Proposed Solution = "Wiki"-Politica

Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Proposed Solution = "Wiki"-Politica

Post by johnkarls »

.
The two books that we are reading describe the cesspool that is Washington DC!!!

Washington Post Columnist Dana Milbank's "Homo Politicus" (Doubleday, Dec 2007) describes how everything that happens in Washington is dictated by the "campaign contributions" (aka, bribes) of lobbyists who, he says, are the kings of the heap!!!

"The Squandering of America" by Robert Kittner (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007) even describes the common practice of politicians to extort "campaign contributions" by threatening action that is adverse to the interests of their "contributors"/victims!!!

Additional materials documenting this monumental problem are posted on this bulletin board.

So what can be done???

And aren't we naïve to think that all we have to do is elect a Presidential candidate who promises change??? After all, we did that in 1992 when William J. Clinton promised much more extensive and radical change than any of this election cycle's candidates!!!

"Change" will continue to be a mirage unless we focus effectively on Congress. And on the Committee Chairs/Members who really determine, on behalf of the lobbyists they serve, whether there will be any "change"!!! (And, if so, whether it will be beneficial!!!)

*****
Obsolete Model = Citizens' Lobby ("Been There, Done That")

For anyone who is as old as I am, it is easy to recall the euphoria with which we greeted the formation of the Common Cause Citizens' Lobby in 1970!!! As can be seen from Ref. Mat. B posted below, the letter launching Common Cause from John Gardner (Lyndon Johnson's Secretary for Health, Education and Welfare - later split into the Dept of Education and the Dept of Health & Human Services), their original agenda was almost identical to Ref. Mat. C which is the current agenda of Common Cause = anti-war (Vietnam in 1970, Iraq today), campaign-finance reform, ethics, voter registration/participation, etc.).

Common Cause has not, after 38 years, led us to "The Promised Land"!!!

Even though John Gardner was succeed by Archibald Cox - the Special Watergate Prosecutor whose firing in "The Saturday Night Massacre" turned the tide of American public opinion against Richard Nixon. Archibald Cox chaired Common Cause from 1980-1992 and continued as Chairman Emeritus until his demise in 2004. (However, see the footnote below regarding his latent anti-feminism.)

Indeed, I was surprised in googling Common Cause (Ref. Mat. E) to discover that it still exists!!! In this regard, Wikipedia notes that it ceased publishing its Common Cause Magazine in 1996, after 16 years of publication.

Common Cause's primary problem is obvious from its staff-directory page (Ref. Mat. D). There are about 50 staff in the photo, of whom the directory lists 29 - 14 in administration, 7 in fundraising/membership and only 8 program staff!!!

And one wonders whether there is even any money in the Common Cause budget for the "campaign contributions" that are required by pols in exchange for doing anything!!!

Incidentally, John Gardner's 1970 letter launching Common Cause (Ref. Mat. B) mentions that it may be difficult to agree on an agenda, since each member may not support the Common Cause position on every issue. It would appear that this has not been a problem since their issues have been basic "bread and butter" and still they are unable to generate much change (or even publicity that they still exist).

*****
Proposed Model = "Wiki"-Politica

Most of us recognize how extensive and up-to-date Wikipedia is.

What many of us may fail to appreciate is that all of this is accomplished WITH VOLUNTEERS and with VERY HIGH QUALITY.

The NY Times Magazine Section article of July 1, 2007 (Ref. Mat. A) explains how this is accomplished.

Though only six years old, Wikipedia has articles in 250 languages (1.8 million articles in English alone) and 6.8 million registered users (though like "yours truly," one need not register to use it).

And despite some "growing pains," the NY Times article describes how "quality control" is high and how it is maintained.

Incidentally, the article explains that "wiki" is a programming term long in use that derives from a Hawaiian word meaning "quick."

It strikes me that all of us should reach out to our “six degrees of separation” contacts to create a "snowball effect" that will result in the political equivalent of Wikipedia!!!

For example, each Senator and Congressperson could be catalogued, listing such information as her/his campaign contributors (including amounts), committee assignments, and positions on each issue (from the person's voting record, from her/his official web site and from media reports).

But the information should also be easy to re-sort issue-by-issue so that any mere citizen (vs. a lobbyist) who is interested in a particular issue can discover the Senate and H/R committees that have jurisdiction over a particular issue, the identity of the committee members and (as mentioned above) each member's campaign contributors, issue positions, etc.

During election years, this information could easily be expanded to include challengers so that any citizen who dislikes an incumbent and likes the challenger can make effective "campaign contributions" to counter the influence of the bribes (aka "campaign contributions") of the lobbyists.

*****
Footnote on Using the Term "Wiki"

It does not appear that either the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikipedia has applied for trademark or copyright protection for the term "Wiki."

We could always use other terminology since "Wiki" and the NY Times article were only used as shortcuts to describe the concept.

However, there is quite a bit of "brand identity" if "Wiki" is used because of instant conceptual understanding. And the “Wiki” overseers undoubtedly have a lot of knowledge, experience and software that would be invaluable.

In this regard, the NY Times article mentions that the Wikimedia Foundation had several other "offshoots" all of which have been effectively strangled by the success of Wikipedia - Wikinews, Wikibooks, Wikiquote and Wiktionary.

Accordingly, they might be willing to take "Wikipolitica" under their wing, particularly if we and our "six degrees of separation" friends do all the work. Indeed, there may be quite a few volunteers who presently work on Wikipedia who might prefer to work on Wikipolitica (or do both)!!!

*****
Footnote on the Anti-Feminism of Archibald Cox

Although Archibald Cox is one of my all-time heroes for his performance as the Watergate Special Prosecutor and for his championing Common Cause, it should be noted that he was at least a latent anti-feminist.

Archibald Cox was a Harvard Law Professor when I attended (1964-67) and took a leave of absence to serve as the Watergate Special Prosecutor May - Oct 1973.

Archibald Cox subpoenaed the "White House Tapes" and Richard Nixon not only refused to comply, but also demanded on October 20, 1973 that Attorney General Eliot Richardson fire Cox. Richardson not only refused but resigned in protest. Nixon immediately demanded that Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus fire Cox and Ruckelshaus not only refused but resigned in protest. Nixon immediately demanded that Solicitor General Robert Bork (SG is third in command at DOJ) fire Cox and Bork complied.

In retaliation, the US Senate refused to confirm Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, even though they had confirmed him for the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in 1982.

Incidentally, like Barack Obama, the ranks of past Harvard Law Review Presidents include Archibald Cox, Eliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus. Bork was on leave from the Yale LS faculty in 1973.

Leading all HLS graduates to joke that Harvard Law Review Presidents do "the right thing" and it took a Yale man to bring "The Saturday Night Massacre" to a grisly close!!! (A "good omen" for supporting Barack Obama!!!)

However, like many of our Founding Fathers who owned slaves, Archibald Cox had a stain on his record. But, unlike the Founding Fathers vis-à-vis slavery, the stain of Archibald Cox is not obvious.

By way of background, HLS admitted no female students until the 1950's, and during my era (1964-67) and for a considerable time thereafter, there was rampant anti-feminism practiced by the faculty.

For example, many of the faculty would stage periodic "Ladies' Days" during which the 28 female members of our class of 560 (the 5% female quota) would be forced to sit on the dais while the professor would sit in the middle of the male students and pepper the "Ladies" with particularly hard and embarrassing questions.

Indeed, it was not until 1972 that Elisabeth Owens, who was the country's foremost authority on international taxation when I was a student, became the first female non-visiting professor at HLS. By that time, many of the students were female and they had demanded a course on Women's Issues. They also demanded it be taught by a female. HLS brought in as a visiting professor a woman from Rutgers Law School who would be moving on to Columbia Law School the following year. She was so offended by her treatment at the hands of the all-male HLS faculty that she refused to return after the December vacation period and fled prematurely to Columbia Law School. The female HLS students went on strike. HLS appointed a male professor to teach the rest of the course. The female HLS students remained on strike. HLS turned to Elisabeth Owens and asked her to teach the rest of the course even though her official title for more than two decades was "Lecturer" despite being one of the most illustrious faculty members during that period. Her reply = "That course should only be taught by a professor"!!! Which is how Elisabeth Owens became the first regular female HLS professor (the visiting prof had been the 1st overall). Though many decades after other first-rate law schools had appointed women as professors, and for the wrong reason!!!

Also by way of background, I have attended every class reunion. Our class may be the only HLS class that always features an "open forum" during our reunions where we all sit together in one of the lecture halls and just "shoot the bull" about whatever topics we find interesting. Indeed, since our 1982 reunion, those of us among the 25% of the class that came to NYC have had a monthly luncheon at the Harvard Club of NYC to "shoot the bull" and, according to the club, we are the only class of any component of Harvard U to do anything comparable.

So please imagine my disgust at our 30th reunion in 1997.

At our "open forum" the surviving members of our ranks of 28 females once more castigated HLS for its historical anti-feminism. BUT THEN, Ken Gormley who had just completed a few months earlier his famous book "Archibald Cox: Conscience of a Nation" praised Archibald Cox, among other things, for his role as Special Watergate Prosecutor (though a 1980 HLS grad whose class was not even involved in the every-5-year-reunion cycle, Ken must have been attending the festivities because of his recent book and have been invited to attend our “open forum” by one of the members of our class).

Having to suffer through yet another 30-minute rant on HLS' historical anti-feminism and now having to listen at length to Ken Gormley (whose presentation would have been wonderful in isolation!!!), "yours truly" could not remain silent any longer!!!

He rose to point out that the anti-feminism that had earlier been described once more so eloquently was not the fault of an institution, since many other law schools did not experience similar problems, but was the fault of the faculty members themselves. AND WHO WAS THE ONLY FACULTY MEMBER WHO SINGLE-HANDEDLY COULD HAVE PUT A STOP TO IT??? If he really was the "Conscience of A Nation," Archibald Cox could have simply said at any faculty meeting that the anti-feminism of the HLS faculty would have to stop immediately or he would resign accompanied by a press release explaining the reason for his resignation!!!

Several of our female members immediately leapt to the defense of Archibald Cox, defending him as "a product of his times," much like our Founding Fathers are often excused for being slave owners.

BUT I DIDN'T LET THEM OFF THE HOOK!!! I MADE THEM ADMIT THAT ARCHIBALD COX WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD HAVE SINGLE-HANDEDLY ENDED THE DISGUSTING ANTI-FEMINISM OF HLS - AND FAILED TO DO SO.

Incidentally, I am pleased to report that HLS has mended its ways. Its current faculty directory shows that 62 of the total faculty of 234 (26.50%) have traditional female names and 15 of the 234 (6.41%) have names that are indeterminate. In addition, Elena Kagan has been our Dean since 7/1/2003.
Last edited by johnkarls on Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

Irrelevant But True Story-Why Nixon Didn’t Destroy the Tapes

Post by johnkarls »

.
An apology is offered in advance for straying even further afield.

But young readers may not understand (and older ones may not know) why Nixon did not simply destroy the Watergate Tapes when Archibald Cox subpoenaed them.

After all, Nixon had been overwhelmingly re-elected less than 12 months before the “Saturday Night Massacre” and he was still extremely popular.

Indeed, opinion polls taken after the issuance of the subpoena but before “The Saturday Night Massacre” showed that public opinion would have overwhelmingly supported Nixon if he simply announced a fait accompli – that he had destroyed ALL of the Watergate Tapes because they were riddled with highly-sensitive national-security matters.

To understand his thinking, one must be aware that it had been the practice of Nixon’s predecessors to STEAL all of their Presidential papers upon leaving office AND TO TAKE AN INCOME TAX DEDUCTION for the value of those papers upon donating them to their own Presidential Libraries!!!

And pausing for a moment on the term “steal,” one should focus on the question of whether a corporate CEO would be prosecuted for grand larceny if s/he took all of her/his correspondence files with her/him upon leaving office. Of course s/he would!!! The correspondence files of every employee are the property of the employer!!!

Nevertheless, no President has ever been prosecuted for stealing his correspondence files upon leaving office!!!

However, during Lyndon Johnson’s Administration, Congress enacted an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code barring Presidents from claiming income tax deductions for the contribution of their correspondence files to their personal Presidential Libraries. But following tradition regarding any amendment to the law affecting Presidents, Lyndon Johnson and his predecessors were exempted.

During my years of volunteer work for the American Bar Association Tax Section, I knew the California tax attorneys who were asked by Richard Nixon to provide a legal opinion on the question of whether “White House Tapes” were/are “Presidential Papers” for purposes of the provision disallowing charitable contributions to personal Presidential Libraries.

The conclusion of the opinion was that “tapes” are not “papers”!!!

So Richard Nixon intended to join the ranks of his predecessors who paid no income taxes following their years in office!!!

And thought he could “tough it out” without having to destroy his tapes (aka future tax deductions)!!!

Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Solution to The Cesspool that is Washington DC - for Feb 14”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests