Limbaugh's Reality and the Lord's Resistance

A friend suggests that Mr. Limbaugh's defense of the Lord's Resistance Army, a group responsible for horrific atrocities, is proof of Limbaugh's insanity. I disagree

Isn't a definition of insanity the repeating of the same conduct while expecting different results? Limbaugh knows and acts repeatedly in the belief that when he makes an idiotic, false or twisted statement it will be picked up by his loyal and obedient actual-nutcases and take on a life of its own - a depraved but continuing existence. See, for example, http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/201110170022 Limbaugh has yet to accurately describe to his audience the L.R.A. or to accept personal responsibility thereby holding a semblance of credibility for his fools. And let's not forget another false assertion made during his broadcast that "Obama has sent troops to another war" intent on support of Muslim factions in Sudan. We have not seen the last of this either.

Even after he was advised on the air of the depravities committed by the LRA he blew on the coals saying: "But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys -- and they claim to be Christians."

And listen to the end of this brief portion of Limbaugh follow-up http://mediamalpractice.com/mmtv/201110180013 it's all one big laugh -- got that loyal, obedient, actual-nutcases it's just a joke and don't we pass on a good joke. No, my friend, he is not insane.Post Options

What Powers Your Pickup Truck?

A friend forwarded an interesting news article about the development of anger-powered automobiles. http://origin.theonion.com/audio/new-angerpowered-cars-may-revolutionize-the-way-we,26244/

Since anger-powered vehicles would be useless for the far left, kumbaya singing crowd, development of engines powered by compassion, love and hugs would be necessary as well. Of course, one can imagine how the vehicles made for the far right wingers would be powered:

1. momentum: enormous size of competitive models compensating for personal performance inadequacies.
2. spin: auto batteries charged by connecting to plugs within "spin rooms" occupied by "spin doctors" spinning ... post-Republican debates excellent power storage potential.
3. confabulation cylinders: unconscious filling in of gaps in the memory of voters by telling imaginary "facts" with easy recharge hookup to Fox HD.
4. ideology: actually a power source for both right and left wing vehicles ... ironically, the more concrete the ideology the more fluid the ride.
5. greed: awesome acceleration with no brakes ... however, good for the environment, economy, churches, hookers, illness, golf game, etc. and all future generation models.

6. selfishness: compact vehicle model for those not yet ready for greed driven vehicles.
7. hummer models: powered by "hum"= human "m"= migration "e"= emigrant "r"= refugees preferably illegals more inclined to run quietly ... power train easily transferable for garden work and house chores. Some interior variations to accommodate interns available.

A Salute

"We meet 'neath the sounding rafter,
And the walls around are bare.
As they shout back our peals of laughter,
It seems that the dead are there.
Then stand to your glasses steady,
We drink in our comrades' eyes.
One cup to the dead already,
Hurrah for the next man that dies."

World War I song, "Stand to Your Glasses."

A Rush to Judgment

The U. S. Attorney General has requested and, accordingly, will probably see an early decision by the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Conservative challengers to its constitutionality have been pressing the issue as well for an early decision by the Court.

A decision prior to the election by the Supreme Court upholding the Law would place the issue of repeal squarely at the top of the Republican 2012 election agenda. Given the almost total misunderstanding of the American people about the law and the lack of time for education, the Republicans may well achieve their goal of winning in 2012.

On the other hand, a decision of the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2012 holding the law or a critical element of the law unconstitutional would be a benefit to the President. He could then face the electorate honestly claiming to have tried to better their lives albeit with a slightly inappropriate approach and promise to correct the effort.

I assume therefore that the administration expects or at least hopes for a holding of unconstitutionality.

In any event, the fact that the Republicans orchestrated and acceded to the lies and distortions at the core of America's lack of faith in the law will not help the President. The fact that the Republican administration of George Bush created the breeding fields for those who nearly destroyed our economy will not help the President. The facts that Republicans in Congress purposely both created major delays and built legislative impasses to economic recovery will not help the President.

Why not? Because there are too many American people who are too easily manipulated, disinterested in learning facts about important issues, selfish and self-centered, disorganized, short-memoried and lacking the deep pockets of Republican backers interested only in maintaining existing financial/economic paradigms without oversight.

Useless Candidates = Useless Party

The question has been asked:"Why are the Republican presidential candidates so useless?" http://www.economist.com/node/21530979?fsrc=nlw%7Cedh%7C09-29-11%7Ceditors_highlights

I suggest that the answer lies in the absence of substance at the core of a Republican Party. The Republican Party, as presently constituted and self-defined, offers nothing but redundant rhetoric to the American people. For almost three years, the elected officials of the Republican Party, nationally and regionally, have fostered fear and a perverse adhering to ideology. Acceding to Right Wing fanaticism (itself paid for and promoted by corporate self-interest) the Party has foregone rational examination of its own identity. These candidates pander and rant on with tautological rhetoric now decomposing. To propagandize lies and distortions successfully to a citizenry does not validate the lies and distortions. Republican candidates see the success of such propaganda and point vigorously only to what they see as the flotsam of the current administration and on each others' resumes. At least a few of the candidates may recognize the isolation the Party has created for itself. It cannot produce a candidate with the courage to hold up a mirror. The Republican Party cannot produce a voice with the promise desired by and in the best interests of the new silent majority.

You See Surrender. I See Necessity.

A friend presents two articles in which he finds "subdued towel-tossing" on the left. I suggest that he continues to see only what you wants to see.

I respond: The "Obama captained ship," you surely must recognize, has a crucial portion of its crew, over which the "captain" has no control, intent on insuring that the ship makes no progress.

Your labeling of an "embedded towel-signal" in a Friedman note that lambastes the Republican intransigence is merely a recognition of a personal crying towel for one disappointed writer of opinion. Friedman is obviously disappointed with the President's strategy not aligning with what he had "argued [was] the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the G.O.P. has become....." (my emphasis). While defending his proffered tactic Friedman firmly reasserts his belief in the substance of the President's stance on issues. "[W]e cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education, immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would understand thatt you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which are precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with its brutal ups and downs." So, despite his tactic not being employed as he would like it he keeps the faith. "My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?src=me&ref=general

And while Friedman acknowledges the validity of the President's proposals for "jobs," Brooks tearfully finds it "a campaign marker, not a jobs bill." Again, my friend, you see what you want in reading this as "subdued towel-tossing." Brooks decries the tactics or "governing style," as he puts it , and not the substance of the President's policies. "The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too.... So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach....The White House has decided to wage the campaign as fighting liberals. I guess I understand the choice, but I still believe in the governing style Obama talked about in 2008. I may be the last one." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?src=me&ref=general

He is not. Brooks believes in what the President would be if there existed a political arena in which there could be a true contest of ideas and issues. I do as well. Brooks wants, as most intellectually engaged willing to subdue ideology, a grand solution that will be embraced joyously by a waiting populace. It ain't going to happen. Even in the best of political worlds such a construct would and should require congressional deliberation toward consensus.

But, what alternatives are available with a Congress intransigent on the most rational solutions to just keep the government functioning to protect its citizens. In this crucible, only surrender or confrontation will engage the masses. If our nation was composed of citizens who were all educated and engaged in the important issues of our time such as "serious tax reform and entitlement reform," rational political discourse could result in decisions for the common good. The engaged citizenry today are a combination of those unemployed and struggling, those wanting a Leviathan premised on faith and doctrine, the established holders and direct beneficiaries of capital, and assorted special interest (conservative and progressive) groups. Neither individually nor collectively do they speak for or represent the majority of citizens. Most will not comprehend (look at medical reform) nor react politically to an ultimate solution that necessarily will project events well into and beyond their personal future.

The greater number of citizens, unfortunately, will engage politically as they do socially with a discourse of confrontation on simple issues easily understood and fostered. The Right having recognized this has engaged a defined "ideology" as boogieman: "socialism." The Right has selectively challenged segments of the working class to eliminate unions. The Right has skirmished on the brink of a Class War. "The White House" seeks to survive and continue. Regrettably, the Right has chosen the battlefield on low ground. Attempts by the White House and moderate/rational Republicans to maneuver off this ground have failed so the "silent majority" must be recruited and the "engaged" engaged where they are found.

Resilience in Place of Fear

NEW YORK --- After a decade of war with al-Qaida the potential for another devastating terrorist assault "remains very real," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday following a somber visit to ground zero of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

It seems clear that the Secretary of Defense has an obligation to promote the military successes and responsibilities in preparing for the inevitable and imminent budget conflicts in Congress. However, it is imperative in that effort that he not bolster the fear-mongering that unnecessarily pervades national discourse. Reasoned debate in Washington among politicians and implementers of policy is essential. However, there is an obligation among them to present a balanced perspective to citizens. Prof. Zelikow, former Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, summarized what Americans should be brought to understand and believe in, is our "resilience" as individuals, families and a nation. Of course, vigilance is imperative but, in the context of our successes, particularly against al-Qaida, and our established counter structures, terrorism need not be on the Top Ten list of a citizen's personal concerns. So "Cool it." Mr. SecDef.

A Complete Footnote

Viet Nam combat veterans brought up Jane Fonda during discussion. Many, after forty years, still held strong feelings of contempt for her while there was expression of the need to "let go" and put her and the war behind us. Jane Fonda should never become irrelevant in our memories or in the history of the war and the American culture that has come to define "that time." By her choice of actions back then she established herself in a role that must continue to define her. Her chosen images back then created strong feelings among the grunts who had fought and were fighting in Viet Nam. Don't dare to suggest that she has cleansed herself through the passage of time or a carefully worded "my bad." To "let go" is to pardon the unpardonable. Each veteran has the ability and right to forgive. But, her niche in this history must remain for future generations to judge as well. If, whenever and however small the footnote may be written, it should include the strength of the disdain of American veterans. Possibly, future conduct will be forestalled by an appreciation for the seriousness of its affect.

U.S. Sovereign Credit Downgrade

Standard & Poors (S&P) has downgraded the US "long term sovereign credit rating" to AA+; t,he first downgrade in United States history. Now, one may challenge the capacity of S&P to render any valid judgment given their part in the last economic debacle or challenge on the numbers. As I expressed earlier, the perception and reality of the rhetoric from the Republican Right, which created the unnecessary fight over the debt ceiling, built a debt "situation" into political stagnation and economic chaos. Banks, businesses (small and large), pensioners, foreign markets, citizens (red and blue) and our own ratings agencies became the Henny Pennys, and Goosey Loosies, taking in the T-bag carrying Chicken Little rants that the "sky was falling" on the United States. Again, we, the mere farm animals, had better wake up before Foxey Loxey (A Bachman, Perry, Palin, Cain, or ....) takes control.

S&P says "too little, too late" in the budget agreement numbers but the broader fundamental issue as stated by S&P is that:

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.


Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon."

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

I say again that the Republican Party, as presently constituted and directed, is a greater threat to our democracy and constitutional structure than the Communist Party of the United States" ever attained.

Democrats: Wrong Again.

The "balance" within the Debt Ceiling agreement calls for matching reductions in military spending and entitlements programs to "kick-in" automatically if the bipartisan congressional panel fails to agree to alternative cuts totaling $1.2 trillion. Each, defense and entitlements, would then face $600 billion reductions over 10 years.

Unchallenged news reports place the Democrat leadership as the initiators of military spending as a counter-weight to Republican ideological and fiscal imperatives within the panel agenda. After all, it is suggested, Democrats hold that military spending is a "Republican" political paradigm. Democrat logic then sees a Republican acquiescence to Democrat initiatives to protect military spending in the congressional panel discussions. To be sure, elements of the Democrat base are against military spending, some at any level, and against the two ongoing wars while Republicans are generally seen as bulls in military spending.

Assume for the moment (for it would have no validity beyond this single moment) that the panel talks are productive and agreements are reached in rational compromise. Now, coming back to reality, let's assume that the Republicans refuse any discussion of revenue increase and the Democrats hold firm (this time) to their demand for a balanced reduction/revenue outcome. In either of these events the Democrats are going to have to face a strong political argument from the Republicans stemming from their own (Democrat) construct of this military/entitlements balance.

Cuts to the military are always styled as cuts to the "defense" budget. We are presently engaged in two wars. Anonymous "senior Pentagon officials" already warn of dire consequence if the "kick-in" occurs. Republicans may reasonably and with some validity argue in the coming months that the Democrats are willing to put the entrenched, "undeserved" entitlements of a few before the defense of this country while jeopardizing the lives of men and women in the front lines. Whatever the inflation to the Democrat base, this creature of compromise will definitely NOT play well with Independent voters. The Independents (as I) will not accept an outcome, real or gambled, detrimental to our Armed Forces, that is, to our defense.

The Democrats placement of "Defense" as the counter-weight was, at the least, short sighted while, more correctly, plain dumb. They could simply have stood on equity and principle. Leadership, in a country already demanding a balanced outcome, would have been a powerful counter-weight. Watch as it plays out.

Stupidity Agenda: FAA

Having observed the FAA failing to balance the dual and contradictory missions (promoting success of US air carriers/insuring public safety) Congress has imposed, I find it incredible that this is the field chosen for the next confrontation. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/us/03faa.html?pagewanted=1&hp “We are going to lose $1 billion in the aviation trust fund if we leave this Congress for the month of August and we don’t extend the F.A.A.”

Other news reports refer to stoppage of ongoing airport construction (jobs!) and "you betcha" if there is less inspection there will be safety problems in an industry rampant with economic shortcuts. One Department of Transportation (oversight of FAA) executive said to me a few years ago during a discussion of a national problem of defective aircraft replacement parts on commercial aircraft: "I never fly if I can avoid it." This may be the real explanation for tax breaks for corporate/executive jets!

If you have flown during this imposed break you may be entitled to a return of the amount paid for the federal tax. Could this be the Democrat's way of extending another stimulus giveaway? Or, is it a Republican ideological, gangster tactic? I know but am not saying.

Republicans! Wake Up!

As an Independent in Rep. Cantor's District and once supporter of the McCain/Palin ticket, I have been sickened and repulsed by the rhetoric on the Right and the tactics of the Republican Party since President Obama took office. Rep. Cantor, for his own political ambition and obviously generated by a flawed personality, has helped the Republican Party lead this Nation to a precipice over economic chaos.

It is particularly disheartening to read comment from those identifying themselves as Republicans expressing obvious ignorance of the facts at issue regarding the debt ceiling. This is not to say that Democrats on particular issues do not likewise follow blindly the Party line at times. But this issue is enormously important to our country and the world economic situation. The Republican Party repeating, over and over, no matter the context, question or opportunity, the same phrase "job creators," for example, or other "speaking point du jour" while deliberately avoiding accurately educating their constituents borders on reckless endangerment. Those new in Congress after pledging T-Party rhetoric, particularly had an obligation to educate themselves (they have not) and to honestly inform their constituents of the facts. That IS their responsibility in a representative democracy. That is Rep. Cantor's responsibility. There are issues for reasoned debate with the Democrats. Wake up Republicans. Or are you too scared, busy, blindly loyal, selfish or indifferent to learn the truth. If so, check your citizenship at the club door.

Amalgamated Self-Interest

It all comes down to self-interest. The Right has amalgamated the profit interests of the dehumanized corporation with the self-interest of unrestrained greed defining personal achievement for its vassals into a ideological construct disguised as a political party in a democracy. Although once it did exist in this country, there is no corresponding, challenging integrated whole from the Left. The paradigms of corporate existence and "success" have not changed. They have only expanded. The American society that underwrote by investment of wealth, sweat and brain the success of pre-Globalization, "American" corporations has been abandoned. American society must defend itself. It must amalgamate its varied self-interests toward new economic success in this country. Contrary to the fear mongering of the Right, this amalgamation from the "Left" need not and should not become the "feared Socialism." This new "Center Left" amalgam must find its identity and forcefully move politically now or it will never seed "the coming revolution." And I don't care who funds it. The self-interested corporate related funds nursed and directed the T party to gleeful success and is rashly and unjustifiably bringing our Nation to the brink of economic crises. The Right's Self-Interest is seeking a stronger platform in the 2012 elections. As one of its leaders has said, the Republican Party, the avatar of the amalgamated Right, will protect its brand at the expense of the country in order to achieve the sole objective of the defeat of President Obama.

The Debt Debacle

Republican intransigence on the issue of the debt ceiling is a national disgrace, severally stifling our economic recovery, creating instability in our international standing, and risking a dangerous level of economic chaos. The Republican refusal to moderate the supposedly "ideological" extreme is a substantial move toward increased wealth inequality, stabilization of an existing oligarchy and stagnation of economic and social progress. Their America is purely an economic unit wholly distinct from the ideals fundamental to our experiment as the first nation founded on moral principles.

Memorial Day 2011

MEMORIAL DAY 2011We each have our own thoughts and memories that provide a context to this Memorial Day weekend. All Americans share the responsibility to remember and to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms and in defense of freedom around the world. Whether lost to us in direct combat, during clandestine operations or in support of those missions, their memory must be cherished or this nation will be unworthy of their sacrifice. You will be unworthy of their sacrifice. The monuments that we erect are to stand as reminders of sacrifice and not as substitutes for personal reflection on duty, honor and appreciation.

The families who have lost a cherished son, daughter, father or mother need no reminder. We, combat veterans, need no reminder. Thoughts now of those dead in wars long past are no longer accompanied by a personal memory. Today brief media glimpses at the pain that remains with families as another American killed in Afghanistan, Iraq or some other distant place is honored and buried must provide a reminder to all Americans. The freedom we enjoy today is the legacy of the blood and sacrifice of the heroes in all our wars, past and present.

"you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer. For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb;" (Pericles 430 BCE)

The children in the photo are the sons of friends, a non-commissioned officer and his wife serving in the Army's 10th Mountain Division. The respect, innocently presented in their salute as our flag was being lowered one afternoon recently, may remind us of what values we bring to our own children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and neighbors by our deeds and our words. What have we said to our own about the meaning of Memorial Day. What have we done to show them that we remember and honor.

"However horrible the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind." Douglas MacArthur, 12 May, 1962, West Point, NY

Executive Power

A brief thought responding to a friend's comment: "Presidents have always used foreign affairs as an excuse to claim more executive power."

Agreed but, wouldn't you also accept that, at times, valid necessity presented more of the justification than an offer of excuse. Necessity having to be valued in the context of the then perceived "reality" where there was no reasonable choice but to grant the executive authority. Our failure has, more often than not, been the continuing acquiescence rather than the initial allowance.

A Response.

My friend, responding to my Friday the 13th comment challenged me saying that my "espousing the need for civility in one breath and then race bating and name calling in the next" was hollow commentary.

Well, I answered that I had intended merely to identify policies and ideological positions in the political arena that I find generally detestable on the present Right. I guess that I do regret having to call the proponents "Republicans."

To clarify, I reject levels of civility that constrain responses from the Democrat Party to what I have described. On the other side, the diversity within the Democrat Party fosters elements of selfishness similar to what I decried in the Republican Party and which work to destroy opportunity for the common good. As with the Right, some of the entrenched political, social and ideological cliques on the Left, though without power to control the nation, seek their own estates no matter the costs to the common good.

After receiving over the last two years blatantly racist jokes, cartoons and commentaries from many sources who each cloak themselves in conservative Republican association and observing the "birthers" driven by antagonistic disbelief that any man of mixed racial blood could be President, I conclude that racist beliefs form a portion of what has stimulated the Republican Party. I do not insinuate. I accuse.

Friday the 13th and I am Scared

The conversation began with a discussion of Ron Paul's latest affiliation. As is often the case, a sub-topic took over and we began to discuss political perspectives of the "media." A friend countered: "I will admit that from my political perspective here on the left coast, the [New York] Times and [Washington] Post seem pretty reasonable and it’s the FOX and other Murdock-controlled types of media that is scary."

And I added: I know that this may surprise some but I agree. However, for me, the baseless inflammatory rhetoric, the racist underpinnings, the fear mongering lies, the non-compromising political extortions, the preference for oligarchical sustainment, the defense of extreme wealth inequality over liberty, the ideological purity demanded, the narrowing of constitutional rights, the duplicitous propaganda concealing political agendas, and the exaltation of unbridled selfishness of and by the Republican Party, its backers, promoters, and the "tea" swallowing, flag wearing fellow travelers who, at best, know neither history nor reality, scare the hell out of me and, in all honesty, deeply anger me.

The America they represent to me is a mockery of a democracy which was to evolve from our declaration of an endowment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism is merely the carriage of economic progress. It must not form the engine of democracy. Most of us teach our children that capital will provide a measure of sustenance and goods but it will not provide character. So should it be with this evolving nation.

Gen. Patraeus and the CIA (cont.)

Responding to a friend's comment:

I am glad that you brought up the record of Sec. Gates as we discuss the expected transition in leadership within the administration. By all current accounts he has been the best example of civilian leadership in recent memory. It appears that the quality of his public character and management abilities might well be taught those aspiring to public service and to many now so engaged.

I believe that you correctly point out the transferrable management skills of those at the four star level in the military. As a four star general, I am confident that Gen. Patraeus has those skills. I am more concerned, and have been, about the recent and ongoing construct of the CIA and its ability to effectively support both para-military and classic intelligence and counter-intelligence programs. The spotlight has been on the para-military and Patraeus has held the leash in those counter terrorism and insurgency operations. Decades of service in uniform will, presumably, cause substantial concern for continuing military missions and objectives. What I suggest is that counter terrorism/insurgency is not the greatest threat to the United States and the CIA's directives and Patraeus's leadership will need to address that shifting paradigm.

It is now an open question whether Gen. Patraeus will remain on active duty while CIA Director. Should he do so, he should not follow the example of Michael Hayden who in his roles with the CIA and NSA continued to wear his military uniform. The distinction in responsibilities and authority must be clear.

General Patraeus to CIA

The New York Times reports today that President Obama is expected to name Leon E. Panetta Defense Secretary and David H. Petraeus C.I.A. Director.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28team.html?_r=1&hp

The Panetta move is understandable, in part, because it allows consistency at policy level. Hopefully, Panetta's tour at the CIA will have formed in him an appreciation for the role of the Intelligence Agency that will correctly distinguish and define intelligence programs within the military establishment. The Patraeus assignment is, in my view, extraordinary. Certainly there have been former military flag officers assigned in the past. Not certain if Stansfield Turner was active duty while head of CIA in the '70s, but, whatever Turner's rank or status, he was a disaster for the Agency and the country in that role.

Patraeus is of different mettle and experience. I would have thought that his experience and credibility would have warranted a role with a broader portfolio. His experience and abilities should provide the leadership essential for the CIA as well as enhance its credibility among critics. His experience has however focused him on military needs and applications almost exclusively in counter terrorism and insurgency. Notwithstanding the substantial para-military components now within the Agency, the need for "classic" intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities are critical. Efforts to counter cyber-terrorism include human and other clandestine operations. China, for example, has only, it appears, tangentially touched his primary military responsibilities. Africa (now becoming fixed in China's sphere of influence) as well has not been a primary focus. South America will take independent study. His recommendations to the President on current and long term intelligence directions and policy may accordingly be parochial. In the past these factors would not concern me to the degree they do today because in the past the Agency was staffed by career intelligence officers with extraordinary dedication to the best interests of the Country. Today a substantial number of positions are staffed by contract personnel whose enhanced salaries and corporate influence must present conflict in dedication.

In sum, he will have a learning curve, be unable to speak candidly to a broad audience and enters a field of endeavor fraught with potentials for all sorts of scandals, diversions and failures. His acceptance of the role seems to speak, in my view, to his own personal integrity, devotion to duty and love of this country.

Fire that writer, Mr President

Mr. President: Fire the writers who wrote your budget speech today. The issues are lost, the seriousness is lost, and the strength of your arguments are ineffectively presented in a rambling disjointed speech. The ideological flow will not persuade or convince those now so used to hyperbole and simple, baseless slogans. Choose 4 to 6 specifics and break down each to simple three word summary for presentation to the masses.

Budget on Facebook

The budget impasse - my Facebook responses:

"Where does the blame rightfully lay?"

Of course, this is politics. The players: a Democrat executive and Senate protecting values through programs deemed important and Republican operatives attempting to undo and void those programs. This is politics at this point in time having nothing to do with the deficit. In Congress, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maine and elsewhere, Republicans seek to roll back programs for ideological purposes under the guise of fiscal necessity. We are seeing the first battles and skirmishes of a class war only now being met with a defense by "the silent majority."


"We must do something like this for the sake of our Grandkids---Wake up America!"

Agreed we must do something and "Wake up" to do it. Our country has encountered and survived past "crises" by the strength of our ingenuity and willingness to adapt to overcome the challenge. As I read the paper outlining the Republican/Ryan strategic approach to the deficit and our future, I see nothing but the same failed ideology that, in large measure, created this "crisis." The rhetoric of the paper is comforting and inviting. But the invitation is to class war with further economic loss to all but corporations and the elite. New paradigms and an adaptation to global challenges with investments in education and freeing entrepreneurs must displace the existing oligarchy.

The Budget Battle

Assuming for the sake of argument that the most recent national election constituted a political "mandate" to firmly address the federal deficit, there is NO national mandate rationally discernible from that election to cut either federal regulation of air quality standards or support for women's health programs (labelling this by both political parties as "abortions" is inaccurate and misleading) or remove funding, for purely ideological reasons, for other programs of relatively insignificant budgetary effect.

Nor should a majority party in one House of Congress presume to speak for all Americans when the Executive and the Senate are controlled by the opposing party under the continuing mandate of two national elections. Eliminate all "riders" to the funding bill and the ideological issues can be argued and presented directly to the electorate for 2012.

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.