Unring the Bell?

John McCain has declined a reappearance on The View. The ladies of the program would like to be more hospitable and defend their actions during his appearance as a candidate. Not likely: there is no defence for either the rudeness or the arrogance with which the panelists dismissed the Republican candidate for President. They did what they did how they did it, and the bell cannot be unrung.

President Obama has publicly backed off from the movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, perhaps because it was pointed out to him that the media bias blatantly shown during his recent campaign would be tempered by "fairness" if that measure is put back on the table. For instance, rather than being interviewed by the three most pro network news anchors to the exclusion of all others, a more "fair" representation would be required, including interviewers who did not favor his candidacy. Rather than singing his own song, the candidate would be forced to defend his campaign rhetoric on the spot in response to challenging questions from the other side of his position, a task that was not part of his campaign strategy, nor a bell he wants ringing for the rest of his term of office.

The local newspaper (I continue to read it why?) has another of its one-way polls this morning: mark yes or no. Do you think Obama’s housing plan will achieve its goal of 'rescuing families who acted responsibly'? Before providing a response, don't responders first need to know what "housing plan," then why "families who acted responsibly" need rescuing? If what I have heard from the media is accurate, that 90% of all mortgages are current and not headed for default, is the "housing plan" going to give money to that high-performing majority or to the 10% who walked away from their obligations? Throwing good money after bad doesn't solve a problem, it exacerbates it, and once that bell is rung, it cannot be unrung.

Finally, it's slowly seeping into the media that a more probable cause for the commuter plane crash outside Buffalo, NY is "pilot error," based on the conclusion that none of the other pilots flying in that area had a problem, so there must have been no weather issue. This bell is rung far too often as it's the expedient cause when no other single cause can be determined. However, what about the crash resulting from a confluence of causes because it's never just one factor that is responsible for tragedy. Think tsunami: did the ocean really cause all those deaths, or is it a confluence of causes that begins with Mother Nature and ends with man's responsibility for decisions to live in harm's way? Think Hurricane Katrina: is the weather solely responsible for the deaths and destruction, or is it a chain of causes that includes mankind's decision to fill the ocean with debris, construct levee walls for protection, build in the bowl, and then pray for the best when the worst happens? Once the bell of single cause is rung, there is no undoing the media coverage and legal consequences.

Ditto once government assumes the responsibility for the financial failure of the system. Bail out one corporation/financial institution once and the precedence is set to bail out all corporations anytime they ring that bell. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the first to ring the "we can't fail" bell, but months later the people are listening to the "tintintabulation of the bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells, bells" (Edgar Allan Poe).
_______________________________________________

Addendum: John Grisham's latest novel, The Associate, is set against a backdrop of the manipulation of the system by corporate law firms. Interestingly, the protagonist is a young college graduate, a mere 25 years of age, who realizes the ethical implications of his involvement in the dishonesty to his fledgling legal career. As he realizes in chapter 19, "With monthly billings ... averaging $5.5 million, why push the case to a conclusion?"