Superannuated Models

Over the past few years and especially months after writing A Looming Terror, I have been trying to gain some sense of American’s financial challenge and where we are headed in a post-American world. So in recent weeks I turned to two books I thought might help, to better understand what’s happening to America. I had read Thomas L. Friedman’s, The World is Flat, a best seller, three years ago. Friedman, one of the smartest columnist anywhere, in his latest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, explains how global warming, rapidly growing populations, and an astonishing expansion of the world’s middle class through globalization have produced a planet that is hot, flat, and crowded. He proposes how America can mend its problems by taking the lead in solving the world’s big problems. In addition, I selected The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria. Zakaria uses a term, reoccurring: “rise of the rest.” It’s the advancement of people and development of other nations. The book delves into some world history, America’s rise, and the challenges, potential pitfalls that our country is not prepared for, but also opportunities for Americans in a fast changing world where America may at some point no longer be the sole world superpower.

In the ubiquitous news of the latest corporate financial dilemma, i.e. the original American-auto dynasty, Detroit Auto, questions have surfaced as to what government’s involvement should be, if any, to save millions of jobs. In thinking of Detroit’s predicament, the thought occurred to me: Detroit’s Auto perplexity is an example, a perfect model cast in the same mold of thoughts and attitudes, as that of the United States of America, a failed model in a mounting financial crisis. If the U. S. A. were a corporation it would have long ago been closedown. Here forward I’ll try to illustrate parallels of Detroit and USA. The jump-start of this writing began with an email (Funniest Joke Ever) I received about the establishment of the Department of Energy during the Carter Administration, Aug. 4, 1977, being established to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. (Of course the dept. was established only in part to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.) It’s true that DOE has done little, or maybe nothing, to lessen our foreign oil dependence; however, DOE, if liable at all, it’s fractional. Most to blame are all the presidential administrations and congressional bodies over the last 30 years, since the DOE’s establishment, in part, for energy independence, plus many other responsibilities, including the recent $25B appropriated for Detroit’s Auto retooling. My response to that email began:

“Talk about the Department of Energy! I remembered this article by Mitt Romney, Let Detroit Go Bankrupt, in yesterday's NYT. Not sure I agree with him on letting Detroit go bankrupt but I do agree on his idea that we have to do more investment in energy research. I have said if we have to risk wasting further national indebtedness it should be on renewable energy research, because it's the number one issue facing our nation. (If only our leaders could have had the guts to do this years ago!) He is suggesting even another $50b more than Obama and $150b more than McCain had suggested. Have a nice day! CC”
Then a reply to the group-email from George:
“I believe the Romney approach was for a Chapter 11 re-organization (similar to the airlines' experience) -- not a dissolution. Buy time to organize / structure costs similar to Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Suzuki, Mitsubishi, Nissan, none of whom is burdened the same way as US automakers. Congressional Dems are mainly interested in re-paying the UAW for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on campaign support.”

George, yes, that’s correct, I think, a Chapter 11. Maybe that could be the best solution, but I think at this juncture of global economic uncertainty Detroit-auto-industry’s survival becomes more problematic. Of course, I don’t claim to know about all those things. As for the labor unions, I’ve said for years that, for the most part, they have outlived their usefulness for their own good and our nation. However, I say this with a “grain of salt.” From experience: I worked for an independence businessman for the first 18 years of my career. I never received a salary increase that I did not personally ask for, and I was never refused an increase when I did ask. I worked diligently for that company as if it had been my own. I did, however, receive substantial bonuses without asking. I realize that, for example, in a modern-day Wal-Mart store, a waged individual has no leverage whatsoever, whether or not he/she’s doing a great job, to go to management and be successful. So, there probably remains a well-disciplined function for unions to do reasonable negotiations, if the group by freewill votes it in.

For auto bailout consider this: On Nov. 24th, Spencer Abraham responds with: For Detroit, Chapter 11 Would Be the Final Chapter A Chapter 11 would be catastrophic. “J.D. Power predicts an "outright collapse" of global car sales in 2009, with some analysts expecting U.S. sales to drop as much as 30 percent next year—that's on top of this year's decline. European automakers called for a $50 billion aid package of their own; Australia passed a $2.3 billion aid package; and even Chinese carmakers, shocked by shrinking exports and domestic sales growth just as massive new capacity comes online, begged Beijing for help,” says Newsweek’s article Driven Into the Ground. So, the Big Three are not alone in this financial fiasco. Although, imperatively I believe, this is the time to reflect on the things that went wrong in Detroit, make corrections; build the new models that bridge to a conservational, sound, economic future.

Having a continuity of understanding (a chronology) from were the Detroit auto industry has evolved in tandem with government’s provision should be helpful. Be reminded of the attitudes, the mold (model) in which the thinking of our leaders and their constituents (us), over the past 30 years, not only for auto industry but in general, has brought us to this point of downward spiral.

As Thomas L. Friedman says, there was a time when Washington had a bipartisan approach to solving environmental and other important issues. It was President Richard Nixon who signed into law the first wave of environmental legislation. Urged on by Presidents Ford and Carter, subsequent to the 1973 energy shock (an experience I do know something about), in 1975 Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by which corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards were set to double vehicle mileage within ten years to 27.5 mpg. As an example of government’s seriousness about conservation and alternative energy development, President Carter had solar panels installed on the White House roof.

In 1986 President Reagan reduced CAFE standards to 26 mpg and slashed the budgets of most of President Carter’s alternative energy programs, particularly the Solar Energy Research Institute and its four regional centers, according to Friedman. Further, Reagan had all the solar panels removed from the White House roof. Reagan and a Democratic Congress also teamed to let tax incentives for solar and wind lapse. Reagan ran on an optimistic outlook for our country as well as antigovernment and anti-environmental regulations, moreover anti any regulation. Perhaps the regulatory pendulum had swung too far to the left, but Reagan’s reckless-regulation swing to the right was not only unwarranted; it was a reversal of a critical trend prior administrations had set in course for our country’s long-term conservation needs and security from petrodictatorships we have come to depend on.

In 1989 President George H. W. Bush raised the CAFE standard back up to the 1985 level of 27.5 mpg. His administration also improved building and appliance efficiency standards and a few other enhancement efforts. The Clinton Administration tried to raise CAFE standards just for trucks, which would have included those large gas-guzzling SUVs. It was a failure at the behest of Detroit’s Michigan congressional delegation leaders, at which time a lock was put on mileage standards until 2003. Only then was the George W. Bush administration able to get a tiny adjustment upward for small-duty trucks. CAFE standards were not adjusted upward for 32 years; however, in 2007 U. S. fuel economy was moved to 35 mpg to be met by 2020. The United States has the lowest standard of fuel economy of any nation in the world, including China, which requires 2 mpg more than USA. The European Union and Japan have fuel economy standards almost twice as high as the United States.

President George W. Bush’s incoming administration attempted to roll back President Clinton’s implementation of an increase of 10 to 13 SEER rating for air conditioners --- back to 12 SEER, against its (Bush’s) own EPA counsel. The Natural Resources Defense Council and ten states sued and won the reinstatement of a 13 SEER efficiency rating for air conditioners.

These patterns, attitudes, a self-indulgence-corrupted model, hardly born of personal ethical convictions but most surely of lobbying influences, bring home to roost an absolute culpability, including Detroit auto. Many of the general public has to share responsibility in this blameworthiness. Our leaders, both Democrat and Republican, each who had full control presidentially/congressionally for long enough periods, had they wanted to could have acted responsibly. They’ve told us over the past many years what they thought we wanted to hear: no tax; no regulation; no sacrifice, as our self-indulgence demanded not conservation, but a disregard for harsh consequences for future generations.

We only want, without sacrifices, to drive our pickup trucks and big SUVs (exempt of auto CAFE standards) and ride on cheap gasoline (me too). “Big Oil and Big Auto used their leverage in Washington to shape the market so people would ask for those cars that consumed the most oil and earned their companies the most profits – and our congress never got in the way. It was bought off,” says Thomas Friedman.

Big Loser: Detroit Auto. Big Winner: Exxon Mobil, BP and rivals Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC and ConocoPhillips posted combined earnings of $44.4 billion in the most-recent quarter, up 58 percent from the same three-month period a year earlier. Any help there? Unequivocally NO!
As for U. A. W. Union’s responsibility in this debacle, it may be significant but maybe not as much as perceived by most people. For another view of the Union’s case read: Pundits Peddle Revisionism in Attacking U.S. Automakers. It’s been reported that under their current agreement, union wages by 2010 will be equivalent to those of foreign brands being manufactured in the states. And as foresaid, they are in the process of retooling. Fareed Zakaria says, “For a century after 1894, most the cars manufactured in North American were made in Michigan. Since 2004 Michigan has been replaced by Ontario, Canada. The reason is simple: health care. In America, car manufactures have to pay $6,500 in medical and insurance cost for every worker. If they move a plant to Canada, which has government-run health care system, the cost is around $800 per worker. In 2006 General Motors paid $5.2B in medical and insurance bills for its active and retired workers. That adds $1500 to the cost of every GM car sold. For Toyota, which has fewer American retirees and many more foreign workers, that cost is $186 per car.” (He states this is not necessarily an advertisement for the Canadian health care system.)

In the current national and world banking collapses, capital injections are being made around the world to under gird financial bases and give economic stimulus. Paul Krugman, winner of 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, says the US deficit worries are misplaced in today’s situation: Deficits and the Future “Should the government have a permanent policy of running large budget deficits? Of course not. Although public debt isn’t as bad a thing as many people believe — it’s basically money we owe to ourselves — in the long run the government, like private individuals, has to match its spending to its income.”

Thomas Friedman says, “Something’s going on in this world economy that even the smartest investors in the world didn’t see: Prince Ali-Valid of Saudi Arabia last January bought into Citibank at $30, now worth $5; months later Warren Buffet of Omaha bought into Goldman Sachs at $115, now valued $50. (Approximate nos.)” Friedman last week characterized bank failures, a culture of covetous irresponsibility, a corrupted model, in All Fall Down: “That’s how we got here — a near total breakdown of responsibility at every link in our financial chain, and now we either bail out the people who brought us here or risk a total systemic crash. These are the wages of our sins. I used to say our kids will pay dearly for this. But actually, it’s our problem. For the next few years we’re all going to be working harder for less money and fewer government services — if we’re lucky.”

As much as I have talked of fiscal responsibility, and I hold to that imperative for the long term, there apparently is a justification for further national indebtedness: A debt almost doubled in the last eight years to well over $10T, and now adding another $1.5T to $2T that Republican, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, and progressive say we must inject. But will China be able, or have the political incentive, to continue buying our bank notes. We want their goods; they want to sell us their goods. America is truly globally interdependent in all aspects: security, economics, environment-climate-change. President George H. W. Bush referred to “A New World Order.” He was disparaged by the rightwing for his remarks about the role of the United Nations, but he was right. Cooperation, interdependence between major national economies, as world populations’ increase, becomes not only a mutual responsibility but also an imperative to solving world problems. America can’t unilaterally financially or defensively continue to act alone. We must not let the fear of terrorism, immigration, and free trade blind our society and leadership to the fact there is a higher road that leads to opportunity and a more secure future for our country.

The problems we face as a country are enormous, I believe, more so than many, or more than most, of our citizens are aware. Our country has elected a president to mitigate risk and find solutions for the short and long-term. In my best wishes for the incoming president, the “man of hope,” I offer this message:

President-elect Barack H. Obama
United States of America
Washington DC

Dear President-elect Obama:

I know these are very difficult times, and many of us justifiably feel insecure about our future and our children’s. While our country awaits your leadership, we know you don’t have all the answers; however, I offer whatever support one citizens can do to help our country. I commit to never disparage your earnest leadership, even though I may at times respectfully disagree and debate the issues, as I have respected the past administration. I hope others will oblige the same level of personal courtesy and respect for the institution of the presidency.

Two years ago I read your book, The Audacity of Hope, and was inspired. After reading many columns and listening intently to you and all the other presidential candidates, early on in the primary, I made a decision to support you. It was only in part because I thought you would bring “change,” it was the qualities that I believed you had, more outstanding than all the other candidates: a certain conscientiousness, integrity, intellect, communication skills, a listener, and unflappable, level headedness; a person who could be an important role model, so sorely needed in a country exhibiting depravity in too many ways. I liked the way you handled closed-ended questions, refusing to give an unequivocal simple yes or no, claiming to know exactly what America needed. Instead you turned us to open-ended answers that cause us to think, rather than jump to conclusions. I liked that; our country needs that.

My support never wavered in the face of friends and family who disagreed. I fought with my own personal integrity to debunk an unprecedented number of slanderous, fear and smear, email rumors. I sent your campaign money, exhibited the Obama bumper sticker and yard sign, all of which I had never before in a presidential race participated. I know you thank many Republicans and Independents throughout the nation who did equally as well for you.

Your campaign survived the onslaught of personal attacks, your association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and whatever perceived connections with other defamed people. Many of us understood your family’s connection to your church; only those who have been in a church for many years understand that you don’t just pull out and leave (some do however) your church because of a disagreement with one pastor. Our loyalty is to the church family, to help guide a principled Christian body. I regret that you were forced to leave your church, because there is more than a tread of “truth” woven in Jeremiah Wright’s zealous message, a message only one in the experience or with sincere empathy can comprehend. You can thank many good Americans who understood that. And we know you understand that despite older generations of white and black cultures, backward thinking, our country is moving forward into a new generation of racial equality.

President-elect Obama, I did not support you because I thought you knew everything, quite the opposite. No one knows everything that’s needed to run this country. But I believe you have an instinctive ability, a view of the big-world picture, and other qualities needed to surround your administration with the necessary skills for each department; with opposing views, you will listen to and ultimately make the best decisions. Surely there will be mistakes by you and your cabinet of advisors. But don’t be distracted by the fringe elements of disparagement that will surely continue to polarize our citizenry, the right-wing radio and even some left-wing commentary. Don’t let it deter your straightforward, levelheaded honesty. Just tell us the truth; don’t just tell us what you might think we want to hear. Keep on leveling with the American people the challenges our country is facing. Don’t let politics be “rule of the day;” don’t even think politics; don’t even think of getting re-elected. Since you are beginning “behind the eight-ball,” we have no time to lose. After three and half years, if you’ve done justice, done the best you can under the circumstances, we will consider accepting you a second term. I believe you understand the gravity of our era, and I trust you will exemplify a certain sobriety that we Americans should also embody in an ever-changing world. However, in the haze of all our country’s problems, we must continue to have HOPE, tempered by reasonable expectations.

Along with your advisors and congress, hopefully, the right thing will be done for Detroit Auto, financial institutions, and stimulus. I’ve never expected miracles, as mockers derided you as “The One” to end all problems. Although, you can be “the one” to effectively replace the outmoded models, many in Detroit. But most importantly you can be the much-needed-preeminent role model for ethics in big business and finance-institutional management and our greediest society. Where rampant fear of you was spread in the campaign, you will prove it fake, by your honorable leadership in the light of hope. When you have delivered this it will be the sufficient “change” that I believe most Americans are looking for. Let me be not naïve, I know America’s leadership will not be easy in the face of overwhelming opposition at times, it will be tough.

Keep up the diligent work for us, and when you are inaugurated January 20th, let change be triumphal. May Hope, Faith, Love, and Joy surround your family during this Christmas Season! I’ll be praying for your family’s and our country’s safety, as the world earnestly awaits a new American leader.

Most Sincerely,
Cornell Cox

Fallacy of Political Labels

Recently a column, The Vision of the Left, by Thomas Sowell happened in my mailbox. I answer Mr. Sowell herein because it’s applicable to help illustrate the myth of “political labels.” Quoting him, referring to young liberals, “Individuals can refuse to grow up, especially when surrounded in their work and in their social life by similarly situated and like-minded people;” referring to the ‘experienced’ working class, “Ordinary working class people did not lead the stampede to Barack Obama, even before his disdain for them slipped out in unguarded moments;” referring to liberals in general who don’t understand the perils of our world, “Personally, I wish Ronald Reagan could have talked the Soviets into being nicer, instead of having to spend all that money. Only experience makes me skeptical about that "kinder and gentler" approach and the vision behind it.” You get the jest of his writing!

So, Mr. Sowell, just how robust a military do you want, and at what price? It was President Eisenhower who warned us of the military establishment buildup, in his eyes, not that an efficient, responsibly commanded, strong military is not the right thing. Mr. Sowell, did you know the United States’ military budget is already equal the sum of all other nations of this world put together, and it is six-times larger than the next largest, Russia (ref. page 250 Beyond The White House)? We are not paying for the military’s current expenditure. Read Billing The Grandchildren “By the time Congress finishes the latest "emergency" war spending bill, a mere seven years into the emergency, the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will have exceeded $860 billion. For the first time in American history, every penny of that amount will have been borrowed. For the first time, billions more will have been borrowed to finance tax cuts in the midst of war.”

Read We Should Still Like Ike. “From Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, the Republican Party has assiduously courted the core of the old Roosevelt coalition: poor, white, working-class voters — mostly rural, often elderly, sometimes sparsely educated and frequently fundamentalist. But in so doing, Republican presidential candidates have shortchanged a vital component of their party: the Eisenhower Republicans.” Yes, many of these grandchildren of Ike’s and our generation are the “liberals” you, Mr. Sowell, claim have disdained, supposedly, the “mature ‘grownup’ conservatives of experience.” These young liberals are not brainless, they read and intently listen to the news; they know what’s going on: a national debt approaching 10 trillion, and now, possibly, another trillion or so with the financial debacle bailouts; a debt speedily dragging this economy and country’s security down a dark tunnel; digging deeper into debt does nothing to give confidence for financial stability. Only if we do the right things now will this trend be reversed? Interest alone is approximately 20% of budget for which we borrow every dollar to pay it. Where are the fiscally responsible, traditional, principled-conservative Republicans (and Democrats; yes, there are the Blue Dogs) of eras gone by, such as Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford? Reagan did some good things, such as enhancing personal savings plans, i.e. 401K, but he did not balance the national budget as promised. Since I wrote A Looming Terror in February nothing has changed my opinion of how I see the perils of our country’s financial instability. Read Reagan era crashes to halt with bailout of Wall Street: referring to the GOP convincing itself that deficits no longer mattered: “The reasoning behind that change of heart was obvious. When the much-beloved Reagan tax cuts inevitably produced massive Reagan deficits, conservatives faced a choice. They could abandon the tax cuts that had brought them great political success and power, or they could abandon their opposition to deficits. They chose to embrace deficits.”

Yes, Reagan helped bring about a quicker Soviet ticket to defeat, a defeat that already had been inevitable, not because of America’s military supremacy but the Soviet’s political and economic system’s bankruptcy. Read: The World Isn’t So Dark “The 1970s witnessed a frenzied argument that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States militarily and was about to "Finlandize" Europe. The reality, of course, was that when neoconservatives were arguing that the U.S.S.R. was about to conquer the world, it was on the verge of total collapse.” One could reasonably ask if America is headed on a similar path. Both our presidential candidates’ budget proposals are projected to get us deeper in debt by the year 2018: Obama by an extra 3.5 trillion, McCain by an extra 5.0 trillion (This doesn’t include the current financial bailout cost.). Fiscal conservatism has not been the standard of the last three Republican presidents.

With regard to political branding, let’s acknowledge that there are, without doubt, left-wing nuts as well as right-wing nuts. Some have expressed themselves on Sowell’s reader responses. Many times those in between the “nuts” mesh in patterns indistinguishable across party lines. Many of us, looking from either side, with a decisive glance realize we have a footprint on each label, if we are really honest about the original meaning of the two labels.

What does it mean to be a Conservative or Liberal?

Conservative means favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change; traditional or restrained in style; moderate; cautious; favoring the preservation of established customs and values, and opposing change; it is to conserve, protect from harm, protect from loss, and avoid waste.

Liberal means not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry; favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded; Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism; tending to give freely. I would add a liberal would be an egalitarian: Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

*************If I’m fiscally responsible in my home, believe that the family budgets should be balanced, have as little debt as possible, the same for our Nation to conserve a financial stability for prosperity and security of our Nation, but yet I believe in giving as generously as possible to charities of my choice and that government has some responsibility to share likewise, what does that make me?

*************If I’m all for the sanctity of Life but actually take a Pro-Choice stance politically because of extenuating circumstances women may face with pregnancies; yet I believe that my broader responsibility is to conserve all life, such as providing basic healthcare and emergency food for over 25,000 people who die daily from starvation or malnutrition related sicknesses and other diseases here and abroad, what am I?

*************If I don’t believe in Capital Punishment because my primary reason has always been that a substantial number of innocent prisoners are on death row (Now proven with the advance of DNA) and for the reason that CP does not deter crime as comparisons with other country’s statistics have proved, what does conserving life in this regard make me, conservative or liberal?

************Take what I consider imperatively the number one issue facing our country, foreign oil independence: This N&O columnist capsulated my reasoning: Oil and offshore realities: “Increasing competition for oil reserves by emerging economies will serve to keep prices escalating. By ending the moratorium will we be wasting investment on oil exploration that could be better spent on research and development of alternative, clean and sustainable fuel sources, our ultimate tactic against foreign oil imports.” Rather than reduce the energy issue to an expedient slogan, “drill baby, drill,” why not face the issue head on with a long-term realistic solution that will ensure security for our country. Liberal or Conservative?

Drawing from a pragmatist view, political labels have lost their meaning, and certainly have become mute in most people’s minds, giving no thought to what conservative or liberal really means. People say, “I’m a proud conservative Republican.” On the other hand you hardly ever hear anyone say, “I’m a liberal,” not to mention being proud. And there is a reason for that.

As you put it Mr. Sowell, “The working class are in fact today among those most skeptical about the visions of the left.” By all means give the working class praise (I can identify with the working-class, coming through the ranks, having moved side-by-side.); they are smart, hardworking; and, as you might like, some of them also get caught-up emotionally in the culture wars, antigay, religion, abortion, guns, etc. Staking one’s decision on a single issue does little to help solve the most critical problems of our nation. In fact it is the culture-wars entanglement that in part blurs the conservative/liberal labels’ distinction, and further propagates polarization of our citizenry. It was the former NC U. S. Senator Jesse Helms, in his maneuverable rise as The National Master of negative politics who gave new meaning to “liberal” in its stigmatization: spat on it, demoralize it, criminalized it, and disdained it. His right-wing editorials on WRAL TV during the 60s paved the way for entrance to politics and his first run for U. S. Senate in 1972. It was his extension of the right-wing-racial-intolerant-nationwide appeal, the Christian-right support, and being the “tax and spend” watchdog for the nation that gave him a permanent political financial base. This support throughout the USA, in deviation to representing only the good people of NC, was to ensure his continued election to 5 terms, serving 30 years. He shamed many good, middle of the road, liberal or by past standards, moderate Democrats out of the party. His unsavory appeal to social, ethnic strife of the era was ripe, and he adroitly capitalized on it; the post-Civil Rights Act of 1964 had given him a fertile base by those still burning racial prejudices in the South. President Lyndon Johnson has been quoted as having said at the act’s signing, paraphrased, “We have lost the South for the next 50 years.”

I don’t want to be too hard on Jesse. God rest his soul! And I believe he sought some redemption in his last years. It did seem he had softened in his demeanor and tone. And others in their eulogies seemed to be helping him have a legacy more kind; it could have been an attempt of heritage revision. At Helms death, betrayal emotions ran so high that L. F. Eason III, a 29-year veteran of the state Department of Agriculture instructed his staff at a small Raleigh lab not to fly the U.S. or North Carolina flags at half-staff. He quit rather than lower flag for Helms defying a directive sent to all state agencies by Gov. Mike Easley.

Mr. Sowell claims the liberals have so much disdain for the working class, but over the years I’ve seen a sea of contempt against liberals, and Democrats as a whole, painted with the right’s broad brush. Very few Democrats over the last thirty years ran for office without being labeled “the most liberal.” Even Obama is labeled “the most liberal,” when in fact by most ratings it’s about 13th. In today’s N&O the neo-conservative columnist, William Kristol, in his Pounding Home the Liberal Label, (How McCain Wins) reprinted from The N. Y. Times, brands Obama “a garden-variety liberal.” But what does “liberal” really mean? It’s not at times what the opposition would purport it, “a denigration of values or character.”

Many progressive, moderate, liberal Democrats were shamed, or otherwise annulled of their principles to fight back the onslaught of the right’s attack led by Helms/Reagan, thereby drumming them out of the Democratic Party by the droves. My former employer of eighteen years, J. Marvin Johnson, a County Democratic leader for many years and a NC State Senator, road the wave of Reagan Democrats in the 80s. My friend, Eddie Knox, the former Charlotte Mayor, a State Senator, and 1984 Democrat candidate for NC Governor who was defeated in the primary by Rufus Edmisten, joined the Helms bandwagon. Some Democrats said the Party left them, and that possibly was true to some extent. However, the questions should have been asked, “Why not stay to work for and ensure the time-honored principles of what the Democrat Party had always stood for?” Convenience became an overriding factor; it’s easier to go with the flow; being attached to a stigmatized label, “most liberal,” was not expedient; it was easier to get elected on contemporary populist slogans and sound-bits, whether or not those mantras were cogent to good public policy. Is that still the way it works? Maybe!

There is an upheaval within the Republican Party that seeks definition and identity. The party can no longer legitimately claim ownership of the “conservative ID.” The word has lost its meaning within the party; it’s now same to the “liberal” word that has no political meaning in the Democratic Party. What will happen within the different elements of each party is unpredictable, but I suspect as individuals seek to find an identity and a place of comfort in their party, we’ll see even more switches, many going “Independent.” You might call it the Lou Dobbs factor! Many will cross party lines this fall, in either direction and for various reasons. I don’t know if any of the former Helms/Reagan Democrats turned Republican “are coming home to roost.” But they have a lot of reason to rethink what has evolved over the past many years. Although, many of those have now passed on or are fading into the sunset; a new youthful generation of either ideologues or hopeful, pragmatic idealists are emerging to take their place. Which will it be?

I respect all my Republican friends and even love some of them. But as for me I’m still a Democrat. If you must brand me, just call me a “Rational Democrat.”

Dumbing-down Politics

Update 8-30-08: Obama, By Bill Brown on the Billy Graham Team has been officially debunked. Read at FactCheck and/or Urban Legends.
--------------------

This blog post is one I have, until now, refrained from writing. But now, with the ongoing political paranoia – the scurrilous, smear and fear emails – circulating the Internet, I feel it a moral responsibility to speak up. I’m not a virulent political partisan, and I usually go out of the way not to be construed as such. Probably like most people, my family, friends, and associates, for whom I have much respect, reflect the broad political spectrum. I am a Democrat who has voted for a Republican President and other Republican candidates. But regardless of one’s party affiliation and candidate preference, we who use the Internet have an opportunity and responsibility to exercise a higher level of integrity when it come to politics. Email accusations against candidates can be verified true, false or unproven. If it does not pass the “legitimacy” or “truth test” it’s our responsibility to censure them. (I check them out at TruthorFiction, Urban Legends, or other site. If found bogus, which is most always is the case, I usually give a response. Of course there are some new ones circulating that have not yet been scrutinized by the truth-verifiers.) To do less we are complicit to perpetuate a fraud. There are people who believe every word (if it’s on the Internet it’s got to be true) in these defamatory emails, and, of course, that’s the schemed purpose. But also troubling, it’s offensive to even a minimally informed person’s decency, fairness, goodwill, and intelligence to make a rightfully informed decision.

The most recent email of political orientation (Which I’ve received a number of times recently but it had not yet been posted by the truth-verifiers on my last check.) is mild in it’s deceptive, liable content compared to most circulating the Internet. In any case, I have chosen it as an example because it uses faith and evangelicalism for its supposed credibility. I respond in the most respectful, civil way I know. I’ll offer some of my political, and otherwise, thoughts. As always, your comments are welcome, and I’m always delighted to hear from anyone of about 400 who receive Critical Actions. That’s what it’s about, as referenced in my blog heading. At any place I refer to “this email” it’s with reference to the titled “Obama, By Bill Brown on Billy Graham Team” reprinted at the bottom of my response which begin the next paragraph.
-------------------------------
I have never looked for a “Rock Star,” don’t particularly like rock, and I’m not ecstatic or euphoric. I don’t consider myself riding a tidal wave, if in fact there is one. I do, however, want a president, not so politically skewed or politically beholding, per se neo conservatives, the ones who led us into this worldly mess which McCain has to cower to. I want someone with a high level of intelligence, a listener, a good communicator, a balance of idealism and realism, who can discern issues and help make policies to best serve our country, not only domestically but also globally. Frank Rich wrote in yesterday’s Times: How Obama Became Acting President: “He never would have been treated as a president-in-waiting by heads of state or network talking heads if all he offered were charisma, slick rhetoric and stunning visuals.” Obama has got so far ahead of the leaders; the leaders are now taking his lead, almost literally; i.e. President Bush sending an envoy to Iran and talking of a time table, ‘horizon,’ Iraq withdrawal. If it weren’t so serious, it would be comical. It doesn’t take such a politically astute person to see what’s happening if one is paying attention. Of course nothing in politics is a forgone conclusion. Actually, as an alternative, I could have supported John McCain of 2000, who’s only about 5-months my senior; however, it is the neo conservatives, in large part, that has remade the McCain of 2000 into a candidate who McCain himself will find it difficult to vote for in 2008.

This email is an apparent clever political “fear and smear” campaign; certainly it’s not “Fair and Balanced” as Fox would say. Where is Brown’s credibility: that is the reprint from what reputable publication? It’s without an address to reply to the “supposedly” originating author. It’s a concocted guise of credibility linked to the Grahams, “a member of the Billy Graham Team.” It is an offense to the legacy of Billy Graham who has served Christian Evangelism in our nation, and the world, honorably. In an article covering the George H. W. Bush’s Family honoring the Grahams, God, the Bushes and Billy Graham: “For six decades—since Eisenhower, really—Graham has been what Bush called “the nation’s pastor,” a seemingly ubiquitous figure at the highest levels. From pressing Ike to enter the 1952 presidential campaign to golfing with Kennedy to helping save George W. from a life of drift and drink, Graham has managed, with only a few missteps, to be more unifying than divisive as a Christian evangelist in the public square, which is no small feat in a country founded on religious freedom and wary of sectarian religious allusions.” I concur! However, Billy Graham did not endorse George W. Bush. Since Billy and Franklin met with both candidates of recent weeks, neither has endorsed or condemned either candidate. Perhaps Franklin has seen the peril of political ties to this presidency and party, which is something the evangelical James Dobson, of Family Focus, has not yet learned. To learn more about the growing tide of young evangelicals who are redefining “evangelical” (evangelicals who no longer are just single-issue voters) by expanding the political focus on those Bible "red letter" words Jesus spoke, read The Great Awakening by Jim Wallis or Red Letter Christians by Tony Campolo. Good Republicans should also read America: Our Next Chapter by Chuck Hagel, a Republican Senator, who traveled abroad with Obama. As a good Democrat (in my case a Blue-Dog Democrat who’s first tenet is fiscal responsibility), I read it and learned how a truly principled-conservative Republican understands the perilous times our country is facing. Hagel is willing to take the scourge from his political party, courageously exhibiting a patriotism possibly exceeding his service in the Vietnam War.

The laundry list in this email is too many to answer individually here. Some of its content is a little condescending, exaggerations, half-truths, lies, some legitimate issues without explanation (pros or cons), and even some issues that both candidates support, and some not in themselves necessarily a negative thing. Actually some of these are very critical issues, of course, needing serious debate to process a much-needed policy. But the attempted muddling of the issues is a betrayal of the faith by which it seeks justification. Basically it’s a “fear-mongering tactic.” Yet, as I said, it is mild compared to most circulating the Internet.

For the enlightenment of those that seek “truth,” and to gain a better understanding of how our country has evolved to this point, I offer the following:

Here are two articles, Billing The Grandkids (This relates to A Looming Terror I wrote on Critical Actions in Feb. 2008) and Mr. Right? Each of these refers to Supply-Side Economics. Bruce Bartlett is a Supply-sider and conservative Republican, the author of Mr. Right. He tells of the disaffection of the conservatives with this administration and Republican’s leadership disappointments, resulting in attracting many Republican Obamacons. These issues probably also have something to do with some of the more moderate Republicans supporting Obama, such as Susan Eisenhower (granddaughter of President Dwight Eisenhower), Republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee, and Julie Nixon Eisenhower (daughter of President Richard Nixon). These people are senior citizens and not young people riding a tidal wave; they are intelligent and understand the gravity of our country’s situation. Read We Should Still Like Ike: In my opinion, truly the last great Republican President, under which the national debt has not exponentially increased, except during the Nixon-Ford tenure. What was really interesting, recently when Larry King interviewed Laura and Jenna Bush, he asked Laura if she supported McCain. “Yes,” she answered. He then asked Jenna. She answered with a silent smile, noncommittal. I read later: the black minister (of a large United Methodist Church in Texas.) who married Jenna and Henry had been a George Bush supporter, but is now a strong supporter of Obama.

Policy positions are important. And, hopefully, no one person can totally agree with the whole positions of either candidate. In fact, I have some concern about the Faith-Base Initiative. David Kuo, a one-time executive on Bush’s White House staff, directed the program. In his book, Tempting Faith, he gave under-funding as part of his disillusionment with the program and the primary reason for his resignation. I questioned the Faith Base Initiative when Bush implemented it, and I am still concerned that Obama’s proposal is not a good thing. (Franklin Graham, his Faith Based Program, will certainly want to be in line.) I think that Obama’s offering Faith Base does not signify a very strong separation of church and state, for which I am a strong advocate. And “separation” doesn’t mean I, or you, should not carry our faith values into the public square. Read Founders, Religion and State, in which I refer to Jon Meacham’s book, American Gospel.

An honest debate, not dumbing it down, demonstrating respect for each other, is a first step to neutralize polarization of the electorate. It is the huge number of bogus, maligning, smear and fear political emails, circulating since before the 2000 election that has been one of the serious degradation to the political process. I am somewhat curious in that I have only received maligning emails against Democrats. Even though I haven’t received a single one maligning a Republican candidate, I know they are out there because the truth-verifiers show some debunked. However, according to the websites the great majority disparages Democrats. If someone would share just one with me, I’ll just as quickly condemn it.

Perhaps I’m more sensitive than most about this concern, but if we truly are faithful to our Christian principles, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” we’ll think twice before forwarding that next fraudulent, or questionable, email. Could Mahatma Gandhi have been right? “Everybody in the world knows what Jesus taught­---except for Christians.” In Rotary International, a service organization neutral in politics and religion (or of equal opportunity), our club closes the meeting with the 4-Way Test of the things we think, say and do: a test of truthfulness, fairness, goodwill, and beneficialness, which I take seriously.

“No one” should agree with the whole of any candidate; however, all should agree to seek the “truth” and be better informed. A solid foundation for the house cannot be built by tearing apart the “matching side foundation.” A “good neighbor” can’t comfortably live beside a “good neighbor” without demonstrating goodwill. We are political neighbors either “building a solid foundation” or “a demolition team,” running the political spectrum.

It's not a matter of being a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Independent. It’s about character, decency, fairness, goodwill, and respecting the other’s intelligence to rightly and morally make an informed decision. And, yes, we should continue civil discourse and debate while being mindful that none of us are always right.

When we stop “dumbing-down politics,” not only on the Internet but also in the broader campaign, the prospects to enhance character-foundational Houses in the Washington, DC Capitol will exponentially increase, and we’ll be better people in the process.

One seeking the "TRUTH" may go to five different websites:

Fight The Smears

Know The Facts

Urban Legends

Truth or Fiction

Fact Check

-----------------------------
Obama, By Bill Brown on Billy Graham Team Bill Brown, is a highly respected retired member of the Billy Graham team So, I take his assessment of Obama very seriously and for that reason accept his challenge to pass this on. I share his concern about the 'rock star' image Obama has and watch with growing concern at the celebrity status the media has foisted upon him. Here is hope this email informs you in a wise way. ________________________________ The Obama Tidal Wave We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of 'Change' or that he says he will be a 'Uniter'. The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore. Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama: · He voted against banning partial birth abortion. · He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. · Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government. · In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing. · Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.. · Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college. · His religious convictions are very murky. · He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. · Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations. · Opposed the Patriot Act. · First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform. · Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers. · Supports universal health-care. · Voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. · Supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. · Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants. · Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform. · Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. · Wants to make the minimum wage a 'living wage'. · Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes. · Is a big believer in the separation of church and state. · Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid. · He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. · He voted No on repealing the 'Death' Tax. · He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. · Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.... · He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing. If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama's and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not forward this Email. If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it.
Inaction is action.
If you agree this is important, pass it on. The mainstream media will not do it for you! Bill Brown MAY GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS . . .

Dark Shadows of Our Past

From Racism to a New Generation?

As a young man I was prone to make some bold statements. Some friends called me “frank” to imply I was brutally plainspoken, not to mask what might be private thoughts of most people. “Real integration will not occur until there are biracial marriages,” I said at one time. This, my outspoken statement of over fifty years ago has resurfaced my deeper inner thoughts, as now a biracial presidential candidate presents himself before our nation. Could it be that Barack Obama, the son of a white mother and black father, has become the preeminent icon for true integration?

When Jane and I attended Easter Service with our daughter and her husband, I observed three biracial families at the Episcopal Church in Rutherfordton, NC. Immediately forward in the pew a white grandmother coddled one of two charming young boys, of slightly lighter complexion than Barack Obama. This scene played out again and again --- if not by biracial marriages, biracial adoptions, -- along with a youthful multitude supporting a black presidential candidacy -- seems to say there is a younger generation that’s more accepting; a racially tolerant generation who has left behind an older racially-prejudiced generation. Could this color-blind youthful society, in the least, be a significant prelude to what’s to come: an improved racial tolerance and a new social justice? Sitting on that church pew I thought: when we come into this world, we have no choice of the color of our skin - black, white, brown, yellow – or to our parents’ ethnicity, work ethic, poor, rich, social status, educated, uneducated, mental faculties -- nor do we have choice of whether we are heterosexual, gay or lesbian. However, we do individually have the choice to be empathizingly understanding, respectful and accepting of all of God’s created children. Even so we should know there is probably some underlying latent bias within most human beings of all races, but how could anyone be so patently bigoted?

Elsie Collins is one of the three African Americans who attend our Centenary United Methodist Church. In January on greeting Elsie during church service, she invited me to come to the Black History Month’s opening celebration at the local Johnston County Heritage Center. I answered, “Yes, I would like to.” In February at the Heritage Center various black citizens greeted me. The only other white citizens present were Heritage staff and Mr. John Booker, a former county commissioner, who had agreed to participate in a drama planned later that day. The exhibits of black history were a vivid reminder of our county’s segregated past when disadvantaged black citizens were shortchanged of public funds and equal opportunity to educate black youth.

As the drama group gathered for photos, I had an opportunity to talk with John McLean. John is the husband of Georgiana McLean, the much beloved choral teacher who taught at the integrated SSS High for 17 years. John and Georgiana are the parents of the accomplished Rhonda McLean, a graduate of Yale Law School who is associate general counsel of Time Inc. She spoke later at First Missionary Baptist Church of her experience (Herald report) as one of the first students of integration at Smithfield High School. No sooner than the newspaper report of her talk was available, questions by some white co-graduates began to circulate that there were differences of those high school days’ remembrances. Remembering differently is probably fair enough, as each ones’ perspective, white/black, is justifiably a difference of opinion because experiences differ in the same setting, era and place. One who is accepting of a new-integration student retains a kinder remembrance than the integrator, McLean, who no doubt with justifiable trepidation encountered those extreme racially prejudice students in the back halls or around the campus, unbeknown to a tolerant, accepting student. This illustrates how each of our memories of those integrational years can differ, and how painful it can be to look back into past shadowy places we had just as soon disclaim.

I have mentioned to some of my friends recently, “Black History is also a part of our White History.” In fact each is integral to the other; in America one can’t be without the other. Since that’s reality, one would think that whites would show more empathy to join with, to acknowledge our past failures and to celebrate our racial achievements and reaffirm our commitment to continuous racial progress. All the more it’s justifiable reason and importance for Black History Month and observing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Day.

The forerunners of racial integration such as Rhonda McLean and her ilk, Prophet Martin Luther King Jr., and leaders Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu were courageous personalities of a inimitable moral fiber who had a vision of freedom and social justice for all people.

It was only by the true-modern-day-prophet Martin Luther King Jr. that America gained a significant measure of social justice through civil, nonviolent revolution. Taylor Branch wrote in the Times The Last Wish of Martin Luther King, about King’s last sermon: So Dr. King stood in the pulpit a marked man, scorned and rebuked, beset with inner conflicts. Yet as always, he lifted hope from the bottom of his soul. He urged the congregation to be alive and awake to great revolutions in progress. “I say to you that our goal is freedom,” he cried, “and I believe we’re going to get there because — however much she strays from it — the goal of America is freedom!”

In the Times, Roger Cohen recounts his experience growing up in an apartheid South Africa that helps him comprehend the fundamental racial undercurrents in America. In his Beyond American’s Original Sin: “Slavery was indeed America’s “original sin.” Of course, “the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow” lives on in forms of African-American humiliation and anger that smolder in ways incommunicable to whites.”

Rob Christensen of the N&O writes about Henry Wallace’s 1948 Progressive Party Presidential Campaign experiences when he toured North Carolina: "Fascism has become an ugly reality -- a reality which I have tasted," Wallace said. "I have tasted it neither so fully nor so bitterly as millions of others. But I have tasted it. I learned what prejudice and hatred can mean. I learned to know the face of violence, although I was spared the full force of violence. I saw the ugly reality of how hate prejudice can warp good men and women, turn Christian gentlemen into raving beasts; turn good mothers and wives into Jezebels. I didn't like what I saw. I didn't like to see men and women fall victims to the catch words of prejudice and the slogans of hate, even as the poor people of Germany were victimized by the catchwords and slogans of Hitler and Streicher."

Thanks to a more sensitive, upright, respectful generation we have moved away from those blatant catchwords of racial hate. But evidence shows, even in unsuspecting places, no less than a buried prejudice that seeks to be exposed remnants from the dark shadows of our past. Nicholas Kristof writes of our masked prejudices, Our Racist, Sexist Selves. And Kristof in his With a Few More Brains tells of how conspiracy theories are a bane of the African-American community that corrupt the psyche not only of the blacks --- but more over it’s an American problem, the dumbing-down of American discourse. Can a new, more accepting generation counter and outlive the dark shadows of our past, with a new wellspring of social daylight?

We have come a long way since the days when uncle Henry sat on the backdoor steps to eat his lunch as the white family sat around the dinning-room table --- and aunt Vera sat at the kitchen table while the white family sat at the dinning-room table. Nevertheless, some of an older generation may be content that our perpetrated indignities lay dormant or even deny them, while ignorant or insular opportunist make political hay.

Little known or remembered, in 2007 the U. S. Congress bipartisanly passed a resolution apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans, and likewise states including North Carolina, Alabama and Virginia. While these broad resolutions are essential, the confessions they represent are sinful misdeeds of an ancestry that now only their descendents, we, can take personal responsibility henceforth for man’s contrite and reconciled hearts.

Jim Wallis, author of The Great Awakening says, “ Our unrepentant sins of racism still poison our body politic. How do we overcome both the persistent prejudice of the majority and the resulting victimization culture of minorities? How do we both create and trust real opportunity? How do we move be­yond easy multiculturalism by doing the hard work of racial justice and reconciliation?
And how do we navigate the new waters of multiethnic communities and conflicts in neighborhoods across the country? America's newsreel isn't just in black and white anymore; bloody Technicolor conflicts be­tween racial minorities are the tragic new addition to the landscape of racial strife in the United States. With race, we have original history and new history. How do we both recognize and affirm America's new multiracial family photo, but also never forget the particular sin of slavery and its aftermath of crushing discrimination, by taking responsibility for the unique experience of African Americans in the United States?”

I would be remiss in any comments about racism not to acknowledge the responsibility of all sides. There is an ongoing quandary within the black community about how to deal with these challenges. Ta-Nehisi Coates, in an interview with Bill Cosby in The Atlantic’s current issue, ‘This Is How We Lost to the White Man’, writes candidly about some contradictions within the black community. She comments:
“Last summer, I watched Cosby give a moving commencement speech to a group of Connecticut inmates who’d just received their GEDs. Before the speech, at eight in the morning, Cosby quizzed correctional officials on the conditions and characteristics of their inmate population. I wished, then, that my 7-year-old son could have seen Cosby there, to take in the same basic message that I endeavor to serve him every day—that manhood means more than virility and strut, that it calls for discipline and dutiful stewardship. That the ultimate fate of black people lies in their own hands, not in the hands of their antagonists. That as an African American, he has a duty to his family, his community, and his ancestors.”

There is a responsibility from all communities for racial progress. Jonas Salk said, “Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors.” Indeed that’s the best heritage we can leave for our children generations to come: a legacy of justice in which peace can flourish in our land and be an example for others around the world. It is the responsibility of all: “whites reaching out to blacks,” “black reaching out to whites,” and all races reaching out to one another.

Elsie Collins, an African American, in my church, awakened my racial consciousness when she extended to me an invitation to Black History Celebration. First it is the church where there could and should be a conscience, a more in-tune racial thoughtfulness. Jim Wallis, referencing Corinthians, says, God reconciled himself to us through Christ, entrusting his message of reconciliation to us; therefore, we are the ambassadors of Christ to be reconciled to one another. That begs the question, where for many generations has the conscience of the white church been for racial reconciliation? Of course it hasn’t been completely devoid, but certainly, for what I know, it has not many times been the spiritual voice of racial conciliation; oft times we become enclave, forgetting a larger community and a larger world exist. We could show more compassion for racial healing, such as promoting Black History Month or recognition of Dr. Martin Luther King Memorial Day. I understand that these may be difficult issues for some to address but they are critical to racial healing, progress, and our personal and community’s well-being, contributing to a more salutary climate.

Dr. King said, “Sunday morning worship service was the most segregated hour of the week.” After forty years that’s still true. Wallis quotes Dr. King: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state.” Our muted voice to speak our moral sense of right and wrong makes us complicit to the sins of immoral injustices. In our efforts to be the conscience of the state, expand our Christian values into the public square and to span the vast cultural chasm between white and black communities of faith, we have the responsibility to do better.

Can we do better? Yes we can, if it’s only by symbolism or little things, a beginning. At one time my church exchanged choirs and preachers for one service during the year with one of the local black churches. That may be a good idea to revive. Another suggestion would be to have a group of participating churches that send three to five members to visit opposite-race services once a month. Call the groups: Jesus’ Ambassadors, Ambassadors of Faith, or The Jesus Squad. The good news of goodwill ambassadors could go a long way to improve racial relations in our community --- walking into new-culture experiences of conciliation and out of the dark shadows of our past.

A looming Terror

The Gross National Debt

Peter G. Peterson answers "A Looming Terror" with: You Can't Carry It With You


Supply-Side Economics, a theory President George H. W. Bush said was voodoo economics, is a term not as often referred to in recent years, even though it continues to be the founding basis for the Republican mantra, “Reduce Taxes.” Tax reduction has also become the byword of most Democrats. In fact it’s near impossible for any candidate to be elected or re-elected without some anti-tax sentiment. Case in point: The anti-tax guru, Grover Norquist, recently campaigned against North Carolina’s 3rd Congressional District’s Republican U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, who according Norquist violated his anti-tax pledge by voting last year for major farm and energy bills, even though Jones had voted against President Bush's two big budget expansions which included Medicare prescription drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind program.



Supply Side was introduced in 1974 by Arthur Laffer in the presence of Jude Wanniski, an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal and Dick Cheney, then-deputy assistant to President Ford. Where they met at a restaurant on that evening, Laffer pulled out a cocktail napkin and drew a parabola-shaped curve on it – to illustrate that a zero-tax rate would produce zero-tax revenue and likewise a 100% tax rate would produce zero-tax revenue, with assumption that it kills all incentive to produce a profit. His theory: government revenues would increase as the tax rate was dropped to lower end of the scale because of correlating ascending-profit incentives; increased profits, reinvested, of larger businesses feeds back in trickle-down to the masses to keep an economy churning. Jonathan Chait's book, The Big Con, according to him, tells the true story of how Washington got hoodwinked and hijacked by crackpot economics as condensed in Feast of the Wingnuts. Arthur B. Laffer defends his supply-side economic theory in his Supply-Side Investment Research, a pdf file complete with charts.


The broader question of tax revenues, budgets, national deficit, personal debts, foreign oil addiction, and foreign trade balances have become taboo or tone-deaf politically, for fear that the frightful “tax word” might be invoked. In James Fallows’ The $1.4 Trillion Question, he tracks the dollars that China is loaning back to the U.S. so that we can keep on buying their cheap products, as the poor Chinese people unwittingly forfeit a higher standard of living and needed capital for their country’s distressed infrastructure. Subsequent to Fallows article, on Jan. 14th, he received an update: China’s People's Bank of China, China's equivalent of the Federal Reserve, announced that the holdings had now reached $1.53 trillion, and at the current rate of $1-billion per day will be about $2.0 trillion by year’s end or about $6,000 for every person in the USA. And consider the national deficit of $9.323 Trillion (see National Debt as a % of GDP), for a debt of $31,000 for every American citizen. In Robert Samuelson’s last week’s Newsweek article, The $3.0 Trillion Cop-Out, he comments on the current budget: “Most Americans don't seem bothered by more government spending and endless budget deficits. We're focused on our own entitlements.” That’s probably true, “thank you very much for my socialized Medicare.”



Are these ominous signs and do they signal a more agonizing financial trouble is imminent? Some would say “NO” we’ll keep printing the money. Absurd? I don’t claim to know much. I just have these wearily growing qualms about these economic times. What I do know is that whatever we want as a country, whether it’s energy independence, health care, education, or an American defense budget that equates to the sum total of all other nations of the world and 6-times greater than the next largest, Russia’s (reference page 250 “Beyond The White House”), someone has to pay. In today’s N&O see The incidental cost of a costly defense. To maintain our wants it has not been proven, for its part, that trickle-down economics can accomplished its goals (if the goal’s a reasonably balanced budget/economy), not without disciplined lockstep expenditure controls necessary to control the deficit.


In my opinion, this current economy is suffering not merely from a normal down-cycle, but more acutely from irresponsible fiscal policies of sub-prime loans (symptom of a deeper issue), auction-rate securities, national deficits, personal debts and trade imbalances. And the quick fixes: shoring up home loans, low interest, lenient credit, and $150-billion tax rebates that the government doesn’t have will do nothing to insure a long-term solution; all that may just add fuel to a politically self-perpetuating destabilization of natural economic forces. New York’s Mayor Bloomberg says, “handing out money is like giving a drink to an alcoholic.” Inevitably there comes a point when the nation as a whole has to bite the bullet, and even concede that our descendents, as a whole, will live at a lower standard of living. Thomas Friedman says in his book, The World is Flat. For the USA that mean the playing field is precipitously tilting in favor of many other people s of the world, some 2.0 billion of them who now live on a $1 or $2 a day. Americans with only 4.54% of the world’s population competing with China’s 20%, India’s 17.11% and other parts of world growing hungry for the good life is a warning of the arduous planning and adjusting we must make to compete in this global economy. If our financial house is not in order the challenge become overwhelming. Will our national leadership muster the fortitude to face these challenges now rather than defer them to our children’s cataclysm? The answer is: Only in a bottom-up and top-down change of societal attitudes adjusted to forgo our greediest desires; concessions we will have to make known to our leadership if we are to prepare for the eventuality. Let true patriots step forward!



I guess no one is thrilled about paying taxes but I’ve never grieved over paying taxes and have been privileged to be able to do so. Certainly pay raises and low taxes, while important, were never the sole motivating factor in my professional life. Beyond pay raises or an extra-low individual and corporate tax, the foremost assets and incentives in an industrious society’s strength are individual good character, strong-work ethic, ethicalness, and a personal gratification of personal and company achievements. Otherwise, there would not be successful companies. To diminish these industrial tenets, to say that “profit” is the only motivation for success hastens humanity’s avaricious decline.


The aforesaid is in no way to suggest a high tax rate is needed. However, it is time for bold new ideas as well to review some of the old such as Steve Forbes’ “Flat Tax.” In as much as “flat tax” requires dismantling of the current tax code to rebuild a fair-tax structure without the loopholes, it could possible give impetus for pay-as-go budgeting, insurance of a long-term fiscal responsibility and security for our country. That will probably never happen, not because it’s so complicated but because of the lobbyist influence resulting in political gridlock. It’s the same with healthcare which is much more complicated because of the established institutions we already have that make up a socialized-medicine system, consisting of Medicare, Medicare Drug Benefits, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, County Health Departments, and write-offs of hospital/ emergency-room visits. Problem: these institutions exclude 47-billion people short of Universal Care. We’ll need a lot of Hope, Solutions, and Straight Talk to work out this twisted web. What part will “trickle down” or “funnel up” economics serve to secure a great society? Where is the balance?



It’s silly I know that I would even dare write this and share it with others. I don’t mean to be an alarmist, but there is a deafening silence of horror, a looming terror within our own financial foundation, few want to talk about, and every person in this nation shares a responsibility. As Robert Samuelson says, “The fact that we are not debating the possible consequences is a cop-out—but it is a cop-out in which the broad American public is conspicuously complicit.”

Disregard for TRUTH

A response to slanderous emails with offensive disregard for TRUTH about Barack Obama:

Tomorrow, Jan. 1st, 2008 marks the 200th anniversary when slavery importation was first prohibited in the U. S. (reference: Forgotten Step Toward Freedom) The reason I mention this is because it has some relevance (tradition/culture per se) to the response below I wrote to my brother-in-law in answer to his questions about the same email herewith (at end of this writing) you forwarded to me. Please allow me to apply the ROTARY truth, fairness, goodwill and beneficial test to it (Or should I say my Christian-values test?). But understand I’m not claiming to have 100% truth; at least it is the search for truth to give a more balanced, reasonable perspective. I share the reply herewith for the enlightenment of all. I would welcome comments from anyone. Thanks, Cornell
---------------------------------------------
Yes, I've received several of these emails, and in the next few months we can count on many more of political orientation.

Being "black" to be a member of Trinity UCC, I would think would have much to do with culture and possibly the church's mission to reach out to a huge underclass in Chicago area of African-Americans to meet them "where they are" in their need to understand “from where they came” and how they can fit into an orderly society. For an outsider to better understand all this, one would have to, at least, try to find a place of empathy within the lives of those who are less hopeful than we. Trinity may, or may not, have a few white members; Centenary (my church) has only one or two blacks who attend regularly, and I don't know if they are actually members.

Black churches, especially southern, have to be given much credit for social justice, which has made America more ideally a morally democratic country. The book I am currently reading, God’s Politics by Jim Wallis, points to the Christian-values that brought about racial social justice in the U. S. Can you imagine where this country would be today without Martin Luther King Jr.’s peaceful initiative of the sixties? As Wallis says, “with a Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other” he did what would have never been initiated out of, most at least, the white churches.

Churches of the same denomination differ greatly by ethnicity (especially color/race), as well as theology, given many adhere to liberal or conservative theology even though there's a "statement of belief" we recite. Just how that statement of belief is defined within each member's heart is where each of us finds a place to remain true to our religious values. (And of course some of us never think about what we really believe or would we dare to question it; we just go with the flow -- as most do.) That's true also of United Methodist, as there are, if not predominately, wholly "black," "Hispanic," "white," or other ethnicity of which probably most do not mention being Americans but do claim to be members of the "Universal Christian Church." I could not find "American" mentioned on the UMC website. So far as I know there is only one "United Church of Christ" denomination, and my son Mitch's church, at Hillsborough, NC is a member of this denomination.

To delve further into the pros and cons of Obama/Trinity UCC read a discrediting by the black Erik Rush who appeared on Hannity and Colmes: http: Obamination. (This article is posted on the Alan Keys website. It was Keyes who was defeated by Obama in the last Illinois U. S. Senate election.) However, don't read it without also reading the Trinity UCC pastor's response: Trinity UCC. I can't speak for Obama, but people who are members of their “claimed faith” don't always necessarily agree verbatim with it's doctrine/policies. That's certainly could apply to me as a United Methodist, and I believe that could be true with (many) others as well. It is the strict doctrine and literal Bible interpretations that plays havoc, creates disunity and division within religion. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia published by the Oxford University Press there were over 9,900 documented distinct and separate religions in the world – as reported in 2002 from The Atlantic essay Oh, Gods!. Religious tolerance! Yes. Religious freedom! Yes.

Again, I can’t speak for Obama, and I’m not supporting him or anyone else at this point. However, I would defend him or anyone else in his or her Christian faith, even so Mitt Romney. After all, in Christian Faith our allegiance is to Christ first. “Render to Rome what is Rome’s” even though Rome is not always right. Possibly, we’ve seen an excess of politically hyped patriotism over the past years, while many true patriots have been ridiculed and falsely accused of being unpatriotic. True patriotism is revealed by work, action, and effectiveness to make a better country more so than by symbolisms. Jim Wallis points to this in God’s Politics.

I was impressed by Obama's book The Audacity of Hope, and believe it revealed much about his Christian values. Nothing that I have heard or read yet has caused me to question his motives or to in anyway identify him with extremist views; although, I'll stay tuned. Several email rumors against Obama are corrected at Urban Legends.

No doubt radical-religious extremism is a serious problem throughout the world, by which I am very concerned. Have you seen the documentary by Christiane Amanpour: God’s Warriors, Jews, Muslims, and Christians? It is the infighting of the children of Abraham and their religious-extremism that is one of the biggest threats to democracy and world peace. (A good book to learn more about Abraham’s children is Abraham: A Journey to The Heart of Three Faith, by Bruce Fieler) The three segments of God’s Warriors on CNN were initially run in Aug. and have since been rerun. I recommend these to anyone who is concerned about the future of our country and the world. Where is the leader with the best understanding of these issues who can communicate with other world leaders to find the best solutions and resolve to defend our nation and save the world from complete destruction?

Well, these are some of my thoughts, however probably not as fine tuned as needed. I welcome your comments.

Cornell Cox

Here is one example of the emails with offensive disregard for truth:
Lets be sure and remember this!!!
Subject: Fw: Obama's church
Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting.
Obama's church:
Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming. Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.

Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa! I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers.
This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family & friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency is really scary. Click on the link below: This is the web page for the church Barack Obama belongs to: www.tucc.org/about.htm