#19 DEC 19 2013: IS THAT A POT OF GOLD WEIGHING DOWN YOUR TROLLEY—OR A LEPRECHAUN? GOOD GRIEF! IT’S A…

Occasionally, I think deep thoughts about mighty issues (though some might call it daydreaming).

Yesterday, I was in just such a state in Staples. I was idly wondering why most shop assistants today don’t seem to know anything—or to give incredibly bad advice when they do. Is training out of fashion in the American retail world—or what? Is intellectual curiosity dead? Don’t these people read?

Well, you get the idea. I wasn’t angry or anything—just mildly frustrated. I had just asked a technical question of someone who had professed expertise in the issue—and, as normal, had got the runaround.

Decades ago, when dragons roamed the streets—and I was a 16 year old university student—I got a Christmas job in Selfridges (a vast department store in London, UK) and was trained for all of a day and a half before being dispatched to the shirt department. Then I set to work to learn all about shirts because it seemed to me just commonsense to know about what I was selling. Besides, it was actually quite interesting, passed the time, and made me feel less like a blockhead when customers asked questions. And it helped me to sell a great deal  more product.

After Christmas, I was put into the shoe department—and repeated the process. I won’t say I became a world class shoe expert in a few weeks, but I learned a lot—and there was always the buyer to call on if necessary (and all the Selfridge buyers I encountered really did know their stuff).

And yet a half century later, though surrounded by all kinds of fascinating electronic gizmos, you are—more often than not—putting yourself at high risk if you ask for advice from the hired guns belonging to Radio Shack, Office Depot, Staples or the like. They are virtually all pleasant people and impressively polite, but they seem to know about as much about their products as your average dragon—and my money would be on the dragon.

I was thinking about all this, while still in Staples, when I noticed a woman approaching out of the corner of my eye. I then realized that my trolley was probably blocking her way—I was in one of the printer aisles. I muttered something like: “My apologies. I’ll just move this out of the way.”

I pulled at the trolley only to find it was a little heavier than I expected. I looked over it to see if a wheel had caught on something only to find a rather beautiful baby—still at the crawling stage--looking up at me indignantly. Evidently, he had been let loose to crawl and had decided my trolley would help him practice this two-legged thing.

The baby—eyes huge—and I looked at each other. His mouth turned down and his lip quivered. Tears were seconds away.

I felt in mild shock at nearly wrenching his arms from his sockets. I expected his mother to swoop him up and hug him.  Not a bit of it. This was a kid who was being trained to be self-reliant.

The tears never came. The lip stopped quivering.

She then smiled at me, picked him up, and moved on.

I was left thinking how fond I am of babies—albeit I’m not sure I feel the same way when they grow up. Just as well my heat melts when I’m around such small, vulnerable, things. I’m the eldest of twelve and the father of five.

#18 DEC 18 2013: TALE OF A PIANO, GRIT & TALENT—A WONDERFUL STORY OF A RATHER WONDERFUL YOUNG WOMAN, AISAYA CORBRAY

There are some who believe we don’t encourage and develop human potential nearly enough—and that we are capable of being vastly more creative than we are.

I tend strongly towards that view, but it’s best known proponent is, arguably, Sir Ken Robinson (see photo), who has been beating that drum for decades. He is also a thoroughly entertaining speaker so I would urge you to look up his TED talks and listen to the man himself. His original talk was entitled: “DO SCHOOLS KILL CREATIVITY?”—a provocative title if ever there was one. The answer is, of course, that in their current formats, though they do a great deal of good as well, they do.

Schools like you to conform—they call it “socialization”—and have yet to discover that creativity is innately non-conformist.

Sir Ken articulates two themes:

First, we're all born with deep natural capacities for creativity and systems of mass education tend to suppress them. Second, it is increasingly urgent to cultivate these capacities -- for personal, economic and cultural reasons -- and to rethink the dominant approaches to education to make sure that we do.

Best you watch the whole thing. He’s a hoot with a deadly serious message—and I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t resonate.

The following is a heartwarming story of a young woman who clearly does not intend to be held back by anyone or anything—and who demonstrates what Sir Ken is talking about.

It is a tale of both grit and talent. It’s only a short story, but it is truly inspiring—just the thing for Christmas and reflective of the very best of America, of a ‘can do tradition’ which is currently in rocky shape. But, not in this case.

It all started with AISAYA CORBRAY being given the present of an electric keyboard by her grandmother. That inspired a desire to play the real thing so she asked her parents for a piano. She wanted the real thing with lessons to match. Trying to teach yourself is notoriously difficult.

She was promptly told that a real piano would be expensive and was unaffordable.

Undaunted, she asked what could be afforded and was given a maximum of $50.

It was mission impossible. Pianos are expensive, heavy, and costly to ship. $50 was short a zero or two.

Aisaya remained undaunted, went on Craigslist, and started looking and calling while concurrently asking her mother where the locations were.

Eventually, she found a decent piano  in Mill Creek (head North and bring snow-shoes) which she was able to bargain down to $50—so the family borrowed a truck and went to pick it up.

And here is the punchline. When Aisaya Corbray was eligible to get piano lessons in school—self-taught as she was—Aisaya was moved to Advanced Piano.

How cool is that! Aisaya is still only 16.

I was told this story by Aisaya’s mother, which is one of the most cheerful people I have met for a long time—and has the kind of personality which lights up a room. Good-looking too.

Why aren’t such people running this country!

Happy Christmas to you all—and especially to the Corbray family. I imagine by this time next year, Aisaya will have assembled a full orchestra..

 

 

 

 

#17 DEC 17 2013: STRANGELY ENOUGH, DESPITE PORING OVER TRULY DEPRESSING ECONOMIC DATA EVERY DAY, I FIND MYSELF SURPRISINGLY OPTIMISTIC

In truth, I’m not quite sure why I feel optimistic about this country’s situation because the core data would depress a saint. Here, I am not talking about the Stock Market, GDP growth, or the Housing Market—because these are lousy ways to measure the wellbeing of most of the population—but about the nuts and bolts data that concern how most people really live. In addition, I’ve recently uncovered something of a data treasure trove concerning how Northern Europe is doing—and why they are succeeding where we are not—and that would probably push the pope onto hard drugs (if he was an American).

In short, my optimism doesn’t make sense in any logical way. So, why am I feeling it? I suspect I’m feeling it because I detect the first stirrings of a real fight-back against the forces that have gone a long way towards wrecking this country. Or maybe I’m just in a good mood.

If the fight-back really is occurring—and the signs are very faint—we shall have the 1% and the Extreme Right (which, sadly, now seems to include most Republicans in Congress) to thank because their behavior is so egregious that it has to promote a reaction at some stage.

The latest nastiness concerns the 1.2 million long term unemployed losing their federal unemployment insurance on December 28 2013. It’s truly disgusting behavior and it’s inexcusable. It invites consequences—and they seldom refuse an invitation.

You know one of my direct ancestors, Benjamin Lentaigne, came to Ireland as a direct consequence of the French Revolution. Other family members were not so lucky and were guillotined. They were executed not because they did anything in particular, but largely because they didn’t act when most of the French population were having a very hard time economically. The Lentaignes were counts, aristocrats and the members of the 1%—and they paid the price.

Actually, the fully family name is Lentaigne de Logivieres and the ancestral home is in Normandy. It’s still there.

Guillotines in the U.S.? Probably not—this is a gun culture—but there is going to be a profound reaction when enough people realize how distorted this economy has become—and that the major it of the 1% don’t seem to care.

I say the majority because clearly some of our wealthy do care. On that point, there is an excellent article in the current issue of DEMOCRACY magazine by NICK HANAUER and ERICK BEINHOCKER which starts:

“For everyone but the top 1 percent, the American economy is broken…”

Since I have been saying this for more than a decade, it’s pleasant indeed to have company. But caring isn’t enough. We have to do—and above all get the message out.

 

 

#16 DEC 16 2013: CORPORATE GOODIES—BECAUSE EVERY DAY IS CHRISTMAS!

Well of course every day isn’t Christmas for most of us, but I’m beginning to wonder if it doesn’t feel that way for major corporations—and whether such organizations are paying their way or living on welfare.

Yes, I am talking about corporations—NOT people—although I know the U.S. legal system considers that corporations are people in legal terms. I also know that makes no sense at all because corporations are palpably NOT people. They are no more than legal instruments issued by governments (state governments in the U.S.) which convey certain advantages for commerce (and which used to impose certain constraints and obligations).

All in all, corporations are an excellent idea providing they are operated within reasonable constraints by reasonable people equipped with a sense of social responsibility and a moral code. Here, I’m not talking about perfection (or even close). I’m talking about no more than a reasonable balance of interests.

I’m far from sure that there is a balance of interests in the U.S. any more. I think the evidence is fairly clear that corporate power has got out of hand, and needs to be reined-in, if U.S. democracy is to have a chance of functioning in the spirit of “We the people.”

I’m not going to try and prove that point in this piece. I’d merely remind you that corporate greed in the financial sector nearly wrecked the U.S. economy in the recent Great Recession—and that the earnings of the vast majority of Americans are in decline. Beyond that, it is truly remarkable that, despite abundant evidence of malfeasance by major financial institutions, not a single corporate executive has gone to prison. And as for the financial corporations themselves, they are back to mega earnings, bonuses and are bigger than ever. And they are also benefiting from the Federal Reserve spending $85 billion a month on Quantitative Easing.

But surely the Fed’s money finds its way into the real economy?

If you believe that, you are smoking something.  Lending to small business, for instance, is actually down (despite being heavily underwritten by the Federal Government). As the Fed itself has admitted, though it hopes it will benefit the real economy, the primary and immediate beneficiaries are the Rich and the corporations they own.

Clearly, we are all not equal under the law. That should scarcely surprise us given that corporate money now virtually owns Congress. So, if you are caught selling hard drugs you will go to prison, but if you swindle trillions of dollars out of billions of people (the Great Recession was global) you will be bailed out by the very people you swindled—and the Fed will continue to subsidize you for years.

Frankly, that doesn’t seem fair to me—and it certainly isn’t justice. Perhaps we should stop referring to the U.S. as a “Nation of Laws.” We are more a “Nation of Special Interests” where some interests are a great deal more equal than others.

Or perhaps we should just admit that this once Great Nation has lost its way—and has become deeply, and systemically, corrupt. Such a message has the merit of getting right to the heart of the matter—and being true.

But let me now zone in on the issue of whether major corporations are really paying their way or not.

• The tax take from corporations has been in decline for years. In 2010, the Federal Government collected 9% of $2.2 trillion from corporations (which I’ll round up to 10% so I don’t have to strain my brain) which amounts to $220 billion. There was a day when corporations paid about a third of the tax take (and, as a matter of interest, the economy was a great deal healthier).
• Major corporation are involved in widespread tax avoidance and are using a mass of tricks of dubious legality. Most involve keeping cash abroad and games with transfer pricing. They get away with it because they have a lock on Congress which makes the rules. That cash abroad totals something like $2 trillion. It would be rather nice to have that invested in the U.S.
• Corporate payrolls are massively subsidized by the Federal Government. Fast Food may be the main beneficiary, but other corporate sectors are helped as well.
• Major corporations are massively subsidized at state and local level to locate in the area. The total annual cost of all these concessions reportedly adds up to $100 billion.
• Major corporations inflict huge environmental and infrastructure costs on the nation which they don’t pay for. Instead, the tab is picked up by the taxpayer. They are also dumping pension obligations and medical costs at a truly alarming rate.

This list is not comprehensive—and would benefit from a great deal more work—but even this quick and dirty look suggests that corporations are not paying their way, and that it is, indeed, Christmas every day for most of them.

But surely the major corporations are really owned by us all?

If you believe that, I’ve got a city I want to sell you. It’s called Detroit—and you can have it real cheap.

 

#15 DEC 15 2013: HAS ANYONE EVER FOUGHT THE MICC?

In fact, a number of people have fought the MICC over the years, though were rarely entirely successful. That said, some enjoyed significant victories and escaped with the career equivalent of minor bruises.

Others have felt their efforts were worthwhile even if the price was high. To people of true caliber, the reward for doing the right thing can be vastly more satisfying than the tokenism of a star—or even a number of stars.

I must tell you that I find this obsession with careerism decidedly unpleasant. In effect, you have to accept the status quo regardless of the situation because if you speak up you are putting your chances of promotion at risk. In fact, there is a joke that most Army officers would risk their lives before their careers—but I’m not sure it’s a joke!

I was introduced to this world in the early Nineties as part of a wide-ranging research program to get material for future books. Typically, one researches a specific book, but I decided to spread my net wide and to become familiar with a number of overlapping worlds which I thought might be particular productive for a thriller writer. One introduction led to another, and I ended up with gaining quite an extensive knowledge of:

• The NYPD
• The FBI
• The U.S. Army
• Counterterrorism
• Congress (and the whole Inside the Beltway scene)

Fortunately, I wasn’t starting from scratch, but was building on years of reading, spending time with military units, experiencing terrorism in Ireland, the UK, Italy, Cyprus and so on. Add in foreign travel, and some friends in both low and high places—and, after a while, people regard you as an expert. It is, so to speak, one of the pluses of the aging process.

Incidentally, somewhat to my surprise, I have found there to be quite a number of advantages to aging, and I’d probably be recommending old age with enthusiasm if death wasn’t such a prominent factor. But, what the hell!

But let me get back to defying the MICC.  Here, I will offer two examples. The first is of Colonel James Burton who fought long and hard to have the Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle properly developed and tested. This was difficult indeed because he was up against the active hostility of higher command and rigged tests—in effect, corruption at its most blatant. In the end, he achieved his objective, but was forced to retire.

Many soldiers owe their lives to his efforts because he caused numerous deficiencies in the Bradley design to be remedied.

The saga was made into a thoroughly entertaining movie, THE PENTAGON WARS, which I thoroughly recommend. Actually, though the movie was made as a comedy, it is an appalling story—albeit a perfect example of the MICC in action. Believe it or not, the Bradley was in development for 17 years at a cost of $17 billion.

I never did get to meet Colonel Burton—his wars took place before I made it to The Building (which is what those in the know call the Pentagon) but he is one of my heroes.

The other hero I am going to name today is Chuck Spinney. He is one of the most knowledgeable defense experts I know---and not only gave testimony to Congress about the MICC, but lived to tell the tale.

In his case, there was a stand-off. Despite revealing all to Congress, he kept his job as a Pentagon analyst but was never given any more work to do. In effect, the idea was to freeze him out.

It didn’t work. Chuck had enough friends to keep him in the loop—and thereafter, he used his time to write one blaster after another exposing what was going on.

Now he is retired and spends much of the year with his wife on a sailboat in Europe—but he is still blasting away.

The kicker is that Congress—the institution responsible for allowing the MICC to continue—is part of the problem, and a fundamental part at that. So although Chuck has done everything he could, and has shown enough moral courage for ten men, the MICC lives on.

The MICC will only be killed when fundamental reform of Congress takes place. Right now, that seems like an impossible task, but there may come a time when enough Americans appreciate how bad matters have become and force change.

I’m of the view that this may happen sooner that many think.

Incidentally, you should know that despite the fact that the MICC consumes such a large portion of the national cake (over $1 trillion if you include everything we spend on Nation Security) you should know that the Pentagon cannot be audited. It is supposed to be—indeed it is legally mandated to be audited—but the Department of Defense books are in such a mess, that the task cannot be done. In effect, there is no accountability.

This problem has existed for years. Congress knows about. It remains unresolved.

Ponder on the significance of that.

 

 

#14 DEC 2013: FIRST YOU GET THE MICC—AND THEN YOU GET STAR CREEP

Yesterday, I wrote about the MICC—the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. Today, I’m going to flesh out my comments on the MICC by turning to the subject of  Army generals, and a phenomenon known as “Star Creep.”

Star Creep  essentially means an ever increasing tendency for the number of generals to increase—regardless of either the need or the number of troops under their command. In short, there is no need for it.

Simply put, it is an example of cronyism and a way for the boys (and girls) to generate more jobs for themselves at the taxpayers’ expense. It is also a great deal more costly than you might think, because not only are generals well paid, but they rarely travel alone. Instead they come packaged with a plethora of aides and assistants and other staff members—all of whom want to be generals too; and who need to be appropriately housed and watered.

It doesn’t stop there. Generals need suitable posts for generals to go to (after all, they have their dignity to protect) so they have a tendency to set up headquarters—WHICH CAN BE HUGE! We are in thousands here in some cases.

But what do all these people do? In essence, they slow up the process. But why are they there then? Because generals like to command large headquarters. You see the more troops you command, the higher your perceived status—and the more stars you are likely to be given.

Star Creep is unhealthy in a host of ways—not the least of which is that it slows down decision making—a rather fundamental problem in a line of work where (in war anyway) the ability to think quickly and act decisively is crucial.

You might think that Star Creep would be mainly confined to peacetime, when the military have little else to do but focus on but their careers, but you’d be wrong. The senior military’s alarming tendency to obsess about promotion ahead of their primary mission is all too evident even in time of war—and its consequences can be disastrous. As for the line soldiers, who do the actual fighting, they have entirely different priorities. Star Creep is a general officer sickness—and it is contagious and corrupting.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t some good generals, and even some great generals, but more to say that the prevailing culture—which encourages such behavior as Star Creep is decidedly unhealthy; and wrong.

Star Creep isn’t confined to the Army. It affects all the services.

The above would be laughable if it wasn’t very real—and if you are laughing, reflect that you are paying for it. Also, it is yet another reason why our track record in war is not what we would like it to be.

A good Army is a lean Army.

 

 

 

 

#13 DEC 13 2013: HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE MICC? IF YOU HAVEN’T, IT’S ABOUT TIME YOU DID. IT’S LIKE THE MAFIA, BUT MORE DANGEROUS.

Friday the 13th seems like a good day to write about defense. After all, though I certainly believe in a strong America, with all due respect to the courage of our fighting men and women, the Defense Establishment, as currently constituted, is deeply disturbing—and, seemingly, cannot be constrained. In any way. For any time. For any reason.

Yes, there are cuts—and much wailing and gnashing of teeth—but much of those cuts are cosmetic, others are not implemented, and where actual cutting occurs, the victims are almost all junior, or on the margin in some way, or the service just hates the program in question (the Air Force’s dislike of the A-10—which basically supports the Army—is legendary). But the generals keep dancing to the defense contractors’ tunes—and the big bucks keep flowing.

Somehow, there is always a sequel because the money flow must never be stopped. As a consequence, the American Way of War is now the most expensive in history—and this in a nation which cannot balance its budget, which is over $17 trillion in debt, where average earnings are in decline, and where the outcomes of its wars and military adventures, have, more often than not, been contrary to the U.S. National Interest. Meanwhile our infrastructure has been neglected for decades, many of our cities require massive investment, and our economic structures are systemically corrupted and flawed.

The Defense Establishment is also known as the MICC—or Military Industrial Congressional Complex—and consists of those who have a vested interest in war, or the threat of war—but don’t have to fight it. Instead they see it, quite correctly, as both a career and profit opportunity—and they are greedy for both. In fact, they are insatiable, largely unaccountable, and normally unidentifiable. Regarding the latter, we tend to be familiar with a few public figures such as the Secretary of Defense, but there it stops.

President Eisenhower left out the word “Congressional” when he made his speech though, reportedly, it was in the original draft. I’ve added it back in. It belongs.

The MICC thrives because it is a network of mutually supporting politicians, lobbyists, civil servants, defense contractors, and complicit media, academics, and think-tank employees, all of whom stand to benefit from the continuity and expansion of the money flow—and because most of the activities of the MICC are—quite deliberately—obscured from public scrutiny. In addition, few Americans are either interested in, or knowledgeable enough, to question the system.

As for the few who do, their progress is blocked by secrecy legislation, endless delays, the excessive classification of documentation, misdirection, outright lying by public affairs officials, jargon, unintelligible briefings, the frequent renaming of projects, stove-piping, careerism, and being frozen out at every stage.

It takes a brave person indeed to defy the MICC, and he or she will, almost invariably pay a heavy price for years thereafter. The MICC is a vast structure, with a long reach, and a vindictive disposition. In extreme cases, where it feels seriously threatened, criminal investigations of its accusers will be initiated—and, reportedly, more extreme actions taken. You risk reputation, career, freedom, health, and your very life when you challenge the MICC—and you will find it a truly exhausting, frustrating, and stressful process. In short, though your cause may be righteous, you will suffer.

The MICC, in essence, is a system of extortion integrated into the very essence of the genuine need a for strong national defense, and designed to extract hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the advantage of its members. It represents a gross abuse of the patriotism of most Americans—and is cynical in the extreme.

The MICC’s corrupt gains have added up to trillions of dollars over the decades—in effect a tax on most Americans. If this reminds you of the Mafia, which originated as a justifiable reaction to oppression—and then turned to extortion and other criminal activates—you will have the right idea. Both the MICC and the MAFIA prey on the very people they purport to defend.

The MICC has operated since World War II, and so alarmed President Eisenhower that he made it the subject of his last speech as president. Over half a century later, his worst fears have been realized—and the MICC is now woven into the fabric of American life. In effect, Americans now think it is normal for the U.S. to spend more on National Security than the rest of the world put together, for the military to maintain more than a thousand foreign bases, for our troops to be in more than 100 countries, and for us to be kept in fear as the MICC hypes threat after threat after threat.

The MICC is as successful as it is because all its members are paid off in one way or another—and because because the very government institution, Congress, which is supposed to oversee the Defense Establishment, is complicit. First of all, Congress is dominated by moneyed interests (who own the defense contractors), and secondly the military have learned to game the system so that every senator and congressman relies on the Pentagon for defense jobs, and thus votes.

As for the other members of the MICC, let me paint you a quick picture.

• The military rely on the MICC for promotion and for well-paid retirement jobs in the defense industry. By military, I am referring mainly to general officers and would-be generals. The MICC is rank-driven and is not interested in the common soldier.
• Lobbyists are rewarded financially, and sometimes with government jobs. The revolving door is endemic.
• The media are rewarded with (controlled) access and information. It is exceedingly difficult for a defense reporter to function without the cooperation of the MICC.
• Members of think-tanks keep their jobs because various MICC components fund their organizations.

If you want to truly understand the degree to which the U.S. is overpaying for defense because of the MICC, it is salutary to look at the costs of other defense establishments—and particularly the Israeli.

The Israelis maintain a truly formidable defense structure for a small fraction of what the U.S. spends, and yet manages to operate at the cutting edge. 

We could do exactly the same thing if Congress did its job and the MICC was systematically dismantled.

As matters stand, the MICC is a threat to National Security. It is rotting us from within—and it’s costing us a great deal more than an arm and a leg. It’s costing us hundreds of billions of dollars each year—not mention the lives of a seemingly unending stream of young Americans.

How do I know about the MICC?

Well, as they say about combat, “I have seen the elephant.”

I’ll tell you that story some other time—probably in a book.