Keeping The Pressure On

KEEPING THE PRESSURE ON

The little distraction about CSU’s wasted funds on water tours is laughable compared to the real waste CSU can be credited with. By now the infamous Neumann puzzle is even more confusing to someone who has just been invited to hear about “Dave Neumann's new Education Foundation.” Really?

Perhaps not everyone is puzzled by the timing of such a presentation; perhaps it makes sense to those of us who pay utility bills every month. It makes almost as much sense as the “Sponsorship Program” of CSU.

The first paragraph is right on the mark, and serves as a disclaimer of sorts: “The most critical contribution we make to the community is to provide safe, reliable competitively priced energy and water services. To help achieve the lowest rates for our customers, we have a very limited sponsorship program.”

What “very limited” as opposed to none at all? Think about it for a moment: whose money is being dispersed as “sponsorship”? It’s us, the citizens and consumers of Colorado Springs, who have paid for supposedly the “lowest rates”. But wait, these rates include enough “fat” so that sponsorship is possible. This makes no sense.

Let us pay less, and with the extra money we save, we will sponsor whatever programs we want. Instead, CSU collects extra fees to be able to disburse them as it wishes and buy “goodwill” not on our behalf, but on its own behalf—oh, that lovely CSU generously sponsored my kids’ event. Really?

As CSU’s website boasts: “Our sponsorship program supports local community projects and nonprofit events. Projects or events that are eligible for corporate sponsorship are finite in nature, located and serve citizens within our service territory or locations significantly impacted by our operations. Because of budget constraints, only events or organizations that have a strong alignment with Springs Utilities business priorities will be considered for financial sponsorship…”

It’s almost as if CSU claimed to help local dealerships because it’s buying new cars for its managers every year or new expensive trucks every six months. Let us waste your money in order to improve the local economy. Incidentally, CSU repeatedly refuses to provide a list of vehicles it owns, year, model, and assignment. It’s possible to legally force the issue, but it, too, would be wasteful.

Looking over the 2011 budget report, one cannot find how much “sponsorship” costs CSU, that is, us. It could be millions, for all we know. But CEO Forte has fortified his castle so that no information is available; even his board remains in the dark most of the time, or simple votes yes.

We may want to go back a year and recall the Memorial saga, one we all suffered through with raised eyebrows at some point, and raised voices at others. Should we go through the same ordeal again? Have we learned nothing from that experience?

Certain city officials were so supportive of CEO McEvoy that they deemed all critics as unpatriotic if not outright dumb. Certain claims by the CEO were discovered later to be unfounded, perhaps deliberately so. Will this scenario repeat itself with CSU and its CEO?

What’s upsetting some people right now is that Steve Schuck has convened a fact-finding group to ask some simple, if fundamental questions. Why not thank him? Why not have multiple groups convene to ask questions?

Wake up, Colorado Springs! It’s not too late to avert another potential disaster. We should be grateful that citizens in this town are taking the initiative; apparently the Chair of CSU’s board is asleep at the wheel, and the rest of the board is confused and scared. This is the same board that almost fumbled the Memorial deal. Should we trust such leadership?

Politicians cling to their positions out of convenience and pride: they like to be addressed “the honorable,” even when they don’t deserve to be honored at all. They think they “deserve” their seat at the table because they were elected to that seat. But they forget what responsibility they have to the city and its future. Theirs should be the long view, the bird’s view from high above, warning us of dangers to come.

Theirs shouldn’t be the view from within that circles the wagons against critics; nor should it be a defensive posture. At the end of the day, they should welcome criticism and implement changes. They should invite experts and recuse themselves—it takes a lot more than voter support to oversee a $1.2 billion entity.

Once again, let’s invite the CSU board and its CEO to resign; let us secure a better future for the city than any of them can honestly promise.

[This piece was submitted to the Colorado Springs Business Journal on September 24, 2012 as my weekly column. On September 27, 2012 I was informed the column was terminated.] 

 

“Framing the campaign for Obama and Romney,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 21 - 27, 2012, 19.

IT’S THE ECONOMY…

Having listened to two national conventions in so many weeks, you’d think that these two characters, Obama and Romney, were demons from a bygone era. Not only are they probably nice people you’d like to have dinner with, they probably don’t mean most of what they say, and don’t say what they really mean.

We forget sometimes that they can’t help themselves, being as they are politicians first and decent people second. Since decency and civic discourse isn’t possible in the era of sound-bites and 24/7 sensational reporting/blogging, perhaps we should discount everything we hear and search for the meaning behind their appearances.

But let’s not make the mistake of the ancient Greek philosopher Thales who was looking at the sky and fell inadvertently in a well, or the silly one who looked for his lost car-keys under the street-lamp because there is where he could see best.

Instead, we should ask serious questions not only about the facts of the matter, but also about the framing of these facts. As any trial lawyer will remind you, framing the facts ultimately influences how they are judged.

Starting with frames, which frames matter more than others? Three frameworks weigh heavily on the American mind: the economy, national security, and religion—and not necessarily in any particular order.

The religious framework is front and back in every discussion, from one’s character, trustworthiness and faith, to one’s personal choices, primarily about marriage and sex.

For secularists and those believing in the separation of state and church, there is an important lesson to be learned about the character argument: if one believes in God and afterlife, one is more likely to be moral and fearful of one’s ultimate judgment.

As for personal choices driven by religious belief, there are many arguments about following the Bible as God’s laws of human behavior as opposed to those humans have voted on over the years. Sometimes these arguments are focused on the wrong issues, such as abortion (as a form of murder) rather than on the antecedent conditions that bring about such choices (abstinence, safe sex, loving marriage, financial basis for child-bearing, and pre-natal care).

Is either of these demons, Obama and Romney, religious enough to be moral? Have they both been role models to others? Will their faith fill them with humility? Will their faith ensure that love is the most important factor in their decision-making process? The jury is out on both of them, since love isn’t foregrounded in their rhetorical outbursts.

The second framework is national security. Most would argue that this means military might and international presence, which translate in our case to close to 24% of the federal budget of $3.8 trillion in 2012 (close to 5% of our GNP). Outside of Saudi Arabia (10% of GNP), the US spends twice as much as any other country (as percentage of GNP, not to mention in real dollars), and accounts for 41% of the global military expenditure.

Neither presidential candidate offers any ideas on how to spend less on a smart military force which would be more effective. When it comes to national security, it’s an article of faith that more is better.

Why not transform the debate about national security and include in it education? Why not include in it sustainable energy sources? Or, water in the drought age? Perhaps include health care provision? 

The third framework is the economy—Adam Smith looked at it, so did Karl Marx. John Keynes had some ideas, so did Milton Friedman. They all agreed that it was fundamental in human affairs and deserves inquiry. What ideas do the candidates have?

According to the NYT, “Since bottoming out a year after Mr. Obama took office, private-sector employment has risen by 4.6 million; but government employment, which normally rises more or less in line with population growth, has instead fallen by 571,000.” How should we frame this?

Republicans should delight that government jobs have decreased, as they want small government; instead, they count all jobs and decry Obama’s failure. Democrats are delighted having done something to reverse job-loss trends of the Great Recession. But with high unemployment rates—official and unofficial—there is nothing to crow about.

Religious faith and defense spending, the two other frameworks, depend on the economy being vibrant. You can have all the right religious beliefs (Carter) and still fail economically; you can end the Cold War (Reagan) but increase government jobs by 238,000. Or you can be morally corrupt (Clinton) and leave a huge government surplus.

I predict that economic data reports will be splendid for the next two months, especially in light of the Federal Reserve Bank’s latest commitment for long-term intervention—anyone surprised?

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“We need to raise ethical expectations,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 14 - 20, 2012, 21.

ETHICAL BEHAVIOR

Just as behavioral economists incorporate the insights of psychologists in their economic models in order to portray a more accurate picture of human behavior in the marketplace and predict trends, commentators should be concerned to focus on ethical issues that are ignored when corporate lawyers sanction the behavior of their clients.

As Michael Rothfeld reports (WSJ), when it comes to corporate crime, we have a different standard by which to judge or mete punishment: “Known as ‘deferred prosecution’ or ‘nonprosecution agreements,’ these deals let the U.S. negotiate fines, put companies on probation and get them to change practices.”

With 1% of the population in prison, with overcrowding and shrinking state and federal budgets, one must be sympathetic to any judgment that excludes prison time. The standard questions of deterrence vs. fairness may fall by the wayside if we cannot afford to staff prisons nor have enough cells for inmates.

When talking of white-collar crimes, corporate crimes that are perceived to be victimless, why worry about Libor interest-rate manipulation, or about the tax-evasion of hedge funds counting fees as “capital gains” with 15% income tax rate rather than “ordinary income” warranting 35% marginal tax?

Recall the “too big to fail” mantra that kept inept banks intact with government bailout funds? Oh, those socialist bankers enjoying the largess of taxpayers’ generosity? All of a sudden there was a role for government intervention! Does it hold in the case of bank indictments?

Now we have the “too big to indict” mindset which suggests banks are in position to defend themselves for years, costing millions to taxpayers’ representatives, District Attorneys and Prosecutors. Where is the bank headquartered? Who licenses it (Barclays) to do business on our US shores? 

Barclays had no problem paying $453 million in fines after a criminal probe to its Libor fraud. Think about it: is it simply the “cost of doing business”? Are the bank’s activities in the US so profitable that such a fine is just another deductible cost?

If it is, we are in trouble, because no deterrence is in place, and whatever “agreement” was reached with the authorities will not deter it from continuing to lie to other banks and the public. If it isn’t, then why did Barclays agree to pay such a high fine?

Barclays is in good company, though. JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, UBS, and Credit Suisse Group have reached similar “agreements” in the past few years. It has become a common practice. As such, it neither bespeaks of deterrence—other banking entities aren’t deterred, nor of compliance—they and others continue to violate American laws with impunity.

“Three strikes and you are out” remains applicable in baseball and for petty criminals around the country, not for the captains of finance. In the last “mortgage bubble,” with clear intent to defraud, few bankers ended up in jail, and few banks and investment houses were crippled by fines. If you plan on being a criminal, don’t rob a bank; instead, become its CEO! You are bound to enjoy a hefty end-of-year bonus.

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, a law firm that follows these so-called agreements, claims that the Justice Department has collected over $31.6 billion in fines since 2000 from some 230 agreements. Is that number staggering? Does it say anything about our rule of law?

Common sense and practice suggest that our laws reflect our moral principles and social norms. Once we agree among ourselves what is and isn’t acceptable we turn it into law—enshrining our values in a legal system (social contract). The Ten Commandments were a bit different insofar as Moses got them from God, rather than his fellow Israelites. Perhaps that’s why some cherish them more than the malleable laws we have in regards to corporate crimes.

But the laws are there, in plain view. It’s their enforcement that is being challenged daily by the titans of finance. With the brain-power of Ivy-League graduates, they find ways to remain legally out of jail, pay fines, and promise to change their ways. But they have lost their moral compass along the way.

It was Rousseau long ago that warned the promoters of the Enlightenment that the study of the arts and sciences makes us clever but not moral, that we can argue our way out of any moral quandary without realizing that along the way we have lost our humanity, our compassion for other people and their needs.

Instead of “too big to indict” we should demand “big enough to be moral,” requiring wealthy financial institution moral leadership rather than monetary returns.

It is our collective help they turned to when in need; now that they don’t need us, should they forget us?

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“Turn off your engine!,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 7 - 13, 2012, 17.

TURN OFF YOUR ENGINE!

As we read about yet another military experiment with biofuels, one associated with the Navy’s Pacific fleet, it seems as if waste is never going to be curbed. What has been termed a $12 million cocktail of biofuels (NYT) has brought Congressional scrutiny and the ire of at least some members who ignore the fact that this program was undertaken already under the Bush Administration.

Should the military pioneer the use of alternatives to conventional fuel? Should the Navy take the lead with its Great Green Fleet even though the cost is about $27 a gallon as compared with as little as $4 a gallon for regular fuel?

Instead of worrying about this national program, we may consider another program just one state away from us that in fact proved to save energy costs. The only thing they did was stop idling their engines! It’s that simple, and quite amazing in its effectiveness.

The Kennecott Copper Mine in Utah experimented with this novel idea in the past three years. This is the second largest copper mine in the US, and the largest open-pit mine in the world. The experiment included 442 light and heavy trucks.

During a three-year period, 2,281,917 gallons were saved with a price tag of $7,148,637. So, even if you don’t care about emission reduction, how about saving over $7 million without affecting your productivity?

Modern engines don’t require warming up as they did some fifty years ago for optimal functioning. When idling an engine, it burns fuel at lower temperature than when fully engaged, thereby not burning the fuel in the same fashion and leaving some residues in the engine’s chamber. These residues build up and lower the engine efficiency over time, requiring increased fuel consumption.

When idling, so claim maintenance workers at the Cripple-Creek & Victor Gold Mining Company, the engine requires maintenance work twice as often as otherwise; they routinely double the odometer readings of their trucks and heavy equipment for warranty work, according to Sarah Martin.

Martin is the coordinator of the Southern Colorado Clean Cities Coalition, located in Colorado Springs (sarah@cleancitiescolorado.org). She is spear-heading an effort to educate large fleets managers about the benefits of reducing idling.

The Department of Energy estimates that 6.7% of all the fuel used annually is wasted by idling; this is around 2.5 billion gallons. At $4 a gallon, we are talking about saving some $10 billion. Imagine if we taught drivers not to press the gas pedal too hard when accelerating?

There are difficult to implement solutions to our energy needs, such as less reliance on foreign imports. According to the US Energy Information Administration, we imported about 11.4 million barrels per day of petroleum in 2011, about 45% of our usage. Any reduction would be a great relief for our national security.

Then there are difficult choices about how to extract the billions of gallons of oil and natural gas found on and off our shores—should we stop “fracking”? Should we license Alaska drilling? How about drilling off the southern coasts? These choices are complex because we must balance short-term needs with long-term costs to the environment.

Compared to these looming issues that experts continue to debate, and compared to the experiments of the Navy, the “stop the idle” program seems like a simple, rational, financially brilliant, and environmentally friendly solution. Why won’t everyone sign up?

We can start with our city and county governments, approach CSU, and focus on every school district we fund through property taxes. Unfortunately these organizations don’t release their budgets with proper details—how much they spend on gas, how often they maintain their fleets and at what cost, and how often they replace their fleets and at what cost.

Have you ever seen two police cruisers whose officers chat for a long time while their engines idle? How often have we seen utility trucks idling while their drivers stand beside them? Let’s not focus on the drivers but on the vehicles, prolonging their lives, reducing our costs by millions—without reducing services!

Most economic models measure costs and benefits to discover the advisability of a proposal. This idea seems so simple and reasonable, it should have our support.

This reminds me of a relative of mine who twenty years ago suggested we shut the water when brushing teeth or shaving, each one of us saving a gallon a day. In drought-ridden Colorado this could mean some 5 million gallons daily. Installing dual-flush toilets would do wonders, too, for water conservation.

Just as we can contribute to water conservation at our sinks, so we can conserve energy by remembering “stop the idle,” saving billions along the way.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

 

“Why proximity matters,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 31 – September 6, 2012, 19.

PROXIMITY MATTERS

In the Digital Age our reach is global, but our expertise is local. We have access to information from around the world, but we really know only what’s around us. We know whose coffee is best, and the bartender who fills your wine glass more than anyone else. This local knowledge is tacit: we don’t even realize it unless asked by others.

This is true for coffee and wine as well as for economic and political issues. The price of corn futures may be up at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, but it rings true when drought conditions fan the fires of Colorado rather than the fields of the Midwest.

We hear of the banking industry, but only when we try to get a loan from the local branch and are turned down—even for a great idea that would add much needed jobs to the local economy—we appreciate the great banking fraud: claim disaster, threaten to collapse, ensure we believe you are too big to fail, divine the ripple effects of your demise, and collect billions in interest-free support to maintain profitability.

Large bank profits are up, ours are down. Equilibrium is restored once again to the great capitalist marketplace where the Invisible Hand rules and the laws of supply and demand regulate prices. The Invisible Hand has been replaced by a Visible Grease that oils the wheels of commerce for the largest banks at the expense of other, worthwhile small businesses who could use some grease, visible or not.

The same goes for social and moral questions when they hit close to home. It’s one thing to argue about the merits of capital punishment, and quite another when your daughter is raped. I have asked many fathers over the years what they’d do, and even the most bleeding-heart liberals turned vicious in their responses: I’d kill him, they admit. The faint-hearted said they’d hire someone else to do the job. Proximity matters!

When it comes to political shenanigans, we remain even more in the dark, not knowing which “Hand” is doing what. It’s all happening far away in the corridors of Washington buildings or the many bars and restaurants reserved for the elite, the lobbyists. And here, too, distance makes a big difference.

Having returned from the Middle-East where three hot spots remain the focus of the international media, it became clear how much proximity matters. Visiting a friend some ten miles from the Syrian border, you can appreciate how close everything is, how refugees cross borders to safety in Turkey, Jordan, and Israel (primarily Druze), hoping to escape the cruelty of Assad’s minions.

Iran is also not that far off when you see Israeli citizens given gas masks and instructions about how to use fortified underground parking garages as shelters from nuclear or chemical bombs. Yes, it’s only a possibility, and yes, even when one in three hundred bombs has  a nuclear head, the probability of being able to spot the nuclear one as opposed to the other 299 is small and terrifying.

And to the south, where the border with Egypt is only an hour’s drive from the pristine Mediterranean sandy beaches, where the water right now is as warm and inviting as a bathtub, any altercation is frightening as well. Is the Multinational Force and Observers sufficient deterrent for any border crossing? Is the Sinai safe from terrorist activities?

From the distance afforded to us living in Colorado the Middle-East is far away. It’s like the photojournalistic reminders we got from Iraq and now still coming from Afghanistan. For those who live in Israel, geo-political maneuvering means life or death, a real threat to one’s survival.

Living under survival conditions, one’s thinking gets twisted. Everything is contextualized in war terms, with the worst scenario being played in one’s mind. Some listen to the hourly news obsessively, trying to glean any new morsel of information; they read the newspapers daily and listen to television newscasts nightly.

Others ignore all news media, not as if they were ostriches burying their heads in the sand, as someone explained herself, but as a way to remain calm and not clutter her mind with anxiety. This is as good a coping mechanism as one can muster under these circumstances.

The rest of Israel finds itself somewhere in the middle: listening and caring, worrying and shrugging their shoulders: what can we do?, they ask fatalistically. If the war comes, we’ll deal with it then. The inevitability of yet another war in the region is palpable, you see it on people’s faces.

Perhaps this is why they drive like crazy, fill up all the restaurants nightly, and make passionate love whenever they can.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who served in the IDF. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“Irrational economic behavior,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 24 - 30, 2012, 17.

IRRATIONAL ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR

If what you hear doesn’t make sense to you, you are not alone. We hear about JP Morgan Chase announcing $5 billion profit in its second quarter of 2012 despite its London trade losses of equal amount. We hear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions despite international sanctions and the lunacy of dropping such a bomb on a close-by neighbor, Israel. Gas prices at the pump are rising despite the double-dip recession and the infamous laws of supply and demand.

The world around us makes no sense, and no rational economic models of rational consumers can provide a clear road-map in this turbulent market. No worries, reassure us some behavioral economists, like Dan Ariely, because your irrationality is in fact “predictable”. If he is right, mapping deviation from rational behavior is possible by analyzing probabilistically our common mistakes.

So, what can psychologists really teach economists? The first lesson is to give up on the idealized model of rational participants in the marketplace. No matter how evolved, humans still react emotionally to triggers whether in the marketplace or their kitchen. They have urges and instincts, and their “fast” thinking overtakes any “slow” rational deliberation, according to the Noble Laureate Daniel Kahneman.

The second lesson is that economics is not a science like physics, but rather a complex system (like biology) in which environmental cues affect marketplace behavior. Sometimes the impact is so great that we choose contrary to our self-interest (poor people voting for tax cuts for the rich). Sometimes the external impact is unpredictable as seen after 9/11 (shopping) or the Walden Canyon Fire (robberies).

The third lesson is that if we study human behavior in its broadest context, we might learn how to protect ourselves from preventable mistakes. Among the many “fallacies” and “illusions” that Kahneman enumerates, the “sunk-cost fallacy” may be useful for our local utilities establishment.

According to Kahneman, “a rational decision maker is interested only in the future consequences of current investments. Justifying earlier mistakes is not among the Econ’s concerns.” This is termed the “narrow framing” of the situation by the decision-maker, preferring to ignore the past and the costs associated with earlier decisions. Such framing leads to costly mistakes about future plans.

The ongoing debate about the future of coal burning at CSU, the implementation of the Neumann system, and the elimination of the Drake plant are among such mistakes. The reason to think about them as mistakes is not because earlier decisions look bad in hindsight—all businesspeople must admit that they overshot or undershot at some point in their business careers, just as all Venture Capitalists admit that their success rate is inversely related to insisting on potential success when none is forthcoming.

The point is that financial decisions are always informed guesses. We hope the “informed” part is greater than the “guesses” part, but it’s impossible to quantify this ratio with precision. Any quantification depends on the definition we assign to what it means to be informed to begin with, and what we believe are guesses rather than sure things.

But once financial decisions have been made, once investments have been committed, one must observe their results. And if they turn out to be “misses” rather than “hits,” one should change course as fast as possible. Though this is sound financial advice, it is a difficult psychological feat to accomplish.

Pride and humiliation stand in the way of rational choice: admitting to a mistake and trying a different venue is relatively easy financially speaking—the “sunk cost” is already lost and can never be recovered, but difficult psychologically—how can a large organization like CSU make big mistakes with public funds?

Kahneman observes that “All too often a company afflicted by sunk costs drives into the blizzard, throwing good money after bad rather than accepting the humiliation of closing the account of a costly failure.” Instead of losing more money, he suggests walking away from previous mistakes and starting over in a new direction.

He also reports that teaching this fallacy to economic and business students has the good effect that graduate students are more likely to walk away from mistakes than undergraduates—they have learned something valuable in school.

One wonders if CSU’s leadership will ever go back to school, the school of real life (if not the academic one), and be humiliated just a bit for the sake of a better future for all of us. This is a small price to pay for the well-being of the community.

If admitting mistakes is psychologically too difficult for them, let them all resign now, and a new leadership can take credit for changing course. Even President Morsi has learned this lesson in Egypt!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

 

    

“Why support Israel?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 17- 23, 2012, 17.

WHY SUPPORT ISRAEL?

As election season is heating up, the presumed Republican presidential contender, Mitt Romney, has made his way to Israel to garner Jewish support and raise funds for his campaign. The Obama administration responded with security support and loan guarantees, sending Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, to meet with his counterparts.

Are Iran’s nuclear ambitions the glue that binds Israeli and American interests in the Middle-East? Is the claim that Israel is the only legitimate democracy in the region the main focus for American support? Or, as some would have us believe, is the Jewish lobby in America (AIPAC) really that strong to secure political support?

We should recall that the USSR was more eager to support the establishment of a socialist-leaning Israel during the 1947 two-state UN resolution that the US which was uneasy at the time to get involved in the post-British Mandate.

As my American girlfriend (who is Christian) was visiting me in Israel, and as I was showing her around the holy sites of the Abrahamic religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim), it dawned on me that despite politicians’ proclamations about democracy, they are in fact concerned about other issues. It’s not quite hypocrisy, but confusion.

Let me explain. Democracy is a valuable political ideal, especially when compared to other political systems, such as dictatorship or tyranny (military or other). Democratic nations tend to promote human rights, value equality and freedom, and are based on the rule of law.

But if Israel’s democracy were the lynchpin for American foreign policy in the region, then any other nascent democracy would do as well. How about the democratically-elected Palestinian Authority? Why are we stymied by the results of the Arab Spring? If the majority of Egyptians prefer the Muslim Brotherhood, who are we to object? Why vex nostalgically about the good old days of President Mubarak?

One could cynically suggest that at least Mubarak guaranteed the peace agreement brokered by President Carter in 1979, and provided, as of 2008 some 60 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually through a direct pipeline from Egypt to Israel. He controlled the military and the military controlled the country, hence Mubarak had his way, even when it got to Israel. American annual foreign aid ($1.55 billion) reflects this point.

If democracy isn’t the most important reason for American support of Israel, two other standard arguments remain. One has to do with strategic alliance, harkening back to the Cold War when the Soviet Union supported the Arab world while America supported Israel and Turkey. Israel could test American weapons in the region—there were many wars since 1948—and provide feedback on potential improvements. This military-alliance argument remains central in current debates regarding an attack on (almost nuclear ready) Iran, with no mention of Israel’s own nuclear capability and its refusal to sign the international non-proliferation treaty.

Given that the US has engaged in two wars against Iraq without any Israeli involvement (other than intelligence), this argument is weak. We are left with the Jewish-factor argument, one that has veiled anti-Semitic undertones. If American Jews are rich and control the liberal media, they have undue influence over politicians of both parties; in order to get the “Jewish vote,” presidential and congressional candidates support Israel. This assumes that Jews and Israelis are interchangeable, which of course isn’t true.

The casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is the poster-child of this view. Should one example be generalized about a whole minority? No. There are as many Jews who support Israeli policies as those who oppose them; there are as many poor Jews as there are rich ones; and there are as many liberal Jews as there are conservative. Not all Jews are alike.

Annual foreign aid to Israel ($3.1 billion) as well as to other Middle-East countries is in fact domestic subsidy since all expenditures are to be spent here on grain or arms, unlike the billions handed out to local chieftains in Iraq and Afghanistan. It therefore has wide congressional support; it’s pork barrel policies.

So, what is it that compels America to support Israel? It’s the religious holy sites! If America were to gamble on who would protect them, ensure that Christian pilgrims who come to Israel annually can worship peacefully (53% of 3.5 million tourists), it would be on Israel rather than any other Arab state. This is the tipping point that moves Americans of all Christian denominations to support Israel as the custodian of the holy land.

Driving from Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee to Jerusalem, it became clear that a free Israel welcomes pilgrims from around the world, inviting them to worship safely and respectfully, with guards in every gate and on every rooftop.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

      

 

“Mandatory service,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 10 - 16, 2012, 17.

MANDATORY SERVICE

Years ago one of my daughters thought she wanted to become a politician. When asked what would prepare her for the job, she confidently answered that she’d need to enlist in the military. If I’m going to approve funding for wars, she said, I should know what it’s like to fight in one.

Perhaps she was influenced by her father who served in the IDF, where there is mandatory service of three years for men and two years for women. There is something quite reassuring when you look around you and know that everyone served in the military, just like you. Perhaps she was simply young and idealistic, wanting to serve her country.

Unlike the voluntary American military service and its two-tiered system of enlistment, the IDF enlist everyone at the private level and then promotes through the ranks according to merit. Even the Chief of Staff began as a private.

There is something to say about this egalitarian system where everyone gives according to his/her ability (my brother-in-law had a leg problem and worked in the computer center) and in return has his/her security needs met.

But what if you are a conscientious objector or pacifist? You can always opt out and join instead one of the many civil-service agencies. Contributing to the whole binds the population together in ways that foster a sense of citizenship and a stake in one’s country, unless you are an ultra-orthodox Jew.

For some reason—concern for the ability to fully practice religion?—orthodox Jews were exempted from military service since the founding of the state in 1948. Year after year, a brokered deal was in place with weak coalition governments (in which minority religious parties traditionally hold the balance of power for parliamentary control) that prolonged this exemption.

Now its extension has expired (August 1^st) by order of the Supreme Court as a discriminatory practice that violates another, more basic law, about human rights and equality (except Arab Israelis whose rights and duties differ from those of their Jewish counterparts—but this is another issue altogether).

As long as religious leaders were able to cut their own deals behind closed doors and prop up prime-ministers whose majority rule was so slim that their support was crucial for surviving a no-confidence vote, there was little public outrage. But as the centrist party, Kadima (Forward), made it a condition of its continued participation in the current coalition government it has to leave the coalition.

With fourteen political parties making up the 120 membership Knesset (parliament), one can imagine the ongoing mayhem of bringing together competing ideological stances and delivering on promises to constituents. And this doesn’t even include the twenty-one parties represented in municipalities but not in the Knesset. It’s a mess, lively and active, personal and contentious.

Kadima left the ruling coalition, bringing a comfortable super-majority government of 94 down to 66. The Supreme Court’s decision went into effect, and the Knesset is on summer recess till mid-October. The defense department, headed by a member of the ruling coalition, has already suggested it’s not ready to deal with such a large influx of soldiers all at once, so a wait-and-see policy is in effect by default.

Do principles matter? Or does political reality necessitate pandering to those who wield disproportionate power to form coalition governments? Between principles and practice the gap is so wide that nothing will be accomplished soon. But this doesn’t mean that these principles are irrelevant or should be compromised. It’s almost as bad as claiming that “all men are created equal” and overlooking slavery or women’s rights. It took us almost two centuries to get it right; let’s see how quickly the Israelis catch up.

Israel is a young nation that needs guidance. Stubborn and self-righteous as it is, it does have serious national security issues unlike those we have faced in America, primarily because of the proximity of enemy states. Its legitimacy as a state is continuously questioned, and some of its neighbors are bound to annihilate it when the opportunity arises. Numbers do matter when it relates to land-mass and population size.

Perhaps it is with this in mind that it’s puzzling to see a large minority of self-proclaimed religionists enjoy the fruits of the state—claiming educational and welfare rights and funding—while refusing to share in the burdens and duties facing every citizen. If it were only unfair and hypocritical, it would be lamentable; but it’s dangerous as well, and that is unforgiveable.

Equality among people is a religious principle, after all, since we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, right? Why not extend this to duties as well?

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who served in the IDF. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“The right, and duty, to bear arms,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, August 3 - 9, 2012, 25.

GUN RIGHTS AND DUTIES

Admittedly, one has a different perspective when writing from the most militarized nation on earth, Israel. National security isn’t simply a political excuse for parliamentary debate but a real survival matter for a tiny country surrounded by enemies who publicly declare their intention to destroy it. Military might is a watchword even for peace-lovers who’d give up the West Bank in a two-state solution to the Palestinian right of independence.

Whatever one reads here, there is no mention of personal gun rights or the ideology of a lone rider shooting his way through Indian (or Palestinian) territories. Instead, there is shock and horror over the Aurora shooting. One hears a relieved sigh, It can only happen in America.

Perhaps it’s the fact that most public places have guards that check one’s backpack and purse; perhaps it’s a greater awareness that suicide-bombers have caused enough damage over the years; it might even be a general psychosis that informs everyone about living in a military zone, despite exterior conviviality. The fact is, one must be vigilant and keep a watchful eye on one’s surroundings.

This is in no way to say that someone could have prevented a nut-case from opening fire in a crowded movie-theater. The consensus is that with enough intent and planning, one can cause harm anywhere in the world. But there is also a consensus in Israel that cultural cues and training may help create an atmosphere and mindset where citizens can expect to live a normal life under abnormal conditions.

The new normal in Israel differs from that of Colorado when it gets to guns and security, patrolling one’s borders and airports. But public debate about such issues is radically different, and perhaps informative.

While Americans of all stripes—see both Obama and Romney on the issue—publicly declare their support for gun ownership and the right “to bear arms,” in Israel the issue revolves around duties to protect one’s country. Israeli media is enmeshed in a parliamentary debate over the duty of ultra-Orthodox Jews to join the Israeli Defense Forces and bear equal burdens as secular citizens.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has two versions, one passed by Congress that states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” the other ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson, Secretary of State at the time that reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right…”

In his Law’s Empire (1986), Ronald Dworkin spends an entire chapter to the different punctuation of the this amendment, claiming that if one follows the grammatical conventions of the time, the right to bear arms was associated with the formation of militias and not attributable to individuals. This, of course, isn’t what the Supreme Court decided in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller when it reaffirmed the right of individuals to bear arms, overturning the District’s restrictions.

What gets lost in the American debate, especially when intellectual light-weights join the conversation from both political parties, is the realization that in a democracy that holds the rule of law paramount, there are no rights without duties. One’s right ought to be proportional to one’s duties. The assumption is that we are dealing with responsible adults.

Will the horrific Aurora case change anything? There are 49,762 licensed gun dealers in the US and 7,261 pawn shops that sell guns; about 30,000 people die annually from firearms, half are suicide cases (NYT). To some extent, we have to change the public discourse if we want to have a useful conversation with the National Rifle Association.

First, gun ownership shouldn’t be understood as an absolute right. Just as equality isn’t an absolute principle—we have laws and policies about equal opportunity—so must our understanding of gun rights be circumscribed with greater regulations (perhaps a few weeks of waiting period is reasonable, just as we wait for liquor licenses).

Second, gun rights should be accompanied by duties. These duties shouldn’t be limited to the permit fee, but also to training and annual classes where gun owners should reconsider why they own their guns and under what circumstances they should or shouldn’t use them.

Third, gun ownership should be understood as a personal responsibility to one’s community. As such, each gun owner should contribute ten hours a year to help law-enforcement agencies, for example, or participate in mandatory exercises, depending on each community’s needs.

One needn’t be for or against guns, but rather approach the topic as a political issue worthy of public debate with reasonable solutions.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

 

 

 

“Let’s just follow Denver,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 27 – August 2, 2012, 19.

FOLLOW DENVER

As I arrived in Israel, I was thinking about a tale of two cities, but not Dickens’. Though I was born in Haifa, I’m staying in Tel Aviv, about one hour south. These two cities parallel Colorado Springs and Denver, respectively, one hour by car but light-years apart.

Haifa and CS have about the same size population, one half million, and their own reputations: Haifa has traditionally been the labor stronghold, the proud home of the Technion (Israel’s MIT), and the world center of the Baha’i (with gardens meandering down the hill to the Mediterranean Sea), while CS is a conservative stronghold with Focus on The Family headquarters, the USOC, AFA, and UCCS.

Tel Aviv and Denver have populations that exceed one million (depending on how one counts), and their own reputations: TA is the party mecca of Israel, competing with Paris and London for all-night clubs, high fashion, high-tech, banking, and cosmopolitan sophistication, while Denver has successfully climbed up the national ladder as a convention center, communication industries, professional athletic teams, and overall commercial appeal.

Haifa has always been the ugly sister of TA, just as CS remains the secondary city in Colorado. Haifa stayed the course of isolation and self-loathing, internal community squabbles, and lack of leadership or vision. After decades of false starts, it lags behind its ascending counterpart to the south.

CS has likewise not kept up with the growth of Denver, choosing instead to maintain a parochial approach to its self-image. A friend who bought a house in CS and one in Denver about fifteen years ago for the same price reports that while his CS’ house has doubled in value, his Denver place has appreciated ten-fold. Anecdotes, when factual, capture much.

Denver had a visionary mayor who is now our governor, John Hickenlooper. Yes, he is a Democrat by party affiliation, but if you were to judge him on either Coast, he’d definitely be considered a Republican centrist. He is so pro-business that he’s letting fracking (hydraulic fracturing), for example, go on with limited regulation till proven that more is needed.

But even this pro-business politician was keen on raising taxes in Denver in order to ensure a strong infrastructure (with voters’ approval). This, incidentally, didn’t deter corporate America from flocking into town, but rather was a necessary ingredient in their decision to move there. Why?

Tax-burden on corporate entities is only one of many variables that figure into choosing a location. Good roads and bridges, public transportation, police and fire departments, schools and universities, hospitals and concert halls, restaurants and bars, athletic facilities and parks, are much more important!

If a broad tax base ensures all of the above and is used judiciously to provide a wide-range of options for people, the sting of taxes is not only acceptable but even welcome. Cities have to offer the foundation, and private enterprise will follow. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Until the Waldo Canyon fire CS played the “let the marketplace do its thing” game: private enterprise will fill the gaps left by inadequate public funding, from the symphony and FAC to USOC and Uncle Wilbur. Isn’t Pikes Peak enough?

Despite its quirky reputation for religious headquarters and mega-churches (all of whom enjoy special tax status), CS still owns a hospital and utilities. MHS is being sold (unless some genius in CS’ leadership derails this), but CSU is still proudly managed by incompetent, small-town executives who are way over their head.

Follow Denver! That’s all we need to do if we plan to be like our big sister to the north rather than Pueblo (which has a nicer downtown river-walk and historic buildings). Denver got it right: it has a great infrastructure with multiple museums and a core downtown that draws tourists and conventioneers.

Recall the Broadmoor derailing a downtown convention center for decades, as if two are not better than one. An old professor of mine taught me years ago: there is plenty of room at the top; it’s not a pyramid. Recall decades of studies that yielded no results because downtown development would necessitate floating bonds. No financial infusion of city funds, no local development—the equation is easy to figure out. But as real entrepreneurs know: there must be more than one equation worth checking out.

As Councilman Leigh is willing to challenge CSU’s operations, old, small-town minds keep silencing him, worrying that back-room contracts might see the light of day. No matter how hard CSU circles its wagons, let’s follow Denver and keep a water department while selling all else. If we don’t, we’ll turn into another Haifa where the sidewalks are rolled up early to ensure a good night’s sleep.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

   

“Simple questions about water,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 20 - 26, 2012, 19.

WATERWORKS

As the Waldo Canyon Fire made abundantly clear, we need to think about water in the arid high desert in which we live. To the question “How much water consumption do we have in CS?,” Mark Murphy, of CSU’s Public Affairs Division, responded: “Our average annual consumption in recent years has been about 27 billion gallons/83,000 acre-feet.”

Gary Bostrom, who is the Chief Water Services Officer at CSU, refused to answer any questions regarding water consumption or conservation. It took two weeks to move from one department to the other to get simple answers to simple questions. Is this the most efficient manner to respond to public inquiries?

Perhaps CSU needs to justify its bloated Public Affairs Division’s budget. How many employees does it take for Mr. Murphy to respond? One is tempted to throw in a joke about screwing a light bulb, but perhaps this would hit too close to home. Did CEO Forte or the big boss, Mr. Hente, the chairman of the CSU board, gave such orders to make sure no one knows what is done at CSU. Circling the Wagons?

Apparently, efficiency and transparency are not on their agenda. No, this is not picking on anyone in particular, just pointing out a culture of waste that probably will be shoved under the rug now that the big fire consumes all our attention. Isn’t it petty to pick at CSU when CS is burning? On the contrary, it’s what should be done.

Do we have enough reserves, long term contracts, or is this an annual matter? According to CSU’s spokesperson, “We currently have about two years of demand in storage, which we feel is adequate. We typically do not lease water from other sources other than our yield from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, which is an annual purchase; all our water is yield from the many water rights the city owns. We have on occasion purchased water from other providers, but those have been on a spot market basis and not long-term arrangements.”

How much does CSU charge (in the aggregate) for water, and how much does it pay for it? Answer: “As a not-for-profit, municipal utility, our goal is to recover only the cost of service and keep rates as low as possible.” But what are the numbers? Why bother asking if CSU refuses to answer those who are actually paying? It didn’t seem like a tricky question. Perhaps as users we should just trust CSU. Really?

What conservation efforts have you undertaken lately? A lengthy answer here: “State drought conditions have increased customer awareness for the value of water.  Additionally, we offer a number of free resources - from xeriscape classes to online conservation tools. Our customers may also qualify for money-saving rebates for installing or upgrading irrigation equipment and efficient appliances (http://www.csu.org/residential/water/Pages/waterefficiency.aspx).

Of note, we continue to help the Colorado Springs Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department modernize its irrigation systems and update [its] water efficiency practices for sustainable water savings. Our staff members have conducted water audits, made landscape changes and system upgrades, such as installing more efficient sprinkler heads, rain sensors and irrigation controllers to help save water while benefiting our community. These improvements, along with a water conservation rate applied to more than 130 parks, ha[ve] resulted in healthier turf and a decrease in parks water use by nearly 20 percent.

Our customers continue to conserve. The combination of ongoing customer information, rebates, and tiered water pricing based on use has resulted in a 21.5 percent decrease in water use per person compared to 2001.”

And, finally, is there a correlation between rate increase and decrease in consumption? What's the tipping point? The answer: “There is a price for essential indoor use, a moderate price for typical outdoor use and a higher price for excess use. Calculations are based on monthly use.  One cubic foot (CF) equals 7.48 gallons. Up to 999 CF 2.51 cents/CF; 1,000 to 2,499 CF 4.68 cents/CF; More than 2,500 CF 6.91 cents/CF. Average monthly water use is 1,100 cubic feet (8,228 gallons), resulting in a bill of $46.08. This is equal to about six-tenths of a cent per gallon.” No answer to the question at hand.

This trend is in line with an article titled “Residential water use trends in North America” (2011) that concludes: “when controlling for weather and other variables, the evident decline in residential use was pervasive among the national and regional components of the study. A household in the 2008 billing year used 11,678 gallons less water annually than an identical household di in 1978.”

Except for PR silliness, the Water Department is on board with the rest of the country. It therefore seems reasonable to follow Denver’s lead and keep it, while selling the rest of CSU.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“Consider a paradigm shift,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 13 - 19, 2012, 19.

PARADIGM SHIFT

It used to be called a paradigm shift. This happens in scientific circles when we move from one framework where our assumptions and methods can no longer solve problems to another where they can. The shift occurs because the old paradigm can no longer accommodate new variables or solve new problems. We must change some assumptions, even our methods of inquiry.

It’s still a mystery when exactly such shifts take place. At times, there is an obvious observation that contradicts old ideas—think of Galileo and his telescope confirming a heliocentric worldview away from the geocentric one. He was considered a heretic by the Catholic Church not because of his observations, but because they shattered a Biblical view about the earth being at the center of the universe.

We don’t hear much about paradigm shifts anymore. Instead, we hear about something being a “game-changer” that eventually becomes a “new normal.” Paradigm seems too archaic and cumbersome a term, especially as the person most credited with its coinage, Thomas Kuhn, was accused of having more than thirty five definitions for it.

As the Waldo Canyon Fire recedes into our collective history—a horrific natural disaster whose price will be paid for months and years—it can be seen as a game-changer for us as a community. It has forced us to rethink who we are and what we value. Solidarity isn’t a term we might have used before, but one we can use now; government assistance is something some have dreaded, but was essential to save lives and property.

The fire will be remembered by Americans across the land, making them more reluctant to come as tourists. So, tourism as we have known it in the cool and dry summers of Colorado may change as well. Our new normal may look quite differently from what it has looked in the past, especially when the state boasted that in 2011 we claimed 2.7% of the US travel market.

The total spending on overnight trips during 2011 was $10.76 billion, hosting a record 57.9 million travelers. Of them, 29 million were overnight visitors. The Colorado Tourism Office’s budget for 2011 was $13.3 million. Not a bad return on investment!

Our local economy is diversified enough that we aren’t as reliant on tourism as, say, Breckenridge, Vail, or Aspen. But we should revitalize our own Convention & Visitors Bureau—finding young and creative leaders rather than hiring outsiders who come to retire here.

One can see this kind of transformation or paradigm shift in San Miguel de Allende. Narco-trade has given Mexico such a terrible reputation around the world that tourism has dropped perceptibly. A desired destination for Canadian and American tourists and host to about 10,000 expats (out of a population of 70,000), San Miguel suffers from many empty restaurants and galleries.

A city founded in 1542, San Miguel is old and magnificent, with cobbled streets and three-meter walls, colorful and quiet, perched on hills some 250 kilometers north of Mexico City. Its European ambience is sophisticated the way the old world has always been, knowingly avoiding the latest trends to assure the continuity of tradition. Yes, they do have televisions and Internet connectivity. But the cuisine remains seasonal.

As tourism declined in the past few years, and as money transfers from Mexicans working in the US has shrunk (estimates put the annual amount around $20 billion), San Miguel’s largest industry remains strong: dairy. The new normal there has lowered real-estate speculation, because foreigners are not flocking there as they used to. The recent rigged election of the PRI isn’t helping in assuring Americans Mexico is their favored destination.

Just as San Miguel had to adjust because of circumstances not of its own doing, so will Colorado Springs have to adjust as well. We may have to rethink our tourism industry and promote cycling, for example, more than ever. Likewise, we’ll have to rethink our dependence on national defense budgets, and develop related high-tech industries that have broader applications.

The fire has definitely been a game-changer for us: we learned what it means to be a community (despite some ugly manifestations to the contrary among burglars and thieves). Coming together we can even try and change our national image of a silly conservative holdout that refuses to invest in its infrastructure. We may not become liberals in any sense of the term, yet we can be republicans.

When Michael Sandel urges us to recall our republican heritage, he suggests we consider having a “public philosophy” that stresses building virtues among the citizenry the way our founding father envisioned them. This doesn’t mean choosing specific ends, but recognizing ourselves as members of a community that cares.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com