Noncompete Agreements - again 10/27/2006 06:51:22 pm by Dan Krohn

	The Texas Supreme Court has ruled in the Sheshunoff case, and noncompete agreements in Texas are now theoretically easier to enforce in employment "at will" situations. In a future entry this issue will be examined in more depth. But for now, anyone vitally interested in this topic should consult an attorney to review the possible effects of this development.

	[comments?]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation 10/26/2006 03:03:50 pm by Dan Krohn

	“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” The language at the top of this entry is found in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty about which we are hearing so much nowadays. With several countries, including and possibly not limited to India, Pakistan, and Israel, having nuclear weapons though they were not nuclear states when the treaty came to be, the size of the nuclear club has substantially grown. Now it appears that two of the three members of the “axis of evil”, that being North Korea and Iran, are on the verge of having nuclear weapons. This has brought nuclear non-proliferation to the front page. Being a curious sort, this writer decided to take a look at the treaty itself. When the treaty was adopted and signed by most nations, there was an agreed give and take. The non-nuclear nations agreed to give up the prospect of becoming nuclear powers and in return the nuclear nations agreed to work “in good faith” to joining them by way of “complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”. That was the essence of the deal. There is no doubt that the world is becoming a more dangerous place with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There can also be little doubt that the nuclear nations since the time the treaty was signed in the late 1960's have not proceeded in good faith towards complete disarmament. While the world should work diligently to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, it is equally true that the nuclear powers should work hard at agreement to disarm. That was the deal. Trust is something that must be repeatedly earned. At the moment in the context of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it is difficult to find a nuclear nation that has earned trust. That said, there is a small group of countries that has had nuclear weapons for several decades now and managed to avoid any being used. Arguably those nations have earned some degree of respect for their restraint over the last half century. Yet as the Cuban missile crisis taught, it would be easy for any country to fire that first shot. And though some nations have safely possessed nuclear weapons for decades, the leadership of those nations frequently changes. All nations should dedicate themselves to the principles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty - whether they have nuclear weapons today - or not.

	[comments?]

Iraq Exit Strategy 10/25/2006 08:31:32 am by Dan Krohn

	It is becoming clear that the president and his advisors are working on an exit strategy for Iraq. Clearly a majority of the American people have ceased to support the Iraq war effort. Far from a matter of not supporting the troops, it seems the population is becoming increasingly disenchanted with the loss of troops without a lasting benefit in sight. With the secular violence increasing, Amercians are doubting the wisdom of losing lives for a dream of democracy in a country where the people are mercilessly killing each other and where the nation shows every sign of moving towards civil war to establish three separate countries. So some kind of exit is increasingly likely. Yet for reasons that have been discussed in other recent entries to this blog, the president does not want to be seen as having goofed. Here's the way it appears the script is being written. The prime minister of Iraq is being a bit annoying, ordering U.S. troops to release prisoners on occasion whom the U.S. wants to question at length. No doubt the prime minister is making other annoying decisions as well. And he seems unable/unwilling to really stop the sectarian violence. So the American administration is working up a new list of demands that the new Iraqi government must meet to satisfy requirements that the U.S. presence be maintained. These demands will be tough to meet, but they will be such that if met the U.S. would look pretty good. Key among those demands will be an end to the sectarian violence which has become so brutal. So we will see an American withdrawal on the basis that the Iraqi leadership is either not performing or choosing a policy which makes it impossible for the U.S. to succeed in Iraq. This will be an argument with an element of truth, and it's an argument that can be made to sound really convincing. And any admission of error by U.S. leadership will be admissions of small misjudgments - not big ones.

	[1 comments]

2 Wrongs Don't Make a Right 10/20/2006 10:30:11 am by Dan Krohn

	If there is one lesson my mother drilled into her children it is the concept that two wrongs don’t make a right. Less that be too cryptic, what my mother taught was that no one can justify immoral or unethical conduct with the argument that someone else has previously done it. Not many people really argue with this principle in the abstract. Can anyone recall a jury releasing a robber with the comment that he was excused due to previous robberies committed by others? Here in the United States we are immersed in the political season with a major election coming up in a few weeks. And in this context we constantly hear from candidates and talking heads that two wrongs do indeed make a right. This writer is sick of it! When a Democrat gets into hot water for unreasonably favoring some special interest, the defense is that Republicans do it, too. When a Republican resigns due to a sex scandal, the defense is that Democrats have affairs, too. This writer watched one talking head on a national news show recite a rather complete history of sexual misconduct (covering several generations) by members of the political party he opposed as justification for the misconduct of his party’s candidate. What garbage! (Oh, there was one brief quiet oral footnote to the effect that what his candidate had done was wrong, but it was spoken almost in the manner of the fast talking announcers reading interest rate fine print in used car radio ads.) There are times that wrong behavior is simply wrong behavior. And we should not accept it because someone behaved wrongly before. Let’s not accept it. Let’s react to immoral behavior by a candidate by voting him out. And maybe we ought to consider voting out those who try to justify such behavior by citing immoral precedent.

	[comments?]

Courage 10/20/2006 10:08:17 am by Dan Krohn

	The previous entry to this blog discussed the need for the citizens of the United States (and the principle really has universal application) to be more accepting of its leaders’ changing course if they discover a particular direction or policy is wrong. This entry briefly addresses the flip side of that coin. If a person chooses to take on a leadership role, there goes with that decision a requirement that the person be willing to sacrifice for the people being led. In the United States we have often referred to our government officials as public servants - and this has applied to the highest ranking as well as the rank and file. This is not a new or original concept. Long ago it was been suggested that the strongest and greatest ought be the servant of all. Implicit in the leader’s role is a true leader’s acceptance of the fact that s/he might be obligated to risk or lose his position of power for the greater good. Put otherwise, leaders should act with courage. And few things require the courage of admitting mistakes and accepting the consequences. However, this is exactly what real leaders do - especially when people are suffering due to an incorrect decision. Pity there are so few such leaders. Though perhaps a country whose citizens either have come to watch politics as a sort of reality entertainment show or have become so cynical as to disengage cannot expect better. Unfortunately, sometimes we get what we deserve.

	[comments?]

Allowing Errors 10/14/2006 12:48:02 pm by Dan Krohn

	In an earlier entry this blog touched on the issue discussed here. It is of such importance that the writer believes the concept of allowing errors deserves emphasis. My good friend and advisor Bob Stecker often says, “People are programmed to learn by trial and error.” His point is that we should not always condemn a person for making an error because that is an important part of the learning process. And it is also an inherent part of being human. Of course, some errors are more costly than others; and some people have positions, the nature of which can make their errors quite dreadful. But forgiveness is an essential attribute of an enlightened human. Though few would disagree with the statements above, we have developed into a society which is unforgiving of its leaders. Consequently, many of our leaders act on the assumption that they cannot admit a mistake and change course. When this operating principle is a part of presidential procedure, the cost can be dramatic. We, the people of the United States need to learn to permit errors. When our country embarks on an effort or adopts a policy which is later learned to be erroneous, we benefit from the leaders feeling comfortable about changing course. A hypothetical example: let’s suppose that towards the end of his first term in office President Lyndon Johnson concluded that it was an error to be at war in Vietnam. Could he have announced a change in policy and been re-elected? Most likely - not. Now in such a case it may or may not be a good thing that the people would not re-elect a president under those circumstances. Certainly his opponent would harp on how even he had admitted he’d made an error which costs thousands of lives. They’d argue, with some validity, that the U.S. cannot take a chance on leaving a person who made such a mistake in power. Knowing this, a president is strongly encouraged to work on convincing people that continuing the war is the best policy - even when not believing it. This is admittedly a tough example. Yet, this writer suggests that in a democracy the people must be enlightened enough to permit the elected leaders to change course when they learn a chosen course of action is not the correct one. After all, who would want a president (or other leader) who in incapable of learning and acting on the lessons learned?

	[comments?]

African Horn 10/11/2006 04:21:08 pm by Dan Krohn

	Just a heads up in case any readers have not been watching this area, the next major trouble spot in the world might well be the region referred to as the Horn of Africa. This is the bulge on the eastern side of the continent, part of which borders the Red Sea. Somalia is likely to be the location of the initial problems. At this time it is being more or less governed by two different governments: Islamist rebels holding the south and central regions and an ealier sort of compromise government holding the rest. The Islamists certainly seem to hold the upper hand in the conflict. However, that is only the beginning. The Islamists have called for a holy war against Ethiopia. Ethiopia lies to the northwest of the country. It has been rumored that a fair number of Ethiopian troops have come into Somalia to prop up the prior government. Ethiopia borders Eritrea to its north, and relations between those two have not been very good either. Indeed, some in Ethiopia suspect Eritrea of supporting the Islamists in Somalia. A look at the map will show that both Eritrea and Ethiopia border tiny Djibouti. Djibouti lies directly across from Yemen, but more importantly the southern passage out of the Red Sea between Djibouti and Yemen is very narrow. That narrow passage is a critical shipping point for oil tankers heading into the Indian Ocean. Presumably many of those tankers head for India and China, among other destinations. A closing of that passage to shipping could have confusing and very unpleasant repercussions. Note that the U.S. has a naval station in Djibouti. The U.S. had some involvement in Somalia during the Clinton presidency, and that experience might encourage the current administration to duck the issues in this part of the world. Yet, it would seem that early diplomatic intervention by a cooperating group of major powers might be advisable. Let's hope that if begun early, diplomacy can prevent a crisis. Recent diplomatic efforts aimed at Iranian and Korean nuclear programs have not been successful. This is an area which bears close watching. The complex gathering of very diverse interests could make for a major international crisis.

	[comments?]

Waterboarding Jesus 10/06/2006 10:56:15 am by Dan Krohn

	Today we are witnessing one of the most bizarre debates in US history. The United States is a country which was founded by Christians and in which Christian beliefs have played a critical role in determining its moral and political direction. Yet we are having a debate about the propriety of using torture on individuals who are suspected of having information which would help in the "War on Terror". Make no mistake - it is torture which is being discussed and advocated by many. One of the popular code phrases is "aggressive interrogation," and I have heard a political talking head on national television accuse those who oppose it of being soft on our enemies. The fact that in this process some innocent people have died and some have been crippled is apparently of minor significance to many. Perhaps those who do not think such procedures are torture should themselves experience being kept naked in a freezing room while being deprived of sleep and being drenched periodically with cold water. Or perhaps they should experience the notorious waterboarding which simulates drowning and occasionally does have that result. A few seconds would suffice. It was not that long ago that the movie "The Passion of Christ" was shocking people across the nation who could barely even watch the repeated beatings and crucifiction. Yet, let's remember that Jesus was rather anti-establishment in his day. He was certainly perceived by the Romans as stirring up trouble. In his advocacy of forgiveness and giving to the less fortunate he took positions quite contrary to the accepted norms of the day (which unfortunately also seem to be against the norms of today). Yes, no doubt, were Jesus alive today, he would be labeled an enemy combatant and a perfect subject for extraordinary rendition to some foreign country for clandestine torture. And he'd be entitled to no more fair trial that he received from the Romans. Where is the moral imperative of the Judeo-Christian tradition that built this country now? Christians and Jews should be screaming.

	[comments?]

Moral quicksand 10/20/2006 03:59:04 pm by Dan Krohn

	The former chairperson of the board of HP has surrendered to authorities to face possible criminal charges arising from the corporate espionage efforts to identify the source of leaks. One wonders if/when those directors who apparently were leaking inside information to the press will face charges as well. There is more discussion of what will happen to whom, than what behaviour is acceptable. Unfortunately, the culture of the United States has come to rely upon law to do more than it has ever successfully done and more than it is designed to do. Specifically, the legal system is not and cannot be an effective last word on standards for ethical behavior. Yet, it seems that many if not most citizens of the US have come around to believing that if it is legal it is okay. This is clearly not true and clearly an inadequate standard for civilized human behaviour. For example, in many instances it is unethical to lie - yet there is no law against lying generally. It is unethical to insult another person for the pleasure of making them feel badly - yet there is no law, and there should be no law, against such behaviour. The list could go on indefinitely. However, in the arenas of business and politics it has increasingly become common to believe that if it's not against the law, or worse yet, if you don't get caught, then any behavior is acceptable - in many instances admirable. This could be seen occasionally on some reality TV shows where questionable behaviour is admired as successful competition. Indeed, an uncritial belief in competition has come to so permeate our society as to render it ill. I like the capitalist economic systems and I like competition - but too much of any good thing can be bad. We have come to measure success almost exclusively in terms of material acquisition. For a country that prides itself on Christian values, the hypocrisy is painful. One of the hot news stories of the week is the congressional scandal regarding inappropriate communications from a congressman to young pages working in the capital. We have yet to learn the extent of the inappropriate behaviour. But it is saddening to note that the news coverage consists largely of commentary on the political repercussions going into a November election. One former congressional leader has publicly stated his belief that the whole thing is a plot cooked up by Democrats to embarrass Republicans. How sick can a society become and still thrive? In a healthy society, there would be universal expressions of concern from political leaders and the focus would be the harm done to young pages and how to prevent future occurances. Concern for political repercussions would certainly exist, but any political leader of proper upbringing would not mention it - keeping the focus on concern for possible young victims. Unfortunately our society has become too much an "all about me" creature. Concern for young people who might have been exposed to inappropriate behaviour is a secondary concern to the effect the news story might have on political players. And the American people accept this kind of leadership - lacking in moral standards. It is brushed aside as "they all do it" and as secondary to concerns as to how the political fallout might affect other interests of "mine". Then there are the Americans who do not vote or follow the news because it is too depressing. So the jettison any responsibility. This, too, is a form of selfishness. Democracy requires more. How many will suffer how much before Americans accept the moral responsibility that has been forgotten in a selfish effort to satisfy our "all about me" desires?

	[1 comments]

Immigration and Religion 10/09/2006 08:48:24 am by Dan Krohn

	Many people today are expressing concerns that the United States is becoming a theocracy, a nation controlled by a religion. Usually these concerns are an expression of fear that the religion in control is an amalgam of fundamental Protestants commonly called the “religious right”. A key tenet of the religious right is a belief that the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is to be read and followed literally. Certainly this group has made its views known on many public issues from education to gay rights. How about immigration? With hundreds of thousands of protesters hitting the streets, the immigration issue has dominated the public eye for some weeks. Yet, the religious right has not been heard speaking out on this subject. Is the Bible silent on the issue? As it happens, the Bible seems to have a definite point of view on the immigration issue, and it’s a tough one for us humans to swallow. Check out Leviticus 19:33-34 which reads: “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the Lord am your God.” Now to me, that reads rather unambiguously, though I can imagine that many will prefer to read those verses as applying only to the Hebrew people who actually went to Egypt; because taken in their obvious meaning - these verses set one heck of a high standard, and many will not want to aim for it. These verses make no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants; they speak simply of strangers. History seems to indicate that human beings are inherently xenophobic. We simply don’t trust people who are different from us. Perhaps in early tribal days as hunter gatherers, that made a lot of sense. Those early humans might have justifiably viewed all approaching strangers as threats to their food supplies. An aggressive fear of strangers might be a genetic survival mechanism. Today’s humans don’t seem to be acting much differently. So in this instance, the Bible is setting the bar uncomfortably high. There you have it. Frankly, I don’t think humanity is ready for this level of performance. But that said, the verses from Leviticus certainly seem to set the goal for which we humans should aim. Commerce with its outsourcing is knocking down barriers at a rapid clip, so maybe we are moving towards a day when strangers are treated like natives unconsciously. Then there’s that other commandment in Leviticus: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Restated famously as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “Neighbor” and “others” are not specified as English speaking or white or black or anything else. Does a literal reading of the Bible permit inferred adjectives?

	[comments?]