Awards of Valor (II)

Recently the 9th United States Circuit Court issued an opinion holding the "Stolen Valor Act" unconstitutional. The Act was passed by Congress in 2005 to deal with the false claims of awards for military heroism. The case before the court dealt with a man who, among other lies of military service, claimed to have been awarded a Medal of Honor.

The lie is created from the the motivation of the liar. Is the liar acting out of derision toward the armed forces or its medals of valor or does the liar intend to accomplish some other end for which the medal of valor lie is merely a prop? The liar may perform his or her role as "military hero" admirably, for example, in a patriotic speech, so what is the harm? The script he voices may be appropriate and inspirational, so what is the harm? Whether the liar is a "nutcase, a "wannabe," or uses the lie for self-aggrandisement or personal ambition, the liar cloaks himself with the recognition and prestige that is rightly granted to recipients of the Medal of Honor in particular. The false assumption of that authority diminishes the Medal of Honor's unique status within our national culture and identity. The liar does not have the human capacity of a Medal of Honor recipient to script or speak as such an individual. By singular or multiple acts the true recipient has exposed certain elements of his humanity and thereby retains a unique quality of character that no actor/liar could replicate. The "audience" is thereby harmed by assimilating the speech and watching the behavior having been made to believe that the liar actually possessed a unique quality of character when those qualities do not exist in the liar. In my own experience, would the "Duty, Honor, Country" speech of General MacArthur in 1962, now iconic in the US Army, have retained its power if we were to have learned that it had been presented by an actor? It could not. Once the liar is exposed the audience loses some faith generally in the trustworthiness of veterans and in the military to speak to them from a position of unique experience and commitment.

Earlier here I had written: "Medals and ribbons are, in one sense, a part of the theatre costuming of the armed forces. But more, medals of valor are important recognitions of necessary and exemplary conduct in war. In the community of servicemen and women and veterans, as they should in the civilian world, the ribbons command a degree of respect." The loss credence and respect by citizens for the extraordinary, violent, agonizing work of the Armed Forces can lessen the sense of value they attribute to the men and women who serve. Disbelief in the recognition of heroism may correspondingly lessen the citizens' appreciation for the quality of heroism. The conduct of war needs and produces heroism in defense of all citizens. The movies and games create lies about war. Citizens have to be told the truth by those who know from their own experience the reality of war and duty or our volunteer army, less valued, may become our mercenary army and our veterans more readily ignored. One or two liars, by their individual acts will not affect the general population but such lies coupled with false reports from battle fields, media "spins," anti-military activism, etc. that have become the corollaries of war, will each contribute to a cumulative effect eroding respect and confidence. Look no further back than the '60s for an example. The protection of the integrity of awards of valor and the belief in their validity then is a vital component of our military's relationship with our civilian citizens.

Failing to protect the integrity of the Medal of Honor and awards of valor will encourage further incidents of lying. Veterans proudly and legitimately wearing an award of valor will face cynical disbelief and disregard from citizens rather than the handshake and thank you that they deserve. Liars, however motivated, mock and diminish the awards and their recipients. The theatre created by liars is, as all theatre, not reality. The belief in this particular untruth, however brief, affects all of us adversely.

Dear Rep. Cantor

I strongly oppose the attacks on the environment included in the amendments to H.R. 1 and I urgently ask that you stop reversing progress and that you work to reasoned compromises.

The Republican Party has shown itself to be a far greater threat to American democracy than the Communist Party of the United States ever was in this country. Your personal, ideological hypocrisy, baseless hyperbole and indifference to the best interests of ALL Americans is shameful at best. As a Virginia Representative, you above most, should act with statesman like qualities transcending party interests.

As a decorated combat veteran, long time Virginia citizen and a West Point graduate, I have an investment in this country and the Commonwealth. The ideological extremes of either political party repulse me. The Republican Party has shown itself, however, willing to sacrifice the best interests of the vast majority of Americans for the benefit of the few.

Herodotus wrote of the values of democracy but warned how a few could readily deceive the citizens into acting against their own best interest. The onslaughts, directly and indirectly, by you and your party on this administration, an administration that I did not support, from the very beginning have created and promoted that deception. You are now in a position to rectify this situation. Bring your party to negotiate and compromise in the crucible of the political system and your party will gain more for their political success and more for America. You owe America that change. I am available for further discussion at your convenience.

The First Step

Speaking only of Egypt, one of the more probable reactions of the United States will be to overreact. The greatest threat to moderation in Egypt and stability in the region may come from our overreaction to a more vigorous defense of the Palestinians (from which Hezbollah would be an unintended beneficiary) by the new Egyptian government. First, I assume that the tide of democratic aspirations retains a vitality and that the morality of the defiant, yet peaceful, youth that carried those aspirations will form a significant part of the zeitgeist within Egypt. Finally, I assume that the Egyptian military's Supreme Council will, in fact, allow "to materialize the aspirations of the Egyptian people." While most in the population will be focused on personal self-interest and, necessarily, economic progress, Egypt will seek to redefine external politics. This redefinition may include a stronger commitment to the Palestinians who fit a model of an oppressed, fellow Arab people. Rather than wait for an evolving Egyptian foreign policy to solidify in this direction, a direction that assuredly would prompt Israel to strengthen its counter-position, the United States should seize an opportunity to move toward a resolution. Commentators have been looking to the possible continuation of this popular movement in the other Arab countries with oppressive regimes and the probability of violence. Israel has no immunity nor should it.

Egypt: An Early Thought Re-Thought

1/28/2011 2:01:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

"Egypt could now change the balance in the Mid-East to our disadvantage. Yemen and Jordan are also beginning to feel the internal pressures. We need a strong, non-sectarian Egypt as an ally. Liberty and Freedom are assuredly objectives we should foster but once that opening is created in an oppressive regime anarchy can be the immediate state of conditions. The population will then look to or fall to existing or dynamic leadership for direction. Muslim extremists now in Egyptian prisons (progeny of the "Brotherhood" that was the doctrinal foundation of al Qaeda) as "enemies of the state" and their followers may readily fill that leadership vacuum with the masses already committed to Islam. The same alternative would exist in Yemen and Jordan. Saudi Arabia would hastily crush any opposition to its strong Islamist establishment.

"One approach would be for the US to take affirmative, clandestine actions to either guide Mubarak to enlightened yet firm leadership with appropriate concessions to the people now in the streets (something we should have been doing over the last 30 years). Should the opposition in the streets continue to grow, using existing assets, we might support and guide a coup displacing Mubarak with, if not "friends" then at least a faction not Muslim extremist."

Upon further reflection it would seem grossly irresponsible to "guide" Egyptian military, politicians or others toward a coup d'etat. Given the sieve that purports to be our control of sensitive information, there should be no reasonable confidence in our being able to plausibly deny the actuality or appearance of control. The existing, direct, personal relationships at the higher levels of our militaries should provide the opportunity for highly selective "private" discussions. With Egypt's high command officers having just spent several days in Washington, DC the accusations of conspiracy may be unavoidable.

I suspect that with whatever may be happening on the streets across the Middle-East, there are groups, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in particular, now behind the scenes seeing the opportunity and moving toward the reinstatement of the caliphate. The impact earlier in Tunisia and now across the Middle-East of the Al Jazeera network is interesting not the least because of the Saudi control of the Arab press. Saudi Arabia having granted an asylum to the Tunisian President and with a history of association with Mubarak can be expected to act within its own substantial national interests. The Saudi regime will probably work to re-stabilize what has been the balance - probably. Yet, even the now relatively silent, yet influential (and rich), Saudi ruling family members may set aside doctrinal differences with the Brotherhood and other factions for strategic Islamic advantage and continuing Saudi influence. Israel, while staying alert and ready, should stand quietly and halt any overt, provocative conduct (actual or perceivable) toward Palestinians and its own adjacent neighbors. In fact, Israel should keep its many mouths silent.

It's Only a Game

It was the Bears. It was the Packers. It was Soldier Field. It was bitter cold. It was professional football and it was Chicago. There remain memories of men playing their game while pained, blooded and broken. There are memories of men determined not to fail or abandon their teammates. Now sits the image of Jay Cutler.

Vigorous, Honorable, Political Rhetoric

It would seem to me that, rather than attempting to defend the indefensible, the political leaders from Right and Left might best serve the Nation (and their individual political parties) by ignoring all in the past and publish a joint manifesto for political discourse in the future - at least through 2012. Although in my view the Right has been the far greater transgressor, by foregoing the opportunity to spank (non-violently) the bottoms of the Becks, Cantors and Limbaughs, the Left will better serve the political system and the country by moving on. This is viable only if elected leadership of the Right and the Left make a concerted move toward an agreement on civility and both act with self discipline, leadership and integrity (Wow, will that be a tough one!).

Whatever the evidence will show as to the probability of the Arizona shooter's specific motive, sanity and motivation, it would be a travesty if we as a Nation were to be talked into ignoring this opportunity to demand civility and cooperation within the political structures at all levels of government now that the political leaders have our attention.

Arizona Shootings and Responsibility

In mid-year 2009 I responded to a comment in a discussion forum:

"The threat I addressed in an earlier message which I think you are answering was not that of “Republican wingnuts.” The threat is that some wingnut, whether Republican, Anglican or resident Vulcan, will see in the unconstrained rhetoric “of the Right” a justification, license or opportunity for individual notoriety in violent conduct. The Republican Party holds itself out as the party of the conservative right and is, in fact, the party in opposition to the present administration. Since it asserts itself in those capacities I believe it assumes a responsibility to do whatever possible to bring the opposition rhetoric within reasoned constraint or, at least, disassociate itself from any inference of or potential for violent acts."

The Republican Party leadership chose, for its own political ambitions, to allow and at times encourage vitriolic rhetoric against the President and his policies. Commentary reacting now to events in Arizona is far too little, far too late and suspect now that the foundations of violent intolerance have been established.

What price "security"?

It is stupid paranoia that is steadily taking our personal freedoms. People don't care about personal freedom as long as they "feel" safe on a flight from Winnemucca to Moline. There is not a terrorist in Winnemucca, Moline, Poughkeepsie, Wyoming, Chicago or even Detroit intent on killing you. There have been psychotics, religious or otherwise, rapists, murderers, gang members, and child molesters living next door or down the street from us for all of our lives. Yet, we had kept our privacy and freedoms. Every time we walk barefoot, wave at a security camera, give up our finger nail clippers, have a law enforcement hand up our crotch, or have the government read or listen to what we say and write - all without objection and resistance - we surrender to terrorism and invite tyranny. Once we relinquish any part of our freedom we must expect that our future, as with our children and grandchildren, will not see a restoration of that freedom. We had all better start acting as citizens and not merely inhabitants of this country. Law enforcement will continue to righteously and aggressively protect us. But they, in all their identities, must not be the definers of the value of our freedom. The ACLU, Christian Coalition, Department of Justice, Republican or Democrat Party or the Muppets cannot nor will not do anything to protect our freedoms unless we all care and act - especially the lawyers among us.

To the men with whom I served

To Recon and Charlie Company:

On this Veterans Day, 2010, we each have memories of comrades, friends, family and neighbors who while serving made the ultimate sacrifice or, having served, have passed on. We above all others, as combat veterans, must continue to remember them. We may not know the detail of their military service but we have shared comparable service experiences in training, displacement from home, emotions of fear and relief and other that bring us all together as a unique group called simply "Veterans." That same unity stands ever more strongly when the service was in either of the World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq or Afghanistan or any conflict or action while defending America.

About a month ago I made a visit to the Wall in Washington, DC. I was actually locating Lt. "Skip" Murphy's name when a young man tapped me on the shoulder and asked if he could have his picture taken with me. I was wearing the "Triple Deuce Viet Nam" cap with a small Combat Infantryman Badge but had no idea why he was asking for the picture. He explained that he was a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and when he saw the CIB and Nam cap he thought there might be a camaraderie of shared similar experiences amongst all the tourists. As many other young service men and women I have met, he also expressed a regret that Nam veterans had been so badly treated when they came home. We spoke for a time about the generalities of combat and service. We didn't speak of specifics or share "war stories." We walked side by side, spoke quietly and, looking into his eyes, shared more than words could have given us. Having left active duty, this Sergeant was assigned to a Special Forces National Guard unit and expecting deployment to Afghanistan. We met and parted "brothers."

A week or so prior to this encounter I was on a flight arriving at a DC airport while another plane was taxiing to a near ramp. I watched as a fire truck on each side of it shot water in an arc over the plane. Once in the terminal I saw a small group of passengers, military and civilian, blocking the walk way in front of an adjacent gate and an honor guard of flags arrayed near the gate rampway. Cheers and applause began as WW II veterans exited this "Honor Flight" carrying them to a visit to the WW II Memorial. They walked with a combination of humility and pride, each wearing a cap with unit insignia. I saw the 25th and 4th Divisions and a Semper Fi or two on the caps. As young men and women in uniform moved forward to shake their hands, I was struck that the young were in the course of a journey into war while the old were near their final journey to remember a war long passed. Yet for those brief moments, they assembled as a "band of brothers."

We are bound by a sense of honor to those who preceded us and those who have continued in service to our country. Whether we join with a veterans' organization at a ceremony or walk individually with our grandchildren to visit a memorial on November 11th, we should do so with pride and recognition that we are one, as a "band of brothers."

"Remember and Respect"

Election November 2010

For the record, I see not a revolution of ideas in the election results, nor a mandate for the Conservatives nor a need for the President to change direction. One might conclude, reasonably, that "fear itself" is the basis of the election result. If the Democrat Party, from today, moves aggressively to assuage "fear itself" it will gain the support of the majority. On the other hand, should the Republicans be successful in continuing to feed "fear itself" to a receptive public they may call success in 2012 a mandate though that authorization would be for what is now undefined policy. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was quoted today as saying that the Republican objective now is to insure President Obama's defeat in 2012. The objective of their Party over the last two years in Congress was to insure that nothing of substance was done for the American people to the end of success in this past election. Again, their objective will be to negate and block rather than build consensus and compromise. They want a single party oligarchy protective of a plutocracy.

The "Real" Threat Surfaces

This is not the time for sleep. Those threatening our survival are coalescing into organized cells which throughout history have shown the ability to wreck havoc. From the Temperance Union, the Suffragists, the infamous NOW's, to Soccer Moms, history has shown that once women begin to organize the threat of their success to existing structures (election processes, happy hours, bras, etc.) and paradigms (a few drinks enhances driving ability, combat flying is for men only, etc.) must be dealt with.

No doubt that the concerns continually raised by vigilant patriots in this country are enhancing our security. Just today the Wash. Post reported: "Hip Muslim Moms group undone by D.C. Metro bomb plot."* Following the arrest recently of one husband on terrorism charges "a freewheeling group [[organized by his wife]] of 50 or so young ... coupon-clipping, play date-arranging suburban mothers ... [was] thrust into the national spotlight, [when] associated with [the] horrifying plot...." The group, calling itself "Hip Muslim Mothers," according to one member who brazenly admitted that the activists were "spontaneous, open-minded, savvy, educated, fun-loving, [and] into organic stuff." Obviously as part of the group's cover "[t]hey typically met in small groups and exchanged recipes [[Molotov "cocktails??]] and child-care tips [[diaper bomb strapping??]] as their children played [[war games??]] ....[and] served iced cappuccinos [[something wrong with American whiskey??]]."

Although the Post reported that "Hip Muslim Moms is being disbanded" the American patriots should now look to their own suburbs, block parties, Zumba classes, and yard sales to insure America remains pure...sorry... remains safe. Large numbers of strollers and mini-vans outside a home in mid-day should raise suspicions.

We must continue to sacrifice the freedom of "those" Americans for the paranoia of the few.

*

Flight 93 and 9/11

The article tonight is captioned "Michelle Obama and Laura Bush commemorate 9/11 at Pa. site of Flight 93 crash." The loss of life at the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, particularly the loss of the Responders, was horrific as was the crash of Flight 93. A deference to the numbers and identities lost in New York City and at the Pentagon is understandable and memorial services will and should continue. As well, there were a thousand individual acts of heroism in New York and Washington in the wake of the attacks that should be remembered and honored. Yet, the fall of the Towers created a symbol the terrorists continue to benefit from and until their space is filled it remains a negative representation of our vulnerability. There was a dimension of strength and courage in Flight 93 that deserves a defined emphasis that seems grossly lacking. Those citizens on Flight 93 were aware of the intent of the terrorists holding them and, like the New York Responders, a level of danger they would face. Flight 93 represents, through the knowing and deliberate actions of some on the flight, the fighting spirit of our citizens that, more than the Towers or the gash in the Pentagon building, should come to symbolize 9/11 for America.

The McChrystal Attitude

Some writers have suggested that the experience of ten years of continuing conflict under fluctuating levels of direction, support and leadership within the military and civilian chains of command have created, at the least, impatience and frustration, more often disgust and, within a relative minority, reckless disdain within the military officer corps. I find the suggestions persuasive. I recall my own attitude, one shared and frequently discussed among many, about military and civilian leadership as Viet Nam continued.

I would also suggest another possible basis for the reckless expressions of opinions in the McChrystal episode. The U.S. military continues to draw from the broader polis. The officer corps and the volunteers in the military constitute, to an extent, a special breed of citizen-force, to be sure. However, they are still the product of our culture and with modern technology providing generally unfettered access remain significantly influenced by that culture. Beginning during the latter years of the Bush administration and substantially increasing during the Obama presidency, the rhetoric of politics has encompassed and encouraged open and repeated expressions of disdain, insult and antagonism directed at the highest levels of civilian control to a level unprecedented in its reach if not its vitriol. It seems to me that this environment may well have relaxed the professionalism and good sense of those actors in the McChrystal affair.

I had said it early in this and other forums that the vitriolic rhetoric and permissiveness of the highest level of elected officials in this country could eventually create a force destructive of our political institutions. I would now add the military as another unintended victim.

General McChrystal Disserves

The conduct of General McChrystal and his staff, for whom he bears full responsibility, is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of any officer in the United States Army. He should be relieved of his command immediately. However, to dwell further on McChrystal is to further feed an arrogance that was at the core of the conduct. General McChrystal, by the reported conduct, has created a situation that may undercut the mission of our forces in Afghanistan and thereby devalue the gains made through the suffering and deaths of our men and women. The impatience of an American people distracted from the reasons we are fighting in Afghanistan will only be enflamed by the appearances, if not actualities, of disunity at the highest levels of our efforts. The General and his staff have dishonored themselves and the men and women valiantly serving in that theater of war.

The reported conduct does not reflect on nor diminish the years of extraordinary service and personal sacrifice he has shown in the performance of duty. The President could still draw upon McChrystal’s experience and military insights by ordering him to work at the direction of his replacement in a staff position outside the operational area. I recognize the inherent difficulties of such an arrangement but, the mission being paramount, the egos will just have to suck it up or resign.

Memorial Day 2010

Remember what Memorial Day was meant to honor and DO SOMETHING to make it meaningful and respectful. As I write this I know that someone will have died in the service of our country by the time you read it and a child, a father, a mother, a brother, a sister, a family, a friend will mourn - forever. Do something. The lapel pin, the rhetoric or the yellow ribbon on the car mean absolutely nothing. Do something to honor the sacrifice.

Combat Courts

Veterans' courts: I have doubts about the wisdom of such courts. In my opinion as a combat veteran and former prosecutor, the participants in the existing criminal justice system, prosecutors, judges, probation officers, et al., should be educated and empowered to act in individual cases. I remain, however, doubtful that existing systems consistently produce judges who have the capacity to bring justice to an individual case. That aside, to distinguish any group within society and treat them as special within the criminal justice system because of perceived life experience, in patriotic service or not, diminishes the validity of and belief in "Equal Justice Under Law."

http://www.military.com/news/article/many-vets-find-service-helps-in-court.html?ESRC=eb.nl

My Lai: a documentary.

On Sunday, April 25, 2010, PBS presented a documentary on the crimes at My Lai during the Viet Nam War. My Lai is not the story of American fighting men in Nam. It is the story of homicidal, incompetent, immoral U.S. Army officers in the field and incompetence and lack of honor and integrity up the chain of command to the general officers in command. As a Viet Nam veteran who led an Infantry platoon and company in combat, it is disgusting even now to listen to the baseless and phony excuses and explanations of the former officers and soldiers at My Lai. The crimes, the cover-ups and the results of the court marshals should forever force a demand for leadership with honor and competence from the Commander in Chief down to the platoon leader in direct combat in the field.

Get Real America

My friend sent me an editorial from today's on-line edition of the Detroit News regarding the passage of the Health Care Reform.

I acknowledge that there are individual aspects of the law that are certainly problematic and should be revisited soon. Yet, the diatribe is relentless in projecting the demise of our country, our freedom, our bank accounts. The lead to the editorial states that the new law is "one which the people despise....[passed] against the public will" The "public," in fact, wants most of the changes that are included in this law. They just have been primed to distrust and possibly even "despise" "The Obama Health Care Plan." Polls are grossly flawed indicators of all but how a small group responds to carefully biased wording. Above all else and as I have argued for months, the rhetoric before the public has been dominated by the neo-conservative/Republican, purely political agenda of fear-mongering. From the "death panel" assertion to the "baby killer" accusation during yesterday's session in the House and the rabble rousing from the windows of Congress to a crowd below that had already spat on and personally insulted members of Congress, this, rather than truth, has defined the views of many. The only "will" defied by the passage of this law is the will of a political party unable to extricate itself from the legacy of eight years of failed economic and geo-political policies and substantively redefine itself. The vehement attacks on a law that contained some 200 of the Republican offered amendments from committees and was fundamentally very close to an initiative put forth by the Republican Party in a bill back when they were conservatives in deeds as well as words is grossly disingenuous at best.

ALL intelligent, qualified economic experts, it seems to me, agree first, that in a recession as substantial as this legacy of the Bush years, a reasoned, legitimate and, to many, necessary reaction is for government to step in. The single greatest element, by far, of the dangerously rising deficit and national debt is and will, increasingly, be health care costs. All experts knowledgeable of the existing circumstance's seem to agree. Picking at the system would be meaningless. Isolating specific sub-issues (such as pre-existing conditions) would be impossible without correspondingly modifying other aspects of the system that are dependent and directly impacted. It is a bold but necessary effort to bring the system under control. I hope that each political party fights vigorously and directly on substance in the coming months. The "public" approving, as I believe they do, most of the major elements of the law need to be educated about other aspects of the new law that are directed at overall cost reductions and intended to address the long term deficit/debt crisis.

"The bill also stands as the most impactful legislation ever passed without a single vote from the minority party." Those Democrats voting against the bill, to me, evidence a properly functioning political party within which reasonable individuals with reasoned judgment may differ. The fact that not one Republican could apply and assert individual judgment does not manifest the "evil" of the law as much as it evidences a political party void of substance willing to destroy legislative compromise and integrity for the sake of a pure election strategy. They will continue to fight this not with Reason but to gain a "Waterloo" victory destroying the public will and choice of November 2009.

The referenced editorial may be found at http://www.detnews.com/article/20100322/OPINION01/3220350/Editorial--Unpopular-health-bill-no-win-for-country

Thoughts on Dealing with Terrorism

To begin with, the comments that follow exclude consideration of the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq since I believe there are established rules with which many agree. There is little stretch, in my view, necessary to effectively apply the existing criminal law and procedures in the United States to deal with terrorism directed at Americans outside of these two conflicts. I will discuss some of the relevant elements that seem to be used to define "the threat."

I am not persuaded that the religious identity and religious motivation of the actors affects the consequence of their conduct. The intended or resulting death and destruction are already defined by criminal sanctions in existing law. Religious fervor motivating criminal acts does not necessarily create a substantive category (unless we chose to elevate it so) as much as it may merely indicate the relative intensity of the motivation. We all recognize other motivations in criminal conduct such as greed or revenge. These stimuli also vary in intensity from impulse to the point of rage so intense as to void all reasoning. Nothing about religious motivation or identity suggests to me that existing criminal laws could not or should not be used to punish the offenders. It is not insignificant to continue to ascribe terrorist conduct to a particular religion. We began and continue to hold the concept of religious freedom a core value within our system. “Islam” has become almost a pejorative classification in our conversations. Not that long ago the IRA was simply the IRA and not the Irish Catholic Republican Army. There is no justification to equate Islam as a religion with terrorism. I have pointed out that Mongols, Jews, Muslims, Christians and other groups have committed genocide under direction of their god. We need to back away from generalization of Islam because it is right to do so and because it is in our best interests. I'll address political motivation below.

Nor does the circumstance that acts are committed against selected national identities change my view. Importantly, we are one of so many that there may be little substantive distinction among the targets of terrorism. "Islamic terrorist" attacks have been directed against citizens of Australia as well as European, African and Middle Eastern countries, India and even (broadly defined) China. To my knowledge, each of these other nations has dealt with the terrorists within their own justice systems. Nothing about the fact that Americans are the target of the crimes convinces me that we need to establish a new process to bring them to justice. It is important to remember that Justice is the objective; not revenge; nor solely deterrence; nor solely intelligence gathering; nor gulag confinement. The Soviet State imprisoned Polish, Lithuanian, German and other foreign nationals along with their own citizens by establishing a separate process within which they defined categories of individuals as continuing threats to the Soviet State. Frankly, many were threats to the existing Soviet State. To dismiss the comparison because our motives are self-defensive and “righteous” is to ignore the substantial danger of abuse once the precedent is established. There are too many examples within our own national experience to deny the threat. During past periods of threats to national security our freedoms have been curtailed. To be sure, our national values were "reinstated" at some point. Each of these instances were circumscribed by circumstance and experience to have a defined duration. The "war on terror" has no defined point of termination barring an early "second coming." Most importantly, these past cycles are no evidence that a reestablishment would follow any usurpation of our freedoms.

Nor am I persuaded by contentions that existing procedures for interdiction, seizure and prosecution are inadequate. Existing U. S. law provides and allows for relatively efficient mechanisms to extradite or return by other methods those who have committed terrorist acts, conspire to do so or direct their conduct. The coordination of all nations in intelligence gathering, interdiction and seizure is, of course, essential. This coordination also tracks the ongoing parallel efforts in coordination to effectively deal with growing international fraud, drugs, extortion, etc., that is, criminal conduct.

The highest levels of any, including “Islamist,” terrorist organizations are driven by political motivation. However, the makeup of cannon fodder has not changed through human history. Whether running at the opposing cavalry or running with sword into the guns or pressing a self-destructing button, the political objectives are not paramount in the actor's mind. Certainly, the upper echelons recognize and utilize the coercion explicit in the act toward political objectives against us as a sovereign power. However, it is the “act” and the resultant death and destruction and not the political cause that constitutes the harm. If we acknowledge a need for a new process to deal with “Islamic terrorism” we inject their “political cause” into the process. Once we accept cause as a qualifying element we open current and future situations to subjective qualification. Let’s assume that American students housed in a hotel in Gaza City are killed by a bomb set by a group of radical Israeli settlers who had targeted a Hamas leader in the hotel. The act is clearly one of terrorism but many, I suggest, when hearing the facts would begin to distinguish their “political cause.” Even were we to discard the “Islamic” qualification it would be manifest in the conduct of the new process, the targets and our manifest objectives that we were out for the Islamic terrorists: a distinction with no difference.

"What me worry?"

Whether what we have now is the result of the natural development of all mature representative democracies, or the natural evolution of capitalism or other, it strikes me that we are well on our way to losing our national identity by the unrestrained encouragement of "self interest." Though, there must be a sacrifice "by everyone," there seems to be no acceptance of nor value acknowledged for the unity that is to be saved by such sacrifice. The efforts of the majority of civilian citizens during WW II, the unity following 9/11, the combined strengths of the people during the depression and even "our" team beating the Russian's in hockey, as examples, seemed to speak to a national identity that has now seriously deteriorated. The unity of 9/11 was lost in the vehemence of politic rhetoric and failures of national leadership. Significantly, free market globalization, including the movement of the labor force, is removing any continuing connection to the country of origin. Entitlements are not only expected, they have come, because of that expectation, to be necessary for "basic" quality of life. In some measure, the low regard for our "government" is the result of the government placing itself in a position subject to blame even if not responsible for events prompting the blame. And in sports as in many parts of our culture we celebrate the individual celebrity and accomplishment over a national identity or a collective success. (For DC residents: How often do the Caps succeed as against how often Ovechkin overpowers the opponent?) Finally, if national leaders cannot sacrifice through compromise for the good of the United States how can we expect the citizens to do so. As long as the national leadership speaks and acts not in the name of the United States but speaks and acts in terms of one Party or the other as only worthy or unworthy of support, the people will not sacrifice for a political party.

Without leadership willing and able to effectively articulate to and convince the citizens that their self interest is best served by sacrifice toward solving the national debt, national health or whatever and that the United States of America is capable of and worth saving we just might end this experiment in the manner of the Soviet Union. The world may yet have two countries named Georgia at future Olympics.

A Shifting Independent

A year ago I was comfortable as a life-long Independent with a mix of leftist tendencies and conservative beliefs. The strident and often baseless attacks on a sitting President from the conservative right have stimulated me in his defense and moved me further to the left in substance and, assuredly, in appearance in my writings. As I sit here now, and unless I see some major shift in the rhetoric and adjustments in the asserted policies of the Republican Party, I feel compelled to do everything that I can to see that no Republican is elected to any office in my state or our country. Since I have no clout in or out of politics in Virginia this too, regrettably, is a baseless though strongly felt assertion.

Now, when every relatively minor political or economic event is spun, magnified and mixed with baseless assertions attacking every effort of the President, the result is destructive to the fabric of our democracy. Those looking for real threats from within our country needn't conjure up false labels for the President. They need merely to listen to the devaluation by the conservative right of our national and international strength.

A Wrongly Titled Article

I take issue with the use of the title "Obama's War" by the Washington Post in a continuing series of articles. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/afghanistan-pakistan/index.html The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are, like it or not, our country's war. The disassociation of the country from these conflicts by such labeling disserves our country's fighting forces. They are dying for our country not for Obama, Bush, Congress or capitalism. The Washington Post's political labeling is inaccurate and offensive.

The Diaper Bomber Comes Clean

On January 5th in an on-line discussion forum I said: "From my experience, the FBI (and CIA) and experienced federal prosecutors are more than capable of gaining full cooperation from defendants who have lawyers within the criminal justice system."

The major news outlets are now reporting: "Christmas Day bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has been providing FBI interrogators with useful intelligence about his training and contacts since last week, a law enforcement source said Tuesday."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020202995.html?hpid=topnews

There remains legitimate concern that intelligence of imminent threats within the U.S. was lost following the initial interviews (he actually stopped talking before Miranda rights were read to him) and prior to this later cooperation. However, there have been no successful attacks against us since the crimorist's (combining "criminal" with "terrorist" to avoid the label argument) arrest. Apparently the FBI took time to develop cooperating family members to assist in the "conversion" process. This effort coupled with the inherent threats to him as a very young man within the criminal justice process: life sentence, max-security isolation, etc. appear to have opened him up. A defense attorney must look to what course of action would result in the most favorable outcome for the client. In most cases with solid evidence of guilt (the "smoking diaper") cooperation is the best course. However, it remains with the defendant just how much to reveal or cooperate. One of my approaches was to point to a statuette of the scales of justice and tell the defendant that I had his balls on one of the scales and just how much he placed on the other scale by his cooperation determined the ultimate balance of justice. Whether one is attempting to obtain cooperation of a criminal defendant or to recruit someone to spy, the more one can develop (or manufacture) deep psychological connections leading to trust in a cooperative rather than confrontational effort, the greater the probability of truthful, full and continuing disclosure and assistance. The youth and apparent conservative family background of this guy should have been a solid foundation from which to reverse his extremist connection.

The central issue I present is that this cooperation developed within the criminal justice system. How valuable will be his cooperation? We may never know. I do know that the CIA, FBI, Spec. Ops and others below the political line are patriots who will work with all source intelligence silently in the shadows to protect us. The only need to know the successes or failures is with the elected politicians who can provide assistance to their efforts. There are even a few patriots among those elected. The public has never had and does not need a valid scorecard.

Response to Friends: Say No to a Holy War

For some time in recent months I have exchanged views on various issues with a number of friends for whom I hold the highest respect for their inspiring and challenging intelligence. I plan to add to this Blog those of my responses which may still be relevant to current issues. I recall making this same statement of intent in an earlier entry. I mean it this time. This entry is just one regarding Islamic terrorism from a discussion today. My friend said, in the course of his argument, “This is a war, and it will be a really long war….. Given 1400 years of history, it may never end except for an unlikely collapse of will by the combatants or a catastrophe of world scope.”

My response: You seem to be espousing a crusade, a Christian Holy War against Islam. I believe history does not support your premise nor will history have to come close to your apocalyptic projection. However, one way to assuredly make this future more likely is to agree to definitions of nations as single repositories of the one true religion to the physical expulsion or cultural/political condemnation of any one or all others. This seems to me particularly stupid in the long run when the religions share the same God and only the current interpretations of the “founding books” by a minority of believers are initiating the current violence. The following is an interesting twist from “Democracy in America” by de Tocqueville.

"Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.

"In continuation of this same inquiry I find that for religions to maintain their authority, humanly speaking, in democratic ages, … they confine themselves strictly within the circle of spiritual matters, ….

"The preceding observation, that equality leads men to very general and very vast ideas, is principally to be understood in respect to religion. Men who are similar and equal in the world readily conceive the idea of the one God, governing every man by the same laws and granting to every man future happiness on the same conditions. The idea of the unity of mankind constantly leads them back to the idea of the unity of the Creator; while on the contrary in a state of society where men are broken up into very unequal ranks, they are apt to devise as many deities as there are nations, castes, classes, or families, and to trace a thousand private roads to heaven…..

"It seems evident that the more the barriers are removed which separate one nation from another and one citizen from another, the stronger is the bent of the human mind, as if by its own impulse, towards the idea of a single and all-powerful Being, dispensing equal laws in the same manner to every man. In democratic ages, then, it is particularly important not to allow the homage paid to secondary agents to be confused with the worship due to the Creator alone. Another truth is no less clear, that religions ought to have fewer external observances in democratic periods than at any others….

"Those who have to regulate the external forms of religion in a democratic age should pay a close attention to these natural propensities of the human mind in order not to run counter to them unnecessarily….” http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/ch1_05.htm

A Thought on the Hasan Matter

"WASHINGTON -- Military officials investigating failures in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings may recommend that individuals be held accountable for failing to perform their duties."

Individuals, if such failure is shown, should be held accountable with direct and strong disciplinary measures. The aftermath of the investigation should also include the issuance of clear and concise guidance on vigilance and reporting. However, it appears to me that there could be an overreaction more detrimental to order and discipline than necessary. Soldiers, without question, need to have trust in each other and in their commanders. Security demands that actual threats be recognized and eliminated. Yet, any official reaction that suggests, in any manner, the need for reporting of all political views possibly contrary to existing policy might establish a form of "political police" not unlike those in the military of the old communist regimes. Commanders in good ol' "CYA" manner might feel compelled in the future to report every rumor or accusation no matter how baseless up the chain rather than apply their own reasoned judgment. I only suggest that the military needs far more than knee jerk rhetoric in responding. I am not sure where the balance point should be.

West Point Honor Code

As you have framed the issue, my friend, I believe the topic [the viability of an honor code] is the most important one we can discuss as grads and I hope it generates a broad response on this Class forum. You wrote that “[t]he goal of absolute honesty would not seem to be debatable.” In another context, self-interest in the market, on the Class forum, I said “Idealism in an aspect of human conduct may be an admirable goal where it has a viable foundation in the nature of man.” Is it in the nature of humanity (more encompassing than “man”) to be able to subdue desires and suppress self-preservation to the point of absolute honesty as defined by a code not to lie, cheat or steal? I believe that it is difficult yet attainable and maintainable.

Putting aside for the moment the concept of individual virtue in an ideal man, absolute honesty under a code seems to me maintainable over individual interests within a community of committed individuals. I have personally (anecdotally) found this to have substantively existed while a cadet and while dealing with fellow grads. To a slightly lesser degree, I have expected and been satisfied to find, in the practice of criminal law, a community of lawyers and judges practicing and applying law in the courts under a strict, statutory code that sanctions lying, cheating and stealing. To this point, I believe that sanctions are a necessary part of any human community code of conduct. The conscience of an ideal man may provide a sufficient punishment within, but I know of no “ideal man.” Accordingly, a “System” has to exist to enforce compliance with the agreed upon code.

I would think that a community of eighteen to twenty-three year olds could have the capacity to judge and sanction one of its own. The peer consciousness should be supplemented with training in, as examples, bias recognition and elimination, due-process concepts, and reliability in evidence. The objective would not be a mini-law school experience but education sufficient for them to provide a just (not necessarily fair in the bigger picture inclusive of life outside of the community) resolution to enforce the code and sanction the transgressor. As far as any application of “wisdom,” I haven’t seen it applied enough (if at all) to be able to argue for it as a prerequisite for any sanctioning entity. If ever attained, it would come, I expect, with maturity which I agree is a limited quality in young people. The Corps now however has within it a significant number of combat veterans who, presumably, have attained a higher level of maturity (more, I would argue, than any number of young jurists now sitting on the bench meting out relatively draconian punishments in the outside world). I would support, however, a gradual application of standards and sanctions to insure that the understanding of and appreciation for the Honor Code and the need for absolute honesty in the service to follow is first instilled in each cadet.

As far as the comment of Gen Maxwell Taylor, I disagree that the formative period need include exceptions to the Honor Code to teach them “early in life to inject toleration, judgment of human factors, and appreciation of sincere repentance into their decisions affecting the careers of their fellow cadets.” There will be ample opportunity in their growth at the Academy and beyond to build on earlier values and experience to that end. The Honor Code should become within their Academy experience an absolute standard. Truth is elusive, as you said, and the justice system deals more in probabilities than in the delivery of “truth.” But it does work to produce a just and often fair result at least often enough to continue to refine it.

It seems to me that the difficulties in enforcement within the Honor system arise with imposition of political and legal intrusions from outside the community of cadets whose code this is presumed to belong to. I do recognize that the Academy is a public entity bound by Constitutional and statutory constraints. Yet, as you point to my friend, “the military profession is fundamentally different.” More so than in the market or social or other civilian communities, absolute honesty is essential, demanded and expected. As you said there are no second chances in combat. Accordingly, the Academy and other leader development venues should be permitted to set and enforce the standard of absolute honesty.

Yesterday's News

Day One – Hour One: Cable news reports “CHICAGO ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION TO HOST 2016 OLYMPICS”

Daniel Shore, Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite resurrected and to report for makeup prior to anticipated “News Specials” to air continuously over the next week analyzing the profound effects of President's failure.

All network and cable news directors order bureaus and affiliates to prominently display photo of President Obama during all programming on the issue. Fox News adds display of “Unbelievably Devastating Failure for Obama” with photos.

“Country in shock!” CNN Reports. Fox attempts to revive Limbaugh though able to quote his exhaling as “I knew it. I said it. The President has destroyed Chicago and next will be Moline!”

White House sources reveal the President on his way to daughter’s classroom to begin extended reading of Dr. Seuss prior to official announcement. Vice- President Biden seen standing on lawn waiting for someone to listen to him.

Day One – Hour Two: Congressional Budget Office reports ten billion dollar projected increase in Medicare payments due to epidemic of depression among elderly couch potatoes .

Department of Transportation projects substantial revenue loss to domestic airlines due to cancellation of reservations from hookers across the country. Bailout money discussed in congressional offices (for hooker “associates” of congressmen not airlines).

Mexican border crossing “guides” in protest along the border reported to have hired a prominent New York lawyer to sue the city of Chicago due to substantial decrease in labor requirements. At least two Columbian drug cartels to join suit alleging decreased cocaine demand.

Day One – Hour Three: Fox still unable to revive Limbaugh.

Spokesperson for Republican Party contends President incompetent. “How can we trust him on health insurance when he fails at something so simple?”

Austin Times/Fox News Poll just released confirms President’s approval rating drops to single digits.

Senator John Kerry issues a statement saying he plans to throw his Chicago Bears muffler over some, as yet unchosen, fence in protest. Jane Fonda reported confused.

Senator Mitch McConnell calls for the President's resignation and is quoted as saying "Hell, he wasn't legal anyhow."

Day One – Hour Four: Mayor Daley of Chicago attempts to call Mafia political backers but prison regulations preclude. Democrat precinct captains issued “Plan F’em” and begin arming the two hundred thousand no-show city employees in anticipation of invasion of winning city. Teamsters join effort.

O’Reilly and Hannity seen dancing naked together in Central Park. Fox News in turmoil when unable to locate key to Glen Beck’s cage.

White House cancels all meetings scheduled with anyone who had visited Chicago in last three years. Secret Service given classified instructions regarding Mayor Daley of Chicago.

Fox broadcasts interview with Republican John Boehner who charges the President “Never wanted America to win!” Boehner says he cannot dismiss allegations the President actually working for Muslim country in Olympic selection.

Mid Day – One: Rio announced the winner of 2016 Olympics - White House issues statement “Yeah, like they needed another reason to party!” White House source says firing of Acorn in recent weeks destroyed any chance for “Chicago-style” victory.

Day Thirty: Cable News interest in Olympics issue falls and all revert back to Michael Jackson stories.

A Rally by Any Other Name

A friend writes from his rally experience in Santa Fe: " Contrary to media reports, it was not an anti-Obama rally. It was overwhelmingly attended by average folks concerned about the runaway deficits and the growth of government."

I readily appreciate the probability that the majority of the attendees at these rallies are voicing their own legitimate concerns about national policy regarding deficit spending, growth of government, and medical insurance primarily. What troubles me is the stimulus (no pun intended) to this movement. It has appeared to me that the initiating cause for these gatherings was the rhetoric of Republican/conservative fear mongering premised on baseless hyperbole and lies. Now there is room in my philosophy for "the end justifying the means." And the Great American Public should have been and should remain concerned on all issues of importance to the country, including those now being considered (I started to say "being debated" but there is relatively no public or parlimentary debate). First, many if not most of the citizens attending, I'll concede for argument, are honestly concerned. Yet, having watched parts of the DC rally on C-Span (I'll defer wholly to my friend on his Santa Fe experience) two observations concerned me. I did see signs that were not issue statements but personal attacks on the President. And there were quite a few. Interestingly, these poster boards did not at all appear professional or preprinted but rather home made. I do not see this fact as a positive. Secondly, the leadership as evident from the identity of sponsors and the speakers were anti-Obama. So, I can accept a media report so stating as to the DC event.

I see the Republican Party using the "best" Machiavellian tactics to rebuild a base. The fact that the Party is being hypocritical is not noticed by this popular awakening because most of them slept through earlier years of skillfully managed obscene spending (both parties)and tax cuts blindly ignoring, among other facts, the reality of two ongoing wars and the associated costs. The reality of the depth of the world-wide economic crises and the necessity of limited government intervention as recognized in every developed country seems to have escaped the popular education. They, the majority of those rallying now yell out of fear and ignorance. The posted objectives I saw to "save the Constitution," stop socialism," stop communism," stop fascism," and Obama "the liar," the Hitler,"the enemy" are frankly ridiculous on the basis of any reasoned view of this administration's eight months in office. It is the strategy of the Republican conservative movement to negate the results of the national presidential election and prevent the developement of the policies and objectives desired by majority of voting citizens.

The DC rally was instigated by well established conservatives and encouraged and guided by Republican Party and elected representatives both of which have a specific, unified agenda not consistent with nor in the interests of these assembled masses. In the not to distant memory, there were rallies of workers protesting often legitimate and important issues and policies. There was then a distinction when such rallies were manipulated by the Communist Party toward ends not consistent with nor in the best interests of the workers. In November 2008 the country voted and rejected the policies of the Republican administration. Their objective to return to those policies is hidden by them with tarantinoesq fears and the flag.

Random Thoughts

Just a few random thoughts: I certainly do not intend to diminish the dangers existing to primarily future generations in the proposed spending of this administration. We elder types, as well, should be concerned and watchful. There comes a time, I believe, in science, for example, that a paradigm of unquestioned validity will lose its validity in the course of research and observation. Economics and so called social science do not rise to the level of "pure" science in their ability to develop such fundamental "truths." We are clearly in a time where our economic and social "truths" may be reevaluated. I say "may" because we can ignore the opportunity and muddle through without change but with very high risk. The conclusions that will evolve from a democratic review now may result in changes in the existing structures that we would not recognize but would efficiently and effectively carry us to the next period of necessary evaluation. The difficulty in such a systemic reevaluation is the fear of the unknown and the inherent uncertainty. The path to revised structures will, of necessity, involve trial and error though the extent of each can be minimized. The path and establishment of new structuring will be expensive – maybe shockingly so. As with any capital investment the books will take an immediate redlining.

Our medical insurance and provider systems, our electrical power grids, our fossil fuel dependency, social security, global warming/climate change, our national existence in a global economy and others each have some need for reevaluation, revision and/or rejection. I believe that this country is worth investing in to bring about necessary changes – and they are necessary. Keeping an eye on the short term costs in the context of long term progress is very tough in political cycles where decision makers look primarily if not solely at their personal and party short term election goals and current capital investment in the country is at risk. If we are the risk takers of the same mettle as the settlers, the founding fathers, the entrepreneurs of industry and science and IT we should be willing to accept reasoned risks for rewards. This President may well be taking on more than he should but I cannot fault him for identifying the needs and accepting his own level of political risk in the process. No doubt we are backing with our futures but this is time for reasoned discussion, debate and decision and not hyperbole, misinformation and lies. It is that time for "statesmen" and men and women of unbiased integrity willing to put aside eroded paradigms and step out front to guide and lead. I wish I could see more involvement in these discussions by the 20 and 30 year olds who will reap whatever we plant. In that age group in history have been the revolutionaries and paradigm changers. Unfortunately, I just don't see such independent thinking and initiative rising outside of bastions of the old orders. And the NFL pre-season has started so first things first.

A Response to a Review: "The Hurt Locker"

Your reviewer’s simplistic review of “The Hurt Locker” dis serves your readers and the community. This independently produced film should be seen by every adult citizen. The conservative lip-service given to our “support of the troops” would benefit from an exposure to a portrayal of the intensity and often chaos of combat and of what we are asking of our men and women. This film is a gripping, intense movie of war and not, as your reviewer seemed to suggest, a political piece. The crucible just happens to be Iraq in 2004 but in reality it could be set in a trench in France or a submarine in the Atlantic. The plot is not burdened with the extraneous. This is not to say, as your reviewer put it that the movie is “missing a story.” Your reviewer, I suggest, may have become accustomed to being spoon fed a story line as in the vast majority of Hollywood’s screened comic books. “The Hurt Locker,” with powerful photography that seems to place you at the scene, follows a bomb disposal team of three men jointly confronting fear and death in their assigned mission. Each man is uniquely affected by the external threats as well as the adjustments necessitated when the internal dynamic of the team changes.

I have no personal experience to vouch for the accuracy of the tactics or circumstances of the urban warfare in Iraq in 2004 as portrayed. One extended scene in a desert setting seemed to represent, without loss of credulity, a composite of different combat roles. However, the events, actions of the characters and the impact on the team members were to me, a combat veteran, appropriate and unnervingly honest. The wired, buried artillery rounds looked just as deadly and challenging as they did along routes in Viet Nam. Your reviewer displaces obvious truth with biased misconceptions. These are not depictions of “stereotypical Americans … and Iraqis.” The American soldiers are shown in the intensity of war doing tasks essential in war. Accomplishment of dangerous tasks does not make them gung-ho and they are assuredly not presented in that manner. Iraqis security forces are shown working with the team to identify possible IED’s for the team to defuse. Iraqi civilian locals are shown observing the team while set back on the perimeter of the action just as are American soldiers waiting for the team to do its work. Your reviewer says the film makes a stereotypical portrayal of Iraqis as “cowardly, skulking, roadside bombers.” The reality, however, that one of the observing Iraqi civilians may electronically set off the IED is a fact of life in this war.

This is not one of those surreal “Full Metal Jacket” fiction-type pieces. This movie surfaces feelings in its viewers, the feelings that, while in combat, for example, you never allow to surface. This is a very rare presentation of the intensity of war and its affects both during and following deadly combat. Seeing this movie will not make you a combat veteran but it will give you a greater understanding of why you display that magnetic ribbon “I support the troops” on your SUV.
Richmond, Virginia August 1, 2009

Let's Get Serious

I have now read Palin's Facebook response to the President and regarding Section 1233(by now I expect it needs no further identification) and find her contentions as well as those of the people she quotes as functionally, baseless fear-mongering. "The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context." sayeth Palin. Now, I do not intend to state or infer a position of my own on the subject of abortion but it seems to me that a conservative like Palin would most assuredly argue to the contrary, i.e. that there would be no coercive effect, if the "context" being referred to was a proffered discussion by medical personnel with a young woman of alternatives to a planned abortion.

A person may speculate that any meeting with a government representative in any context may be used for intimidation. A traffic court requiring a senior citizen to retake a driving test following a ticketed offense could surely intimidate the citizen to relinquish the privilege to drive thereby limiting contact with the world outside his home, inducing depression and ultimately suicide which would address social security and medicare shortfalls and reduce unattended flashing turn signals on the roads. Just how many police officers and judges could be convinced to knowingly participate in such atrocities?

The singular coercive effect of a discussion of the matters covered in 1233 would be to have the patient, due to age and/or changed medical condition decide what they wanted to be done in their care. Just how many of these medical professionals could be corrupted to become "Angels of Death" ala Mengele for the good of the country? There are more than enough legitimate issues to address in this and subsequent legislative proposals without this type of political, extreme propaganda.

Iranian Elections

Ayatollah Khamenei spoke (C-Span translation) at Tehran University about the Iranian election and the aftermath of demonstrations. He praised the 85% turnout of some 40 million citizens as proof of the Iranian people’s belief in and trust of the Iranian Revolutionary government. He argued that if the Iranian people were not supporters of the existing revolution they would not have voted. The people had shown their trust in the democratic process of the Revolution. This thesis was central to a presentation for national and international impact. The Ayatollah described each of the principal presidential candidates as long time members, in good standing, of the Revolutionary establishment, a point he argued further spoke to the legitimacy and strength of the existing form of government. Demonstrations were counter-revolutionary and should cease, in large measure, because there are existing legal avenues for challenging “specific” aspects of the voting. Demonstrations might also, he warned, have the unintended consequences of violence and death for which political leaders would be held accountable. Khamenei repeatedly warned about the overt and covert counter-revolutionary actions of the evil nations of the United States and England.

Khamenei spoke as a leader concerned about the increasing commitment to and successes of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and in cooperation with Pakistan. Iran is certainly concerned about the strength and intentions of Israel and the Sunni kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Khamenei and the ruling council were not about to alter the ruling paradigm at a time when any change might well be considered by its “enemies” as a weakening of the Islamic/Shia control. The results of the election, accordingly, were always predetermined though pretense of the debates, speeches and rhetoric gave hope to the Iranian people and the World of democratic change. Khamenei explicitly gave his blessing to Ahmadinejad’s policies including the nuclear issues.

Each of the candidates were in fact chosen and blessed by Khamenei and his ruling council prior to the elections. An honest election might have created a circumstance supporting our hope to change the rhetoric and alter the stated objectives of Ahmadinejad. I doubt it. I am merely a reader of current events with no particular experience or book learning about the Middle East but it appears to me that the forces at work across the Middle East from Gaza to India are too volatile and premised on ethnic and national phobias for any government to drift away from the existing fortress each occupies. Enlightened policy by the United States, foremost in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, over an extended period of time is the only basis of hope.

Judging the Judge

I am increasingly sickened by the political rhetoric regarding Judge Sotomayor as exploited by the shallow, histrionic “news” media. The latest “reporting” and “analysis” of two comments by Judge Sotomayor is ridiculous in emphasis and baseless in relevance. Judge Sotomayor has some thirty years of public service as an attorney in varied roles. She has through those years openly presented herself, her integrity, her competence, her judgment, her self-control, her intelligence, and her grasp of the law. As an assistant district attorney she made judgment calls on who would be prosecuted and what charges they would face. In the prosecution of these cases her character, demeanor and integrity were open to the scrutiny of the public, the defense bar, the media and the judges before who the cases were tried. In private practice the scrutiny continued by the courts, the New York Bar Association, her clients and, at times again, the public. Sitting as a federal District Court judge, her personal character and grasp of the law would have manifest itself repeatedly in the relatively fast paced, pressure filled dynamic of public trials. As a federal appellate judge her written opinions over the years provide another opportunity for reasoned analysis of her record. I do not know what will surface as the result of the now commencing political process but I do know that it is utterly preposterous to extract two sentences out the context of her career to rationally conclude anything of relevance.

In one of these statements she spoke of the difference in the functions of a trial court from those of the appellate courts. Trial courts deal with the facts and the applicable law in a unique circumstance. In her comment she explicitly referred to the law as “percolating” through the federal appellate courts. She did not suggest that it was a responsibility of any court to “make new law.” Judge Sotomayor correctly referred to policy formulation as a function of appellate courts. Appellate courts put form to the law in response to changed conditions and clarify and/or apply existing precedent to new factual situations, all of which impact cases and situations outside the particular case being decided.

Her second comment at issue seemed to suggest that a person of varied, life experience might make a better judge then one of limited life experience. I agree. Of course, personal experience must be coupled with other qualities, such as, a deep sense of fairness, intelligence capable of understanding legal concepts, and a self-controlled demeanor all hopefully underlying a confident wisdom. Many judges, though there are exceptions, however have risen to that position in a social and professional context dominated by “good old boys” of strikingly similar backgrounds. In my thirty years as an attorney I have found it more the exception than the rule that existing judicial selection processes elevate a man or woman to the bench personally and professionally suited to the task. The search for truth in a trial court and the desire for justice in all courts are played out in crucibles where human emotions, tragedies, ambitions, dreams and expectations are compressed into a formal, legal form. A judge of limited exposure to and appreciation for the realities of life is less likely to correctly or adequately evaluate the facts of the case. The stamping of legal principles unto formless facts of a case would be a relatively easy process for most competent attorneys. Bringing Justice to the process requires a judge of substantive human and legal capacity.

My Friend Proposes "term limits" for Congress ...

I am reminded of another method for limiting legislative abuses:

In the ancient republic of the Locrains "[a] Locrain who proposed any new law stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord round his neck, and if the law was rejected the innovator was instantly strangled." Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Forty-fourth Chapter.

You say "revolution," my friend...

My friend: You present an argument for a return of the American Revolutionary spirit to the citizens to retake control of a government for the people. The focus of your argument appears to be on the unresponsiveness to and derelictions of Constitutional responsibilities by elected politicians. You call for term limits and decry the unchecked spending and budget projections in the current economic crisis. Please consider:

Any "revolution" should carefully consider the circumstances creating the opportunity for dynamic change. To simply strike at the actors and performers would be meaningless. I am increasingly becoming convinced that the only "revolutionary" solution is one that strikes at those paradigms that have corrupted "our experiment." Among these are the wholesale deregulation of human greed which fostered illegal immigration as a cheap labor pool, fills the halls with lobbyists and their "contributions" and permitted securities fraud of unimaginable dimensions; an energy policy blinded by special interests and dangerous to our very existence; and a failure of the nation as a whole to stand up to and within political party systems that reward merely loyalty, ambition and money with apparently little, if any, regard for integrity, honor and commitment to the general welfare.

If it takes a substantial investment by our country to bring about a revolutionary change in these and other fundamental corruptions, so be it. As the founding fathers, we should be ready to personally sacrifice in the relatively short term and invest for the creation of a wiser and stronger United States of America.

To Sue on 3/7/09

My dear friend, you are most certainly correct that what is happening is frightening. And, more frightening is the fact that the fear is justified. I think the first thing that we in America must realize is that this is not a personal problem but rather an international crisis. Even China, now our selfish benefactor, is slipping. Other moderately and more heavily developed countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas are in the same boat. Significantly, they also are “throwing money” into their banks, infrastructure and markets. Now, this is not proof that this approach is the correct one since it could just be that everyone is wrong in choice of solution. Yet, I have to believe that the governments had sought their best available advice. So, it appears to me, that the real consensus is that governments are the only alternative for meaningful and necessary intervention. These are not just the so-called “socialist” countries of Western Europe. GDP’s have fallen across the board (even China) and so looking comparatively at spending as a percentage of GDP past and present is misleading at this time. I respectfully disagree that “every economist in the land” is seriously opposed to what is going on. And Cramer performs as an idiot. In the first place he is not an economist; like Rush (with no respect due to him) he is an entertainer. Cramer made his name on Wall Street as a practitioner during “bubbles.” Throughout the lead up to the crisis Cramer repeatedly screamed for investment and often urging investment in or contending the strength of corporations just prior to their collapse. There is enough on the internet, aside from Republican/Rush conservative sources, to see a broader picture.
Of course there is a great danger that such levels of government spending may create another inflationary crisis in the future. I think this is recognized by all including the Federal Reserve Chairman and the President. This concern is, I believe, the reason the President has announced a plan/intention/proposal to cut the federal deficit by something like a half within a stated time frame. The international community, which rightly still considers us the “strongest” economic entity, and our own market and banking communities need to have their confidence bolstered that the massive spending will have limits. I guess I have to mention the tax “increases” at this point since the lapse of the Bush cuts is a large part of the spending balance. Bush and the then Republican congress, on the verge of enormous expenditures for war, played the big “conservative” card that helped to push us from a negative national debt to the abyss we have today. No, though my exquisite manners and impeccable taste suggest that I am in the upper tax brackets, I fall far, far short. The “over $250,000” will suffer a return to tax levels of something like 39% rather than the present 37%. Actually, pre-Reagan I believe the rate was closer to 90%.
Please recall as well that the first ¾ trillion bailout late last year came at the urgent pleading of the Bush administration and the Fed; all this on top of the deficit of the Bush years. So, I find it quite disingenuous of Republican politicians to now scream about uncontrolled spending. Another tenet of the Republican Party has been the rejection of government interference, i.e. regulation, in business and Capitalism. So, quickly because I tend to ramble, let’s talk about the home mortgage crisis that was and is, by all accounts, a significant though not sole factor in the world-wide crisis. Here the Democrats and Republicans can take some blame, though each was motivated by different objectives, for pressing for expanded home ownership. So, “bad” loans were encouraged. Once these bad loans were in place they became subject to wholly unregulated (another joint mistake of the two Parties) derivatives. And imagination and greed piled more complex derivative upon complex derivative (all based upon the same bad or questionable loans). This was not simply the Fannie and Freddie situation though they were a part of it. Importantly, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, President Bush and Cramer, et al., were all advising and screaming spend, spend, spend. Recall that Bush said after 9/11 that all Americans need to get out and spend. So people, sheep that we are, pushed credit to the max, took out second mortgages, bought investment homes and used home equity to buy bling and gas guzzling trucks and vans. All the while input into the Treasury was cut substantially by the sacrosanct tax cuts. And the bubbles got bigger and bigger while warnings were ignored.
Now, in the first month, focus on that for a moment if you will – the first month, of this administration the Democratic House came up with a ridiculous, far-left package that reasonably was whittled down in the Senate. I accepted that Obama needed some time to assert his control over the congressional Democrats and that control is slowly becoming more evident though not complete by any means. It is significant, I believe, to recall those days long ago in November of last year when the majority of the American people repudiated the professed philosophy and expressed conduct of the conservative Republican Party. It can be argued that the vote for Obama was, to some measure, merely a rejection of the Bush cabal and not his Party values. And that may have some truth, however, it may also be correct that the Obama vote margin would be even greater in his favor, rejecting Republican values, except for the concern for Obama’s lack of experience.
I come from a generation raised with a belief in the reforms of the Roosevelt administration after the last Great Depression. Certainly, WW II changed the whole dynamic in bringing the world out of that depression but, as one example, unemployment dropped from some 25% to 10-12% before WWII based on such spending programs as the CCC’s and WPA. Roosevelt really was not the communist/socialist he is depicted as in some circles today. His policies were intended and did foster capitalism and business growth. I see Obama’s stated positions as similar. We need, in the context of vigorous debate, to give him some time. But, within that debate, ALL must recognize that a fundamental problem with our economy is a lack of confidence. A big part of the world’s problem is a corresponding lack of confidence in us. When our politicians vehemently reject and raise Armageddon as the necessary result of Obama’s policies it undercuts any positive effects of the programs. There must be a cautious balance in the public rhetoric. There will be ample opportunity to get back to the fear mongering of the Bush years during an election but for now they should cool it.
Substantively, I have absolutely no problem with the government spending (remember it is the ONLY source of recovery now) to increase jobs while repairing our roads, bridges and electrical grid (remember the falling bridges, failing dikes and blackouts due to antiquated structure); to enable and encourage start-up companies and entrepreneurs in developing new clean energy sources (rather than diminishing, polluting and foreign fossil fuels); to encourage and support educational opportunities for Americans in fields such as nursing and engineering so that we can BECOME AGAIN a competitive economic power (we now import nurses; high school dropout rates and our comparative (world)testing scores are abysmal); and revamp the medical system so that those companies that still pay or would pay a part of health care would not need to do so and their competitive outlook would be greater against the rest of the civilized world that has generally universal coverage and America would have a healthier work force (again our health care, as expensive as it is, is not as successful as in many other developed countries).
It is frightening and ANY alternative is a gamble based on too many probabilities as well as unintended consequences. The country picked a leader and he is putting out a plan. In combat, any plan may be modified prior to the assault to fit a changing situation and there will have to be adjustments – and there will be mistakes – in the administration plans. However, in combat, once the plan is being executed, even if it is not the optimum, if it is carried through with courage and vigor it can succeed.

Seppuku

As reported on nytimes.com today: "NEW YORK (Reuters) - A prominent U.S. senator gibed that executives of the troubled insurer American International Group Inc might consider suicide, adopting what he called a Japanese approach to taking responsibility for their actions.

Senator Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, made the comments Monday in an interview with a radio station in his home state of Iowa."

The Senator's comments brought out expressions of shock from the talking heads. I also am shocked. I am shocked that Senator Grassley would appear to believe that the executives in these "recently successful" business enterprises possess a level of moral character sufficient for them to accept responsibility and to publicly acknowledge their dishonor. Seppuku, as suggested here, is premised on a true sense of personal honor. Honor is manifest by the conscience and will of a person to do the right thing. The reflex of this honor is a sense of personal shame. Neither honor nor shame are admired qualities within capitalism or, presently, within our society. We must demand more of our leaders.

Stimulus and Support for the Presidency

Senator Lindsey Graham is being interviewed on a Fox News program as I write this. He charges that the President has “failed” and has lost an opportunity to bring the country together by going forward with a recovery bill that could only gain the support of three Republican senators. The senator’s commentary directly called into question the competence of the President to lead the country. Apparently this senator speaks for the entrenched 41 Republican senators who reject a compromise worked out in joint sessions today. Three Republicans, according to media reports, will vote with the Democratic majority to pass the compromise.

The consensus of the Congress has consistently appeared to be that an extraordinary fiscal stimulus effort by the federal government was immediately essential. Now, I understand that the bill presented to the Senate was the product of a Democratic House of Representatives relieving years of tension and contained “non-stimulative” options. Accordingly, I expected that appropriate and vigorous opposition would be raised to portions of the House bill in the Senate. But, it was also my expectation, given the unquestioned gravity of the national economic problems, that the Republican opposition would be tactical rather than strategic. In other words, though the posturing would be on strategic fundamentals, the attacks would be surgical amendments to individual provisions.

We are engaged in a fighting war on two fronts and, according to most political and economic projections, near the verge of a national or international depression. The media’s 24 hour cyclic headlining of quoted and synthesized hyperbole about the economic crisis by experts and fluttering, talking-heads has continued to shake the confidence of investors and non-investors, institutions and the institutionalized among our citizens. Whatever the validity of the conclusion, some 59 million American’s recently expressed a belief that Barack Obama, a Democrat, had the ability to lead this country through these perils; a conclusion with which I did not agree. This belief was a vote of confidence. Now, two weeks into his administration, the Cheneyesque assertions by a member of the United States Senate purposefully or ignorantly undercut that confidence and are unwarranted and irresponsible. The President’s personal efforts toward the Republican minority over this past week have been highly commendable, particularly in the shadow of President Bush’s open contempt for the then minority party. Whatever the strategic fiscal arguments might be currently, our citizens and the international community need confidence in our leadership. Statements from the United States Senate subverting confidence in our President of eighteen days, severely harms any prospect of success in recovery and the stature of the United States.

The Republican Party lost the confidence of the vast majority of Americans as evidenced in the results of the last two national elections. The leadership of a Republican President had been rejected around the world. However, as the Republican Party seeks to redefine, reassert or repeat its image, it need not and should not precipitously undercut the Presidency of the United States with attacks such as those of Sen. Graham. Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. McCain said of the bill “This is not a bi-partisan” compromise. However, it is the intransigence of the Republican minority that brings failure to the President’s attempts at a bi-partisan stimulus bill. The compromise will, apparently as I write this, become the Law of the Land. Hopefully Republicans such as Sen. Graham will, however grudgingly, express a confidence in the President for the good of the country if not their party. Like it or not our President is a Democrat.

Life as a Voyage

I ran across this quote tonight from the autobiography," Wanderer," of Sterling Hayden, an actor, and a member of the OSS during WW II who ran guns to guerrillas fighting the Nazis in Yugoslavia. Apparently, he loved the ocean and sailing. I thought it is interesting, beyond sailing.

"To be truly challenging, a voyage, like a life, must rest on a firm foundation of financial unrest. Otherwise, you are doomed to a routine traverse, the kind known to yachtsmen who play with their boats at sea... cruising, it is called. Voyaging belongs to seamen, and to the wanderers of the world who cannot, or will not, fit in. If you are contemplating a voyage and you have the means, abandon the venture until your fortunes change. Only then will you know what the sea is all about. "I've always wanted to sail to the south seas, but I can't afford it." What these men can't afford is not to go. They are enmeshed in the cancerous discipline of security. And in the worship of security we fling our lives beneath the wheels of routine - and before we know it our lives are gone. What does a man need - really need? A few pounds of food each day, heat and shelter, six feet to lie down in - and some form of working activity that will yield a sense of accomplishment. That's all - in the material sense, and we know it. But we are brainwashed by our economic system until we end up in a tomb beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry, playthings that divert our attention for the sheer idiocy of the charade. The years thunder by, the dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it, the tomb is sealed. Where, then, lies the answer? In choice. Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse or bankruptcy of life?"

A thought about Obama

There is a long road ahead for him, but I appreciate President-elect Obama's having begun his day on the 19th of January with an unscheduled visit to the wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He did this a day after laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

Each of these actions by a president-elect were, I understand, unprecedented in the days immediately preceding an inauguration.

I was not a supporter of Obama in the election and still have serious concerns. But, in a few hours he will be our President, and, accordingly, he deserves our respect and support. I am, frankly, angered by the emails that I receive continuing to replay the political diatribes of the election cycles. I understand that many of the actors in Congress have records and views and some are now asserting intended political actions that are worthy of criticism. And there will be a time when those political actions, if pursued within this administration, will bring those personalities and issues into the arena of vigorous debate and discourse. But, let's at least not politically castigate this President, directly or indirectly, before he has taken an action, proposed legislation or violated his oath. After all, the affirmative vote of 69,456,897 Americans deserves some respect as well.

Cheney's farewell.

According to a report moments ago – "Vice President Dick Cheney will be in a wheelchair during Tuesday's Presidential Inauguration, after pulling a muscle in his back while moving, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said" (CNN)

I cannot envision his recreating a more appropriate iconic image wholly representative of his character, demeanor and role these last eight years. Can you?

A letter to a friend: Unions

I have not been watching the auto industry issues very closely but I am concerned about some of what I read. My mother and father were both union members and often the best Christmas gift I received as a child was from the union. Having been raised in Chicago, I remember well the stories of the violence against union organizing in the early twentieth century. The unions made the difference between a living wage and basically indentured servitude. I remember my mother speaking of the difference in wages after her laundry unionized. I think her wage for hand pressing and folding a shirt went up to about .03 cents a shirt. She was 15. My dad worked for US Steel at its mill in South Chicago and, though wages were a continuing issue, safety concerns were paramount. Most importantly in each situation there was a structure that spoke for the workers. Prior to that, to speak up about conditions would cost a worker a job or a beating. To be sure, if one survived the career in the mill or sweat shops, the companies ultimately provided retirement and health benefits. A situation not unlike the Armed Services though each time a union contract came up for renewal all benefits and wage amounts were up for renegotiation. In my parent's situation, the contract that he was under from US Steel called for all benefits to end upon his death. So my mother lost all health benefits when he died. Other workers under different contracts may not have had their elderly spouses abandoned. Remember, in that generation most women were housewives.

The point, it seems to me, is that contracts for future benefits were always subject to market forces. The retirees now benefiting from contracts entered into years ago are in that situation because of the give and take of market power and negotiation. These were not the result of largess on the part of the companies or extortion of the workers.

The disparity between UAW wages in the North and foreign companies in the Southern states comes from market forces and, I expect, from the lack of unions in Southern states. As an attorney in private practice here in Richmond I saw first hand the substantial and heavily moneyed effort to keep unions out. I represented the companies. It seems to me that there is little difference in the actual wages paid whether North or South. [see the articles below] This lack of disparity is due in part to the existing market situation of higher existing UAW wages. Otherwise, I am confident that Toyota to South Carolina would be paying close to Mexican wage scales. Further, the plants in the South are relatively new and accordingly do not have added weight of existing, negotiated benefits for retirees and current employees.

Our country has come a long way with established safety regulations and so that effort on the part of unions need not be as needed or confrontational. But laborers have value in a capitalist system. The most effective way to insure a correct value for labor is by matching the power of the corporate structure against a unified, labor structure. There is no compassion in capitalism. Our country has dramatically moved away from employer health and retirement benefits. We are now in the transitional period when substitutes for employer programs and even social security are developing daily.

The bottom line for me is that the auto industry, as with American manufacturing, is not failing because of labor costs. The paradigm has changed. The globalization of United States corporations attracted by exceptionally cheap labor overseas is merely the logical extension of capitalism. Corporations are not good citizens. They have no patriotism. American labor can perform as well or better than any other national group. Maybe they just have to accept wages comparable to those in a village outside Ho Chi Minh City or wait for those villagers to organize for appropriate wages and benefits.

http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php

http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm

http://bigthreeauto.procon.org/viewadditionalresource.asp?resourceID=2050

Proportionate Terrorism 12/27/08 ?

The article on NYTimes.com read simply "Israeli Gaza Strike Kills 225" and wounds some 700 Palestinians. The article gave an explanation for the attack: "But in some ways the [upcoming Israeli] elections have made it impossible for officials like Mr. Barak not to react, because the public has grown anxious and angry over the rocket fire, which while causing no recent deaths and few injuries is deeply disturbing for those living near Gaza."

The world has for years been "anxious and angry" and has experienced terrorism and death while Israeli governments alternate factions cold and colder to resolution and Palestinian "authorities" feign or hide behind claims of sincere desires for resolution. And each side must continue to use the imposition of terror to express the validity of its position.

Neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli people deserve death because of the intransigence of their respective rulers and the criminally inept policies of the United States. This visceral reaction on my part to this day's news must be followed with a broader analysis though it will benefit only the writer.

Government in Illinois

Chicago/Illinois politicians generally hone their criminal talents from birth within the party system. They should be given some credit for the unswerving commitment to a life of cutting edge bribery. These are not amateurs at corruption but they are, invariably, so greedy as to cross the line into stupidity. Growing up in Chicago under the wing of the old Mayor Daley the corruption in the city was systemic. But the city ran exceptionally well with a shadow government of democratic precinct captains and corrupt officials. As a resident driver back then, one knew to have a five or ten dollar bill wrapped around the driver's license on the chance one was stopped for a traffic offense. The corrupt office holders, contractors and appointees picked up the trash, shoveled the snow, cleaned the parks, acquitted the guilty and protected the bookies. But if you didn't especially need justice or honest official conduct, life was calm and stable.

A note to the ASPCA

I take issue with the decision to place an ASPCA ad calling attention to the great number of animals abandoned during the holidays during the CNN report tonight by Ms. Amanpour on the genocide of humans in Darfur. There is no measure of equality between these two situations. The juxtaposition of these issues by the ASPCA during this program was more than insensitive, it was sickening and obscene. Your organization should be ashamed of this insensitive stupidity.

End of an Era - Worth Repeating

"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected...." Thucydides (circa 420 BCE)

Interesting how "BCE" might also refer to "Bush/Cheney Era.

Merely an Observation

Have you ever waited in a checkout line while a women ahead of you searches through, readjusts, drops and replaces all or a portion of the contents of an oversized shoulder bag? Of course, we all have. We sigh, groan or cuss under our breath but we learn to expect, with a high degree of probability, this activity because such conduct seems to be in the nature of the beast. Apparently, this lesson had been lost on NASA.

'Oh Great': Astronaut Loses Tool Bag During Spacewalk
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 (Associated Press)
HOUSTON — A spacewalking astronaut accidentally let go of her tool bag Tuesday after a grease gun inside it exploded, and helplessly watched as the tote and everything inside floated away.
It was one of the largest items ever to be lost by a spacewalker, and occurred during an unprecedented attempt to clean and lube a gummed-up joint on a solar panel.
Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper was just starting to work on the joint when the mishap occurred.
She said her grease gun exploded, getting the dark gray stuff all over a camera and her gloves. While wiping off herself, the white, backpack-size bag slipped out of her grip, and she lost all her other tools.
"Oh, great," she mumbled.