Endorsed by the President

Wow, was I thrilled with last night’s State of the Union address. Right there at the 45 minute mark, the President steps up and openly endorses me: “Let’s try ‘Common Sense’ … a novel concept.” I can’t tell you how honored I was. It’s not everyday you get a ringing endorsement from the President of the United States!

I loved his speech as well. It was almost inspirational at the end when he was chastising Congress and the Supreme Court. With respect to the latter, I was afraid for a moment that Justice Alito might try to reprise Congressman Wilson’s “You lie!” faux pas of September 10th, but he maintained judicial decorum by merely shaking his head with a look of disdain and uttering the phrase, “That’s not true.” Since courts like to make distinctions, this gives the Justice a way to distinguish his actions from Congressman Wilson’s. The fact that the President may have misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling of 2 U.S.C. 441e need not be taken into consideration.

I was particularly impressed with the President’s empathy and demonstrated understanding. He really seems to have “connected” with the frustration of the American people. When he stated that we have “lost faith” in our biggest institutions (corporations, media, and the government), I think he was “right on.” Of course, I expect America’s Crappy Lawyers Union (the ACLU) to ask that the term “faith” be stricken from the record, but I don’t believe he meant it in a religious context. No, the President went on to excoriate any “CEO who rewards himself for failure” and any Banker “who puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain.” Putting aside the masculine references, which again may evoke a claim of sex discrimination from the ACLU, I agree with him on this point. I think he was running short on time, so while he had an opportunity to single out unscrupulous CEOs and Bankers (and it wasn’t a good night for Bankers), he didn’t have the chance to address the government, in whom we’ve “lost faith” as well. So, I’ll cover that for him.

You see, Common Sense suggests that we “lose faith” in government when our elected officials spend money irresponsibly … as if it’s their money. We “lose faith” when votes are “bought” to pass ill-conceived legislation … something we call bribery in the real world. We “lose faith” when billions of dollars are traded for favors in the form of earmarks; although we were promised a website that would list future earmarks for all to see. Note that in contrast with what was promised during the Presidential campaign, we were not told that anything would be done to eliminate earmarks … just that they would be posted. What can I say? I think this kind of bold and decisive action leaves us all “atwitter” (no pun intended).

I liked it when the President admonished Congress. He said it was not the time to be “playing it safe, and avoid telling hard truths, and pointing fingers … doing what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election.” I agree! However, we tend to “lose faith” when this reprimand comes after the President has repeatedly blamed the former Administration for the “massive fiscal hole” he inherited when he came into office. We “lose faith” when he ignores the fact that he helped dig that hole when he voted for the bills that generated the debt while he was a Senator in a Democratic-controlled Congress. We “lose faith” when he issues the rebuke after he has repeatedly blamed big business (and particularly the banking industry) for the ills of our economy. From a Common Sense perspective, it just seems a bit insincere.

We further “lose faith” when the flames of class warfare are fanned to capture support. “We won’t extend tax cuts to Oil Companies, Investment Fund Managers and those making over $250 thousand a year.” I happen to know people in each of these groups who do not merit vilification. There is nothing inherently evil about them, but I guess it makes for good theatre. Oil Companies employ thousands of people; Investment Fund Managers are not all sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff (or former Congressmen Cunningham and Biaggi for that matter); and just because someone has established a level of success that generates an income in excess of $250,000 doesn’t mean they lie, cheat and steal to do it. It would be far more inspiring to find a way to raise peoples’ standard of living rather than trying to lower the standard of those who have achieved success … but I digress.

We “lose faith” when the latest “whipping boy,” the banking industry, is attacked for its greed and corruption without any mention of the uncapped monetary resources of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and the uncapped compensation of their executives. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it the collapse of the housing market and the bundling of related “troubled assets” that led us to TARP (the Troubled Assets Relief Program)? Wasn’t it the Congress in which the President served that passed legislation mandating that loans be given to people who couldn’t possibly repay them? Good business? No! Good politics? Well, it helped gain an overwhelming majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and secure the Presidency, so I guess the answer is “Yes!”

We “lose faith” when there are obvious contradictions between campaign rhetoric and reality. Oil Companies are bad … but we’re going to drill offshore. Tax cuts are bad … but we passed 25 of them last year (I guess they’re only bad if they’re not being given to your voting base). We’re going to “exclude Lobbyists from policy-making decisions or seats on federal boards or commissions” … but we’re going to make 12 special exceptions while trying to form the current Administration’s team. A trillion dollar deficit is bad … but only the one associated with a lame-duck Administration that had to drive legislation through a recalcitrant opposition’s significant majority.

My favorite of the night was, “What frustrates American people is a Washington where everyday is an election day … we can’t wage a perpetual campaign.” Great sound bite! Unfortunately, it was followed by, you guessed it, what can only be characterized as a campaign speech. Security, withdrawing our combat troops from Iraq, human rights, civil rights, employment discrimination, hate crimes, equal pay, border security (I think Secretary Napolitano may have been dozing off at this point) … all were covered. Then, it was announced that the President would be leaving in the morning to basically repeat the same stump speech in various States across the country; States which, coincidentally, have major seats up for election in November. I can only hope there are enough Teleprompters to go around.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for a Jobs Bill, Healthcare Reform, and a Comprehensive Clean Energy and Climate Bill. I just don’t think any of them should be based on rhetoric, bad information, or political interests. The President said he’d be open to advice on healthcare reform: “If anyone has a better plan that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.” Given his new and open support of Common Sense, I’ll be writing an article on Healthcare Reform in the near future that will do just that.

In the mean time, I’ll try to learn more about “budgeting.” Apparently, it’s about freezing Congressional spending … but only in a year because “that’s what budgeting is.” I must have missed that in my finance courses in college. Then again, maybe the President is really just a closet Cubs fan who can’t break away from a fundamental belief in “Wait ‘til next year.”

I’ll admit I was left with a tear in my eye because of the closing story about the eight year old boy who sent his allowance to President Obama and asked that it be sent to Haiti. After taxes, I think it amounted to 12 cents. Then, I saw Speaker Pelosi lean over to Vice President Biden to offer a thought. I’m sure she was suggesting that they could cut back on their political perquisites and redirect the money to those in need. Nancy, you’re going to miss the private plane, the subsidized food, the large staff, etc. … but God bless you for caring.

*****

2010 © Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author.

Terrorism

In my last blog, I made helpful suggestions concerning how the current Administration could reduce its operating costs by limiting the number of Czars to two: the Faith-Based Czar (I am not messing with that one) … and me, the Common Sense Czar! Now, its time to move on to helping our country address other critical issues that weigh on our collective conscience.

I’m going to move terrorism to the top of the heap … in front of healthcare. Admittedly, it sometimes seems difficult to distinguish the two. However, our healthcare system generally has to pick us off one-at-a-time while terrorists seem hell-bent on killing hundreds or thousands of us in a single attack.

For some reason, we seem challenged to figure out how to treat terrorists. Everybody is in agreement that terrorism is “bad,” but there seems to be a significant concern about how we might be viewed by the world if we are too harsh in the way in which we question and prosecute terrorists. There also is a school of thought that says that we need to “mellow out” because our actions may inflame terrorist activity. For example: Guantanamo needs to be shut down because al-Qaeda might view it as a symbolic representation of our country’s unsympathetic position when it comes to the mass-murdering of its citizens.

During a recent Homeland Security Committee hearing before the United States Senate, no one could identify who, within the Department of Justice, made the decision to place Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in our civilian criminal justice system and afford him full protection under the Constitution. Of equal concern: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, and FBI Director Robert Mueller each testified that they had not been consulted on the issue. So, the only thing we know is that someone within the Department of Justice “made the call.” This would be the same Department of Justice that has been threatening to investigate Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio and his department for enforcing immigration laws in Arizona. Perhaps Attorney General Eric Holder and his staff think that Abdulmutallab has been punished enough by being nicknamed the "Underwear Bomber." After all, we don’t want to “inflame” other terrorists … although, come to think of it, Umar essentially tried to “inflame” himself. But I guess it really doesn’t matter because Press Secretary “Glib” announced that we had already learned everything we could in the 50 minutes of questioning that occurred prior to Umar receiving his Miranda warning. Since then, he has chosen to “remain silent.” I guess we can all rest easier since Press Secretary “Glib” says it’s okay.

IT’S OBVIOUSLY TIME FOR THE COMMON SENSE CZAR TO INTERVENE. So, here it is … the Common Sense doctrine of how to deal with terrorism:

Terrorists will not be given the rights of our citizens … period! Try to blow up a plane … don’t expect to receive a Miranda warning. Your “right to remain silent” officially stopped when you decided to detonate an explosive device in an attempt to kill hundreds of innocent people. I’ll provide the water and the board … and we’ll find out more about those additional attacks you promised were coming before you have the opportunity to “lawyer up.”

Speaking of confessions: if you confess to planning the attack on 9/11 (as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did) … don’t expect me to authorize spending $100 million to try you in a civilian court in New York so the world will think we’re a kinder, gentler nation. You’re a terrorist … not a civilian. In fact, I wouldn’t even waste time and money trying you before a military tribunal. During these tough economic times, I’d just authorize $100 for a few rounds of .50 caliber ammunition and make a Navy Seal count to 10 while you try to escape in an open field.

And speaking of Navy Seals, I’m also not going to subject them to court martial proceedings for allegedly punching you during (or after) your capture as was done based upon the complaint of Ahmed Hashim Abed. As I recall, he was the mastermind behind the ambush of four Blackwater agents who were transporting supplies for a catering company. The victims were killed by gunfire and grenades. Then, their bodies were burned and dragged through the city. Two of the victims’ bodies were then hung on a bridge over the Euphrates River to create a “photo op” for the world press. No, I’m not going to authorize expensive court martial proceedings for the Navy Seals. Instead, I’m going to authorize a few dollars for some really nice medals to pin on their chests and give them each a new Louisville Slugger, personally autographed by Hank Aaron, with instructions to “swing away” next time. Just as a level set: the number of US combat troops who have been captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and recovered alive is approximately zero. What goes around comes around.

Now, just so you don’t get the idea that I’m some kind of violent or vindictive Czar … I’m not. I just care more about protecting the lives of innocent individuals than I do about creating new rights for those who would intentionally and viciously attack them. In that regard, I guess I’m a “strict constructionist” with regard to the Eight Amendment’s protection against “cruel and unusual punishment” when it comes to terrorists. The conjunction is “and” rather than “or.” Therefore, I think the Framers meant that punishment can be “cruel” as long as it’s not “unusual” (think about the punishments that were exacted back in Revolutionary times). My personal recommendation for punishing terrorists is to parallel their treatment of prisoners when it comes time to sentence them. After all, there isn’t a more direct way of determining what they think is “kosher” in this regard (no pun intended). If they think that their actions might be applied directly to them, it may give them a new perspective when it comes to cutting off the heads of live prisoners, etc.

As a friend of mine once said, “You can’t attribute rationale thought to irrational behavior.” Rationale people do not ascribe to killing innocent people; be they in Iraq, Afghanistan or the United States. Terrorists do not differentiate between men, women and children. They do not differentiate between military personnel and civilians. They do not even differentiate between those who support them … and those who don’t. They just call the supporters they send to slaughter “martyrs” rather than what they really are, which is “dead.”

One final point: my Common Sense definition of a “terrorist” is one who, either individually or in concert with others, uses or threatens to use force or violence against innocent people to intimidate or coerce ideological change. As our President would say, “Let me be clear.” I don’t distinguish between a card-carrying member of al-Qaeda, a lunatic psychiatrist in the military, and a citizen who would blow up a building in Oklahoma City. In my book, they’re all terrorists … and now, you know how the Common Sense Czar would deal with them.

*****

2010 © Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author.

The Common Sense Czar

I was going to write a blog entitled “State of the Union” … but I thought it might be too depressing. Instead, I thought I’d take a positive approach and suggest a solution to some of our current challenges: appoint me as the new “Common Sense Czar.” After all, we already have more than 30 other Czars … so, what’s the big deal in adding one more?

With all due respect to Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, I think I deserve the job. Besides, Thomas Paine has been dead for over 200 years … even though he’s still registered to vote in three States according to Acorn.

Being a Czar is really cool. Unlike politicians, you don’t have to have to raise money to run; you generally don’t have to be vetted in any particularly rigorous way; you’re not responsible to the citizens of the United States; you have reasonably unbridled authority; and you get to be called “Czar!”

So, what would my responsibilities be as Common Sense Czar? Essentially, I would be expected to apply common sense to the issues of the day; something that has been missing in our Nation’s capital for quite some time. I’d take on Healthcare, our missions overseas, terrorism, etc. … but first, I’d apply common sense to help rationalize the glut of Czars we already have. Here’s a list I found that may be a bit dated but at least gives you an idea of who’s on the team.

Guantanamo Closure Czar

TARP Czar

Stimulus Accountability Czar

Government Performance Czar

Afghanistan Czar

Sudan Czar

Mideast Peace Czar

Central Region Czar

Terrorism Czar

Weapons Czar

WMD Policy Czar

Intelligence Czar

Border Czar

Domestic Violence Czar

Drug Czar

Great Lakes Czar

California Water Czar

Climate Czar

Energy and Environment Czar

Green Jobs Czar

Economic Czar

Regulatory Czar

Pay Czar

Car Czar

Auto Recovery Czar

Science Czar

Technology Czar

Information Czar

AIDS Czar

Health Czar

Urban Affairs Czar

Faith-Based Czar

It’s tough to know your Czars without a scorecard. I can hear it now: “Playing left field and batting ninth, Number 17, Guantanamo Closure Czar, Daniel Fried.” I want to give Mr. Fried special recognition because, if he’s successful, he won’t have a job. Luckily for him, he hasn’t made much progress on the Executive Order issued by President Obama on January 22, 2009, to close Gitmo “no later than one year from now” to quote the President. If and when Czar Fried is successful, maybe he can be reappointed Unemployment Czar. After all, our number of unemployed citizens is starting to approach the population of our illegal aliens ... a group which seems to be getting far more positive political attention. It must have something to do with critical mass.

Another couple of “fried” Czars would seem to be the TARP Czar and the Stimulus Accountability Czar. On February 25, 2009, just eight days after signing the $787-billion dollar economic stimulus package, President Obama stated that he was putting Vice President Joe Biden in charge of the "tough, unprecedented oversight effort" of the fiscal stimulus plan "because nobody messes with Joe." I can’t imagine why we would need these two Czars if Vice President Biden has everything under control.

Jeffrey Zients’ role would seem to be in jeopardy as well. After all, he’s the Government Performance Czar. Given our Government’s performance in recent years, I can’t even imagine someone making a case to keep him.

Come to think of it, I could probably replace all of the Czars. Let’s think through this together!

Afghanistan and the Sudan are independent countries. If we have military or humanitarian initiatives in any country, it is Congress’ responsibility to address the issues. We don’t need Czars for these specific countries. After all, if we’re going to appoint a Czar for a particular country, why not start with Russia? They’re used to it.

Then, we’ve got the Mideast Peace Czar. Talk about a dead-end job! These countries have been fighting for over 2,000 years. What are the odds that a political appointee in the United States will be able to resolve their differences? That’s one more position we can eliminate. And while we’re at it, let’s eliminate the Central Region Czar who is responsible for our policies in, you guessed it, the same part of the world; needless duplication. Gone!

While we’re on the subject, we presently have a Terrorist Czar. No, not Bill Ayres (although he might be a good choice under the assumption that “it takes one to know one”) … a fellow named John Brennan. This is the same John Brennan who allegedly nixed a plan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden back in 1998. Way to establish job security! Eliminating this position shouldn’t exactly create a void.

Staying with the terrorist theme for a moment, I see we have a Weapons Czar and a WMD Policy Czar. Why differentiate? If the Weapons Czar only tackles issues of conventional weaponry (like sling-shots), we don’t need him. If there really are “no weapons of mass destruction,” we don’t need the WMD Policy Czar either. Assuming for the moment that weapons of mass destruction are not just a figment of former President Bush’s imagination, I’ll establish the policy. Weapons of mass destruction are bad things; particularly in the hands of unstable people. There you have it … a common sense policy and two more positions eliminated.

Along these same lines, we have an Intelligence Czar. Let’s just agree that it’s an obvious oxymoron and eliminate the position to stop the snickering!

We have a Border Czar to protect us from illegal immigration. If you call this Czar’s office, press 1 for English, press 2 for Spanish, press 3 for Tagalog, press 4 for Farsi, press 5 for … well, you get the picture. Applying common sense: we have immigration laws in place. Enforce them! One more position eliminated.

This same solution can be applied to two more positions: Domestic Violence Czar and Drug Czar. Common sense tells us that domestic violence and the illegal use of drugs is bad. We have laws in place against both negative behaviors. Enforce them! That gets rid of those two Czars.

Next, we have a few positions tied to specific locations within our country. We have a Great Lakes Czar. I’ve been to the Lakes. They’re indeed “Great.” That should cover it. Position eliminated!

We also have a California Water Czar … as if there aren’t any other problems in the state. Interestingly enough, this particular one is man-made. Last year, California and the surrounding states enjoyed record snowfalls, which created an abundance of water. However in 2007, a federal judge ruled that endangered smelt might get caught in the pumps. So, the pumps were ordered to be shut down to preserve the habitat for the tiny silver fish. As a result, taxpayers from San Diego to San Jose have been placed on water allocation and have suffered significant rate hikes; farmers have been threatened with foreclosures and bankruptcies because they can’t irrigate their crops; but I’m happy to say that the smelt are enjoying living their lives and being eaten by natural predators. I apologize in advance to environmentalists, but there comes a time when common sense must intervene. So, I say open the pumps, restore the agrarian economy, fish fry at my house, and eliminate this position.

Since, I’ve already offended my fellow environmentalists, let’s take a look at three other unnecessary positions: Climate Czar, Energy and Environment Czar, and Green Jobs Czar. If we accept the premise of global warming established by world-renowned scientist and inventor of the Internet, Al Gore, climate would seem to be a legitimate issue. Luckily, the federal and state governments have authority to create laws that make us better “citizens” of the planet. Unfortunately, we have no authority to legislate what China, India and the rest of the world do. So, the Climate Czar can step down.

Similarly, we don’t have a need for an Energy and Environment Czar. The environmental element is repetitive and, as for energy, I can set the policy: eliminate our dependence on foreign oil; cultivate our natural resources in a responsible way (which doesn’t mean “rape the earth” any more than it means that accessing them will destroy the world as we know it); and develop new and better alternative fuels.

This brings us to the Green Job Czar, but I need not address this one. Apparently, the White House has already excused him when it was discovered that he took the whole Czar thing a little too literally and pledged allegiance to Stalin.

Speaking of jobs, I find it interesting that we don’t have a Jobs Czar. No problem … I can handle it. We do have an Economic Czar, so maybe there’s some overlap. Paul Volcker headed the Federal Reserve during the latter stages of the Carter Administration and through the Reagan years. The good news is that he is credited with helping our Nation overcome “stagflation.” The bad news is that he did it by raising the prime lending rate to 21.5% and driving the economy into a deep recession that created a level of unemployment not seen since the Great Depression. I’m eliminating his position because we’re already there when it comes to creating a recession and experiencing an untenable level of unemployment.

Corresponding, I’m going to eliminate the Regulatory Czar. I’ve soured on the self-righteousness of our regulatory agencies ever since the “anointed one,” Eliot Spitzer, prostituted his position as Governor of New York after ruling herd over the bastions of Wall Street. I’ll only reconsider if Bernie Madoff gets an early parole and assumes the role of Frank Abagnale, Jr. (I hope that reference isn’t too esoteric). Besides, the current Regulatory Czar apparently wants to “regulate” everything including “free speech” (of which I am obviously a fan). Cass Sunstein thinks that conspiracy theories should be taxed or censored and numbers among them the theory that “global warming” may be a deliberate fraud. He also wants to lobby for the right for animals to bring lawsuits. This would give even more power to the ACLU (America’s Crappy Lawyers Union) to bring “udderly” worthless lawsuits on behalf of sacred cows; barring them from grazing on government property as a violation of the separation church and state. Gone!

We also have a Pay Czar. This is the individual who, like the Regulatory Czar, remains ever vigilant over those fat-cat CEOs in high-profile industries we all love to hate. However, I can’t help noticing that he hasn’t imposed any restrictions on the compensation of the executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who have almost single-handedly destroyed the economy. I also don’t recall seeing any “smack downs” of the union officials who can consistently deliver political votes in volume. Common sense tells me he has to go!

While we’re talking about unions, I feel compelled to point out that we have two Czars for the automotive industry: a Car Czar and an Auto Recovery Czar. By now, you know how I feel about redundancy. I’m not sure what either does, but I’m sure we don’t need two. Under the Car Czar’s guidance, both General Motors and Chrysler have gone bankrupt. Since I’m reasonably confident they could have accomplished that without him, his position is being eliminated. As for the Auto Recovery Czar, I’m not sure if he’s vested with the responsibility to help the automotive industry "recover" from the bankruptcies the Car Czar has overseen, or if his responsibility is to "recover" the taxpayer dollars that have been funneled into the industry without any noticeable results. Once again, this is a position we can safely eliminate.

Moving along into the vital science, technology and information sectors, I am happy to say we have a Czar for each one. Our Science Czar is a top-flight academic, which means that common sense isn’t a part of his world. He once proffered the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" to control human population and natural resources to save the Earth. “Earth to Science Czar,” I’ll only consider keeping you if the “compulsory sterilization” idea begins with Members of our current Congress.

Our Technology Czar and Information Czar are good friends. Together, they will lead the evolution of Information Technology within our government. You guessed it … I see this as redundant. Given that the Information Czar came first and brought the technology Czar on board, I’ve got to give the nod to him. Unfortunately, he’s been linked to hiring individuals with criminal records to protect our information. Since I’d hate to break up a team, they both have to go.

With healthcare reform on the forefront, we have two Czars that touch upon it: an AIDS Czar and a Health Czar. The AIDS Czar can go. AIDS is a disease. Other than its associated political capital, it does not rank in the top ten causes of death in the United States (which are (1) Heart Disease; (2) Cancer ; (3) Stroke; (4) Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases; (5) Accidents (unintentional injuries); (6) Diabetes; (7) Alzheimer's disease; (8) Influenza and Pneumonia; (9) Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome, and Nephrosis; and (10) Septicemia. Sorry, but until the Top Ten have their own Czar, AIDS doesn’t merit one. Because the Health Czar hasn’t had the common sense to recognize this either, she’s gone too!

I’m sad to report that we have a comparatively unaccomplished Urban Affairs Czar. Why settle? This is America. We have John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford and, most recently, Tiger Woods. Now, these men clearly know how to have urban affairs! If none of them will step up to embrace their civic duty, let’s just eliminate this position.

This brings me to the final Czar I will discuss: the Faith-Based Czar. I can’t imagine why the ACLU has not attacked this position with its normal zeal. The issue would seem to be obvious. Maybe it’s Devine intervention. If that’s the case, my common sense says not to “mess” with this one. I’ll hedge my long-term bet and let this one stay.

So there you have it: it’s just the Faith-Based Czar and me.

NEXT BLOG: The Common Sense Czar addresses Terrorism and Healthcare Reform (just try to tell them apart)

2010 © Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author.