We need more than good intention government

First rule of good leadership: Don’t give a command you know won’t be obeyed.  

First rule of bad governance: pass a law if it has good intention or purpose, without worrying whether it can be carried out or not, and without considering its potential side effects.

In one of my favorite science fiction books, one of my favorite characters gave the above primary rule of good leadership (I’m sure it comes from some other source originally – I’m just citing where I first learned it – and probably paraphrasing it badly).

Due to a recent, very Byzantine Facebook conversation with a friend (who has very different views than I do), I came up with the above first rule of bad governance.

 Besides not getting that friend to address the initial question raised – which was the whole point of my original post – I got the following interesting comment about government legislation:

“When (do) I choose to support a law or not” I determine if it has good intention or purpose. I won’t worry about whether or not if it can (be carried) out. Because I believe it will shine if it is gold. May(be) not ten years, but it will be 50 years or 100 years, as long as the timing needs.”

I don’t want to classify the person who made the comment, but let me say that the comment itself sounds very liberal, showing the sort of compassion that liberals display, their concern for other people, and always intending to do go. It sounds so right – except for its total disregards for actual results or real individuals.

Let me give an interesting historical example, one that I would have agreed with, from the above quote’s perspective, if I had lived in the early 20^th century – Prohibition.

What was the good intention or purpose of prohibition? It was to get rid of the evils of drunkenness, the broken and abusive families of men who spent their wages on drink rather than feeding their families, to rescue the homeless winos on the city streets and make them productive citizens.

What was the actual result? General histories would have us believe that it was unsuccessful and unpopular, which led to its eventual repeal.  That would be an inaccurate statement.  Prohibition actually achieved many of its original goals, and changed the drinking culture of our society.

Annual per capita consumption of alcohol dropped from 2.6 gallons to 1.2 gallons pre to post prohibition, and took until the 60s to reach its pre-prohibition levels.  Missions in many cities closed because of the lack of homeless to be served. Death rates from cirrhosis of the liver, and hospitalizations from alcoholic psychosis dropped.  The entire culture of the male saloon (see the movie the Harvey Girls, starring Judy Garland, for a sample of that) dropped out of the culture, giving room for the committed family man.

Basically, it achieved everything it intended, and actually had large popular support, even up until its repeal and after. But it also had several unintended side effects.

For starters, when prohibition was passed, the amendment was worded generally, and given to congress to define what the intended strength of the amendment was.  When the Volstead Act was passed, which created the enforcement portion of the act, the definition of “intoxicating liquors” and the exclusion for medicinal and religious purposes, were much stricter than people had intended.  Many people did not expect weak beers to be included in the prohibition, for example.

Another side effect was government revenues.  At the time New York State received 75% of its tax revenues off alcohol, similar to other states, which experienced deficit issues and the necessary shifting of taxes. It was this revenue issue in the middle of the depression, rather than significant dislike for prohibition itself, that led to eventual repeal.

Prohibition called for “concurrent” enforcement of prohibition. Federal assumptions were that the States would carry the burden of the enforcement expense.  Instead many states repealed their prohibition laws, leaving the full burden on the federal government.

The law drastically extended the reach of federal authority into the lives of the American people. It overburdened police, courts and the penal system, which were inadequately funded for the task, as noted above. The revenue it did create was the black-market revenue of the speakeasy that fueled organized crime.

While the male saloon was wiped off the map, the speakeasy actually brought men and women together to drink, since there wasn’t the same social stigma to their being there as in the saloon.

While solving certain health issues, it also created others.  With alcohol production no longer regulated, people ended up drinking dangerous wood alcohol unawares, leading to blindness and death. People who did have alcohol issues also had no place to go for help, since drinking was illegal.

I think I’ve drifted a bit from where I intended, but hopefully someone can see my point. Whether you agree with a proposed law or not, as in prohibition, it is a good idea to know what you really intend, and whether the law is properly designed to do it.

You need to think about the big picture and try to envision as many possible “unintended” side effects as possible. You need to take an engineer’s perspective in trying to identify all the forces at work before building a law that collapses under its own weight (or collapses people under its weight).

Passing a law to “find out what is in it”, was dangerous in the days of prohibition, and is still dangerous today. Passing an amendment like prohibition that gave Congress the right to interpret what it meant made a lot of people unhappy when Volstead created his strict interpretation in the Volstead Act. Today Congress passes generally worded laws that allow the bureaucracy to legislate to their whim as they create the related regulations.

That’s my point, poorly stated. Now, if you were at all intrigued by my blog, let me suggest another, more fun one by Sarah Hoyt: Calvin Ball Constitution.

Politicians and their children are a class apart.

Politicians and their children are a class apart.

I normally wouldn’t plan on doing two blogs in a row on the same topic, but I was doing my usual scan of the day’s news stories, and ran across the story about Gov. Christie’s comments which I am using as the root for this blog.

The minute I saw it I wrote myself the following note: “Don’t be dragging people’s children into this, it’s wrong” he says, yet the entire issue, when using the context of Sandy Hook, is ABOUT people’s children.  Don’t drag the Sandy Hook children into this and you have no issue to discuss.

When I got home, the friend who had posted the initial link about the Morning Joe/NRA clip, included the Christie story into her responses.  So I wrote the below response on her Facebook:

Christie said “don’t drag people’s children into this, its wrong.” but if you take everyone’s children out of it, i.e. the children of Sandy Hook, you take out the main impetus of the gun control movement in this case. In the original link they said it is “pornography” to bring a politician’s child into it. I want to know why their children are not to be the subject of debate, when mine are. But they are saying that isn’t a subject for debate. 

They are discussing writing laws that will affect me and my children, but not they and their children. The law is becoming selective, and this is a significant development in our nation’s jurisprudence. If these laws really work the way they are telling us they should, they they shouldn’t need police and armed guards at their schools, but I see no indication that they have any intent of changing that particular fact about their schools, which makes me question whether they really believe the laws will have the effect that they say they are for.

They aren’t putting their money where their mouth is. Not unusual for politicians. And they can blather like Christie did about how their children have no choice in the matter, but I still don’t see why that means they should be a special case. They can play on people’s sentiments all they want, but when you remove the sentiment and look at the facts he’s making a claim that they are a special class different from the rest of us. And they are getting people to buy into it by setting false parameters for the public forum.

I think this whole portion of the gun debate is making it more and more obvious that the true divide in the nation isn’t between the rich and poor (which is what the politicians have been trying to make us believe), but between the politicians and the citizenry.  Or it would make it obvious, if we were allowed to actually talk about it — which is why they are trying to limit the scope of any debate to exclude the fact.

Talk about a misleading headline….

Talk about a misleading headline….

A friend and former coworker of mine recently has been pasting and posting a lot of pro gun-control links and posts on her Facebook page.  I have remained very quiet and not responded to any of them.  But when she posted this link, I was so shocked, and not in the way I was “supposed” to be, that I just had to put down some comments on her Facebook page.  Here is what I wrote:

What I came away with was:

1) They never addressed the primary point of the ad: that the rich buy gun protection for themselves and deny them to the less wealthy.
2) They basically made the decision to call this particular point “off-limits” by using inflammatory language, describing it as “pornography” a straw man argument technique. An attempt to us social pressure to curtail other people’s free speech instead of dialoguing with them
3) I’m not sure I can identify a single genuine conservative here — in an article claiming to be stunning “conservative” pundits. These all seem to be pseudo-cons, or, to coin a new phrase, CINO — Conservatives in Name Only (to use an allusion to the RINO — Republicans in Name Only acronym). My wife says they might be what the liberals would call “reasonable conservatives,” the only conservatives they think should be allowed a voice.
4) They have declared themselves done, made themselves judge and jury to decide what is appropriate for people to believe — a very “liberal” sentiment.

Note in my comment above my Facebook comment, that I said I was not shocked in the way I was “supposed” to be shocked. The commentary from these falsely conservative pundits makes it obvious that they are expecting everyone to have the same reaction — to share theirs.  I get an obvious subtext, the feeling from them, that if I don’t, I am the same sort of extremist pariah that they are making out the NRA to be. 

I’m still reeling emotionally from the body blow of their summary judgmental intolerance parading as reasonableness. I would really like to have a genuine, rational discussion with them about the primary point, but I don’t think they would ever allow me. And that makes me really sad. Or, to use their words, “terrified” for our country.

Transit Thoughts #1 – Close Calls

Well, I got the idea for this blog about 7:20 this morning, but by 3 p.m., when my beautiful bride called me, it took a sudden turn, my original anecdote having lost to a more dramatic one.

I’ve been thinking for some time that I want to do periodic blogs on transportation, more particularly on bus transportation and the bicycling and pedestrian time I spend linking it all together.

This morning I got off the bus at 8th and Grand, and started the half-mile ride to work.  That involves going one block downhill to Walnut and then another block downhill to Main. I’ve only once caught the crosswalk at Walnut Street green, and today wasn’t that day. But I often coast down the hill to main and sail across the crosswalk there without stopping. Today was one of those days.

As I started down the hill, I saw the crosswalk light turn green. Two cars were coming in the far lane, I watched as they slowed down and stopped at the light.  I reached the near side of mainstreet at about 20 MPH and the crosswalk hadn’t even started counting down the time. Suddenly, the nearest car, which had been stopped for at least 5 seconds, suddenly went through the red light, went up to the turning/uturn lane and turned into the parking garage at 810 Main.  

Me, I braked as hard as I could until I saw the car turn, and continued on my way. 

Usually I’m watching in all directions to make sure I see possible dangers, since I don’t expect drivers to see me.  Make sure drivers at stop signs actually see me before crossing in front of me.  But I never would have worried about a stopped driver suddenly just running a red light right in front of me.

I planned on telling my wife that story some time later in the day.  But before I could, she called me.  Seems she’d gone to the Applebee’s in Liberty for lunch with her mother — a birthday lunch, and then they’d gone over to the JCPenny to do some birthday shopping. As they were leaving, my mother-in-law in front, and my wife in the car behind her, mom-in-law turned left to head toward rout 152 when a motorcycle that wasn’t there a moment before barreled over a little rise. She almost hit him, and pulled over into the left lane and stopped with what little momentum she had. 

The guy got off the motorcycle, mom rolled down the passenger window, and the guy yelled at her while she apologized. After finishing his rant, he headed toward the light.  Mom-in-law followed behind, since she was headed the same way, and they both turned on to 152, and got backed up in the long line of cars at the light at Church Road.  

The guy saw her still behind him, got off his bicycle, and came back to her car, pounding on her window for her to open it, breaking the side-view mirror.  My wife pulled out her phone and started talking to 911 — got the Liberty dispatch, but since they were technically in Kansas City, got transferred to that dispatch.

In the meantime, mom-in-law, who would not roll her window down this time, finally pulled out her phone, and when the guy realized, he went back to his motorcycle, and drove off between two rows of stopped cars and disappeared.

This was the point that my wife finally got to KC dispatch, and said since the guy was gone, police weren’t needed anymore. And of course none of them were able to get a good look at his license plate.

Now, as a bicyclist and pedestrian, I’m well aware that people need to watch out for motorycles, cyclist, pedestrians, etc. But I’m more aware that I need to watch out for the people who won’t be watching out for me.  Even so, I can still get surprised — like the guy who stopped at a red light for several seconds and then suddenly ran it.

That motorcyclist told mom-in-law during his first rant that it was the closest he’d ever come to getting hit. I doubt it.  If the stunt he pulled when finally getting away is any sign, he’s probably endangered himself and others many times before, but never noticed it, because he couldn’t see the chaos he created behind himself. 

 

The Campaigner in Chief

Well, as the fiscal cliff looms, it appears that the Campaigner-in-Chief is showing what he means by working out a bi-partisan compromise.

Do we find him sitting in a room with the House Republicans discussing options? No.

We find him meeting with business leaders in press-conference type sessions, making pronouncements about what the Republicans should be doing to compromise:

“Right now, as we speak, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income. Everybody’s,” Obama said.

“And that means that 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up by a single dime.”

What’s wrong with this, and his statement?

1) He is saying Republicans can compromise by doing exactly what he wants them to do, without him making any concessions. That apparently is his definition of compromise.

2) His statement about what percentage of businesses are affected is one of the “facts” in disagreement between him and the Republicans.  Republicans insist that a lot of small businesses do make more than the $250K and would be affected. For that matter, even if he is correct that most don’t, the $250K change sets a ceiling that discourages those businesses from growing beyond that point and prevents them from generating the new jobs that that growth would create. It could encourage them to stay small, or become smaller, cutting jobs, to stay within the defined threshhold.

3) It would be just as true to for him to have said: ”Right now, as we speak, Congress can pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on all of everybody’s income. Everybody’s, And that means that all Americans and all small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up by a single dime.” Congress can pass whatever tax law they choose to. He spoke a truism about what Congress can do, but is implying, and letting the press infer, that because they can do the option he mentioned, that it is the correct option, when it is merely an option, one of many, that needs to be chosen among. Discussing the merits among those options, and working toward one mutually acceptable, is the bipartisan process of compromise he is supposed to be doing. This isn’t.

4) Obama is stuck in campaign mode. Talking points and sound bites are the only way he knows how to work. We need him to show executive skills to actually govern. Instead we are audience to a perpetual campaign.

As a related aside, there is a connection between this and a comment I made to someone at work today.  I said I had learned long ago in my college days, that usually when you are discussing something with someone who disagrees with you, that if you try to answer their question exactly as they asked it, you are almost guaranteed to not be able to prove your point to them. The bias in their question, and the assumptions underlying their original statement, preclude a fair presentation of your own information. The only way to get your point across is to rephrase the question to get to the real core of what you are trying to discuss, and then answer that question.

Obama is an artist of the biased question. By use of his assumptions he makes what should really be the beginning question for discussion the final conclusion of the matter — he cuts out all chance for civil discourse. He ends up appearing more like Moses coming down from the Mount making the pronouncements from on high, than anyone actually involved in a negotiation with Congress. (I do admit to being curious as to who is at the top of his Mount from which his pronouncements come.)

In conclusion, be prepared for another 4 years of campaigning. That’s what Obama is, a career campaigner, not a career politician.

Suffrage is overrated

I’m reading the book  ”Theodore Roosevelt’s History of the United States” by Daniel Ruddy. In the book Ruddy takes direct quotes from the plentiful historical writings of TR to create a general history of the USA.  In the section on James Madison I ran across this interesting quote (italics mine):

“He did not believe that the ignorant and dependent could be trusted to vote, thinking the freeholders the safest guardians of our rights. On the suffrage his views are perfectly defensible. It is simply idle folly to talk of suffrage as being an ‘inborn’ or ‘natural’ right. There are enormous communities totally unfit for its exercise, while true universal suffrage has never been, and never will be, seriously advocated by anyone. There must always be an age limit, and such a limit must necessarily be purely arbitrary. The wildest Democrat of Revolutionary times did not dream of doing away with the restrictions of race and sex which kept most Americans from the ballot box.” — Theodore Roosevelt

I realize in this current age, possessing as I do, demographically, the position of a white male, that group which historically in the USA has had the most certain and easy access to suffrage, it could be rather dangerous of me to suggest the right to vote isn’t really the all-important thing it is made during elections in our modern democracy (excuse me, I mean republic). After all, there are so many people, from so many groups, who have systematically been excluded from the suffrage, suppressed.

Nevertheless, TR’s assertion that the franchise isn’t one of our ‘natural’ rights intrigued me. I went back to the Declaration of Independence, where our forefathers put forth their understanding of our “unalienable” rights:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the right to vote, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I hope you noticed my little editorial comment above. Because the right to vote is not listed in the declaration. Of course, that doesn’t mean it isn’t an unalienable right in this context — the declaration does say “among these are,” indicating only a partial list — though one might suggest they attempted to list what they thought were the most important. On the other hand, the views of Madison, as reflected by TR, would indicate that it wasn’t in their list.

Which led me to the personal question of what would make me willing to give up my right to vote, or what right is more important than my right to vote. I think it all turns on the question of what is a “natural” right and what isn’t.

Segue to quote from Sarah A. Hoyt’s blog here on WordPress.com  According to Hoyt on Nov. 17, 2012 (italics mine):

“Abortion is, of course, one of those complex things.  It is not a natural right.  It can’t be a natural right because a human woman in a state of nature who tries to abort will more often than not end up offing herself along with the child.  You could say infanticide is a natural right, as it has been practiced by most civilizations throughout the ages, less so in Judeo Christian lands, but impossible to stamp out just like murder is impossible to stamp out.  Of course it violates another person’s natural right to life, but in the case of infants that is always iffy as “natural” as they require someone else to defend them.  So, it is a very complex thing, not from a moral but from a NATURAL point of view.”

Hoyt made some excellent points in her blog about how rights like the “right” to an abortion can have unintended effects on other “rights”. Which made me consider that I should be less concerned with how many rights I have, and more concerned with having the most important rights. And quite honestly, is voting one of them?

In our current setup I would say probably yes, but only from a negative standpoint.

I feel the most important rights are the triumvirate of the declaration: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. All the other rights link to these in one way or another.

Actually Thomas Jefferson, when writing the Declaration, took that trio out of John Locke, though he changed Locke’s third point, which was Property, not Pursuit of Happiness.  But I see that as a mere expansion of property. The right to security in one’s property is the key to the pursuit of happiness. As Susan Bradley (played by Judy Garland), said in the movie Harvey Girls:

“After all, the Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness, but it’s up to me to do the pursuing.”

Even if Susan confuses the Declaration with the Constitution, she has the point right: the guarantee of equal opportunity (not equal results), and the lack of interference from government in its pursuit, is the true measure.

So, I see the right to vote as necessary to protect those other rights, attempting to use it as  my individual veto on the encroachment of government into my liberty and property.

Other than that, democracy really doesn’t mean that much to me. I much prefer a representative republic.  When those two words are used, people usually concentrate on the word representative, when they should concentrate on republic, because that is where the true key lies.  Democracy is the rule of the majority, i.e. the mob. A republic is the rule of law. If the law preserves my triumvirate of rights, then whether I have the vote or not, I am still free.

Food for thought? Comments?

Reflections on Hostess

Well, we didn’t get there soon enough — not a Twinkie was in sight by the time we reached the Hostess outlet this morning. 

The parking lot was full, and the store had plenty of people, but not much merchandise. Seems a lot of people had the same idea, to see what was available before it was all gone.

No sales, and why should they, when everyone seemed willing to buy things at whatever price they had. I walked out with nothing. All the really Hostess products were gone, and the bread was regular price, and not a huge lot of that.  Cookies and stuff was there, but I didn’t usually buy that, so no need to buy it today.

And thus passes an era. But why did it pass? There are long answers and short answers, immediate causes and long term causes. Let me try a short answer on an immediate cause: Greed and self-centeredness.

When I heard the news that they were going out of business yesterday, I told Betsy, if I was a part of the 70% of the employees who agreed to concessions to keep the company open, I’d be really upset at the Bakers’ Union for losing us all our jobs.

Betsy replied that even the Teamsters told them not to strike, and if the Teamsters say no, with their reputation, you should listen.

But the Bakers Union was sure that they deserved their raise and who cares about anyone else. 

Employers need to show that they care about equitable treatment of their employees if they expect long-term success.  But employees need to support the long-term health of their employers as well, if they want to keep their jobs.  The Bakers’ Union forgot that. 

Our government would do well to learn from this, though I doubt they will learn the right lesson.

“Don’t Boo, Vote, Voting is the Best Revenge”

Definition of REVENGE

1

: to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree

2

: to inflict injury in return for <revenge an insult>

Pardon me for taking the above comment personally, but what have we, the supporters of Mitt Romney, done, that requires someone to take revenge upon us? For that is the context and intent of President Obama’s comment. I really wish I understood what terrible offense has been committed that requires such a strong sense of retribution against me.

There have been a lot of divisive comments made during the campaign. I’m trying to decide why this one disturbs me most. I think it is because it ISN’T a statement that the one side is making against the other one, isn’t a piece of negative campaigning. That I could easily fathom. But this is a course of action and motivation recommended to supporters — an appeal to what should be one of their basic motivations.

If this is really a motivating factor, then I find myself concerned about a leader brought to power by such appeals to base instincts . If it isn’t a true motivating factor, then the person who gave the challenge is way out of touch, which is also not a good thing for a leader.

The above quote instantly brought another presidential quote, this one from President Lincoln, to my mind, as a counter-point:

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, … to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Please do not vote for revenge, but vote for love of country. And after the voting is done, let us seek malice toward none, and charity for all.

Dog Weekend Warrior, Part 2

Well, it seems like the dog is into setting new speed records. 22.2 MPH today.  I think these weekend workouts might just be improving his fitness.  We averaged 7.9 MPH on a 1.444 mile course over 10:58 minutes, not counting pauses to sniff things, or stops to gaze at two cats we wanted to chase, but seemed to have learned by now that he isn’t allowed that far off road during these weekend runs.

Those temptations by cats are perhaps the greatest risks on the route, not including the cats.  Imagine going 20 mph on a bicycle down a street, then suddenly being pulled sideways 45 or 90 degrees — especially dangerous if the pull is also across and not merely to the same side the dog was originally on.

It was actually quite amazing — I spotted both cats before the dog did, like I usually do (somehow he’s not as visually agile as I am, more motivated by the nose, it seems) — and we’d actually gone completely past one of them before he suddenly realized he needed to check out what was back there. I was prepared, so the sudden stop wasn’t really as sudden as it might have been.

Democrats Support The Public Good

I’ve seen the above bumper sticker many times in the church parking lot, but it didn’t spur the below blog idea until I saw the same bumper sticker on a car this morning while driving between Sherwin Williams stores to find the store that had the type of stain I needed to prepare the front steps before winter.

The idea — see how many of the reporter’s key questions I could apply to the slogan to find out what it is really saying. So here goes:

Who? — Democrats. Does this mean only Democrats? Are Democrats the only ones who support the public good, or are they just one of many groups that support the public good?

What? – The Public Good. What is the public good? Are Democrats the only ones who know what the public good is? Is the public good whatever Democrats say that it is? How do Democrats know what the public good is?

When? — Verb is present tense. So now, ongoing. Does this mean always? Or do they support some of the public good but not all the public good? Or do they support all the public good, just not all the time?

Where? — Doesn’t say. Shall I deduce since the Democratic Party is a U.S. political party that we can say this is for the USA, or do they support the public good all around the world?

Why? — Unanswered. The statement gives no clue to motivation. Are we to assume that this is a totally altruistic motive? Do they support it out of enlightened self interest? Because it gives them political power?

How? — This is the question my mind answered first when I saw the bumper sticker this morning: with other people’s money. They are quite blatant on this point actually. The rich need to “pay their fair share.” No appeal to charity. I’ll admit that answer isn’t in the bumper sticker, but in other things they’ve said in the recent campaign.

The above exercise shows how a simple, innocuous, feel-good phrase can be totally empty of any actual content. It doesn’t really say anything, or if it does, it probably doesn’t say what people’s good feelings want it to say.