Nazi-Stolen Art and Rand Paul-Stolen Words: A Link?

Today’s New York Times reports on Nazi-looted art and Rand Paul-looted words.  Any connection?

Maybe so.  And today’s reminder about our abysmal politicians, especially those who trumpet the primacy of principle.

If you get caught red-handed, blame everything on the "haters."

These stories remind us that power-lust is the intoxicating soil that sprouts a million little lies. If left unchecked, they can proliferate and converge into bigger, even monstrous, lies that intoxicate an entire nation. And lead it to monstrous behavior.

Libertarian Principles 101: Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility.

True North Principles 101: Stealing is stealing.  

US Politics 101: If you get caught stealing, cheating, or lying -- even red-handed -- don’t acknowledge it, don’t own it, don’t apologize. Set your jaw, stick out your chest and deny, lads, deny! You’re not the perp, you’re the victim. Like Rand Paul, blame everything on the “haters.”

Dumb Penn State Execs Blow It Big Time

President Clinton and Martha Stewart have learned their lesson the hard way. Now, so will Penn State.

The Freeh Report teaches once again the fundamental but often-ignored lesson that the cover-up is worse than the crime. 

The corollary lesson: what passes for intelligence in upper management at institutions and in business, large and small, is actually myopia and utter dearth of good sense. 

Why? Because from a management standpoint, the right way to handle the Sandusky fiasco was plain to see. Let's lay it out. 

Pretend you're a Penn State decision maker. A potential problem is brought to your attention about Jerry Sandusky involving at best inappropriate, and at worst criminal, behavior with young boys on university turf. You huddle up the brain trust; emails fly. What to do? What to do?

It seems you have two primary scenarios.

Sandusky Scenario 1. 

Meet the issue head on. Report it to outside law enforcement. Investigate it immediately, independently. Have a private eye follow Sandusky. Tell him -- and Paterno -- straight up what you're worried about and that you must take it very seriously. Put Sandusky on paid leave, ask him to steer clear of the university for a while. Once you get the slightest credible confirmation of the horror -- easily done, since the landscape was littered with red flags -- you fire him.

You take PR offensive. You announce the firing. You say you have good reason to believe that improper behavior involving young boys may have occurred on campus. You say you are not 100% sure, but must take assertive action to protect any victims and to prevent further episodes, because the health and safety of the boys are paramount. You say that if you're acting in error, you'd rather err on their side. You remind the world that Penn State stands for the highest aspirations in more than academics, in more than athletics. Penn State stands for what's right. 

Based on your credible info, you've taken the risk that Sandusky sues you for wrongful discharge. If he does, and can make it stick in the face of what you've learned, and you have to write him a check for a couple of million, so what? If you have to write a check to support the good work of his foundation until it recovers, so what? 

Under Sundusky Scenario 1, you turn a PR problem into a PR win. You remove a scourge from your watch. You preserve Joe Pa's pristine reputation for posterity. By taking the moral high ground, you get credit, not blame. The finest student athletes in America flock to Penn State in greater numbers than ever. And you've put this sorry incident behind you years earlier.  

OR:

Sandusky Scenario 2.

Your considered wisdom is to minimize the problem and avoid the PR hit. You fudge it, fumble it, punt it. You let Joe Pa drive the car. You even let Sandusky roam free on campus and at Penn State games, practices, and steamy locker rooms, with his innocent quarry in tow. And sometimes pinned against the wall.

You ostrich it.

Years later -- and inevitably, given the pin-head width of your consciously chosen vision -- when the quantum of victims and crimes spilled over all containment, the world now knows that Penn State has consciously done wrong. Your leaders have acted irresponsibly. Dishonestly. Even criminally. 

Joe Pa is no longer a god. He's a co-conspirator.     

You've pissed away the moral high ground. The stain, virtually indelible, will last years and years. Now you've got yourself a PR hit, exponentially worse than than one you first hid from. Do more or fewer parents want their son to play ball for Penn State? 

As Eliot Ness said to Capone, here endeth the lesson.

AN UNFORTUNATE CROP

Grave Remains Indeed

Here's some front page news from Comcast---make sure to read the caption!












Oh Ms. Allen, we respect your expert DNA credentials (and apparent ventriloquism expertise), but perhaps you might consider wearing a hat?

Source: Scientists say Copernicus' remains, grave found

WHAT'S GOOD FOR GM IS GOOD FOR...?

The Once Mighty and Arrogant Come Begging

Here's an e-mail letter we received today from General Motors:

You made the right choice when you put your confidence in General Motors, and we appreciate your past support. I want to assure you that we are making our best vehicles ever, and we have exciting plans for the future. But we need your help now. Simply put, we need you to join us to let Congress know that a bridge loan to help U.S. automakers also helps strengthen the U.S. economy and preserve millions of American jobs.

Despite what you may be hearing, we are not asking Congress for a bailout but rather a loan that will be repaid.

The U.S. economy is at a crossroads due to the worldwide credit crisis, and all Americans are feeling the effects of the worst economic downturn in 75 years. Despite our successful efforts to restructure, reduce costs and enhance liquidity, U.S. auto sales rely on access to credit, which is all but frozen through traditional channels.

The consequences of the domestic auto industry collapsing would far exceed the $25 billion loan needed to bridge the current crisis. According to a recent study by the Center for Automotive Research:

• One in 10 American jobs depends on U.S. automakers

• Nearly 3 million jobs are at immediate risk

• U.S. personal income could be reduced by $150 billion

• The tax revenue lost over 3 years would be more than $156 billion

Discussions are now underway in Washington, D.C., concerning loans to support U.S. carmakers. I am asking for your support in this vital effort by contacting your state representatives.

Please take a few minutes to go to www.gmfactsandfiction.com, where we have made it easy for you to contact your U.S. senators and representatives. Just click on the "I'm a Concerned American" link under the "Mobilize Now" section, and enter your name and ZIP code to send a personalized e-mail stating your support for the U.S. automotive industry.

Let me assure you that General Motors has made dramatic improvements over the last 10 years. In fact, we are leading the industry with award-winning vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu, Cadillac CTS,
Buick Enclave, Pontiac G8, GMC Acadia, Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, Saturn AURA and more.

We offer 18 models with an EPA estimated 30 MPG highway or better — more than Toyota or Honda. GM has 6 hybrids in market and 3 more by mid-2009. GM has closed the quality gap with the imports, and today we are putting our best quality vehicles on the road.

Please share this information with friends and family using the link on the site.

Thank you for helping keep our economy viable.

Sincerely,

Troy Clarke
---------------------------------------

Here's what we wrote in response:

Dear Troy:

I appreciate the e-mail, but this is a hard one for me. GM and the other US automakers have had a 30 year long heads-up on the inevitability of this very day.

Back then, you fellows met the long lines at the gas pumps, and ratcheting prices, with the horrific Fairmount and K-Car. We were in effect punished for trying to be sensible. (GM did nothing at all that I can recall, except for one lone bright spot: the years-later rollout of Saturn.)

In stark contrast, Toyota responded with the Corona. The first ride I took in one in 1974 woke me up, rudely and up to now unchangeably: this car from Japan wasn't cheap junk, as I'd been taught growing up; it was in fact less expensive and plainly better than its American counterparts.

I was a college senior then but saw it clearly (why couldn't you?). You'd already frittered away your competitive edge. Three decades later, you've still not recovered from that fundamental, tectonic shift. And Toyota builds factories and cars on your home turf.

Over the ensuing years, I wanted to buy American, I really did. When I shopped for new cars, I'd test-drive a few American models; on vacation, I'd rent American cars to gauge their progress. But the stuff you produced never fit my style, sensibilities, or demands for quality. Empirically, an entire segment of upwardly mobile and affluent customers--my contemporaries--felt exactly the same. It's telling that I eventually became a GM customer only because I leased a Saab.

US automakers, time and again, have demonstrated the polar opposite of a customer-centric business model. In perpetuating your unholy alliance with oil companies (who can be painted with a very similar brush), you've sought instead to make the market and use your formidable marketing muscle to drive demand for unconscionably ostentatious and wasteful products like the Hummer. Concentrating less on getting me from here to there and more on my fragile male ego. All the while using an old, doomed technology--the internal combustion engine.

You've spent your time and resources perfecting this aging (if not already obsolete) albatross, much the same as if the brightest engineers of the early 20th century had labored tirelessly to perfect the Conestoga wagon.

Instead of looking ahead, and re-inventing the automobile when times were flush by using the vast cash and resources at your disposal (the cash from sales and the money earned on your money via GMAC)--which would have given you first-mover status and a lock on years of unimaginable profits--you decided to serve the gods of short term profit and "shareholder value." You played ostrich.

This industry in general--and GM in particular--which once ruled the world's economy but has now come begging, has created its own insular culture and heritage, mirrored by its senior executives who've been harvesting millions in compensation. Remarkable not for vision or courage, but for hubris.

For this, GM has richly earned our scorn rather than our money.

Sincerely,

----------------------------

At least, as Troy asked, we're sharing this information with frends and family.

WORDS COUNT, VOLUME 4 - Fun With Proverbs

We were with you right up until the end.

HCO recently received a Power Point slide show displaying this inspirational proverb:

ABOUT MONEY

With money you can buy a house, but not a home.
With money you can buy a clock, but not time.
With money you can buy a bed, but not sleep.
With money you can buy a book, but not knowledge.
With money you can see a doctor, but not good health.
With money you can buy a position, but not respect.
With money you can buy blood, but not life.
With money you can buy sex, but not love.

So true, so true...and then, the last slide said:















We suppose this turnabout is okay, in retaliation for China flooding the market with knock-off wooden shoes.

WORDS COUNT, VOLUME 3 - The First Valley Girl President?

Just a few months ago, Sarah Palin burst into our screens as a serious contender for Vice President of the United States of America.

Imagine: a youthful, attractive--and dare we say well-dressed--woman as the first female VP. One heartbeat away from the Presidency. If John McCain had been elected (God forbid), and if the excitement of the inaugural ball had proved so intense he keeled over and died (God double forbid), she would have been ready and able to take the wheel on January 20, 2009.

Before the election, and now even in the backwash of defeat, speculation grows about Palin as a serious candidate in 2012. (We're using the word "serious" twice on purpose.)

Why not? She's popular, populist, an anti-elitist (a hockey mom who gets her clothes at a consignment shop!), and anti-intellectual. She's not ivory tower, she's Ivory Soap.

Please. Please stop.

Our intelligence had been taking a break, tryng to heal from the bruising repetitive insults suffered during the GOP campaign. But like the Bataan Death March, we find no succor, no respite...and must trudge on.

Here's what Palin said in an interview yesterday on Fox News, as reported by the AP in Palin blames Bush policies for GOP defeat:

"I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door."

And we're like, OK, God, if Palin ever runs for national office and wins, this is what we'll always pray, we're like, don't let us miss New Zealand's open door immigration policy.

ELECTION 2008: WHY THE REPUBLICANS STAYED HOME AND MORE POST-MORTEMS

A Vote for Nobody = A Vote for Obama

The numbers are telling an intriguing story: the Republicans didn’t turn out to vote.

According to Curtis Gans, director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate, Republicans voted in lower numbers than expected, with the Republican turnout actually declining 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Gans speculates that this happened “because of disappointment over John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, combined with a perception that the ticket would lose. ‘There was real hostility ... amongst moderate Republicans that McCain would choose the conservative governor,’ Gans said. ‘And then there was a gradual perception that the party was going to get whomped.’" (CNN.com: Number of votes cast set record, but voter turnout percentage didn't, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/voter.turnout/; WSJ-Washington Wire: Voter Turnout Rate Not as High as in ’68; http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/06/voter-turnout-rate-not-as-high-as-in-68/.)

In Ohio alone, Republican turnout fell 17 percent compared with 2004, which translated into 500,000 fewer votes. (Ironton Tribune.com: Republican turnout fell 17 percent in Ohio, by Benita Heath; http://www.irontontribune.com/news/2008/nov/06/republican-turnout-fell-17-percent-ohio/.)

Why single out Ohio? Oho was a battleground state that McCain could not afford to lose. The final
vote:

2,708,988 Obama
2,502,218 McCain

(Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/)

The final margin: 206,770—or, less than half of the number of Republicans who took a pass. In other words, if the Republicans had shown up at all, McCain would have won Ohio. Could it have mattered in other states? Maybe, maybe not—but if a similar picture applied for Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida…what presented on Tuesday night as “no path to victory” for McCain might have become a dimly lit one.

We have our own speculation as to why these folks didn’t vote. We think that in the real world, where neighbors, friends, congregations, and communities talk about money, sports, and politics, where real people work, shop and play, a lot of moderate Republicans were not only repulsed by McCain’s horrific and graceless campaign, they found themselves warming up to Obama—he’s a charismatic guy. So, there they were, stuck in the mud: they didn’t want to vote for Obama—maybe even just because he’s part black—but couldn’t in good conscience vote for McCain.

No mavericks there. At ground level, there was no personal benefit. By sitting it out, these reluctant Republicans didn’t rock their social boats, and can also tell themselves that they didn’t exactly turn their back on the GOP. And better yet, if Obama falls flat, they can correctly if disingenuously say, “Well, I didn’t vote for him.”

But the tasty irony is, they did. The Republicans who stayed home in effect voted for Obama anyway—their votes weren’t there to cancel out Obama votes.

It was the equivalent of voting “present.”

Just a Few Kicks at the Dead Horse

"Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” Chico Marx in Duck Soup, 1933

First and foremost, it’s a relief to know we’re not insane. We started this blog spot for mental health reasons, because of the Alice in Wonderland, back-asswards aroma of the McCain campaign. (See, for example, “Trapped on the Other Side of the Mirror,”http://hypercriticalobserver.blogspot.com/2008/10/trapped-on-other-side-of-mirror.html; “The Would-Be Emperor’s New Clothes,” http://hypercriticalobserver.blogspot.com/2008/10/would-be-emperors-new-clothes.html; “Why I Must Vote for Obama…even if I didn’t want to at first,” http://hypercriticalobserver.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-i-must-vote-for-obamaeven-if-i.html.)

We can read, we can see, we can think. Yet we had an army of otherwise intelligent people looking us in the eye, swearing—figuratively and literally—that down was up, day was night. And we wavered and wondered: maybe we’re crazy.

We give thanks that, in the end, the outcome matched the evidence:

--The voters recoiled at the vicious and at times patently false GOP campaign messages.

--Instead of listening, thinking, and giving the electorate what they craved in these bleak, deteriorating days—equal parts substance and hope—the GOP did what the US automakers used to do: tell us we really need is old fashioned gas guzzlers and cram them down into our pockets. To put it in business terms, these are not customer-centric models. And therefore, no longer successful ones.

--The decision to pick Palin was virtually an impulse buy in the checkout line, because McCain was talked out of his first choice, Lieberman. Palin was not thoroughly vetted, yanked out of the tundra by the taproot, and thrown into the deep end (with wolves, sharks…pick a predator), over her head and overwhelmed. With insufficient time to adjust to the increased pitching speed at the major league level, she came off as ill-prepared and dumb. Yet the McCain campaign continued to make experience a central issue, and tried to recast Obama’s eloquence and aura as negatives. Vote for us, we’re just like you (to paraphrase Joe the Plumber, "We're up for it.") Don’t vote for him, he’s too smart.

--Conduct, as always, told the story. Wardrobe-gate underscored the disconnect between what they were saying and what they were doing. The party that would stop the wasteful spending of our money was wastefully spending theirs. (We’re also finding out what we'd suspected: this was as much Palin’s doing as any staffer's. Three or four outfits on a $25,000 budget [still $6,000 each!] became $150,000 plus—and counting; even a rich Republican blanched at the bill. We can’t help but use the image one last time: this behavior was…piggish.)

--If McCain sold out, Palin was pimped out. Sarah, forget what you said and did yesterday, here’s what you say and do today. She did it for the team, but in the process fed the smoldering speculation about her porous, ad hoc ethical membrane. Ultimately, Palin did not deliver a breath of fresh air, but a blast of the same old stale air out of a fresh lipsticked mouth.

Now we’re hearing more about the rift between Palin/McCain. Some of this is part of the recent pathetic blather, where the whole sorry circuit says it wasn’t all that bad (because McCain only lost by 7 million votes? Because it wasn’t a shutout?), and simultaneously stampedes to blame their siblings for knocking the heirloom GOP off the pedestal and breaking it. (One commentator has called it a “circular firing squad.”). But there was also visible evidence of Palin/McCain enmity:

--McCain fidgeting and wringing his hands while Palin talked during the Brian Williams interview. Remember the EF Hutton commercials? When EF Hutton talks, people listen. When Palin talks, McCain winces.

--Palin goes over to hug McCain after the concession speech. He visibly recoils and gives her a perfunctory and dismissive pat-pat-pat on her elbow.

Conclusion

What does the wretched election fiasco, overall, say about McCain’s judgment, his skill as an executive or a delegator, his talent for surrounding himself with smart people? (OK, a rhetorical question.)

If in America we needed—now more than ever—to elect the best and the brightest, we on all accounts chose the better and the brighter.

To do the right thing in this election, to make this signal choice, we Americans had to pass a signal test. This wasn’t just a referendum on the dotty, corrupted, and failed GOP, but a referendum on whether we as a people could live into our own propaganda.

We passed. Thank God, we passed…and my wife and I can stay.

Chico Marx said it perfectly, and in the end, it wasn’t really that hard. To choose the better man for this job, we didn’t need to be color-blind. We just needed not to be blind.