Post-Christmas Roundup
Submitted by Will Hinton on December 27, 2006 - 8:23am.
Should Ford Have Pardoned Nixon? - Captain Ed says no and I agree with him.
"Ford had good and understandable reasons for his decision, but it did short-circuit the one quality about America that had always made us different from other nations: our leaders were not above the law. In an era where we started to discover the worst about leaders such as Nixon, LBJ, and even JFK, we lost that sense of ourselves as a nation bound by its dedication to the Constitution and the rule of law. At that time, we needed a way to bind ourselves back to that to restore a national identity in which all could share.And I would argue that if Ford intended the pardon as a healing gesture, it didn't work. Our politics have remained poisoned by Watergate, and I believe that the Nixon pardon has contributed to that."
Legislate in Haste, Repent at Leisure -
"Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) legislation is costing businesses more than anybody anticipated, putting many at risk, and forcing some to go private, or worse, go broke, says Stephen Bainbridge, William D. Warren Professor of Law at the University of California, Los Angeles."
Obama Scores As An Exotic Who Says Nothing - Froma Harrop of the Providence Journal makes the case against Barack Obama.
"Obama does seem to have an impressive resume and polish. And it's not his fault that a mania for some new political face intrudes on every presidential election season. But one does wish, for the sake of democracy, that we could skip the crush and give less glamorous contenders who actually say something more of a hearing."
Technorati Tags: Bookmark/Search this post with:
European Union?
Why all of this talk about the European Union? Yes, they are potentially an important trading partner, and with a skeptical eye always on Russia, Europe is an important ally, however, my focus is not Eurocentric.
When are we going to start the discussion about matters of consequence to our lives in the good old U.S. of A. Waking up this morning to the news of President Ford having passed away, I think that it is important to look at some of our history and to look at the one legacy of Mr. Ford that will stand the test of time; handing down a free pass to Mr. Nixon.
This is an expressly poignant action to look at. Was a pardon appropriate? perhaps and perhaps not. Perhaps it was part of the deal. At the very least it set the stage for the divisive and partisan politics that is ruling the country today. This was Mr. Ford’s legacy.
It is with this in mind, that I support impeachment and criminal charges on war crimes for Mr. Bush, current occupant in the White House. I believe this is the only way that we can heal this country, build consensus, hold our heads up and move forward.
Obama Bashing Junk
In a media world that is a bit dazzled by Obama, for better and worse, Harrop is trying to stand out in the crowd by bashing the senator instead. The method is junk--making a list of statements by Obama that appear to have little substance. That list could be made for every politician and probably also every reader and writer at this blog. That's not evidence.
And although I don't think she's being racist in this article, she does reveal some racial anxieties in labeling Obama as an exotic (he was born in Hawaii and lives in Illinois) and suggesting that Bayh's presidential bid failed simply because he is White.
I think everyone would have to agree that Obama would do best to gain more experience in politics before running for president. But it's not a question of what's best for his political life, it's a question of what's best for the democratic party and what's best for America (which of course are not one and the same). Regardless of his inexperience, he seems to be a winnable candidate. If that holds true, he will be a contender. But Harrop foolishly dismisses Obama as a say-nothing and strangely suggests that there's a long line of politicians waiting in the wings who actually have a lot to say. Her quest for a more substantive democracy is noble, but won't be reached by sweeping aside anyone who happens to capture the American imagination.
Dustin Kidd
Gerald Ford's Pardon and Wishful Thinking
To paraphrase Soren Kierkegard, 'life can only be understood by looking backward, but it must be lived by looking forward.' For that very reason, I must disagree with Captain Ed, Will, and even Jerilym Merrit at Talkleft.
Captain Ed does a good job of noting the 'good intentions' behind the pardon, and his post puts the pardon in the historical context of the day. Were he to stop there and say 'what might have been' if no pardon had been granted, I would not quibble with his post or that of anyone else. But to say it was a mistake that continues to drive 'poisoned politics' today is pure wishful thinking. It is somewhat simplistic to suggest that a trial would have resolved any lingering debates about whether Nixon's crimes were overblown, or the product of partisan warfare. In fact, a trial could have very well fueled the very circumstances Captain Ed suggests they would have relieved. If no pardon was given and a trial ensued, would we not be calling for the trial of a sitting president now, or every time we believed that the commander in chief has run afoul of the law? Didn't that happen with Clinton? I can think of several current examples where George Bush and his administration are taking actions that clearly violate the US Constitution (based on existing US case law), and can think of a few 'crimes against humanities' charges that could very well stick. I wonder if Captain Ed would call for a trial on these issues to settle the dispute, or whether he would realize that his suggested course of action would produce many of the same results that he laments being created by the pardon.
Ford did what he thought was right. With hindsight, we can say it was 'wrong', and some may have said it was wrong at the time, but to say that we could have avoided many of the pitfalls we see today if a different course had been taken is pure wishful thinking, especially when the recent examples suggest that calling for a trial and accountability only lead to charges of partisanship. A trial does not put the issue to rest.
Public vs Private Companies
Sarbanes-Oxley and the Americans with Disabilities Act are two of the most Fascist pieces of legislation of our lifetime. That is, they impose requirements on businesses which the private marketplace could handle more efficiently and effectively.
The stock market surge of the past decade has caused a shift in business mindsets. In the "old days" it was considered a sign of weakness for a company to need to go public. A company issued public stock not because the owners wanted to become rich but because they needed additional capital in order to expand the business. The only good effect that I see coming from SOX is that the additional burdens which it imposes might keep marginally successful businesses from going public until they are more mature. Of course, the flip side is that many companies may now fail because of the additional burden required to gain access to that capital.
SOX, ADA, and fairness
That's a pretty novel definition of fascism. It's so novel, in fact, that I'm pretty sure you're the only person ever to have defined it as such.
At any rate, you're not quite right - SOX and ADA are aimed at defects in the free market. They are oriented toward goals that the market wouldn't accomplish, let alone accomplish effectively.
Why wouldn't the market do these things? Precisely because the market is efficient, and doesn't give a hoot if someone is handicapped - if there aren't a sufficient number of handicapped people such that, say, a ramp would be worth it (and it rarely would be), then the ramp doesn't get built.
That offends our sense of fairness, so we force companies to be slightly less efficient so that a target population will be treated fairly.
Fascist Legislation?
Sarbanes Oxley was enacted for the very reason that the private marketplace could not and did not handle the problems with businesses in the marketplace. Period. Our system of capitalism allows our institutions to do our sinning for us, while at the same time, our laws on corporations allow various levels of insulation from immunity for wrongful acts. In some utopian world where everyone was interested in making an honest buck and not at the expense of your neighbor( the very antithesis of the brand of capitalism our corporations promote), Sarbanes Oxley would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, we do not live in a utopian society.
And fascist? As Inigo Montoya (Mandy Pantinkin) said in "Princess Bride", "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
I'll make this brief. I promise
The intent behind SOX was noble enough, but I'm not sure that the form of the law was adequate to that intent. The problems SOX was motivated by wasn't a lack of internal controls so much as it was the ability of management to override those controls and the too-cozy relationship between auditors (among whom I count myself) and their clients.
At a higher level of generality, though, the problem was a lack of financial transparency, and a tightening of internal controls isn't a wholly irrational way of combating that.
Fascist pieces of legislation ?
Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted for a reason and to address some very glaring and serious deficiency’s. The legislation was enacted to assure transparency and inspire confidence in a system that left to it's own devised would other wise define its own morality and make up it's own rules.
President Teddy Roosevelt defined greatness when he championed ethics in corporate reform. Collusion, insider trading and keeping and maintaining an unfair monopoly were ramped at the turn of the century. This new legislation is just a continuation of reform and raining in corporate excessiveness and greed. Unfettered, unregulated corporate interested look after corporate interested, always have and always will.
A controlled, regulated, transparent market driven economy is a powerful engine and has delivered a fabulous way of life for America and all Americans benefit form this reform.
At all times in our history an unregulated, uncontrolled capitalisms has defined its own morality. Regulating publicly owned and traded companies empowers industries and commerce and defines a morality for the greater good. Properly thought out, conceived and written legislation should take a long and broad view and not just the next quarters profit margin.
Post new comment