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.