by Don Klein
The guest speaker addressed the annual meeting of a group of women bankers about 20 years ago. "You guys should be ashamed of yourselves. You have the easiest job in the world. You take my deposits and pay me 4 percent interest and loan my money out to borrowers at 10 percent. How can you not make money?"
He went on: "It’s like taking candy from a baby. There is no risk to you. How could you ever fail?"
What the speaker didn’t take into account was that bankers would soon reach the apex of greed that some of them will make bad loans that seem lucrative in the hopes of increasing profits through speculation. The speaker, by the way, was me, and I was so wrong that day.
I had been invited to speak at a luncheon of Maryland professional women bankers (I don’t recall the actual name of the organization) in suburban Baltimore. I thought my opening line would stir up the audience of about 100 women and by these words they would remember me since most of their guest speakers delivered dry kitsch when they got up to talk.
Instead of shocking the crowd, it was I who was stunned. First of all, they roared approvingly with laughter when I made the remark. And after the speech they gathered around me and expressed how humourous they thought my talk was. In their haughtiness they did not take what I said seriously.
At the time banking was considered sanctified and bankers were sacred cows. They knew all the quirks and pitfalls of money lending and it was unlikely that any borrower, and certainly not large numbers of them, would affect the solvency of the rock-ribbed institutions of long standing. Wrong again.
I recall the arrogance of bankers when my wife and I sought a loan for a small business we planned to open. These pompous loan officers would sit behind their oversized desks, look at our application, ask a few unctuous questions and then rule that we were not qualified for the loan we sought. That was years before these very same ravenous masters of monetary manipulation started giving out half-million dollar home loans to school bus drivers and supermarket cashiers.
They went from one extreme to another and wondered why they needed billions of taxpayers’ funds to save them from eradication. There is a five-letter word that describes bankers. It is: GREED. Profit was not good enough. Super profits were what their ravenous hearts demanded. When you match that attribute with lack of government controls, you end up in Wizard of Ozland where all you do is push buttons and move levels to get an outcome no thicker than onion skin.
Don’t think I am writing this because I am bitter about those banks which refused to give us loans. Eventually we got the start-up money we needed from a small neighborhood bank which recognized the value of our business plan and we did quite well with our small enterprise. We paid the loan back with interest, which is more than can be said of the horrible loans the big banks gave to unqualified borrowers decades after they turned us down.
One of the reasons it is absolutely essential that banks be regulated is because they never deal with their own money. They take your money and mine and play awful gluttonous games with it. They make large profits on OPMs (other people’s money) but they are often not very smart about it. They turn down good deals likes ours of relatively piddling amounts and fall victim to their own avarice by making bad deals for lots more money than we ever thought of asking for.
Here’s another instance of bank imbecility. I dealt with the same bank for more than 30 years when one of their own executives, working under the noses of top bank management, was stealthful enough to embezzled some $60-to-$70 million dollars. It was the bank’s stupidity that allowed the corrupt high executive to pull off the theft. And it was the bank’s ineptitude not to discover it for years.
The following weekend when I entered my branch of this bank to withdraw a trifling $100 the teller who had worked with me all these years and knew my name when I stepped to her window suddenly demanded personal identification. They were duped by one of their own so now the little depositors became the target of a crackdown. The teller apologized when I not only refused to show her ID but scolded her for acting like she didn’t know me.
Her answer was plaintive: "Oh that’s the new policy. We must ask for ID from everyone withdrawing cash, even long-time customers." They never demanded ID from me again. That bank soon was bought out and no longer exists.
Making sweeping policy without considering specific circumstances reminds me of the time I was carded in Los Angeles International Airport when I ordered a beer. The bartender demanded I show him ID. I looked at him in bewilderment. I was in my seventies at the time, and looked it, but that didn’t dissuade him. The policy at that saloon was to card everyone.
The American banking system and that silly Los Angeles bartender have many things in common. They are, besides being greedy, pompous, out of touch with reality, disrespectful to the community they serve, and stupid -- and deserve all the negative assessments they get.
As a result of these experiences I swore that I would never fly into Los Angeles International again if I had a choice and if a bank official who knows me ever asks for identification I will respond with, "Who among the bank’s loyal staff stole money this week?"
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Fond memories of Army's 'Mr. Inside'
by Don Klein
When I was a young reporter I never liked writing obituaries. I always felt I was being punished by my editor for committing an umbrage. How wrong can youth be? Now I read obituaries every day because despite the sadness it often brings when realizing a life has ended, the story is usually the most elegant and evocative piece in the paper.
I read obituaries not for the reason an aging wag once explained "to make sure my name was not on it" but because it is a wonderful last tribute to someone who formerly lived a life of interest. We all live interesting lives whether we realize it or not.
Stop anyone on the street and if you can get them to talk about themselves, as reporters are more likely to do than most people, you will realize the remarkable factors that go into making a "normal" life. Besides, with most newspaper obits a reader gets that one last chance to spend time with someone they haven’t thought of for years.
Take Felix "Doc" Blanchard, the former West Point football star of the World War II era. Blanchard died this week in Texas at the age of 84, but when I was a callow youth in my early teens he was the rough and tough star of Army football when Army had the greatest football team of the day. The team never again attained such glory.
Every Saturday when Army football games were broadcast on radio – there was no commercial television in those days – I would find a suitable chair and sit on its edge to listen to the exploits of Blanchard and his sidekick Glenn Davis.
During Blanchard’s three years with Army, the team never lost a game.
Blanchard was called "Mr. Inside" because of his exceptional running talent erupting like a volcano up the middle of the field. Davis was known as "Mr. Outside" because he was speedier and could turn the corners better than his colleague. Between the two, Army football was invincible in those days and like any male adolescent during wartime I was completely enthralled by the duo.
Now with the death of Blanchard there comes to mind distinct memories of those wonderful days. Much like the death of actress Fay Wray five years ago, the curtain was closing on my memorable early years of star worship. Wray was the first actress to stir admiration for the opposite sex as she writhed in the clutches of King Kong in my prepubescent days. Blanchard came later and was probably the last of my teenage heroes. As I grew, I realized there are not nearly as many to admire as a child might have thought.
Davis died four years ago and now that Blanchard is gone the famed "touchdown twins" are no longer, but the memory remains. Blanchard scored 38 touchdowns in three years and Davis 59 in four.
I remember a particular day from that era. My grandfather was in a hospital not too far from where we lived in the Bronx. My mother had six sisters and three brothers and many of them used our apartment as a pit stop before or after visiting grampa. On a November Saturday in 1944 Army was playing either Navy or Notre Dame when my Aunt Rose and Uncle Sol from Brooklyn dropped off their sons, my younger cousins, Philly and Irwin, while they visited the hospital.
I had just turned 16 so my mother explained to me how to put up a pot of spaghetti for us three boys while the grownups were visiting the ailing patriarch. Everything went well until I drained the spaghetti into a serving dish and put it, mixed with sauce, on the kitchen table. The radio was blasting away reciting the resolute exploits of Blanchard and Davis.
I was glued to the squawking box during one of the more exciting moments of the game and when I turned back, Philly and Irwin had their hands deep into the pasta bowl and were stuffing their mouths without utensils like cavemen. Today all three of us are grandparents and still whenever I see my cousins I think of the time they ate handfuls of spaghetti like Fred Flintstone while Blanchard and Davis made it a perfect football day for us.
Davis was more of a ladies man and even went on to become one of Hollywood actress Terry Moore’s numerous husbands. He also played professional football for two years with the then Los Angeles Rams. In contrast, Blanchard turned down all offers of personal fame and professional football to become an officer in the Air Force (this was before the Air Force Academy was started in Colorado Springs) and served honorably until he retired as a colonel in 1971.
He served a brief spell as an assistant football coach at West Point. But his greatest achievement was how he inspired a bunch of adolescent boys during a very dark period in the country’s existence. No one did a better job than he on his school’s football field, the first to win the Heisman Trophy as the best college football player while still just a junior. Then after graduation he fulfilled his obligation as an fighter-bomber pilot officer. He flew 84 combat missions over North Vietnam.
Blanchard was all but forgotten as he served in the Air Force and for decades few people heard about him. But kids like me will never forget reading the exploits of the touchdown twins week after week for three consecutive football seasons. At the time I thought the excitement this pair generated would never be equaled, and it wasn’t.
The US Military Academy previously retired Davis’s uniform number 41 and, before he died, West Point announced it would retire No. 35, Blanchard’s famous uniform number. It is fitting that no future Army football player wear these two numbers. It is hard to conceive that ever again there will be two such great running backs playing for the same team at the same time as Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside.
When I was a young reporter I never liked writing obituaries. I always felt I was being punished by my editor for committing an umbrage. How wrong can youth be? Now I read obituaries every day because despite the sadness it often brings when realizing a life has ended, the story is usually the most elegant and evocative piece in the paper.
I read obituaries not for the reason an aging wag once explained "to make sure my name was not on it" but because it is a wonderful last tribute to someone who formerly lived a life of interest. We all live interesting lives whether we realize it or not.
Stop anyone on the street and if you can get them to talk about themselves, as reporters are more likely to do than most people, you will realize the remarkable factors that go into making a "normal" life. Besides, with most newspaper obits a reader gets that one last chance to spend time with someone they haven’t thought of for years.
Take Felix "Doc" Blanchard, the former West Point football star of the World War II era. Blanchard died this week in Texas at the age of 84, but when I was a callow youth in my early teens he was the rough and tough star of Army football when Army had the greatest football team of the day. The team never again attained such glory.
Every Saturday when Army football games were broadcast on radio – there was no commercial television in those days – I would find a suitable chair and sit on its edge to listen to the exploits of Blanchard and his sidekick Glenn Davis.
During Blanchard’s three years with Army, the team never lost a game.
Blanchard was called "Mr. Inside" because of his exceptional running talent erupting like a volcano up the middle of the field. Davis was known as "Mr. Outside" because he was speedier and could turn the corners better than his colleague. Between the two, Army football was invincible in those days and like any male adolescent during wartime I was completely enthralled by the duo.
Now with the death of Blanchard there comes to mind distinct memories of those wonderful days. Much like the death of actress Fay Wray five years ago, the curtain was closing on my memorable early years of star worship. Wray was the first actress to stir admiration for the opposite sex as she writhed in the clutches of King Kong in my prepubescent days. Blanchard came later and was probably the last of my teenage heroes. As I grew, I realized there are not nearly as many to admire as a child might have thought.
Davis died four years ago and now that Blanchard is gone the famed "touchdown twins" are no longer, but the memory remains. Blanchard scored 38 touchdowns in three years and Davis 59 in four.
I remember a particular day from that era. My grandfather was in a hospital not too far from where we lived in the Bronx. My mother had six sisters and three brothers and many of them used our apartment as a pit stop before or after visiting grampa. On a November Saturday in 1944 Army was playing either Navy or Notre Dame when my Aunt Rose and Uncle Sol from Brooklyn dropped off their sons, my younger cousins, Philly and Irwin, while they visited the hospital.
I had just turned 16 so my mother explained to me how to put up a pot of spaghetti for us three boys while the grownups were visiting the ailing patriarch. Everything went well until I drained the spaghetti into a serving dish and put it, mixed with sauce, on the kitchen table. The radio was blasting away reciting the resolute exploits of Blanchard and Davis.
I was glued to the squawking box during one of the more exciting moments of the game and when I turned back, Philly and Irwin had their hands deep into the pasta bowl and were stuffing their mouths without utensils like cavemen. Today all three of us are grandparents and still whenever I see my cousins I think of the time they ate handfuls of spaghetti like Fred Flintstone while Blanchard and Davis made it a perfect football day for us.
Davis was more of a ladies man and even went on to become one of Hollywood actress Terry Moore’s numerous husbands. He also played professional football for two years with the then Los Angeles Rams. In contrast, Blanchard turned down all offers of personal fame and professional football to become an officer in the Air Force (this was before the Air Force Academy was started in Colorado Springs) and served honorably until he retired as a colonel in 1971.
He served a brief spell as an assistant football coach at West Point. But his greatest achievement was how he inspired a bunch of adolescent boys during a very dark period in the country’s existence. No one did a better job than he on his school’s football field, the first to win the Heisman Trophy as the best college football player while still just a junior. Then after graduation he fulfilled his obligation as an fighter-bomber pilot officer. He flew 84 combat missions over North Vietnam.
Blanchard was all but forgotten as he served in the Air Force and for decades few people heard about him. But kids like me will never forget reading the exploits of the touchdown twins week after week for three consecutive football seasons. At the time I thought the excitement this pair generated would never be equaled, and it wasn’t.
The US Military Academy previously retired Davis’s uniform number 41 and, before he died, West Point announced it would retire No. 35, Blanchard’s famous uniform number. It is fitting that no future Army football player wear these two numbers. It is hard to conceive that ever again there will be two such great running backs playing for the same team at the same time as Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Distorting equality of employment
By Don Klein
Back in 1978 reverse discrimination became an issue when Alan Bakke, a white male, was rejected twice by a medical school that accepted less qualified minority applicants. Because the University of California had reserved 16 places out of 100 for minority students, Bakke’s application was turned down.
The case went to the Supreme Court which ruled against the quota system employed by the university but in a confusing decision upheld the overall concept of affirmative action.
Dubbed reverse discrimination by many, the concept of providing opportunities in education, employment and promotion at the expense of other non-black qualified individuals has come under fire through the years. It is a tough nut to crack.
Affirmative Action was adopted in this country to redress discrimination that had persisted despite civil rights laws and Constitutional guarantees. In "leveling the playing field" it opened many doors for advancement of African-Americans and has improved life for those who took advantage of the opportunities that became available. But there are times it has backfired and actually promoted discrimination of guiltless non-blacks.
Take the case of Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter for 11 years. He felt qualified to be promoted to lieutenant, so he gave up a second job he had at the time, studied for 13 hours a day and hired an acquaintance at the cost of $1,000 to read textbooks into audiotapes for him. Ricci is dyslexic. It paid off. Ricci scored sixth among 77 candidates who took the test.
That was in 2003, but Ricci was not promoted. No one was. Why? Because none of the 19 blacks who took the test qualified for promotion. As a result New Haven has promoted no fire department lieutenants in the last six years.
"The city says it was merely trying to comply with a federal law that views job requirements like promotional tests with great suspicion when they
disproportionately disfavor minority applicants," The New York Times reported. "The fact of the matter is it’s a flawed test," said Victor A. Bolden, the city’s acting corporation counsel.
That hardly assuages Ricci and 16 other firefighters, including a Hispanic, who have banded together to sue the city alleging racial discrimination. They claim reverse discrimination on the basis because no blacks could be promoted because none passed the test, no whites would be promoted either.
The case goes before the United States Supreme Court.
How the court will rule on the case is impossible to predict, but there is one thing that is easy to see. The people of New Haven who depend on the fire department to protect them in cases of conflagrations are being shortchanged because of a quirky interpretation of the law. It appears that the city believes it is more important to deny the fire department needed front line leadership because one element in society – who are minorities – failed to meet the established standards.
It is clear that time-honored tests are established to fill the upper ranks with qualified personnel and since none of the black candidates qualified, no one was promoted. All this in the name of affirmative action. Indeed the city’s defense against the discrimination charges is founded on the grounds that since no one was promoted, no one can claim discrimination.
It is interesting that instead of appointing non-black candidates the city took the weird step of trying to avoid controversy by sidestepping all appointments. The alternative would have been to lower standards so a minority could have been appointed, but the city avoided that trap by doing nothing.
Facts of this kind have been undermining the civil rights movement for decades. Affirmative action has resulted in more blacks attending schools of higher education but many have been labeled, rightly or not, as token graduates with no real scholastic achievement. Of course, this ignores the many qualified blacks in all fields of endeavor, but preferential treatment which results in jobs to the least qualified among us sticks in the throat of most people.
Now that a half-black, half-white man is operating out of the Oval Office you would think that equality has been achieved in America, yet these employment bugs keep rising their ugly heads.
Affirmative action has been a part of American scene for nearly a half century. Much has been achieved in that time. Barack Obama’s ascension to the highest public office in the land, and the most powerful world figure, is the crowning accomplishment of American democracy. But he and his wife were successes even before he was elected president last year. It is a tribute to how far the African-American community has come.
Yet with that glorious background we still stumble around on the local level denying earned rewards to others if somehow in the scheme of things minority candidates do not measure up for equal promotions. Can you imagine what would have happened if only black candidates had passed the lieutenant’s test and no whites qualified? Would the city have held up promotions in the name of racial equality?
It reverts back to an old contention. Activists say the systems are stacked against blacks and ignore the fact that many blacks have succeeded under the very same rules that some insist are barricades to their future. Black firefighters have proved their worth in virtually every fire department in the country so why use the narrow focus of one community to withhold advancement for all because just a few minorities failed the test?
Let’s go back to the days before affirmative action when the black community had the legitimate claim that they were being discriminated against even when they were qualified. It was a justifiable charge. That’s when competent blacks were pushed aside by less qualified candidates. There was a time when that was true, and that was discrimination that needed to be corrected.
What happened in New Haven is a distortion of equal employment rule. True discrimination is when someone who is qualified is denied a job, as in the white firefighters’ case, and not when someone who is unqualified is not.
Back in 1978 reverse discrimination became an issue when Alan Bakke, a white male, was rejected twice by a medical school that accepted less qualified minority applicants. Because the University of California had reserved 16 places out of 100 for minority students, Bakke’s application was turned down.
The case went to the Supreme Court which ruled against the quota system employed by the university but in a confusing decision upheld the overall concept of affirmative action.
Dubbed reverse discrimination by many, the concept of providing opportunities in education, employment and promotion at the expense of other non-black qualified individuals has come under fire through the years. It is a tough nut to crack.
Affirmative Action was adopted in this country to redress discrimination that had persisted despite civil rights laws and Constitutional guarantees. In "leveling the playing field" it opened many doors for advancement of African-Americans and has improved life for those who took advantage of the opportunities that became available. But there are times it has backfired and actually promoted discrimination of guiltless non-blacks.
Take the case of Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter for 11 years. He felt qualified to be promoted to lieutenant, so he gave up a second job he had at the time, studied for 13 hours a day and hired an acquaintance at the cost of $1,000 to read textbooks into audiotapes for him. Ricci is dyslexic. It paid off. Ricci scored sixth among 77 candidates who took the test.
That was in 2003, but Ricci was not promoted. No one was. Why? Because none of the 19 blacks who took the test qualified for promotion. As a result New Haven has promoted no fire department lieutenants in the last six years.
"The city says it was merely trying to comply with a federal law that views job requirements like promotional tests with great suspicion when they
disproportionately disfavor minority applicants," The New York Times reported. "The fact of the matter is it’s a flawed test," said Victor A. Bolden, the city’s acting corporation counsel.
That hardly assuages Ricci and 16 other firefighters, including a Hispanic, who have banded together to sue the city alleging racial discrimination. They claim reverse discrimination on the basis because no blacks could be promoted because none passed the test, no whites would be promoted either.
The case goes before the United States Supreme Court.
How the court will rule on the case is impossible to predict, but there is one thing that is easy to see. The people of New Haven who depend on the fire department to protect them in cases of conflagrations are being shortchanged because of a quirky interpretation of the law. It appears that the city believes it is more important to deny the fire department needed front line leadership because one element in society – who are minorities – failed to meet the established standards.
It is clear that time-honored tests are established to fill the upper ranks with qualified personnel and since none of the black candidates qualified, no one was promoted. All this in the name of affirmative action. Indeed the city’s defense against the discrimination charges is founded on the grounds that since no one was promoted, no one can claim discrimination.
It is interesting that instead of appointing non-black candidates the city took the weird step of trying to avoid controversy by sidestepping all appointments. The alternative would have been to lower standards so a minority could have been appointed, but the city avoided that trap by doing nothing.
Facts of this kind have been undermining the civil rights movement for decades. Affirmative action has resulted in more blacks attending schools of higher education but many have been labeled, rightly or not, as token graduates with no real scholastic achievement. Of course, this ignores the many qualified blacks in all fields of endeavor, but preferential treatment which results in jobs to the least qualified among us sticks in the throat of most people.
Now that a half-black, half-white man is operating out of the Oval Office you would think that equality has been achieved in America, yet these employment bugs keep rising their ugly heads.
Affirmative action has been a part of American scene for nearly a half century. Much has been achieved in that time. Barack Obama’s ascension to the highest public office in the land, and the most powerful world figure, is the crowning accomplishment of American democracy. But he and his wife were successes even before he was elected president last year. It is a tribute to how far the African-American community has come.
Yet with that glorious background we still stumble around on the local level denying earned rewards to others if somehow in the scheme of things minority candidates do not measure up for equal promotions. Can you imagine what would have happened if only black candidates had passed the lieutenant’s test and no whites qualified? Would the city have held up promotions in the name of racial equality?
It reverts back to an old contention. Activists say the systems are stacked against blacks and ignore the fact that many blacks have succeeded under the very same rules that some insist are barricades to their future. Black firefighters have proved their worth in virtually every fire department in the country so why use the narrow focus of one community to withhold advancement for all because just a few minorities failed the test?
Let’s go back to the days before affirmative action when the black community had the legitimate claim that they were being discriminated against even when they were qualified. It was a justifiable charge. That’s when competent blacks were pushed aside by less qualified candidates. There was a time when that was true, and that was discrimination that needed to be corrected.
What happened in New Haven is a distortion of equal employment rule. True discrimination is when someone who is qualified is denied a job, as in the white firefighters’ case, and not when someone who is unqualified is not.
Monday, April 6, 2009
A dreary world indeed!!
by Don Klein
There is an American tragedy developing and its has nothing to do with the financial meltdown. It is much more serious and longer lasting than that. It is the gradual demise of the American newspaper.
If you don’t think that is a tragedy then you have been taking too much of your life for granted. The Wall Street crisis will be resolved in time. We all know that. Things will gradually stabilize in the financial world. It always has. There will be changes but soon enough people will be buying stocks again and making money from it.
Not so with the demise of newspapers. That is an entirely different problem and once gone will never return and the America we knew during the life of this country so far will have been changed forever.
What’s so important about the existence of newspapers, you might ask?
Several things but the most important is that the foundation of a healthy operating democracy is a free and open press. The only way a democracy works properly is if the people know what is happening. Democracy depends upon an informed public to make the right decisions.
Without a well established and healthy press the public will be fed a soft diet of misinformation from a self-serving government and treacherous business elements -- and people will never know the truth if the truth doesn’t serve powerful interests. Special interest groups will become more muscular because their one sided stands will go unchallenged by the light of facts thrown on most subjects by a free press.
You think television news will take over and fill the gap left by vanishing newspapers? Don’t fool yourself. Virtually all local TV news originates with newspaper reporters covering the community served by their papers. Local TV reporters read the local newspapers carefully before they go out on assignments for that day’s TV news. Who will provide those sources without a live press in action.
Local TV stations cover City Hall, the state houses, police and fire activities, but little else. They don’t have the resources of an active and diligent newspaper with reporters spread all through the many communities.
Even national news, with the possible exception of Washington government coverage, is provided by local papers.
How would we learn about ex-Illinois Gov. Blagojevich’s plans to sell a senate appointment if it weren’t for the Chicago newspapers?
How would we learn about how badly wounded Iraq veterans were being mistreated at Walter Reed Hospital if not for reporters at The Washington Post?
How would we know about the horrors in the aftermath of hurricanes if it weren’t for local reporters getting out and speaking to victims, rescue workers and local officials seeking hard facts?
How would we know about the trials and tribulations of survivors of 9/11 victims in New York if local Manhattan papers didn’t do the hard legwork?
It goes on and on. The worst part is that without the press as a watchdog the big wheeler-dealers in the country will run away with everything and no one would be able to stop them. Welcome back robber barons. Eliot Spitzer would still be governor if The New York Times didn’t catch him cheating.
Newspaper losses have already been felt throughout the country. The Rocky Mountain News in Denver closed just a few weeks ago, so did the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and lesser newspapers around the country. The New York Times has been laying off staff every few months lately and The Washington Post is inducing editorial workers to take early retirement.
Many papers are facing questionable futures. The Chicago Tribune, once the most outspoken editorial voice in the mid-west is in serious financial trouble as is its rival the Chicago Sun-Times, so is the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. If these papers disappear who will be around to report the skullduggery of local officials and businesses?
During World War II there were nine daily English languages newspapers in New York plus an unknown number of foreign language dailies. They all were profitable. In Baltimore the Sunpapers (morning, evening and Sunday) were giant cash cows for their owners. But that was when newspapers were the most efficient mass market advertising vehicles around. It was before television with its even greater advertising appeal.
And though reduced advertising revenues is the cause for today’s failing newspapers, the fault lies deeper than that. The trouble is young people can’t be bothered to read newspapers. Or perhaps any kind of reading other than text messaging. They can’t spell like kids used to and they don’t have the attention span to devote to anything other than the pablum served up on television or the hypnotic appeal of the internet.
Whatever the reason the end for newspapers may be near and when it comes it will greatly diminish the ability of people in this country to govern themselves. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt, if any of them were alive today, would be happy about it. Neither am I, but I am glad I am too old to live to see such a listless and avaricious world.
If I can’t hold a newspaper in my hands in the morning and read about what’s happening in the world, the day turns solemn indeed. I’d know that someone is taking my country away from me, but won’t know who because there would be no newspaper to reveal the information. I would be sick indeed.
And so should you. If you love democracy, a world without newspapers would be dreary undeed.
There is an American tragedy developing and its has nothing to do with the financial meltdown. It is much more serious and longer lasting than that. It is the gradual demise of the American newspaper.
If you don’t think that is a tragedy then you have been taking too much of your life for granted. The Wall Street crisis will be resolved in time. We all know that. Things will gradually stabilize in the financial world. It always has. There will be changes but soon enough people will be buying stocks again and making money from it.
Not so with the demise of newspapers. That is an entirely different problem and once gone will never return and the America we knew during the life of this country so far will have been changed forever.
What’s so important about the existence of newspapers, you might ask?
Several things but the most important is that the foundation of a healthy operating democracy is a free and open press. The only way a democracy works properly is if the people know what is happening. Democracy depends upon an informed public to make the right decisions.
Without a well established and healthy press the public will be fed a soft diet of misinformation from a self-serving government and treacherous business elements -- and people will never know the truth if the truth doesn’t serve powerful interests. Special interest groups will become more muscular because their one sided stands will go unchallenged by the light of facts thrown on most subjects by a free press.
You think television news will take over and fill the gap left by vanishing newspapers? Don’t fool yourself. Virtually all local TV news originates with newspaper reporters covering the community served by their papers. Local TV reporters read the local newspapers carefully before they go out on assignments for that day’s TV news. Who will provide those sources without a live press in action.
Local TV stations cover City Hall, the state houses, police and fire activities, but little else. They don’t have the resources of an active and diligent newspaper with reporters spread all through the many communities.
Even national news, with the possible exception of Washington government coverage, is provided by local papers.
How would we learn about ex-Illinois Gov. Blagojevich’s plans to sell a senate appointment if it weren’t for the Chicago newspapers?
How would we learn about how badly wounded Iraq veterans were being mistreated at Walter Reed Hospital if not for reporters at The Washington Post?
How would we know about the horrors in the aftermath of hurricanes if it weren’t for local reporters getting out and speaking to victims, rescue workers and local officials seeking hard facts?
How would we know about the trials and tribulations of survivors of 9/11 victims in New York if local Manhattan papers didn’t do the hard legwork?
It goes on and on. The worst part is that without the press as a watchdog the big wheeler-dealers in the country will run away with everything and no one would be able to stop them. Welcome back robber barons. Eliot Spitzer would still be governor if The New York Times didn’t catch him cheating.
Newspaper losses have already been felt throughout the country. The Rocky Mountain News in Denver closed just a few weeks ago, so did the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and lesser newspapers around the country. The New York Times has been laying off staff every few months lately and The Washington Post is inducing editorial workers to take early retirement.
Many papers are facing questionable futures. The Chicago Tribune, once the most outspoken editorial voice in the mid-west is in serious financial trouble as is its rival the Chicago Sun-Times, so is the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. If these papers disappear who will be around to report the skullduggery of local officials and businesses?
During World War II there were nine daily English languages newspapers in New York plus an unknown number of foreign language dailies. They all were profitable. In Baltimore the Sunpapers (morning, evening and Sunday) were giant cash cows for their owners. But that was when newspapers were the most efficient mass market advertising vehicles around. It was before television with its even greater advertising appeal.
And though reduced advertising revenues is the cause for today’s failing newspapers, the fault lies deeper than that. The trouble is young people can’t be bothered to read newspapers. Or perhaps any kind of reading other than text messaging. They can’t spell like kids used to and they don’t have the attention span to devote to anything other than the pablum served up on television or the hypnotic appeal of the internet.
Whatever the reason the end for newspapers may be near and when it comes it will greatly diminish the ability of people in this country to govern themselves. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson or Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt, if any of them were alive today, would be happy about it. Neither am I, but I am glad I am too old to live to see such a listless and avaricious world.
If I can’t hold a newspaper in my hands in the morning and read about what’s happening in the world, the day turns solemn indeed. I’d know that someone is taking my country away from me, but won’t know who because there would be no newspaper to reveal the information. I would be sick indeed.
And so should you. If you love democracy, a world without newspapers would be dreary undeed.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Filthy lucre
By Don Klein
We used to make lots of fun when growing up by suggesting money was the root of all evil. When we were young we often used the phrase "filthy lucre" to describe how money dishonored otherwise nice people. We knew it was wrong to influenced by cold cash but secretly we all hoped to have an opportunity to be so tainted.
As we moved through life we noticed that the concept of filthy lucre was alive and well everywhere we turned. People, try as they may to do the right thing often are swayed by the lure of money. Immature boys would hone their athletic skills at the expense of a good education not because they loved sports but because of the prospect of making big bucks as a pro.
Little girls, some as young as five, are entered into beauty contests with eyes focused on an ultimate career in films so they could dress up in fancy clothes and live an eventual life of luxury as a superstar. The prospect of success and the money that goes with it seems to drive the ambitions of many.
Most of these end up as disappointments, but that doesn’t stop the next wave of youngsters from trying.
You would think politics is different. Many say they went into public service because of a earnest desire to do good. They say they want to improve the lot of the people, but once elected or appointed to powerful office, the filthy lucre syndrome takes hold. Often the influence of money is subtle and almost imperceptible, often it is bold and ugly.
Why would a respectable politician like Tom Daschle need to place his career in jeopardy for the sake of a chauffeur driven car provided by an organization that wants a Congressional connection? Why would a solid, up by his bootstraps John Edwards, need a sordid love affair at the potential height of his political career? Why would Charles Rangel, a senior member of the House of Representatives seek a $10 million gift from AIG to build a school in his honor?
The answer is power. If you got it, you use it, you take advantage of it.
Power was what got Newt Gingrich in trouble in 1997 when he was brought up on ethics charges by the House of Representatives, when he was House Speaker at the time. There were 84 charges filed against him but the most serious was claiming tax-exemption status for college courses he ran for political purposes. He paid a fine for $300,000 and resigned his seat for the 1999 term.
What brought him down? Filthy lucre, again.
Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Vietnam veteran who served multiple terms in the House of Representatives admitted taking bribes to the tune of $2.4 million from defense contractors and another $1 million in other bribes. He denied it at first than confessed and eventually was sentenced to prison in California.
And then we have the bizarre case of Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana. When the FBI raided his home in 2006 suspecting bribery funds extracted from a defense contractor, they found $90,000 in cash in his freezer. Another $10,000 was wrapped in freezer food containers. After a series of trials and appeals, Jefferson finally was defeated for reelection in 2008.
The answer rings in our ears over and over again: Filthy lucre. Filthy lucre. Filthy lucre.
These are just a few of the recent cases, but we keep learning over and over again what motivates many of our trusted lawmakers. It not always is money. There are other ways to satisfy an individual’s need to exercise power. Bill Clinton found it in a satellite office adjacent to the Oval Office. Others found it in writing suggestive letters to Congressional pages.
The most notable – in terms of rank -- of all cases of political greed during last half century was Spiro Agnew, the vice president in the Richard Nixon administration. The full impact of the Agnew scandal never reached absolute momentum because ten months later, Nixon, who himself was neck deep in a personal scandal, was forced to resign or face impeachment in the wake of the Watergate case.
Agnew’s situation had nothing to do with Watergate but was just as surly. He was charged with receiving a $10,000 cash bribe in a plain envelope on White House grounds. The bribe allegedly was a payoff to Agnew who when governor of Maryland had provided lucrative state contracts to a contractor.
On October 10, 1973 the country was treated to the dismaying specter of the vice president of the United States pleading no contest to bribery charges in a Baltimore court. In exchange for his resignation Agnew was sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation and fined $10,000, the exact amount of the bribe.
Filthy lucre at its zenith, but pretty small by today’s standards.
When you have power, your have privileges. That’s the way it should be. Executives, like mayors, governors ad presidents deserve respect, deserve their prerogatives and entitlements. It comes with the job. They have nice offices, usually a home provided by taxpayers, have large staffs working for them, are given personal security and officially provided speedy and comfortable transportation. It’s a tough job and deserves rewards.
But those rewards cannot be monetary and cannot be in exchange for official action because legally no one is said to be above the law, especially elected officials sworn to serve the people.
The enticement of filthy lucre has to be controlled.
We used to make lots of fun when growing up by suggesting money was the root of all evil. When we were young we often used the phrase "filthy lucre" to describe how money dishonored otherwise nice people. We knew it was wrong to influenced by cold cash but secretly we all hoped to have an opportunity to be so tainted.
As we moved through life we noticed that the concept of filthy lucre was alive and well everywhere we turned. People, try as they may to do the right thing often are swayed by the lure of money. Immature boys would hone their athletic skills at the expense of a good education not because they loved sports but because of the prospect of making big bucks as a pro.
Little girls, some as young as five, are entered into beauty contests with eyes focused on an ultimate career in films so they could dress up in fancy clothes and live an eventual life of luxury as a superstar. The prospect of success and the money that goes with it seems to drive the ambitions of many.
Most of these end up as disappointments, but that doesn’t stop the next wave of youngsters from trying.
You would think politics is different. Many say they went into public service because of a earnest desire to do good. They say they want to improve the lot of the people, but once elected or appointed to powerful office, the filthy lucre syndrome takes hold. Often the influence of money is subtle and almost imperceptible, often it is bold and ugly.
Why would a respectable politician like Tom Daschle need to place his career in jeopardy for the sake of a chauffeur driven car provided by an organization that wants a Congressional connection? Why would a solid, up by his bootstraps John Edwards, need a sordid love affair at the potential height of his political career? Why would Charles Rangel, a senior member of the House of Representatives seek a $10 million gift from AIG to build a school in his honor?
The answer is power. If you got it, you use it, you take advantage of it.
Power was what got Newt Gingrich in trouble in 1997 when he was brought up on ethics charges by the House of Representatives, when he was House Speaker at the time. There were 84 charges filed against him but the most serious was claiming tax-exemption status for college courses he ran for political purposes. He paid a fine for $300,000 and resigned his seat for the 1999 term.
What brought him down? Filthy lucre, again.
Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Vietnam veteran who served multiple terms in the House of Representatives admitted taking bribes to the tune of $2.4 million from defense contractors and another $1 million in other bribes. He denied it at first than confessed and eventually was sentenced to prison in California.
And then we have the bizarre case of Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana. When the FBI raided his home in 2006 suspecting bribery funds extracted from a defense contractor, they found $90,000 in cash in his freezer. Another $10,000 was wrapped in freezer food containers. After a series of trials and appeals, Jefferson finally was defeated for reelection in 2008.
The answer rings in our ears over and over again: Filthy lucre. Filthy lucre. Filthy lucre.
These are just a few of the recent cases, but we keep learning over and over again what motivates many of our trusted lawmakers. It not always is money. There are other ways to satisfy an individual’s need to exercise power. Bill Clinton found it in a satellite office adjacent to the Oval Office. Others found it in writing suggestive letters to Congressional pages.
The most notable – in terms of rank -- of all cases of political greed during last half century was Spiro Agnew, the vice president in the Richard Nixon administration. The full impact of the Agnew scandal never reached absolute momentum because ten months later, Nixon, who himself was neck deep in a personal scandal, was forced to resign or face impeachment in the wake of the Watergate case.
Agnew’s situation had nothing to do with Watergate but was just as surly. He was charged with receiving a $10,000 cash bribe in a plain envelope on White House grounds. The bribe allegedly was a payoff to Agnew who when governor of Maryland had provided lucrative state contracts to a contractor.
On October 10, 1973 the country was treated to the dismaying specter of the vice president of the United States pleading no contest to bribery charges in a Baltimore court. In exchange for his resignation Agnew was sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation and fined $10,000, the exact amount of the bribe.
Filthy lucre at its zenith, but pretty small by today’s standards.
When you have power, your have privileges. That’s the way it should be. Executives, like mayors, governors ad presidents deserve respect, deserve their prerogatives and entitlements. It comes with the job. They have nice offices, usually a home provided by taxpayers, have large staffs working for them, are given personal security and officially provided speedy and comfortable transportation. It’s a tough job and deserves rewards.
But those rewards cannot be monetary and cannot be in exchange for official action because legally no one is said to be above the law, especially elected officials sworn to serve the people.
The enticement of filthy lucre has to be controlled.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The immutable pair – swindlers and suckers.
By Don Klein
P.T. Barnum, the legendary American circus impresario was reported to have said, "There is a sucker born every minute." Some historians dispute whether Barnum was the actual author of those words, but no matter who coined the phrase, it is Bernard Madoff who perfected the adage. To put it more succinctly -- $60 billion worth of suckers.
Now clearly everyone should have sympathy for those who lost their wealth and in some cases their life’s savings, but all of the victims should be welcomed into the Suckers Hall of Fame. Even I, a very minor player in the stock market with a piddling portfolio, knows that you do not put all you eggs in one basket.
Haven’t we all been taught from childhood the well-worn proverb: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t."
When thinking of the Madoff scandal I can only conclude that there will always be swindlers like him because of one documented human factor. Greed. There are always those who hope to beat the odds or outsmart others by making a better deal than anyone else.
These are the people who are red meat for swindlers. Come up with a juicy idea that allegedly will make more money for you than you ever thought possible and you will have a steady supply of suckers beating a path to your door. They can be taken for all they are worth.
With homage to Barnum (or whoever talked about suckers being born every day), the sad thing about this is that after the balloon bursts these chumps look for someone else with deep pockets to extenuate their losses. They want the government to cover their foolishness because the Security and Exchange Commission didn’t do its job monitoring Madoff. That’s like suing the fire department for not saving your burning house.
Back in 1985 there was a swindle in Baltimore on a much lesser scale than Madoff’s. In that case the Old Court Saving and Loan Association, insured by a private company, offered much higher interest than other financial institutions. High rate seekers flocked to Old Court, dumped thousands of dollars in savings and were burned when the S&L president absconded with the money. The association failed and the depositors insisted on the state reimbursing them because the insurance firm, unable to cover the losses, operated under state law.
A congenial Gov. Harry Hughes, more concerned about reelection than wasting taxpayers money, complied after a time. The insult was that investors sought the advantage over careful taxpayers in seeking higher interest rates in Maryland yet when the bank failed insisted on the taxpayers bailing them out.
What happened to the risk factor in investments? Sounds familiar?
Is there any meaning anymore for personal responsibility? Have we created a society which happily reaps all the advantages of a free economy but with none of the responsibilities? Nothing forced Madoff investors to put their money with him except his phony salesmanship and their greed. That’s the risk of investing. Does everyone have a right to a bailout?
Swindlers make good fiction but bad reality. I remember the fun it was to watch the film "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" to observe the three main characters – Michael Caine, Steve Martin and Glenne Headly – try to out smart each other in fraud following fraud. It was a classic gyp comedy that previously could have starred favorites like Spencer Tracy and Cary Grant. In fact years later it was made into a Broadway play.
Then there was "The Producers." The Mel Brooks play about swindlers who decided that it was profitable in selling well over 100 percent of the shares of the play that they expect to fail so the shyster producers would reap a fortune in massive over subscriptions when the play closed. People eager to have a piece of Broadway gladly invested in the nefarious plot, which backfires when the show, "Springtime for Hitler," becomes a hit.
"The Producers" with Zero Mostel, Gene Wilder and Dick Shawn, was a classic Broadway show which later became a film hit. The film won the Academy Awards for script writing. A few years ago it was revived on the stage and was the draw on Broadway during its long run.
People love swindles when it happens to others. I predict that just about every Madoff victim saw at least one or maybe both of these plays or films and laughed their sides off. But they are not laughing anymore. It is truly sad. There is nothing funny about swindles in real life. Losers want their money back, but must realize they will never see it again, except for a possible fraction that the government can offer from Madoff’s seized assets.
The best thing about the Madoff case so far is that he is now sitting in jail, not in his posh New York penthouse.
Next year though, or the year after or the year after that, another Madoff will emerge with a great line of hocus on how to make money by investing with him and the suckers will trample over each other to buy in. And soon after they will go through the same pain as Madoff’s investors because even if Barnum didn’t say it, there is a sucker born every minute.
P.T. Barnum, the legendary American circus impresario was reported to have said, "There is a sucker born every minute." Some historians dispute whether Barnum was the actual author of those words, but no matter who coined the phrase, it is Bernard Madoff who perfected the adage. To put it more succinctly -- $60 billion worth of suckers.
Now clearly everyone should have sympathy for those who lost their wealth and in some cases their life’s savings, but all of the victims should be welcomed into the Suckers Hall of Fame. Even I, a very minor player in the stock market with a piddling portfolio, knows that you do not put all you eggs in one basket.
Haven’t we all been taught from childhood the well-worn proverb: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t."
When thinking of the Madoff scandal I can only conclude that there will always be swindlers like him because of one documented human factor. Greed. There are always those who hope to beat the odds or outsmart others by making a better deal than anyone else.
These are the people who are red meat for swindlers. Come up with a juicy idea that allegedly will make more money for you than you ever thought possible and you will have a steady supply of suckers beating a path to your door. They can be taken for all they are worth.
With homage to Barnum (or whoever talked about suckers being born every day), the sad thing about this is that after the balloon bursts these chumps look for someone else with deep pockets to extenuate their losses. They want the government to cover their foolishness because the Security and Exchange Commission didn’t do its job monitoring Madoff. That’s like suing the fire department for not saving your burning house.
Back in 1985 there was a swindle in Baltimore on a much lesser scale than Madoff’s. In that case the Old Court Saving and Loan Association, insured by a private company, offered much higher interest than other financial institutions. High rate seekers flocked to Old Court, dumped thousands of dollars in savings and were burned when the S&L president absconded with the money. The association failed and the depositors insisted on the state reimbursing them because the insurance firm, unable to cover the losses, operated under state law.
A congenial Gov. Harry Hughes, more concerned about reelection than wasting taxpayers money, complied after a time. The insult was that investors sought the advantage over careful taxpayers in seeking higher interest rates in Maryland yet when the bank failed insisted on the taxpayers bailing them out.
What happened to the risk factor in investments? Sounds familiar?
Is there any meaning anymore for personal responsibility? Have we created a society which happily reaps all the advantages of a free economy but with none of the responsibilities? Nothing forced Madoff investors to put their money with him except his phony salesmanship and their greed. That’s the risk of investing. Does everyone have a right to a bailout?
Swindlers make good fiction but bad reality. I remember the fun it was to watch the film "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" to observe the three main characters – Michael Caine, Steve Martin and Glenne Headly – try to out smart each other in fraud following fraud. It was a classic gyp comedy that previously could have starred favorites like Spencer Tracy and Cary Grant. In fact years later it was made into a Broadway play.
Then there was "The Producers." The Mel Brooks play about swindlers who decided that it was profitable in selling well over 100 percent of the shares of the play that they expect to fail so the shyster producers would reap a fortune in massive over subscriptions when the play closed. People eager to have a piece of Broadway gladly invested in the nefarious plot, which backfires when the show, "Springtime for Hitler," becomes a hit.
"The Producers" with Zero Mostel, Gene Wilder and Dick Shawn, was a classic Broadway show which later became a film hit. The film won the Academy Awards for script writing. A few years ago it was revived on the stage and was the draw on Broadway during its long run.
People love swindles when it happens to others. I predict that just about every Madoff victim saw at least one or maybe both of these plays or films and laughed their sides off. But they are not laughing anymore. It is truly sad. There is nothing funny about swindles in real life. Losers want their money back, but must realize they will never see it again, except for a possible fraction that the government can offer from Madoff’s seized assets.
The best thing about the Madoff case so far is that he is now sitting in jail, not in his posh New York penthouse.
Next year though, or the year after or the year after that, another Madoff will emerge with a great line of hocus on how to make money by investing with him and the suckers will trample over each other to buy in. And soon after they will go through the same pain as Madoff’s investors because even if Barnum didn’t say it, there is a sucker born every minute.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Castration for sex offenders?
By Don Klein
To most of us there is nothing more despicable than a child molester or a person who rapes. These are usually men who have an uncontrollable need to dominate those weaker than themselves – children and women. Sex is just the weapon they use.
I come to this subject not with any psychological credentials but from the perspective of a onetime police reporter who had a keener knowledge about sex crimes than ordinary members of society. It has been said many times than rape has little to do with sex and most to do with dominance.
Even if that is so, when one person brutalizes another person by destroying their will and making their body the tool of their rage, it should be considered a sex crime. It has been with humanity through the ages. A large part of ancient slavery was not only dominance but sexual bondage.
The battle cry of embattled hordes through history has been "kill the men and carry off the women." Women and children were viewed as spoils of war, booty that the Romans, for example, brought home after military campaigns to be sold at auction to toil as human property. Through World War II and continuing today in Darfur, rampaging armies on all sides have committed rape almost as a battle ritual.
But that is war and much is ignored in the name of the awful stress of combat. Not so back in civilian life and that is the problem where often the rapist and child abuser roams our streets looking for vulnerable individuals to prey upon. Their only explanation for some is the uncontrollable urge to satisfy their need to dominate and harm others of lesser physical dimensions.
There are others, however, who just like to beat other people, especially those they deem helpless. These are bullies who consider sex domination a personal conquest and proof of their superiority and even their cockeyed rights.
The sex offender is a societal abomination who is driven by ugly impulses. Laws won’t stop them. Police cannot protect everyone. The courts can lock them up, but it will not change the offender. Society can label them as sex offenders but they are like a can of gasoline near an open flame – you never know when they will explode, if at all.
For years there have be those who advocate the castration of sex offenders. This they say will serve two purposes. For one, it will end their sex drive and also will serve as a deterrent. In Prague recently, a man only identified as Pavel, volunteered to be surgically castrated to rid himself of his offensive trends.
Twenty years ago, when Pavel was 18, he lured a 12 year-old boy from his neighborhood into his home and stabbed him five times. Pavel said his sexual desires were set off after viewing a Bruce Lee martial arts film. He has spent some of the time since in prison or institutionalized. Today he works as a gardener at a Catholic charity.
"I can finally live knowing that I am no harm to anybody," he said in an interview with The New York Times, "I am living a productive life. I want to tell people that there is help."
The question is, is this the answer to the problem posed by sex offenders? Is castration better than having to live the rest of your life branded as a sex offender who must report where he lives to authorities whenever he moves and be an immediate suspect of every sex crime which occurs in his neck of the woods?
Castration as a deterrent is questionable if the act results from irrepressible instincts, not cool premeditation? And isn’t castration a draconian solution in a nation which prides itself on the Eight Amendment of the Constitution barring "cruel and unusual" punishment?
Then again when you weigh that against the cruelty suffered by the victims of sex crimes, which in many cases lasts a lifetime, where should the weight of the law fall? The only deterrent to crime seems to be when the individual responsible for the criminal act is caught, tried and locked away in prison. It doesn’t stop others from following in his path. And when you are dealing with instinctive crimes, it is not even in the quotient.
But the question of castration for convicted sex offenders is an appealing thought for many. Why should society care how severely a sex brute is treated after the commission of such heinous crimes? As Pavel said after his castration he now can live a normal life. Maybe castration is not so grievous after all.
The recent focus on violence in the home has reduced substantially those instances of wife beatings. More women call police for help and wife beaters have gotten the message that you can’t get away with brutalizing your spouse.
Perhaps if more attention was placed on sex crimes there would be a reduction in the number of men who rape not because they can’t control themselves but for the so-called pleasure of dominance. Cutting off the male sex organs could work as a threat to these. But is this the only solution we can find in a so-called civilized community?
Before answering that question I would remind everyone that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations of the west that still executes criminals convicted of capital crimes. What is as cruel as taking a person’s life? Certainly not castration.
NEXT: There will always be swindlers.
To most of us there is nothing more despicable than a child molester or a person who rapes. These are usually men who have an uncontrollable need to dominate those weaker than themselves – children and women. Sex is just the weapon they use.
I come to this subject not with any psychological credentials but from the perspective of a onetime police reporter who had a keener knowledge about sex crimes than ordinary members of society. It has been said many times than rape has little to do with sex and most to do with dominance.
Even if that is so, when one person brutalizes another person by destroying their will and making their body the tool of their rage, it should be considered a sex crime. It has been with humanity through the ages. A large part of ancient slavery was not only dominance but sexual bondage.
The battle cry of embattled hordes through history has been "kill the men and carry off the women." Women and children were viewed as spoils of war, booty that the Romans, for example, brought home after military campaigns to be sold at auction to toil as human property. Through World War II and continuing today in Darfur, rampaging armies on all sides have committed rape almost as a battle ritual.
But that is war and much is ignored in the name of the awful stress of combat. Not so back in civilian life and that is the problem where often the rapist and child abuser roams our streets looking for vulnerable individuals to prey upon. Their only explanation for some is the uncontrollable urge to satisfy their need to dominate and harm others of lesser physical dimensions.
There are others, however, who just like to beat other people, especially those they deem helpless. These are bullies who consider sex domination a personal conquest and proof of their superiority and even their cockeyed rights.
The sex offender is a societal abomination who is driven by ugly impulses. Laws won’t stop them. Police cannot protect everyone. The courts can lock them up, but it will not change the offender. Society can label them as sex offenders but they are like a can of gasoline near an open flame – you never know when they will explode, if at all.
For years there have be those who advocate the castration of sex offenders. This they say will serve two purposes. For one, it will end their sex drive and also will serve as a deterrent. In Prague recently, a man only identified as Pavel, volunteered to be surgically castrated to rid himself of his offensive trends.
Twenty years ago, when Pavel was 18, he lured a 12 year-old boy from his neighborhood into his home and stabbed him five times. Pavel said his sexual desires were set off after viewing a Bruce Lee martial arts film. He has spent some of the time since in prison or institutionalized. Today he works as a gardener at a Catholic charity.
"I can finally live knowing that I am no harm to anybody," he said in an interview with The New York Times, "I am living a productive life. I want to tell people that there is help."
The question is, is this the answer to the problem posed by sex offenders? Is castration better than having to live the rest of your life branded as a sex offender who must report where he lives to authorities whenever he moves and be an immediate suspect of every sex crime which occurs in his neck of the woods?
Castration as a deterrent is questionable if the act results from irrepressible instincts, not cool premeditation? And isn’t castration a draconian solution in a nation which prides itself on the Eight Amendment of the Constitution barring "cruel and unusual" punishment?
Then again when you weigh that against the cruelty suffered by the victims of sex crimes, which in many cases lasts a lifetime, where should the weight of the law fall? The only deterrent to crime seems to be when the individual responsible for the criminal act is caught, tried and locked away in prison. It doesn’t stop others from following in his path. And when you are dealing with instinctive crimes, it is not even in the quotient.
But the question of castration for convicted sex offenders is an appealing thought for many. Why should society care how severely a sex brute is treated after the commission of such heinous crimes? As Pavel said after his castration he now can live a normal life. Maybe castration is not so grievous after all.
The recent focus on violence in the home has reduced substantially those instances of wife beatings. More women call police for help and wife beaters have gotten the message that you can’t get away with brutalizing your spouse.
Perhaps if more attention was placed on sex crimes there would be a reduction in the number of men who rape not because they can’t control themselves but for the so-called pleasure of dominance. Cutting off the male sex organs could work as a threat to these. But is this the only solution we can find in a so-called civilized community?
Before answering that question I would remind everyone that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations of the west that still executes criminals convicted of capital crimes. What is as cruel as taking a person’s life? Certainly not castration.
NEXT: There will always be swindlers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
