Thursday, December 10, 2009

Hickory Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Hearn, and Failure

I have just read one of the most amazing statement I have ever seen in my entire life. Mr. Daniel Hearn, President and CEO of the Catawba County Chamber of Commerce, made it in the December, 2009 issue of “Hickory Living” in the column called “Inside the Chamber”.

In an article titled “Campaign for Free Enterprise”, Mr. Hearn stated that “Government . . . cannot compete in the private sector in such areas as health care, for one simple reason. In order for free enterprise and competition to work, there must be the potential for failure.”

My immediate response would come as a question to Mr. Hearn asking him which part of his own health care plan would he like to see subject to failure. Particularly since many Americans have seen their health care plan fail when they were diagnosed with serious illness, or suffered serious injury. And when you do name that part of the American health care plan you would like to see subject to failure, Mr. Hearn, please pick a part of it which has not yet already failed.

While we are at it, I would like for Mr. Hearn to also describe which part of his own retirement plan he would like to see subject to failing, particularly after he had paid into it for forty or so years, like many Americans have experienced with their own retirement plans in the past three or four years.

Mr. Hearn elaborates on his statement by claiming that if a company has no possibility of failure, “ . . . then why would you worry about providing he best quality, service and cost for that product of service?” Obviously he has not noticed that when the big businesses failures of 2009 occurred, it was the “owners” of the companies who found themselves with suddenly worthless stock, while the management floated away on golden balloons.

I think Mr. Hearn has just shown the most compelling reason why the United States Government must control the people’s health care and retirement systems. If anything in any country is too big or too important to fail, then it must be the protection of the health and well-being of its workforce.

Saturday, December 05, 2009

Tiger Woods Has Company in High Places

Always amazing that another great man, who appears to have everything that any man could ever desire, would fall victim to a series of sexual liaisons.

Words are slowly bubbling up and floating out across the networks that Tiger has always been a bit coarse with his language and had seemed discourteous to a number of people in the past. Those bubbles could never sail in the presence of his perfect aura - but once that is dinged, then those images begin to fit into place in the new puzzle we find before us.

The work of the National Inquirer, that media counterpart to the earthworms and vultures of nature, pays off again and it has found another one and pulled it out of the mud.

And so what? What business is it of ours that Tiger Woods screwed up? Spitzer, and Edwards and Sanford and Ensign and Baucus and Clinton (Bill), and all those countless others were different. They had taken oaths to enforce the nation’s laws. They presented themselves as candidates for offices of great worth. They sought and still seek the spotlight, they support transparency, they propound family values and present themselves as honest, trustworthy, reliable caretakers of our great values. We need to know about the personal integrity of these officeholders, but what about Tiger?

Tiger Wood’s problem is that he has come - through CONSIDERABLE effort on his own part - to present himself as one of the great role models of all time. Not just for the average golfers either, the guys who are in their twenties, thirties and beyond, but for their children and for kids in general. Fathers have pointed out Tiger Woods to their children. “You too can be like Tiger, someday.” The moral they learn is that if we work hard and learn, and do things right, we can all be like Tiger, and you can too! You can be just like Tiger is. Now what do these fathers say?

Tiger Woods also was a great participant in a significant breaking of a part of that old thing we used to call the “color barrier”. There were some things that black people just couldn’t do. Golf was one of them. Woods smashed that old concept to regions far beyond Pluto. A LOT of people, many, many of them who were white, took great pride in that, and were proud of Woods. And Tiger was such a fine man too, a wonderful role model again. And again, the role model part was played well and embellished by Woods.

One more thing. Sports itself seems to have fallen into the black hole of capitalistic commercialism. Drugs, money, advertising, testimonials and hype seem to fuel all the sports we have, reminding us all that the word "sport" has two definitions. One definition concerns the display of skill and ability, the other refers to making fun of something, to jest, to fool. So now Tiger has shown that he is making sport of us. He fools us, we pay him money, he fools us again. Then the fire hydrant appeared - or didn't appear - at least in time to avoid it.

So is it all about sex? I really don’t think so. I think it has to be a matter of power. These transgressors are people who see themselves as being beyond the masses. They can do things that “people” can’t do. Laws and values and such are for the ordinary folks. These immortals are well beyond that, at least in their own minds, and they can get away with anything because they are so good at what they do. Another thing. All these people have "protectors". These are the people who take care of the famous ones, they open the doors, make the phone calls, deliver alibis, and dispense smoke. They’re good too. But they’re not 100%, not 100% of the time.

What can Woods do now? Now that he has found that life itself is very like the game of golf in that it is also full of holes. Well, he has always been an example standing out there in the open waiting for followers to become part of his gallery. Let’s see if he has the ability to learn and play in this great new game that life has now laid out for him.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Jamie Leigh Jones, KBR, and Senator Burr

Jamie Leigh Jones volunteered in 2005, when she was 19 years old, to work for KBR in Iraq. To secure the position she was required by the company to sign an agreement that any issues she might have with the corporation would be referred to binding arbitration. Shortly after arriving in Iraq she was drugged, gang-raped and beaten by her coworkers at KBR. She suffered serious injuries to her breasts and genitals, and obvious mental trauma. The KBR employees who had assaulted her then prevented her from receiving medical care and kept her locked her in a shipping container for more than a day following the assault. She was told by KBR that if she left Iraq for medical treatment she would lose her job. KBR claimed her assault was part of the job and therefore required to be resolved by arbitration and she could not sue in court. It should be noted from the start that if Ms. Jones had been serving in the United States military she would have had the entire resources of the Universal Code of Military Justice at her service. If she had been simply "visiting" she would have had other options. But because she was an employee of an American corporation serving the Defense Department, that corporation claimed that by signing the contract with KBR she could be denied the constitutional rights of an American citizen.

After 15 months of arbitration, Jones and her lawyers did sue KBR in District Court and the court ruled that the Jones assault was not related to her employment and therefore not required to be settled under arbitration and her lawsuit can go forward.

While this hearing was proceeding, Senator Franken introduced an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill in November, 2009, providing that defense companies attempting to deny American citizens working for them their legal rights in American courts should be denied access to defense expenditures or any other payment from U. S. taxpayer funds. The measure passed 68 to 30. All 30 senators voting against the amendment were members of the Republican Party, Senator Burr being one of the thirty.

I called Senator Burr four times asking him to respond in writing to me about this vote. What did it mean to him, why did he cast it, and what was his intention?

On November 16, 2009, Senator Burr wrote to defend his vote, claiming the amendment unfairly discriminates against American corporations, because employment arbitration agreements can not cover claims involving personal injury, assault, etc. to begin with, therefore Ms. Jones could have brought action against her employer in federal court. The fact that KBR had blocked Ms. Jones attempt to do this for over a year was not discussed by Senator Burr.

Senator Burr also refers to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which he says allows the federal government to prosecute crimes committed by U.S. military contractors working overseas. Senator Burr does not comment however, why the federal government did NOT prosecute these crimes which were committed by U. S. military contractors working overseas - these crimes against an American citizen. Senator Burr can probably still take action to see that the federal government does prosecute these crimes committed by U. S. military contractors working overseas. I hope he will.

Personally, I can’t believe that Senator Burr really wants to place the interests of corporations over justice for rape victims, but I have to read his vote as stating that while he thinks rape is serious of course, and so are some other crimes, still they are not THAT important in this war which has already cost so many lives and run about a trillion dollars. He seems to me to be saying that KBR, in this case, is too important to fail, and maybe we should not make them mad.

But at that point in his letter, Senator Burr - to my mind - rests his case. My question to him now is the same as it was back in November: Why can KBR, by virtue of the fact that it is a major defense contractor, deny access of any American citizen to the federal justice system? I really think the full impact of Senator Franken’s amendment will not fall upon Ms. Jones, but upon other victims who have not had the courage or resources to come forward until now.

This type of action allegedly carried out by KBR is not dissimilar to the attack on the United States on 9-11. It too is terrorism. It too is an attack against American citizens by an organization which is opposed to American principles.

Senator Burr’s vote is also a form of terrorism, an attack against American citizens by an individual who is opposed to American principles. Shame on you Senator Burr, may the shame you have brought to America by this vote find its final resting place on your shoulders.