An Open Letter to the Tea Party-ers

Dear Tea Party-er,

This letter is not to say you are wrong. Much of what you say does have some truth in it, although not any more than the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives or all the other political groups. You do have every right to exist, express, assemble and all the other rights that are expressed and implied in the constitution. It also needs to be said that you have rights even beyond those, but are not recognized by our political system.

This letter is sent as a warning about closing into yourself so much that you lose sight of the truth and critical analyst. Many organizations have fallen to this in the past, both public and private. They even have a name for it, “Group Think.”

There are two shining examples of this in our past as a culture. One is President John Kennedy’s invasion of Cuba called the “Bay of Pigs” and Coca Cola’s huge marketing mistake in changing the formula for Coke.

In Kennedy’s example, his advisers and cabinet of very smart people concocted the idea of having refugees from Cuba invade the country and over throw the government. This would bring the United States to the rescue. The plan might have actually worked except not enough critical analyst had gone into the planning. The group, thinking they knew it all, didn’t feel they needed outside evaluation. So each member supported other members in their thinking because, after all, they know they were right. The refugees never got off the beaches and the United States watched as thousand died or were captured in the colossal failure.

Coke went through the same problem. Research that the board was certain was correct, told them that to keep in front of Pepsi and changing consumer tastes, they needed to change the flavor of the mainstay product. Oops, the arguably most loyal customers of any consumer product revolted. For many months Coca Cola had to back track and address the public relations debacle. In this case, the research was actually saying something else, but the board thought it told them to change the product because, again, they didn’t go outside the group to ask for a critical review.

So, Tea Party-ers, consider these two examples of many when deciding a course of action and who to support. Group think is a real, powerful and dangerous thing. To move forward without considering, and, in many cases, adopting outside advice on your platform and plans could be a disservice to all the people that have faith in your movement.

To not accept this advice is in itself, group think.

Sincerely,

The Responsible Community

BP Was Doing What Was Expected

When did we buy into the notion that corporations have the community’s best interest in mind?

Now before you think this is a blog post about bashing big corporations, consider this. Corporations by civil and criminal law are to make as much money as possible for their stock holders. If they don’t, CEO’s will be fired, boards replaced, investors will withdraw their money, civil suits will be filed and legal action will be taken. The western culture makes it very clear that corporations are to place making money above any fiduciary responsibility they may have to the communities they serve.

We could all take on the Wall Street bankers as a prime example of making money over serving their community, but there is a more current example buried in stories about BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It comes from an article in the New York Times entitled, “Regulator Deferred to Oil Industry on Rig Safety.” It states that the Minerals Management Service, the Interior Department agency charged with regulating the oil industry “continue[d] to allow the industry largely to police itself, saying that the best technical experts work for industry, not for the government.”

The key phrase in the sentence above is, “work for”. The technical experts that the agency relied on were people that work for the oil industry, not the agency or an independent source. When an oil industry corporation, like any other corporation, makes a risk assessment, their decisions are based on making money. The risk of oil spills, accidents and other things do factor in based on the actual monetary cost and the cost to their public image. But, in the end, the question is how much money can be made.

The people that work for the corporation didn’t want this oil spill. They, it is reasonable to believe, did all they could to prevent it. But, the experts that work for the corporation are all directed to make plans that are cost effective. They will likely convince themselves that the plan will work. If they don’t get outside assessment of their plans, they could be involved in “group think.” It is, in the simplest of terms, a concept that the original premise is correct and that members of a deeply cohesive group will convince each other that it is correct. Regulators should not rely on the industry people to assess their own plans.

The mandate of corporations should be first and foremost to serve the community instead of making money. Yes, of course, they need to make money. But they must create jobs, provide a product or service that the community needs and protect the environment first. They should be held accountable to that mandate.

If a specific corporation can’t do that, let another one that can.

-----

Harwell and Huff

Last week was a tough week for the Detroit Community. We have lost two outstanding individuals that provided shining examples of how we should all lead our lives. Detroit Police Officer Brian Huff and Tiger Broadcaster Ernie Harwell should both be remembered in all of our hearts.

Ernie Harwell will be remembered as the voice of summer for three generations of Detroiters. He began his career when baseball, the game of summer, was also America’s past time. Fans would hang on his every word when listening to the Tiger Baseball game. But, he never placed himself between the game and the audience. He knew they were there to listen to the game not his personal life.

He also provided a great example of life outside of baseball. In great contrast to so many people who claim fame, he was a genuine soul. Like the box score on a perfect game he had No drugs, no affairs and no bad things to say about anyone. He will be dearly missed.

But, the heroism of Detroit Police Officer Brian Huff must take a place above that of Harwell’s in the community. This is not to take anything away from Harwell. It is just that he labored in the limelight of fame. In that light, he did not succumb to the corruption that often follows and is to be honored. But, Police Officer Huff labored in anonymity. His heroism wasn’t in bright lights, his was in the quiet and ill lit light of everyday life.

When the call came from neighbors that there was trouble, a Detroit dispatcher sent a car with officers that had less experience on the force then Huff. It is reported that he was on his way to help before the dispatcher sent him as back up. Huff knew that there would be trouble and the officers responding to the call were going to need help. He was willing to place his life on the line because he thought that his experience on the job would help save lives and protect the community. That was to be Huff’s last call. He died quietly without lights or glory, a true hero’s death.

As individuals living in the community, we must all take on our responsibilities without the bright lights that come with fame. Every day we make sacrifices and invest our time and labor to make our lives and the community better. At the end of each day no one is there shining a light on our lives for everyone to admire. In the dark of night we lay down and go to sleep with only the self knowledge that we have done the best we can. Officer Huff must have done the same thing every evening.

While we honor the Harwell’s of the world with bright lights, the greatest tribute we can provide for the Officer Huff’s of the world is to continue to make the sacrifices necessary to build a better world for ourselves, our families and our communities.

A sincere and deeply felt thank you to Detroit Police Officer Brian Huff.

-----

Terri Lynn Opinion Prevents Transparency

Last week, Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn issued a tentative consent allowing political advertising to conceal the supporting donors. This just a few months after the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and other big money interest can spend as much money as they deem necessary on political advertising.

Come election time it is important to know where everyone stands on the issues so that the voter can make an informed decision. Lynn’s decision will prevent transparency in the voting process.

Knowing where public officials stand on the issues is important. But, that extends beyond government and politics. It also extends to every individual and group in the community that takes a public stand. Sometimes the motivation for advocating for or against an issue is not just the belief that it will help the community, it could also be a monetary or personal benefit.

With the recent Supreme Court decision that allows corporations and other groups to spend as much as they want to support political issues, the political arena has changed. Justice Antonin Scalia, who stood with the majority in that decision, supports transparency with an opinion in another case by saying, "You can't run a democracy this way, with everybody being afraid of having his political positions known." Much more money will now be spent on issues and candidates than ever before. With the secretary of state ruling that donors in support of issues can be kept secret, it will violate the concept of transparency in politics. The voter needs to know all the facts about an issue including who supports it.

The Secretary of State Terri Lynn was wrong to issue a tentative opinion supporting the privacy requests of the Chamber of Commerce. In the final decision, she needs to reverse that opinion. If not, the legislature of the state needs to take immediate action to keep our elections transparent.

Aaron Burr and the Car Bomber in New York

“They are equivalent to a proclamation of impunity to every traitorous combination which may be formed to destroy the Union."

Those are the words of Thomas Jefferson, speaking about the turn of events at the Aaron Burr trial that later acquitted him of high treason. In short, Burr was accused of conspiring with political allies, army officers and the British government to form a separate nation in America’s heartland. Britain at the time was an enemy of the young country. Those that accused him of treason said he raised money, troops and resources in his attempt. The most high profile person to accuse him was the President of the United States at the time, Thomas Jefferson, who had taken personal interest in the case.

Just about everyone involved in the case; prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and a host of other people on both sides were associated with the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution against Britain, the writing of the Articles of Confederation and the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. Whatever interpretation we may apply to the meaning of the rights that are part of the constitution, these men would have known them intuitively because they imbedded them in the constitution both expressly and implicitly.

Aaron Burr was a citizen of the United States. He was accused of conspiring with an enemy state. Never was he taken to a military prison and held without bail. Never was he denied a defense by competent attorneys. (In fact, his attorneys were high profile lawyers that were well aware of the Burr’s constitutional rights). Never once was it suggested that his citizenship should be taken away.

Today, Faisal Shahzad stands accused of plotting with enemies of the United States and other subversive activities just like Aaron Burr. He is the primary suspect in the attempted car bomb attack in New York’s Times Square recently. There are those that want him taken off to a military prison and tried in a military court. Other high profile government officials have also demanded that he not be read his Miranda rights before he is interrogated. Senator Joe Lieberman, if he was in charge, would take away his citizenship.

How is it that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and signer of the Constitution, didn’t ask for Burr’s citizenship, did not deny him a civil trial nor imprison Burr without counsel, yet Lieberman thinks that is just what should be done with Shahzad?

Fighting terrorism is serious business. As a community we need to take every action we can to provide for a safe and secure environment. But we can’t forsake the very thing that has made this country strong, the rights Jefferson did not take away from the most celebrated person accused of plotting against the United States.

-----

Petition Drives have No Expectation of Privacy

You are in a hurry with kids in tow. As you get out of your car and walk over to the post office a woman approaches. She asks you to sign a petition for a citizen’s initiative that supports marriage. Without reading the statement as focused as you should on the official looking form, you sign your name in a rush so that your kids won’t run out in traffic.

Two weeks later, you get a call from a stranger. She asks if you signed a petition that requested the state to place a measure on the ballot demanding a roll back on domestic partner benefits. You are surprised that someone called you.

Did you think that you would have some privacy when you signed the petition?

It is hard to believe anyone’s privacy could be maintained in this situation. When you signed the petition you could see all the other names on the list. Someone could have been casually watching while you signed. The workers that earn money from every name they get on the list could have made photocopies of the petitions. This would insure that they have proof of their income. When the lists are collected for formal presentation to the state, there will be copies made. Finally, the petitions are presented to the state in an open forum.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this question April 28 in a case from Washington. Gay rights groups are asking for the names to be released on a petition for Referendum 71. It is a ballot measure aimed at rolling back domestic partnership rights for same sex couples. State law in Washington requires the release of names on petition drives. Some people in the state fear reprisals from the gay rights groups.

The names should not be kept secret because people must be able to trust a citizen’s initiative. They are started by people that would like to ask the voters of a state if they think something should be changed. If enough people think the same way, the issue gets on the ballot. The people that sign the petition must be real and registered voters along with various other requirements depending on the state. If those names on the petition can’t be challenged how does anyone know they are real people?

A similar issue to this came up in the last national election. An organization was registering people to vote. If was found, by people making challenges to the names on the list that some were not eligible. Now the organization that did that, as well as other things, no longer exists. ACORN has closed its doors, partly because of the challenge.

Responsible communities must operate in the open so that everyone can trust the process. Keeping names on a petition drive private only builds mistrust.

The Answer to Thursday's Trivia Question

Here is the Answer to Thursday’s trivia question.

Who Said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have?”

Gerald Ford said it to a joint session of the Congress on August 12, 1974.

“(the people) know that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Source: Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/quotes.asp

There is an email floating around that uses the statement to build mistrust of government. There is also a bumper sticker using it on cars that might also sport a Palin or Tea Party sticker.

It is hard to believe that anyone would disagree with the statement, but some may object to the implications. The statement is used by conservatives to give reason to the small government concept.

But no matter who uses the statement, at least get the facts straight.