July 14, 2014 § 1 Comment
“But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 19:14.
For the past few days our TV screens have been filled with pictures of women and children, exhausted, desperate, bewildered, eyes filled with fear, being herded toward cyclone fenced cages or bedded in crowded makeshift dormitories. These are not pictures from Somalia or Sudan. They are scenes in South Texas and California.
Before and after these pictures we have watched officials elected to govern Texas and the United States, commenting on these scenes and the issues they illustrate. There has been little or no evidence of empathy or compassion from these officials. They talk only of the obstacles and barriers slowing down the process of loading these mothers and children on buses or airplanes and shipping them back where they came from.
The obstacles and barriers that confound these officials are familiar ones: The Constitution and federal laws, sources of constant frustration to government officials who are confident they know how best to handle “the situation”, but they are hamstrung by these pesky legal requirements, by which they mean such concepts as “due process” and requirements that children be protected from harm.
In this post I will cite some facts that should inform our reaction to these pictures. I will also express my opinion of what, so far, appears to be the reaction of our governors.
Who Is To Blame?
The Republican Party Response
Instead of arguing about the right response to the migration of these mothers and children, all energy has been spent assessing the blame for that migration. As usual, the prize for most creative reaction goes to the leadership of the Republican Party, notably John Boehner and a hitherto obscure Congressman, Raul Labrador. Raul is a Puerto Rican Morman, raised and schooled in Nevada who, after finishing college in Washington state, settled in Idaho. He has been in Congress for four years, is on the Natural Resources and Judiciary committees; sponsored the absurd “balanced budget bill”; and was chosen by David Gregory as an authority on immigration issues and allowed to spout misinformation on national television in last week’s “Meet the Press” show.
Labrador’s take: Central American violence has nothing to do with recent increase in mothers and children fleeing to the U.S.. He explained that San Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala have long been violent places. The real reason for the recent migration is the President’s decision not to deport “dreamers”. Gregory was too polite to tell the Congressman that the President’s program to stop deporting kids who were brought to the U.S. by their parents does not apply to anyone arriving here now. When Gregory suggested that the Congressman might seem harsh ,”to some people” (certainly not to a seasoned journalist like Gregory, but to “some people”) , Raul was quick with a rejoinder: He assured Gregory and, presumably, those who might consider him a heartless jackass, that packing up those mothers and children and sending them back to Honduras, where the murder rate is the highest in the world, or wherever else they came from, was really doing them a favor. [I'm not making this up. Here is a link: Labrador]
John Boehner’s analysis was not as creative as Labrador’s. He merely repeated the usual GOP slogan: That the “problem” results from Barack Obama’s failure to “secure the border”. The pasting of this bumper sticker on this issue is close to a joke. The mothers and children seeking a safe haven did not sneak across an insecure border. They waded or rode rafts across, looking for a Border Patrolman to offer them shelter and help. They were like a shopper in a department store looking for a clerk.
To summarize: The Republicans are trying to equate the migration of these mothers and children to the “49ers” who heard rumors of a gold strike at Sutter’s Mill; packed up and decamped to California. It will surely strain the credulity of Americans to see this as a sensible reaction to a real problem.
The Democratic Party’s Response
So far, I am not very proud or impressed with the response of my Party. I have seen some evidence that they might join the GOP in repealing the law designed to protect trafficking in children. That law requires a hearing to determine whether a child is entitled to asylum before a decision is made to deport him or her. It does not apply to migrants from countries contiguous to the U.S., like Mexico. It does apply to Central American countries. To the government, speed is more important than the niceties of justice or due process. There aren’t enough trained hearing officers or lawyers knowledgeable about immigration law to handle several thousand hearings. There are published reports of a backlog of 375,000 cases waiting for immigration hearings. And this backlog existed before this latest migration.
A Congressman’s Winding Trail
One Congressman, Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from a District that includes Webb and Hidalgo Counties and stretches north through the brush country to rural towns just east of San Antonio, has joined the GOP chorus blaming Obama for not visiting the border during his recent trip to Texas; seeks the repeal of the child trafficking law; and holds Obama responsible for the present migration problem.
Cuellar was elected to the Texas House of Representatives; resigned after a short time; was appointed to be Secretary of State by Rick Perry; ran for Congress against Willie Bonilla; was defeated; then, after the gerrymandering of congressional districts, ran against Ciro Rodriguez, a liberal Democrat.
The race ended with very few votes separating the two candidates and vigorous claims by Rodriguez that votes had been miscounted. An election contest was filed in Webb County (Laredo). The district judge, sitting by assignment, gutted Rodriguez’ effort to have a full blown trial by striking part of his pleading, denying a motion for a brief delay so that he could marshal evidence of suspicious vote counting, and generally insuring that he would not be able to prove vote fraud. [The judge was Joseph H. Hart, who, so far as I have been able to determine, was and is an honest and conscientious judge. I don't agree with what I found out about his decision in this case, but I have no evidence that he was or is corrupt.]
On appeal, the San Antonio Court of Appeals, in a split 2 to 1 decision, reversed almost every ruling by Hart and remanded the case for a hearing on the merits. A motion for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel decision was reversed. So Cuellar went to Congress. Since then he has been re-elected with little or no opposition. His voting record on key issues is 100% consistent with the Democratic caucus, but he has an 88% approval rating from the United States Chamber of Commerce.
As I have researched this guy and watched him stab Obama in the back, I began to have a deja vu reaction. Then it hit me: Cuellar is like LBJ: Rick Perry was Cuellar’s Brown & Root. His first defeat by Bonilla was his Lee O’Daniel defeat; followed by LBJ’s Coke Stevenson race; Cuellar’s was with Ciro Rodriguez. Then, after going to Washington, he did what was required to stay out of trouble with the national party, but cozened a smooth path by maintaining his alliance with the Texas GOP and corporate business lobbyists. “Landslide Henry” is a bush-league version of “Landslide Lyndon”.
I don’t know how the maneuvering in Washington will play out. So far, as stated, it appears that morality and compassion will have little to do with it. Everyone’s focus is on the next election and the presidential election after that. Obama would love to use the present crisis to bulldoze a reform of our immigration laws and procedure but the Republicans, paranoid as a result of the Tea Party’s defeat of Eric Cantor, are not likely to permit that result.
It will be interesting to see how Hillary reacts to this issue. I assume her opinion will depend on polling and that now seems uncertain. Letitia Van de Putte has denounced Cuellar’s perfidy. Wendy Davis, so far as I know, has been silent on this entire issue. I hope her advisers are not clinging to the false hope that, by not mentioning controversial issues, she can skate into office with the votes of liberal opponents of Abbot plus those of uninformed voters who will vote for her because she is a blonde woman.
I don’t think that is a winning strategy, but it is an often tried one. The problem with it is that it fails to inspire liberals while not fooling conservatives, whose well financed attack machine will pin controversial labels on her regardless of whether she earns them. It was a very popular strategy in the late fifties and the sixties, when Democratic Party candidates tried to garner black votes without supporting civil rights, thinking they could count on black support because of the blatant racism of their opponents and by including a sentence in their speeches that promised justice to “ALL Texans”. (Get it? ALL means “including blacks”). Don Yarborough was the first serious candidate for governor of Texas who did not play that game. But for the assassination of JFK in 1963, I think he would have become Texas’ governor.
Much of what I have seen on TV for the past ten days or so has been either factually inaccurate or transparently hypocritical. The journalists are not doing their job. The following are irrelevant to the recent upsurge in migration of children from Central America:
a. Securing the Border (the children want to be caught).
b. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) (It applies only to children who entered the U.S. on or before June 15, 2007) See guidelines.
c. The Obama administration’s statements and policies. (The last thing Obama needed or wanted was thousands of Central American mothers and children flooding across the U.S./Mexico border, overwhelming the ability of the Border Patrol and Department of Immigration to deal with them.)
The best factual account of the background of this phenomenon is a report forwarded to me by my friend, Sissy Farenthold. I describes the out-of-control violence in Honduras, Salvador and Guatemala, as well as the life-threatening perils of the long trek through Mexico to the Texas or California borders. Here is a link:
I believe the U.S. should offer to help our Central American neighbors deal with the lawless gangs that appear to have turned some areas in those countries into hunting grounds for victims of extortion, kidnapping and murder. I don’t know whether it is practical, but it seems likely that Mexico and some South American countries would be willing to join in a coalition to confront the narco gangs that are proliferating in Central America.
Regardless of how effective these efforts are, I don’t see how the United States can abandon its vaunted human rights values by declaring a sort of martial law, rounding up these mothers and children and shipping them back to face life threatening abuse and poverty in their homeland. Some of these migrants undoubtedly qualify as refugees and are entitled to asylum. According to estimates I have seen, 90% of them have family members or family friends who are willing to assume responsibility for them. Careful screening of those people should precede transferring custody to them, a process that will require time, talent and effort.
No child’s fate should be determined without a lawyer to insure that his or her rights are protected. Without researching the issue, I assume that there are many lawyers and law students , appropriately supervised, who would be willing to attend appropriate training courses and qualify themselves to perform that work. Agencies like the American Arbitration Association can furnish adjunct hearing officers to conduct semi-formal hearings. The hearings should be recorded digitally, so that a record is made for possible later appeals.
The problem, as I see it, is not that we lack the ingenuity to solve these problems. The problem is that our elected agents lack the wit, the conscience or the will to address them.
Finally, although I make no pretensions to religious credentials or affiliation, I do regard the Bible as a good, but not the only, book. The teachings of Jesus, as they are described in parts of the New Testament, celebrate and honor some of our most noble concerns for the welfare of our fellow inhabitants of this planet. Now is the time for those who claim allegiance to the Bible to speak out in the spirit of Christ’s statement that our treatment of the “least of these” is equivalent to our treatment of Him. Matthew: 25:31-46.
June 29, 2014 § Leave a comment
I have seen reports of polling data disclosing that most Americans are indifferent to wealth inequality. They oppose measures designed to diminish economic inequality by increased taxation of both current and inherited wealth. This is surprising to me. The standard explanation for this phenomenon is that, as John Steinbeck wrote, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” In other words, if you expect to become wealthy, you do not favor high taxes on wealth.
That explanation was never satisfying to me because it merely left me with another question: “What the hell makes you think you have any realistic chance of becoming wealthy?” Today I think I found a clue to the answer to that second question. I discovered an online web magazine (the hip word is ezine pronounced “ee-zine”), Ozy.com (named after Shelly’s sonnet, “Ozymandias”). It recently featured a story that included a statistic I had never before encountered: 77% of Americans, at some time in their life, have an annual income of $100,000 or more. But only 4.6% retain that income level for five years or more.
Stop and consider this. That gives a new and more nuanced meaning to Steinbeck’s remark. Having once experienced having a $100,000 income, it is not so hard to understand that a person might identify with wealthy people. Of course, as the Ozy article states, there are many circumstances that may lead to an increased annual income: a temporary windfall, like a bonus, an inheritance, a tort settlement, a fortuitous marriage, being hired for well-paying job. There are also lots of reasons for sudden losses of annual incomes: bad investments, job losses, medical catastrophes, death. Another likely factor at play here is that, if a working class person finds himself with an annual income of $100,000, he might well believe that he has joined the wealthy class; not realizing that, to the appropriate targets of redistributive taxation, $100,000 is pocket change.
Here is a link to the article: Accumulating Wealth
Thinking about this has also reminded me of one of my favorite literary metaphors: The unstable coach described in Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward”. Because, to me, this is relevant to our present situation, I will close this post with an extensive quote from the first chapter of that book:
“By way of attempting to give the reader some general impression of the way people lived together in those
days, and especially of the relations of the rich and poor to one another, perhaps I cannot do better than to
compare society as it then was to a prodigious coach which the masses of humanity were harnessed to and
dragged toilsomely along a very hilly and sandy road. The driver was hunger, and permitted no lagging,
though the pace was necessarily very slow. Despite the difficulty of drawing the coach at all along so hard a
road, the top was covered with passengers who never got down, even at the steepest ascents. These seats on
top were very breezy and comfortable. Well up out of the dust, their occupants could enjoy the scenery at their
leisure, or critically discuss the merits of the straining team. Naturally such places were in great demand and
the competition for them was keen, every one seeking as the first end in life to secure a seat on the coach for
himself and to leave it to his child after him. By the rule of the coach a man could leave his seat to whom he
wished, but on the other hand there were many accidents by which it might at any time be wholly lost. For all
that they were so easy, the seats were very insecure, and at every sudden jolt of the coach persons were
slipping out of them and falling to the ground, where they were instantly compelled to take hold of the rope
and help to drag the coach on which they had before ridden so pleasantly. It was naturally regarded as a
terrible misfortune to lose one’s seat, and the apprehension that this might happen to them or their friends was
a constant cloud upon the happiness of those who rode.
But did they think only of themselves? you ask. Was not their very luxury rendered intolerable to them by
comparison with the lot of their brothers and sisters in the harness, and the knowledge that their own weight
added to their toil? Had they no compassion for fellow beings from whom fortune only distinguished them?
Oh, yes; commiseration was frequently expressed by those who rode for those who had to pull the coach,
especially when the vehicle came to a bad place in the road, as it was constantly doing, or to a particularly
steep hill. At such times, the desperate straining of the team, their agonized leaping and plunging under the
pitiless lashing of hunger, the many who fainted at the rope and were trampled in the mire, made a very
distressing spectacle, which often called forth highly creditable displays of feeling on the top of the coach. At
such times the passengers would call down encouragingly to the toilers of the rope, exhorting them to
patience, and holding out hopes of possible compensation in another world for the hardness of their lot, while
others contributed to buy salves and liniments for the crippled and injured. It was agreed that it was a great
pity that the coach should be so hard to pull, and there was a sense of general relief when the specially bad
piece of road was gotten over. This relief was not, indeed, wholly on account of the team, for there was
always some danger at these bad places of a general overturn in which all would lose their seats.
Chapter 1 7
It must in truth be admitted that the main effect of the spectacle of the misery of the toilers at the rope was to
enhance the passengers’ sense of the value of their seats upon the coach, and to cause them to hold on to them
more desperately than before. If the passengers could only have felt assured that neither they nor their friends
would ever fall from the top, it is probable that, beyond contributing to the funds for liniments and bandages,
they would have troubled themselves extremely little about those who dragged the coach.
I am well aware that this will appear to the men and women of the twentieth century an incredible inhumanity,
but there are two facts, both very curious, which partly explain it. In the first place, it was firmly and sincerely
believed that there was no other way in which Society could get along, except the many pulled at the rope and
the few rode, and not only this, but that no very radical improvement even was possible, either in the harness,
the coach, the roadway, or the distribution of the toil. It had always been as it was, and it always would be so.
It was a pity, but it could not be helped, and philosophy forbade wasting compassion on what was beyond
The other fact is yet more curious, consisting in a singular hallucination which those on the top of the coach
generally shared, that they were not exactly like their brothers and sisters who pulled at the rope, but of finer
clay, in some way belonging to a higher order of beings who might justly expect to be drawn. This seems
unaccountable, but, as I once rode on this very coach and shared that very hallucination, I ought to be
believed. The strangest thing about the hallucination was that those who had but just climbed up from the
ground, before they had outgrown the marks of the rope upon their hands, began to fall under its influence. As
for those whose parents and grand-parents before them had been so fortunate as to keep their seats on the top,
the conviction they cherished of the essential difference between their sort of humanity and the common
article was absolute. The effect of such a delusion in moderating fellow feeling for the sufferings of the mass
of men into a distant and philosophical compassion is obvious. To it I refer as the only extenuation I can offer
for the indifference which, at the period I write of, marked my own attitude toward the misery of my brothers.”
I read this book long ago but the anger it evoked in me has proved to be permanent, although I have found less self-destructive ways to deal with it than I did when I was younger.
June 10, 2014 § Leave a comment
In the last forty eight hours I have read some articles indicating to me that we face a formidable, perhaps insurmountable, problem. It is not a new problem but the arithmetic provided by Thomas Picketty makes our likely future seem especially galling. To illustrate what I mean, let me suggest other , analogous examples.
We have effective vaccines to prevent measles and other forms of childhood illnesses. But a significant segment of our population refuses to vaccinate their children because they have found statements on the web claiming that vaccines are dangerous. No matter how many physicians go on TV to debunk these claims, those parents still insist on “protecting” their children from vaccines.
Another example: The overwhelming majority of respected scientists have been shouting for years that fossil fuel is causing climate changes that threaten significant portions of the planet. We know how to reduce this threat by limiting the use of those fuels But implementing regulations to effect those limits has proved to be politically difficult. It seems likely that, by the time we finally take appropriate steps to protect ourselves, it will be too late to avoid many of the destructive results of climate change.
Another example: Evolution has long been an accepted scientific explanation for the history of our species. Physiology, anthropology, archeology, much of medical research, and virtually all other scientific disciplines are based, to some extent, on the theory of evolution. But Charles Blow, in an article in the NY Times two days ago, reported that a recent poll showed that thirty-two percent of Americans believe that the world was created 10,00 years ago, just as Genesis states. What’s more, since their belief is based on their religious creed, any faltering doubt they might have will, as they see things, threaten them with divine punishment, so confronting them with evidence contrary to that idea is pointless.
And, of course, as I have remarked before: George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004.
So, given these examples and this history, I am pessimistic about the likelihood of a rational response to Picketty’s evidence that we face a worldwide progressive redistribution of wealth to a smaller and smaller group of oligarchs, while the rest of the world’s population languishes in a steadily expanding slough of poverty or near poverty, with no significant prospect of escaping from it. Here is a link to an article that predicts that, during the next five years, the wealth of the world’s population of millionaires, who, in 2013 controlled $8.4 trillion in wealth, will, by 2018 control $13.0 trillion. During that five years, the projected gap between those oligarchs and the rest of us will grow dramatically.
One more bit of news: Like you, I often see any indication of rising wage rates equated with the threat of inflation. Here are some facts that establish, at least to my satisfaction, that rising profits have been the main, in fact the only, source of inflation since the end of the recession.
These facts establish, it seems to me, that our economic system unfairly rewards the rich few and does a poor job of sharing wealth with the working class. Most western countries, where these circumstances prevail, are democracies. That means that there are non-violent means of correcting this obvious injustice. The problem, however, is succinctly stated by a popular comedian, Ron White. His remarks are crude, tasteless and sexist. His message, however, worth considering: Our Picketty problem may be that you can’t fix stupid.
June 6, 2014 § 1 Comment
As my friends know, I am usually more critical than celebratory about religion and its influence on politics. I have had to re-examine that attitude since Francis has become Pope. Recently a Cardinal from Argentina, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, made a speech at a conference on Catholicism and Libertarianism held in Washington near he Capitol. Here is a link to some of his remarks: Speech .
You can’t get much plainer than that! Paul Ryan’s next confession should be interesting.
I didn’t wade through the comments, but I read enough to let me see the interesting dialogue that goes on between rank-and-file Catholics and non-Catholics about the Church’s doctrine concerning abortion, homosexuality, contraception and other issues. It is clear to me that, regardless of these issues, the new Pope and his supporters are establishing a new public face of the Catholic Church. As our political interest focuses more on our Chicano bothers and sisters, this is a welcome development.
June 1, 2014 § Leave a comment
If you dig pop music, you should check out the 2014 Rock and Roll Induction Ceremony. I watched the first hour or so last night and plan to watch the rest today. It is playing and re-playing all day on HBOSIG. That’s Channel 808 on AT&T Uverse. I don’t know about Comcast. The segment on Peter Gabriel is great and the singers substituting for Linda Ronstadt are wonderful. (Emma Lou Harris; Cheryl Crow, Bonnie Rait and a couple of others whose names I didn’t get). You can see KISS: four old guys without makeup talking and looking like refugees from the Rotary Club. But, they managed to produce some of the wildest, craziest entertainment ever seen. I’m not sure it was music but gazillion people all over the world got off to it.
On a more serious note: I hope you watched Brian Williams’ interview of Edward Snowden. You can watch it as well as an hour of panel discussion about it online at CBS news.com. My reaction was that Snowden appeared more believable than the spokesmen for the NSA,
Finally, here is my favorite example of white soul music: Bonnie Rait .
May 31, 2014 § 1 Comment
In case you missed the story in Politico, I call your attention to Ken Vogel’s story entitled “Big money, the Koch Brothers and Me”. Here is a link
I’m not sure why I want to share this story. Maybe I want some company in my misery. It describes a problem but suggests no solution. It made an impression on me because it includes a quote from Barack Obama which amounts to the surrender of his hope for the future of our democracy. If you think I’m being too dramatic, just read his statement.
If he’s right, and he knows something about political money and the art of raising it, we are facing a government operated within limits imposed by a group of about 200 very rich people. It’s true that they do not share a common set of attitudes, nor do they agree on a common set of policies. The problem is , according to Obama’s stated opinion, they collectively have the power to choose the officials who govern our country.
I can think of two analogous examples of what this kind of government looks like: Rome during the glory days of its empire, when the Roman Senate effectively chose and controlled its leaders. The other example is the Mafia, which built an empire modeled on the Roman system. Both exercised power based on loyalty imposed by force but, generally not by brutal force so much as loyalty based on a sense of shared pride and trust in overwhelming power. The governed gave up their individual ability to make choices in exchange for the benefits of protection and sustenance doled out by their rulers.
This bargain was dramatically portrayed in some opening scenes of one of the Godfather movies. Don Vito Corleone leaves his daughter’s wedding celebration to hear a request for help and protection. He agrees to solve the problem, but tells the petitioner, “I may, or may not ask for a favor from you at some time in the future.”
The similarity between this scene and the explicit or implicit arrangement between politicians and their multimillionaire donors seems to me to be obvious, although the word “bribery” is never used to describe it.
I’m not going to quote the article. It is not long. I hope you will read it and consider it to be as disturbing as I do.
May 11, 2014 § 2 Comments
I don’t have any important information to convey this afternoon. I just need the disciplinary diversion involved in writing something to avoid focusing on sad reality. My Beverly is nearing the end of her life and, having spent all but the first six years of my life in some kind of relationship with her,, I have no idea how I will proceed without her. It is like contemplating the necessity for the surgical amputation of my legs or my eyes. I’m sure I could survive it, but I am baffled about what that would be like.
The Sterling Absurdity
Unless you have been living in a cave, your brain has been saturated with breathless accounts of the mouthings of Donald Sterling, the pathetic racist cracker who owns the LA Clippers NBA basketball franchise. The hilarity of this episode did not occur to me until I heard his explanation for his taped comments to a young black woman with whom he apparently had, or wanted to have, a sexual relationship. The relationship ended on terms that did not please her so she published one of their conversations in which he complained about her attending Clippers games accompanied by black men.
I found that news to be of limited interest: Surprise, surprise: This guy’s a racist.
A few days later, however, when he decided to defend himself, I was grateful for his exposure as a living punch line in a pretty funny joke. Here is an 80-year-old guy, who looks like death warmed over, claiming he was jealous of the black men who were squiring “his girlfriend” around. He said his comments were not racist; they were an effort to persuade her to have sex with him. In other words, this was his idea of effective foreplay.
Now I don’t claim to be expert on the subject but a couple of things seem obvious to me: First, if old Don really wanted the black girl to go to bed with him, I don’t think it was a wise move to harangue her about associating with black men. And second, and this is what was really funny to me, is it possible this guy really thought that whatever relationship he had, or hoped to have, with this young, reasonably attractive woman had anything to do with his ideas, his personality or his opinions? It must be obvious to everyone except silly Donald Sterling that if he wanted to have sex with a young woman, regardless of her color, the only thing in his pants that he might wave around was his wallet; forget about foreplay and seductive conversation.
Now, I know that I may offend someone because I find this funny. I know the talking heads on TV are engaged in serious discussions about the propriety of having one’s private conversations made public; about this evidence of persistent racism in our culture; about the tension between private property ownership and offensive racism; etc. etc. etc. I assume we will be treated to months of this discussion and, probably, to lengthy litigation. I’m ok with that. My opinion is that the proper people to analyze this matter are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
The Elephant and The Cell Phone
I include a link to one of the funniest online videos I have ever seen. It has no political, economic or sociological significance. I offer it only because it is both amusing and astonishing. It is a short drama in two acts. Be sure to continue to Act II. The Elephant
Business As Usual on Wall Street
A day or two ago I became aware of a blog called “Naked Capitalism”. It is managed by a veteran of Wall Street who now seems to take pride and glee in a sort of a “tell all” blog. Imagine what would happen if Carl Rove had a “Paul on the road to Damascus” experience and decided to establish a blog exposing what really happens on the political right-wing.
A recent post describes a speech by Andrew Bowden, a SEC agent, to a meeting of private equity managers and their investors. Private equities are entities set up to manage money invested by rich people. The managers do not invest in publicly traded stocks. They invest in private companies they buy and sell. Their investors agree, when they turn over their money, that they will not involve themselves in the managers’ decisions. The arrangements, as they are described in the blog post, remind me of the relationship between a lawyer and a client: The lawyer represents the client, but he or she does not allow the client to control the lawyer’s decisions and tactics.
The difference is that a lawyer’s job is limited to protecting and advocating the client’s legal rights and interests. The client is entitled to complete access to all information concerning the lawyer’s billable expenses. The lawyer can be fired at any time and so can the client. The private equity manager, by contrast has a duty to make the investor as much money as possible. In practice, there is little transparency between the manager and the investor. Until 2012, when Dodd-Frank was enacted, these arrangements were unregulated. Mr. Bowden’s speech described what the SEC found when it began its oversight. It is an eye-opener.
About fifty percent of the private equity managers investigated were found to be guilty of theft, fraud and various kinds of dishonesty. Mr. Bowden’s speech described some of the nefarious practices and it must have been an emotional experience for some of the investors in the audience. The obvious conflict of interest problems seem to be so prevalent as to be commonplace, a sort of “everybody does it” thing.
Did that “fifty percent” sink in? In other words, when these presumably sophisticated rich people decide to turn their money over to one of these private equity entities, there is a fifty-fifty chance they are trusting a fortune to a con man or a thief. Would you shoot craps with someone if you understood there was a fifty-fifty chance the dice were loaded? I regard this information as additional evidence to a long-held suspicion of mine: There is little correlation between intelligence and the acquisition of money.
Here is a link: Private Equity
It’s Sunday morning and I haven’t posted this stuff. I just watched “Reliable Sources”. The host interviewed Mike Rogers about his imminent departure from Congress to become a radio talk show host. He has crafted a political career around being the Congressional liar-in-chief concerning the government’s intelligence practices. In multiple appearances on Sunday talk shows, he claimed that Edward Snowden’s disclosures endangered the lives of patriotic Americans around the world; that the NSA’s indiscriminate spying on innocent Americans thwarted many serious and deadly threats of terrorist assaults on the U.S.; that the collection of telephone numbers of every American for the past seven years did not involve access to the content of telephone conversations except for carefully limited instances; etc. etc. etc.
No matter how many times these claims were found to be false; no matter how many times neither he nor anyone else, when challenged, failed to offer a single fact to back up Rogers’ claims; he persisted in spreading his lies. It makes sense for him to become a radio talk show host. He will now be paid big bucks for lying for a living. He told the Reliable Sources host that he plans to use his show to interview present and former NSA officials. So, we will now have these lies amplified through a tag-team of liars.
I think this NSA problem poses a classic First Amendment problem. The underlying theory of the First Amendment is that public, open discussion is the best insurer of governmental integrity; that dishonest and misleading propaganda will be exposed by the right of others to publicly proclaim the truth. But -and here is the problem – if the purveyor of the lies can hide behind laws protecting the truth from public disclosure, then the First Amendment does not work. So, Mike Rogers can become a millionaire by hosting a radio show to trumpet his lies while Edward Snowden is branded as a criminal for disclosing the truth. I know this is complicated. Government cannot afford to sanction law-breaking. But the end result is still troubling to me.