Thoughts on Death – A New Beginning

So, as noted on my Facebook post last night, I learned of the passing of my old college roommate and friend Jeffrey Soderberg yesterday morning.  I will not repeat all of that post here, except to say this is a man that was full of life; life in abundance, and I am glad to have known him.

This morning however, I have been mulling over the meaning of death for me both emotionally and spiritually and I feel the need to script it out to have a way to share some of this inward dialogue outwardly, especially for those that know me and wonder what goes on in that calcium chamber between my ears.

Let me begin with my first dramatic encounter with death.  When I was young, my parents, before I was aware, had adopted from my Aunt Carla and Uncle Bob in Bridgeport a male pet dog named Brandy.  From my own experience, I can say every boy ought to grow up with a dog (not trying to be gender exclusive, I just cannot speak to the other side).  Being the older brother, Brandy was often my playmate and run-around mate, at least as early as I remember, until my little brother was able to be a running buddy as well (Donald, born 3 years and 6 hours apart, thus sharing the same birthday, talk about superior family planning).  Well, after a time, this not so young dog ended up having some health issues, to the point that he burst a blood vessel in his ear.  My parents, after having paid for one surgery on the ear to correct the problem, were not in a position financially to do a second (Dad being a full time Industrial Arts teacher and summer/spare time contractor, and Mom being a stay at home mother, who worked for the teachers union part-time once we both were in school).  Thus, they opted to put Brandy down.  Timing, however, could not have been worse, as it was the day or two before my (our) Birthday; what a present.  Needless to say, I was a wreck, I remember bellowing and crying for a long while.  I was angry with my parents, blamed God for this, and thought that if I had only been able to be there I could have worked a miracle (being the son of a modern day carpenter, albeit not Jewish, did occasionally give me illusions of grandeur).

Once I had this torrent of emotion subside, I do not recall how I came around.  I do recall the sullen celebration of my (our) Birthday that year and I do remember that not too long after this (a year or so, if I recall correctly), my Great-Grandmother Backus passed on, causing much family in-fighting, which seems how the Backus’ best celebrate the passing of the family matriarch.  But I do know that this is the last time that I became emotionally wrought with the pain of loss to the point of having tears flow in rivers.  Something in me changed, and I think it really had to do with my outlook on death, that it wasn’t the end, and I needed to get on past my selfishness regarding holding onto a tangible notion of life.  Many of my spiritual and emotional growth points, I owe to maxims taught to me by my mother.  For those that don’t know her, she is an intelligent woman, with a large heart, one that sometimes gets her in trouble.  However, she also is a woman of faith, in its core a simple faith, informed well by being a Lutheran Christian, but really more universal than that.  She will tell you plainly, “God is love;” not even contextualizing that this comes as a direct quotation from John’s letters.  In this case, she really believes that everyone goes to heaven, and from there, they that pass, are active in our lives speaking to us and guiding us.  Again, this is not a nuanced or systematic statement of believe, but more of a heartfelt purposely naive maxim of truth for her, and one she passed to me (I will refrain here from going further in my current reflections on this, but see more on this at the end of this post).  But this leads me to the next death experience that has gotten me where I am.

Some years later, when I was in High School, another family death occurred that called us to Long Island, NY for a gathering of the Seaberg clan, my mother’s side of the family.  My Uncle Alan Seaberg had passed on at an age much younger than most would call standard, and being a contemporary (10 or so years older, but no more I think) of my parents, it was oft said that he had gone too early.  This is memorable to me for a lot of reasons.

Alan was a very wealthy self-made man.  His wife, my Aunt Martha, and he had built up the family business from what had been a small immigrant machinery company, to a firm that was building machines and components to feed the growing factories in Japan, China, and throughout the world.  Alan was actually my Mom’s first cousin, being the son of her father’s brother.  Both my Mom and he were first generation Americans, being that my grandparents and siblings all had emigrated from Sweden in the 1920s to the 1940s, seeking a better life for them and their eventual children.  My mother says that my grandfather Carl and his brother Victor worked to help build Holland Tunnel in NY, and were men of their hands.  Victor, Alan’s father, was a machinist, and it is for that reason that the Seaberg Precision Corp, machine company was to be, what it became.  All this history being good, it only begins to describe my Uncle.

Alan, even though he was a multi-millionaire (in a time before billionaires), didn’t carry himself as being one so much as I could tell.  Sure he had a big house in Middle Island, Long Island, NY, with an awesome pool, an old horse farm barn and track, a private pond on his property and lots of toys (adult (e.g a gun or two) and otherwise) to play with.  Nevertheless, he never held himself better than others, nor did he take care to pinch pennies, especially with family.  He had talented kids; one is now a professional musician and, another, an artist.  Moreover, he was a great cheerleader for whatever it was we were passionate about (I even recall him giving my Dad some sage advice about getting out there and expanding his business).  Therefore, when he passed in his late 40s, I can recall the outpouring of love to the family and for him that was shown.  But I also recall, that I never cried.

When he passed, albeit early by many measures, I reflected that his temporal work was done.  I am convinced that Alan was taken from us in bodily form, only because his earthly work was complete.  Not that his efforts were complete in the sense of being done and ready to ship out to the next customer, but that he, like my friend Jeff, had touched so many lives in such a way as to never truly die, instead God has called them home to do other work and to empower other actions.  I can tell you for my own part there is a specific portion of me that continues to emulate and follow in his footsteps.  As I indicated, he was a generous man, especially with family (trust me, his lobster barbeques are still recalled with much admiration).  To this end, while not being of his means, I give as generously as I can, to my church, and especially within the family.  Luckily, my wife is very much of the same mind, and we have had the privilege of being able to host her brothers here at our home in the DC area for large stretches of time, which I continue to see as a greater gift to us, than to them, in many ways.  This gets me to my next confrontations with death.

As can be told by the time spent on them, these two passings probably had the most impact on my life.  But I have had others that have taught me lessons that really extend beyond these primary experiences.  One was the passing of my grandmother Harriet Hall (formerly Backus).  Born in the Depression era, having lost her first husband, my natural grandfather (when my Dad was a pre-teen), she raised two boys, became a known local English and French teacher (so much so that my HS Junior year English teacher came to her funeral and recalled to me how much she had learned and tried to pass on from her) and Librarian, and eventually remarried a gentle, honest man, Stuart Hall.  Having survived both of her husbands, she eventually suffered a stroke that slowly sapped the life out of her.  My father, being the primary actor in her later years, carried the immense stress of not just dealing with her various legal and financial matters but coalescing things to the point of a decision that her time was done.  As she passed and understood all that was going on (her mind was keen, even if weakened by the strokes), it was in her rest that we saw again that gleam that was a hard fought life.  So I learned in this that life isn’t simply breathing, and having a heart pumping physiologically, it is a spark, an essence, a soul that carries us forward; one that we should be very careful about trapping in the confines of the corporeal for our own selfish reasons.

Another, nugget came from the death of a student at Clarkson University in my senior year.  This student, Remmi, had succumbed to alcohol poisoning and passed on at a very young age.  I had only known him in passing, but knew of him in the sense that he was active in the social scene that was in Potsdam, NY.  While there are several facets I can discuss about this situation that can lead to a stigmatized conversation, I believe the lesson that I learned here, is that death can spur action and cement convictions.  For me this incident, this loss of life, was one that fits into the “could have been prevented” column.  However, in the larger sense, while perhaps true, his death has had life now as we contend with the issues that surrounded his passing and determine a path forward to address those issues in our society.  Again, for me, God has a reason for how things happen; this isn’t pure pessimism that we can’t control our own destiny, but it does say that we are given the tools, abilities, and concepts to grapple with this world, and that, in death, we continue to be an active part of that grappling.

Finally, I cannot forget to cite my near death experiences and their effect on how I see the end of corporeal life.  As can be seen from the outset, I am a soldier, and I identify with that profession as much as I do of being an engineer.  Having had two combat tours to Iraq, I have had my brushes with my own mortality.  Sometimes (like the first instance) someone had to tell me we were shot at, and then deal with the possibility, other times (like when Paul Drezen pulled me to the ground during one artillery attack) it was utterly clear.  During the first year of the war, while phone privileges were limited, I made a point of calling Jackie, my wife, before I would “drive across town” (a.k.a. convoy across Baghdad and its environs) to let her know I was alive, and try to call her as soon as I got back (having done several dozen such missions, this wasn’t always possible).  My combat experience has taught me several things about death in this light.

First, we should not try to go out and get ourselves killed, but the randomness of violence in war, makes this possibility very real.  Thus, I am not about to hide on the FOB (Forward Operating Base, as those on my second tour can attest) because we cannot possibly win the war from the FOB (we have to engage with the population and grapple with the enemy), but I am also not going to just jump at the chance to run out and commit suicide.  While I know there is a providential nature to death, and life goes on well beyond the grave, we have a responsibility to do the work we are called to do, through the hazards taking the precautions that are reasonable to the task.

Second, we should assure that we have a plan so that the temporal nature of things does not become the burden for those around us in our passing.  The Army has taught me to have a battle book for the spouse when I leave, and we do that.  She has all of the key info, so if the worst happens, she knows how to contend with the legal, financial, and other aspects, and there is plenty there to do what needs to be done (and even if she can’t, there is a tool that can help another do it with/for her).

Lastly, we need to get our priorities straight in life.  Once you have had these kinds of experiences, certain things in life change.  Somehow, the excitement over inconsequential minutia fades into nothing, and the desire to spend time with loved ones and engage in passions that you have become more critical.  Answering one last email becomes so less important than being there for your wife’s surgery from beginning to end.  Stress and how you deal with it changes, and I know that your reliance on others, and especially something greater than yourself, becomes critically important.  This all enables you to see death in a very different light.

Closing out, I want to get back to the maxims that my Mom spoke, less in wisdom and more in blind faith, as a child.  “Everyone goes to heaven.”  Again, this is simple and profound.  As I have grown and experienced, the more and more I get back to this myself.  Years of study of church theology, especially Lutheran and Catholic fathers, as well as the Bible, reveals a dividing line between the damned and the saved, but this line is as fuzzy as it is defined.  The truth that all are saved who believe in Christ Jesus, and his is the only road, is not to be denied by me, as this is my belief.  Nevertheless, what is Christ Jesus and further what “belief in” means, these are ageless questions.  A fellow soldier once described God as if he were a full sized statue in a rotunda.  From each angle, you get a different view, yet not complete and yet still the same God.  Therefore, for Christians, God looks like a Jewish carpenter from Nazareth, for Muslims he is Allah, for Buddhists he is enlightenment, yet the same statue.  I am not one to say relativism is right, and I am not trying to contend that there are not real differences between faiths, but there are kernels of universal faith that exist throughout (e.g. as St. Paul says, “[t]hat piece of Christ that passes all understanding …”), and thus, “everyone goes to heaven” isn’t entirely without theological basis.  Another: “God is love.”  Not being a Christian Scientist, but having two adoptive grandparents who were, I am highly appreciative of Mary Baker Eddy’s exploration of the love chapter in Corinthians.  She takes the word “Love” in this chapter, and replaces it with “Faith”, and then “Hope” and then, finally “God” (e.g. God is patient, God is kind, …).  While on a whole of scripture perspective this beautiful rendition of this favorite chapter cannot be taken literally in every aspect (e.g. “God does not anger, …” would be refuted in the Old Testament through such examples of his anger with Moses or with Abraham), it does reveal something about the divine.  It says that you can bank on “God is love,” as being your cornerstone.  He is one with creation, and therefore creation is love.  He is one with our hearts, thus we are loved.  He is the great parent, and he loves us in the same way.  And if you take that beyond the temporal example, we recognize that a God that loves, loves us so much that we can die and yet live.  When someone dies, it is my love for him or her that continues forever to speak to me.  So in reflection, part of me continues to believe that death is not the end, mainly because how can my love ever end?

As Jeff is the latest person to be called home that I know, I again am not saddened as much as resolute.  I know he has done his work, it is not how I would have thought his life would have ended, but I know it was not without meaning.  I am not sure what I will take away from this experience, but I am convinced it is not the end, but another beginning, one that will not end, at least in the way we can comprehend.

Thoughts on Economic Growth

I meant to post this earlier this week, but didn’t get to it until today.  Earlier this week, James Stewart, a fellow member of Omega Lambda Tau Social Society (a co-ed Greek organization that I helped found at Clarkson University) shot out a note about Warren buffets recent opinion piece on “Coddling the Rich”.  James is an unabashed conservative thinker, especially in regards to economics, and after my response to his tweet, he threw out the following:

“As a thought exercise, what policies would lead to a larger middle class while not increasing the number of poor or rich?”

My response follows, addressed to him directly, but I think worth sticking up here as a post.

Stew,

Thanks for the spelling help.  Good question and one I wish we would focus on.  Here are my suggestions, which are not all complete, but some are stabs that can help or concepts to start with that can be fleshed out:

1)      Lower the Corporate Income Tax rate to circa 15% or so, or at least drop it to a point that it makes it competitive with other major industrialized countries.  Rational:  We need to encourage business growth, within corporations not sidelining monies to offshore or other non-US locals, to keep investments domestic.  When tied with my other ideas, the concept is to not pay out dividends, but grow business and markets with the goal of increasing exports in the long term.

2)      Segment and split capital gains taxes.  For instance, I would increase capital gains taxes on payout of dividends, but drop or moderate them on the gains made on the trading of securities.  Likewise, I would lower the rate on real estate transactions, so that is becomes attractive to invest again in real estate.  Right now we are painting capital gains with a wide brush, and this needs to be looked at carefully.  The goals we need to have are to allow business to grow, but not pay out huge dividends to those that hold the securities and, rather, encourage them to reinvest in either that company or other emerging companies (thus expanding capital venture options).  Likewise, we need to jump start our real estate market by making it attractive to make gains that derive from that market.

3)      Alter the progressive tax code to add at least two more tiers at 500K and 1M, and cap the amount that can be offset by donations (and this shouldn’t be minute, but also not too large an amount (a.k.a. circa $250-500K)).  Individuals holding wealth does not breed more wealth, it stuffs it under the mattress.  The goal ought to be to discourage holding sizable personal income, but instead invest that money in businesses (see above) and look to derive gains from sources that spawn more wealth.  I support progressive personal income taxation, as there is a distinct opportunity benefit derived in this economy/this system from one being able to incorporate and “make it” based on your own merits with relatively limited interference/control by the government in your endeavor, and those that benefit the most have gained a disproportionate amount of that benefit.  This is antithetical in some circles, but I would also indicate that if we allow individual incomes (please make note I am not talking about corporations) to climb and concentrate in a few hands, in a near-fixed wealth environment/resource constrained world, then there will be less that have the means to buy the products and services that are produced, thus decaying the ability to generate wealth through the creation of said goods and services.  In other words, having a group to sell your goods to that has the means to buy them, enriches the seller, and, if reinvested, creates more buyers to sell to and further enrich.  This is not socialistic, it is precisely why and how Henry Ford was successful.  He made a car that his line worker could afford and paid wages to them that enabled them to pay for the cars made, building a working class, enriching Ford Motors, and, honestly, having a drastic effect on the macro-economy as a result.

4)      Preserve the home mortgage interest deduction for your primary residence and up to one other property.  The value of this deduction, however, would have to modulated and caped at the median rate of the cost of homes in the geographic area you live in.  Ergo, if you have a house at medium value for the area you live in, you get the full deduction for the interest payed.  If however, your home is 25% above that median value, then your deduction is on the interest paid is reduced by 25% (so a house at double the value of the median price in that market would not get a deduction on the interest paid).  Simply this allows a double investment in real estate, to help spur that market, but controls the market from over building, especially at the high-end, by keeping housing values somewhat homogenous as the value of the benefit decreases.  This helps grow the middle by encouraging home ownership, but also not outpacing the growth in housing values with income.  The measure of assessed value would need to be looked at, but given that almost all jurisdictions do some sort of assessment, it could be the full value assessment of your local municipality as the basis.  Lastly, this helps elsewhere, by allowing a second deduction, to enable rental properties to be available and attractive, thus giving a stepping stone and method to buy-in.

5)      Remove targeted tax breaks unless they support investment in infrastructure or commercial competitiveness that is already in evidence and creates domestic jobs.  I support an infrastructure bank concept (e.g. tax outgoing transfers of capital from the country to enable the building of revenue to put into infrastructure here at home) and short term, up to a threshold, assistant breaks in federal taxation for specific technological or market innovations that employ people here at home.  Infrastructure is a sunk cost to doing all of our business and also enables the commerce to flow, thus we need to invest and reinvest, constantly, in improving and rebuilding the fundamental pathways to do this (e.g. ports, rail, roads, electrical systems, networks, water, energy flows, damns).  Ideally, spend on infrastructure so that it is truly sustainable, not just environmentally, but socially, economically, and from a protective perspective.  Critical to this would be to convert our oil based transit systems to some other domestically available fuel (gas and electric) by developing programs and incentives to build natural gas stations to enable natural gas cars to take off, for instance (e.g. the Pickens Plan).  We need to kill things like long term oil tax breaks, or farm subsidies like we have today, that result either in gluts in markets (depressing prices and reducing jobs), or that are not in our best interest, long term, to invest in (e.g. oil infrastructure).

6)      Address long-term entitlements, specifically Social Security.  There needs to be several things put in place:  a) Means testing that says if you are able to support yourself over a certain floor you will have scaled back benefits to a certain ceiling.  The floor should be set at a level that accommodates a median income level within the geographical area of the person in question as compare to an active worker, and the ceiling would have to be at some percentage (say 25%) above that level.  The essence of this is that we should not be paying out social security to those that are socially secure.  b) recalibrate the full benefit age (for the old age portion of the benefit) for anyone that was born after 1975 to be 5 years earlier than the life expectancy for them at their 40^th birthday, and partial benefits at 3 years prior to that.  I have mentioned this before elsewhere, but the point is social security was not intended to be your retirement income, and at the time of its original passing life expectancies were much lower than today.  The goal ought to be to allow for a reasonable time for folks to terminate work and enjoy the end of their life, and have social security in doing so, but allowing folks to get 10 or more years of benefits is well beyond the original scope, or what we ought or can afford.  c) remove the cap on payments into Social Security over so much in income (I am not certain as to what the exact number is, but I think its circa $120K).  This program is to ensure that we don’t have to pay for other social welfare programs for the elderly/disabled when they are unable to earn anything on their own to support themselves.  Thus what is happening is that essentially everyone in society is hedging against having to derive other methods of taking care of the elderly and disabled by ensuring they have enough minimal income in order to support themselves.  Paying in dollar for dollar, accordingly should apply for all income levels and ranges, and not be regressive in requiring the income earned below a level to be taxed fully and above the cap not at all.  This will help with the long-term solvency.

7)      I would delve into the medical realm, but I don’t have concrete solutions to these problems, but they are problems that need to be addressed.  The problem is we have a belief socially that healthcare ought not be about the ability to pay for it, but available when we need it as a response to fundamental human needs.  But we also believe that healthcare is a service that is provided in an economic market that shouldn’t be exempted from supply and demand factors merely because of our compassion (however, we don’t want to acknowledge the cost, either, of the clean-up of bodies from streets from those unable to get healthcare).  I don’t see healthcare as a right, personally, but many do.  Much of this is from seeing how the other half of the world operates.  Until we can deal with the fact that we can’t afford to keep everyone alive forever, and get past saving life vice saving the quality of a life, we won’t solve this easily.  But, this needs some answers, and I am not sure repealing the Healthcare Law helps, nor keeping it as it is.  One last point, and I mean this sincerely on this issue and that of Social Security.  Our generation needs to get on board with the idea that neither Social Security or Medicare may be around when we need them (mainly because the supposed fixes have already been mortgaged).  Thus we need to understand that while we are going to pay a boat load for these programs, what the programs really end up being is a way for us to facilitate paying for our parents to grow old and pass-on, which we would otherwise have to pay out of our pockets, anyhow.

8)      Rethink the wisdom of defined contribution programs for American retirements.  The going trend, for many years, has been to go from defined benefit (traditional pensions) to defined contribution (401k and 403b) programs for retirements.  The challenge with this, long term, centers on the question of, is it wise to have the vast majority of Americans retirement security based on the whims of the market (bond, stock, or otherwise)?  The discussion on social security above, presumes that, like today, the majority of Americans have some sort of nest egg available to draw on when they retire beyond Social Security.  Given that the stock market is speculative, the bond market depends on the faith and credit of the institution that is borrowing, and that commodities (especially futures) can be highly erratic, putting more and more individual investors into a market they poorly understand, as a way to secure their future, creates an unwieldy situation where there aren’t strong enough economic poles that can steer the private economy away from a titanic crash.  I would submit, that there ought to be a look at creating a mix of social security, defined benefit programs and defined contributions, such that the capital markets have better direction in making investments rather than simple speculation as to the potential value increase in this or that security (or bond, or what-have-you).  It gets back to ensuring that we have some market control mechanisms, where fundamental business value trumps market value in decision making.  I believe that the old pension fund managers did well in this, as they had to get constant returns rather than speculative returns over time, and hence, defined benefit plans, while somewhat over generous in some cases, brought market stability, ergo enabled middle class growth through companies that had fundamental value rather than market value, per se.

9)      Fix immigration policy and re-look minimum wage laws.  I personally believe we ought to liberalize our immigration laws in the sense that if you are here illegally, you have no protection in the form of a minimum wage.  Honestly, we need folks that are cheap labor to compete with China, India, and so forth.  The artificial floor of the minimum wage is great, but only in so much as it is applicable to those that are citizens.  And lets be honest, are we saying that citizens really are going to want to compete with those that are willing to work for less the minimum wage (why pick fruit in California when you can supervise a crew doing it)?  Part of building a middle class up and growing it appropriately, is to spur economic activity at income levels below the minimum wage, so as to have ways to get more in the market to buy goods and services.  In the initial plug, this will add more to the “poor” side.  But as labor costs drop, companies can sell products cheaper (and overseas more readily), they can invest in increasing the worker base to get more produced, and workers are able to have a path upward to climb into the middle class as more cheap labor enters the market place below them.  There needs to be some careful analysis done in order to control the cost of:  a) housing folks so they don’t become a burden elsewhere; b) providing worker protections to not burden them health wise and from a moral obligation to not subjugate them to hazardous working conditions; c) the cost of potential criminality and, d) how to address the transition from illegal to legal, with some corresponding penalties that actually are not merely punitive, but enable the borders to be secured to better control the flow.

10)  Step back from national standards in education, and develop a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) educated pool.  Simply put, we need Clarkson grads and the like to get us going.  When we continue to churn out more English Lit and General Business Admin grads than Engineers and the like, we are going to loose our edge.  I suggest we create a program that gives States a pool of funds to get folks educated in STEM areas and provide start-up grants for entrepreneurs that come out of these pools to continue our innovation edge.  National testing and other prescriptive solutions in education hurt us, we need to be performance and outcomes based, and create incentives to not choose the easy History major over the harder Chemical Engineering degree.

11)  Repeal the 17^th Amendment.  By having state legislatures select Senators, it will modulate the federal government’s power to send unfunded and other mandates to the States, as well as provide stability to the federal legislature with regards to influences and lobbying (it would be at the state level, and actually make it more responsive to regional issues).  While seemingly un-democratic, this would actually take some of the power in Washington and deliver it to the States.  As it worked before, since Senators were sent by the legislators, they were not responsive, as much, to national lobbying efforts, because they were not beholden to popular support for their candidacy, thus didn’t need to spend as much to campaign (rather they had to curry favor with their state party reps in order to get sent to Washington).  As it is right now, the Federal Government runs roughshod on the States, and is only bound by the letter of the law, not the influence of vote.  States can then also have the power to better deal with local economic issues and be responsive to those needs with help from Washington instead of inapplicable mandates that cost States jobs.

12)  Pass a Line Item veto amendment to empower the President.  Likewise, repeal the current budget law and replace it with a budget law that budgets portions of the government for more than one year, while others are approved annually.  This way, budgets passed with deals for 10 years from now have to meet line item scrutiny and have to be lived with over several administrations.  It also forces us to live by our choices in the long and short term.  I really think that part of the government’s problem in its economic effect is that it is always planned a year out and everything is revisable.  This breeds instability, and consequently, minimizes investment in future efforts.

Again, these are ideas, and not necessarily fully fleshed out.  I think that each has merit, but each has consequences.  I tend towards Keynesian economic principles, but in the classical sense, not as described today (e.g. giving a tax break can spur economic activity, much as JFK did in the 60’s).  I also recognize what corporations and the private economy is critical to this, but I also think that government has a role to keep it within some bounds.  I think you can see here some ideas from both sides.

Yours,

Erik

Soldiers/Civilians and Mutual Respect

My friend and fellow fraternity brother, Brian Farenell (a member of the Glens Falls Writers Group) posted the following link earlier today on Facebook (please note that this wasn't a post authored by Brian nor did he comment on it, he simply provided the link as his Facebook status update), and I felt particularly inclined to reply to it:

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/17/sure_you_re_a_vet_but_that_doesn_t_mean_you_have_license_to_act_like_a_jerk

Brian and I don’t always see eye-to-eye on political issues, but like him, I appreciate thought provoking concepts and pieces written by others.  This one is especially poignant to both of us as it relates to how the military fits into larger society.  Here goes my reply:

Brian,

Thanks for the post.  I really agree with this author on principle (noting I am a vet myself).  As one who joined pre-9/11, I clearly have a sense that those that joined in the last 10 years have a very different mindset with regards to service than those already on duty that day.  Vets have gotten their lofty position in the American mindset, yes because of the reaction to the Vietnam vets, but also because of how Desert Shield/Storm vets dealt with their return and the model of such leaders as Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, humbly returning their sword.  American’s trust and laud veterans because of their humility and not only their prowess and power.  Soldiers who abuse their earned privileges to “except” themselves, are in error, and will likely result in a degradation of the privileges they currently enjoy.

I think, however, the Delta incident, is one that shouldn’t be pointed at as an example, precisely.  There is a difference between privileges granted and contractual obligations.  Delta is a contractor of the government and part of that contract is to provide a level of luggage service at no additional cost.  This was a screw-up on Delta’s part, and the company and its employees deserve, and have had, admonishment for it.  The part that I think the author gets right, is that making a video and trying to give Delta a bad-eye over the incident is not in keeping with our values.  I also think part of this is that the degree of separation between the ones fighting and the general population (less than 1% defending the rest) is part of why these friction points exist (on both sides).

Military circles see themselves as extraordinary and are lauded as being such as the public is ill equipped to understand what they do.  The public is ill suited to determine what is right or wrong for a military complex it ostensibly controls, but tacitly distrusts the government that controls it (and is supposedly their representative instrument) and has a strange mythos of idealism about what a good soldier is, that only feeds into the separation.  The military is far from perfect, but on the other hand it is highly functional and the most powerful/adaptive/effective defense mechanism anywhere in the world.  Its people are a microcosm of society, but yet are expected to act with a different, arguably higher, set of moral and ethical standards.

This “us and them,” on both sides, is dangerous for the American way of life, as it is self defeating.  Military personnel who think they are above or set apart from the greater society become weary of “civilian weakness” (not my concept, Pinochet is a good touch-point), and civilians who feel a disconnect with those that defend them can become revolutionary in rejecting alleged “militarism” of society (see the evolution of the Wiemar Republic).  Both have tragic and devastating results (dictatorships and leftist/rightist regimes that spiral downward uncontrollably, in the former, and ineffective, non-functioning states that cannot defend themselves and result in societal collapse, in the latter).

What is the fix?  Americans need to honor service without idolizing the person.  Take time to listen to and conceptualize what the vet went through, why they went, and how that affects you both mutually.  Understand that our mutual indebtedness (citizen to the solder for the sacrifice made to go in their place, and soldier to citizen for the willingness to grant them extraordinary benefits and privileges) needs to be held between each other and not carried by one side or the other.  Soldiers need to respect the institutions they defend by being active, respectful, and responsible citizens in their communities.  They need to be models of humility and strength of character, worthy of the earned privileges and benefits so that future generations can enjoy the respect and admiration of the service they give.

For my part, I try to remind soldiers that it is not in doing it or in the immediate aftermath that they accrue the benefit of their sacrifice; it is in the legacy of merit and their time of true need that they will redeem their reward.  This is a long range, highly conceptual and philosophical approach, which some will not or cannot follow.  I also am active in civilian circles, speaking and being a responsible member of society (and I have my slip ups, too, just ask Jackie).  It is my hope that we do indeed get to a place where we conjoin, much as we did after World War II, the spheres for the benefit of an optimistic and more powerful and prosperous future.

Your Friend,

Erik C. Backus

Major, US Army

Student, Command and General Staff School

U.S. Army Combined Arms Center

Fort Belvoir, Virginia

“The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”

Hot Dogs and Media Frenzy

The latest news pertaining to a Congressman is just silly and continues to tout “scandal, scandal, everywhere.”  Two of my friends work in the field of journalism, and both posted some thoughts on the matter (one through his journalistic outlet: http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-rochester/the-dirty-evidence).  Both concur that the media circus is out of control and that this really shouldn’t have gotten the coverage it got.  In a Facebook reply to one of them, I put out the following question, to which I didn’t get a response:

“…my question is how do we fix the media/discipline the media (and I contend a self-discipline answer would be slightly hypocritical as the media's partial justification for existence is to police government which isn't deemed worthy of self policing themselves)[?]”

Having no answer in reply, I thought perhaps I ought to take a stab at a couple thoughts of my own.  I will be frank that not all of these are useful or is it an all-inclusive strategy, but it is just some stabs at it.  I will say that I strongly feel the free press is a valuable part of our representative democracy, so I am in no way seeking to destroy that freedom.  I will say that this does not however equate to a protection of the business of journalism, just a protection of the object that they are using.  A fine line, but an important one, as it relates to how I see a few things and a basis from which some of these ideas originate.

1) Re-look Libel Laws.  Recently I took part in a panel with a few journalists who were very frank in talking about their field and their responsibilities.  What I saw and heard that stuck with me was a statement by one of them to the effect of “if I get the story wrong or the facts are not exactly right, what incentive or obligation do I have to correct that?”  While later he qualified that continuing to publish fraudulent or questionable stories would work towards discrediting them and thus overt lying, that gets them caught or causes negative repercussions, mainly financially, is generally frowned upon.  The real message here is that getting the facts right in journalism is not as important as getting the story, and a story that sells well.  In a field that prides itself as being the “voice of the people” and is above the yellow journalism of their past, this seems to show that media circles back to the same old themes that any other field does.  I want to be careful to not impugn every journalist with blanket lying or skirting to truth in order to get a story, but it is telling that ensuring that the facts are correct is subordinated to the telling of the tale, and a tale that sells.  So, getting to my point, perhaps a part of this is simply our lax standards as it pertains to libel.  While not having done all the research on this to be emphatic about it, but when was the last time you heard of a libel suit that was a) upheld and, more importantly, b) was of such significance that it really shook the journalism community?  The last one I can recall happened in England, not here in the USA.  For many reasons their laws are more stringent than ours (history being of primary importance), but perhaps we need to look at this.  If journalists, as a field, feel they can be “fast and loose” with the facts, perhaps we need to have an external measure to put a check on their balance to err on the side of telling a good story above all else, even if it is simply preventative in nature.

2) Journalism as a “Not for Profit” Industry.  One of the interesting things about the mythos of journalists is that they are out their “for us” or “out to tell the untold stories” and not in it for profit, glamour, or fame.  This is a good story and I will be the first to tell you that journalists, on average, are not rich or have high paying jobs.  Actually most journalist truly do follow the mantra and live it.  Therefore, for the individual worker bee, I am not trying to be critical.  However, I am going to tell you that for the elite, the ones we see on CNN, Fox News, or ABC and those we read in Time, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and our lives are inundated with, profit, glamour, and fame are not far removed.  Make note that all of these are “for profit enterprises”.  Now I believe we ought to have companies that make money, that can use it to spurn innovation, investment, and allow for social progress (not to mention employ most of us), but there are some industries I really think, if they are pure to their ethos, ought not be “for profit”.  Journalism, if it wants to profess the former and serve their true “forth estate” function as a check on government, needs to stay clean.  It is tough to see a news outlet criticize lobbying, for instance, when they have a cadre that invades capital hill to get tax breaks or other advantages in order to make dividends for their investors.  I am not saying newspapers, TV, radio, and so forth should not make money and enough money to pay their staff’s well, not at all.  Nevertheless, I do think that if they are going to be able to stay true to their lofty image and mythos that is used to explain and defend their actions, they need to get out of the “for profit” model.  Perhaps this will relieve some of the tension to “sell a story” in the sense of over jazzing into hysterical or hilarious levels.

3) Consider Editorial Policy Oversight.  There is no question that each and every media outlet has its own policy on what will and will not be reported along with the range of freedom of authorship that will be allowed to the journalists that the outlet employs.  Part of this is assignment of stories to go after and ultimately what makes it to “print”, or the “screen”, and what does not.  One of the tenets in some schools of journalism is that it is the reporter’s job to reveal the things that are not seen in the main and bring them to light.  In and of itself, this is invaluable tool that modern journalism has brought into our public consciousness.  If it was not for Edward R. Murrow challenging the facts of Joe McCarthy’s assertions, would we still be in a Red Scare?  The problem is when this is done and frankly what is brought to light is not significant enough to warrant the publishing/air time especially when there are much more important issues that ought to be more thoroughly researched and brought to light.  Just take the decision to spotlight and air the thoughts and opinions of “Joe the Plummer” (an gentlemen in Ohio who happened to be named Joe and be a Plummer who had contrarian views to then candidate Obama who used the phrase “Joe the Plummer” as a way to refer to the working everyman/woman) during the last election sequence.  Hours and hours were spent on this person’s thoughts, articles written about the electorate and its similarity and angst that this man had, and so forth.  Not that his opinion wasn’t important to him or important in the most general sense, but were there not more pressing things to go over than knowing the personal details of his life and creating a consistent tie to a spotlight moment that turned out to be a scant side show to the real issues of the race?  Alternatively, is it really necessary to scare all the parents of the country about a rare disease that affects .0005% of kids as if it was the most pressing health crisis of the decade?  This ever present need to focus on the less than 1% of folks or issues and make them seem as if they are on par with things like world hunger, going to war, and so forth, is really absurd.  Yes, there is a need to bring errors and problems to light so that they are not brushed under the rug, but I would suggest there needs to be some way to help inform and counter the over use of the niche inspection drive that is in modern journalism and allow for a more robust and appropriate discussion of those issues that are of primary importance.  In a sense, we need a third party professional organization that is respected in its own right and acceptable to government, journalists, and the people at large as arbiters of what the “standard of journalism editorial policy” should be.  This is hard to do and is not a complete thought, but with more thinking perhaps, something can be thought of in this area.

4) Disclosure of Bent of Authorship/Editorial position – Politically and Socially.  By now, many of us have gotten to the point that we get that Fox and Friends is helplessly and unabashedly conservative/to the right and the Diane Rehm Show is just as much the other direction.  However, labeling yourself “Fair & Balanced,” I am sorry that is just ridiculous and BS.  Aside from the discussion on libel above, I think a new version of the “Fairness Doctrine” needs to be created.  Namely, there ought to be clear-cut disclosure of who you are as journalists.  For instance if nearly every one of your leading reporters in prime time or on your highest rated shows is a Democrat, a member of the Green Party or, otherwise politically left in the political spectrum, saying you represent the “center of America” or the “mainstream” ought to questioned and more importantly it ought to be disclosed the true bias that is present.  It is often taken as sacrosanct that reporters are a supposedly neutral observer, which is not true.  We all have our biases; journalists are no exceptions.  Moreover, I just do not see Rachel Maddow or Sean Hannity (or their type) being able to ever strip their latent biases to give true neutral or balanced reporting.  Most get this, but when organizations play in the public square or public airwaves, and try to call themselves in the mainstream of our culture, we need to know the facts and they need to report that to us as much as what they would like to report other things.

5) Independent “Journalist Association” with a Model Code of Ethics.  The final suggestion is that Journalists step it up a notch professionally.  What credentialing agency says that you have the character and public trust to serve as a “voice of the people”?  The answer is none.  If you are a lawyer, you have the state and American bar associations, and you are licensed as an officer of the court.  Similarly, if you are an engineer you have a discipline specific professional association and you are licensed to practice by the state.  Several other professions (doctors, architects, etc.) similarly have such credentialing, association and licensing requirements.  You are policed by these organizations that have codes of ethics that go beyond what the law requires.  They have specific duties as defined by law that requires a duty to care regardless of payment or other consideration.  They can be held as criminally negligent as individuals, be found to have executed malpractice and pay substantial fines.  In the case of architects, doctors and engineers, you can even be charged with murder for the death of another, if you fail to meet your professional charge.  These professions are not unionized and don’t have collective bargaining, and they are typically exempt employees that serve as commissioned for a purpose not to just provide labor for a repetitive series of tasks or craft action.  In describing all this, I believe journalism needs to be likewise.  If we are going to have a field that supposedly holds the public trust to ask the hard questions, reveal the dark dirty corners of government as our trusted investigators, the power to shape our public dialogue and steer the agenda for our politics, shouldn’t we know that there is a vetting, control and licensing action involved?  I say yes to make it a true profession in the classic sense.  After all, with the privilege of being the corporate mode that our individual right to the freedom of the press, we ought to ensure the responsibility is placed in the right hands.

Again, these are ideas, they might not be good, they have pros and cons, but they are stabs at the problem.  Now in fairness, is journalistic overzealousness, lapses, or abuse of the first amendment the most important problem of the day?  No, but it is one that continues to shape all others.  For that reason, I think we need to figure this out and make the “fourth estate” as effective as we concern ourselves about the other three branches of government.

Yours,

Erik

Sports Dissapointment

All right, so I have to admit it, I am a fan of the following teams (in an exponentially increasing curve):  St. Louis Cardinals Baseball, Minnesota Vikings Football, Red Sox Baseball, Syracuse Orange Basketball, George Mason Patriot Basketball, Clarkson University Hockey, and Washington Capitals Hockey.  What does this mean?  This means I typically root for the underdog.

At present, and I will admit it is in recent years, I am a very sizable (aka Huge!) Capitals fan.  So being down 3 to nil in the series tonight is hitting home hard.  With seasons of late that bespeak a certain “inevitability” and having been a part of the pre-ordained to be doomed “Surge”, I have seen irreversible momentum (not that it doesn’t take a monumental effort).  I wish we had it, and hope, for my own hearts sake as a continually burgeoning sports fan, that we have a new “miracle on ice”.  I would like to see the team that is as old as I am, break “the Curse”.  Sports and Hockey fans, see you tomorrow night for the start, I hope, of one of the greatest comebacks in hockey history.

Now for the deep thought.

I have often been, like millions and billions before me, locked in, emotionally, visually, and otherwise to the competition that is sports.  My passion is clearly now on the ice, but it happens time and time again (I was glued to the TV watching the NCAA Final Four when Syracuse finally overcame the “Keith Smart Curse” in 2003, as I was getting ready to go to Baghdad).  For me, I think sports and being a fan of them is really at the core of humanity.  We have struggles, we have real demons, each of us.  And to confront them, and physically struggle with them, that is what we dream, even have nightmares over.  To be able to viscerally project this struggle upon those athletes, warriors, and others, that take on very real demons, gives us that release we need, we ply for, to bring to bouts and resolve the climax that is in our hearts.  It is really very Aristotelian, a part of the path to stay on the “Golden Mean”.  The thing I struggle with is if this really ever resolves it for us, or is it in something else we need resolution.  It is in the times of despair, when the Caps are down and the end seems gloomy, that sports drive us nuts as fans, as it can’t be the end.  Sports helps in having yet another season, Olympic competition, and a story of redemption as much as it has in winning and defeat.  More thinking is needed here, but regardless, this is something that we can’t ignore.  After all, there is another game tomorrow night.

Late night news, May 1

I tried posting this to Facebook yesterday, but decided the thought still needed to get out:

"Mixed feelings this morning, but I have to say the up side is a fairly high one.  I am not one to revel in the death of another (and would have preferred we got him alive), but he is now gone.  We can ill afford to roll out the "Mission Accomplished" banner, but at least we have seized the primary objective we started with.  Let's pray that this helps to bring the peace we seek and he is recognized for the terrorist he is, and not a martyr the speaks beyond the grave.  Thanks to all of those who have served, are serving, and continue to serve our nation and the defense of free people around the world.  May we all celebrate our shared sacrifice and show we are the great American people we profess to be."

First Blog Post

So after years of having "big thoughts", I thought I would start a blog.  I cannot offer you my continued and concerted blogging effort.  As is often the case, my spurts of writing will be just that, spurts.  Regardless, I have some things I think that need sharing and that I think might be worth your while to read.  Take them, leave them, hate them, love them, they are thoughts and I hope they simply provoke more.

A few disclaimers, given my station and position in life:

1) The views contained herein are my own and not that of the Government of the United States, the United States Army, the Department of Defense or any subordinate or superior organizations thereof.  Consequently, none of the thoughts and views contained herein, should be or can otherwise be held as policy, guidelines or official statements of the same, and are the opinions, perspectives and musings of the author alone.

2) While I profess and confess to be a Christian, specifically a Lutheran Christian, I confess that I am a sinner and thus can err.   Consequentially, while I will do my best to stay true to my faith tradition and that of pure catholic doctrine, I may find myself bordering on heresy or needing redemption for entering therein.  I beg your forgiveness and willingness to recognize that as a fallen human I strive to be wholly Christ-like, but certainly cannot profess to be fully so.

3) The thoughts herein are going to often confront reality or the perception thereof that I have of it.  As a consequence, this reality may or may not be the same as one reading it.  It is offered that if the writings provided here are out of place from your reality or perception thereof, they may make little sense to your context.  The writings here, therefore, are not intended to inflame or insult any individual, group of persons, or cultures, but are hoped to broaden understanding and mutual respect between us all.

4) What is contained herein cannot and should not be impugned upon any member of my family, friends or associates professionally or otherwise.  It cannot be doubted that ones life experience has an effect on ones opinions, knowledge, and wisdom, but this does not mean any one of them, especially those that are personally closest to me think as I do or hold identical positions, faith, or perspectives as I have.

With all of this said, read, think, challenge, reflect, pray, and express for yourself what is here.  Thanks and I hope this engages you as much as it does me.