Finding Greatness

I decided to read ARGO for my 10th book in my quest for 50 books in 2013 as much to see what the fuss was about related to the movie as to learn about the rescue that I remember from my childhood. I even had a cassette recording of the news that I made myself the days the majority of the hostages were released. That cassette may actually be sitting in a storage unit.

Anyway, the story of the six houseguests that had been rescued so many days prior to those held at the embassy was a mystery to me, as it was to so many others. I have a new admiration for the CIA and Canada, particularly how an inherent mutual trust occurred, which led to the mission’s success.

One of the salient points from the book is to create a strategy that best fits the situation, instead of taking the safest, most predictable route. Another key point: paying attention to every detail associated with the strategy, including areas where there can be a Plan B and where a Plan B simply doesn’t exist. These are lessons we can apply in nearly every aspect of our lives, even if actual lives are not at stake.

Of note, I was not aware until reading the acknowledgements at the end of the book that the screenplay had been written prior to the book. I’m looking forward to seeing it on film, knowing that there will be liberties taken from the actual account.

While to book was well written, there were times where the prose felt forced, as though the CIA stepped in to the story and insisted that some aspect of the story be told in a certain way. Because of the quality of the story, this can be overlooked, and the book makes for a decent read.

Before I really get started, yes, I will be picking on the GOP a bit. There are two reasons for this. One, the examples that I am using are a proxy for a bigger problem that exists on bothe sides of the aisle, though more so with the right, because, two, their stated positions are puposely more extreme and thus get greater coverage. In other words, it is easier to speak to these examples because I specifically heard the press conference or read the stories. The GOP succeeded in getting the exposure they desired. Good for them.

Back to the real reason for this post.

The reason we elect officials to represent us is so that they can make the difficult decisions we as mostly uninformerd or underinformed citizens are not capable of making ourselves. That includes those decisions that may not align exactly (or at all) with our personal beliefs. 

Somewhere along the way, this idea of service morphed into the insatiable desire to remain in office at all costs, changing voting districts and saying whatever had to be said to beat that other person for the seat. This mindset and its pervasiveness are why Congress will continue to fail the American people. And it is manifest in how politicians seek to gain an edge through their use of statistics, stories and positioning, not caring at all whether their arguments have any basis in fact, rationality or simple logic.

Just last week, I was listening to a press conference from Sen. Lindsey Graham. He was using the media opportunity to rail against the Obama Administration;’s push for expanding gun control and the laws dealing with background checks. Sen. Graham is firmly against such an expansion. Here is his reasoning.

First, he tells the story of a woman from his home state who, in 2005, threatened to kill President George W. Bush. After a brief investigation and needed phsychological evaluations, the woman pleaded guilty by reason of insanity. She spent the next several years in and out of treatment for her paranoid schitzophrenia. Earlier this month, she was able to legally purchase a gun, walked into a school and attempted to murder several people–unsuccessfully. He expressed dismay that under the current law, this obviously sick, troubled and admittedly insane woman was able to legally purchase a gun. He said, “She should not be able to purchase a gun anywhere.”

Yet, he is firmly against expanding the background check laws as they stand. His comment, not mine.

Second, he pointed to a statistic that of the 80,000 people that failed background checks (I believe it was the prior year), only 44 had been prosecuted. He blamed this on a failure of the Administration to properly enforce the laws on the books. When pressed about how many of those 80,000 actually acquired a gun or went on to commit an actual crime, he had nothing. Let’s be clear, failing to pass a background check is not, in and of itself, a crime. As a proud former prosecutor, Sen. Graham knows this. He would have been ridden out of office for wasting taxpayer money if he had attempted to prosecute everyone who failed a background check simply because they failed.

Take it a step further: if many of these same individuals did then go on to acquire a gun illegally, how would anyone know? Until another crime was committed with that gun, and the alleged criminal caught, there is nothing to prosecute.

Is this really a failure to prosecute or a failure to have sufficient laws and safeguards in place to prevent (not deter, which is Sen. Graham’s preferred method of dealing with the problem) guns finding their way into these criminals’ hands?

His intent was clearly to use a bogus and wholly indefensible number to attack the opposition.

There is no obvious answer to the gun control debate. And I am all for reasoned debate. But when anyone is basing arguments on made up figures or self-contradicting arguments, there is no reason to be had.

Moving on to a separate example, I turn back to the end of 2012 and the Fiscal Cliff posturing. The Associated Press ran a number of stories about the standoff. Most of the ones I saw related to the strong stand and political strategy the Republicans were using in an attempt to gain leverage over the President. One such tactic stuck out as, frankly, dumb. The argument went like this: Republicans were not going to vote to increase the taxes on those making over $400,000 (as individuals, $450,000 as families), because they wanted to be able to go back to their constituencies and say that they voted against any increase in taxes.

Now comes the failure in logic. A “Yes” vote on the measure increased taxes on those whose annual incomes were $400,000 or more. A “No” vote on the measure increased taxes an just about everyone. In other words, no matter how they voted, they were increasing taxes on a group of people. The size of the group depended on whether the vote was up or down. There was no rea; option for no tax increase at all because both sides were too busy marking their territory to get anything of substance done.

In the corporate world, most members of both the House and Senate would be fired for non-performance at best and incompetence at worst. Instead, we, the electorate, continue putting people into office to “fight” the other side. Though polls show our complete disdain those we put into federal office and their complete inability to actually accomplish something, we still put them in office.

Maybe the real reason Congress will continue to fail is because we keep electing them to office and not enough of us care enough to do a damn thing about it.