A Fool Speaks of Combat

 One Eliot Cohen has written an opinion piece in the Washington Post this January 9th.  It is a criticism of the appointment of former Senator Chuck Hagel to become the Secretary of Defense. You can look the article up if you wish but I have no desire to further publish this man's writing.  I will focus on only two lines because having read them I was immediately held in astonishment and anger.  My astonishment grew when I researched and found out Cohen's background, a search I will again leave to you.

"Does combat service uniquely produce empathy with the troops, an awareness of the horrors of wounds and violent death? Visits to a military hospital will bring one to that. " This is the statement, to be respectful of his career, of an academician. This is also, to be accurate, the statement of a fool who has never served as an infantryman in life and death combat. Deficient as he is in judgment and understanding, he is adept at rhetorical babble. Ask a soldier or veteran about the pride in wearing a Combat Infantryman Badge such as the one Hagel earned. Ask a veteran who has been shot at or blown into the air with metal fragments piercing his body and tearing off the head of the man next to him just what comparison there is in a "Bob Hope" walk down a hospital ward. I am surprised that Cohen, someone who has purported to have studied generic "war" would make such an inane comparison. I am perplexed as to how someone holding such a view could be accepted as some sort of expert in military matters. I am angered and insulted, as an Infantry combat veteran as is Hagel, by his statement. Someone sitting on a Congressional panel before which he will undoubtedly testify should demand an apology on behalf of combat veterans before accepting his credentials on anything much less war.

Sent To Rep. Eric Cantor Today

As a senior citizen, combat veteran, attorney and resident of your District, I am disgusted and angry that you persist in leading an unjustifiable obstruction to reasoned governance. 

I see the Senate bill that you are considering today as a step in the direction of improving the confidence of the markets, the businesses, the citizens and the world in the ability of our Democracy to govern itself.  Neither "side" is celebrating the substance of the Senate Bill but the people in the District that you represent deserve to feel that YOU can compromise for the general welfare.  The ideological golems and sycophants they seduce are far outnumbered by the working and middle class in our District.  The 41% who voted against you this last time will, I assure you, grow in ranks unless you show that you understand your responsibility to ALL.  And I will work vigorously to see you defeated if you do not.

As a long-time "Independent" I have been pushed to the Left increasingly over the last three years by histrionic lies, distortions and ideological obstructionism that you either fostered or silently countenanced.  I hope for, no, I demand your enlightenment to your approach to governing and your re-assessment of the relative value to this District and to our Democracy of your own personal political ambition.

Virginia Governor Considers Armed Teachers

"I think that’s a reasonable discussion that ought to be had,” he said."  "Reasonable" is defined as "based on good sense."  The arming of school administrators is not based on good sense.  A lethal weapon in the hands of a minimally trained person who's capacity to shoot, even in self-defense, to kill another individual would be highly problematic is not a reasonable alternative.  No matter how it may look in the movies, it is not a normal human capacity to face another and shoot to kill.  Range shooting will not provide any assurance of such accuracy at a moving, threatening target that innocents would be safe from their "protector."  Police officers are trained and trained again and again to face threatening situations to provide choices exercising good judgment. Distinguishing an angry parent from a deadly threat is not a task for an inexperienced teacher.  Should a threat occur at a school the responding police officers, some in civilian clothes, would be forced to encounter a situation with one or more armed criminals and one or more school administrators, each armed as well while scared and scattered throughout the premises.  Putting the innocents and the first responders in these situations is not reasonable.

Gov. McDonnell, I suspect, considers this proposal reasonable because he accepts the virtual reality packaged by the NRA and its proponents.  It is the core issue facing us today as to whether we will choose to break from this conceived matrix.  To those who recognize the reality of the carnage around us, it is irrational to answer gun violence with more guns.  To those who choose to live within the NRA matrix, the arming of school administrators is rational and reasonable.  I am reminded of the story of two Nazi SS officers walking near the gas ovens in some unnamed concentration camp.  They discuss various alternative ways to improve capacity within the ovens.  To them the discussion, as it is circumscribed by their constructed matrix of "final solution," is of reasonable alternatives and is rational.  To anyone outside and in the real world of moral values the discussion is wholly irrational.

The deaths of our children have been too horrible and the lives of those who remain are too precious to be valued within an irrational, packaged NRA matrix.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/mcdonnell-says-idea-of-armed-school-officials-worthy-of-discussion/article_06eed61d-eea9-5050-a797-8e0987687e85.html

Chuck, the Constitution and Assault Weapons

A friend recently sent me a link to a video of Chuck Woolery (an actor) who, with an assault style weapon in his hand, argues in defense of gun ownership.  He begins his argument asserting the Constitution.  Chuck says that "our founding fathers wanted every citizen to be armed equal to the army" for protection against a sovereign bent on destroying our freedoms and they wrote the 2nd Amendment to enforce that protection.  Well, pilgrim, I am about an Abrams tank, Patriot missile and a few dozen hand grenades short of my basic load.  The only "Red Dawn" or Stalin or Hitler in our future is in a paranoid dream.  Believing that the possession of an assault rifle by every American could stop an Adolf is delusional. But we can look at the possibility. How would this new Adolf takeover here?  One way would be for "Big Brother" to be elected by the vote of a majority of our citizens.  By one count there are 207,643,594 eligible voters in the U.S.  So assuming they all vote (not likely) then 103,821,798, 50% plus one, citizens would have voted Adolf into office.  I'll grant you that there are times when chunks of the electorate appear stupid to me.  But, that's a whole lot of stupidity,  Yet we, being in a small segment of the 103,821,796 minority, might feel the need to rebel and, having our assault weapons cleaned and ready, we charge.

But, it's not likely that we charge, because we fundamentally believe in a democracy.  Right?  And our belief in democracy is greater then our belief in a right to bear arms because we bear arms to protect the existence of our democracy.  So, let's say these 103,821,798 also vote Adolf's cronies into power in Congress.  A couple of Supreme Court appointments and it is OVER for our democracy.  Of course, the murder of democracy would have to take place within a two year period before the next elections which could change the control of Congress.   Ahhh, you say, what if both parties are evil??  I'll save that for later.

Now putting laws and threat of impeachment aside, let's suppose that Adolf takes extraordinary executive control of the country by something like presidential edict.  He or she (Ohhh, yes, they too can be evil) would probably try to maintain citizen support while suppressing dissension and individual rights first by trickery (WMD's somewhere in our neighborhoods) or bribery (darn entitlements!). That failing or insufficient for Adolf's ego, he declares martial law.  So Adolf now sits in the White House surrounded by merely 40 or 50 suck-ups as his enforcers.

Now all occurred while the also evil left-wing media (or maybe it's a right wing Adolf??) does nothing but support a left wing Adolf.  There is no Fox News (or MSNBC) to inform citizens.  There are no bloggers, tweeters, or internet from which the "truth" that will keep us free can be taken.  All occurred without vigorous opposition from politicians and their parties.  The local, state and federal law enforcement officers, the ones who live with their families down the street, would have to be expected to bow to the orders of a dictator with oath, law and conscience forgotten.  And when someone must go out to enforce martial law, the leadership of the Army and the Marines will, damning the Constitution they swore to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic, take to the streets and shoot us.

Unless we have an assault rifle.

Or maybe we see the imposition of one or more taxes or the type of health care or the hunting restriction on baited fields or whatever single or multiple government action as too intrusive, abrasive, unnecessary or stupid.  Petitioning, picketing, debating, compromising, and even our massing together to vote is just not enough to bring about a change to our way of thinking.  G. Washington himself led an Army to repress a tax revolt.  So there must be something very special about a democracy and about it's right to defend itself against a minority. Putting aside the issue of just who the fuck you think you are to impose any personal belief by force, I reckon nothing can be done. 

Unless we have an assault rifle.

I am a gun owner and support gun possession under reasonable regulation.  Canada, I understand, requires a gun purchaser to come in with two others who will attest to the purchaser's character before the sale can be completed. That seems to be one reasonable requirement.  If I haven't stopped an intruder or two with eight rounds in one clip I shouldn't own a gun.  Large capacity magazines should be restricted.  If I need to buy more than one firearm in a thirty day period, unless a strictly licensed dealer/collector, I may need to see a mental health provider and seriously rethink my Christmas shopping choices for the family.  I see NO rational excuse for general ownership of assault rifles.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a very Happy New Year to all.

"DIA sending hundreds more spies overseas"

Two factors appear to drive the DIA expansion, the "convergence of the military and intelligence agencies that has blurred their once-distinct missions" and "a rare syncing of personalities and interests among top officials at the Pentagon and CIA, many of whom switched from one organization to the other to take their current jobs." A definition of "war" had been promoted for internal political objectives and is now accepted without challenge. This "war" includes no bounds of territory or time. Continuing to expand within this unlimited universe, makes sense only to a mind unwilling to challenge its developing paradigms.

This expansion of the DIA is not the issue. It merely begs the question of the legitimacy of the "new war." The use of drones, unlimited detentions and a myriad of other methods within this "war" are changing our culture, our society, our morality. "Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected...." Thucydides

From a practical perspective, the expanded DIA may now complement CIA actions while we are at this "war." Once someone in power declares this "war" ended it will be very difficult to cut these missions and manpower. Once the "crossover" of officials and personnel between the two has ended or these veterans of our two recent, real wars have retired, the relationships between the CIA and DIA will breakdown. Each will work to self-justify dominance and existence. Multiple intelligence agencies operating clandestine "information" seekers worked during a real WW II. It was obvious after that war that one agency should have sole authority. It is obvious now as well. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/dia-to-send-hundreds-more-spies-overseas/2012/12/01/97463e4e-399b-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html

Benghazi - Some Truths

OK my friend, this will be a bit long but I expect that you would want a fair response.   You have presented a poorly veiled allegation about deception regarding the administration's public statements about the 9/11/12 attack on the Consulate in Benghazi. [Among others your email of 11/14] In this you echo the statements of John McCain and assorted denizens from the depths of the Far Right.  One Republican Congressman explicitly called the president a liar.  Again, while attempting to bring myself back to the Center, I am pushed back to the Left by what appear clear to me as distortions, fabrications and political garbage.  But let's go with McCain. 

(1)  McCain begins his argument by addressing the public comments of UN Ambassador Susan Rice.  Specifically:

"There is no doubt five days later what this attack was and for — look, I was on "Face the Nation" that Sunday. Right after her came the president of the Libyan National Assembly who said this was al-Qaeda. Everybody knew that. So she went out and told the American people something that was patently false and defied common sense.”

— Sen. John McCain on "Fox and Friends,"  Nov. 14, 2012

  

 “When she presented the case absolutely this was a flash mob. Look at the reruns because I happened to have been there that morning.... The casual observer knew there was no demonstration.  There was no demonstration, so you couldn't have known that to start with.”

 — McCain, on “CBS This Morning,” Nov. 14

So let's look at the statement that McCain explicitly referred to as the basis and starting point of the deception.

"[O]n CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sept. 16.  [Ambassador Rice] spoke just after the president of the Libyan National Assembly said there is “no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”

BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador — our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he [the Libyan president of the National Assembly] says that this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you had been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?
SUSAN RICE: Well, Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch, led by the FBI that has begun. 
SCHIEFFER: But they are not there yet.
RICE : They are not on the ground yet but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation.
So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what — it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. 
But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
RICE: We do not — we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
SCHIEFFER : Do you agree or disagree with him that al-Qaeda had some part in this?
RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean, I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al-Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccains-claims-about-susan-rices-comments-on-the-libya-attack/2012/11/15/e6590650-2eb1-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_blog.html

(2)   McCain has also stated that Rice had used talking points from the White House and not the CIA as the basis of her public comments clearly suggesting political manipulation from the White House. [see "On the Record" site below]   However, he is again wrong.
"In a closed-door session with the House Intelligence committee, Mike Morell [Ceputy CIA Director] said Rice was provided with an unclassified version of events at the U.S. mission in Benghazi ... The assessment concluded that a spontaneous protest over an anti-Muslim video had evolved into an attack on the American consulate, a description that Rice presented in television interviews the Sunday morning after the attack."  "Five days after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice described what precipitated the deadly incident based on initial intelligence that later proved incorrect, the deputy CIA director told Congress on Thursday." 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/susan-rice-libya_n_2141392.html

These were the CIA talking points prepared on Sept. 15: 

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations. This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

(3)   In his interview "On the Record on Fox" on November 14th McCain dismissed earlier Republican matters that he felt comparable in some way saying "Watergate was about a break in.  Iran-Contra was about a shipment of arms."  This statement doesn't merit discussion.  But, then McCain went on to specify the exact times of the "deceptive," "false" and, certainly, "evil" fabric of lies by the administration.   Only the last dated September 25th merits any comment.  

"Could I just remind you real quick -- September 21, in the Rose Garden, he said it was, Quote, "acts of terror".  That same night, he said to Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes," its too early to know exactly how this came about.  On September 20th, we're still doing an investigation. September 24th, on "The View," we're still doing an investigation.  And then before the United Nations on September 25th, "a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/11/15/mccain-obama-were-not-picking-anybody-we-want-answers-and-buck-stops-your-desk-mr-preside

Going back to the text of the President's speech at the UN, if you care, you will find that the president addressed the Benghazi attack at the beginning of the speech.  Later, after raising other matters, the president spoke of the Arab Spring and the difficulty of transitioning to democracy.  And he said then the comment extracted by McCain:

"In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others. That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world."  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/25/did-obama-stand-up-for-a-free-society-at-the-un0.html

In the two weeks immediately preceding the president's speech protests over the film broke out in nearly 20 countries.  The context of the comment, while chronologically and indirectly including the Benghazi attack, is substantially directed at the broader issue of "tolerate freedom for others." 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/anti-american-protests-over-film-enter-4th-day.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

The Petraeus Affair

Another concern for the military and for investigation in the aftermath of the Petraeus Affair should be the status of counterintelligence monitoring of those manipulating access to command levels at an installation like MacDill AFB.  Dinner parties in DC or NYC are normally approached with caution for security.  Information so far known about this couple and how they just popped into town and, with suspect finances, began entertaining flag officers should have raised security concerns and not peckers.

Hope #1

I hope that Speaker Boehner can effectively lead his House Republicans over ideological purity as President Obama can effectively lead Democrats over ideological expectations.

Despicable Koch Brothers

The fear mongering of the Right Wing has now been directly assumed by the oligarchs. The foundation for this having been laid over the last four years, by directed propaganda of fear at the elderly, of lies and distortions of the president's medical reforms, and by the inciting of anti-Islamic fervor, encouraging homophobic cultural anxieties beyond religious contexts, deliberate state legislative enactments to disenfranchise voters and destroy collective bargaining by citizens, branding of Hispanic Americans as suspect and, among more, defending the Supreme Court's expansive definition of "person" with its effect of the diminution of the free speech of the human person/citizen. AND NOW are these oligarchs, themselves, working to put their lackey, Romney, over the top by explicitly threatening workers' livelihoods and families. OR are they acting out of desperation. Either way it is despicable. WAKE UP CITIZENS! 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/03/romney-voter-intimidation-businesses-bain_n_2068827.html

Registered Domestic Geese

A friend presents the following for comment:  In the State of Oregon, a company that offers medical insurance to the spouse and family of employees must also offer coverage to cohabiting same-sex couples when one is employed by the company.  The firm is not, however, required to offer that same coverage to an opposite-sex couple.  In olden days, what was good for the goose was good for the gander, in Oregon regarding medical coverage, it's better to be two gooses or two ganders.  Doesn't seem right, does it?

And I responded: 

OK. You caught me in fit of boredom, so to your question "Does it seem right?" I'll have to say "It depends."  In Oregon, to quote one source, "Since 2008, same-sex couples who register as domestic partners in Oregon  have had the same rights as married couples when it comes to paying state income taxes, making end-of-life decisions for a critically ill partner or passing assets to heirs." See, http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/07dec/newlaws.html ; And Oregon has relaxed marijuana laws though I am not sure of the relevance.

The definition for "domestic partner" excludes male/female relationships.  http://www.co.marion.or.us/CO/records/ddp.htm. ; Registration must be at a local county "marriage office" and the two are then subject to judgments of dissolution, annulment or legal separation.  In other words, it appears that a long term commitment as "domestic partner" is envisioned by the parties and the state.  And the company that you refer to, I expect, uses the "registered domestic partner" requirement and not simply "co-habitation" twosomes.  If they allow benefits only to same sex roommates it would, first of all, be dumb and ... well, just dumb.  However, given Oregon law and citizen attitude equating "registered domestic partners" with married couples, allowing the benefits for "registered domestic partners" does have a righteousness about it.

Now, assuming that life has continued generally the same between males and females as in our youth, most (many?) who cohabit do so knowing that they do not HAVE to nor WANT to make a "ball and chain" commitment to the cohabiting partner.  "Friends With Privileges" is not the same as long term commitment.  How do you distinguish the two?  Changing the law to allow for a sort of modified male/female civil commitment equal in rights as in marriage but calling it something else might work. But that sounds dumb as well.

 In sum, as to the goose/gander issue, geese are monogamous but one might expect either the goose or the gander to wander amidst the gaggle while leaving it to Snowball and Napoleon to work out the legal structure.

 

Respect

The headline read "Romney Chokes Up Explaining How He Met Former SEAL Killed in Benghazi Attack" and the story, as quoted from Romney, described his meeting with Glen Doherty, a former seal killed defending the consulate in Benghazi.  Romney finished his tearful "remembrance":  “They didn’t hunker down where they were in safety – they rushed there to go help,” Romney concluded with emotion.  “This is the American way – we go where there’s trouble. We go where we’re needed.  And right now we’re needed– right now, the American people need us.”  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-chokes-up-explaining-how-he-met-one-of-the-seals-killed-in-benghazi-attack/

"But Romney’s not only telling the story against the wishes of Doherty’s family, he’s also mischaracterizing his encounter with the former SEAL. According to Glen Doherty’s longtime friend, Doherty said Romney had introduced himself four times in the span of less than 30 minutes, saying it was "pathetic" ... and that ... Glen believed it to be very insincere and stale.”  Doherty's mother, interviewed by a radio station, said “I don’t trust Romney. He shouldn’t make my son’s death part of his political agenda. It’s wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama,”.  Romney ignored the mother's request to stop using her son's memory until national media picked up the story.  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1142665/-Romney-ignores-request-from-mother-of-Navy-Seal-killed-in-Benghazi-to-stop-using-son-in-stump-speech?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29  So breaking it Mr. Romney deliberately and repeatedly used the heroic death of Glen Doherty in an apparently concocted "remembrance" of an earlier encounter between the two of them.

The more egregious conduct by Romney in my opinion was to suggest in this instance that his political ambition in entering this presidential campaign was comparable in courage to the heroic effort of the former Navy SEALs in rushing to protect the consulate staff.  In the recent past many attacks were made here and elsewhere from the Right arguing that President Obama had claimed personal, political credit for the actions of SEALS and other Special Ops at the killing of bin Laden.  What do these same voices from the Right say now about this political message from Romney.  Or will they spin or turn their backs.

Presidential Debate Round One

The President's performance was disappointing, at the least. The President defended his record and argued for reelection. What he did not do is show that he appreciates that this election is about applications of opposing values and ideology and not merely a choice between men. Fighting for those who are expected to suffer under an opposing ideology he should have fought with passion for them/us and at least fired back; there was so much ammunition available. Tragically, a vast segment of the Great American Public having seen this and needing no fact or logic will say "Duh!" and zombie-like cast a vote. We needed a Chavez or a Tony Zale.

National Identity Cards - No Thanks.

A friend had asked my opinion on the issuance of "national identity cards" in the United States.  I answered: 

First of all, there is no need for a national identity card. 
Assuming a conjured "need" . . . fundamentally I am concerned about my Privacy and Freedom. 
 
The structures of law and society will expect and demand control of biometric and centralized databases.  
Leave yours at home and what would that mean as to the level of suspicion at a traffic stop and police response [assume you are a teenager - an eighteen year old returning veteran, a Sikh, or other].  The exposure of personal information:  birth, residence, your personal ID Number [for convenient theft],status [citizen by birth/naturalization/fraud], veteran status [disabled/combat experience (suspect PTSD!)], occupation, blood or parts donor, martial status, felon status, religion [name of Imam], etc.)  required on a card which would be called for by or at TSA at the airport, Wal Mart check out, neighbors, prospective in-laws, Catholic confessionals, presidential debates, the blond at the end of the bar and others.

Biometric information, such as fingerprints and DNA, could lead to discrimination in job, insurance, marriage license applications, death panels, paternity suits and with the blond at the end of the bar.

Personally, I have (I think) cut off tracking on my phone and will never use a "fast pass" by any name.  I shudder when I use my GPS.  Clandestine implantation of tracking devices, forced/suggested dispersion/relocation of segments of the population [let's just say "workers" for now], data based reconstruction of personal lifestyle choices [travels, purchases, etc.].  As with all technology there will be advances in content and uses. My imagination does not grasp the potential abuses a government might exercise with such potential controls.  But, I am confident that we may not like the policy.

We as citizens have already let too many of our rights be diminished in the name of "security while at war."  A policy of national identity card would not be a direct, immediate loss of a Right but, it establishes the context for potential abuse or loss of rights.  To continue that surrender in the name of "immigration policy" is irrational.  But then, my experience, training and education makes me careful [ok paranoid].  We are weakening our personal liberties as citizens as we open our role as sovereign to slow destruction.

A Few Reasons Why I Have No Choice

I cannot accept the (pick one or more) irresponsible refusal to compromise for the common good; calling of greed a positive character trait; desire to return to the failed policies of tax breaks for a minority and deregulation; serving of an oligarchy; use of lying as a political imperative; valuing of capitalism, a mere economic system, over truth, equality, justice, and moral and ethical values that have been the core aspirations of our experiment in democracy. As a rational, Independent citizen, I just don't see any choice now other than the Democrat party.

Republican parents

On Wednesday the speakers at the Republican convention proudly and righteously described the humble, difficult beginnings of their parents experience in America. Thinking back to the struggles of my own parents, I wonder which political party those parents had put their trust and belief in during those years toward achievement. Want to bet it wasn't the Republican party for those other than Romney.

Or So It Should Be

"Robertson Reprimands "Right"

"Regent University's founder and chancellor, Dr. M.G. "Pat" Robertson yesterday warned the far Right of the Republican Party that its efforts have brought a dire warning in the form of Tropical Storm Isaac.  In the book of Genesis in the Christian Bible Isaac had been taken to be slaughtered by his father Abraham until saved by Divine intercession.  Robertson, referring to these passages in the Bible, said that it was clear to him that God was watching the Republican Party about to be sacrificed by the Far Right and that only a rejection of those extremes would bring about the Lord's intercession in the coming elections   He went on to point to the fact that "Isaac is transliteration of the Hebrew term Yiṣḥāq which literally means "He laughs/will laugh."  With a voice trembling he warned that the Lord was "laughing at the Party while still casting a dire warning."  Robertson refused to answer when asked if God may simply be laughing at the Party Ticket of Romney/Ryan. "All was not anger", Robertson said as he recalled that Isaac had dug a lot of wells suggesting to Robertson that the Party still had some vitality should it return to a root effort at digging more wells.  "Without question," he tearfully said, "as Isaac had stayed, unlike other Biblical Patriarchs, in Canaan, so should the Republican Party stay within the bounds of rational discourse and compromise for the good of America."  Robertson continued in somewhat disjointed references to the fact of the Qu ran's mentioning of Isaac some fifteen times and the science fiction works of Isaac Asimov as broader warnings by God to America."

Please, not again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/world/asia/in-dwindling-afghan-war-air-power-has-become-a-way-of-life.html?hp

"Weary of the costs of a long war, Western military forces have already begun withdrawing and handing greater security responsibility to Afghan forces. One worry, several officers said, is that these air operations have become essential, necessary for ground units that are operating in contested areas of Afghanistan and hoping to maintain influence, or even survive. And the Afghan government has nothing to match the role they play."

Forty years ago the United States, weary of the costs of a long war, withdrew forces handing greater security responsibilities to the South Vietnamese. Air operations had become essential to holding back the North which had begun to mass its units. The South Vietnamese had nothing to match our air power.

Nixon, to force the South to sign the Paris Peace Accords, promised that any violation by the North would be met by substantial US Air and Naval support. The United States turned its back, forgetting that promise. There was no honor then. There was only shame.

Draw your own lesson.

Gaffes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-political-gaffe-will-be-fodder-in-general-election/2012/06/10/gJQAwZaSSV_story.html

Though presented parenthetically, one truthful sentence sums up the story: "(The point Obama was trying to make, however inartfully, was that the private sector was performing far better than the public sector.)" The reporting that follows should include (if any further reporting is necessary) such clarity of completeness. Instead, the media will feed the Republican propaganda premised on the president's statement unchallenged, uncorrected and unedited to the public. Honest, complete and truthful journalism, reporting and editing, has almost fully succumbed to the greed of market share. Repetition of any political rhetoric from the Right or Left without inclusion of "the rest of the story," i.e., the full truth available, makes a mockery of the First Amendment privilege of the Press.

Of course, spin, twist and alteration is expected from political opponents in situations such as this. However, it will be the allowance of such distortion and retention of viability by the Press (exclude commentators and bloggers from that definition) that ends in deception destructive to a democracy.

draft dodging hypocrite

"Draft dodging hypocrite."  These words may not have significance to generations of Americans too young to recall personally the war in Viet Nam. These words will have continuing significance to the men who served in the 1960's after having been drafted and especially those who served in Viet Nam.  They should also have meaning to the men and women who have served in uniform then and since.  Mr. Romney is a draft dodging hypocrite.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/05/romneys-lack-of-military-service-faces-scrutiny.html?ESRC=eb.nl

CIA Memoirs

  
"CIA memoirs offer revelations and settle scores among spies"  http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cia-memoirs-offer-revelations-and-settle-scores-among-spies/2012/06/04/gJQAVGTVEV_story.html

"[T]he ex-spies want a little credit, even if it means dabbling in public self-glorification, something seemingly antithetical to the agency’s ethos."  The "silent boots on the ground" of the CIA, as I have called them, whether in paramilitary or classic intelligence gathering roles appear to be performing well in the defense of our country.  Yet, the distinguishing character of the clandestine service of quiet, personal pride in duty honorably performed has given way to "public self-gratification" to a degree not seen in the past.  This article can only point to isolated past writings and fails to show that they generally were viewed with contempt and not as precedent by professionals at the time. 

The ethos may have degraded because of growing disdain among career professionals directed at the agency bureaucracy brought on by evolution (from the Soviet Union) or corruption (to Iraq) of mission identification and value.  A cause may be the dangerously enhanced use of contract personnel who, though sitting side by side, by definition have chosen the moneyed rather than the principled path of direct government service into and within intelligence work.  Assuredly, a cause is the changed culture from which many of these current writers came into the agency.  The direct line has broken from generations who appreciated and sought to emulate the selfless service of those in the clandestine service of the OSS or, for example, the case-officer who in Prague in 1967 bent to pick up an agent's dead drop emplaced prior to the Soviet tank and squad moving near.  These were men and women who served as Director Patraeus recently said, "never for acclaim, always for country."   

It may be somewhat unfair to brand the whole service because of these memoirs yet, if the ethos within were still strong in "never for acclaim," it would be that compact of silent duty which should have been the greatest dissuasion from self-aggrandizement.   If the ethos of the clandestine services has so changed it does not just signal a sad day for America it manifests a dangerous degradation of character within the agency and America itself.