Ethics

It’s no big surprise that Barack Obama has decided to forgo accepting public campaign financing and the monetary restrictions it imposes. After all, Obama’s record fundraising literally puts all the other candidates to shame. Still, he did agree, just last year, in writing, to

“aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

This means that in addition to being a liar, Barack Obama is also a hypocrite. When hearing of the news of the latest Obama flip-flop, John McCain said he would still take public financing and of Obama, he “said he would stick to his word. He didn’t.”

So, why did Obama back out of the deal? The system! BHO said,

It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” … “But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”

WOW!

Obama supports the system, but now, all of a sudden, it’s broken. That’s convenient! Then why, wonders Ed Morrissey, hasn’t he “lifted a finger to fix it during his three years in the Senate?” Good question! However, in this flip-flop, Obama is actually backpedalling on his own proposal,

“I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

And John McCain agreed to this!

Democracy 21, a political watchdog group dedicated to removing the influence of private funding in elections voiced their disappointment at Obama’s decision:

“We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.”

MaCain says its a matter of trust and he’s right. Who will you trust to represent the little guy? The candidate who was funded by every American’s tax dollars or the candidate who was financed by private donors? Who will the candidate owe a debt to? For the former, it’s the American taxpayer, but for the latter, look for the highest bidder!

MORE: Webloggin calls out Obama on lies! So does Hot Air! Wake up America does, too! As does the Right Wing Nut House! And The American Pundit!

Following up on a previous post, I have some insight into Secretary Wynne and General Moseley’s resignations. First, here are the press releases from Public Affairs:

PRESS RELEASE — Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Public Affairs

Release No. 010608
June 5,2008

Secretary of the Air Force Resigns

Washington, DC -
Since November 3, 2005, it has been my privilege to serve this country as the 21st Secretary of the Air Force. I have relished the opportunity President Bush gave me to lead the strongest Air Force in the world during a time of war, and I have marveled at the tremendous accomplishments of our Airmen and civilians in their valiant defense of this country and its interests. It has been an honor and pleasure to serve as their Secretary while working side-by-side with General Moseley and the magnificent patriots serving in the Department of Defense and the United States Government to win today’s fight, take care of our people, and prepare for tomorrow’s challenges.

Recent events convince me that it is now time for a new leader to take the stick and for me to move on. Therefore I plan to tender my resignation to Secretary Gates. Even as I do, my heart, my thoughts, and prayers remain with America’s Airmen who will continue to do magnificent things for this great country.

Michael W. Wynne
Secretary of the Air Force

——————————-

PRESS RELEASE — Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Public Affairs

Release No. 020608
June 5,2008

Chief of Staff United States Air Force Resigns

Washington, DC - Recent events have highlighted a loss of focus on certain critical matters within the Air Force. As the Air Force’s senior uniformed leader, I take full responsibility for events which have hurt the Air Force’s reputation or raised a question of every Airman’s commitment to our core values. For the past 36 years I have been privileged to serve my country as an Airman in the United States Air Force in peacetime and combat. I was honored and humbled to be appointed the Air Force’s 18th Chief of Staff and have been proud to serve our Airmen and their families. Upon taking office, I worked hard with Secretary Wynne to ensure the Air Force provided the right forces at the right time to help our Nation and allies win the Global War on Terror.

I think the honorable thing to do is to step aside. After consulting with my family, I intend to submit my request for retirement to Secretary Gates. The Air Force is bigger than one Airman, and I have full confidence that the Air Force will continue working with the Joint team to win today’s fight, take care of its Airmen, and meet tomorrow’s challenges. I love the Air Force and remain proud of America’s Airmen.

T. Michael Moseley
Chief of Staff
United States Air Force

Now, I’ve always believed that a leader will share success and own failure; it appears that Wynne and Moseley are doing just that. What troubles me is the message subordinate Air Force leaders are passing down to the commands. The message (from at least the level of the numbered Air Force) is that Secretary Wynne and General Moseley “took one for the team” and paid the price because a “few Airmen let us down.”

WOW!

I couldn’t believe my ears! The Air Force as an organization failed in one of its primary missions: nuclear surety! One failure resulted in armed nuclear weapons being flown across the United States and no one was the wiser. I’m not sure people really understand the magnitude of this incident. The United States lost positive control of several nuclear weapons for an extended period of time. This incident was termed a “Bent Spear” which is a mechanism used to notify the public of significant nuclear weapons incidents other than nuclear weapons accidents or war risk detonations, actual or possible. This wasn’t the first time, either!

Another incident involved the Air Force inadvertently sending secret ballistic missile components to Taiwan. Instead of sending the batteries for helicopters ordered by the Taiwanese, we sent four fuses designed to trigger the Minuteman III ICBM. Nice!

As if that weren’t enough, the $50 million Thunderbird contract that was awarded to Air Force insiders over other competitive bidders was actually just one of many corrupt contracts awarded. The reason?

“The … violations occurred because contracting officials perceived that senior Air Force military officers and associated contractors had used the powers of their positions to impose their preference on the contracting officers to award the contracts to specific companies”

These issues demonstrate a systemic problem within the Air Force. Perhaps the result of the pace and stresses associated with the Global War on Terror, or perhaps it’s just simple complacency. But the fact remains that these failures aren’t the result of a “few Airmen” letting us down. The indicators were there for the senior leaders to see and piece together, and just as the Secretary of Defense said, these leaders failed to act. This is why Wynne and Moseley were asked for their resignations. It’s called accountability and I’m afraid the Air Force’s subordinate commanders just don’t get it!

Abstract

Approximately one million children are abused in the United States each year. The health care worker is in a position to help these children and have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to do so. In the American culture, child abuse is wrong and everyone, including the health care worker, has a moral obligation to report suspected child abuse. However, as a member of a professional society, health care workers are also bound by a code of ethics requiring them to act in the patient’s best interest. Finally, all states and territories have laws requiring certain professions to report suspected child abuse and the health care worker is among those with this legal mandate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Is there ever a moral justification for lying? No. I’m often criticized for being too black-and-white in my perceptions, but I cannot think of any instance when lying is justified. Even when my wife asks, “how do I look in this dress?” I’m compelled to tell the truth. If I think it isn’t flattering, I will tactfully tell her so, feeling that although she might not like hearing it, she would appreciate an honest answer. It is a matter of trust.

In business, as in one’s personal life, honesty–the truth–is sacred. To lie to an employer or an employee is to deny him or her the truth, even if the lie is told for the person’s benefit. For example, a manager who tells an employee he’s being let go due to cutbacks, when he’s really being fired for poor performance, is really being disrespectful to the employee by not telling him the truth behind his termination. Although he may sincerely be trying to guard the employee’s feelings, the manager fails to provide the employee with knowledge that could potentially preclude this situation from happening in the future.

Because telling the truth can be unpleasant, we sometimes resort to telling a “white lie”. Another example would be the employee who is asked to comment on a sales presentation his employer is going to provide to the board of directors. The employee, trying to be polite, tells his boss all is a-okay when the yellow letters against the slide’s red background is distracting and hard on the eyes. The employee’s white lie may make the employer feel better, but may not prevent his embarrassment in front of the company’s board.

If lying is wrong in one instance, it is wrong in any instance. Lying, regardless of one’s good intentions, is nothing more than a betrayal of trust between one person and another. Lying for any reason is a violation of the business ethics principles of ordinary decency and distributive justice. A person who lies, even to protect the feelings of another, is still a liar. If the lie is discovered, the person may never regain the trust of the other.

In the book, If Aristotle Ran General Motors, author Tom Morris writes, “Truth is just that mapping of reality that corresponds to the way things are.” I find this a very interesting concept and am in total agreement. Mr. Morris is basically saying that truth equals reality. Therefore, truth would be an absolute representation of fact. In this sense, truth gives meaning to and allows for the understanding of the object being considered. This statement is also consistent with correspondence theories, which attribute an existence to objects whether or not those objects are being perceived or even thought about. This means truth is independent of and may conflict with perception.

In simplest terms, and in a physical sense, if I have a red ball, the fact that I’m colorblind and see its color as something other than red, doesn’t change the fact that the ball is red. The truth lies in the ball’s actual color, red, versus my perception of the ball’s color. Therefore, truth gives meaning to the knowledge one possesses of the ball’s actual color. Otherwise, my perception of the color of the ball would be reality.

The “perception is reality” or “what is true for you may not be true for me” philosophy denies truth and is the basic attitude of relativism. Relativism rejects the idea of universal truths and, instead, endorses that truth is only relative to the circumstances to which it is applied. For example, to properly understand the Holocaust, one must consider the beliefs and actions of the German government in a historical or cultural context. In this manner, depending on one’s point-of-view, the senseless killing of thousands of Jews could be considered justified and therefore a true action.

In the working environment, relativism would likely foster an environment of anything goes. Because almost any action can be justified based on one’s perception of a situation, relativism undermines morality. If I believe it is wrong to lie, I just as easily could believe that lying is right, no matter what the circumstances.

If the principle objective of business is to maximize long-term owner value, then anything I do that contributes to that end could be considered right. For example, if an EPA inspector is going to shut down a chemical manufacturing plant for unsafe practices and the forced shut-down is expected to have a negative effect on the maximization of long-term owner value, then the plant manager could be justified in murdering the EPA inspector. I realize this is an extreme example, but it follows the principle of relativism. After all, for a relativist to condemn this action, he would have to consider the act of murder to be fundamentally wrong. This implies a moral absolute that is contrary to the relativist philosophy.

Another, and more realistic, example would be in the area of negotiation. If the rightness of a person’s bargaining position is relative to that individual’s perception of rightness, then it only follows that everyone at the bargaining table is right. The contradiction in this situation is evident when the goal of negotiation is to reach an agreement. If all positions are equally right, they are just as well equally wrong. How could agreement be reached?

The relativist premise, what’s true for you may not be true for me, in the work environment, infuses a severe subjectivity into every aspect of business operation. If what is true to me is false to you, then what is true to you is false to me. Since this philosophy doesn’t recognize anything as absolute, nothing can be considered true. If there is no universal truth, there is no reality.

Most people involved in business, from the CEO of a large corporation to the assembly line worker, will eventually face an ethical dilemma. Although the breadth of responsibility for some business members is much broader than others, all have a responsibility to stakeholders. Because everyone within the business entity can potentially impact the business stakeholders, everyone should fully understand and practice sound business ethics all the time.

Consider the Firestone tire recall of 2000. This was a recall of over 14.5 million tires at a cost of more than 3 billion dollars. The tires had been manufactured at a plant in Decatur, IL, and had defects that resulted in tread separations and rollover accidents. The ethical dilemma for business leadership in this case would be between profit loss and consumer safety. To initiate a recall the tire manufacturer would probably consider the cost of the recall versus the cost of litigation. The lesser of the two would determine the company’s course of action. On the surface, this doesn’t sound very ethical, but from a practical standpoint, it may be. For a tire, there is an acceptable rate of defect and if the harm caused by these defects is within that range, it’s considered ethical to refrain from a product recall. This doesn’t mean the company keeps the information secret or initiates a cover-up. It simply doesn’t undertake what it considers is an unnecessary action. In this respect, one can easily understand the manager’s ethical dilemma and why it’s important to understand and practice sound business ethics. But what of the employee on the assembly line?

The Firestone employee at the Decatur, IL, plant is engaged in the actual manufacture of the tire. Perhaps this employee has been working the job for several months when he discovers that he has been performing a function incorrectly. This inadvertent mistake resulted in a tire defect that could lead to a tread separation. Should the employee inform management of his error and place his job at risk or should he keep quiet, simply make the process correction and eliminate the error. The potential repercussion of his silence would be harm to the consumer and the potential repercussion of his informing on himself would be a recall of the affected tires and his firing or reprimand. How the employee responds to this ethical dilemma could mean serious injury or death to consumers or severe profit loss to his employer in the form of a product recall and ultimately, the termination of his employment. How does the employee determine the right course of action?

An organization should encourage all employees to understand and practice sound business ethics. Incorporation of ethics into the business culture will ensure personnel at all levels make the rightdecision when faced with ethical dilemmas. The Firestone employee who brings his error to the attention of his employers has resolved his ethical dilemma with the right choice. How the employer responds to this information represents his own ethical dilemma and is an indication of the business ethical culture.

I believe the market should determine the level of employee compensation. An employer is interested in hiring an employee at the lowest possible cost. Conversely, the employee is interested in obtaining employment at the highest possible wage. This conflict results in an equilibrium wage being paid to employees by employers. Basically, the scales would balance.

Consider the manager of a fast food restaurant. In the absence of a minimum wage policy established by the government, the manager could offer workers any amount he or she sees fit. Let’s assume the manager offers $4.00 per hour to workers in a market where the average hourly wage was $5.00 per hour. He may be able to fully staff his restaurant, but his employees would likely resign their positions at the first opportunity of new employment for better pay. This high level of employee turnover would have a tremendous negative impact on his business. He would soon be forced to pay a higher wage in order to retain workers. Therefore, all fast food restaurants in a given market would essentially be forced pay the same basic wage.

The market would ensure the employees are treated with fairness and honesty because for the manager, turnover means money. The market would also satisfy distributive justice concerns. Fast food managers would be paying the same basic wage determined by the market they’re in. This would also apply to leadership positions within the restaurants, like assistant manager or shift leader. The manager who is interested in expanding or simply having a day off will need to delegate some managerial responsibility. To do so, he would train one or more of his employees to perform those duties. In order to keep these middle managers, the manager would be forced to pay a competitive wage. Should he fail to do so, his workers would likely take their new training and find employment elsewhere. In this respect, equals would be treated as equals both within the organization and across the given market.

I believe the market should determine the wage-rate for employees. Absent a minimum wage law, the market is a powerful driver and the laws of supply and demand will always result in equilibrium. This balanced scale would ensure the inviolate principle of distributive justice and encourage ordinary decency across the market. Managers who pay a fair market wage will, therefore contribute to maximizing long-term owner value.

Sleazy mortgage lenders lobbied their way out of increasing legal restrictions on high-risk subprime home loans. The biggest sleazes were Ameriquest Mortgage and their subsidiaries, who just settled a class action lawsuit in New York to the tune of over $325 million. The agreement requires Ameriquest to pay $295 million restitution to states divided into two separate funds: a $175 million fund to be distributed under a nationwide formula to most consumers who received an Ameriquest loan between Jan. 1, 1999 and April 1, 2003; and a $120 million fund to be divided among the states based on the volume of Ameriquest loans made in each state, to be distributed, at each state’­s discretion, to consumers who received an Ameriquest loan between Jan. 1, 1999 and Dec. 31, 2005.

The attorneys general from Iowa, California, Illinois, and Washington joined the New York Attorney General’s office in the investigation of Ameriquest. This multistate effort revealed that Ameriquest used predatory and illegal lending practices to entice home owners into refinancing. Ameriquest’s activities included misrepresenting and failing to disclose loan terms, charging excessive loan origination fees, and inflating appraisals to qualify borrowers for loans. As a result, many of these home owners were facing foreclosure.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, said

“As homeowners throughout the state and the country grapple with the fallout from subprime mortgages we must do all we can to soften the blow, the Ameriquest settlement demonstrates why strong state enforcement to combat predatory lending practices is crucial to protecting consumers. The financial relief provided through this settlement will help borrowers defray the price of these costly loans.”

This sentiment was echoed by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo:

“Through their aggressive use of deceptive and predatory lending practices, Ameriquest both exploited borrowers and contributed to today’­s staggering crisis in the mortgage industry…” “These funds will help undo the damage that Ameriquest caused to thousands of New Yorkers.

I couldn’t agree more, but let’s not forget that state lawmakers foresaw this crisis and not only failed to prevent it, but in my opinion were culpable in its outcome. State legislators fueled this mess by selling-out to lobbyists instead of protecting their constituency. I hope voters will remember this at the polls.

President Bush will soon announce a plan to help homeowners amid this sub-prime mortgage debacle. Once again our government demonstrates that individual responsibility isn’t important by rewarding people who make bad (or risky) decisions. The plan will likely involve temporarily freezing low, introductory mortgage rates, that would otherwise jump higher in the next few years. This intervention is expected to stave the rising number of foreclosures and save the economy from recession (in an election year).

$362 billion in U.S. subprime home mortgages with adjustable interest rates are due to reset at potentially higher rates in the coming year

Part of the reason for the mortgage crisis is the way homes are financed. Long gone are the days of bank and borrower, today’s home loans are bundled together and sold to investors as securities. This ties the hands of lenders who might like to help borrowers in need because they no longer control the loan.

According to Bank of America Securities, as much as $362 billion in U.S. subprime home mortgages with adjustable interest rates are due to reset at potentially higher rates in 2008, risking a wave of defaults by borrowers unable to afford the new monthly payments. That in turn could lead to a wave of write-offs by investors who now own those mortgages. The losses tied to bad mortgages have already reached the tens of billions of dollars and has had a tumultuous effect on the world’s financial markets.

Furthermore, to help one segment of the population, ultimately hurts another. Bush’s plan may help homeowners, but what of the investors? Freezing interest rates for homeowners is, in essence, cheating investors out of their money. Why is this okay?

So what’s the problem? The problem is that no one is held accountable for the decisions they make. I believe the government should not intervene and let the markets correct themselves. Yes, many may find themselves in financial straits for a time, but their situation is a result of a decision freely made. The President’s plan amounts to charity and is not the responsibility of government.

Ayn Rand said,

America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance–and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.

What she says is right…America wasn’t founded on the principles of democracy and altruism. It was a collection of individuals forging a living for themselves that ultimately resulted in the birth of our nation: our republic. We’re now so deeply entrenched in democracy that the ultimate minority, the individual, will never again be heard. This is a sad state of affairs and will ultimately result in America’s demise.

Altruism is not a responsibility. The adage, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” presumes that the greater served is the greater good. This kind of thinking ties people to support systems and inhibits growth. To help one’s neighbor is a choice made by an individual, but is not a responsibility of that individual. Should the individual choose not to help his neighbor, he should not feel guilt, nor should he suffer condemnation.

Insider trading is the buying or selling of securities by someone who has access to information that isn’t available to the public. The problem with insider trading is one of fairness. It is unfair to other investors if someone uses inside information to gain an advantage. An individual can use inside information to gain an advantage for himself or he could tip-off someone else. An individual can tip-off someone in one of two ways: purposefully (i.e. he tells someone directly) or incidentally (i.e. an outsider overhears a conversation between the insider and someone else). This means that insider trading isn’t isolated to company executives and upper management; brokers, family members, friends or a company’s employees can become insiders This doesn’t mean that an insider can’t trade his company’s securities; he can, but the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has very strict rules concerning these trades and watches them very closely.

So, is insider trading unethical? I believe that for insider trading to be unethical, the trader must have a fiduciary responsibility to the organization he is trading in. In this respect, fiduciary responsibility makes one the caretaker of another’s rights or assets. The fiduciary has an obligation to carry out his responsibility in good faith and honesty, with integrity and loyalty to the interests of the organization. This good faith imposes an ethical obligation for the fiduciary to protect the organization’s interest to the exclusion of anyone else’s interests, including his own.

For example, an executive officer of a pharmaceutical company, who learns that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is about to announce the disapproval of his company’s experimental cancer drug, and subsequently sells his stock, is betraying a fiduciary trust. He is using inside information to gain an advantage over other shareholders. This act could have a negative effect on long-term owner value in that shareholders could lose faith in the organization and the management’s integrity. He is also violating the principle of ordinary decency by failing to deal fairly and honestly with shareholders.

What if the executive’s son, who is also a shareholder, overhears his father discussing the FDA disapproval with another insider, and subsequently sells his shares? Does this present an ethical dilemma and if so, for whom? Does the son have a fiduciary responsibility to the organization his father works for? No, he doesn’t. Does the son have a fiduciary responsibility to his father? Again, the answer is no. So, although the SEC would consider the act illegal, I don’t feel the son would be acting unethically. But what of the father’s disclosure of inside information to his son, is this unethical? I believe it is. After all, the father does have a fiduciary responsibility to the company and his disclosure of inside information, inadvertent or not, betrays his organization’s trust. The result of this disclosure is no different than the executive capitalizing on this information and selling his own shares.

I believe the presence of fiduciary responsibility is the determining factor of the ethics of insider trading. Insider trading is unethical if the trader has a fiduciary responsibility to an organization and uses inside information to gain advantage over others. This betrayal of trust fails to maximize long-term owner value and violates the principles of ordinary decency and distributive justice.

The differing interests between business and its stakeholders create many ethical conflicts. The conflict that arises as managers make determinations on what is best for business and what is best for stakeholders can also result in more than just a moral dilemma. Managers also face many legal and regulatory mandates as well. In resolving these conflicts, managers must often balance the ideal solution with a practical one. The cost of making the wrong decision can have a disastrous effect on business as managers weigh the need to make a profit against the need for honesty in business practices. How the manager makes decisions in light of this conflict is a question of business goals and ethical conduct.

According to Dr. Elaine Sternberg, in her book, Just Business: Business Ethics in Action, the purpose of business is to “maximize long-term owner value by selling goods and services.” She explains that long-term owner value represents the one distinguishing characteristic of business. All other goals or purposes are “incidental insofar as they contribute to achievement of the definitive goal.” Therefore, a business that isn’t dedicated to the pursuit of long-term owner value cannot truly be considered a business. After all, a business that does not pursue long-term owner value will not remain a business very long. So, what is ethics?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word “ethic” as “a set of principles of right conduct.” Therefore to be ethical, one must adhere to a set of principles of right conduct. Boston University Professor Bordon Parker Bowne, stated,

The greatest need in ethics is the impartial and unselfish will to do right. With this will, most questions would settle themselves; and, without it, all theory is worthless. The selfish will is the greatest source not only of wars and fightings, but also of dishonest casuistry and tampering with truth and righteousness. One bent on doing wrong never lacks an excuse; and one seeking to do right can commonly find the way.

So ethical behavior is a choice: the will to do right. This suggests a conscious decision and conviction to focus on the rightness of decisions. This also implies the context in which decisions are made must be considered. In business, decisions are made in the context of maximizing long-term owner value. Therefore, the focus of business ethics is the determination of what is right in relation to maximizing long-term owner value.

The business has a responsibility to maximize long-term owner value. In this respect, the business is only concerned with its own self-interest. This “rules be damned” approach may actually have the opposite effect on long-term owner value. A business with the attitude of “profit at any cost” may ultimately fail because stakeholders will probably not have the same attitude toward the business. So, it’s important for the business to consider the repercussions of its decisions on stakeholders. The tenets of business ethics are to deal fairly and honestly with others and to treat equals as equals. The adherence to these tenets will assure the business attains its ultimate goal of maximizing long-term owner value while making the right decisions.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks…” In response to the release of this information, President Bush stated in a radio address from the White House Roosevelt Room that, “(t)his is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security.” The president has lashed out against government leaders for leaking this information and will address the country this evening to discuss Iraq and, I’m sure, this scandal.

The crux of the issue is not the constitutionality of the eavesdropping program (because the Patriot Act allows it), but whether or not the president has the authority to authorize it. I’m no lawyer, but the answer seems unmistakably simple: NO.

Title II, Section 201 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) of 2001, “grants authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism.” The law giving the muscle to this portion of the Patriot Act is 18USC2516(1), which states:

“The Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General, any acting Assistant Attorney General, or any Deputy Assistant Attorney General or acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division specially designated by the Attorney General, may authorize an application to a Federal judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with section 2518 of this chapter an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a Federal agency having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of…”

emphasis added

The authorization for this eavesdropping program must come from a Federal judge; there’s no provision allowing the president to act independently in this matter. I believe President Bush overstepped his authority and am interested to see what happens next. I also believe we’ve seen the end of the Patriot Act as it stands today.

As controversial as the Patriot Act was, I believed it was necessary to protect Americans against terrorists. There were checks and balances written into the act that sufficiently guarded individual liberty, but make no mistake, we gave up some of that liberty in the name of security. Recognizing the potential for abuse of power, I was willing to give the president some latitude in fighting the war on terror. I was wrong. To sacrifice liberty, even in the name of security, is wrong.

The House Committee on Governmental Reform has subpoenaed several baseball players and may soon call out baseball officials to answer questions on steroid use by players. Baseball is fighting the summons, and a lot of sports people are complaining that Congress has no business getting involved, and are simply grandstanding for votes. Maybe they are grandstanding, but how quickly we forget that baseball, “America’s Favorite Pastime” was granted an anti-trust exemption by Congress in the early 1900s. Perhaps Bud Selig and the owners should “play ball” with Congress because the anti-trust exemption certainly isn’t in the players (or fans) best interest. It’s Selig and the owners that have the most to loose should Congress decide that baseball isn’t “just a game” and is indeed a multi-billion dollar corporation and not worthy of this exemption.

Seven active or former players, including Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Jose Canseco, and four baseball executives, including Rob Manfred, executive vice president for labor relations in the commissioner’s office and players’ association head Donald Fehr, have been told to appear Thursday. Also subpoenaed were Rafael Palmeiro, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas and Jason Giambi. Canseco has asked for immunity so he can testify fully.

I’m no fan of government intervention, but I welcome these Congressional interviews. Only because MLB isn’t policing itself! If you think I’m crazy consider the penalties for steroid use:

• First positive test for steroid use would result in treatment
• Second positive: 15-day suspension or fine of up to $10,000.
• Third positive: 25-day suspension or fine of up to $25,000
• Fourth positive: a 50-day suspension or fine of up to $50,000
• Fifth positive: a one-year suspension or fine of up to $100,000

Of course, the suspensions would be without pay.

So what MLB is telling us is that the penalty for the first time caught knowingly “cheating” is counseling? The player has to be caught cheating five times before the organization considers suspending for a season??

And you’re telling me, the Giants are going to suspend someone like Bonds for a year? Gimmie-a-break! He’d be levied the fine and that would be it. Still, $100 thousand is a hefty sum of money, right? Considering Bonds earned $18 million in 2004, that so-called hefty fine represents just one-half of one percent (0.05%) of his income. Ouch!

Dick Pound, World Anti-Doping Agency chairman, slammed baseball’s testing system and scale of penalties for steroid use. Pound told the Associated Press, “I think it’s an insult to the fight against doping in sport, an insult to the intelligence of the American public and an insult to the game itself.”

To put this in perspective, under the Anti-Doping Agency’s code, which has been adopted by most Olympic sports, an athlete faces a minimum two-year ban for a first positive steroid test and a life ban for a second.

Now, let’s see if I can get this straight…

Jose Canseco retires and writes a book. In this book he states that he used steroids and estimates that 85 percent of players do. Ken Caminiti has also admitted to using steroids. So far, these are the only two who have admitted knowingly using performance-enhancing drugs. But recent drug testing revealed 5-7 percent of major league players popped positive for steroids. Incidentally, this test included pitchers who do not benefit from steroids, so the percentages are probably larger for the big hitters, and this test was conducted after the anti-steroid policy was announced in 2003.

And what about Barry Bonds? Who denied using steroids, but during his grand jury testimony in the 2003 BALCO steroid distribution case, he admitted using a clear substance and a cream given to him by a trainer. He reportedly said he didn’t know they were steroids. (BALCO owner Victor Conte was indicted for illegal steroid distribution). Bonds was also said to have received human growth hormone, a very powerful steroid that can’t be distributed without a prescription. Still he categorically denies knowingly using steroids.

So, does Bonds use steroids? I think the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. After all, Barry Bonds became a client of BALCO in late 2000. Since becoming a BALCO client, he gained 20 pounds of muscle, and his performance soared. He jumped from 46 homers to 73 at age 36, and his win shares jumped from 32 to 54 from 2000 to 2001. He has won the MVP every year since, at ages 36-38. According to Stats, Inc. he had never hit a homer over 450 feet before then, whereas he has now done it 21 times. And who says your performance diminishes as you get older?

Truth be told, except for Canseco and Caminiti, we don’t know who uses or has used steroids. What if we find out that Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire use them? How will it affect their records? Will their records be revoked? What about the fans? What about the kids who look up to the Sosas and McGwires? What message do these players send to them? If you cheat, you’ll get your name in the record books or better yet, the “Hall of Fame” in Cooperstown!

Shame on them!

The tsunamis that slammed Indonesia last month saw over 120 thousand dead (with figures expected to exceed 150 thousand) and over 5 million homeless. In the wake of this disaster, the USA is branded “stingy” by the UN and although this comment was seemingly taken out of context, President Bush went on the defensive justifying America’s generosity…and even upping the ante. But should we?

I don’t think the United States government should give anything. Yep, zip, nada, nothing, a big fat goose-egg in monetary aid. The money our government is pledging is ours–yours and mine. Its our tax dollars. The money we provide our elected officials to govern our nation. To provide for our common defense, etc. Our government should have no more money in reserve than it requires to carry out the functions of government. Our government doesn’t have the right, nor the authority granted by the Constitution to provide this charity.

During a congressional session, a young member of the House of Representatives named Davy Crockett espoused the same sentiment. His speech (as published in The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward Sylvester Ellis, 1884) was to cite opposition to a bill that would have apportioned money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. During this short speech, Congressman Crockett stated,

“…we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity.”

“Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.”

Crockett went on to remind everyone that,

“…we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

Not one of the assembled mass responded to his offer!

Davy Crockett’s words ring true today! As I said, it isn’t the responsibility of the United States government to provide monetary aid–this charity–to the tsunami victims, it’s the responsibility of the citizens of the United States! My wife and I have offered a personal donation for the tsunami victims’ relief and we challenge you too give as well! The amount isn’t important…imagine if everyone in the United States donated just five percent of one week’s wages! It would far exceed the 350 million dollars our government has pledged!

I’d be interested to know if the folks who criticized the United States–including its own citizens–made a pledge of their own. I would venture to say, most didn’t. So ask yourself, “Is the American government stingy, or is it the American people?”