A Strong Voice From Our Past It is proper to demand more from the man with exceptional advantages than from the man without them. A heavy moral obligation rests upon the man of means and upon the man of education to do their full duty by their country. On no class does this obligation rest more heavily than upon the men with a collegiate education, the men who are graduates of our universities. Their education gives them no right to feel the least superiority over any of their fellow citizens; but it certainly ought to make them feel that they should stand foremost in the honorable effort to serve the whole public by doing their duty as Americans in the body politic. …the man of business and the man of science, the doctor of divinity and the doctor of law. The architect, the engineer, and the writer, all alike owe a positive duty to the community, the neglect of which they cannot excuse on any plea of their private affairs. They are bound to follow understandingly the course of public events; they are bound to try to estimate and form judgment upon public men; and they are bound to act intelligently and effectively in support of the principles which they deem to be right and for the best interests of the country. …the educated man must realize that he is living in a democracy and under democratic conditions, and that he is entitled to no more respect and consideration than he can win by actual performance. There is however, a need for proper critical work. Wrongs should be strenuously and fearlessly denounced; evil principles and evil men should be condemned. The politician who cheats or swindles, or the newspaperman who lies in any form, should be made to feel that he is an object of scorn for all honest men. We need fearless criticism, but we need that it should also be intelligent. At present, the man who is most apt to regard himself as an intelligent critic of our political affairs is often the man who knows nothing whatever about them. Criticism which is ignorant or prejudiced is a source of great harm to the nation; and where ignorant or prejudiced critics are themselves educated men, their attitude does real harm also the class to which they belong. The tone of a portion of the press of the country toward public men, and especially toward political opponents, is degrading, all forms of coarse and noisy slander being apparently considered legitimate weapons to employ against men of the opposite party of faction. Unfortunately, not a few of the journals that pride themselves upon being independent in politics, and the organs of cultivated men, betray the same characteristics in a less coarse but quite as noxious form. All these journals do great harm by accustoming good citizens to see their public men, good and bad, assailed indiscriminately as scoundrels. The effect is twofold: the citizen learning, on the one hand, to disbelieve any statement he sees in any newspaper, so that the attacks on evil lose their edge; and on the other, gradually acquiring a deep-rooted belief that all public men are more or less bad. In consequence, his political instinct becomes hopelessly blurred, and he grows unable to tell the good representative from the bad. The worst offense that can be committed against the republic is the offense of the public man who betrays his trust; but second only to it comes the offense of the man who tries to persuade others that an honest and efficient public man is dishonest or unworthy. Good can often be done by criticizing sharply and severely the wrong; but excessive indulgence in criticism is never anything but bad, and no amount of criticism can in any way take the place of active and zealous warfare for the right. In conclusion, then, the man with a university education is in honor bound to take an active part in our political life, and to do his full duty as a citizen by helping his fellow citizens to the extent of his power in the exercise of the rights of self-government. He is bound to rank action far above criticism, and to understand that the man deserving of credit is the man who actually does the things, even though imperfectly, and not the man who confines himself to talking about how they ought to be done. He is bound to have a high ideal and to strive to realize it, and yet he must make up his mind that he will never be able to get the highest good, and that he must devote himself with all his energy to getting the best that he can. Finally, his work must be disinterested and honest, and it must be given without regard to his own success of failure, and without regard to the effect it has upon his own fortunes; and while he must show the virtues of uprightness and tolerance and gentleness, he must also show the sterner virtues of courage, resolution, and hardihood, and of desire to war with merciless effectiveness against the existence of wrong. Excerpts from: "The College Graduate and Public Life," Theodore Roosevelt, first published in The Atlantic Monthly in August of 1894, and recently republished in The American Idea: The Best of the Atlantic Monthly, edited by Robert Vare. If these acknowledgements are not sufficient to satisfy any copyright issues that The Atlantic Monthly Group may have, I alone am responsible for this partial reproduction. Of course, it may be considered in the public domain at this point, and the entire essay can be viewed at: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-college-graduate-and-public-life/4483/ Many of our contemporary politicians and leaders are fond of comparing themselves to grand figures from our past, and I think it unfortunate that Theodore Roosevelt is rarely, if ever, mentioned. Here surely is a leader worthy of emulation, a man whose words ring as true today as they must have when first published over one hundred years ago. Indeed, apart from differences in style this essay might well have been written yesterday, which may or may not be an indication of how history repeats itself. I actually find it somewhat comforting—bad though things may seem to us today, it turns out that, in my opinion at least, not much has changed in the last hundred years, though every generation seems to feel that theirs are the worst of times. Additionally, our politicians are certainly not the only part of the electorate who could benefit from revisiting the published works Mr. Roosevelt; those of us who spend a great deal of time carping and wringing our hands while, in the words of John Mayer, we are "waiting on the world to change," need also take heed. I know that in my case at least, fervently wishing for a leader with the determination, wisdom, dedication, and drive of Teddy Roosevelt to emerge from the pack is simply not enough; this essay can be seen as a call to action for us all. Finally, we need not stop just with the writings of Mr. Roosevelt. An examination of his life and those of his family show that he was one of those rare individuals who not only "talked the talk," but also "walked the walk," and he apparently inspired his sons to follow his lead. His was truly a lifetime of service to his country, a man born into wealth who nevertheless felt duty bound to do that which he could for the good of the people. Rare indeed, at least in these modern times; to use an oft-quoted statement—they just don't make them like they used to! —John Stegall |
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
The Illusion of Safety in the Land of the Free There can be no mistaking the fact that recent events in Not long after the ambulances cleared the scene the media, politicians, and talk-show pundits went into high gear. I think the pattern of coverage following this type of calamity is well established and should by now be familiar to us all—shock and outrage rapidly followed by interviews with friends and acquaintances of the perpetrator(s), at least some of whom will remark on their past concerns regarding actions, statements, and the overall stability of the guilty party. Such of course is the case with this latest gunman, and while these post-crime revelations feed even more outrage into the pipeline—"How could they not have seen this coming? Why was preemptive action not taken?"—I have difficulty understanding why any of this should come as a shock? I am of the opinion that anyone who opens fire with the intent of killing people, irregardless of motive or venue, surely has at least some issues regarding mental-stability, and in most cases there are likely to be signs of this prior to whatever breaking point tips them over the edge. The problem in a free society is not only discerning what behavior requires intervention, but also, who is going to get involved and to what extent? Who defines what is potentially dangerous from what may just be strange; for that matter, who defines strange? Ultimately, who can predict what any one person may or may not be capable of under duress? I suspect that, in all but the most extreme cases, the answer is no one. The mass media and pundits, along with a fair sampling of our elected officials, apparently feel otherwise. I sampled a little of the online reporting on the Tucson event, as well as the talk radio circuit, and not surprisingly found most of it disappointing if not downright idiotic. We of course have the normal political finger-pointing—socialists blaming both the left and the right; some members of the left blaming the right, and vice versa; pundits from across the political spectrum blaming "harsh rhetoric," and Sarah Palin's map using gun-sights to denote target states— along with calls for stronger gun-control and hand-wringing commentary on how we need to make our country more safe. To cover just a couple of examples, I read a post on the World Socialist Web Site, and found this to be the first line— "The shooting rampage on Saturday in A little farther down page one is even more astounding news— "But the facts are clear. The initial information about the gunman…establishes that he was under the influence of ultra-right politics…references to the [second] Let me say here that I have not previously visited this website, and therefore have no idea what their overall credibility rating is, but this piece is one of wildest and most incredible bits of journalism I have ever read. I suppose it may be possible that Jared Loughner is just a cog in the machine of a larger conspiracy, this despite a complete lack of evidence at this date. Most dismaying of all, if having a problem with the Federal Reserve makes a person ultra-right, I am going to have completely review my own personal philosophy; perhaps I am not a "left-of-center moderate" after all?! At any rate, being under the influence of any rhetoric, not to mention seeing a political map with gun-sights displayed, should in no way steer a normal person to violence. From NYDailyNews— Former Governor Sarah Palin: "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle…It's inexcusable and incomprehensible why a man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day." This may be the first time I have agreed with anything Sarah Palin has said. Finally, from MSNBC— Representative Dutch Rupersberger's press secretary: "The congressman is determined to keep interacting with the public, but wants to make sure he and his constituents are not put at risk." This morning's headline story is entitled: "Lessons of I understand that both the politicians and the media have a job to do, the people need to hear something, and I suppose it would be politically incorrect and/or dangerous for job-security to speak the truth. Since I have no such restrictions, I will lay it out, or at least, the truth as I see it. Assuming that we wish to continue to live in a free country, we will never be able to either "eliminate risk" or "know enough to stop the next rampage." Unless we want to ride around in APCs, wear body armor, and arm the entire populace, we will remain vulnerable, there being no preventative measures that can protect us from the occasional madman. As noted above, identifying potential "gunmen" is problematic, again assuming that we value our civil liberties, and as a staunch supporter of our Constitution, I am unalterably opposed to more aggressive gun control. Although I am certainly not a fan of clichés, "guns do not kill people, people kill people" is a statement with which I heartily agree. I was handling a rifle before the age of ten, and spent most of my youth with a grandfather who owned several pistols, shotguns, high-powered rifles, and semi-automatic carbine of World War II vintage; we never shot anyone, and in all likelihood never will. Likewise, that pesky First Amendment makes it difficult if not impossible to regulate public discourse, so we can forget about any rhetoric being toned-down; it is, at any rate, ridiculous to blame words for the action of the deranged. I am certainly not suggesting that we accept things as they are. Stringent efforts towards making our country safer are absolutely necessary for the good of the public. We simply must be realistic with our expectations, and not be prepared to give up any more of our freedom for the perception of safety; there has been more than enough of this since —John Stegall |
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Why all the Hate? Fox News and the Main Stream Media.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Expansion of Executive Power
By executive power, I mean the power of the executive branch of our federal government. Since the election of President Barak Obama, this expansion seems to have exploded, even though President Bush garnered a great deal of power under the guise of national security. I'm not suggesting that President Obama is any different from our last several presidents, per se. I think this growth of executive power has been occuring for quite some time. Still, I am concerned by the breadth of power that the executive branch has been accumulating since President Obama came to office, especially with the federal takeover of companies like AIG, Citibank, GM and Chrysler, as well as with such recent legislative monstrosities as the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" and the "Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010."
The federal government now owns or controls several of the largest financial institutions in the U.S. (e.g., AIG), as well as the second largest car manufacturer in the world (GM). With the new health reform and financial reform laws, the executive branch effectively controls a large part of the means of production for the U.S. economy. Whether this is good or bad depends on one's point of view. But should we really be comfortable giving the executive branch so much power?
Let's just consider the recent financial reform bill that made its way into law. Indeed, I am surprised that few are paying attention to the dangers in this bill. First, every member of the oversight council (the main financial oversight body established by the new law) is appointed directly by the President of the U.S. Moreover, the head of this council is the Secretary of the Treasury, who is not only appointed by the President, but also serves exclusively at the whim of the President. Essentially, this new law gives the President of the United States direct control over the entire financial sector of the U.S. because the Secretary of the Treasury and most of the members of the new Financial Oversight Council are duty-bound to carry out the policy objectives of the President. Indeed, under this new law, while the Federal Reserve still maintains most of its power, the Treasury gains more direct power over the economic system, without any congressional limitations on making new economic policy. This is way too much power given to the President and the executive branch.
Second, the new financial reform law further erodes the ability of states to maintain jurisdiction over its local and state financial institutions. While local and state banks played no role in the crash of 2008, the federal government has taken this opportunity to expand its jurisdiction over areas traditionally left to the states.
Third, the new law extends federal -- and specifically executive branch -- power and jurisdiction over so-called 'non-bank' financial companies. The bill defines such companies (whether incorporated in the U.S. or outside the U.S.) as: any company that is "substantially engaged in activities in the United States that are financial in nature" (Sec. 102 a, 4). While a 1956 law establishes the basic parameters for what counts as "activities . . . that are financial in nature," both the original 1956 law and the new financial reform law of 2010 give the Treasury and the new oversight council complete authority to add to this list, without restriction. In other words, the new financial oversight council, which is entirely comprised of presidential appointees, has complete authority to determine what does and does not count as "activities that are financial in nature." Congress has no power to override the council's decisions. This potentially gives the President direct control over every business, and perhaps every economic transaction in the U.S.
I doubt that anyone is planning anything sinister with regard to these 'fine print' details. But, why give the President so much power in the first place? This is a bad law, and it has potential dangers for our future. What was congress thinking when they passed this thing? How can congress fail to see that they are paving the way for a super-powerful executive branch?
Clearly, there are a number of very good things in the new financial reform bill, just as there were many good things in the health insurance reform bill. But my complaint is not about the beneficial items in these bills. My complaint is that these bills expand executive branch power to such an extent as to be dangerous.
If you haven't read these bills, I encourage you to do so. When you read the 'fine print,' you may become just as concerned as I am.
-- David Adcock, Managing Editor
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Source Detective Work: Digging Deeper...
Thursday, July 1, 2010
General Stanley McChrystal and the Limits of Free Speech I suspect that most of us have a clear understanding that there are some restrictions as regards our rights under the United States Constitution. I, for example, know full well that while The First Amendment provides for my freedom to speak my mind, it does not necessarily guarantee my continued employment if I decide to publicly ridicule the owner of my company. Whether we like it or not, in the real world I think there are limits, and if this is true in civilian commercial life it is, or should be, even more a certainty for the military. I am therefore baffled and more than a little dismayed by the recent actions of General McChrystal, especially the latest affront, which was evidently the final affliction for our commander-in-chief. What was he thinking? What would lead a very talented, dedicated, and, in my opinion, eminently qualified officer down the path that led to dismissal? Last September I read a transcript of the "60 Minutes" profile on the general with considerable interest, and I was duly impressed. He struck me as not only being a soldier's soldier, but his understanding of what was needed to win over the Afghan people, the only true road to success in the conflict, was dead on. The only reservation I had at the time was a concern that he might be selling his ideas and agenda to the public via the media, not the traditional or orthodox approach for military commanders. One of my colleagues, a former military man himself, agreed with this line of thinking. Perhaps we are just old fashioned, but active officers talking directly to journalists about strategy and tactics was and remains something we find troublesome, especially when these ideas may be seen as contrary to the official position of the government. There is a chain of command, in other words, and this sort of "talk" probably needs to be left to either the President or one of the key Secretaries, i.e., State, Defense, or Army. In October, General McChrystal followed up with a controversial speech in Finally, we have "The Runaway General" interview published in Rolling Stone Magazine just last week. In this article by Michael Hastings—really another profile compiled over the several days Hastings spent with General McChrystal and his inner circle—we are exposed to a healthy dose of what these fellows truly feel, along with a glimpse of how they doubtless interact with one another on a daily basis. I found nothing is this article either surprising or particularly shocking, apart from the obvious fact that they had a reporter in their midst, and they had to fully understand that all of this banter was likely to make it into print! As I mentioned above, General Stanley McChrystal is a man worthy of our respect and gratitude for a life of service to this country. Men and women do not rise to field grade ranks in our military without being very intelligent, dedicated, diplomatic, and highly motivated individuals, and we can rest assured that McChrystal is representative of his class. In other words, it is difficult if not impossible for a fool to reach these ranks. These people are typically going to be outspoken and aggressive, and while we would doubtless not want them to be any other way, it goes without saying that there is the proper time and place for these views to be aired. Among other issues, the spectacle of a military commander blasting our government is likely to aid the enemy. Once more, what was he thinking? We may have to wait for General McChrystal's memoirs to know the true answer. The whole affair could easily be written off as the actions of an arrogant hothead, but nothing in this gentleman's service record makes this a credible argument. I have to wonder if this may be the result of the massive stress imposed on our military over the last decade. We have a volunteer service bearing the brunt of multiple, lengthy deployments, while for most of the country events in Iraq and Afghanistan may as well be taking place on the moon. We are demanding more from less, the rules of engagement are more complicated than ever, and at least in the case of I hope that General Petraeus can pick up where he left off in —John Stegall |