Too Big not to Bailout? Or, Too Big to Let Continue?

The response of Wall Street on not getting their bailout shows how bad things really have gotten. Is there a bit of the spoiled, dependent child?

An AP article reports the Wall Street whine:

Traders on the floor were stunned by the House vote.

"How could this have happened? Is there such a disconnect on Capitol Hill? This becomes a problem because Wall Street is very uncomfortable with uncertainty," said Gordon Charlop, managing director with Rosenblatt Securities. "The bailout not going through sends a signal that Congress isn't willing to do their part."

Main Street responds...

This really shows how bad it has gotten, not just economically but socially and politically as well.

Congress disconnected? Not willing to do their part?

Clearly Wall Street has had congress in their pocket so much and for so long that they no longer view them as being independent of their way of thinking. It is as if there has been no other legitimate economic voice in this country besides Wall Street. Perhaps, Congress, now realizing their power base has weakened can no longer keep enabling the Wall Street greed and irresponsibility, and looking to the new rising power.


Wall Street is very uncomfortable with uncertainty.

This comment reveals a lot when seen as an oxymoron. Investment communities uncomfortable with uncertainty? Isn't that an inherent part of risk taking and the calculations that investment bankers should be professionals about handling.

Clearly Wall Street has been in bed with the government for so long that their deregulation support and overly favorable globalization foreign policy has become the "sure thing". Now Wall Street's foundations are shaken. It's time for Wall Street to start feeling very uncomfortable, if not judged and subject to significant correctional oversight.

Main Street, where most jobs don't revolve around financial risk taking, has been forced to deal with uncertainty for quite awhile now. Many Americans have been forced to deal with the uncertainty driven by Wall Street's behavior and favored status with congress. Main Street has been worried about jobs and health-care, constantly enduring the siren calls and traps laid out by the politically enabled risk taking pushed by credit vultures/bankruptcy specialists, Madison avenue greed peddlers and the 401K market driven retirement schemers. Not too mention the tension and blowbacks that American citizens have endured due to the exceptionalism of our foreign policy that support not the people but the Wall Street and cronies in power.

The bailout not going through sends a signal that Congress isn't willing to do their part

Main Street has been toughened under the oppression of Wall Street's protracted reign of power in congress. Now, when congress has to run to the hardworking taxpayers, they may be realizing that they are misguided overseers, and needing to allow some spankings of the spoiled children to proceed . Or maybe congress now running to where the money is, will be more accountable to the people, as the Wall Street money is no longer as powerful as it used to be.

There never really were pampered Welfare Queens as Reagan claimed, unless he was talking about Wall Street.

So Wall Street stop whining and put your hat in your hand, and beg for once and not demand your bailout. And will see whether that is the right thing to do, after we think about to best handle the damages.

The Scarlet Letter and Responsibility

A judge in Attalla City, Alabama has sentenced two shoplifters to wear a sandwich board sign that proclaims their crimes in front of a Wal-Mart store. Assuming these two criminals were truly guilty of some significant shoplifting charges, this could be a great direction to take in detering future crimes. (One defendant claimed that the $7 item would not scan and she was taking it to the service center. Maybe she is lying, too.) Judge Robertson, Jr. is on to something, certainly there is historical precedent for shaming criminals, including public stockades. This provides the basis of Nathaniel Hawthorne's masterpiece novel, The Scarlet Letter.

Personal responsibility is important, but so is corporate responsibility, and most important of all is the responsibility of those who hold power over others. Let's hope Judge Robertson's revival of these practices opens a flood gate in shaming criminals, but all of them... not just the relatively powerless working class, but on the powerful ones. This is where it can make a real difference. "Perp walks" of the once powerful people who have become liabilities to other powerful people are not enough. Judge Robertson and others of his profession being fair-minded, judicious people (they are judges, right?) will of course correspondingly shame the powerful corporate and political leaders who have committed crimes of far greater magnitude and consequence. What effect would it have on America if Enron executives in addition to their other penalties were to be seen wearing sandwich boards listing their crimes as they walked up and down Wall Street, or on the trading exchange floors. We would see a real revival and repentance in this country. Even the most cynical and greedy LBO specialist would say, "but there by the grace of God, go I" and mend his ways.

If Judge Robertson and the rest of his profession do not extend this shaming practice to include the powerful political and corporate leaders, we can learn what will happen from Hawthorne's novel. These powerful people will suffer an internal anguish and pain as did the Reverend Dimmesdale. Within their quiet offices, their guilty consciences will drive them to afflict themselves with excessive punishments. Only when its too late will they publically confess their crimes and then collapse and die in the public square. Oh, if only that shameful but freeing experience could have happened earlier.

Therefore, Judges of America do not continue to overlook these often neglected and angst-ridden powerful people on the misguided assumption that they have suffered already from having to carry such heavy responsibilities that come with power. It's the opposite, they will inwardly suffer more. Instead free them from this path of long-term suffering, do not withhold life-giving, yet painful doses of public shame in order treat their inquities. Do not be so callous as to give healing treatment to only the poor and powerless, and thereby neglect the rich and powerful.

Did the United States remove the “John Adams” of Iran?

"When chickens have come home to roost"

Arguably, the existence of the United States and its democratic constitution required the high-minded idealism of John Adams. He provided inspiring speeches at critical moments, gave principled guidance to colonial agreements, and had the wisdom to nominate George Washington as the continental army’s top general over Artemas Ward, the leading choice from his own colony. What a difference one man can make for a nation’s political future. The freedoms, civil rights, and the pursuit of happiness for United States citizens relied on the difference that this one man had made, among other forefathers as well. Fortunately, the British did not imprison or otherwise remove Adams from power. This is not an unreasonable “what if” exercise, since Adams was a thorn to King George. In the event that he could bring about reconciliation, Lord Howe was given a short list of colonists that he could not pardon from hanging; John Adams was on that list.

In encouraging democracies across the world, the United States should be the first to see the importance of forward-thinking, idealistic people who can lead their countries from foreign oppression and monarchial societies to a self-determined democracy. Unfortunately, the United States’ tends to put economic interests over altruistic ones. The United States often sees such national leaders as threats to the interests of the United States and with hypocritical logic also sees them as dangerous to their own nations.

With a build-up to war with Iran underway, the United States should contemplate the result of its past interests and interventions in Iran. In particular, the United State's involvement in removing Mohammed Mossadegh from power. Sadly the struggle for democracy in Iran is not understood by most United States citizens, yet most Iranians are very aware of the vital part that the United States government played in derailing their path to self-determination and fuller democracy.

In the 1940s, Mossadegh founded the “National Front of Iran,” a political opposition group committed to bringing a secular democratic state to Iran. Their goals were to promote democracy and to end the interference of foreign governments in Iranian politics including the exploitation of national resources by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC (and now known as British Petroleum). The AIOC oil concessions were arranged by previous Persian monarchs.

Before Mossadegh became prime minister in 1951, the Iranian parliament had sought to audit AIOC’s accounts to assure that Iran was receiving the royalties they were due. However the British refused and the Iranian parliament increased their demands to be given an equal share of the oil revenues. The negotiations escalated to the point where the British ceased their Iranian oil operations rather than give in to Iran’s demands. The Iranian parliament then voted to nationalize Iran’s oil industry. At this point, a historically informed United States citizen should recognize a similar standoff situation between the American Colonies and the English King George.

After the Oil Nationalization Act was passed, Mossadegh became prime minister by a landslide vote and Iran regained control of the oil refineries. The British responded by setting up a naval blockade preventing the shipping of Iran’s oil and putting Iran into an economic crisis; it didn’t help that Britain was the dominant customer for Iranian oil. The crisis led to a power fight between the Shah and Mossadegh, who ended up resigning as prime minister despite remaining popular and recently being re-elected for a second term. The Shah restarted negotiations with the British and when the Iranian people saw that the Shah was heading them back under British domination, a populist uprising ensued. The Shah soon restored Mossadegh as prime minister to regain political stability. Like John Adams, Mossadegh was ready to lead his nation to freedom from British domination and to increasingly move toward a more secular democracy.

Unable to defeat Mossadegh on their own, the British quietly came to the United States for help. President Truman refused, but when Eisenhower was elected the British asked again. Eisenhower consented to help overthrow the democratically elected Mossadegh. The CIA planned “Operation Ajax” to restore AIOC’s business in Iran but with the concession that AIOC would not be a monopoly and that five United States oil companies could also now operate in Iran and share the proceeds. Being it was the cold war 1950s, and the fact that Mossadegh was a social progressive, gave the United States and British governments the opportunity to spin Mossadegh’s oil nationalization efforts and social programs into a communist threat. The hypocrisy of this spin is seen by the CIA’s own plans which included a means to counter any attempts by the Tudeh Party, Iran’s communist party, from gaining control during the removal of Mossadegh from power.

Although the coup initially failed, the United States was finally able to install a pro-western Iranian general as prime minister and Mossadegh was given a mock trial and sentenced to death. The Shah commuted the death sentence and Mossadegh was kept in solitary confinement for three years, and then under house arrest for the rest of his life.

What has been the impact of removing this “John Adams” person from the Iranian political scene? The Iranian citizens came to view the United States as a country that for profit thwarted their national independence and democracy. The Shah was considered to be a puppet for western nations and businesses. During the ensuing suppression of self-determination, the religious elements came to dominant over secular views; even the Islamic leaders involved in Mossadegh’s National Iranian Front left to form the moderate Islamic “Freedom Movement of Iran.” By the time of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the establishment of an Islamic republic in Iran, there were a diverse number of larage parties and ideologies working together to some degree in opposition to the Shah’s rule and the political influence of western nations. During the revolution, various leaders made statements stating that the path of democracy had now been restored which was denied to them in the 1950s. In the aftermath of the revolution and in the power vacuum of the deposed Shah, that Ayatollah Khomeini and his radical elements gained much of the power over Iran. The infamous occupation of the United States embassy by the revolutionary guards was partly motivated by the fear that the United States would again attempt to interfere in the self-determination of the Iranian people.

A 2000 poll on the Iranian.com magazine, an expatriate Iranian web site, gave the largest number of votes (42%) to Mossadegh for being the “Iranian of the Century”. The Iranian magazine surmised that there is “little doubt who the general public considers the most significant personality of the 20th century.” The comments survey takers made on Mossadegh are quite revealing including these brief phrases:

Giving us control,

Did not sell-out,

Believed in people,

Louder than words,

Honorable life,

Biggest patriot,

Democratic-minded,

Fought for Iran,

Challenged colonialists,

Limited Shah's powers,

First nationalist and

Great man.

These are great words to describe John Adams, too. Fortunately for the United States and even in the long term for the United Kingdom, the British did not remove John Adams from power.

The Irony of Institutions

Leaders who sincerely desire positive changes and are facing large, intransigent obstacles can often carelessly attack the "institutions" that they perceive as blocking their progress. In some cases going as far as to develop the idea that even having institutions is a bad thing. One might express a fear that an efficient and purposeful ministry or movement may become "institutionized" and therefore rendered ineffective. The irony is that one should be so fortunate as to see a favorite cause become an institution. Such an event would be a real credit to the value of their endeavor. In fact question any cause that does not have the substance to ever become an institution or part of an existing one. If it doesn't pass that test then the cause is likely the latest fad, or a misjudged or misaligned idea.

Most likely these people really intend to speak out against bureaucratic traits or purposelessness. Some may think my distinction is minor, legalistic or even a nit-pick on the use of language, but I will counter this while proving my main point about institutions at the same time. Such critics should consider the purpose behind the insitution of language and the need to keep it free from bureacracy and purposelessness. Our language can be rendered ineffective by those who do not value its purpose and make valid distinctions in how it is used. We should be concerned when distinctive words are being used in a redundant fashion (such treating institutional and bureaucratic as synonyms). We should be alarmed when someone asserts a privilege to independenlty use a word in their own manner of choosing (i.e. nominalism). In the other direction, we should also be concerned when some people will not let a language adapt to handle new situations and contexts. One could say that these attitudes and misues of the institution of language are either bureacratic or purposeless.

Further irony is supplied when one argues that the the average person does not want such distinctions but rather what is needed are the results or practicality that a proposed cause can deliver. It is argued that distinguishing and recognizing institutions just gets in the way and those who attempt to do so are accused of being elitist. But here is the classic peril of focusing on ends at the cost of means, for it is likely those institutions being ignored may help support the cause rather than hinder it (if the cause is any good). For the sake of "efficiency" one can render an institution bureaucratic or purposeless. Who wants a trial that is so speedy that guilt beyond reasonable doubt is ignored? While elitist has come to mean 'snobby', the actual word 'elite' is quite positive. Generally, one could consider elitist as a charge against those who act elite but are not. Elite implies highly skilled, or superior attributes like intellect. So a proponent of cause rather than understand the institutions would seek the easier path of moving forward by degrading the institutions and charging those who seek to understand as being elitists.

Consider the definition of institution, a custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society.

So consider some of our societal institutions. With the exception of anarchists and wild-eyed libertatians, do we despise government or governments that are corrupt? Do we despise a system of justice or the inconsistent or delayed application of justice? Do we despise lawmaking bodies, or the self-interested and poorly compromised making of laws? Do we despise taxes more or wasteful use of money?

A good institution establishes a good practice or pattern that helps form the community that adopts it. Because we believe in justice, we desire to set up a good judicial institution, so that justice can be a formative part of our community. The problem occurs when enough people lose sight of the institution's purpose and practice, and allow those with selfish interests to abuse the institution and make it bureaucratic and tarnished from it's intended purpose.

So we should be cautious in despising and maligning institutions. We may be wiser to call for the reclarifying of purpose and reestablishing a commitment to their value, if such institutions have come under neglect. These institutions are to be formative to us and should be shaping the character of the community. Hypocrisy is to say you believe in the values of an institution and then allow it to decay in its application.

"Luke, I'm your Vader"

What's worse? Finding out that Vader is your father, or that your father is Vader?

I've been reading (and listening) to a fair amount of books and interviews that fill in the frequently missed but important details of American history in foreign affairs. I think many high school history teachers (the good ones) give nuanced hints at these details but both time and sensitivity to backlash cause them to rush through topics like the Spanish-American war, and by the time they get to covering the 1950s there is not enough time left in the year to discuss America's overthrow of the democratic Iranian government with any detail.

So with just the nuances about these events, it left me with the general sense that these were minor details to the bigger picture. Sure the US is not perfect, but certainly we are well intended and beneficial to the rest of the world in the long run. I could rationalize that at least things worked out better for everyone; who wants to change it now?

However, as I enter the historical details of American foreign policy, things change quickly when you find out more about your own nation's true character, and the presence of systemic "dark-side" faults. Terms like imperialism and militarism being applied to the USA no longer rings as hollow. An honest look at these terms' definitions and comparing the USA with past empires (British, French, Roman), leads one to a realization that I am a citizen of an imperial nation. Sure, I didn't see this easily and sure some think being an empire is good. However, is it not reasonable that most citizens of the Roman Empire were so wrapped up in their national rhetoric and its benefits that they developed a myopic view and justification where they could only view their nation in a predominately positive light? The typical Roman, like the typical American, probably saw their nation as a positive hegemon of good and progressive ideals and providing the obviously needed oversight of other nations. They also probably excused their nation's own "few" faults as pragmatic realities or minor imperfections in executing the vision. The American citizen today, needs to step outside of his or her national identity; we can't do that by stepping outside of the current time like we can do with the Roman identity (i.e. hindsight), but we can put ourselves in the position or "shoes" of other nations where we can more objectively understand our own nation's faults and the criticisms laid against America.

So as I find out how brutal and unjustified the Philippine-American War was (did you know there was such a war?), I began to realize that my "fatherland" who I grew up thinking was fairly noble has a dark-side, and not just a few quirks. In the Star Wars fantasy, Luke was raised in an environment where while oppressed by the empire, he was able to discern good, so that when he encountered his evil nemesis, Lord Vader, he had to initially reject him as his father and then saught to redeem him. But what if you grew up with seeing Vader as good because you were the unwitting beneficary of the oppressive environments and considered the empire's methods as necessary and even good. I think it is a more difficult path to finally recognize that your father is the detestable Vader and attempt to pull yourself away, much less even attempt to redeem your Vader-father, then to find out that the detestable Vader was once your father but you have nothing to be ashamed of yourself. Maybe the citizens of many western-european countries are feeling more like the latter today, because they only have to read about their "father" once being a Vader (i.e. empire) rather than actually having a father who still is a Vader.

How does O'Reilly handle being scooped by Murtha?

Apparently not very well. O'Reilly is not widely regarded as an even-tempered, well-balanced commentator, and therefore frequent controversies over his positions or claims seem to be inevitable, if not a desired outcome for the sake of publicity and ratings . So, on first glance the recent controversy over O'Reilly's gross misstatement about the World War II Malmedy Massacre seems par for the course. The position that puts Bill O'Reilly in the best light possible is that he really did know that it was eighty-four US Army soldiers who were killed as they surrendered to Nazi Waffen-SS units, and not the other way around; it was just that he got his point messed up in the "heat of the debate". This would be taking his non-apologetic clarification at face value, when he said "[i]n the heat of the debate with General Clark my statement wasn't clear enough... after Malmedy some German captives were executed by American troops." Granted most of the heat was coming from O'Reilly rather than the calmer Wesley Clark. At the controversy's heart is O'Reilly's defamation of eighty-four massacred US Army soldiers and is unwillingness to admit the mistake or to apologize. It doesn't help that O'Reilly committed this mistake during his arrogant scolding of a decorated four star general for not better recalling military history, while he himself was making a double error which was to make a major factual error about a historic event, and using the wrong historic event to make his point. Apparently O'Reilly was speaking about the aftermath of Malmedy, not the event itself. It was akin to blaming the North for taking a pro-slavery side in the Civil War, while really wanting to blame the North for what would really be more debatable reconstruction activities. One would think at least a simple apology would be in order, but this is Bill O'Reilly, the man with an ego so big that he cannot give such apologies without excuses, he only gives 'clarifications'.

The bigger story is the context of this controversy and it brings out interesting insights on what makes O'Reilly tick, or better yet, 'ticked off'. Foregoing notions that O'Reilly is fair and balanced, one might think he is at least passionate about his views and defending them. But this controversy exposes how his ego not only stops him from apologizing for getting the facts wrong, but his ego actually gets him mired within details that makes him lose sight of the bigger picture, while trying to defend his image.

This Malmedy controversy mostly started with the May 30, 2006 interview with General Wesley Clark . However, Malmedy was not the main topic, it was actually Bill O'Reilly's criticism of US Representative John Murtha. O'Reilly started off by saying that "[Murtha] indicts the entire military on a national program and I'm mad about it and Murtha doesn't have the stones to come on this program and back up what he says." That is quite an ego of O'Reilly's, when it causes him to think a US congressman must appear on his particular show in order to substantiate his reasons as to why the military may be covering up the facts regarding the Haditha incident. Of course, there are many legitimate press forums and a congressman is not obligated to visit all of them, not to mention the rarely experienced value of open congressional hearings that can accomplish things that the press is not able to do (e.g. oaths and subpoenas). However, O'Reilly appears to believe that only his show can assure a fair and balanced hearing of these facts (isn't that the mantra of his show?). But really, why is O'Reilly so mad? Is it because Murtha indicted the entire military prematurely, and O'Reilly is offended on their behalf? Or is it because Murtha is doing his job, and O'Reilly is not doing his own? General Clark gives a clue to this when he said that Murtha had every right to say these things because Murtha is saying what he has heard under the legitimate function of the legislative branch. Now the first shoe is ready to hit the floor, because Clark further added, "just like it could have been your function. Look when another commander-in-chief was under investigation the news media had no problems talking about it." However, the most convincing clue that Murtha scooped O'Reilly comes from O'Reilly himself. The other shoe dropped down, when earlier in the interview O'Reilly said that he had acquiesced to the US Marine's request for him to wait until their own investigation is over before he would start using the Mai Lai Massacre as a comparison point to the Haditha incident. This was a bad judgment call for a fourth-estate person to acquiesce on, and certainly his judgment should not be expected upon members of the legislative branch. After all we expect each branch of government and the press to keep serious accountability checks on each other.

So what really has got O'Reilly steamed? Murtha hears a lot of information through his congressional roles, including things that O'Reilly hasn't heard. Murtha has decided to focus more on the military leadership behavior than on the actual Haditha incident. Murtha reserves his loudest criticism on the delays and cover-up type behaviors he has witnessed or heard about. In such a situation, one would not want to wait for an internal review by the US Marine leadership. Which is what Bill O'Reilly decided to do. An internal report is likely to be ineffective, if not an obstruction to uncovering any significant failures in the role of leadership, especially higher-up levels. So, Murtha is scooping O'Reilly over what is the real lead story which is a possible cover-up and not the actual massacre. Murtha already said that these massacres can happen, but what matters is how the leadership handles the situation. O'Reilly continues to limit his arguments to the incident itself and refuses to acknowledge Murtha's criticisms about what might be a partial breakdown of the command and control structure in the US military. Why? Becaues it's the only position O'Reilly can take unless he wants to admit to himself that he should not have acquiesced to the US Marine's request to wait. If O'Reilly has much of a conscience, he might realize that he, as Wesley Clark seems to indicate, has failed to carry out his legitimate function as a member of the press. Isn't it more likely that O'Reilly should direct his anger at himself and not Murtha?

Murtha and Clark saw enough evidence to warrant investigating whether there are more serious problems than the actual massacre itself. This is something that O'Reilly at least publicly has not come to accept. Clark mentioned near the beginning of his interview that when these "incidents start to happen [where soldiers murder and there is some sign of cover-up] that it can be an indicator that you are on the edge of feasibility of your policy, it's in an indicator that the stress on the units is such that standards of discipline and performance are breaking down at the margin. It's a real warning for us." Fortunately, we have General Clark, as well as, Murtha, a member of the legislative branch, who both see some warning signs and they are not willing to acquiesce to the military, despite Murtha's long positive relationship with the military and Clark's past career in the military. O'Reilly was scooped and outclassed by a US Congressman, simply because he failed to carry out the legitimate function of the press, and he is unable to admit it. So instead of staying quiet, O'Reilly goes on the attack like a sore loser, and is willing to frustrate legitimate investigations in a desperate hope that no cover-up can be proven. But then what do we expect, O'Reilly can't even admit making a clear factual error or give a retraction about who really killed who in a World War II massacre.

The Admissions Not Heard, The Steps Not Taken

Some in the mainstream media consider Bush's recent admissions to be of the character of Lincoln. Admitting mistakes requires a little fortitude, but doesn't justify a comparison to Lincoln's character, even if that person is a US President. Lincoln is not characterized by confessions but by his leadership, integrity, respect of individual and minority rights, and holding people accountable, most notably his generals that prosecuted the war.

Bush who faces extremely low poll ratings due to his handling of Iraq has admitted that his poor war rhetoric and the Abu Ghraib scandal has harmed the credibility of the USA in foreign diplomacy. This 'frankness' comes rather late and again without a response as to how he plans to rectify the situation.

Saying things like "bring it on" or "wanted dead or alive" were reckless with the USA's image, but nothing did more harm then the Abu Ghraib tortures. They were not only morally reprehensible, but a foreign policy fiasco that the USA will take decades to recover from. Despite these prison tortures being quickly forgotten in the US political scene, this travesty continues to be a major inhibitor to our credibility in the Arab region, and even in the world at large. Not only the event itself but also the lack of follow-up has led others to assess that the USA is hypocritical. If a major international corporation had its highly regarded brand and image tarnished to the degree that Abu Ghraib did for the USA, do you think that there would be a corporate executive somewhere within the company that would be held accountable? Bush's long delayed realization with what are still unmitigated disasters is not accompanied with any actions that authenticates his confession. High ranking DoD administrators like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz remain in power. The rest of the world long ago recognized Bush as not being a man of his word, now only right actions along with right words will lead to some healing and hope in America again.

This leads to the admission that hasn't yet been heard and the steps that have yet to be taken. Bush has not yet admitted to overstressing loyalty within his administration at the cost of accountability, truth and justice (making things right).

George Bush, a former alcoholic, needs to recall that he can't stay on "Step 1" of the 12 Step Program with these recent admissions, but needs to get to Step 8 and 9 and amends and restitutions need to be made:

Step 8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

Step 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever
possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

There is an outside chance that George W. Bush could still be positively compared to Abraham Lincoln someday, but this won't happen until he reaches Step 12: "Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps with alcoholism, we [try] to practice these principles in all our affairs."