Views from Eagle Peak » America’s Future

Remembering 9/11

Jack — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:04:39 +0000

I was in my cubicle, in the Fairfax County Government Center, 30 miles from the Pentagon. I was hard at work on the FY 2003 budget for my agency, the Division of Solid Waste, Collection and Recycling. Then came news of the first attack. Only nobody knew it was an attack when the first plane hit. Only after the second came, did that become clear. The director was out of the office so somebody turned on the TV in his office (there for viewing Board of Supervisor meetings, etc., not for soaps). I wandered in and out, while others spent much time in there. Then came news of the other hijacked plane, heading for a destination unknown, but in the DC area. I went back to work; the budget had a deadline and it was my job. Then came the blast at the Pentagon. Right where my wife of nearly 21 years would have been working had she got the promotion she bitterly resented not getting a few years before. She worked with many of the people in the section that took the brunt of the damage. The man who got the job she missed, died in the attack. Karma is unfathomable. It seemed at the time, when she lost out on the job, that she got screwed. In the end, it turns out she had other tasks to accomplish–a mission still to unfold. We credit our Buddhist practice for the result.

For a brief time the events of 9/11 forged a more compassionate, a more cooperative spirit among Americans. The honeymoon lasted only a short while. Given a broad mandate to retaliate and to impose draconian security measures in an attempt to protect the nation, George W. Bush made the lasting impressions on our country. We endure ever more intrusive inspections in order to be permitted to fly. Thousands of patriotic young men and women quickly volunteered for military service. Many of them have died and others continue to die in a ten-year old war in Afghanistan–initiated to locate and kill Osama Bin Laden, which wound up taking almost all of those years. It didn’t help that resources were diverted to also fight in Iraq, a handy way to take attention away from the fact that Bin Laden could not be found. If enemy number 1 could not be dealt with, at least we could rid the world of another evil man. Then there was the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, which did not exist. All of which also cost many American lives and many American dollars–which, along with across the board tax cuts (especially for the ultra-wealthy), have major responsibility for our present financial straits. So, while Bin Laden succeeded in killing several thousand people in those attacks 10 years ago, his and George W’s legacy has had a much more serious, long-lasting and continuing legacy than either could have imagined at the time.

More than ever, we all need to remember the sacrifices of those who died on 9/11 and as a result of the aftermath. More than that, we need to rekindle the compassion and cooperation that briefly enveloped America. While I may (rightly, I believe) point fingers at Bush, that won’t make life in America any better for me or anyone else. What is needed is tolerance and understanding. Tolerance of those whose religion, whose culture, whose values differ from our own. Understanding that the security of the nation lies not in more onerous invasions of privacy but in more openness to alternatives in religion and politics. For myself, praying every day for the peace and security of the land, as Nichiren Daishonin admonished 750 years ago, in a letter to the regent of Japan.

Are We Safe Now?

Jack — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:56:35 +0000

Did TSA really ask a 95-year old wheelchair-bound female leukemia patient to remove her (wet) depends undergarment to make sure she wasn’t carrying a bomb? Do they really pat down small children/toddlers? If so, does that make you feel safer flying? Here’s the deal, Osama Bin Laden, apparently was fixated on airplane terrorism. Two reasons why EVERYONE gets inspected:

Exclusion can’t be at the discretion of the inspector, because that introduces the potential argument that the discretion is being abused–racial, religious, sexual, age or other non-rational based profiling
The inspector is a low-level person who is occupationally bound to adhere to rules, to NOT exercise discretion because of the risks above and because it takes more time to figure out who is in and who is out

Still, despite the appeal to terrorists of airplane terrorism, there are countless other ways to inflict massive casualties on the populace:

Shopping malls, stadiums, hotels, etc. (not so common here but frequently used elsewhere)
Subways, trains, cruise ships and other modes of transportation
Water supplies, chemical plants, refineries, etc.

How many of them have ANY inspections of persons, belongings or baggage–let alone meaningful checks. Sure, going into government buildings and secure facilities there are metal detectors and checks of belongings, but those are exceptions.

Meanwhile, inspections before boarding planes gets more and more intrusive. This trend will likely only get worse assuming officials take seriously the notion that is out there now that Al Qaeda or others are researching and considering surgically implanting explosives in suicide bombers. Hey, if they are already willing to die for their cause, what’s the difference whether they are wearing a bomb or ARE a bomb?!

In 13th Century Japan, Nichiren Daishonin said this:

“If you care anything for your personal security, you should first of all pray for order and tranquility throughout the four corners of the land, should you not?” ["On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land," The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Vol-1, page 24, Soka Gakkai, 1999]

His admonition applies equally well to the 21st Century America. He didn’t advise political or military strategies; he advocated the application of Buddhist prayer–focused daimoku, the chanting of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Not likely a TSA approach of course. Yet, for the all the good that the indignities of intensive searching do for us, the Buddhist approach in the end is the one that will ultimately make the difference. That’s my view. If you don’t share the Buddhist perspective, at least you can offer prayers in the religion you do practice–rather than enduring the situation that now exists. For myself, I plan on using other modes of travel with the possible exception of dire necessity for rapid trips.

Overcome by Events

Jack — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:14:01 +0000

OBE, for short–that’s a much used phrase from a once upon a time former supervisor. Applied to projects, assignments, etc., it meant the task at hand no longer needed doing. Some might suppose that recent election results might make that an epithet applicable to health care reform. But as President Obama said in his state of the union address, it still is something needing doing. As an aside, in my own case, OBE also refers to the bronchitis that took a toll on me recently–a partial excuse for the interval between my last post and this one. So, a couple more installments on the main topic.

Prohibiting insurors from refusing coverage of pre-existing conditions seems a bit unfair to them on the one hand or a prescription for higher rates for everyone does it not? However, while there may be some cross subsidization by healthy people of sick people, consider the alternatives. Those sick people who can’t afford or are unable to obtain coverage, will go to emergency rooms–soaking up available resources from people with genuine emergencies. Those uncovered people will also be out and about in stores, schools, neighborhoods, etc., where any communicable illnesses they may have can impact on the rest of us. In other words, we may all wind up paying for or suffering on account of denying coverage to others. So in the long run, it may make more sense to find a way to pay for coverage for them, pre-existing conditions and all.

Change

Jack — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:55:03 +0000

The Vermont House joined the state’s senate in overriding the governor’s bill making gay marriage legal in Vermont. The Iowa supreme court recently made gay marriage legal there. Numerous states allow the use of medical marijuana and some have decriminalized the possession or use of small quantities of the recreational drug. An African-American man now occupies the White House. Change, like that stinky stuff we flush, happens–whether we like it or not. For many people, most any kind of change is unwelcome. Change is unsettling; a stressful event. But even when the change is one we strongly oppose, it still presents an opportunity to exercise the brain and to challenge the assumptions underlying the “truths” we hold dear. The stock market goes up; the stock market goes down. The political power shifts left; the political power shifts right. Does it make a difference? Sure it does, but how much difference it makes depends on what we make of it.

Charles Murray’s Scholarly Strawmen

Jack — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:16:07 +0000

What a hoot! Leave it to the American Enterprise Institute to declare as a scholar someone who can set up and knockdown liberal strawmen in such a hilarious fashion. It’s difficult to know where to begin in critically examining his opinion piece from Sunday, March 22, so let me quickly summarize his thesis and then get right into his gratuitous slams via ill-thought out strawmen. He says the European model “drains too much of the life from life.” He posits that the essential developments of life occur within the institutions of family, community, vocation and faith. Rather than making them the robust and vital, European social policy enfeebles them. Europe has lovely but empty churches. Wonderful day care but less than replacement birthrates. Protected employment but jobs are viewed as but necessary evils enroute to the pleasures of vacations, etc. He asserts that the European view essentially is that the only purpose in life is to while away the time as pleasantly as possible until death naturally intrudes. He proceeds to set up the strawmen when he offers his opinion of the defects at the heart of the social democratic agenda.

The “equality premise,” assumes that in a fair society, “different groups of people [defined by race, sex, sexual preference, etc] will naturally have the same distribution of outcomes in life [income, education, status, etc.]“ When they don’t, it must be because of bad human behavior and an unfair society. Well sure, but that is true only if all other variables are controlled; there may be those who baldly assert such a premise but more generally it comes into play in drawing conclusions about the absence of equal opportunity or outright discrimination. “Much of the Democratic Party’s proposed domestic legislation assumes this [equality premise] is true.”Logically, is there an error in such a premise? Well, let’s revisit Shockley, et al [Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites, etc.]. Without citing any specifics, Murray suggests that scientific findings will soon ”force the left to abandon the equality premise.”

These new findings of biology will also invalidate the “New Man” premise ”which says that human beings are malleable through the right government interventions.” From whence comes this bit of straw?! He cites the example of government programs intended to support fatherless children as an example. He goes on to say that “social democrats will have to acknowledge that the traditional family plays a special, indispensible role in human flourishing.” Are there politicians, bureaucrats or others on the left who argue otherwise or assert that government-run creches are the best? No, of course not. Did the 40% of babies born to single mothers in America in 2007 come as a result of government encouragement or “New Man” promoters? On the contrary, they probably came about due to the failure of the “abstinence only” sex education policies pursued over the years that a Republicans have controlled Congress and/or the White House.

The religious right has exercised an overly large influence on government policy during the past decade, attempting to impose their values on American institutions and the behavior of the American people. That is where the futility of the “New Man” premise has been most clearly demonstrated. Church attendance is down, unwed births are up, corporate greed has run rampant, etc. So whose paradigm is failing? The one item on which I can agree with Murray is that people must be treated as individuals. The success of social policy is to be measured by the “freedom of individuals, acting on their personal abilities, aspirations and values, to seek the kind of life that best suits them.” It is not social democrats, the left, Democrats or erstwhile Europeans that suck the life from life through social policies and values that limit individual freedom for individuals–it is the religious right and conservatives. On the other hand, the “he who dies with the most toys” perspective on life (not too different from the one Murray chastises the Europeans for) also comes from the right–not the religious right, of course, but the “free enterprise” right. Maybe the American Enterprise folks are comfortable with that?

Waiting for November 5th

Jack — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:11:18 +0000

I am getting impatient. I want the election to be over so I can stop watching Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Larry King, Nightline and local news. What else is there to blog about right now but the election? Plenty of stuff; the same stuff that I used to blog about. But I am consumed by the election. Watching Obama’s 30-minute infomercial reminded me how financially fortunate I am. I won’t brag or bore you with the details, other than to mention that my wife and I both were able to retire at 55 and do not have work or worry about income. That is not so for many people in America. I can understand, although not agree with, the choices of some voters to support a political party and candidates that want to dictate the sexual and reproductive habits of Americans. I find it more difficult to understand how the social conservatives, many of whom may not be as well off financially as me or the leaders of their party, can so readily buy the laissez-faire policies of socalled fiscal conservatism. I say socalled because while Republicans continually label Democrats as “tax and spend,” many (if not most) Republicans on the national and local levels spend as much or more than Democrats but they don’t tax–they spend at a deficit. Look at George Bush years as the paradigm. When Democrats brought fiscal order to Congress a number of years ago, it was through “pay as you go” budget programs. At the same time, while the socially conservative Republicans want to regulate what goes on in America’s bedrooms, they care little what goes on in America’s boardrooms. Look at the bailout for the results of that perspective. So I am looking forward to a new day and a new way on November 5th–or perhaps I should say on January 20th, 2009.

The Sad Fate of a One-Time Maverick

Jack — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:54:04 +0000

Once upon a time, John McCain was a Maverick. At least as late as 2000, he still behaved like one. Unfortunately for him, that helped seal his doom in the contest for the Republican nomination for President. The sad truth he took from defeat is that in order to fulfill his Vietnam POW-era dream of the White House, he would have to play to the Republican base in order to get nominated the next time. So he swallowed whatever principles he had and supported Bush more than “90% of the time” in his own words. Now, in 2008, having won the Republican base, he wants to reclaim the maverick mantle. His frustration in America’s refusal to give it back became clear in the final debate with Obama as he grimaced, frowned, sighed and became increasingly petulant. Here he had to sit still for George W. Bush, of all people, to steal his shot at the White House in 2000. Now this damned upstart Obama is in his way. At age 72, he won’t have another chance at achieving his dream. But what he may not have realized, it is all of his own doing; ambition over principle.

It is true that no matter how wonderful an agenda one may have, one will never have an opportunity to advance it if one is not elected. So the temptation is to say what one believes needs to be said in order to get elected. Once elected, the genuine article can reemerge. But it is a fine line to walk, running for office and maintaining a sense of genuine identity and clear principles. While McCain trumpets his years of experience in contrast to Barack Obama’s relatively short record, he fails to note how this hurts rather than helps. Because he has had so many years in public office, he has had the opportunity to weave this way and that in opposing and supporting policies of one president or another. He asks “who is the real Barack Obama” while failing to recognize that he has made it much more difficult to tell who the real McCain is by his own vacillation. He might actually be a decent president, but who can say what he really stands for? Perhaps he never read Shakespeare’s admonition, “to thine own self be true.”

Masters of the Universe

Jack — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:07:36 +0000

What news will come from the MastersButtheads of the Universe today, a continuing fall in the global economy perhaps? Maybe the MBAs should have “learned to play the guitar,” as Mark Knopfler suggests, instead of learning to play the market. At least then the suffering we are enduring would have been limited to our ears instead of our financial well-being. They have succeeded in getting money for nothing far in excess of what any member of a band might get (except maybe Mick Jagger and friends).

Nichiren says, “When great evil occurs, great good follows.” (WND, 1119). So something good can come from this, amidst all the political posturing and finger-pointing. It’s not inappropriate, rather it’s essential to look at the causes of this collapse if the effects are to be avoided in the future. When you have politicians enabling, through a laissez-faire approach to the financial sector, these Buttheads of the Universe to take free-market capitalism to its most extreme the outcome is certainly foreseeable. Not, of course, to George “Herbert Hoover” (or maybe we should call him Beavis) Bush and his friends in the Republican party. Government regulation has a place, to protect citizens and taxpayers from the worst excesses of human nature. We have laws that punish criminals. We also have regulations and regulators to help prevent crimes. It may not be possible, practical or sensible to try to protect everyone from greed and stupidity, but it certainly is reasonable to have more oversight and control of the financial sector than we have had in recent years.

Financial Fallout and the Blame Game

Jack — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:57:00 +0000

Obama will tell you it’s Bush and his buddy McCain that helped make the current money morass happen. He is not entirely wrong but he is not entirely right either. Congress facilitated the mess by repealing the Glass-Steagal Act that kept the insurance, investment and banking businesses firewalled from one another. Institutional investors, including the pension funds that hold our retirement funds, could have exercised more of their clout in the proxy battles and the board rooms to hold management’s feet to the fire and restrained the most egregious excesses–but they didn’t. From a Buddhist perspective, to determine the causes made in the past one has only to look at the effects received today. So if we are suffering financial harm today, what did we do in the past? Well, some of us were also greedy. Some of us have cheated on our taxes, padded our resumes, paid for term papers written by others, goofed off and gotten over at work, etc. OK, so some of us may appear blameless. Nonetheless, we are suffering now. Take it as an opportunity to make the future better and take comfort in knowing that cause effect will work it’s way into the lives of the executives and the politicians who helped create this mess. We may need to help that along–in terms of the November election and the choices we make in investing our money, borrowing, etc.

The Bailout and the Backlash

Jack — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:56:58 +0000

Treasury Secretary Paulson and Republicans in Congress object to tying limits on executive compensation (especially “golden parachutes”) to bailouts in the legislation now pending. Even with such limits, a taxpayer revolt may be in the offing. Freemarket conservatives jump up and down, stamp their feet and scream “class warfare!” whenever anyone talks of raising taxes or placing limits on the obscene (and growing) wealth of the richest Americans. To which my response is–and your point?! Should the rest of us stand idly by while the government slaps us with the bill for the greed, the stupidity and the incompentence of those who run the financial institutions that got us into this mess? Now is the time to strike a blow for financial freedom for the serfs who serve the lords of the realm. Still, we are all not blameless. More on that tomorrow.