Thursday, May 27, 2010
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.
Monday, May 24, 2010
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
http://www.military.com/news/article/many-vets-find-service-helps-in-court.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
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.
Monday, March 22, 2010
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
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
Sunday, March 14, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
"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.
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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
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.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
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
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
Thursday, November 26, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
A Rally by Any Other Name
A friend writes from his rally experience in Santa Fe: " Contrary to media reports, it was not an anti-Obama rally. It was overwhelmingly attended by average folks concerned about the runaway deficits and the growth of government."
I readily appreciate the probability that the majority of the attendees at these rallies are voicing their own legitimate concerns about national policy regarding deficit spending, growth of government, and medical insurance primarily. What troubles me is the stimulus (no pun intended) to this movement. It has appeared to me that the initiating cause for these gatherings was the rhetoric of Republican/conservative fear mongering premised on baseless hyperbole and lies. Now there is room in my philosophy for "the end justifying the means." And the Great American Public should have been and should remain concerned on all issues of importance to the country, including those now being considered (I started to say "being debated" but there is relatively no public or parlimentary debate). First, many if not most of the citizens attending, I'll concede for argument, are honestly concerned. Yet, having watched parts of the DC rally on C-Span (I'll defer wholly to my friend on his Santa Fe experience) two observations concerned me. I did see signs that were not issue statements but personal attacks on the President. And there were quite a few. Interestingly, these poster boards did not at all appear professional or preprinted but rather home made. I do not see this fact as a positive. Secondly, the leadership as evident from the identity of sponsors and the speakers were anti-Obama. So, I can accept a media report so stating as to the DC event.
I see the Republican Party using the "best" Machiavellian tactics to rebuild a base. The fact that the Party is being hypocritical is not noticed by this popular awakening because most of them slept through earlier years of skillfully managed obscene spending (both parties)and tax cuts blindly ignoring, among other facts, the reality of two ongoing wars and the associated costs. The reality of the depth of the world-wide economic crises and the necessity of limited government intervention as recognized in every developed country seems to have escaped the popular education. They, the majority of those rallying now yell out of fear and ignorance. The posted objectives I saw to "save the Constitution," stop socialism," stop communism," stop fascism," and Obama "the liar," the Hitler,"the enemy" are frankly ridiculous on the basis of any reasoned view of this administration's eight months in office. It is the strategy of the Republican conservative movement to negate the results of the national presidential election and prevent the developement of the policies and objectives desired by majority of voting citizens.
The DC rally was instigated by well established conservatives and encouraged and guided by Republican Party and elected representatives both of which have a specific, unified agenda not consistent with nor in the interests of these assembled masses. In the not to distant memory, there were rallies of workers protesting often legitimate and important issues and policies. There was then a distinction when such rallies were manipulated by the Communist Party toward ends not consistent with nor in the best interests of the workers. In November 2008 the country voted and rejected the policies of the Republican administration. Their objective to return to those policies is hidden by them with tarantinoesq fears and the flag.
I readily appreciate the probability that the majority of the attendees at these rallies are voicing their own legitimate concerns about national policy regarding deficit spending, growth of government, and medical insurance primarily. What troubles me is the stimulus (no pun intended) to this movement. It has appeared to me that the initiating cause for these gatherings was the rhetoric of Republican/conservative fear mongering premised on baseless hyperbole and lies. Now there is room in my philosophy for "the end justifying the means." And the Great American Public should have been and should remain concerned on all issues of importance to the country, including those now being considered (I started to say "being debated" but there is relatively no public or parlimentary debate). First, many if not most of the citizens attending, I'll concede for argument, are honestly concerned. Yet, having watched parts of the DC rally on C-Span (I'll defer wholly to my friend on his Santa Fe experience) two observations concerned me. I did see signs that were not issue statements but personal attacks on the President. And there were quite a few. Interestingly, these poster boards did not at all appear professional or preprinted but rather home made. I do not see this fact as a positive. Secondly, the leadership as evident from the identity of sponsors and the speakers were anti-Obama. So, I can accept a media report so stating as to the DC event.
I see the Republican Party using the "best" Machiavellian tactics to rebuild a base. The fact that the Party is being hypocritical is not noticed by this popular awakening because most of them slept through earlier years of skillfully managed obscene spending (both parties)and tax cuts blindly ignoring, among other facts, the reality of two ongoing wars and the associated costs. The reality of the depth of the world-wide economic crises and the necessity of limited government intervention as recognized in every developed country seems to have escaped the popular education. They, the majority of those rallying now yell out of fear and ignorance. The posted objectives I saw to "save the Constitution," stop socialism," stop communism," stop fascism," and Obama "the liar," the Hitler,"the enemy" are frankly ridiculous on the basis of any reasoned view of this administration's eight months in office. It is the strategy of the Republican conservative movement to negate the results of the national presidential election and prevent the developement of the policies and objectives desired by majority of voting citizens.
The DC rally was instigated by well established conservatives and encouraged and guided by Republican Party and elected representatives both of which have a specific, unified agenda not consistent with nor in the interests of these assembled masses. In the not to distant memory, there were rallies of workers protesting often legitimate and important issues and policies. There was then a distinction when such rallies were manipulated by the Communist Party toward ends not consistent with nor in the best interests of the workers. In November 2008 the country voted and rejected the policies of the Republican administration. Their objective to return to those policies is hidden by them with tarantinoesq fears and the flag.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Random Thoughts
Just a few random thoughts: I certainly do not intend to diminish the dangers existing to primarily future generations in the proposed spending of this administration. We elder types, as well, should be concerned and watchful. There comes a time, I believe, in science, for example, that a paradigm of unquestioned validity will lose its validity in the course of research and observation. Economics and so called social science do not rise to the level of "pure" science in their ability to develop such fundamental "truths." We are clearly in a time where our economic and social "truths" may be reevaluated. I say "may" because we can ignore the opportunity and muddle through without change but with very high risk. The conclusions that will evolve from a democratic review now may result in changes in the existing structures that we would not recognize but would efficiently and effectively carry us to the next period of necessary evaluation. The difficulty in such a systemic reevaluation is the fear of the unknown and the inherent uncertainty. The path to revised structures will, of necessity, involve trial and error though the extent of each can be minimized. The path and establishment of new structuring will be expensive – maybe shockingly so. As with any capital investment the books will take an immediate redlining.
Our medical insurance and provider systems, our electrical power grids, our fossil fuel dependency, social security, global warming/climate change, our national existence in a global economy and others each have some need for reevaluation, revision and/or rejection. I believe that this country is worth investing in to bring about necessary changes – and they are necessary. Keeping an eye on the short term costs in the context of long term progress is very tough in political cycles where decision makers look primarily if not solely at their personal and party short term election goals and current capital investment in the country is at risk. If we are the risk takers of the same mettle as the settlers, the founding fathers, the entrepreneurs of industry and science and IT we should be willing to accept reasoned risks for rewards. This President may well be taking on more than he should but I cannot fault him for identifying the needs and accepting his own level of political risk in the process. No doubt we are backing with our futures but this is time for reasoned discussion, debate and decision and not hyperbole, misinformation and lies. It is that time for "statesmen" and men and women of unbiased integrity willing to put aside eroded paradigms and step out front to guide and lead. I wish I could see more involvement in these discussions by the 20 and 30 year olds who will reap whatever we plant. In that age group in history have been the revolutionaries and paradigm changers. Unfortunately, I just don't see such independent thinking and initiative rising outside of bastions of the old orders. And the NFL pre-season has started so first things first.
Our medical insurance and provider systems, our electrical power grids, our fossil fuel dependency, social security, global warming/climate change, our national existence in a global economy and others each have some need for reevaluation, revision and/or rejection. I believe that this country is worth investing in to bring about necessary changes – and they are necessary. Keeping an eye on the short term costs in the context of long term progress is very tough in political cycles where decision makers look primarily if not solely at their personal and party short term election goals and current capital investment in the country is at risk. If we are the risk takers of the same mettle as the settlers, the founding fathers, the entrepreneurs of industry and science and IT we should be willing to accept reasoned risks for rewards. This President may well be taking on more than he should but I cannot fault him for identifying the needs and accepting his own level of political risk in the process. No doubt we are backing with our futures but this is time for reasoned discussion, debate and decision and not hyperbole, misinformation and lies. It is that time for "statesmen" and men and women of unbiased integrity willing to put aside eroded paradigms and step out front to guide and lead. I wish I could see more involvement in these discussions by the 20 and 30 year olds who will reap whatever we plant. In that age group in history have been the revolutionaries and paradigm changers. Unfortunately, I just don't see such independent thinking and initiative rising outside of bastions of the old orders. And the NFL pre-season has started so first things first.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A Response to a Review: "The Hurt Locker"
Your reviewer’s simplistic review of “The Hurt Locker” dis serves your readers and the community. This independently produced film should be seen by every adult citizen. The conservative lip-service given to our “support of the troops” would benefit from an exposure to a portrayal of the intensity and often chaos of combat and of what we are asking of our men and women. This film is a gripping, intense movie of war and not, as your reviewer seemed to suggest, a political piece. The crucible just happens to be Iraq in 2004 but in reality it could be set in a trench in France or a submarine in the Atlantic. The plot is not burdened with the extraneous. This is not to say, as your reviewer put it that the movie is “missing a story.” Your reviewer, I suggest, may have become accustomed to being spoon fed a story line as in the vast majority of Hollywood’s screened comic books. “The Hurt Locker,” with powerful photography that seems to place you at the scene, follows a bomb disposal team of three men jointly confronting fear and death in their assigned mission. Each man is uniquely affected by the external threats as well as the adjustments necessitated when the internal dynamic of the team changes.
I have no personal experience to vouch for the accuracy of the tactics or circumstances of the urban warfare in Iraq in 2004 as portrayed. One extended scene in a desert setting seemed to represent, without loss of credulity, a composite of different combat roles. However, the events, actions of the characters and the impact on the team members were to me, a combat veteran, appropriate and unnervingly honest. The wired, buried artillery rounds looked just as deadly and challenging as they did along routes in Viet Nam. Your reviewer displaces obvious truth with biased misconceptions. These are not depictions of “stereotypical Americans … and Iraqis.” The American soldiers are shown in the intensity of war doing tasks essential in war. Accomplishment of dangerous tasks does not make them gung-ho and they are assuredly not presented in that manner. Iraqis security forces are shown working with the team to identify possible IED’s for the team to defuse. Iraqi civilian locals are shown observing the team while set back on the perimeter of the action just as are American soldiers waiting for the team to do its work. Your reviewer says the film makes a stereotypical portrayal of Iraqis as “cowardly, skulking, roadside bombers.” The reality, however, that one of the observing Iraqi civilians may electronically set off the IED is a fact of life in this war.
This is not one of those surreal “Full Metal Jacket” fiction-type pieces. This movie surfaces feelings in its viewers, the feelings that, while in combat, for example, you never allow to surface. This is a very rare presentation of the intensity of war and its affects both during and following deadly combat. Seeing this movie will not make you a combat veteran but it will give you a greater understanding of why you display that magnetic ribbon “I support the troops” on your SUV.
Richmond, Virginia August 1, 2009
I have no personal experience to vouch for the accuracy of the tactics or circumstances of the urban warfare in Iraq in 2004 as portrayed. One extended scene in a desert setting seemed to represent, without loss of credulity, a composite of different combat roles. However, the events, actions of the characters and the impact on the team members were to me, a combat veteran, appropriate and unnervingly honest. The wired, buried artillery rounds looked just as deadly and challenging as they did along routes in Viet Nam. Your reviewer displaces obvious truth with biased misconceptions. These are not depictions of “stereotypical Americans … and Iraqis.” The American soldiers are shown in the intensity of war doing tasks essential in war. Accomplishment of dangerous tasks does not make them gung-ho and they are assuredly not presented in that manner. Iraqis security forces are shown working with the team to identify possible IED’s for the team to defuse. Iraqi civilian locals are shown observing the team while set back on the perimeter of the action just as are American soldiers waiting for the team to do its work. Your reviewer says the film makes a stereotypical portrayal of Iraqis as “cowardly, skulking, roadside bombers.” The reality, however, that one of the observing Iraqi civilians may electronically set off the IED is a fact of life in this war.
This is not one of those surreal “Full Metal Jacket” fiction-type pieces. This movie surfaces feelings in its viewers, the feelings that, while in combat, for example, you never allow to surface. This is a very rare presentation of the intensity of war and its affects both during and following deadly combat. Seeing this movie will not make you a combat veteran but it will give you a greater understanding of why you display that magnetic ribbon “I support the troops” on your SUV.
Richmond, Virginia August 1, 2009
Let's Get Serious
I have now read Palin's Facebook response to the President and regarding Section 1233(by now I expect it needs no further identification) and find her contentions as well as those of the people she quotes as functionally, baseless fear-mongering. "The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context." sayeth Palin. Now, I do not intend to state or infer a position of my own on the subject of abortion but it seems to me that a conservative like Palin would most assuredly argue to the contrary, i.e. that there would be no coercive effect, if the "context" being referred to was a proffered discussion by medical personnel with a young woman of alternatives to a planned abortion.
A person may speculate that any meeting with a government representative in any context may be used for intimidation. A traffic court requiring a senior citizen to retake a driving test following a ticketed offense could surely intimidate the citizen to relinquish the privilege to drive thereby limiting contact with the world outside his home, inducing depression and ultimately suicide which would address social security and medicare shortfalls and reduce unattended flashing turn signals on the roads. Just how many police officers and judges could be convinced to knowingly participate in such atrocities?
The singular coercive effect of a discussion of the matters covered in 1233 would be to have the patient, due to age and/or changed medical condition decide what they wanted to be done in their care. Just how many of these medical professionals could be corrupted to become "Angels of Death" ala Mengele for the good of the country? There are more than enough legitimate issues to address in this and subsequent legislative proposals without this type of political, extreme propaganda.
A person may speculate that any meeting with a government representative in any context may be used for intimidation. A traffic court requiring a senior citizen to retake a driving test following a ticketed offense could surely intimidate the citizen to relinquish the privilege to drive thereby limiting contact with the world outside his home, inducing depression and ultimately suicide which would address social security and medicare shortfalls and reduce unattended flashing turn signals on the roads. Just how many police officers and judges could be convinced to knowingly participate in such atrocities?
The singular coercive effect of a discussion of the matters covered in 1233 would be to have the patient, due to age and/or changed medical condition decide what they wanted to be done in their care. Just how many of these medical professionals could be corrupted to become "Angels of Death" ala Mengele for the good of the country? There are more than enough legitimate issues to address in this and subsequent legislative proposals without this type of political, extreme propaganda.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Iranian Elections
Ayatollah Khamenei spoke (C-Span translation) at Tehran University about the Iranian election and the aftermath of demonstrations. He praised the 85% turnout of some 40 million citizens as proof of the Iranian people’s belief in and trust of the Iranian Revolutionary government. He argued that if the Iranian people were not supporters of the existing revolution they would not have voted. The people had shown their trust in the democratic process of the Revolution. This thesis was central to a presentation for national and international impact. The Ayatollah described each of the principal presidential candidates as long time members, in good standing, of the Revolutionary establishment, a point he argued further spoke to the legitimacy and strength of the existing form of government. Demonstrations were counter-revolutionary and should cease, in large measure, because there are existing legal avenues for challenging “specific” aspects of the voting. Demonstrations might also, he warned, have the unintended consequences of violence and death for which political leaders would be held accountable. Khamenei repeatedly warned about the overt and covert counter-revolutionary actions of the evil nations of the United States and England.
Khamenei spoke as a leader concerned about the increasing commitment to and successes of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and in cooperation with Pakistan. Iran is certainly concerned about the strength and intentions of Israel and the Sunni kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Khamenei and the ruling council were not about to alter the ruling paradigm at a time when any change might well be considered by its “enemies” as a weakening of the Islamic/Shia control. The results of the election, accordingly, were always predetermined though pretense of the debates, speeches and rhetoric gave hope to the Iranian people and the World of democratic change. Khamenei explicitly gave his blessing to Ahmadinejad’s policies including the nuclear issues.
Each of the candidates were in fact chosen and blessed by Khamenei and his ruling council prior to the elections. An honest election might have created a circumstance supporting our hope to change the rhetoric and alter the stated objectives of Ahmadinejad. I doubt it. I am merely a reader of current events with no particular experience or book learning about the Middle East but it appears to me that the forces at work across the Middle East from Gaza to India are too volatile and premised on ethnic and national phobias for any government to drift away from the existing fortress each occupies. Enlightened policy by the United States, foremost in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, over an extended period of time is the only basis of hope.
Khamenei spoke as a leader concerned about the increasing commitment to and successes of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and in cooperation with Pakistan. Iran is certainly concerned about the strength and intentions of Israel and the Sunni kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Khamenei and the ruling council were not about to alter the ruling paradigm at a time when any change might well be considered by its “enemies” as a weakening of the Islamic/Shia control. The results of the election, accordingly, were always predetermined though pretense of the debates, speeches and rhetoric gave hope to the Iranian people and the World of democratic change. Khamenei explicitly gave his blessing to Ahmadinejad’s policies including the nuclear issues.
Each of the candidates were in fact chosen and blessed by Khamenei and his ruling council prior to the elections. An honest election might have created a circumstance supporting our hope to change the rhetoric and alter the stated objectives of Ahmadinejad. I doubt it. I am merely a reader of current events with no particular experience or book learning about the Middle East but it appears to me that the forces at work across the Middle East from Gaza to India are too volatile and premised on ethnic and national phobias for any government to drift away from the existing fortress each occupies. Enlightened policy by the United States, foremost in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, over an extended period of time is the only basis of hope.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Judging the Judge
I am increasingly sickened by the political rhetoric regarding Judge Sotomayor as exploited by the shallow, histrionic “news” media. The latest “reporting” and “analysis” of two comments by Judge Sotomayor is ridiculous in emphasis and baseless in relevance. Judge Sotomayor has some thirty years of public service as an attorney in varied roles. She has through those years openly presented herself, her integrity, her competence, her judgment, her self-control, her intelligence, and her grasp of the law. As an assistant district attorney she made judgment calls on who would be prosecuted and what charges they would face. In the prosecution of these cases her character, demeanor and integrity were open to the scrutiny of the public, the defense bar, the media and the judges before who the cases were tried. In private practice the scrutiny continued by the courts, the New York Bar Association, her clients and, at times again, the public. Sitting as a federal District Court judge, her personal character and grasp of the law would have manifest itself repeatedly in the relatively fast paced, pressure filled dynamic of public trials. As a federal appellate judge her written opinions over the years provide another opportunity for reasoned analysis of her record. I do not know what will surface as the result of the now commencing political process but I do know that it is utterly preposterous to extract two sentences out the context of her career to rationally conclude anything of relevance.
In one of these statements she spoke of the difference in the functions of a trial court from those of the appellate courts. Trial courts deal with the facts and the applicable law in a unique circumstance. In her comment she explicitly referred to the law as “percolating” through the federal appellate courts. She did not suggest that it was a responsibility of any court to “make new law.” Judge Sotomayor correctly referred to policy formulation as a function of appellate courts. Appellate courts put form to the law in response to changed conditions and clarify and/or apply existing precedent to new factual situations, all of which impact cases and situations outside the particular case being decided.
Her second comment at issue seemed to suggest that a person of varied, life experience might make a better judge then one of limited life experience. I agree. Of course, personal experience must be coupled with other qualities, such as, a deep sense of fairness, intelligence capable of understanding legal concepts, and a self-controlled demeanor all hopefully underlying a confident wisdom. Many judges, though there are exceptions, however have risen to that position in a social and professional context dominated by “good old boys” of strikingly similar backgrounds. In my thirty years as an attorney I have found it more the exception than the rule that existing judicial selection processes elevate a man or woman to the bench personally and professionally suited to the task. The search for truth in a trial court and the desire for justice in all courts are played out in crucibles where human emotions, tragedies, ambitions, dreams and expectations are compressed into a formal, legal form. A judge of limited exposure to and appreciation for the realities of life is less likely to correctly or adequately evaluate the facts of the case. The stamping of legal principles unto formless facts of a case would be a relatively easy process for most competent attorneys. Bringing Justice to the process requires a judge of substantive human and legal capacity.
In one of these statements she spoke of the difference in the functions of a trial court from those of the appellate courts. Trial courts deal with the facts and the applicable law in a unique circumstance. In her comment she explicitly referred to the law as “percolating” through the federal appellate courts. She did not suggest that it was a responsibility of any court to “make new law.” Judge Sotomayor correctly referred to policy formulation as a function of appellate courts. Appellate courts put form to the law in response to changed conditions and clarify and/or apply existing precedent to new factual situations, all of which impact cases and situations outside the particular case being decided.
Her second comment at issue seemed to suggest that a person of varied, life experience might make a better judge then one of limited life experience. I agree. Of course, personal experience must be coupled with other qualities, such as, a deep sense of fairness, intelligence capable of understanding legal concepts, and a self-controlled demeanor all hopefully underlying a confident wisdom. Many judges, though there are exceptions, however have risen to that position in a social and professional context dominated by “good old boys” of strikingly similar backgrounds. In my thirty years as an attorney I have found it more the exception than the rule that existing judicial selection processes elevate a man or woman to the bench personally and professionally suited to the task. The search for truth in a trial court and the desire for justice in all courts are played out in crucibles where human emotions, tragedies, ambitions, dreams and expectations are compressed into a formal, legal form. A judge of limited exposure to and appreciation for the realities of life is less likely to correctly or adequately evaluate the facts of the case. The stamping of legal principles unto formless facts of a case would be a relatively easy process for most competent attorneys. Bringing Justice to the process requires a judge of substantive human and legal capacity.
Friday, March 27, 2009
My Friend Proposes "term limits" for Congress ...
I am reminded of another method for limiting legislative abuses:
In the ancient republic of the Locrains "[a] Locrain who proposed any new law stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord round his neck, and if the law was rejected the innovator was instantly strangled." Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Forty-fourth Chapter.
In the ancient republic of the Locrains "[a] Locrain who proposed any new law stood forth in the assembly of the people with a cord round his neck, and if the law was rejected the innovator was instantly strangled." Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Forty-fourth Chapter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)