CleverDonkey.com …Musings, Commentary, Opinions, and Drivel

I just read an article where the voting records of Supreme Court Justices were analyzed to determine if justices tended to stick to their leanings at the time of appointment (Liberal, Centrist, Conservative) or if they strayed over time. To the surprise of the investigators, the justices tended to drift over time, and sometimes even oscillated between positions from ruling to ruling.

I find this to be not only not surprising, but also dramatically refreshing. Interpreting the law of the land is not the milieu for rigid dogma, it is the place for thoughtful consideration of all sides of an argument. And, if one is to thoughtfully consider all facets of every argument, it becomes increasingly more difficult to stick to preconceived notions of right and wrong, of liberal versus conservative, of Republican versus Democrat.

If you then remove the external motivations of re-election/re-appointment or personal enrichment and replace them with the fact that justices are evaluated almost exclusively by the backward lense of history, and that the railings and wailings of any pundits du jour have absolutely no effect on the life or career of a justice, we find (to me simplistically) that over time justices tend to actually try to do what is right and just.

Now, we all have differing opinions on what is right and just – that’s why there are nine justices. And I certainly don’t agree with all decisions by the Court, however, if/when I take the time to actually read the opinions I find that the rulings, while not what I would have decided, are (with exceedingly rare exception) based on law, logic, and justice.

What I find most surprising is when self-labelled Conservative or Liberal talking-heads bemoan the fact that one Justice or the other “betrayed” their ideology by voting in a certain way in a certain case which said talking-head is holding up as a rallying flag for “the cause”. The judges are then labelled as “activist”, which in the US political arena is apparently defined as “making decisions with which I do not agree”.

Well, guess what? That’s *exactly* how it’s supposed to work. Supreme Court Justices are *supposed* to be free from the political pressures of re-election or re-appointment, specifically to allow them to practice rationality instead of dogmatism. And the pundits and talking heads flail about in histrionic rage which they direct at the justices, when instead they should direct at their own stupidity for not understanding the basic construct of the US government.

Suck it, true believers, the system works.

• Leave a comment... (2)

So, Halliburton has announced that they are moving their corporate headquarters from Houston, TX, USA to Dubai, UAE. Their stated reasoning is that, well, that’s where the action is and it makes sense for their CEO to be there.

Also note that Halliburton is spinning off their KBR subsidiary – and take special note that KBR is Halliburton’s engineering and military contracting arm, the arm that has done the bulk of contract work for the US government in Iraq.

So, here are three pieces of information that just seem to point to one inescapably unethical conclusion:

• The CEO and Headquarters for Halliburton will relocate to Dubai.
• Halliburton is spinning off KBR, which did most of the contracting work in Iraq for the US, and which is coming under increasing scrutiny by the ascendant Democratic party for no-bid contracts, shoddy work, price gouging, etc.
• The outgoing Republican administration is losing their ability to protect the company that Dick Cheney ran just six short years ago – in fact, he went directly from being head of Halliburton to being the Vice President.

And now for some conjecture:

• I’ll bet that extraditing someone from the UAE to the US can be made difficult, particularly if you are an executive with a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation who recently moved your headquarters (and revenue base) to the UAE.
• Halliburton is stating that they intend to retain their incorporation in the US and that only the CEO’s office and HQ are moving. I would not be surprised to hear an announcement down the line that Halliburton intends to move its incorporation to Dubai, as well. That’s strictly conjecture, but it sure seems like the next shoe to drop.
• I’ll bet that Halliburton is going to do their damndest to get moved before the current lame-duck presidency ends and the new administration, almost assuredly Democrat, takes power and starts getting to look at the Iraq debacle from the inside. 
• I’ll bet that there will be far-reaching, ongoing investigations and prosecutions related to the Iraq war, particularly directed against Halliburton for things as potentially drastic as war-profiteering, and perhaps even against members of the current administration for the ease with which business was simply handed to Halliburton/KBR, seemingly with no thought to competitive bid, fair pricing, or even ability to deliver. 
• I’ll bet that divesting itself of the unit that did most of the contracting work in Iraq will serve to make it incrementally more difficult to involve Halliburton executives in the investigations/prosecutions (“What, you mean that company over there? They have nothing to do with us!”). 
• I wonder if the UAE has any records-retention laws, and if they do, if they enforce them, and if they do, if Halliburton will care. I can see the situation arising where it will be awfully difficult for investigators to subpoena records from Halliburton, when said records either no longer exist, only exist in the UAE, or can’t really be located because they got misplaced during the spinoff of KBR – you know how it is when you move, things get misplaced. 
• If you recall it was a Dubai-based company that the US wanted hire to manage our international ports a few months back. At the time it seemed crazy that our Middle-Eastern-hating current administration would paradoxically be so happy and smiley about outsourcing the running of US international ports (classified by every US intelligence service as highly vulnerable targets for terrorist strikes) to a company based in Dubai. 
• Dubai, while working to become a cosmopolitan destination, still lists Islam as the official religion, provides government funding for almost all Sunni mosques (and almost none for Shi’a mosques), routinely denies visa applications from Jews, allows a brazen sex-slave trade (to support tourism, don’t you know?), treats migrant workers as indentured servants, and punishes homosexuality with death.  Yeah, I can see the appeal for Halliburton – what’s not to like?

On the face of it, this move, to me, is such a bald-faced attempt to both ensure the profits derived from Iraq are safe and to ensure that Halliburton execs don’t get thrown in jail that I can scarcely believe Halliburton has the guts to try it. The Bush/Cheney/oil hegemony is crumbling and I doubt that the current administration has enough power left to set the pick for Halliburton so they can escape.

Please also note that I have absolutely no inside information or access to facts beyond what’s being published in the news, so I could be way, way off base. However, I don’t think I am. Also, I actually don’t have a problem if Halliburton wants to move to the UAE to avoid US taxes – I say, good for them. That’s just business in the global market. However, my take is that any such move should be blocked by US regulators until after the dust settles from the Iraq mess and that any resulting music has been faced – ditto on the spinoff of KBR.

• Leave a comment... (0)

With startling speed, Saddam Hussein was executed last night. Mynagirl and I were enjoying a quiet evening at home with CNN Headline News playing as background noise when the news reports started. First it was that Hussein would be executed before the end of the year. Then it was that he would be executed some time this weekend. Then it was that he would be executed some time Friday evening. Then it was that he would be executed at dawn in Baghdad (10pm Eastern time).

Then he was dead, at 10:05pm Eastern. Just like that. I mean, yes, his trial had been ongoing, and the war seems endless, and I think we all knew he was going to end up dead. But to an American used to our justice system’s endless death sentence appeals process this felt closer to a lynching than an execution. Not that I think he was a railroaded innocent, or anything, it’s just that it seemed to happen without warning or preamble.

Which may have been the point. In a country so beset with violence it may be that such swift execution of his…execution…was necessary from a security perspective. If the date had been set days/weeks/months in advance then the date would have become a big, juicy target for symbolic actions. Doing the entire thing over the course of a few hours meant that anyone wanting to strike a symbolic blow in concert with the execution would have had to have a plan already in place and ready to go at a moments notice – and it looks like nobody did.

It would be foolish not to expect some aftershocks to this, however, and I will not be surprised when dramatic actions are taken in response. However, I have a perhaps naive feeling that the responses won’t be too grandiose, as I don’t believe that Hussein has much direct support for himself as a person, only as a power-base. So while Sunnis will lament the loss of their ascendancy and will dislike their new position as a persecuted minority, I don’t think that they’ll actually miss Hussein himself, only the protections he offered (and maintained with ruthless violence and oppression).

The saddest part of this entire story, to me, is that although he was a maniacal bastard, Saddam Hussein had tried to set Iraq up as the only secular country in the entire region. Iraq was not ruled by the Islamic Sharia laws, but by a western-style set of courts and laws. Women and Christians had positions of power within the government and the business world. Hussein hoped to spread secular rule across the Arab world, with Iraq leading the way, naturally.

Stop for a moment and consider that fact. Saddam Hussein took Iraq and molded it into a country that was tolerant of religious differences (except when those differences opposed the rule of Hussein), championed the rights of women, rejected fanatical Islam and the Sharia law that rules the rest of the Islamic world, and instituted a reasonable facsimile of a fair and just court system. One only has to consider how quickly Iraq devolved into sectarian violence after his fall to understand the monumental nature of his achievements. However, while his ends may have had some noble facets, his means were definitely unacceptable to the civilized world. Using nerve gas against his own people, fomenting a brutal war with Iran, invading Kuwait.

That was perhaps his fatal mistake. The US tolerates evil dictators all around the world all the time. However, when Iraq invaded Kuwait that immediately doubled the world oil supply under Hussein’s control from 10% to 20%. This worried the US and the UK. It also worried Saudi Arabia. Kuwait had been no friend of the US up to this point, and was in fact aligned with Russia. However, the US and Russia worked together in the UN to give Iraq a deadline for leaving Kuwait. Hussein responded in an amazingly intelligent way – he said he would withdraw from Kuwait if Israel would return the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to Palestinian rule. This of course set up a situation where those supporting the US also appeared to be supporting Israel, creating even more confusion over his invasion of Kuwait. In the end the US and allies ignored any connection to the Palestinian issue and moved in to chase Iraq out of Kuwait.

That’s really when the wheels started to come off for Saddam Hussein. Opposition increased in his own country, and the US amazingly aided him by suspending no-fly zones to allow him to suppress uprisings in the north. Then in 1993 the Iraq Intelligence Service attempted to assassinate President George H. W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait. This was the beginning of the end for Saddam’s regime. The US and UN continued to find Iraq in violation of edicts prohibiting the development of WMDs. Saddam began portraying himself as a devout Muslim in an effort to court the proponents of the growing radical Islamic movement, and he also re-instituted some of the Sharia laws.

President Clinton maintained the economic sanctions and imposition of military restraints on Iraq, and continued to work with the UN to inspect Iraq facilities to ensure that WMDs were not being developed. Hussein, of course, bristled under this micromanagement of *his* country and so was resistant and uncooperative with inspections and reporting.

The ultimate irony is that if Hussein had simply let the inspections happen, he’d probably still be in power today, as we have since discovered that he was definitely not developing weapons of mass destruction. It appears that his resistance to inspections was more about megalomania and paranoia than about protecting secret programs. However, by not allowing the UN to write him a clean bill of health, Hussein left the door open for the…creative development?…of “intelligence” showing that he was developing WMDs and was also in cahoots with Al Qaeda (which we also now know was completely untrue).

Now, stop and think about that again for a moment. Somebody somewhere in the US government purposely falsified intelligence showing development of WMDs and cahooting with Al Qaeda. The upper echelons of the executive branch accepted this so-called “intelligence” even in the face of clear and compelling evidence showing the exact opposite. Not only did the White House ignore such evidence, it vilified those who dared to raise a voice in opposition to the war, and squashed any initiatives that attempted to gather information for alternative realities.

When you put the facts together it is difficult to come up with an explanation more plausible than the one where the White House orchestrated the entire thing, or at least used extreme selectivity in evaluating intelligence to lead the US into an inevitable war. We, the people, were thirsting for vengeance at the time, and our seemingly good work in Afghanistan whetted our appetites for a little more democracy-spreading. And regardless of any trumped-up evidence, there is no way to stand and defend Saddam Hussein as an innocent. But, why him, and why then? In cases such as this it’s always easiest for me to follow the money, as you’ll see below.

Accomplishments in Iraq:

• A ruthless dictator has been deposed.
• Iraq has devolved into sectarian violence.
• Iraqi citizens are dying at a rate that is greater, by orders of magnitude, than the rate they died under Saddam’s regime.
• Three thousand plus US soldiers have been killed.
• Radical, Islamic fundamentalism is spreading like wildfire in the region.
• Israel is rattling their nuclear sabers, even though they won’t say they have them.
• Iran is very close to acquiring nuclear sabers.
• An ineffective, US-slavish, puppet “government” has been installed.
• The revenue for Iraq’s oil is going to…who, exactly?

So, only one good thing in that list (deposition of tyrant). And the last entry, well, that’s the $64,000(,000,000) question now, isn’t it? Who, exactly, is controlling Iraq’s oil? I have zero facts about that, but I will take a good guess that somebody like Halliburton is raking in huge “management fees” for administering Iraq’s oil reserves. Iraq has a GDP of around $94 billion, 95% of which comes from oil. So let’s call it $90 billion per year.

If you figure, conservatively, that the US will be involved in “managing” the Iraqi oil reserves for, let’s say, 10 years, that’s about $1 trillion factoring in normal inflation rates. Also figure that we’ll continue to lose, what?…somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 troops per year on average over that time? So that gives us the following equation:

$1,000,000,000,000 / 8,000 lost troops = $125,000,000 per dead soldier

Now, there are factors here other than oil. So let’s take away 10% of that for the general good of deposing a dictator. And, let’s let W have 5% for the revenge factor of deposing the maniac what almost kilt his daddy. That leaves $106,250,000 per dead soldier in the pursuit of oil. Now, do the soldiers families get any of that? I mean, even a broker gets a 10% commission for finding a deal – shouldn’t these soldiers families get at least that? That would be $10,625,000 per family, by my calculations.

Keep in mind that as unrest grows in the Middle East, and fanatical Islamism spreads, and the worlds supply of oil is threatened, the price of oil will continue to rise. Hmm. So a cynical man might say that the President’s buddies in the oil patch are not only profiting from the Iraqi invasion, but will also profit handsomely from continued unrest in the area? And the US government executive actions have served almost exactly and precisely to foment continued unrest in the area? That’s just curious now, isn’t it?

Also, if the US government is so worried about the welfare of the world, why aren’t we in the Sudan helping to quell the genocide in Darfur? Accepted statistics state 400,000 dead so far. Oh, wait, they only produce $5 billion per year from oil – guess that’s not enough to cost-justify an invasion?

I will finish this rant by stating that while I am reasonably intelligent and definitely opinionated, I am ignorant of the specifics of what drove us to invade Iraq and of what’s going on with Iraq’s oil. Please don’t tell me to “research it”, because the only thing that research will reveal is what story is being told by those in control. It won’t tell me what’s transpiring in back rooms and undisclosed locations. It won’t tell me whether or not we invaded Iraq to depose a dictator, to “liberate” their oil reserves to US control, to take revenge for an attempted assassination, and/or for other reasons altogether. That is information that I will never know, unless it comes out in W’s posthumous writings, or some investigative journalist grows a pair and actually digs up the facts.

And so I am left to piece together the “truth” from what little slivers of facts are actually available. And the puzzle pieces fit together to form a very ugly picture, indeed.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Today the world derives the vast majority of its energy from non-renewable resources like oil, coal, and natural gas. There is a finite amount of these fuels, and at the current growth rate of usage they will all be used up within 100 years. That means that some of the young babies of today will live to see the end of the age of hydrocarbon fuels. What will they use to fulfill their energy needs?

There is a strong push to replace hydrocarbons with “green” energy sources, using so-called renewable resources such as sunlight, wind, or thermal energy. While I can see that these resources could be considered renewable given their current levels of usage, I fear the impact on our environment if we scale usage up to the point where they could provide most of the world’s energy needs.

Consider wind power, which today consists of a few wind farms in a few places, and which have no discernable impact on weather patterns (or the energy supply, for that matter). However, if you scale up wind power so that it is ubiquitous, and you remove all of that wind energy from the meteorological realm, what would be the resulting long-term impact? I have been unable to find any estimates of this, nor do I see a logical way to predict such an impact, even if one were to attempt to figure it out. Today we see huge, wild shifts in the world’s weather with each degree of temperature change — what would be the impact of reducing wind energy by one mile per hour around the globe?

The same with sunlight. Today people have solar cells or solar water heaters on the rooftops of their homes, and there are a few large-scale commercial solar energy farms, but again nothing noteworthy in relation to the overall world energy supply. And these few solar installations really have no impact on global weather, as they are so small as to be inconsequential. But, again, imaging scaling up the production of energy from sunlight, with vast farms of solar cells or solar water heaters absorbing energy from sunlight, energy that would previously have hit the ground and contributed to the natural forces of our biosphere. What if large-scale solar energy farms reduced the global temperature by one or two degrees?

The same can be said for geothermal energy, as well as other “renewables” such as biomass or flowing water. These may seem to be potentially endless reserves of energy, but when one uses one’s imagination to extrapolate usage up to providing any significant portion of the worlds energy needs it becomes much less clear as to the long-term effects and actual “renewability” of these resources. Keep in mind that if you take a long enough view of the world, oil is a renewable resource, we just have to wait a few geologic millenia for natural forces to replenish the oil supply naturally (just like it was created in the first place). An energy source is “renewable” only if it can be replenished faster than it is used, and no one can yet say that this is true for sunlight, wind, biomass, or thermal energy sources.

In my opinion there are two realistic, long-term energy resources available to mankind today. The first is nuclear energy, and the second is hydrogen energy, and they actually represent pretty much one energy source. You see, hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe and is also an efficient energy source. The trick is that it takes a great deal of energy to extract hydrogen from its primary sources, such as water. So we need nuclear plants in remote places producing hydrogen to be used everywhere else. And while both hydrogen and nuclear fuel are both finite resources, the known quantities would provide for mankind’s energy needs for an uncountable number of millenia.

We are at the end of the Hydrocarbon Age and at beginning of the Hydrogen Age. Let’s climb on board.

• Leave a comment... (3)

I consider myself an impartial observer of politics, religion, and sports. I don’t stake my belief system on any particular political party, deity, or team. I also don’t believe that my beliefs are right and other beliefs are wrong, but I do believe that my beliefs are right for me. There are certain philosophies which I categorically reject (e.g. terrorism, straight-ticket voting, designated hitters), but for the most part I am tolerant of other’s beliefs and do not think they are idiots for not seeing things my way (even though many are).

And from my lofty perch of impartiality it appears that American’s views on politics, religion, and sports are morphing into one giant pep rally. People label themselves and then adopt the trappings of their self-imposed pigeonholing. One says, “I’m a Conservative, Catholic, Red Sox fan” and you can just visualize almost all aspects of that person. How they dress. What they say. Where they live. What they eat. Whom they vote for. Which news network they watch. Etc.

Another says, “I’m a Liberal, Unitarian, soccer fan” and you can, once again, grok the gestalt of this individual.

On the one hand, I applaud people for being able to so narrowly define their views. I see good and bad most places, and can usually see the merits of both sides of an argument, and so find myself in a perpetual state of re-evaluating my personal philosophies. It’s very confusing, often tiring, but ultimately invigorating. So on the other hand, I find it difficult to understand how people can adopt a canned set of views and then go through life without constantly questioning themselves.

The World Is Grey

I’ll give you an example of a hot-button topic: capital punishment. Now, from a philosophical perspective I am both for and against capital punishment. How, you say, can you be both? Well, first of all because I reject the polarized views espoused over this issue in America. I am for capital punishment because there are times when a crime is so heinous and the proof is so incontrovertible that nothing short of execution is a fitting punishment. However, I’m also against capital punishment because the fallible nature of humans means that sometimes innocent people are executed, which is unconscionable.

I’ll use two hypothetical examples to explain. In the first, picture a man who is so angry with the boss that recently fired him that he pockets a gun and drives to his bosses house to confront him. The boss ends up shot dead, but there are no witnesses. The fired man says that they exchanged angry words and he pulled the gun, but then changed his mind and tried to leave. He then goes on to say that at that point his former boss attacked him and tried to take the gun away, and in the ensuing struggle the gun went off accidentally, killing his former boss. In this instance I wholeheartedly disagree with the death penalty, as there is no proof of what happened. Yes, he was angry, took a gun, and confronted his ex-boss. But there really is no way to know what really happened.

In the second example, a man puts on a flack jacket, loads up his car with a couple of rifles and a lot of ammo, drives to a tall building, climbs up onto the roof and begins randomly shooting (and killing) people in the streets below. This goes on for an hour, until the police can locate and corner the man, who drops his rifle and puts up his hands in surrender. In this case he is clearly the shooter, clearly premeditated, no question of identity or motive, no possible forensic or legal tricks to allow him to wriggle out of the charges. In this case the man clearly should be put to death.

However, death penalty cases are rarely so clear cut. Hence my statement that I am both for and against it. The fact that people have turned this into a Liberal vs. Conservative issue oversimplifies the complexity of the problem.

Patella Twitching

Another example is the movement afoot to “reign in activist judges” by removing lifetime appointments and/or using some other methods to make judges accountable to “the American People”. However, the entire purpose of the judiciary system in America is exactly and precisely to have judges who are NOT able to pressured politically, and who are NOT required to answer to “the will of the American People”. That’s called “checks and balances”, if one were to remember one’s GRADE SCHOOL teachings. However, a large percentage of self-described “conservatives” are backing this movement, seemingly without a second thought to the fact that it completely destroys one of the great founding principals of our country.

There is also the example of a movement afoot to implement a new tax system, such as flat-tax, national sales tax, or value-added tax (VAT). There is a hue and cry from the self-described “liberals” that such a tax would be “regressive”, meaning it would punish the poor and middle class with an unfair burden of taxes. However, the current tax system is so Byzantine and opaque that only upper-income folks can actually work the system to their advantage, meaning that the rich are always able to find loopholes in the existing system that skew reality so that it has no relation to published tax tables. A national sales tax that exempted basic necessities (medicine, rent, utilities, unprepared food, etc) would be unavoidable by all, however, and would allow lower- and middle-income folks to survive with little taxation on the basic necessities of life. The wealthier folks, however, will blithely pay the sales tax on their luxury purchases, as will criminals (who don’t file tax returns, but do buy over-the-counter goods and services). So the “regressive” argument seems like nothing more than the beating of a partisan drum for no good reason.

Team Spirit

In fact, all of the pontificating, boasting, and arguing in America today seems to me to be melding into a strange type of “Team Spirit”, where people’s political and religious personas are shaped by the “team” they choose to support, rather than on what the person actually thinks and believes. I always root for my favorite sports teams, and think they’re going to win (be right), and always look for favorable signs and trends, and disparage the opposing teams, and complain about the officiating, and feel elation or pain with each win or loss, and never think to question my devotion to the team, because they’re my team, and I love my team and support them, even when they lose (are wrong).

But I do all that because sports is, ultimately, meaningless. It is simply a pastime, an enjoyable diversion from real life. But religion and politics are important. They are a part of real life. They deserve and require deep thought and evaluation. There is no dogma that is always right or always wrong, and choosing one side without contemplation is simply taking the easy way out. However, I think that the powers-that-be are going out of their way to foment partisanship instead of critical thinking, because it’s easier to get people excited about a catchy slogan and an appealing spokesperson than it is to get them to read, evaluate, and understand a position paper or plan for dealing with real problems. It’s also easier to get people excited by pointing out the failings of their opponents and then uniting supporters against a common enemy.

But, unfortunately, our common enemy is blind faith. Faith that the people who say the things we want to hear will actually end up doing the things we want them to do. Faith that the people leading the cheers actually have the greater good as their goal. Faith that people who tell us things we don’t like to hear are wrong rather than just the bearers of unpleasant, but accurate, truths.

So remember that breaking with the status quo of your selected flock does not equate to treason. If everyone simply accepted the pontifications of their figureheads we’d still have slavery, women wouldn’t be able to vote, and nobody would be able to drink. Not even at a baseball game, and that would be positively un-American…wouldn’t it?

• Leave a comment... (0)

I believe that all modern (Post-WWII) US presidents have been crazy. Insane. Bonkers. Nuts. Loopy. Etc. On what do I base this belief? Did I perform extensive analysis of discernable behavior patterns and/or gain access to private documents and records that showed demonstrable dementia? No. My belief is based on it being the only possible explanation. Allow me to elaborate.

The Short Version
A person does not become president by accident, he has to want it, and he has to think he can actually handle the job in order to survive the selection and competition processes. But a person who believes that he can compete and win the job of president, and then handle being the most powerful human on the planet, is clearly delusional. There’s a perfect word to describe the condition of a serious Presidential candidate:

Main Entry: megalomania (meg•a•lo•ma•nia)
Pronunciation: “me-g&-lO-‘mA-nE-&, -ny&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: circa 1890
1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

Definition courtesy of Merriam-Webster at http://www.m-w.com.

(On an unrelated note, I think it would be a hoot if a Chinese restaurant had a big promotion or contest and called it Mega Lo Mein-ia!)

Think of it this way…what would your reaction be if someone said to you: “I really want to be President of the United States, and I think I’d do a great job!”? My reaction would be, “You’re crazy!” Why would anyone want that job? Unsolvable problems, unknowable enemies, unrelenting danger (to one’s self and one’s family), incomprehensible issues, and non-stop criticism. To *want* that job, you have to either think you are truly one in 250,000,000, the one great leader who can shepherd this flock through the rocky straits of the winds of change (he mixed, metaphorically), or you have to be willing to sacrifice everything in order to get power. In either case, you are insane, in my estimation.

The Long Version
First of all, no modern president has been elected by virtue of a grass-roots movement. Sure, some have come out of nowhere (Carter, Clinton), but they still came through their party machine, and followed the cow paths laid down by countless previous candidates. And those paths lead through some pretty stinky pastures, my friend. In modern America, the Democrats and Republicans have an oligopoly (I would assert that they have a monopoly, actually) on the office of President. They control the means of production, distribution, and delivery. You don’t get to be the Democratic or Republican Presidential candidate unless you pass muster within the party. And the standards are very exacting. Notice that I didn’t say “high”, I said “exacting”.

First and foremost, you (as the candidate) must be controllable, to reduce the risk that you will harm your party. How are you made to be controllable? How does one control the most powerful person in the world? By having more power over the candidate than the candidate will over you, if elected. How do you, as a party leader, retain a power advantage over the president? By making sure he owes you, and the party, and the party’s constituents more than he can possibly ever repay. This doesn’t have to be money. It can be power, in that you gave the president the power, and you can also take it away. It can be information, such as who did what to whom when and why and for how much. Now, does this mean that all of our presidents have been lifeless marionettes, dancing the dance exactly as laid out by their handlers? No, but the powers-that-be (the *real* powers-that-be, not the ones we see on TV) retain enough power to influence things enough to keep things running smoothly (by their definition).

Secondly, in order for a politician to even appear on the radar as a possible Presidential candidate, he/she must be a master of Machiavellian machinations. Remember, *everyone* makes mistakes, and *nobody* is perfect. So, when a Presidential candidate appears to have no great flaws, this simply means that he knows how to do damage control, bury bodies (figuratively, one hopes), and spin the “facts” as if he were a Harlem Globetrotter. Let’s assume for a moment that an honest man is rising through the ranks of a major party with their eyes on the Presidency. This honest man will have friends and enemies, and will also know people who are both and neither simultaneously. Remember that there are, literally, trillions of dollars hanging in the balance. Think about the lengths to which a street punk will go to get a few hundred dollars. Now multiply that by billions and you’ll get an idea of the lengths to which those in power will go to keep and grow their power.

In order to survive and reach the Presidency, our honest man will have to fight constant battles on several fronts. The first battle will be to ignore the offers of tremendous wealth and power that come their way. He will need to ignore the fact that, simply by slightly compromising his convictions to the smallest degree, he could ensure his financial well-being, and that of his children and grandchildren. The second battle will be to fend off the ruthless attacks of his un-chivalric enemies, while not stooping to their level. The third battle will be to try to clearly identify friend from enemy. And the fourth battle will be the most difficult. Everyone has flaws and weaknesses. But a Presidential candidate can’t expose these facets, or he will be set upon by the jackals of infamy. But an honest man can’t lie about them, either. So therein lies a conundrum: how can an honest man become President in our current system? I assert that it is impossible.

So, if the reader will stipulate all of the above for the sake of argument, we are now at the point where our presidential candidate is a dishonest manipulator, willing to sacrifice principal for survival, and willing to fight dirty and bury the bodies, all while smiling for the camera. I think we can all agree that that’s a pretty fair description of how most of us picture Presidential candidates, yes? And you know what? The system is giving us exactly what we are asking it for. And while this means our Presidential candidates are not angels, why does it mean that they’re insane?

Remember that candidates do not have the presidency foisted upon them involuntarily. They seek it out, with relentless ferocity and ruthlessness, and they want it with their entire being, and they plan it decades in advance. They know the sacrifices they will have to make. They know the price their families will pay. They know that they are facing almost insurmountable odds, and that they can’t control all the factors that may one day lead them to the Presidency. And they know that as they approach the upper echelons of politics and begin to become serious Presidential candidates, the trappings of a normal life will be stripped away, and they will forever live in a glass bowl under a microscope being x-rayed, even after they have died. That their lives, and those of their families, will be in constant danger from that point forward. That hundreds, thousands, or millions of lives will hang in the balance of the decisions made in office. That the President will influence events that will cause millions, billions, or trillions of dollars to ebb and flow between interested parties, and each of those interested parties will be willing to make it interesting (if he plays along), or dangerous (if he doesn’t) for the President. That every issue has three sides…right, wrong, and politically expedient.

Remember, crazy does not equal stupid. Nor does it equal evil. I am not asserting that all modern Presidents have been stupid and/or evil, just crazy. Some have been benevolently loony (Reagan), some have completely masked their insanity (Carter), and some have dazzled us with misdirection so we don’t notice that they’ve got crazy hidden up their sleeve (Clinton). I sometimes hesitate when I think of George Bush Sr. as President, because he seemed to have done such a good job, and he and Barbara seem happy, and he didn’t even seem a little bit crazy. But then I remember that he spent years as the Director of the CIA. And then I remembered that a lot of his family’s money came about as a result of collaborating with Nazis until well after the start of WWII. This would be tantamount to collaborating with Osama bin Laden today. So, George Bush Sr. comes from a family who made their wealth, in part, by working with Nazi front companies until those company’s assets were seized by the US Government after the start of WWII, and while his family was collaborating with the Nazis, George Bush was training as a Naval Aviator in order to fight the Nazis…with whom his family had strong business ties. Well, that just sounds like the heart-warming story of a young man born to be President, doesn’t it? Nope. It sounds crazy. Search your favorite web sources for keywords George Bush Nazi Union Bank for more information.

I don’t mean to be picking on George Bush Sr., but think about the fact that, when you think of Bush Sr., you never think of the son of Nazi collaborators who played both sides of the fence for maximum gain. Think of the power it takes to make sure that information is not in the forefront of the public’s mind. Think about the fact that you never heard about it during George Bush Jr.’s presidential candidacy. Don’t you think that GWB’s opponents would have *loved* to bring up the documented government records showing the Bush family assets were seized by the US government during WWII under the ‘Collaborating with the Enemy’ act? Why is it, you think, that they didn’t use this information? Fair play? I doubt it. Fear? That sounds more like the truth. But, fear of what, exactly? Reprisal? What kind of reprisal? I don’t know. And I’m a curious fellow, but I’m not sure I want to know.

So, let’s pick on another President. How about every conspiracy theorist’s favorite President…JFK. If there was ever a President who has had every detail of their life investigated to the Nth degree, it was JFK. His family’s rise to wealth and power, his good looks and prescience about the power of TV, his promise of Camelot, his untimely assassination, and the unending controversy of the official explanation of that crime have made JFK the subject of almost constant investigation since his death.

JFK’s life has been endlessly examined and investigated, with every shred of evidence blown out of proportion and interpreted in thousands of different ways, with everyone trying to fit the pieces together to either a) understand it and/or b) make it fit their own preconceptions. But then just a few days ago, news reports came out about the physical condition of JFK while in office. How his back was so painful that he couldn’t reach across his desk and pull papers towards himself. How he couldn’t put on his own left sock and shoe. How he was on up the 12 medications a day, including anti-psychotic drugs during the Cuban missile crisis. Here’s a President who has been investigated like no other, for decades.

And then, all of a sudden, a few days ago, all of this information became public for the first time. Think about that for a moment. His dire physical and mental condition during his Presidency has been kept an airtight secret for over 40 years, and is only known now because his medical records were purposely released. Think about what else might still be unreleased and secret. Other, more important information. I’m not saying there is or isn’t more to learn. What I’m saying is that, if they could keep something as relatively minor as his physical condition secret for 40 years, think of how well they (whoever they are) would be able to keep more important things secret. That’s crazy, man.

A Fine Madness
All of the above being said, I also believe that no sane person could actually handle the job of President, nor would we want a sane person in the job. We need someone in that job who can, literally, have the weight of the world resting on their shoulders without cracking. That’s too much responsibility for one sane person. We need a megalomaniac in that job…someone with unjustifiable confidence in their own grand abilities. Someone with the ability to make command decisions impacting billions of lives without second guessing themselves nor showing any skepticism about their own decisions. The world is just too big and the issues too complex for one sane person to handle.

But we need one person as President. A committee would be paralyzed by the issues and forces involved – besides, that’s what Congress is for. We need one person to not pass the buck, to make the hard decisions, and to take their lumps. We also need to know, going in, that they are crazy, and accept it as an operating assumption. We’ll all be happier that way.

• Leave a comment... (0)