Be it Resolved - OpEd

2005 has come and gone, and ready or not 2006 is upon us. As I thought about what to tackle for this week’s column, one wag suggested I write on what I don’t know about the fairer sex. Both my editor and I, given my vast ignorance on the subject, quickly rejected that suggestion as requiring volumes, not just the limited space of one column. I am not sure just how, but that did lead to a discussion of how our nation might do better this year than last. Not to say that 2005 was terrible economically; the Dow went down by 8 points; the workforce grew by nearly 3 million jobs, and while the Christmas sales figures are somewhat spotty, consumer confidence is ebullient. So what ought to be on the nation’s list of resolutions? How can we improve? Well here is my list. I invite you to send me your own, and I may share your suggestions in a future column.

First: stay the course in Iraq. It is the right thing to do and is in keeping with our national responsibility and our own security. The new Iraq will be a work in progress for some years. It will continue to be messy, but the emerging country will be a beacon of democracy in the Mideast. Arabs of different ethnicities and traditions are learning it is better to make political deals than kill each other. They are being drawn into the democratic process in record numbers. By late spring we should have a lawfully elected Iraqi government to cede the responsibility for the protection of Iraqi citizens. While no figure anyone wants to talk about is available, the feeling grows that a substantial number of our troops will either come home or be withdrawn to established bases in the region before the end of the year. Loyal opposition beware: oppose the president on this issue at your peril.

Second: adopt a realistic budget that aligns obligations with resources. Not long ago the national debt was in the billions. It now tops 7 trillion. Folks get a grip! We have to be able to do better than this. Our representatives are only bringing you what you are asking for. If you want sane balanced budgets, then you have to let Washington know that balancing the budget is paramount to our future and our children’s future. We ought to conduct a national series of “town meetings” on this issue. Government revenue and its creation are fundamental to our security as a nation. The government does not produce wealth. It spends what we give it. How much of our hard earned dollars does the federal government deserve to spend? I continue to believe that we can spend our dollars locally and more effectively with less bureaucracy, but I certainly don’t want to create an excuse for leaving those most in need without recourse. I have been in favor for some time to limiting the portion of our GNP allocated to the federal government. If that were done, then regional compacts, states, and localities would need to look closer to home to find solutions for what are homegrown challenges. All allocated revenue ought to be raised in a straight forward and fair manner. A national flat tax, which provides at least limited credits for charitable donations and basic housing expenditures, should be agreed to. Congressman Armey’s proposal from some years ago didn’t tax a family of four until it received almost $45,000 in income. HR 25 is somewhat similar and ought to become the vehicle on which hearings can be held and a workable solution agreed to.

Third: meaningful lobby reform that breaks the cycle of legislators spending all their time chasing money and lobbyists chasing legislators has to be adopted. Lobbyists are an important part of the legislative process. I have done my fair share of lobbying over the years, but my company was very conservative in its approach and the campaign donations of our executives would barely cover donuts and coffee, yet legislators were always happy to hear from us because our corporate units employed a significant portion of their constituents. We always knew more about the issue on which we lobbied than anyone else, couched our contacts in terms of the interest of the community we served and sought only competitive fairness. I think most legislative specialists take a similar approach, but the magnitude of the dollars flowing in the political arena today is scandalous. The spectacle unfolding before us corrodes the respect for our government.

Fourth: get control of our borders. We periodically reorganize, and we spout rhetoric but nothing has changed. Last year an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants pored into our country and joined our society. Thousands more were caught and sent back in an endless revolving door. No effective control will be adopted until employers identify their self interest with successful enforcement. The President’s proposals deserve close and respectful attention as a point of departure to look at our need for the skills and labor of these immigrants. We must balance that need against the lawlessness we encourage with our current ineffective program and implement a solution that can be effectively administered.

A final suggestion: while President Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus during the Civil War, we should not encourage that sort of action by any president. Our liberties are too precious. My sense of the current controversy regarding the U.S. wiretaps that came out of 9/11 and the state of war in which we find ourselves is that no matter how quickly we need to act, the special court that has been set up to grant broad wiretapping authority to the president must be involved in the process. If the president truly has a problem, and I take him at his word that he does, the Patriot Act in its renewal should include an effective provision that assures that this wire tapping will be done in a way most consistent with our traditions.

_._

Robert E. Freer, Jr., an attorney, former general counsel of Kimberly-Clark Corporation and sometimes federal government official is President and CEO of The Free Enterprise Foundation, a tax-exempt think tank located at The Citadel dedicated to the study of Ethics, Civic Responsibility, Leadership and Enterprise Best Practice. Mr. Freer is also a visiting professor and The John S. Grinalds Leader in Residence at The Citadel’s School of Business Administration.

Charleston Mercury January 19, 2006. Page 16.

To Nano or Not - OpEd

“So,” I said, “What you are telling me is this swarm reproduces, is self-sustaining, learns from experience, has collective intelligence, and can innovate to solve problems? “Yes”
-Michael Crichton from Prey, his number one blockbuster about technology run amok.

As a rule, I tend to be optimistic about society and its potential for generational progress. Yet the pace of technology convergence and the pall mall introduction of one stunning development after another has me yearning for the simpler age of my childhood. Somehow with the passage of our society from 12 inch black and white television and coaster brakes on my gearless bicycle to the 21^st Century where we spring a new technology on the public just as soon as we figure out how to program yesterday’s new convenience, our innovative nature has pushed us to the brink of the abyss.

Dr. Michael Crichton, truly one of the most creative minds of our age, has unhinged me with Prey. In his story of nanotechnology unleashed, he envisions a world where research and adaptation of creation at the molecular level results in a blurring of the lines between life and machine, a reality in which the molecules themselves become the builders, develop self awareness, the ability to adapt, to defend themselves, merge with human organisms and ultimately to kill. So what is this technology that has frightened me? Well. It is the understanding and manipulation of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometers. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter; this paper is on the order of one hundred thousand nanometers thick to give you a tool of reference.

Nanotechnology is the new “it” technology with so much promise that President Clinton in 2000 asked for a 227 million dollar increase in the government’s investment in nanotechnology research and development including a new scientific initiative called the National Nanotechnology Initiative. In 2003 the U.S. Military reportedly spent over one billion dollars on nanotechnology and one medical authority suggests it could catch cancer before it spreads. Other authorities see it creating the stronger fibers for the space elevator I wrote about a few months ago and to eventually be able to replicate anything including “diamonds, water and food. Famine could be eradicated by machines that fabricate foods”… at the molecular level. In the medical industry “….[p]atients will drink fluids containing nanorobots programmed to attack and reconstruct the molecular structure of cancer cells and viruses to make them harmless.” The same commentator also sees them slowing the aging process, performing delicate surgeries and even being programmed to change your physical appearance. Contaminants could also be removed from the environment and nanomachines programmed to replace nonrenewable resources. To most researchers, my examples are only “teasers “of a future unimagined a few years ago.” Jeff Harrow of the Harrow Technology Report puts it this way. “The bottom line is we can only barely imagine the changes to come…. Few saw the potential [of many of our recent advancements.]”

Yet the potential from nanotechnology could make those historical watersheds look like a drop in the lake.” But is it the bright future of its adherents or the Pandora’s box envisioned in the introduction to Prey. Creighton notes, “Sometime in the twenty-first century our self deluded recklessness will collide with our growing technological power. One area where this will occur is in the meeting point of nanotechnology, biotechnology and computer technology. What all three have in common is the ability to release self replicating entities into the environment.”

Once a thought is communicated it is set free for all time. I am not so unrealistic to think that man will retreat from the full exploitation of this new technology, but the fork in the road is more clearly before us than anytime since the explosion of the atomic bomb as to man’s ability to control those whose thirst for power blinds them to mankind’s danger from their pursuits. What is being set before us is a question of man’s ability to transcend his moral weakness and grow to meet the responsible use of the power his mind has unleashed. Just because we can do something is no reason to do it.

Are we capable of responsibly controlling our appetites? Can we establish an effective ethical code of behavior for scientific exploitation? Viewed in this light, civilization’s war with militant, religious zealots determined to force their world view on the rest of us is not encouraging to our ability to survive the challenge presented by the gifts from our intellect. The twenty-first century, most of all, needs to be the Ethical Century. Man must learn to value not only those who can invent wondrous technology but also those who can show us the way to an effective world consensus on effective humanistic ethics or we will surely not survive the century.

_._

Robert E. Freer, Jr., an attorney, former general counsel of Kimberly-Clark Corporation and sometimes federal government official is President and CEO of The Free Enterprise Foundation, a tax-exempt think tank located at The Citadel dedicated to the study of Ethics, Civic Responsibility, Leadership and Enterprise Best Practice. Mr. Freer is also a visiting professor and The John S. Grinalds Leader in Residence at The Citadel’s School of Business Administration.

Katrina Christmas - OpEd

Our meteorologists confirm that we have just concluded the worst hurricane season since we began keeping records of such things back in 1865. Katrina alone is the most devastating natural disaster in our history. Together with Hurricane Rita their winds and water have devastated an area stretching from New Orleans east to the Alabama border. It may come back better, but it will never be the same, and its redevelopment will evolve over years not months.

Few events in the last few years have so engaged the hearts of the American public. Our attention during the storm centered on the pain and destruction as well as the role of government and its responsibility both for relief and rescue of those in the hurricane’s eye. Thanks to ubiquitous media, it was focused as well on affixing blame for the government’s inability to effectively protect the people of this area from the devastating affects of nature’s wrath. Since our founding, our country has existed under a federal system in which the states have sovereign authority for the care of its citizens, and the federal government is expected to show proper deference to the states for the first line responsibility for their citizen’s welfare. Admittedly, this arrangement has largely deteriorated through federal mandates and regulatory requirements tied to federal largesse on which many states have become dependent; nevertheless, the forms remain.

For the most part it works. There is little doubt, however, that for Louisiana and the needs of its citizens, the system failed horribly, and this bad example may cause changes in the relationship between the states generally and the federal government. Federal power may be enhanced, and state prerogatives eroded. If so, social scientists will view this incident as another step in the emasculation of the states and their transformation into vassals of a federal master. Without in any way minimizing the devastation of both Katrina and Rita, such a transformation is an ill wind that blows no good. I submit there is another way to look at the events that provides a more promising model for our nation, one that looks at effective care of our citizens and allows our governmental structures to conform to the way we really act in an emergency.

Let me first say that Katrina confirmed the goodness of the vast majority of our people. Sure there are crooks and knaves out there aplenty, but the tsunami of goodness that flows from the hearts of the American people dwarfs them. We are a great land, a great people who have much to celebrate! As this year comes to a close with our traditional season of thanksgiving and festivity, foremost we need to celebrate ourselves! The same generosity that has been there for lands far away now pours from the American soul in sustained support for those who bear the brunt of this disaster here at home. Because our nature is humane, we find that indeed we are our brother’s keeper. The Center on Philanthropy at The University of Indiana began tracking non governmental charitable support soon after the hurricane struck. By November 15, they tracked more than 2.6 Billion dollars in non governmental charitable giving. While an impressive demonstration of charity, it doesn’t hold a candle to the unmeasured and perhaps immeasurable charity of the thousands of volunteers giving millions of hours both on site across the gulf coast and back in homes across our land. Almost too many of us to count voluntarily implemented clothing and food drives, assembled volunteers to come at their own expense to the region to help carry the burden for charitable aid groups who need to supplement and replace those generous citizens who gave until they were ready to drop from exhaustion. Many have given that last measure of help and must return to lives strained by their efforts.

So far volunteers still come in record numbers. Here in the Low Country, I hear constantly about church groups and others planning trips to take their donations directly to the people in need. We are far from unique in this. Help in our area also continues to see to the needs of those for whom we have found shelter in temporary homes throughout our region including, as time passes, finding them new jobs, medical care, furniture, and whatever else is necessary to salvage the thread of lives destroyed by the wind and rain. This help is for the most part provided on the basis of person to person volunteer help unburdened and undirected by governmental authority. And that is the point. In a number of instances various state and federal agencies have only gotten in the way by requiring forms in triplicate and subjecting volunteers to various tests of appropriateness that only frustrate the efforts’ effectiveness.

Surely there is an appropriate role for federal and state authority, but often it best serves by getting out of the way and letting goodness just flow. While I will admit to not having all the answers, I am encouraged that these daily demonstrations of goodwill can fashion a process, which speeds the assistance and shrinks the government’s part of the process back to the traditional service of replacing infrastructure and restoring public safety. Providing a friendlier interface between government responsibility and volunteer assistance could greatly increase the effective delivery of help and reduce the cost of politically straitjacketed governmental assistance. The sheer administrative cost of compliance with the governmental interference is more than we can afford in dollars or in human suffering. Perhaps we need less government rather than more. Although it is counterintuitive, we may find that limiting federal spending without a super majority in Congress to 15% of Gross Domestic Product will grant more resources to the states and allow people’s pockets to freely provide the charity that we see demonstrated everyday.

_._

Robert E. Freer, Jr., an attorney, former general counsel of Kimberly-Clark Corporation and sometimes federal government official is President and CEO of The Free Enterprise Foundation, a tax-exempt think tank located at The Citadel dedicated to the study of Ethics, Civic Responsibility, Leadership and Enterprise Best Practice. Mr. Freer is also a visiting professor and The John S. Grinalds Leader in Residence at The Citadel’s School of Business Administration.

Charleston Mercury December 21, 2005. Page 16.