“Mayor Bach is well-equipped, so let him lead,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 20 - 26, 2012, 17.

LET THE MAYOR LEAD

I supported the strong mayor initiative and wrote favorably about the Jenkins Proposal that made it happen. I also supported Richard Skorman out of loyalty and a belief that with a new structure in place, experience would count.

I still believe that given our council, a strong mayor is essential, and now believe that Mayor Bach is the right man for the job. His inexperience may be his biggest asset: he doesn’t just go along with what has traditionally been done, and as a one-term mayor, he’s doing what’s right, not what will get him re-elected.

One example the mayor cites is the multi-year budget process: next year’s budget proposal is based on the previous year’s one, rather than on actual revenues and expenditures. This means, for example, that out of a $223M budget, around $5M has been allocated for “authorized positions” at maximum pay even though they are not filled. Why keep this allocation in the budget?

City budget planners could argue that it’s the sensible way of doing business: keep the lines funded even when unoccupied, since they might be filled at some later point. Has the city suffered from these positions remaining unfilled? If unclear, keep them unfilled, and reduce the budget by whatever amount was allocated to them.

What happens if they are needed in the future? Then add them to a revised budget. Having worked on small ($1M/yr) and large budgets ($35/yr), budgets must be periodically revised, given the dynamic nature of organizations: people retire or leave, opportunities materialize, or markets dry out. Though council has to approve the budget annually, and though the mayor has veto rights, it seems that council relishes its ability to over-ride the mayor, as seen recently.

It all looks like the federal farce we are witnessing in Washington, when congress muscles its way to paralysis, leaving a befuddled president powerless. If the intent of council is to show the mayor who’s boss, they should all resign. Perhaps the three incumbents resent the fact that they are not the mayor—they could have run for the position—while the six new ones are as inexperienced as the mayor and still don’t know what role they ought to play.

The mayor claims to have reached out to all of them individually, only to find out that they don’t communicate with each other. The best he could get from them is a rejection of a contingency operating fund of $1.5M which they deemed his “slush fund.” This is a public institution with required transparency. So, it’s not that they don’t trust him, they probably don’t trust themselves.

Unlike them the mayor has offered four initiatives or Solutions Teams: community volunteers in the areas of Parks (Richard Skorman), Transit (Robert Shonkwiler), Streetscapes (Dave Munger), and Downtown (Chuck Murphy). Notice that two chairs were his opponents in the run for mayor. Only councilman Leigh has proposed initiates, and other council members mock him.

Some might be worried that the mayor’s new staff appointments are expensive, especially in this economy. Cindy Aubrey, Chief Communication Officer earns $95,000; her predecessor, Sue Blumberg, made $116,000; her department shrank from 12 to 8 positions. Laura Neumann, who replaced Steve Cox at $182,488, makes $165,000. Steve Cox is making the same salary in his new role as Economic Vitality Chief as before, heading a department with 4 rather than 8 members, while withdrawing $70,000 in subsidy from the EDC.

If these numbers don’t convince you that the mayor is prudent with city expenditures, or that he’s not applying his business acumen to his role as mayor, two other areas may prove the point.

First, he’s drawing on his experience as a commercial real-estate broker to promote the city to local and outside companies. He’s the salesman in chief! And for this role he has trained for forty years, convincing companies to buy buildings and plant their roots here.

Second, he’s trying to make the city business-friendly. What does it mean? I doubt he’ll be able to reduce fees, since our tax base is so low, and fees are essential to maintain an operational infrastructure. But, just talk to the Fire Chief and you’ll hear the mantra of business-friendly. I proposed that the department provide pre-purchase inspection drafts (for a fee) to potential buyers so they’d know in advance what to expect from code enforcement. He promised to consider it. More than can be said about the Regional Building Board (on whose board councilman Bernie Herpin sits), where the mayor has no say.

Perhaps councilmembers should do their jobs as directors of Memorial, Utilities, and RBD and let the mayor run the city. It might be best that council is divesting itself from overseeing Memorial; perhaps council should do the same with CSU and RBD, and let the mayor oversee them, too!

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

“The 2012 economic forecast,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 13 - 19, 2012, 17.

2012 FORECASTS

You innocently ask people you just met what they do, and sometimes the answer isn’t what you expected: hygienist. Then I asked: what’s the most interesting thing you learned in your career, and she cheerfully answered: if you floss your teeth, you’ll live longer!

As anyone with elementary science education knows, there’s a difference between correlations--certain things seem to be related coincidently but in fact are not, and causation—this leads to that, this causes that effect. Flossing doesn’t prolong your life, but it’s reasonable to suggest that those flossing their teeth also take care of their health in general and therefore may live longer.

This is the problem with economic indicators, those that are supposed to help us predict our economic future: does an increase in nail polish sales indicate a recovery? Sales figures are significant since the economy depends heavily on consumption, and since some leading indicators—housing permits—give an indication of how much construction will be undertaken in the near future; and with increased construction, many manufacturing sectors will rev up their production, creating more jobs.

According to Adam Davidson, instead of following lipstick sales which traditionally were considered indicators of a declining economy (as cheap “pick-me-up”), or Alan Greenspan’s favorite—sales of men’s underwear—which when up foretell economic growth, the preference is tracking sales of Champagne.

Champagne sales have consistently predicted American income one year later with 90% accuracy. The more Champagne we drink, the better we believe our economic future is bound to be. So, 2012 looks pretty good in light of the Champagne indicator.

For years, as owner of the Warehouse Restaurant and Gallery I followed a similar indicator: the number of Christmas parties booked between Thanksgiving and mid-January and the amount of money spent on them. A good end-of-year season told me how my next year would look. Why?

Most employers who throw Christmas parties are not simply thanking their employees for the work they have done in the past year: a bonus check can do the trick! Neither are they all of a sudden enjoying the company of their employees—if they did, they would have partied with them all along and not waited for the end of the year. So, what is the Christmas Party about?

It seems that it’s as much about team building for the next year as for gratitude about the past one. Employers know if they have contracts for the next year, if their marketing strategy has worked, and what changes are needed. They know how many employees will be laid off by Christmas and how many will be hired in January—they all plan ahead. And as they position themselves for the next year, they know if the future looks positive or negative.

If things look bad, companies cancel the party or have a modest luncheon. If things look up, spending an extra $1,000 at a party is in order. It’ll energize the work-force for yet another great year!

Since I sold the Warehouse in 2007, I opened Il Postino in October 2010. That first Christmas season was modest at best, partially because we were new and Christmas parties are booked way in advance. My partner who bought us out and renamed the place Springs Orleans reports almost doubling of sales for the month of December 2011!

2011 turned out to be a flat year in economic terms, with some disappointments (increased foreclosures in some states) and some promising trends (finalizing an expensive war in Iraq). Given the Christmas Parties Indicator (XPI), 2012 will show economic growth across the country. No need for sophisticated economic analyses, just ask restaurants and events centers around the country what December sales are.

Is the XPI as silly an indicator as teeth flossing? Of course it is! Yet, just as people who are inclined to spend a few minutes a day flossing probably also spend extra time daily to exercise and wash their hands, buy organic produce and refrain from trans fats, so one can conclude that spending decisions by corporate America indicate their attitudes towards the future. A correlation no doubt, but an interesting one!

What is even more interesting is the recognition by economists that psychological factors are crucial in the spending trends of consumers—more than 70% of all economic activity in the US depends on consumption. Doom and gloom by news media will slow consumption, while rosy stories about the future—especially in a presidential election year--will convince consumers to spend more money and reelect their president.

Is the 2011 XPI an indicator of how companies think about 2012, or a way to reassure ourselves that 2012 will be better? Tune in a year from now for the correct answer.

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

“Who’ll turn on the lights?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 6 - 12, 2012, 17.

WHO’LL TURN ON THE LIGHTS?

Starting in April 2012, energy companies and natural-gas explorers will have to disclose the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing. Colorado regulators agreed to a compromise between environmentalists and energy companies. The fact that Colorado forged ahead with a compromise sets the tone for natural gas exploration around the nation. And this is good news for all of us.

The mix of gas and coal in Colorado Springs Utilities’ plants is based on a delicate calculus that includes a variety of variables, such as energy costs and emission regulations. Since CSU buys coal and gas primarily from Colorado and Wyoming, this compromise is relevant to us (since we don’t have to buy it from far away and add to the carbon footprint).

The elephant in our city is the utilities company, a behemoth so big that it’s left on its own. With all due respect, the members of our city council are not up to task, not least because they evaluate CSU according to a matrix designed by CSU. Memorial Hospital, which has kept council awake at night, masterminding solutions to a relatively benign problem, is only a $600 million city enterprise.

CSU’s annual budget is $1.1 billion. Its “dumbed-down” version is 187 page long. It must have taken a few weeks of the huge Corporate Communication department plus the Financial Department; the legal department at $2.4 million must have supervised, too. Since it was produced in the glitzy Plaza of the Rockies (A-rated commercial building owned by the Jenkins dynasty), it has heft.

Asking the stern William Cherrier, Chief Planning & Finance Officer, some questions about the budget was like asking your grandmother if she ever used tainted ingredients for her Christmas pie. Dave Goldberg of Public Affairs, representing an army of twenty, was more than happy to provide further data. Time and again, everything in the budget, from capital improvements to the ratio between operational workers (1,082), customer service employees (590), and Planning & Finance (89) always received the condescending response: “we are in line with industry standards.”  

I won’t bore you with the details of the budget—it’s online, and with some perseverance you may find it—but I suggest that as paying citizens we ask two questions: what does it mean to follow industry standards? And, who is watching over this elephant?

The first question is frightening because last time we heard such language it came from the financial industry, the one that sunk us into the Great Recession. It’s not a matter of trust: perhaps our local utilities officials are trustworthy; rather, what if the whole industry is about to fall off a cliff? Are critics heard as loudly as industry apologists who are well-paid consultants? 

It is because of this concern that the second question comes into play: who is in charge? Council members serve as the board. None of them ever sat on a board of such a large enterprise, let alone ran such a behemoth. Do they even know what they are voting on when they approve the budget? Given their meager financial compensation (Leigh may have a point here), and even with the best of intentions (showing up to meetings), I doubt they can seriously dissect the intricacies of the budget. Even Mr. Cherrier who is a seasoned pro, according to him, sometimes had to strain with his answers.

Assume all nine councilmembers understood the basics of the utilities budget and future challenges, could any of them propose which way the utilities should move? It’s called a board of directors, after all. Forget about future plans for environmentally-responsible solutions, can the budget be cut by 5% without affecting operations? I’d venture to say yes, just because anyone who tries really hard can find ways to cut waste and find economies of scales in an operation as large as $1.1 billion (8.6% increase from last year, with .3% decline in usage).

Now that the future of Memorial Hospital is secure in the hands of UCH, now that we have a Fire and Police chiefs, perhaps the strong mayor, as the businessman-in-charge, and the council can focus their collective attention on the utilities. When CSU makes a decision, like buying the remaining 50% of Front Range Power, it’s a $416 million decision, so it’s worth their attention (it wasn’t included in the 2011 approved budget).

Who knows, maybe they’ll find a way to turn on all street lights for our safety. It may not seem as important as health care, but freezing residents end up in the hospital! And while they are at it, under the mayor’s “business friendly “ motto, please let developers downtown know ahead of time that they will have to come up with $250,000 to get enough electricity, for example, to their Mining Exchange building.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and will continue with more articles on CSU. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“New Year’s resolution: No more wars this year,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 30 – January 5, 2011, 13.

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS

It’s customary to make New Year’s resolutions that last a few days at the most: lose weight, exercise more, be nice to rude people, park as far as possible and enjoy the walk to the store. But the year that passed requires a more serious approach to our wishes for 2012.

The Iraq war is over after eight years and about $1 trillion in costs, with a death toll of 4,484 American soldiers, about 50,000 wounded, and more than 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians. The country is deadlocked in political squabbling, but a dictator is gone.

Instead of taking stock of this war, an undertaking that will take decades, perhaps we can resolve not to start any new wars in 2012, and withdraw all our troops from Afghanistan. At $2 billion per week, this war is crippling our domestic economy and doing little to stabilize that region of the world.

As a first resolution for 2012, let’s all agree to stand strong without aggression, use diplomacy without wavering on defending ourselves, and maintain the smartest military force in the world without bankrupting ourselves: small, agile units with multiple skills and weapons that can respond quickly to whatever threat without mobilizing the entire military.

Foreign policy and military involvement remain at the federal-level, but with congressional input, we can all participate in encouraging a thoughtful political debate that makes sense. For example, decrying the reduction in military spending as a job reduction (increased unemployment) is similar to the guy who killed his parents and asks the court’s mercy because he’s an orphan.

The second resolution should be about public civility: you can criticize without insulting. British tradition has it that critical debate is constructive rather than destructive, that a better outcome is meant to result from the exchange. Why bother to criticize something utterly silly? It’s not worth the energy. By contrast, if you care about an issue—it can be what shoes to wear for a Christmas party when it snows—then pay attention and engage and provide a useful suggestion.

Public civility is not reserved for politicians in Washington or our own city council in its relations with the mayor. Neither is it limited to journalists or media commentators who are prone to ridicule people in positions of power. Speaking truth to power isn’t about mocking others: it’s meant to bring attention to significant issues overshadowed by political deal-making or back-scratching.

As custodians of public trust, politicians and journalists alike should be careful in what they say, make sure their sources are reliable, and whenever they criticize, they should propose alternative solutions. How would the public know what is really worth arguing about? It’s called responsible journalism or politics with integrity. Obviously all politicians have inflated egos—they voluntarily put themselves in front of voters and cameras, asking for the adulation of others (and their financial support).

 As we think about foreign policy and political integrity, financial considerations remain paramount: how much does this idea cost? How much is this worth? Economists of all stripes agree that the best measure of our values or commitments are monetary. As President Obama prepares to spend $1 billion on his reelection effort in 2012, we should fear for the onslaught of wasted millions in the name of democratic elections.

Have we learned nothing from our democratic counterparts around the world? Is the UK any less democratic because it allows weeks of campaigning rather than months here? Is Germany undemocratic because of its election regulations? Excess spending on mud-slinging is absurd and counter-productive: only negative advertisements are remembered: “Where’s the beef?” (1984 Mondale referring to Hart) is a sad reminder that it’s at that level of discourse that political fortunes are made or lost.

So, the third and last resolution I propose for 2012 has to do with prudence. Let’s agree to be prudent with our money, not to waste it on silly ads or gadgets we’ll never use. It makes sense to recycle on economic grounds a much as on ecological ones. Why use plastic bags when canvas ones remain intact for years? Why replace our cars every two or three years when they function well for ten? Why buy a ten-pound bag of apples or potatoes when you need only one pound and the rest may rot before being used?

As we welcome another year, let’s promise ourselves and others to be kind and gentle, complimentary and generous, friendly and supportive without reservation or expectation of reciprocity. Next year will be better in every sense, as the worst of the Great Recession is over. Because it’s an election year, all the economic indicators will point upward: it’s an election-year dance. So, it’s a good time to invest in an improving economy!

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

“Consider Tebow, Newton and Christmas this season,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 23 - 29, 2011, 21

LEAP OF FAITH

As Christmas arrives this year, believers and non-believers alike participate in an all-consuming spending orgy. Perhaps they believe that once a year their generosity and good-will goes beyond the personal and affects the national wheels of commerce: about 20% of annual spending occurs between Black Friday and Christmas.

Perhaps we are fed up with bad news and the lingering effects of the Great Recession or with depriving ourselves of our national past-time of shopping. Advertisers haven’t stopped bombarding us with catchy tunes and gorgeous models to buy gadgets we deserve. So, finally we succumb to their pleas, whip out a credit card, and feel good. It’s Christmas, after all.

For those who cannot afford a spending spree as an expression of belief in a better economic future, there are other forms of engagement that can express belief just as effectively. Some, less-worldly Christians refrain from conspicuous consumption and remind us that the celebration is not about Santa Claus. Between the two extremes of immersion in the world and retreat from it, we find an American public fascinated by Tim Tebow, the infamous quarterback of the Denver Broncos.

Tebow, the avowed Christian, has become a man for all seasons: he’s a spiritual leader without a congregation, an athlete who believes in miracles, a quarterback who infuses faith in his teammates, a Christian who wants to do right by his mother, an unabashed believer who openly puts his faith in divine intervention, and a humble servant of the Lord who happens to be an extremely competitive, and at times, competent athlete. You name it, and he’ll satisfy your spiritual need. He’s bankable, too!

What makes Tebow and his signature move, “Tebowing”—now an officially accepted linguistic term which designates praying on one knee, fist on the chin—interesting is the fact that he is talked about more than anything else in sports, which in turns means more than anything else in American culture. For once, it’s not some scandal with dog fighting, gambling, rape, or murder. It’s clean and uplifting entertainment provided by a guy who seems above reproach. You needn’t watch a football game on Sunday to know that on Monday Tebow’s performance--his divine mission undertaken for the love of sports and God (maybe not in this order)—will be discussed.

In a post-secular age, an age that accepts religious belief alongside atheism, one need not choose between being religious or secular, but instead can be openly religious without thereby giving up one’s rational faculties. It’s not insane to believe in miracles, as the Broncos prove week after week of preposterous last-minute victories. And Tebow’s comebacks can lodge themselves comfortably in the rational mind, too—his late-game heroics can be explained by mistakes made by the other team and a great Broncos defense.  The “Tebow phenomenon” has a wide-ranging appeal.

So, can you believe in God and be rational? Does it make sense to believe in miracles? Isaac Newton, the seventeenth century mathematician and natural philosopher (as physicists were called then) believed in God and in miracles. He even wrote long tracts on miracles, to the embarrassment of some scientists and historians of science who’d like a clear distinction between science and religion. So, is Tim Tebow like Newton? Not in his ability to develop the calculus, for example, or formulate the fundamental laws of gravity and the color spectrum.

But perhaps what distinguishes Tebow is the ease with which he displays shuttling between the world of celebrities and the world of people of faith. It’s not that God guides his wins; it’s not that his faith moves the ball in the right direction or allows him to outrun his opponents. Tebow has admitted as much. Rather, it’s that he has faith in himself and his natural abilities, in his team and coaches, in the idea that hard work and concentration will yield results beyond scientific calculations of velocity and gravity, force and trajectories.

No, Tim Tebow is neither Newton nor a saintly reincarnation of some ancient Greek athlete or warrior. Instead, he is an all-American well-paid football player who has become an inspiration to a country bereft by an economic downturn, foreclosures, and persistent unemployment. It’s difficult to be inspired by the OWLS (Occupy Wall Street) just as it’s difficult to be inspired by the Arab Spring: in both cases we have to interpret data or think through socio-economic stratification embedded in a traditional political-legal framework (intellectual heavy-lifting).

But just look at Tebow when he “Tebows” after a touchdown: what’s complicated about this image? How can this image not be immediately compelling? Besides, it’s much closer to Auguste Rodin’s sculpture of the Thinker than an actual prayer pose. Is “Tebowing” a symbol of praying or thinking? Maybe Newton’s ghost does hover over Tebow; maybe he’s blessed across the scientific-religious divide.

When you go to Christmas mass or shop or reflect on the meaning of the holiday, just think how American this holiday has become and how religious American sports have always been. Tim Tebow will make it easy for you.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who was born in the Holy Land.  He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

        

“Eliminate the fire dept.?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 16 - 22, 2011, 21.

RED UNIFORMS?

It’s easy to conjure images of firefighters from movies, heroic efforts to put out a fire, save lives and property. The horrific memories of 9/11 include those of courageous firefighters that lost lives while saving others, selflessly doing what they do best. And those cute Dalmatians: who can resist them around the fire station?

What about our very own men in uniform? Is their efforts worth close to $60 million annually? Can’t we do without them altogether? Why not lose a few houses a year, let them burn to the ground? How much are firefighters worth? At least one politician made her career based on her support for these men in uniform. No politician dares cross their voting power, and therefore begs for their endorsement. The amicable Richard Brown was finally installed as the Fire Chief after Mayor Bach finally decided to keep Steve Cox in his administration (still a chief)—both good choices.

A new fire truck costs about $400,000 and a “ladder” close to $800,000 (we have six of those). Our CSFD buys refurbished trucks that cost less than half of new ones. It also plans to open two new stations without staff increases. Doing more with less is what they are thinking, especially with a business-minded mayor that expects them to be efficient, while remaining “business friendly.”

Full disclosure: when I had historic-preservation issues with Il Postino’s ceiling (now Springs Orleans), it was the fire chief who came to my “rescue” as Regional Building inspectors gave me a hard time. It was his letter of support that preserved the historical ceiling of a building with sprinklers two blocks away from a fire station. Mayor Bach: they are business friendly!

So, have I come to praise the CSFD rather than bury it? Perhaps praise isn’t the right term. It’s about realizing what they do. In fact, out of around 35,000 annual 911 calls to which they respond, only around 700 relate to fires. So, it should be renamed the Colorado Springs Emergency Department. Just as with my recommendation to change Thanksgiving to Thanks-eating, I doubt this one will happen. So, what kinds of calls are these?

As “first responders,” firefighters deal with more medical issues than anything else. This is not surprising when over a third of the local population lacks health insurance and is frightened to go to emergency rooms or call an ambulance. If that’s the case, why send a huge fire truck rather than a CSFD ambulance? Isn’t this wasteful? Why not just call the private ambulance service?

Unlike a fully–equipped ambulance, which arrives as well and which for a fee transports patients to hospitals, fire trucks have additional equipment that may be needed. The reason for this perceived waste is twofold: first to ensure extreme needs—emergency responses plan for the worst scenario and hope for the best (a cat stuck in a tree), and second to provide redundancies, which are required for safety (think of your gas needle and the odometer which can be zeroed when fueling). Those enormous trucks contain all that can be used if and when something goes really wrong: heart-attack of an obese patient stuck under a bed in a room whose door is too small to walk through.

If the CSFD dealt only with emergencies that are fire-related, the question would be: isn’t preventive work more important than actual firefighting? If yes, why are there only 15 inspectors out of a workforce of 465? One answer has been to certify another 97 captains and lieutenants to do inspections as well. In fact, in residential calls, the team also checks for fire/smoke-alarms and when they are missing, installs them free of charge. 

If all buildings were sprinkled, wouldn’t the need for CSFD be diminished? On one level, the answer is yes. On another, there is a difference between commercial buildings (required to have sprinklers) and residential (which are not), as well as between new construction (which are required) and old ones (which are grand-fathered without). With this in mind, we may have to wait for old building to be replaced over time before fires would claim no lives. Incidentally, the 700 fires in 2010 claimed 3 lives and $12 million in damage, while $270 million were saved.

Last year 23 new fire-fighters were hired from a pool of 1,757 applicants. What’s the attraction? Starting salary is around $41,000 (teachers start at $32,000). Average work-week is 56 hours (with day on, day off schedule). Union membership is optional (more than half are members), even in this conservative, anti-union city. So, is it the movies, accolades, adrenaline rush?

The best answer I heard is the sense of camaraderie, team-work, and collaboration that makes it all worth it. Sounds socialist, especially with red as the color of choice? Whatever their ideology, they do save lives!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who thankfully only dealt with fire inspectors over the years. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“A couple ideas about bases in foreign countries,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 9 - 15, 2011, 21

MILITARY COSTUMER SERVICE

When Republican presidential candidates agree with a fellow candidate, you can bet that he has no chance of winning the nomination. That’s where Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) finds himself, especially with some comments he makes about foreign military bases. If only 10% of what he says makes sense, it’s a much higher percentage compared to other politicians’ statements.

According to Dr. Paul, in his CBS’s “Face the Nation” interview, “This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases…is an old fashioned idea…It makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt - we can't afford it any longer." The libertarian republican can’t get even his own party to agree to this idea that troops should be withdrawn from around the globe.

Perhaps there is an ideological obstacle here: the meaning of patriotism. It used to be the slogan “Support Our Troops” with yellow ribbons. As William Deresiewicz tells us, it’s now the “cult of the uniform.” We respect soldiers in uniform for risking their lives within the only institution in America that hasn’t turned into a political football.

Focusing on soldiers without considering the wars themselves, whether they are just or unjust, affordable or not, yield our intended results, is like asking if wine is sacred. Of course the troops deserve respect and wine as a sacrament is sacred, but does this resolve the tough questions about involvement in foreign wars (or drunk driving)?

President Obama apparently ignores his own declarations about troop reduction overseas. While our presence in Iraq will “end” by 2012, he has announced establishing a new base in Darwin, Australia. Will we close all our bases in Iraq? What about support teams around other Arab nations?

The latest reports suggest we are spending about $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. A month’s worth of expenditure, just to put things in perspective, amounts to the entire state of Colorado’s annual budget. Is this buying us any goodwill there? Or in Pakistan? Reports suggest that opium is at its lowest street price in Los Angeles. Forget about the Taliban; we can’t even stop the drug trade. Why do we believe that we can succeed where the Russians failed?

Since Republicans and Democrats alike are not interested in making any cuts to the military budget, and since the general public would rather increase defense budget than welfare benefits, perhaps we should rethink Dr. Paul’s suggestion in one of two ways.

The first is audacious and will go nowhere: for every base we have in a foreign country—presumably with that country’s consent—we should have a foreign military base in the US. This reciprocity would bring a financial bonanza with it, since those foreign bases on American soil would be paid for by the country of origin, the way we pay for our bases abroad. 

The second, and perhaps more reasonable, idea is to retain our bases abroad but have them paid for by the hosting country. Theoretically, Americans are on German or South Korean soil in order to protect the Germans or South Koreans, respectively. Why not pay for your own protection? These are wealthy countries that can afford to pay our bills to protect them against potential enemies. In fact, this is not an outlandish idea.

When Papa Bush declared war on Iraq, “Desert Storm”, in 1991, he gained the support of many allies around the globe. Thinking like a rich man who never likes to spend his own money when dining with others, he asked and received financial support from the 34 coalition partners, minimizing American financial exposure.

Some sources claim that the war cost over $60 billion. About $52 billion of that amount was paid by different countries: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and $16 billion by Germany and Japan (which sent no combat forces due to their constitutions). Why didn’t his son do the same? Can Obama do the same in Afghanistan?

Once we get over the false dichotomy of being for or against military spending in general and become more responsible citizens, we don’t need to turn to Ron Paul for advice. His libertarian ideals make sense in a world of responsible individuals that need no government, or responsible nations that need no international forces. When these ideals are pragmatically applied, we can ask a simple question: who is the beneficiary of American defense spending?

Let the beneficiaries pay! And while we are at it, let them also pay veterans for PTSD, retrain them for integration into civilian life, and ensure that whatever physical or mental ailment they suffer can be treated well enough to maintain their dignity and honor.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who pays for his own meals. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Listening is a public duty,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 2 - 8, 2011, 21.

LISTENING IS A PUBLIC DUTY

Take any business course, and one of the first things you will learn is that you should listen to those you communicate or have a relationship with, especially if these are your customers. Without listening to them, how would you know what they want? Why is this simple lesson lost on politicians?

Perhaps those who are used to be heard, who mention a problem and it’s fixed right away, or whose frustration is attended to immediately have no reason to complain. But then there are those, babies and employees, who seem to be ignored unless they scream. Babies don’t scream for no reason at all, we agree, just as employees don’t strike when they are happy at their jobs.

Businesses spend millions to find out if their customers are “satisfied” or if their employees are “fulfilled” at their jobs, because it matters. When the responses are negative, millions more are spent to change the business environment or model, improve product quality, or ensure safe work conditions. So, why is it so difficult for us to comprehend the screams of the Owls (Occupy Wall Street)?

I was asked if I like them. Democrats like them the way Republicans like the Tea Party. And I like neither party. Is “liking” the same as “agree with” or “sympathize”? What is there to like about them, after all? They are disorganized, disheveled, sometimes unemployed, and without agenda. Does Warren Buffet, in his latest tax reform proposal, like the Owls? He hasn’t been as vocal when the Tea Party started demonstrating two years ago, but now responds regularly to tax inequality with his own ideas.

What I like about them is that they keep on demonstrating, with or without agenda, like the baby that cries without being able to express pain, thirst, or hunger, like Councilman Tim Leigh who keeps on screaming about this or that. (Full disclosure: I have known him for years, and played golf twice with him even though I prefer to play alone.) The latest is his suggestion to pay council-members handsome salaries. Do I like him like a baby or like the Owls?

What I appreciate about the Tea Party, the Owls, and Councilman Leigh alike is that they scream so as to wake us up from our comfortable slumber. They are a little off, but their effort to bring attention to issues is worthy of the noise they make. They express, in their respective ways, a deep frustration not only because this or that is unfair, but also because no one is listening to them, especially in Washington, D.C.

Government agencies are tone deaf, while politicians prefer to hear only themselves. Sometimes, as Steve Jobs proved, you listen to yourself first and then get customer feedback. It’s a stretch to compare Leigh to Jobs, but he can be compared to his fellow real-estate mavens, like the Jenkins, who paid for a salaried strong mayor. Maybe he can enlist their support; maybe they will listen to him.

If the logic that brought Steve Bach to be mayor holds, then the same kinds of arguments ought to be considered in the case of the nine council-members. You get what you pay for, businesspeople and customers agree: if you pay nothing, you get nothing. If you pay well, you deserve to have expectations. Even though this argument, actually a cliché, is easily debunked, the citizens of this city bought it, and happily pay the businessman-mayor $96,000 annually. He must be worth it!

Following this recent change in the city Charter, why not debate the merits of the Leigh proposal? Why simply dismiss him as a loud-mouth know-nothing? Is he annoying? Or is his proposal annoying? Unless you answer yes to both of these questions, then stop to think about the proposal rather than the person who makes it, as Aristotle taught us years ago. When you confuse the speaker for the speech, when you attack the speaker’s character rather than the strength or validity of the argument, you commit what is called an ad hominem (it’s a logical fallacy).

If local pundits are just having fun at Leigh’s expense, so be it. Anyone in public office deserves to be scrutinized and mocked, challenged and praised, being the custodian of public trust. But as we give him a hard time, as he seems to capture needlessly media headlines, it wouldn’t hurt us to listen as well, consider what he has to say. If only 10% of what he says resonates with us, it’s better than hearing absolutely nothing from other elected officials who prefer to conduct their business behind closed doors.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who listens to his students when they complain about their assignments. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Be mindful and grateful this Thanksgiving,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, November 25 – December 1, 2011, 17.

THANKS-EATING

Instead of belaboring the painful debates about pilgrims, natives, and Thanksgiving, let’s jump right into its reality: Thanksgiving is a feast accompanied by televised football games. The rituals associated with this feast bring together the best America offers: abundance without guilt. As we experience the bounty of the land or supermarket, we collectively over-indulge, sampling generously from every available dish. What thoughts cross our minds when we eat?

This semester I have had the good fortune of teaching a seminar on Food For Thought with fourteen students. Along the way we discovered the intimate, common sense, connection between the food we consume and our health. As the Supreme Court is about to hear arguments about the Obama Administration’s health care program next June, perhaps we should urge a public discussion about food and diets in relation to these health costs. Arguing about mandatory coverage for diabetes without talking about the causes and remedies for obesity makes no sense.

Here are some topics that should interest consumers and voters before June 2012. First, what about the scientific underpinnings of the food we eat? Are Genetically Modified Foods healthy? What are the side effects carried from corn to cow to the hamburger we find in fast-food chains? Has the turkey we are all admiring been “modified”? If yes, should we worry? It’s not that evolution hasn’t modified nature; it’s not that we haven’t bred certain animals; but is this the same as injecting mice genes into corn?

Second, when we sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, what family traditions are we preserving? Are all of them, such as white bread or mashed potatoes out of a boxed-mix, really that sacred? Can’t they be substituted without desecration with whole-wheat bread and locally grown potatoes? Are marshmallows really necessary? The recipes of WWII may find exciting updates, honoring grandma’s cooking, which was about love and not about food as an energy source. If Thanksgiving is the ultimate American holiday, then it can and should withstand minor revisions to reflect new realities.

Third, as we celebrate the gathering of family and friends, we should be mindful of the economic conditions under which food is produced, distributed, and consumed. Over $1 billion will be spent on food in one day (with some leftovers), including about 20% of turkeys eaten annually. This is less than $3 per citizen. The main reason for this is that home-cooked meals are much cheaper than those bought at fast-food chains. The New York Times reported that while a family of four spends on average $27.89 at McDonald’s, the same four could eat at home reasonably for $13.78 or as little as $9.26 with better nutritional values. Thanksgiving should be appreciated for its frugal bounty.

Fourth, as we prepare the meal, set the table, or make our first toast, let’s think of the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration: shouldn’t we be thankful that someone watches over food safety? Does it mandate useful labeling? Or is it caving to yet another powerful lobby regardless of the dangers to consumers? The recent Listeria outbreak from contaminated cantaloupes cost so far 29 lives, according the Center for Disease Control; some oversight is life-saving.

Fifth, as we learn about the intimate connection between health and diet, we need not only read or watch “Food Inc.” or “Fast Food Nation” or “Supersize Me” to realize that some oils are worse than others, that too much saturated fat will kill you, and that over-eating is bad for you because your body can metabolize only so much sugar (glucose) in one day. Malnutrition is about over- and under-eating; it’s about not maintaining a balance between your energy consumption and intake. You don’t need the USOC’s nutritional expert, Dr. Nanna Meyer, to tell you that; just remember your grandma making sure you don’t make yourself sick or encouraging you to play outside, no matter how cold it is.

Sixth, since food isn’t produced in factories but in nature, and since population growth has to be balanced with the growth of food production (a problem that plagued Thomas Malthus already in 1798), sustainability has become the watchword of concerned citizens: how much meat should we eat weekly, how “local” is our food source, and what food is seasonally grown? Pumpkins, as we know, are grown in the fall; so are many other roots vegetables, such as potatoes. Yes, the pilgrims observed sustainability the way Moliere observed prose: it comes naturally.

As Dr. Meyer reminds us: it’s all common sense: make explicit what you implicitly know to be true. Pay attention to your body and nature alike, they are the temples in which your soul and the community reside. When we transform Thanksgiving into Thanks-eating, let us be mindful and grateful.

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

“Super committee is succeeding at failure,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, November 18 - 24, 2011, 21

SUPER COMMITTEE: SUCCESS IN FAILURE

As the November 23^rd deadline approaches, frantic politicians are worried that automatic budget cuts will go into effect because the so-called Super Committee has yet to make a serious effort at coming to a compromise on how to cut $1.5 trillion from the national budget over the next ten years.

Since compromise is a dirty word in Washington, DC, and since the 2012 presidential campaign is in full swing a year in advance, posturing and hand-waving have been ways of expressing views and disagreements. Perhaps a look at Greece and Italy would remind politicians that they remain public servants. Does the public really want another default crisis? Is the war of Republicans against Democrats worthy of the sacrifices it will bring about for the 99%?

The chairs of the committee are Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas (R) who opposes any tax increase and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington (D) who also chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They are joined by Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland (D); Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona (R) who has threatened to quit if any cuts are proposed to the defense budget; Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts (D); Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania (R) and former president of the staunchly anti-tax Club for Growth; Sen. Max Baucus of Montana (D) who is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee; Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio (R) who was White House budget director in the Bush administration; Rep. Xavier Becerra of California (D); Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan (R) who is a tax expert; Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina (D); and Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan (R).

On some level it’s important to know who these politicians are because the future of the national budget rests in their hands. They have been empowered to find a solution, a compromised plan that will affect us all for the next ten years. If they fail to act, automatic reductions across the board will take place.

On another level, though, the committee of twelve simply represents the two political parties and their leaderships in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They do their parties’ bidding, and as such have no voice of their own. They were nominated to this committee because they are reliable pawns who won’t make decisions on their own.

What we have, then, is a powerful committee whose sole purpose is to fail the public. If the committee “succeeds” in fulfilling the expectations of the political leaderships of both parties, that is, maintains a hard line on rehearsed positions—no new taxes for the Republicans and no decreases in entitlements for the Democrats—then it fails the public. If it fails to fulfill these expectations, it will succeed in averting the kind of financial disasters we are seeing in Europe.

Despite common claims that Americans have short memories and that they don’t care about global matters except when it’s about wars, the Greek and Italian crises are too close to ignore. The financial markets are global markets, and as such, what happens in Europe affects us all, including the price of gas at the pump and the interest rates on mortgages and cars. The global nature of financial markets, regardless of national regulations, depends on national policies (as the EU is learning anew every month).

When Greek politicians spar and fail to reach consensus on austerity measures, for example, Wall Street feels the pain; when they finally find their way to a unity government, a sigh of relief is heard across the globe. The same was the case when the Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi relinquished his position to a bureaucrat, and Wall Street remained confused. Whether feeling pain or confusion, when Wall Street reacts to European crises, Main Street feels the pain.

Even when we want to separate the political from the financial, so that legislation follows moral norms or social conventions to ensure peaceful coexistence among citizens, we know all too well that the political is the financial or that the financial is political. It’s not only the result of the Supreme Court decision of Citizens United. It’s deeper than that: the iconic Chicago School economist Milton Friedman always maintained that we vote with our wallets. For him, it was a benign but significant position: choices should remain with individual consumers who, through their spending, show what should be done (with parks, cars, or any other public service). It’s doubtful that he believed outright political bribing will be undertaken en mass by corporate titans and their lobbyists.

As the deadline for deficit reduction or budgetary changes approaches, let’s remind politicians that our economic well-being is in their hands, an important ingredient in preserving our political rights, not to mention our dignity as citizens who were promised in the Constitution—with all the compromises of the day—“domestic Tranquility…common defense…general Welfare…and…the blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”  

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and teaches a course on Politics and the Law. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com