The "Best and Brightest" seem pretty dim these days

While I suspect that the George W. Bush economic policies, or lack thereof, are at least partly responsible for the current global recession, there is something much more important at the root of our economic woes, at least here in the United States.

America has seen itself as the best and the brightest of nations – innovative, talented, able to solve any problem – but that just doesn't seem to be true any more. Maybe it never was, but I think the United States, as a nation, lacks vision – in both senses of the word. We lack a vision of how to be innovators in all aspects of business, politics, life, and world leadership, and we can't seem to see that anything is wrong with us.

What's wrong? Here's my take:

Short-term thinking
The auto business is a good example of short-term thinking. American car companies focused more on SUVs and pick-up trucks because they would sell now, rather than focusing on the cars Americans would need in the future. They fought improved mileage standards and safety ratings rather than looking toward the future by developing more fuel-efficient vehicles. The result has been billions in losses and government bailouts.

The argument in favor of the Big Three groupthink has been that they are making cars the American people want and will buy. True enough as far as it goes, however, I can't fathom why auto industry executives, receiving huge salaries, couldn't see the changes coming (gas prices? pollution abatement?) and prepare for them unless there was a reward for short-term thinking and/or a punishment for long-term thinking.

The laws governing business, at least publicly-traded businesses, provide that reward and punishment. I'm generalizing here, but the rules governing businesses tracked by the Securities and Exchange Commission essentially state that the primary duty of a publicly-traded business (and its officers) is making money for shareholders. Therefore, any decision that negatively affects the stock price is a potential SEC violation. Investing in the future might be the smart thing to do, but it might also mean lower profits, lower stock prices, and dissatisfied shareholders.

Taken to the extreme, this is silly, but shareholders want money and they want it now. CEOs and boards of directors listen to shareholders. Shareholders have even been known to sue over actions that affect stock prices.

Stock prices or even high profits are not the only measures of a successful business. A business that gets away with illegally dumping toxic waste might be more profitable for its shareholders, but that doesn't make it a good company. The company's costs are just spread to the community at large in the form of (potentially) poor community health, degraded wildlife habitat, and toxic waste clean up.

Narrow thinking
Short-term thinking is in itself a form of narrow thinking, but being narrow minded has other aspects as well. Education is a great example. Most Americans would likely agree that a college education is a good thing. Why? There are a number of reasons: the ability to be a more effective citizen in a democracy, self-actualization, leaving a legacy of learning and knowledge to your children, better health, and others. But the main reason? The one everyone mentions first? Most often the only one people can think of? A college degree means a job that pays well.

A few years ago, I assigned students in several sections of a basic college composition class (English 101 or the equivalent) a paper that described the elements of a good education. Of the 90+ students who turned in a paper, ALL of them had only one requirement for a good education: a good education results in a job that pays well. Not a job that they loved, or at least could tolerate, only a job that provided a lot of money.

I can forgive this kind of narrow thinking in students. They are, by definition, ignorant of some of the more subtle aspects of education. One of the reasons for going to college is to learn to think more broadly. Unfortunately, many of the people in business and education in this country don't seem to have learned that lesson and America has suffered as a result. We have CEOs that can't think beyond profit and engineers that can't think beyond the way things were done 20 years ago.

Selfish thinking
All the narrow and short-term thinking, along with consumerism and a lack of understanding of what personal liberty really entails, has led Americans to be a particularly self-absorbed group. Too many people think that the world revolves around them, and only them.

While it's true that each of us can only respond to the world from our own experience, we should consider more than just ourselves when we interact with the world. Society is created from our interactions, and always interacting selfishly can lead to dire consequences.

Global warming? I don't know all the science, but response to global warming shows how we think selfishly. Critics suggest global warming does not exist or that it is not caused by human beings. I won't argue the points, but the general response to warnings seems to be that limiting emissions will hurt business. I have no doubt of it, but the potential death and suffering of billions of people does not seem comparable to reduced profits for business. I recognize that reduced profit affects people as well as businesses, however, the opportunity presented for business by the new technology required for doing business with limited emissions should more than overcome that suffering.

Caveats
This is obviously a book-length topic, so there are many arguments left unaddressed. I'm not sure if I have this book in me at the moment. In any event, comments are welcome, and if you know of a book that does cover this topic, let me know.

More later,
Russ

North Korea to be punished for nukes: Who decides punishment?

North Korea has tested another nuclear weapon – this one seemingly more effective than the first – and the rest of the world cries for punishment.

Well, maybe not the whole world. The countries crying most loudly for sanctions on North Korea are the countries that already have nuclear weapons. If the United Nations called for sanctions on China, France, the United States, or Great Britain, each would respond arrogantly that nuclear weapons were their sovereign right, and that no amount of sanctions (never going to happen, but play along anyway) will force [insert country with nukes here] to give up needed tools for defense.

So my question is what gives the United States and others the sovereign right to nuclear weapons, but denies that right to other sovereign nations?

I don't think nuclear weapons are a good idea no matter which country has them, but for states that have them to sanction states that develop them seems more than a little self-serving. The argument against "rogue" states such as North Korea getting nuclear weapons is that the more nukes that exist, the better the chance they will be used. GOOD POINT!

Why then, don't the United States and other nuclear powers get rid of their nukes?

Mutually assured destruction? There's got to be a better way.

Smells like hypocrisy to me.

More later,
Russ

The rule of law is the ONLY way to fight terrorism

Torture: From left or right, nobody gets it
Two columnists, both distributed by Tribune Media Services, one identifying himself in the column as a northern liberal, and the other clearly conservative, had columns on the torture memos/controversy in my local paper recently.

Garrison Keillor and Cal Thomas each wrote about torture of "enemy combatants," the release of information about torture, and what should be done about it. Each had a good point or two, but both got it exactly wrong for the same reason.

The Liberal
Keillor wants a Truth Commission or Congressional investigation, but says no one should be held accountable:

The free play of sadism on the helpless in the name of national service is not to be ignored. What's needed is a fair and thorough congressional investigation. Subpoena witnesses and lay the whole wretched business out on the public record. Look into the heart of darkness and meditate on it. But don't round up a few symbolic suspects and throw the book at them and let all the others go free. Which is what would happen if we launch a criminal prosecution.

I'm all for the unvarnished truth, but "Look into the heart of darkness and meditate on it?" This is the kind of fuzzy-headed, pseudo-self-esteem building psychobabble that characterizes the worst of American liberalism. If all we do is gaze at our collective navel, our national self-esteem will be damaged even more than it has been by the "alleged" criminals in the Bush administration.

There's nothing wrong with feeling good about ourselves as a nation, but we also should feel bad about being Americans when the United States does things that are wrong — like torture.

The Conservative
Thomas, of course, says that there's nothing wrong with these "enhanced interrogation techniques" because getting information that will save American lives requires using any means necessary. These are bad guys so torturing them is OK.

Most of Thomas' column isn't about whether or not using torture should be allowed. That America should torture terrorists is a given for him. One of his arguments is that information about torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" should not be released because it helps America's enemies. He quotes a former director of the CIA saying essentially that Loose Lips Sink Ships:

Porter Goss, the former director of the CIA and former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote an op-ed column for The Washington Post recently in which he said, “I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can’t have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets.”

Goss is not a wishful thinker: “The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate.”

"The rules by which we operate" are the heart of the matter
What Keillor and Thomas fail to grasp, and what Goss accidentally pointed out, is that while Americans may not be able to come to agreement on the definition of torture, or whether or not information gathered using torture is reliable, or even the morality of using torture to possibly save lives, the United States was founded on the principle of the rule of law. We make rules (laws) and everyone in this country is obliged to follow them or face punishment.

Torture is banned by United States law. Prosecution must take place, even if it makes us uncomfortable. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Even if it were, the release of so-called "torture memos" make it clear that no one involved was ignorant of the law against torture. Following orders, good intentions (how someone can torture another human being with good intentions is beyond me), or even saving lives are not viable excuses. They might mitigate punishment, but unless the rule of law is enforced, we are no better than terrorists.

More later,
Russ

I wouldn't want to be like you

The headline is the title to an old Alan Parsons Project song, I think.

More to the point, I wouldn't want to be like Bush, and I don't want to vote for anyone who acts like Bush. The presidential campaign, besides starting way too early (Shouldn't all these Senators and members of Congress be doing the job they have rather than campaigning for their next job?), all of the candidates are competing for the job.

I don't want competition in my government. I want those elected to work together to do the right thing for the United States and the world. Sure, they can argue about what the right thing is, but they should all be working toward determining the right policy, the right action, the right whatever. The current candidates are more concerned with their own egos than with the job of being a good president.

Impeach them all!

More later,
Russ

American arrogance shows in New York Times headline

This headline appeared in the email "Today's Headlines" from the New York Times today.

Pakistani Sets Emergency Rule, Defying the U.S.

The question in my mind is: If Pakistan is a sovereign nation, isn't any action its government takes based on its own authority? And if that's true, how can any action they take be "defying the U.S."?

The New York Times seems to have bought in to the idea that the United States is the boss of all other countries in the world. Poor headline writing. Shame on the Times.

More later,
Russ