Monthly Archives: August 2016

The Real Hostages

 

In reference to the $400 million returned to Iran as part of the negotiations for the nuclear weapons agreement, Illinois Senate Mark Kirk said:

We can’t have the president of the United States acting like the drug dealer in chief, giving clean packs of money to a … state sponsor of terror. Those 500-euro notes will pop up across the Middle East. …. We’re going to see problems in multiple (countries) because of that money given to them. (Source: Illinois State Journal-Register)

Kirk is only one of many critics of the Obama administration to refer to the payment as “ransom” for four detainees held by the Iranian government.  (NOTE: I’ll let others decide whether calling President Obama “the drug dealer in chief” is a term by which Kirk would never refer to a Caucasian chief executive.)

However, if you money-2Bin-2Bjailthink about this event counter-intuitively, you realize the opposite is true.  The United States received the $400 million in 1979 as payment for military equipment ordered by the Shah of Iran.  After Iran’s Islamic revolution and the detention of 40 Americans in November 1979, the arms were never delivered.  One could say the United States was holding the $400 million “hostage” as the monies did not rightfully belong to the American government or the vendors of the military equipment since the order was never fulfilled.  Unlike other hostage situations, the United States did not, at the original time of the taking, make specific demands of the Iranians for return of the 400 million hostages.  Instead they became part of the sanctions regime to discourage Iran from developing and stockpiling nuclear weapons.

To continue with this analogy, one has to ask, “If the money was the “hostage,” who ended up paying the ransom?”  After the Iranian government agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and released the four detained Americans, only then did the Obama administration release the 400 million hostages the U.S. had held for 37 years.  Talk about “the art of the deal?”  The United States got two things it badly wanted (a nuclear agreement and the detainees) and used someone else’s money to get them.

I cannot help but believe if a Trump administration had pulled off this exchange, he would be bragging it was the BIGLIEST deal in the history of international negotiations.   It very well may have been.  Too bad the people who actually designed and executed the deal are not given the credit they deserve.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Irrational Fear of Islam IS-LAMe

 

Janet Adkins, a candidate for school superintendent in our community, included the following in an op-ed piece in the local paper:

As a mom, I have had my child come home and share with me how he was offered “extra credit” if he could memorize the “five pillars of Islam.”…I am opposed to instruction of Islam ideas in our public schools. We should not allow instruction in the classroom to minimize the threat that is posed by Islamic terrorists who are seeking to destroy us. (Source: Fernandina Beach News Leader, August 17, 2016)

In contrast to Ms. Adkins’ immediate and visceral response to the assignment, my first thought was, “Why would a teacher give this assignment?” And since I was unfamiliar with the specifics of the “five pillars,” I Googled the term. Guess what? The only difference between the “five pillars” and similar tenets of Christianity and Judaism is semantics. Consider the following:

Pillar #1: Shahadah: sincerely reciting the Muslim profession of faith. How does this differ from Christian belief that salvation is only possible through Christ the savior or the conviction by Jews they are the chosen people? Are these not also religion-specific professions of faith?

Pillar #2: Salat: performing ritual prayers in the proper way five times each day. Who could argue Judaism and Christianity do not have their own rituals? What is communion? What is the wearing of the yarmulke and prayer shawl?

muslim prayercommunion jewish prayer

Pillar #3: Zakat: paying an alms (or charity) tax to benefit the poor and the needy. Do the terms tithing and tzedakah ring a bell?

Pillar #4: Sawm: fasting during the month of Ramadan. According to beliefnet.com, the Muslim fast during Ramadan is a way to seek purity of heart and mind. Is that not the same goal for Jews who fast on Yom Kippur or Christians who observe Lent?

Pillar #5: Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca. At the end of the Passover seder, Jews close the ceremony with the words, “Next year in Jerusalem.” When I Googled the term “holy land tours,” the first listing described the trip as “a Christian journey of a lifetime.”

So why would a teacher offer extra credit to students who research the five pillars of Islam? Perhaps that educator felt, in light of some individuals’ efforts (including a candidate for superintendent) to divide people, this was an opportunity to demonstrate that even diverse cultures have more in common than we are led to believe. What would be more heartening than a Christian or Jewish student reaching out to a Muslim classmate and having the following conversation?

Jewish Student: I can’t believe you have to fast for a WHOLE month. We only have to do it for 24 hours.

Muslim Student: Our fast is just during the day. We break fast every night. Is it true you don’t even take drinks of water during your fast? I don’t know if I could do that.

Christian Student: Sounds like we have it easy. All we have to do is give up one thing of importance to us. I gave up video games last year.

Muslim Student: I have a great idea. Let’s observe each others’ tradition during Ramadan, Yom Kippur and Lent.

Christian & Jewish Student: It’s a deal!

If opponents of multi-cultural content in our schools find the pillars of Islam so distasteful, are they willing to make the same pronouncements about similar tenets and rituals of their own religions. I challenge people like Janet Adkins to tell me what they find so offensive about the five pillars of Islam? Education should be about enlightenment. It appears she would rather keep our students in the dark.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

A Life Well Embellished

 

heavens-gates-opening_248004The Summer 2016 issue of the George Washington University magazine includes an article titled “About Death.”  It shares retiring psychology professor Pamela Woodruff’s perspective on the end of life.  When asked about an afterlife, Woodruff responded “I don’t believe in it absolutely.  I simply hope that it’s there.”

The article reminded me of my own views on dying and an afterlife which I shared with students, faculty and friends as part of my final lecture at Miami University.  I fall into Dr. Woodruff’s camp in that I, too, do not believe in an afterlife.  I differ from her perspective in that I do not care if eternal life is a myth.  Coming from that perspective, I keep asking myself, “Why do so many people need to believe there is something else after we have completed our time on this earth?”

But, as Arlo Guthrie rifts in his classic Alice’s Restaurant, “That’s not what I came here to talk to you about.”  The previous two paragraphs are merely a preamble to a topic I have struggled with for a couple of weeks.  Why do people with successful careers feel the need to exaggerate and embellish their life stories?  And questioning the need for an afterlife was the segue I was missing.

In that last lecture on December 5, 2011, I said, “I hope it doesn’t happen, but if I were to die tomorrow I would have no regrets.  I’ve lived a full life and had more than my share of great experiences.  I wish the same for each of you.”  Were there more opportunities of which I could have taken advantage?  Of course.  Were there times I could have been a better person? Quite likely.  Regardless of these and other shortcomings, I can honestly say my life has been “good enough.”

Here lies a potential link between the need for an afterlife and the topic du jour, embellishing one’s accomplishments.  False additions to one’s life narrative suggest some underlying fear or dissatisfaction that your life has not been good enough.  Let’s look at some recent examples when individuals have felt the need to inflate their achievements.

NBC Night News anchor Brian Williams lost his job for claiming, among other things, he had been riding in a helicopter under attack in Iraq.  For him, the challenge and potential danger of reporting from a war zone was NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Bill O’Reilly claimed he was “on the scene” when Lee Harvey Oswald’s friend George de Mohrenschildt committed suicide in Florida in 1977, eliminating a potential source of information about Oswald’s motives and associations.  The claim is debunked by O’Reilly’s own phone calls back to Fox News at the time of the incident.  Being the lead investigative reporter into JFK’s assassination for a major news organization was NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Donald Trump claims to be worth 10 billion dollars.  Most independent sources suggest the true figure is more likely somewhere between 500 million and 2.5 billion dollars.  I know I would be more than happy at the 500 million figure.  But for Trump, it is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Hillary Clinton claims to have been subject to sniper fire after landing in Bosnia in 1996 when she was First Lady.  One would think being First Lady, a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State alone qualifies as an impressive resume.  But for her, it was NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

A candidate for local office includes membership in the local Rotary Club on her bio.  She pays her dues with campaign funds, but never attends a meeting or participates in Rotary sponsored events.  “Resume padding” is something we warn students against as future employers are often more interested in the quality of community service than the quantity of activities.  The candidate must think that her other community engagements are NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

It makes me wonder if the hope of an afterlife is somehow related to a feeling that one’s life has not been good enough.

I understand belief in an afterlife is of comfort to many people.  And I empathize that, for people who have lost a family member or friend way before their time, the idea of seeing them again in heaven is a source of inner peace.  But if one’s belief in heaven or eternal life is viewed as a reward or a second chance, I am reminded of what Pixar founder John Lasseter said about the process by which he and his team developed the animated movie Cars.  “The reward in life in not the destination, it is the journey.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

The Wrong Questions on Tax Returns

 

Yesterday, Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence announced he plans to release his tax returns before the election.  The media’s response to the news was to ask the following questions of Donald Trump surrogates and their pundits.

Does this put more pressure on Donald Trump to release his own returns?

Do you think Pence cleared this with the Trump campaign or is this an instance of his “going rogue?”

Is Trump making a calculated decision that not releasing his returns is less damaging than what might be disclosed in them?

Is releasing tax returns more important to the media and Washington insiders than it is to voters?

In response, Trump surrogates reverted to the party line.  Release of the tax returns was dependent on completion of the IRS audit.  That being said, one CNN anchor asked, “Does that prohibit him from at least sharing his effective tax rate and his level of charitable giving?”  The interviewee answered with his own question, “What if those change based on the audit?”  He then suggested if only the IRS would “fast-track” the audit, the issue would be resolved. Both of these assertions went unchallenged.

Again, I believe the media were negligent in their coverage of this issue.  The follow-up questions should have been:

Does it matter if the numbers change based on the audit?

Should we not be more interested in what the candidate himself CLAIMS under penalty of law are his income, charitable donations, deductions and tax liability?

If the IRS challenges any of these declarations, how do you think Donald Trump will respond?  I think I know, but that is not important.  The issue in this electoral cycle is not just who becomes president or which party controls Congress.  Equally important is the question whether print and broadcast journalists have abdicated their public duty to not only question and nod, but to question and question and question.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

For Those Who Oppose Public Campaign Finance…You’re Too Late

 

This post was inspired by yesterday’s news related to the release of tax returns by the Clintons and vice-presidential candidate Tim Kaine’s family.  While the media focused on the candidates’ effective tax rates and charitable giving, I was struck by the Clintons’ decrease in annual income between 2014 (approximately $27 million) and 2015 ($10.5 million).  Not that I feel sorry for someone who has foregone $16.5 to run for president.  The Clintons are not starving.

I’m sure Donald Trump’s tax returns (if we ever get to see them) would tell a similar story.  Both have private sources of income (e.g. book royalties, equities) and both have reported “in-kind contributions” to their campaigns based on the opportunity cost of running for office.  Nothing about this is illegal or unethical.

But, what about candidates who are not independently wealthy?  How do their families survive if they leave a salaried position or give up other income opportunities to run for office?  It raised a question I had never thought about before.  Can a candidate for public office be paid a salary from campaign funds?

According to the Federal Election Commission Campaign Guide, a candidate may receive a salary from his or her campaign committee only under certain conditions.  For example, the salary may not exceed the lesser of the candidate’s earned income from the previous year or the minimum annual salary for the office sought.  In the case of the current presidential election, the campaign could pay the candidate a salary of $400,000/year which is less than their earned income the previous year.  NOTE:  The salary must be prorated from the day the candidate declares for office until the election is over or the candidate withdraws from the race.

There is one caveat. The campaign guide states, “Incumbent federal officeholders may not receive a salary payment from campaign funds.” Therefore, Tim Kaine cannot be paid by the Clinton campaign because he still receives his salary as a U.S. Senator.  In contrast, the Trump campaign could theoretically pay Governor Mike Pence a salary equivalent to the vice president’s salary or his salary as Indiana’s chief executive, whichever is less.  The restriction applies only to “federal” officeholders.

While all the above examples refer to candidates for national office, the same rules apply to congressional candidates.  Of the 435 House seats to be contested in 2016, only 29 sitting members have opted not to seek reelection.  To be clear, 406 sitting congressmen and women, by virtue of already being federal officeholders, cannot be paid salaries by their campaigns.  Yet they are still receiving their federal salaries even when they are on the campaign trail versus conducting official business.  In other words, taxpayer dollars are covering the salaries of incumbents when they are in campaign mode.  How can this not be viewed as public financing of campaigns?  What makes it worse, it is a source of campaign funds only available to incumbents.

Here is one potential solution.  Incumbent federal officeholders, including the president and vice president, should be required to keep records of the time they spend campaigning for office.  Based on those records, a pro rata share of their federal salaries should be withheld.  If their campaigns choose to cover the foregone wages, that would be allowed.

It is time to stop pretending federal election campaigns are not publicly financed.  They already are.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP