Lies, Damned Lies and the Government?

My mother used to tell me that you must never get into any sort of bad habit, as they are very difficult to break.  One that I learned very early on is that it is always better to tell the truth, as it is so difficult to remember a lie.

Unless you’re the government.  You see, the government’s answer is that whatever they are saying is the truth.  So, if the government reports that unemployment is 7.6%, it doesn’t matter that there are fewer people in the US today who are working then were working 5 years ago, despite the fact that the population has grown by perhaps 15 million people.

The government – in that case the Bureau of Labor Statistics – has chosen to re-define unemployment and when they finish assembling their selected statistics and making their calculations: presto!  7.6% unemployment

(How many people who want a job don’t have a job in the US today?  It is hard to get a precise number, but most analysts agree it is probably near 10%.  Add in those who have some part-time work but are looking for a full time job and the number climbs to nearly 12%.)

Or inflation.  The esteemed Mr. Bernanke, Chairman of the 4^th Branch of Government, the one not found in the Constitution, was so bold as to announce two weeks ago that ‘Inflation is too low,’ and that he was going to continue to ‘ease the money supply.’  (If you think that translates into ‘print more money’ you are essentially correct.)

According to Mr. Bernanke the inflation rate is just a tad over 1%.  And that is too low.  (That he could actually say that ‘inflation is too low’ irrespective of what the particulars are is the subject of another article, but it is a comment that shouldn’t be ignored.)  Now, the interesting thing is that if you include such things as the price of gasoline and energy, as well as food, in the Consumer Price Index (the handy, government generated number that is used to track inflation), you come out with a number besides 1%.  In fact, if you use the formulas used in the 1980s and 1990s, the current inflation rate is somewhere between 5.5% and 8% and has been (actually higher than that) for the last 4 years.

But, the Fed didn’t like the numbers – or kowtowed to others who did not – and the formula was changed.  So, we are now at a tad over 1% inflation.

And then there is the debt.  The national debt is approaching $17 trillion.  We are accruing debt at a rate of almost $30 billion per month (about $.7 billion per day).  But, on May 17^th (70 days ago), the US debt hit $16,699,396,000,000.00 - and there is sits to this day.

Now, let’s imagine you run a company, a publicly traded company.  Publicly traded companies need to provide regular estimates and regular reports of their activities.  Failure to do so can result in a great deal of difficulty for the senior management.  Even more egregious would be ‘playing with’ the numbers in a report so that they ‘work out just right.’

But that isn’t a problem for the Government.  You see, the US debt ($16,699,396,000,000.00) was too close to the legal limit Congress had imposed on the debt. (In fact, the debt was just $25 million short of the legal limit; $25 million is the amount the federal government spends every 4 minutes, and the amount of debt the government is currently accruing every 18 minutes). What was needed was that the Executive Branch – usually the Secretary of the Treasury - go back to Congress and ask for an increase.  But, that was inconvenient and would have precipitated a political knife fight in Washington.  So, instead of doing what it would seem is required of law, the Secretary of Treasury (Mr. Lew) sent a letter to the Speaker of the House saying that the Treasury would implement “the standard set of extraordinary measures” that allow the Treasury to continue to borrow money after it has hit the legal debt limit, that is – after it has legally passed the amount of money it is allowed to have borrowed.

So, the Secretary of Treasury rigs the books, keeps borrowing (debt in fact climbed more than $52 billion in the 70 day period) and then, in the final poke in the eye to the people ultimately responsible for paying the debt – that would be you and me – they reported for 70 straight days that the national debt remained unchanged.

Imagine if you will what would happen if Exxon played with its books in such a way.  There would be cries for the heads of all the executives.  But in the government it’s literally business as usual.

So, to recap: the unemployment number the government uses isn’t the real unemployment number, the inflation number the government uses isn’t the real inflation number, and the debt number the government uses isn’t the real debt number.

A New Immigration Policy (or: It Doesn't Take a Village)

 

According to the deep 'Thinkers' writing about the terrorist attacks by the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston, we are all partly to blame for failing to properly assimilate them.  Well, excuse me, I’m not sure how an eight year old boy who has lost his legs – or any of the other victims - is to blame for some low-life slime who decides to set off a bomb.  Further, I’ve had enough of the Fabian, psycho-babble nonsense: we are supposed to assimilate immigrants better, AND we are supposed to celebrate diversity.  Which is it?

More to the point, why is it our problem?  Someone asks to come to the US – fine.  So, why am I supposed to bend over backwards and adjust for him?  Not to put to fine a point on it, but I already live here.

A tale told me a number of years ago is instructive: an Assistant Secretary of one of the Federal departments was traveling through the Balkans.  He and his small team ended up in a village and decided to have lunch at a local restaurant.  (Of note, the assistant secretary happened to speak a little Serbo-Croatian).  They engaged the locals in conversation.  As it turned out, there was a local fellow in the bar who was well into his cups.  As they talked he became more and more worked up and began to describe how the Muslims had killed his 'Grampa.'  (The particular word he used is an idiom and doesn't have a precise meaning, but is used to refer to grandfathers, great-grandfathers, etc., much as we might, as young kids, call our grandfather or great grandfather ‘Bumpa’ or some such term, and continue to call him that even after we had grown up.)  Over the course of a few minutes the man worked himself into a lather and got up and dragged them out of the restaurant to show them the spot where his 'Grampa' had been killed - right down the street, 'at this corner - right here!' – pointing at the very spot.

They all nodded and tried to express some grief, until finally one of them asked 'When did this happen?' fully expecting an answer along the lines of ‘last week.’  The man answered '1843.'

The assistant secretary said he was struck, as if slapped in the head, by the real problem, one that he had seen in detail a hundred times before, but now brought into sharp relief: that the very nature of the ‘village’ mentality fostered this behavior, of a small, emotionally isolated group of people who spend an inordinate amount of time nursing their own and their neighbors’ past injuries, who focus on the past and hope for some means to bring some sort of ‘deus ex machina’ judgment on those they perceive as their oppressors and wrong-doers, and waste valuable energy that might otherwise be spent improving their lives and building a productive future.

The problem is simple enough: despite what some simpletons might want to think, 'it doesn't take a village to raise a child,' it takes a village to raise terrorists and never-ending blood feuds and small minds that are trapped in the wrongs of the past.

The secretary was also struck by the solution that the US has always provided: the ‘Melting Pot.’  If we are to get beyond all this, we begin by burying this idiocy of diversity, and 'the village,' forgive AND forget, and instead of dwelling on wrongs done to people we never met, we learn from the past but look forward.  We have psychologists and politicians who have made a living of fighting over offenses none of us gave, against people who were not alive to be offended.  Let's ship those folks off to the funny farm, help society climb out of its diaper and put on its big boy pants, and press.

And don’t be misled; there are as many ‘villages’ in large cities as there are in the Balkans or the middle of Afghanistan.  Any place where people, and their demagogue ‘leaders’ actively insist upon isolating their culture, of drawing ‘us vs. them’ distinctions – whether racially based or based on their religion or any other distinction – we run the risk of making another village.  What we need are not people who want to be something different from us, who want to dwell on past injuries and wrong, we need people who want to be something new, who want to be Americans, who want to work hard and achieve and put that insanity behind them.

So, how about this: If you come here – or are already here, and you want to become an American, and not a hyphenated American (Irish-American, Chinese-American, Muslim-American, African-American, Martian-American), just an American, loyal to the US Constitution - then you are welcome.  You want to come here and work hard and realize the American dream, you're welcome.  You want to build a new future, an American future for yourself and your children, you’re more than welcome.  You want to come here and turn America into a richer version of the place you just fled, a newer and larger village - then go away; you truly are not welcome here.

Justice, Judge Holmes and Mr. Zimmerman

There is a story that is told about Chief Justice Holmes and Associate Justice Learned Hand having lunch and after lunch, as Holmes departed in his coach (this was at the end of the 19th century and he was in a horse-drawn coach) Justice Hand, caught up in the moment, ran after the coach and yelled 'Do Justice, Sir, Do Justice.'  Judges Holmes stopped the coach and leaning out said to Judge Hand: 'That is not my job.  My job is to apply the law.'

Judge Holmes point was simply this: the courts work through a clearly identified process, using the laws as written, to as best they can, identify guilt or innocence, and to redress wrongs – civil or criminal.  No court says it is infallible, and in fact in the US there is a quite complex hierarchy of courts that allows for challenges – appeals – to the results produced in any one court.

At the center of this whole process is this one simple precept, one that comes to us from the English courts: in criminal matters the government - in the shape of the prosecutor - must prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - to the jurors - that the defendant committed the crime for which he has been charged.  It is probably worth noting that the court does not seek to establish that someone is evil, just that the accused violated the law.

The defense, on the other hand, seeks to establish 'reasonable Doubt,' that is, the defense seeks to 'create' doubt in the minds of the jurors - that's the goal. Technically, the defense doesn't need to prove anything, just create doubt about what the prosecutor is saying.  If that means making a witness appear foolish, then that's what he tries to do.

I grant that in this day and age, where, through the internet and various videos found on-line, everyone is substantially smarter and more well read then a couple of light-weights like Holmes and Hand, that there are now people who can indeed 'Do Justice.'  

Which brings us around to the case of Mr. Zimmerman, accused of the murder of Trayvon Martin.  I read one article in which the author informed the world that said Mr. Zimmerman is morally '...by no means without guilt.'  That author has moved beyond mere 'justice' and now has the ability to discern someone's moral guilt or innocence.

There has been a good deal written (and spoken) this week about the testimony of one young woman - Miss Jeantel, a witness for the prosecution - at the Zimmerman trial.  In light of her testimony, which some people seem to believe helped the defense more then it helped the prosecution, there has been a great deal of hand-ringing, accusations, counter-accusations and all the rest.  Much of it has focused on whether people understand her because of her race or upbringing or some such list of explanations.

Well, to all those folks: 'You all need to go back to your high-school civics class.' It is the job of the defense attorney to dissect the testimony of the various witnesses for the prosecution and, if left to his own devices, make their testimony appear either not credible or, failing that, to make the witness appear not credible.  I repeat; that's his JOB.  It doesn't matter whether the witness is white, black, green, or turquoise.  It doesn't matter if the witness is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or a worshipper of Kali.  Short, tall, fat, thin, old, young, rich, poor - none of that really matters to the defense attorney.  What matters is that he make the best possible defense of his client.  If that means finding a means to make the witness appear confused or not as smart as he or she really is, then the attorney has probably done his job.  Doesn't matter who it is - rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief, doctor, lawyer, Indian chief - the defense attorney will try to make him or her look out of sorts, the more out of sorts the better.

It should also be noted that the prosecutor should at a minimum provide some warning to his witnesses so that they aren’t ‘blind-sided’ in court.  If the prosecutor is really on his toes he will ask essentially the same questions as the defense attorney, in such a way as to bring out the same information, but in such a manner as to make that information appear relevant to his side of the argument or to at least ‘defuse it’ when the defense attorney discusses it.  If that sounds like ‘spin,’ well, it is.  Remember, both attorneys are trying to convince the jurors of their respective sides of the argument.

And if the defense attorney does his job well enough, and if the prosecutor fails to do his job, then someone who appears to all the world to be guilty of breaking the law may go free.  And vice versa, if the defense attorney fails to do his job and the prosecutor does his job well enough, then someone who appears to all the world to be innocent of breaking any law may well end up in prison.

Whether Mr. Zimmerman is acquitted or found guilty, the result is what the courts are established to do: apply the law as best they can.  The judge attempts to be impartial and clinical, the two attorneys present or refute evidence, by design using the law and court procedure to spin or tilt the evidence in the particular direction they prefer, the jurors ‘weigh’ the evidence and the testimony and present a finding.

There are those who would submit that this isn't fair, that it doesn't bring us justice.  Well, perhaps not.  But it is better then any other system yet developed by any society over the last 6000 years.  And if you are ever accused of a crime you will probably be glad that it works this way.  Because none of us really knows what justice would really look like.

The system we have isn’t perfect.  But we need to let it work.  If you want to change it, run for office, start a petition.  But, yelling and screaming that it isn’t fair or that this or that witness wasn’t treated well really and truly misses the point of the system.

Unless of course you can see into someone’s soul, as apparently some can, and establish moral culpability.