Love and Hate

In the movie “Night of the Hunter” the actor Robert Mitchum played a preacher who is crazy and has the word Hate tattooed on the knuckles of one hand and the word Love tattooed on knuckles of the other hand. As he preaches to people he says that life is a constant struggle between love and hate and he demonstrates this by intertwining his hands simulating a wrestling match between love and hate. Why not “Good” vs. “Evil” perhaps that was too broad and not personal enough. The events of the past week in Boston offer us real life examples of the personalized love and hate.

When they were sitting in their apartment carefully building the pressure cooker bombs they would eventually use, the Tsarnaev brothers knew that the small steel balls they put next to the explosive powder would hurt and kill other human beings. They were both well past the age of reason and thus their efforts were purposeful and designed to express their hatred for the anonymous victims. Their behavior in placing their deadly missiles was carried out with the practiced nonchalance of the well trained and callous haters they had become. They did not care that their victims were the innocent children and families of average people; they had the uncontrollable need to hurt and kill.

After the bombs exploded almost instantly those common folk who had been watching the event responded with their own purposeful behavior that was the opposite of hate, indeed it was the essence of a caring love of their fellow human beings manifested in aiding the wounded and comforting the stricken. There were many stories of the injured being helped by strangers, none as powerful as the Costa Rican man who had become an American citizen and was at the event to enjoy his city’s celebration. He saw a man on the pavement bleeding profusely from his leg; he improvised a tourniquet and tied down the man’s femoral artery to prevent him from bleeding to death. That was only one of hundreds of acts of help love and caring that the city of Boston and its people carried out that day.

The behavior of the public in the Boston tragedy gives us ample evidence that love triumphs over hate in the hearts of most Americans, but there are still those few who can because they are dominated by hate make life uncertain for the rest of us. It is one more price for living in a free and open society. To those of us who watched the entire drama unfold on TV there was a reassuring awareness that the heart of America is in the values of helping in time of need, of loving our neighbors and in rejecting the purveyors of hatred.

— Pat Gogerty

The Art of the Possible

Most political enthusiasts say that successful politicians believe that being able to compromise in order to accommodate the principles of others who believe differently than you is what makes politics work. The outcome is what it is possible to achieve given diverse desires. As the Baltimore Sun writer H. L. Menken once wrote “Two things you don’t want to watch being made is sausage and legislation.”

Today each side believes they have divine providence on their side and compromise is a sin.  Thus, only very small political/sausage links are being made.

During the First World War appeals were made to the American people to give money to fund the war and to aid the victims of the war. One such poster had the image of a starving child and the caption “Thirty million dollars is needed for relief for mid-east victims of the war” this included Persia and the Middle East as an area of need.

During World War II appeals were made directly to the people to give money and other things to support the war against the Axis Powers: Japan, Italy and Germany. People turned in their used bacon grease to the local butcher so the stuff could be used in the manufacture of munitions. Aluminum foil from cigarette packages was also collected. This was all by way of showing a united effort focused on a mutually agreed upon goal. At the time of the Second World War the President said that America would only accept unconditional surrender from Germany and Japan to stop the hostilities. This goal was achieved when both countries had their war making ability completely destroyed.

The Korean War which was characterized as a “police action” by President Truman began the division of our country about “war” and when we should fight one. Fifty-six thousand Americans lost their lives keeping the North Korean army north of the thirty-eighth parallel. Later America lost fifty eight thousand more lives fighting to keep North Vietnam out of South Vietnam  and this time we were defeated by a third world country and driven out. Concurrent with that defeat the draft of Americans to serve in their country’s armed forces ended. America has been at war with Afghanistan for over ten years and no certain end is in sight.

There is a division in our country that is deeper than anything since the Civil War. The concept of “unconditional surrender” seems to have traveled from war to politics as politicians say “my way or the highway.” Where is the common ground in that kind of attitude, where is the sliver of light that will allow “compromise” when a policy is so absolute? Where is the political sausage now?

— Pat Gogerty

Simplicity is the Essence of Facilitating Understanding

When I was a young army trainee the first lesson I learned is that all directions given will be repeated not once but several times, and everything will be explained in excruciating detail. Some called the process “dumbing it down” but we listened to our training instructor who used to say “you will understand” with emphasis in the word “will.”

Politics has a lot of techniques borrowed from military basic training. As an example look at President Obama’s proposal to change the way cost of living increases for Social Security are calculated. One would think he is acting contrary to his best political interest, for his supporters are among the poor and the recipients of Social Security. Look a little deeper and it is more apparent that he is playing an old political game of “I dare you.” If you want to cut the budget, cut entitlement programs, but when you do you will be impacting those elderly, white, low-information voters who make up a large part of your (Tea Party) constituency.

Trying to educate the vast majority of voters is like turning a supertanker in the straits of Hormuz – it is done very carefully and with the understanding that making a mistake will have devastating consequences. That is what the President seems to want to do. It would appear that taking the gamble of putting the method of calculating Social Security cost of living adjustments on the table in his budget negotiations is saying to his opponents “go ahead, I dare you to support lowering Social Security benefits.”

It is not too difficult to imagine the response from the Tea Party member who shouted “keep your government hands off my Medicare.” Of course it is quite possible that those folks will say “I know sacrifices must be made and I am willing to give up this cost of living benefit for the greater good.” But if that noble intention falls victim to painful reality then a lesson of great importance will have been learned. That lesson is: the government is in our lives far more than the simple slogans of political rhetoric have led you to believe.

The sustainability as well as the quality of life can be impacted by the government more than the average person realizes.

Of course government is not capable of meeting every need nor should it be expected to fulfill that role. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln “Government ought only to do for people what they cannot legitimately do for themselves.  After the great rebellion when he saw the devastation of war on people he included the caring for the wounded service men and the “widows and orphans.”

Later Presidents developed programs to cope with further needs of the people, like Social Security and aid for dependent children. It is now necessary for President Obama to remind people of the complex nature of the relationship of the people to their Government.

— Pat Gogerty

The Hand that Rocks the Cradle

In his State Of The Union address the President mentioned the need for pre-kindergarten childcare as a way of strengthening educational development in the country. He cited the example of the states of Georgia and Oklahoma as having exemplary pre-kindergarten programs that have shown positive results in advancing children’s educational development.

Oklahoma was especially interesting because they started finding positive results with three-year-olds when they had to enroll them in order to meet requirements for the federally-funded Head Start program. There were not enough eligible four-year-olds so they supplemented the numbers with low income younger children. As one of the more conservative states their response was noteworthy.

Among the positive results are:

• Better achievement in grade and high school.
• Lower drop-out rates.
• Fewer disciplinary problems and higher graduation rates.
• The children learn how to socialize in appropriate ways, deferring to the needs and rights of others, denying immediate gratification for the good of the rest of their group, something essential to later social development and acceptance.

They know that these results are attributable to the program’s intervention because of 40-plus years of linear measurement with groups of similar children who do not participate.

There has long been a high correlation between the abuse of children and later criminal behavior by many of those kids as they grow into adulthood.

In the 1970’s the New York State Assembly had authorized a research project to be  carried out to examine the records of inmates in their prison system to determine what the first cause of involvement was for the prisoners in their institutions. They discovered that in over half the cases the reported cause was abuse or neglect as a child. The results were hampered by the fact that in many cases early records had been destroyed in compliance with a law that sealed juvenile records.

It is interesting to note that the first ever legal case prosecuting an individual for the abuse of a child was in the city of New York in 1874. There were no laws on the books that prohibited child abuse so the action was brought on behalf of the young girl who although not protected as a human being was protected as an animal since laws prohibiting cruelty to animals had been on the books in New York since the 1850’s.

In Washington State they went even farther in proving the effectiveness of early intervention. In 1977, after the passage in Washington of laws targeting the abuse of children, a local child care agency in Seattle called Childhaven collaborated with the State in an early intervention program that focused on serving children from birth to two years old.

The children were identified by the state Child Protective Services as being at risk because of abuse or neglect. The program zeroed in on the neediest of the needy and over the past 36 years it has shown outstanding results.

The measurement used in that program was randomized assignment.  It was done at a time when there were no other specialized treatments available that focused on the child and not the family unit. That means that the child was picked up each day even if the parent was not cooperating. However, parenting skills were taught at the facility and individual therapy was available. The outcomes were especially rewarding in the area of later delinquency and violenent behavior showing significant differences between the treatment and control groups. Another key finding was that after a short time the parents became involved in the program joined in getting help thus improving the lives of both parent and child, thus the family as a unit was strengthened.

In the President’s list of proposals made in his February 12^th address nothing is more important for the well being of our society than the early childhood initiative. The care and nurturance of our young is something our founding fathers thought would be taken care of by families, almost all of whom lived on farms. They were practical people however and seeing what has transpired in the intervening 237 years since they first led our country to its independence there is no doubt that they would have met need with action.

There is an old saying “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.”  All of us need to ensure that the hand is benign and non-violent.

— Pat Gogerty

The Devil is in the Details

During the agonizing hearings on the gun problem in our country today there was no talk of the problem of identifying the mentally deranged and keeping guns out of their hands. The recently completed incident of the deranged sixty-five year old veteran in Alabama demonstrates the problem.  The perpetrator of this crime was a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who was known by his neighbors for his unusual behavior. At the time he committed his crime he was awaiting a hearing on charges he shot at his neighbors.

Another strange action he was known for was patrolling his property at night with a loaded gun because he suspected some one might trespass on his land. He was known as a survivalist. When did his neighbors have the obligation to complain to authorities that he was a threat to their well being? Certainly when he shoots at them but what about before that, when he killed a dog that strayed on his land? When he was seen patrolling his property late at night with a loaded gun? When he threatened drivers who came to close his land when turning their cars around? Most importantly, when do authorities have the obligation to take action to protect the citizens?

In retrospect all the behaviors listed seem like warning bells but choose any one piece of behavior, except for the shooting at people, and you can develop an argument defending his right to do those things. Any one of us can march up and down on our front lawn in a posture of guarding our property or back and forth in our apartment with the same goal in mind. As has been spelled out for us the second amendment allows us the right to keep and bear arms, the constitution also allows us the right of safety within our homes and persons. Lawyers can make arguments that can enforce those rights.

Before this in Connecticut there was the case of the young man who displayed symptoms of autism, a condition not usually associated with violence or aggression. In fact, school children are taught not to make fun of autistic children and tolerate their unusual behavior.  His extreme violence was not expected nor could have been anticipated by past action. He cowered against the school walls as he went from class to class. Hardly intimidating behavior. Yet he perpetrated one of the worst acts of murder in the history of the country.

Those seeking to outlaw weapons of war have common sense on their side, but common sense seems to have little currency when it comes to gun debates. When criminal background checks are resisted as too intrusive what chance does mental health verification have?  F. Scott Fitzgerald once observed “The rich are different than you and me.” So, it might be argued, are the mentally deranged.  But who determines that?

— Pat Gogerty

Australia Burns as Europe Freezes

In France they are digging out from record snow storms while in Los Angeles the temperature drops and the orange growers get out machines to prevent the fruit from being harmed by freezing temperatures. Meanwhile in Sydney, Australia the high temperatures continue to set new records. It is so hot in some parts of Australia that drivers at gas stations lose fuel to evaporation as they fill their tanks. Evaporation happens wherever a tank is filled, but down under it is far greater than the usual level of loss.

The temperature starts off at over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in morning and climbs to 109 or more during the day. This steals moisture from plants and trees thus making possible those tremendous fires. Global warming is a reality down under.

All of this is happening while the polar ice cap melts and polar bears paddle to exhaustion looking for a still frozen ice floe to happen by. In South America the glaciers of the Andes Mountains are melting and losing ice at a rate not seen in over four hundred years.

In his inaugural address President Obama touched on climate change as a major issue to be addressed in his second term. Given the extremely polarized political climate in Washington, D.C. it will be a tough slog to get agreement on what needs to be done. Then there is the fact that climate change needs to be addressed by more than just the U.S.A. We are no longer the sole engine of economic production. We need the cooperation of countries like China and India to achieve meaningful change on this problem.

In writing about the French Revolution, Victor Hugo said “There is no army as strong as an idea whose time has come.” Of course he was writing about one country and one revolution. The idea of coping with climate change will take collaboration from many countries with differing political philosophies and different forms of government. Will the need to cope with the problem of climate change be an idea strong enough to change the behavior of people world wide? Think of it this way, can we get southern Republicans to agree with New England Democrats eighty percent of the time? The task is not hard, it is herculean.

During the Cold War when our political approach was called M.A.D., mutually assured destruction, citizens were encouraged to build their own little bomb shelters, while those in the cities held air raid drills and flocked to the underground subway tunnels. Perhaps now would be a good time to build underground cooling places where the populace can duck into and cool off for a brief time and those not in the cities can build little underground cooling shelters. If we can’t build political consensus then we need an alternative.

— Pat Gogerty

Our Big Problem

Guns have one purpose and that is to hurt other living creatures. If you are a hunter then you can get food by killing other creatures. The most common reason people use for having a gun is self-protection. Yet research shows self-protection is least frequent use for guns. There are many reasons to view gun ownership as a right guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution, remembering that it was drafted when the country had no standing army and relied on citizens carrying their own guns to make up a militia force to defend the country. Such reasons are far removed from circumstances today.

Today one person can own a weapon that contains more firepower than a company of minute men. The founding fathers would never have imagined a weapon such as the one used to commit murder in Newtown, Connecticut. In today's political climate the reality is there will be few restrictions placed on gun ownership. There does, however, exist some hope for restrictions on weapons used in war. Many gun-owning hunters, both Democrat and Republican, have stated that they don’t need automatic weapons to hunt deer or ducks.  Those who have served in the military and are familiar with guns know the truth: the purpose of guns is to kill other human beings. That purpose is not needed in a country like America with the law enforcement structure we have. The hunter’s rifle and the personal protection pistol are understandable, but weapons that fire 30 or 50 rounds in one clip are not.

When working with very young children teachers often advise to “use your words, not your fist” to solve disputes. Too soon those children are exposed to the violent example of using guns instead of words to solve disputes. The value of talking instead of shooting is a lost discipline with many of our young today.

The gun representatives have a valid criticism of the role video games and movies play in our culture.  Both Hollywood and video game manufacturers have to answer for their part in the problem. A collaboration of all is the only way to arrive at a multi dimensional solution. Some critics of the Aurora, Colorado movie shooting point out that the shooter was clever enough to go to a “gun free” movie theater as opposed to several other theaters showing the same movie. Gun supporters say that he might not have hurt so many if the other movie patrons had been carrying a gun. Is that the future America faces?

— Pat Gogerty

Time Runs Out

The days dwindle down and the outcome is in doubt until the last minute.

In the movie “The Horn Blows at Midnight” comedian Jack Benny dreams he is supposed to blow his trumpet at midnight to signify the end of the world. Emissaries from the almighty were sent down to earth to make sure that archangel Benny carried out his job. Unfortunately for those tasked to make sure the end came when Benny blew his horn they failed and their punishment was a trip south to the devil, and the world kept on turning.

The scenario reminds us of our political crisis today: the horn blows at midnight December 31, 2012, and then who knows what will happen. Immediate recession? Markets crash? Unemployment hits more? Just what the consequences will be no one seems to know with any certainty. Maybe like Jack Benny we will all wake New Years Day to find it was just a bad dream.

One thing we all know is that what just passed marks a new low watermark in how dysfunctional our government has become. Toss in the debt ceiling problem and soon the American citizen can legitimately look at our government and ask the question Casey Stengel asked as he looked at his Mets as they stumbled through an early practice and he said “doesn’t anybody here know how to play this game?”

There will be a shake up in the roster of both sides as of Jan 3^rd  and perhaps that will help bring some new perspectives to all the participants. Whatever the effect no one can stop the progress of events nor hold back the tide of public sentiment.

— Pat Gogerty

Over the Cliff

For those who ski it is a safe rule to stay on the trails marked by the ski patrol and not take off into unmarked territory lest one accidentally find oneself dangerously close to hazardous cliffs or precipices. When it comes to our nation’s economic well-being it is especially important not to take dangerous excursions close to the unknown. Keep our economic policies close to the tried and safe practices of proven paths. It is terra incognito for economists and those of us who depend on their guidance. Unfortunately we are seeing a different strategy out of Washington D.C.

Some call it the “Thelma and Louise” style of budget negotiations, named after the two ladies in the movie who drove off the cliff rather than surrender. It is a lot more like the robber who walks into the bank with a gun pointed at himself and says give me all your money or I will kill myself. This time it is not the individual who does himself in but rather the people collectively who will suffer if the country enters the New Year without resolving the problem. Everyone know that income taxes will go up on everyone, but of equal importance is the payroll tax which will also rise and in some cases will be a bigger financial hit to low income wage earners than income taxes.

The old saying “there are none so blind as those who will not see” is true of the counteroffer from the House speaker which opens “after the status quo election just passed…” and seems to negate the validity of majority rule in the country. The democratic system is on trial before the world. We debate the issues and then choose, and then the side with the most votes gets to implement the proposals campaigned on. Without that foundation everything else is invalid. The world watches and hopes we make the right decision.

The only question for the fellow who walks into the bank with the gun pointed at himself demanding the money is “No, so what are you going to do about it?” In a game of fiscal chicken this is the question for both sides, what happens now?

— Pat Gogerty

Honest Abe and Bain Capital

In Freeport, Illinois there is a real life demonstration going on now of predatory capitalism. A local company is being shipped to China and the workers are being compelled to train their Chinese replacements in how to operate the machinery and produce the products. As machinery is loaded on the trucks the displaced workers are picketing with signs advertising the fact that the owner of the company is Bain Capital and the movement of the factory is being carried out by those managers at Bain Capital who were trained by former owner and outsourcer Mitt Romney. The laborers from China, who are in the United States being trained by the American workers they are replacing are paid 90 cents an hour as opposed to the $17.00 an hour paid to the American workers at the factory in Freeport. This is called predatory capitalismbecause profit is everything to the owners. The owners know that the workers will never strike in a totalarian country so production will never be stopped by a labor dispute.

This is being carried out in Freeport, Illinois, the home of one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Which raises the question what would Mr. Lincoln say if he were standing outside the factory as it is being disassembled and shipped to another country in order to gain a bigger profit. He would see workers distraught, losing their ability to provide food for their families, to pay rent in order to shelter their families. In short he would see American skills being transferred to foreign workers along with the tools to make something developed and manufactured in this country. In the truest sense he would see America being bartered away by greedy manipulators who have one interest in life: getting as rich as possible.

The process involved in the extreme economic practices of the type of capitalism outlined above contributes to human suffering by America’s workers. It also means more dependence on the social network demeaned by Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan. More food stamps, more welfare, and a more anxious general population. It would be wise to pay attention to the latent fury of the 47% for in the words of any pollster, those 47% lie within the three percent margin of error.

Mr. Lincoln had words of wisdom for modern day Republicans when in his second inaugural March 4, 1865 he said “with malice towards none, with charity for all…let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.” The last time the Nation was this divided it was because of slavery. Today it is because of economic disparity, the disappearance of the middle class and the great gap between the few who have and the multitude that have not.

President Obama is not President Lincoln. Mr. Obama has brought his primary efforts to achieve equality to the area of pay equality for women and access to medical care for all. The first item is common sense and the second has been a goal for Presidents going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, it is not the idea of giving free medicine to just minorities, it is the realization of a goal sought for over 80 years by all caring Presidents. As Mr. Lincoln said; “with malice toward none…” so let it be.

— Pat Gogerty