Apologies All Around

Virginia’s General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution expressing “profound regret” for the state’s role in slavery. The measure also expressed regret for "the exploitation of Native Americans."

The resolution admits that government-sanctioned slavery "ranks as the most horrendous of all depredations of human rights and violations of our founding ideals in our nation's history, and the abolition of slavery was followed by systematic discrimination, enforced segregation, and other insidious institutions and practices toward Americans of African descent that were rooted in racism, racial bias, and racial misunderstanding."

Now let’s see. An apology is a recognition that the circumstance being apologized for was one that should not have occurred and the one apologizing—or in this case their ancestors—acknowledges their responsibility for that wrong. So Virginia, a leader of the Confederate states that seceded and prosecuted the Civil war mainly[1] to protect their “peculiar institution” now says in effect, “we’re sorry we were wrong.”

Think about this a minute. All that suffering, all that injustice need never have come to pass. The key question is why they couldn’t see this truth THEN. We might say that their self-interest, their very society, was so dependant on slave labor that they just couldn’t see beyond that to the wrong they were perpetuating (even though it surely wasn’t as if there weren’t others who tried mightily to convert them).

Of greater importance are two aspects of apologies in general and this one in particular. First, what TODAY might we be doing for which our descendants will offer apologies years hence? Could be things not on anybody’s radar though, given the abolitionists in slavery’s day, today’s potential wrongs surely have their canary-in-the-mineshaft minions. Thus, maybe it is our aggressive consumption of the earth’s resources or perhaps a zealous quest for security that wreaks havoc in lands far from our shores.

Second, we must recognize that such apologies, coming long after an occurrence that cannot be re-visited, are convenient and easy. We can’t go back and as much as today’s Virginians express regret they can’t go back either. Apologies in such circumstances are therefore meaningless UNLESS the confessor pursues a course of concrete actions that are consistent with the professed change of heart.

The Virginia apology would thus be meaningless unless accompanied with a plan today for correcting the sins of yesterday. Such steps might include renewed vigor in affirmative action, early childhood education and guaranteed college tuition for minorities among other ideas.

But Virginia’s isn’t the only apology being floated around. With the 2008 Presidential race upon us we see candidate John Edwards with an apology of his own over his Senate vote to allow the war in Iraq. Just recently he said, "I just wanted to make sure anyone who hadn't heard me say it, knows that that's my position (that he apologizes for his vote on the Iraq war). On that issue and everything else, I want to make it absolutely clear to voters in New Hampshire where I stand.”

But such an apology is easy now. The war is going horribly, most Americans are now opposed to it and he’s a presidential candidate. His apology is empty unless it is also accompanied with a concrete plan that is consistent with his now held view that the war was wrong to begin with. This plan should therefore include:

1) A call for an admission of error by the one who prosecuted it, President Bush, and failing that a commencement of Impeachment hearings against him and Dick Cheney;

2) A call for a drastic withdrawal of troops from Iraq and decreased funding for the war. He has so far safely hid behind the Iraq Study Group’s skirt by parroting their recommendation of a 100,000 troop cap, but if the war was wrong in his new opinion, why is he not more forcefully advocating a corrective course that would include Senate impeachment hearings, and multi-party dialogue as part of an all-out effort to end our military aggression and seek reconciliation;

3) A strong denial that we can weapon our way to long term security. He should immediately call for a reduction of our military budget and evince an equally strong preference for multi-lateral co-operation with the states of the world;

4) A plan for what he would he do in the future to make the right decisions and correctly interpret the intelligence. As it stands now his past decision to support the war seems way too motivated by the then existing political winds, which strongly favored his pro-war vote, than his feigned dependance on flawed intelligence for which there was ample refutation.

Apologies are good, but actions speak louder than words.


[1] Yes, volumes are still written about how slavery was not the reason for Southern secession and the resultant war that, it is argued, was more about states’ rights and protection of their home turf. But there can be no doubt that slavery was the driving issue about which the Confederate states claimed those states’ rights to begin with.

Congress Must CUT Funding for Iraq

The US Congress took a symbolic but toothless vote to censure President Bush’s Iraqi troop increase. But now they must do more: vote to drastically cut funding for the Iraqi war.

Bush has again cynically mis-framed his increased funding needs as a “support the troops” argument. But Congress needs to turn it around on Bush by cutting the funding and forcing him to deploy troops consistent with that funding. Then, if he increases the troop level it is HE that is not supporting the troops.

The best course, both in terms of morality and effectiveness is to decrease our involvement and increase our talks with all parties—allies, neighbors and enemies alike. The voters voiced a dis-satisfaction with the war, now realizing it was a mistake sold on false premises. The last thing they voted for was an increase in our aggression.

Thus, the House has a mandate to pursue more peaceful and effective termination to the war. Their power over the purse strings is about the only option short of IMPEACHMENT, which I first endorsed nearly two years ago. They should allot only enough funding that would adequately support a much lower level of troop involvement.

A very rough analysis follows.

1) First, 2006 total military spending in Iraq was102 billion dollars. There were 138,000 troops, thus we were spending $739,000 PER SOLDIER. Vietnam by comparison: adjusted for inflation we spent roughly $61 billion in the peak year, 1969, during which our maximum troop strength was 543,000 or $112,000 per soldier in TODAY’S dollars. Side question: Why on earth would we spend SEVEN TIMES MORE for this war??

2) Even with these absolutely obscene expenditures in order to avoid any charge of shortchanging the troops Congress should keep the per soldier spending the same with the lowered troop levels that are essential for a lasting peace. Assume we withdraw at least half of the soldiers this year, if not all, as Britain is doing. Thus 69,000 troops at even the hugely inflated current budget would have the budget be $50 billion dollars.

NOW if he persists in not only keeping the current troop numbers, but adding to them, it will be President Bush that undercuts the soldiers by slashing the funding per soldier of the previous years.

Congress must cut funding or forever relinquish any claim to oppose this wretched war. It must not cower before yet another of Bush’s deceitful claims of false patriotism, but stand instead for what is right.

In doing so, Congress will place the shoe of responsibility squarely on the foot of its rightful owner.

_______________________________


CUT TOTAL MILITARY SPENDING!

Congress shouldn’t stop there. The US military budget, a full one fifth of the total budget, is a whopping 600 billion dollars for 2007. Bush wants $624.6 billion for 2008. We spend more than the next 14 countries combined and are fueling an international increase in arms spending. Even in Clinton’s last year, when the military was a stratospheric 250 billion we were spending more than the next 11 nations combined. Such expenditures only serve to make us and the world less safe. Although it admittedly creates jobs for the average citizen…and huge profits for the captains of industry.

To think that a band of criminals (the 9/11 hijackers) sparked the pre-set neocon plan to steal from our treasury for this unnecessary and counterproductive spending. [PLEASE SEE The Project for a New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/ for details of this long planned escalation].

We should get back to 2000 levels of military spending and encourage it downwards from there.

Casinos Will Kill Kentucky

Casino cancer is the gravest threat facing Kentucky and should be the pre-eminent issue in this year’s race for governor. Electronic gaming—SLOTS—is the “crack cocaine” of gambling and we must keep it out of our great Commonwealth if we are to attain the promise of our heritage.

Every academic study, that is every study NOT funded by the gambling industry, conclusively shows casino gambling to be an economic and social loser (http://www.ncalg.org/). That is, the net costs of casino gambling far outweigh the short term benefits of increased tax revenues. Beyond the financial loss to individuals and traditional pre-existing businesses lie the very real and traumatic social costs of increased rates of crime, bankruptcy, absenteeism, divorce and suicide.

Yet we forget our history. In the late 1800’s widespread gambling so devastated the nation that states, including Kentucky, changed their constitutions to outlaw it. That is why the casino industry is pushing to amend it again. But the legislature absolutely MUST NOT let this come to a vote because pro-gambling forces have UNLIMITED FUNDS with which to advertise its distorted message in a way that can deceive a public so susceptible to quick and catchy, but all too false sound bites. The casino lobby will stand virtually unopposed as those who care about our future and the protection of our well being have scant funds to share the ugly facts that would effectively counter their propaganda.

The only argument pro-gambling forces can make is the sugar daddy lure of fool’s gold that short-sighted governments use to bribe their citizens’ support of this horrendous industry. Yet this is a false argument. The question is not what revenues Kentucky may lose to Indiana’s casinos just as it is not what revenues we may lose to vacationers who choose, for instance, Florida instead of Kentucky. In fact, even with Indiana’s casinos and a cut in taxes Kentucky still increased its tax revenues.

While it is morally untenable for a state to sell its soul in pursuit of such short-term gain the case against casino gambling is ultimately a matter of policy. Kentucky should instead draw on our pioneer heritage of leadership. We can leverage our strengths by drawing on and promoting the best out of our citizens. We could position ourselves to prospective employers as a casino-free state and encourage in a positive way the message to our youth that the best way upwards is through education and industry.

Casino gambling is long overdue for federal regulation. But such is the power of that industry’s lobby that Congress has so far refused to act on it, thus leaving states vulnerable to a true race to the bottom.

George Washington said it right: “The last thing I shall mention, is first of importance and that is, to avoid gaming. This is a vice which is productive of every possible evil, equally injurious to the morals and health of its votaries. It is the child of avarice, the brother of inequity, and father of mischief. It has been the ruin of many worthy families; the loss of many a man's honor; and the cause of suicide. To all those who enter the list, it is equally fascinating; the successful gamester pushes his good fortune till it is overtaken by a reverse; the losing gamester, in hopes of retrieving past misfortunes, goes on from bad to worse; till grown desperate, he pushes at everything; and loses his all. In a word, few gain by this abominable practice (the profit, if any, being diffused) while thousands are injured.”

-The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1938), Vol. 26, p. 40. This advice was given to by Washington to his nephew in a letter on January 15, 1783.

On Appreciation of Animals

THIS is good writing. Before reading this I was aghast at all the attention to a horse's euthanasia. If human life is so sacred, why all this attention for a horse. I asked this even as I understood why.

While I still don't "mourn" the death of a horse, this essay helps give me a deeper appreciation for not only Barbaro, but Bessie the cow, Blackie the dog, Bumble the bee, Kitzie the cat and all the rest of the animal kingdom that goes about their business with no pretensions, just pure instinct and heart.

------------------------------
From the New York Times

February 1, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Why We Mourn Barbaro

By JEFF NEUMAN

HE never talked about himself in the third person.

He didn’t trash-talk, taunt or hang on the rim. Down the stretch of the Kentucky Derby, he didn’t turn and point at Bluegrass Cat, and he didn’t somersault over the finish line.

After crossing the line, he didn’t pull out a Sharpie and autograph his saddle for his business manager.
He never referred to his handlers as “my supporting cast.”

He never tried to renegotiate his contract. He never turned down an eight-figure offer by saying, “I’ve got a family to feed, man.”

His only tattoo was discreetly hidden.

He did no commercials for cellphone plans, credit cards, fast food chains or time shares.

He never had his agent issue a statement in which he apologized “if anybody took my actions the wrong way.”

He never appeared before a Congressional committee and lied about his steroid use.
He never dated Paris Hilton.

He was never involved in an altercation with a belligerent fan outside a club at 4 in the morning. He was never arrested for drunken driving. He did not own an unregistered handgun.

He never claimed he’d been disrespected. He never left his competitors in the dust and then said, ”I didn’t have my A game.” He did not attribute his victories to the glory of his personal Savior.

Isiah Thomas never tried to trade for him.

He was never a presenter at the ESPYs.

He never claimed he was misquoted in his autobiography. He never confessed to a double murder in the subjunctive tense.

He trained, ate and slept. He ran his races, gave his best effort, accepted plaudits graciously, went back to his stall and prepared to do it again the next time out.

He never fathered multiple offspring out of wedlock. Alas.

Jeff Neuman is the co-author of “A Disorderly Compendium of Golf.”