NO EASY ANSWERS

I read a column recently by David Brooks in the New York Times which really stirred my thinking. Brooks is one of my favorite columnists, and I frequently like what he has to say. He is a contradiction in terms: a progressive conservative, basically sympathetic to the philosophy of the Republicans without the vitriolic hatred and rantings of the far right and able to follow a compassionate social agenda.

In any case, Brooks was commenting on the extraordinary technological advances of the last few years, especially in view of the recent oil crisis. He states:

"In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the political debate has fallen into predictably partisan and often puerile categories. Conservatives say this is Obama's Katrina. Liberals say the proof is the government should have more control over industry.

But the real issue has to do with risk assessment. It has to do with the bloody crossroads
where complex technical sysyems meet human psychology."

Brooks goes on to analyze the problems of human interactions with systems not understood. He at the end makes the point: "This isn't just about oil. It's the challenge for people living in an imponderably complex technical society."

I think that last statement sums up my deep concerns, as well. Here we are in this complex technical world---a world where in the last twenty years the knowledge accumulated is greater that the sum of all past knowledge---trying to live and deal with these complexities.

We love to look for quick and facile solutions, simplistic answers for our deep-rooted concerns. Unfortunately, the easy answers, in Don McLean's famous words, "took the last train to the coast"; in fact, they did so a long time ago. Assessing risks in this modern world gets harder all the time, and the answers just don't jump up at the ring of a bell.

Take the oil crisis. We are all frustrated. With good cause, residents of the gulf states are incensed at the spoiling of their coast, the loss of income, the long-term effects on wildlife, et al. The first thing we want to do is strike out, and of course the real villain is BP, a ready target for our collective wrath. Then we turn to the government and scream, "Do something!" The President in his Mea Culpa press interview a couple of days ago shouldered the responsibility and rephrased Harry Truman's famous adage that the buck stops at the President's desk and that he was in charge.

O.K., that is a lovely ringing phrase to have the President of the United States reaasure us that he is in charge. But of what? Who in the government has a ready solution to the oil spill problem? The President made a candid statement of fact when he admitted he was fooled when he thought BP and the oil industry had the rechnical knowledge to cure the problem. They don't; plain and simple, they have never dealt with a problem of a massive oil spill miles under water, so all we can do---and here the President can use his power to make it happen---is assemble the best brains available and use their collective power to seek a solution. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix, even with all that brainpower.

This world, whether in politics, war, economics, religion or just simply living, is fraught with problems that do not lend themselves to easy answers. The Euro countries thought they had the answers in their union, now in deep doo-doo. Bear Stearns and Lehman thought they knew the secrets of financial success, and now they are in the financial obit column. Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to be military pieces of cake, but the cake ended up in our faces.

What we have to do is slog along, work to find solutions and accept the fact that this world is too much with us and that there is as much (or more) bad news as good news which we must deal with patiently and persistently. David Brooks is dead on: it is a challenge in this 'imponderably complex society". We must have the strength to accept this fact and deal with it realistically by thinking things out, finding rational solutions and not panicking by looking for scapegoats and easy answers.

That is our assignment for today and tomorrow. Happy Memorial Day, and try to remember the unlucky ones who died to help us live to see this new world, warts and all, but still our world of freedom.

HOW ABOUT A BOYCOTT?

I knew corporate greed and indifference to public opinion were alive and well. as always, but BP is raising the bar to new standards.

How do you pay enough to compensate for the oil spill damage which may take years to clean up and can affect industries and ways of life ruinously? How would you feel if you were a Louisiana oysterman or a beach motel owner, for example? BP's spokespeople are looking suitably contrite and uttering the expected apologies, but that just doesn't alter the facts that their company has a long-standing reputation for violations of safety regulations and for ammorality, shoddiness and negligence. It is reaching, I hope, criminal proportions where legal penalties can begin to hurt.

I wonder if American fury and antagonism to BP is showing at the gas pump. The average citizen feels even more frustrated than normal at times like this. A good boycott of BP gas stations might hit them where their hairs are short and at least reflect in a decrease in the bottom line which is their lifeblood.

At least, it might make a lot of us feel a tad better that our small contribution to loss of sales and profit to BP could make a notable hit on BP. They've earned it!

THOMAS PAINE WAS RIGHT

Thomas Paine, the eloquent spokesman for liberty at the time of the American Revolution, wrote the famous line, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” How well this adage applies in the divisive political climate of today.

We have many traumas and concerns. Unemployment is at its highest in thirty years; job growth is at a snail’s pace; the economy is better but still sputtering. Much work remains to be done. The prospects for a fast growth economy in the short and long term are lousy to dismal at best.

In spite of the rhetoric from the far right, decrying creeping socialism and governmental big brotherhood, we are in historic times. Not since the New Deal days of F.D.R. in the thirties have we seen so many new programs ---and all in the last year. The financial stimulus package, health reform, the banking and Wall St. reform have been enacted in spite of major resistance by the Republicans, in spite of the fact that the Democrats lost their veto-proof majority of sixty seats when Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts to replace the late Ted Kennedy. Maybe imperfections exist due to political compromises made, lobbyist pressure exerted, reelection fears generated---you name it---but, at least, we have started down the road to recovery and, no, I don’t believe, down the road to ruin.

If we can get congress to cooperate in analyzing and improving the existing legislation, so much the better. In order to do that, both sides need to put the country’s interest first and political expediency aside. Prospects for such action seem slim to none in this vitriolic political climate, but I can dream, can’t I?

Getting people back to work, creating new jobs in new industries (green and other), helping people ride out the financial drought---all these are top priorities for Barack Obama and for congress. Their souls will be sorely tried, but it is imperative they do the work that needs to be done.

Amen.

DON'T SAY I DIDN'T TELL YOU SO...

I read that Facebook and MySpace have been selling personal data to giant advertising companies, including Google’s Doubleclick and Yahoo’s Right Media, among others. Prepare for the unwanted solicitation of the ad world.

In spite of all the ballyhoo---or just plain bullshit---that these two social networks emit about respecting privacy, here are flagrant examples of violating privacy rights.

I have never joined any of these so-called social networks. I once said in an earlier blog that I don’t need 500 new friends, but it was also the idea of the potential danger of information getting in the wrong hands. So I’m a blogger, but I am able to control the flow of personal information I want to release.

One of the personal maxims that I live by is the ironic statement: never let principle get in the way of profit. Unfortunately, much of the world operates in this way and greed usually wins out. It looks like Facebook and MySpace have joined that club.

If you want more details about this, refer to Sam Gustin’s article on AOL News entitled “Facebook Shared Personal Data with Advertisers Without User Consent”.

Caveat emptor! Let the buyer beware!

P.S. Since I wrote this, it has been on national news!

ADAPT OR DIE

Will wonders never cease? Is it possible that the Roman Catholic Church may some day move into the twenty-first century in their theology? At least, stirrings in the underbrush are happening!

I read in Politics Daily in a column by David Gibson that Cardinal Christhof Schönborn of Austria, part of the Vatican insiders, has advanced the idea for serious consideration and reevaluation of the concept of eliminating celibacy for priests. Schönborn, a former student of the current pope and one of his favorites, has shaken up the presiding establishment with this revolutionary concept. Cardinal Schönborn added further fuel to the fire by saying that homosexuality should also be gauged in terms of “lasting relationships”. He went on to add: “A stable relationship is better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous.” He also said remarried divorcees should be allowed to take communion. Cardinal Schönborn is not some leftish revolutionary commenting from the outside but an orthodox cleric who was the main editor of the revision of The Catechism, the guide for all Catholics. The Cardinal has been incensed for some time about the sex-offending and child molesting scandal and has spoken out loudly about the need for true examination and reform.

Now another Austrian power in the church, Bishop Paul Eby of Eisenstadt, Austria, now retiring, has also spoken out for rethinking the celibacy requirement for priests.

As the old comic Red Buttons used to sing, “Strange Things are Happening”!

I don’t presume to tell others how to worship, but I can say as an Episcopalian, or Anglo-Catholic, that we have priests and they are allowed to be married. I cannot see how having a spouse and a family can be a deterrent to devoted performance of duty or love of God. It may take awhile, but eventually the Roman Catholic Church must face this reality and adapt. It is a rule of life: adapt or die.

'TIS THE SEASON TO BE JOLLY

The sports world is getting interesting. Let it be noted---temporary as I'm sure it will be---my lowly and beloved Cincinnati Reds are in first place. This could change tonight, but I had to have my moment to crow.

The Tampa Bay Rays look like they have the depth of pitching and hitting to make the Yankees wild card contenders. But Yankee power and stamina---and the ability to shop the market to fulfill their needs---have a way of coming on late.

I'm tired of reading about the speculation concerning LeBron James' next port of entry. He's not technically a free agent until July. Enough, already until at least late June.

Tennis major time is upon us, hooray! I love the sport, and it is great to see that titanic modern rivalry of Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal hard at it again. Nadal has recovered from his serious knee problems and is 15-0 on clay, his supreme surface. The French Open, the crown jewel of clay court tennis opens Sunday. Federer, as befits his ranking, is seeded #1,but Nadal is the betting favorite (#2 seed). Then in late June we have Wimbledon, the championship of the short-lived grass season and the most prestigious tournament of all. The hard court season comes roaring back from late July to the U.S. Open in September. I think Federer, almost 29, has his best years behind him, but he has a way of making me eat my words with that heart and spirit of a true champion. I have concerns about Nadal's knees: the tremendous torque he exerts on his body and knees----much more traumatic than Federer's strokes---makes for incredible power and stress on those suspect knees. The most promising young contender, Juan del Potro of Argentina, the reigning U.S. Open Champion, is out with wrist surgery, probably until November. Andy Murray, the talented but spotty Scot, needs to get his act together. Maybe Andy Roddick can make a last hurrah.

The N.B.A. championship looks like it's shaping up to be a battle between those two perennials, the Lakers and the Celtics. Frankly, by late June when that interminable season ends, I'm simply grateful it's over and someone has won.

Then we have three golf majors, the U.S. Open in June, the Open in July (the Brits don't say "British Open", being somewhat xenophobic about their tournament), and our P.G.A. in August. Will Tiger rebound or has his era moved on? Is it Phil's time now? He better hurry, he's pushing forty!

Yes, sports fans, 'tis the season to be jolly--tra la la la la! Sport couch potatoes of the world unite, we have nothing to lose but our voices from cheering!

THE NEW BRITISH ARE COMING...

As you are aware---unless you arrived via U.F.O. from Mars yesterday---the British have just finished their election process and, thanks to an unusual coalition, have formed a new government under Conservative David Cameron. It is an interesting power-sharing arrangement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, a perennial third party who always lag behind Labour and Conservatives in voting.

Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are unlikely bedfellows with vast differences. Among these differences are diametrically opposed views on the European Union. The Tories (or Conservatives) want to have as little to do as possible with the European Union politically and eschew the idea of using the Euro as their currency (right now that seems like a wise stance!), while the Lib Dems want to embrace the European Union and establish closer ties. The Lib Dems are also "greener" than the Tories and on defence want to scrap the Trident missile program which the Tories want to keep. Ideologically, the Lib dems are closer to the more liberal Labour Party. In addition, the Lib Dems are pushing for electoral reform where proportional voting can mean more seats. The Tories have shown a willingness to consider such reform.

The Lib Dems are headed by a young new face, Nick Clegg, 43, the same age as David Cameron, who came on like a shooting star in the first of the three televised debates between the three parties' candidates and grabbed public attention. Unfortunately for his party, the glow didn't last and the Lib Dems even lost a few seats compared to the last election. Nevertheless, Clegg became a major player.

Since the Conservatives won the largest share of seats in Parliament, 306, a little short of the 328 needed to have a majority, Nick Clegg faced political realities and made it known that he would be willing to talk to the Tories and David Cameron to see if a coalition government could be formed. Gordon Brown, the deposed Prime Minister, tried to make an end-around play and offered to resign if the Lib Dems would make a deal with Labour. That one didn't work: even some staunch Labour supporters and Cabinet ministers said the majority party should govern and not a combination of the two losers.

Somehow over the next five days after the election Cameron and Clegg and their subordinates hammered together a deal which, at least for now, is the basis for a government. Nick Clegg became Deputy Prime Minister under Prime Minister David Cameron, and a cabinet of mixed Tories and Lib Dems was agreed upon. One encouraging sign was noted in the statement by David Cameron, seconded by Nick Clegg, that the good of the country supercedes party loyalties. (Ed. note: do you think there is a moral here for America?)

Mervyn King, the head of the Bank of England, the equivalent of Fed chief, Ben Bernancke, prophesied before the election that whichever party won would be a short-term winner and would be unable to compete again for twenty years because of the severity of the economic problems they would face and the voter fury at the austerity of their programs. King also was impressed by the economic austerity program and fiscal reductions proposed by the new team.

It is a brave new world for British politics, fraught with danger and pain, for this new coalition.
Will the coalition survive the honeymoon period? Can they find ways to accommodate and compromise? Stay tuned, folks, it's going to be a hairy ride. Let's wish them lots of luck!

CALLING A SPADE A SPADE

I have read a candid (as always) blog of my friend, grumpy-olddog.blogspot.com, which I highly recommend, called "Who Took America?" Grumpy is commenting on the plethora of bumper stickers bewailing the loss of freedom in America and blaming Obama for our current problems. I looked up these "Take Back America" bumper stickers and was amazed by the variety and hatred expressed.

Grumpy points out---and I totally agree---that many of these stickers are racially motivated and a coded attack, in our age of political correctness on a black man as president. I have been deeply concerned about this racist trend for some time. Let's call a spade a spade---though maybe I should not use this term "spade", as it frequently is a perjorative name for a black person---: a lot of people simply do not want a black as president or in any key governmental position. I even have relatives who to other members of the family have expressed disbelief that I voted for a black man for President of the United States.

I know there are many out there who truly object to the principles of government for which Barack Obama stands and are not racists. I do not always agree with them, but I respect their positions as Republicans who seek a minimum of governmental intervention and prefer local control wherever possible. I frequently do agree with them that much can be done on the local level and that layers of federal bureaucratic authority can be galling and inefficient. But I also accept the fact (to me) that certain area of government have to be on a federal level, on a national basis, such as educational standards and health care, to name a couple, because they are important to all of us as a nation.

Honest debate and disagreement on politcal philosophies are right and proper. The degree of vitriolic hate and violence expressed are not right. And I know that the motive for this hate and violence has a racist base, which needs to be expunged from our national debate.

Come on, right-wing extremists, join the modern world. Judge a person by character, not by color; by brains, not color; by actions, not color. Disagreement I can take and even respect; blind prejudice I cannot abide.