses thus far from the 111th Congress with encouragement and support from the Obama White House. Keep in mind two things: first, businesses, particularly small businesses, employ the overwhelming majority of Americans--they also lay off the majority of unemployed workers; second, our economy is Consumer-centric, with consumer spending responsible for approximately 70% of our economic activity. Fewer jobs means fewer consumers means fewer businesses able to stay in business--and hire workers.
The stimulus package was passed and added $787 billion to the budget and deficit. The funds are primarily targeted to public works, which puts most of the funds through government bureaucrats which leads to inefficiencies and loss of funds as it trickles down to the job site; as well disproportionate amounts of funding go to public works contracts not with private contractors but with public employees--keeping those jobs on city, county and state payrolls and budgets.
Congress tried, and thankfully thus far has failed, to pass Cap and Trade. A massive tax burden on American businesses meant to prevent "global warming." News is coming out that much of the scientific study has been skewed and the books cooked to prevent dissenting views and research on the subject from coming to light. The Cap and Trade bill would increase taxes on American businesses hundreds of billions of dollars with no return. It would lead to job losses in the United States as manufacturers take even more jobs out of the country.
The Senate and House are working on massive health care bills that if passed will increase taxes across the board for health care insurance, medical devices (virtually everything you buy for health and personal care from tampons to toothbrushes), employers and individuals. More taxes means less money to spend on other items, such as microwaves and bicycles, which dampens further the economic engine of America.
My reaction to the Democrats and White House working towards another jobs bill is that we will end up with another couple of hundred billion dollars in spending with them looking for who to pay for the tab. You can bet that whoever gets stuck with the attendant tax bill are those who are currently employing millions of Americans, or have the ability to hire as many if they had the funds to do so.
If they are serious about creating jobs they need to get over their "the rich must pay" rhetoric, quit defining "middle class" as their union supporters, and enact tax incentives for businesses and consumers. After the Bush tax cuts in 2000 the annual revenue to the U.S. Treasury from tax collection increased every year until 2008. Making those cut permanent and adding marginal cuts across the board will put money back on the balance sheets of small businesses, increase disposable income for the American consumer and boost the economy as spending and hiring slowly increase.
Unfortunately Congressional Democrats and members of the Obama Administration think they can spend money more wisely and efficiently than the average American, who evidently cannot be trusted with their own financial decisions. Unfortunately they have no sense of history, economics or memory as to what bills and spending packages they have already passed.
Bad news for the American worker and economy, the people who brought us Stimulus I are working on Stimulus II.
Friday, November 27, 2009
For the week starting Saturday November 21, 2009 here are some questions I have had:
Is your charitable giving 2009 more, less or the same as 2008? Than 2007?
Two toppings on a pizza?
Gravy with or without giblets?
What do you do to clear a creative block?
Is life too short to hold a grudge or too long to hold a grudge?
Is “just pass something” acceptable?
How is unauthorized “street art” any different than graffiti or vandalism?
What word do you most commonly and consistently misspell and get corrected by SpellCheck?
What website do you visit, however often, that seems to have the most loony commenters—almost always with pseudonyms?
How much is the revenue from bail every year?
Do you think the Obama and Democrats from Congress “job summit” will lead to higher taxes on businesses?
First dish you went to for seconds?
Is the couple sneaking into the White House State Dinner more of a concern or a laugh?
USC or UCLA, who do you want to win (not who do you think will win)?
Best place to travel for Thanksgiving if it is not in your home?
Do you go shopping on Black Friday?
Is it more important to be right or to be friends?
Do the leaked/purloined emails showing GlobalWarmist scientists used coercion and deceit to prevent alternative studies from being included in media accounts and scientific papers change your view on the issue?
What if the “jobs summit” creates more spending to save jobs in city, county and state governments, how does that sit with you?
After the Christmas shopping season which major retailer will call it quits?
Favorite Thanksgiving leftover meal/snack?
Cookies or Pie?
So those are the questions, what are your answers? Click on the comments button below and let us know what you think.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Looking for positives I changed my focus and marketing efforts to seek new business. Looked at the check book and credit card statements to discover what we could, needed, to cut out of our budget. Challenged myself to daily find where I could push myself and my business to keep going and make it through another week and month.
Stress was redefined for me. As the end of November crept up I began to experience fear for the first time in my life, not for myself and my physical well being; but rather for my family and also for my mental and emotional well being. How long, how much work and effort, how many days, until we would start to see positive traction in business? When would the fall stop and the leveling out begin? What level would be level?
Thanksgiving has long been my favorite holiday. As I age and hopefully gain more wisdom I appreciate more and more that with which I am blessed. To have a day specifically set aside for thanksgiving, for reflection on what we do have in our lives rather than what we do not, to not only reflect on our fortunes but also to give thanks to those which bring those riches to our lives, to not just give thanks to others but gratitude to God for placing our lives together. I appreciate more today the American tradition of Thanksgiving arising from early settlers of our nation who despite being surrounded by illness and death, starvation and fear, sat down to give Thanks to God, to share what bounty they had with others who taught them how to survive, how to succeed in the new land where they found themselves. I am in awe of a small group of people casting off from their native land to venture to an unknown land so that they may establish their own community, one where they are free to worship as they choose and not as someone chooses for them. Today more than ever I am more understanding of their gratitude on so many levels as they sat down with their neighbors, saviors, for a meal the purpose of which was to give thanks. Despite all the hardship, the loss, the fear and likelihood that many would not survive the coming months of harsh winter, fear that while the native Indians they have come to know have helped them others wish to bring them harm, uncertainty of so much unknown, despite all of this they gave thanks for what they had--they were still alive and they were still able and active in their Worship.
What happens when your worship seems to be failing, or if not failing at least not showing any signs of stopping continued failure? Where does one go when this is what you feel is happening? This is something the Pilgrims must have faced, and what many Americans face today. This is what I was facing last year as Thanksgiving and then Christmas neared and appeared. Daily I would pray and meditate and set to my affirmations. For myself that I am healthy and complete as God intended and strong emotionally and physically to provide for myself and my family. For my business that I am a successful and prosperous mortgage broker with an abundance of clients who I am able to assist in obtaining home ownership and their financial goals. For my wife that she is healthy and happy, daily finding fulfillment and gratification in her efforts and endeavors. For my daughters that they are healthy and happy learning each day as they express and receive love, kindness and respect.
It is hard to be grateful when there is lack and scarcity. It is difficult to look at the prospects ahead when mired in the now of fear. It is challenging to continue to have Faith and Commitment when the path thus far has led into a darker forest.
No matter the numbers I am cooking as if we have a houseful. I love making the Thanksgiving meal, obviously turkey--grilled; cornbread sausage stuffing, roasted garlic mashed potatoes, big rolls, vegetables, gravy (and apple barbecue sauce), pumpkin cheesecake and apple pie. I start looking forward to and thinking about making Thanksgiving dinner right after Halloween. I love it.
Last year we had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Just the four of us. Looking at my daughters in their pretty dresses and the lovely smile on Leslie's face all negative thoughts and concerns were pushed back. After dinner we played "I am thankful for...." and went around the table with each of us saying one thing and not allowed to repeat what someone else has said. We went around and around. Listening I laughed as I heard how the young are thankful for so many things that would seem trivial to us. But their is no trivial when giving thanks. That is what the lesson of gratitude really is, there is nothing trivial if you are thankful.
As I look back on the past year and the slow growth in business activity and the slow leveling off of the hole digging and the very slow filling back in of the hole. As I look back on where I was emotionally and spiritually a year ago to where I am today I see a year of lessons and much for which to be grateful.
I am so grateful I kept my course with my communication with God. Grateful for Reverend Peggy's messages delivered to a congregation but seemingly addressing me. Grateful so much for Leslie's quiet understanding and encouragement to me to keep up my spiritual work and effort. Grateful that when it would have been easiest to say, "enough this is bunk, look where I am and where I am going" I said instead, "I have faith and trust in God, but I need to continue to do my part to manifest what His plan is for me." That rather than blaming others and looking for reasons not to succeed in turning around my anxiety, fear and feeling of scarcity and lack, I turned inward and looked at where I am successful, where I have abundance and for that which I am grateful.
This Thanksgiving will be different than last. We will be grateful to be sharing our table with Leslie's mother and her sister and family. Our small family will recognize our part in a bigger family. This Thanksgiving while reflecting on what I have to be thankful for this past year I will be offering tremendous gratitude to those who have believed in me, supported me, lifted me and inspired me to continue my course and maintain my commitment to my beliefs and spirituality.
Our faith and gratitude are never tested when success and abundance are easy and readily at hand. I am thankful for the lessons of the past few years that have shown me what gratitude truly is. My fear today is where I would be had I given up that faith and failed to be grateful for what I do have rather than complain about what I do not.
I am grateful, thank you God.
Monday, November 23, 2009
On November 13th, a Friday when President Obama was touring Asia, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he was bringing "alleged" 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other from Guantanamo Bay detention facilities to New York City to face trial in American civil courts for their roles in the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. While I am not pleased with this decision, the decision itself pales in comparison to the statements and comments made subsequent to the announcement by the Attorney General. Reflecting on the mission statement above here are comments made by Holder to members of the media and on Capitol Hill.
On the News Hour with Jim Lehrer the day of the announcement the following exchanges:
After answering that in making the decision he, Holder, consulted with people at the Department of Justice and Department of Defense, and others, Holder was asked by Lehrer:
JIM LEHRER: Did you run it by President Obama?
ERIC HOLDER: Just informed him of the decision.
Holder goes on to explain that the President "believes the President should have hands off the Justice Department....in those things that are in the province of the Attorney General all he needs is to be informed."
Really. The President of the United States, Chief Executive of the United States Government, believes that the Attorney General can operate independently of the White House and counsel from the President? Is this in all cases or just ones that are extremely controversial politically? Is this to protect the Attorney General or the President? Later in the interview Holder says he spoke to his wife and his brother about the decision (his brother is retired from the Port Authority of New York). On the one hand you have your boss, who happens to be President of the United States and an attorney who, as we were reminded throughout 2008, is also a Constitutional Law professor, on the other you have your boss and big brother. One is given a phone call aboard Air Force One and being told what is going to happen, the other two have discussions about the impact of such a decision.
Further in the interview:
JIM LEHRER: Well, Mohammed was water-boarded, was he not?
ERIC HOLDER: He was.
On March 2, 2009 in a speech before the Jewish Council for Public Affairs Plenum Holder said, "As I unequivocally stated in my confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate, waterboarding is torture." So the Attorney General states publicly he believes waterboarding is torture, admits KSM was tortured and now is going to prosecute him using statements that were revealed while being, in Holder's opinion, tortured. I know several attorney read this blog, help me with how this plays before a judge following our Constitution.
Further in that March 2009 speech, Holder also speaks of Obama's Executive Orders establishing inter-agency task forces to deal with the Guantanamo detainees and their prosecution or release. To follow, Obama establishes task forces and then allows the head of Justice to make unilateral decisions within the Executive Orders of the White House.
There are many sides to this upcoming trial. Among them are when were KSM and friends read their Miranda Rights, you know them, personally they were drilled into me as a child watching Kojak, Baretta, Adam-12, S.W.A.T. and other cop shows. We know that many a criminal has been kicked loose from prosecution because when apprehended and questioned he was not read his rights, or "Mirandized." Because KSM and the gang were picked up in a war by soldiers they were never Mirandized, so have they been now? Does evidence obtained before 2009 get to be entered in the court?
What happens if they are kicked loose because of our legal system and protecting the rights of the accused and the presumption of innocence? What of our President's declaration on Fox that he is confident the trial in New York would end in convictions and the execution of Mohammed and his co-defendants? Does that somehow inhibit the ability of the defendants to receive a "fair trial?" If Obama was merely informed of the decision to bring the Guantanamo 5 to New York for trial, and he was travelling around Asia when the announcement was made, how can he be confident in their prosecution and subsequent execution?
What has really pushed me on this issue however is the statements made by Attorney General Holder in Congress last week before the Judiciary Committee in questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (video here of exchange). The head of our our Justice Department, the person who is supposed to ensure all work at the Department of Justice adheres to the mission statement above, when asked what happens if the most wanted man in the world, Osama bin Laden, is captured on a battlefield tomorrow. What is the captain, major, general who captures him supposed to do and when is going to be read his rights?
"That all depends."
So the head of Justice has no idea what happens if the person most wanted by the Justice Department, and everyone else, is captured? Shouldn't there be a policy and procedure manual "What to do when we capture Osama bin Laden?"
I am unsure if Eric Holder is competent is fulfilling his position of Attorney General and is bending backwards and sideways to protect his boss, Barack Obama; or if Eric Holder is incompetent and unable to understand the chain of command and operates without consulting the Administration and Obama. Either he exemplifies an Administration in over its head in running a country, or he exemplifies an incompetence within the Administration to effectively appoint and manage Department Secretaries and others.
Either way I am not feeling too confident about the ability of this Justice Department to effectively prosecute, and execute, the Guantanamo 5 and other terrorists captured by United States Military forces.
Remember the mission, "...to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."
Friday, November 20, 2009
For the week starting Saturday November 14, 2009 here are some questions I have had:
I wonder, what would it be like to live where everyone, or a very large majority of everyone, thought as I do and shared my views and opinions?
Will Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed get a court appointed attorney?
If plastic bags become illegal what will I use to pick up Harrison poop?
Greater finisher Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan?
Does the New York Times firing 25 editors and moving duties to Florida paper in their chain because the department there is non-union and cheaper disallow them from any pro-union editorials in the future?
Do you Google yourself?
Raquel Welch or Sophia Loren?
Did Obama’s people allow Fox News to cover his speech in China on Free Speech?
Are red and green wrapping paper in a school a violation of church and state?
If plastic bags become illegal will they walk my paper up to the porch to avoid sprinklers (Mon/Thur/Sat only!), dew and rain?
Does it seem to you that people who profess to welcome open communication usually don’t?
Are you excited the Gatlin Brothers are back with a new CD?
I keep seeing announcements from various entities for H1N1 vaccinations for those “at risk”, isn’t every at risk of getting the flu and this strain?
Is Netflix the number one pop-up on news websites?
What bothers you more in your neighborhood the slow moving car with the thumping loud music or the speeder flying down the street?
Louisiana Senator Landrieu had her vote for the Senator Harry Reid’s Health Care bill bought for $100,000,000; how much will it cost Reid to buy the votes of other Democrats who oppose the measure?
Halibut or Swordfish?
What book are you reading? Any good?
Guess the decade/time frame: Wearing Members Only Jacket, Sperry Topsiders and a Polo with upturned collar your friend asks, “Where’s the beef?”
Travelling or hosting Thursday?
Have you entered the poll on favorite sidedish on the left margin?
Do you cook or clean?
After family, friends, country, God, etc, be selfish, what are you most thankful for?
How does doubling costs to Medicaid/Medical, paid for by broke states, advance national health care?
Form or function?
Cookies or Pie?
So those are the questions, what are your answers? Click on the comments button below and let us know what you think.