The article on NYTimes.com read simply "Israeli Gaza Strike Kills 225" and wounds some 700 Palestinians. The article gave an explanation for the attack: "But in some ways the [upcoming Israeli] elections have made it impossible for officials like Mr. Barak not to react, because the public has grown anxious and angry over the rocket fire, which while causing no recent deaths and few injuries is deeply disturbing for those living near Gaza."
The world has for years been "anxious and angry" and has experienced terrorism and death while Israeli governments alternate factions cold and colder to resolution and Palestinian "authorities" feign or hide behind claims of sincere desires for resolution. And each side must continue to use the imposition of terror to express the validity of its position.
Neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli people deserve death because of the intransigence of their respective rulers and the criminally inept policies of the United States. This visceral reaction on my part to this day's news must be followed with a broader analysis though it will benefit only the writer.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Government in Illinois
Chicago/Illinois politicians generally hone their criminal talents from birth within the party system. They should be given some credit for the unswerving commitment to a life of cutting edge bribery. These are not amateurs at corruption but they are, invariably, so greedy as to cross the line into stupidity. Growing up in Chicago under the wing of the old Mayor Daley the corruption in the city was systemic. But the city ran exceptionally well with a shadow government of democratic precinct captains and corrupt officials. As a resident driver back then, one knew to have a five or ten dollar bill wrapped around the driver's license on the chance one was stopped for a traffic offense. The corrupt office holders, contractors and appointees picked up the trash, shoveled the snow, cleaned the parks, acquitted the guilty and protected the bookies. But if you didn't especially need justice or honest official conduct, life was calm and stable.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
A note to the ASPCA
I take issue with the decision to place an ASPCA ad calling attention to the great number of animals abandoned during the holidays during the CNN report tonight by Ms. Amanpour on the genocide of humans in Darfur. There is no measure of equality between these two situations. The juxtaposition of these issues by the ASPCA during this program was more than insensitive, it was sickening and obscene. Your organization should be ashamed of this insensitive stupidity.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
End of an Era - Worth Repeating
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected...." Thucydides (circa 420 BCE)
Interesting how "BCE" might also refer to "Bush/Cheney Era.
Merely an Observation
Have you ever waited in a checkout line while a women ahead of you searches through, readjusts, drops and replaces all or a portion of the contents of an oversized shoulder bag? Of course, we all have. We sigh, groan or cuss under our breath but we learn to expect, with a high degree of probability, this activity because such conduct seems to be in the nature of the beast. Apparently, this lesson had been lost on NASA.
'Oh Great': Astronaut Loses Tool Bag During Spacewalk
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 (Associated Press)
HOUSTON — A spacewalking astronaut accidentally let go of her tool bag Tuesday after a grease gun inside it exploded, and helplessly watched as the tote and everything inside floated away.
It was one of the largest items ever to be lost by a spacewalker, and occurred during an unprecedented attempt to clean and lube a gummed-up joint on a solar panel.
Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper was just starting to work on the joint when the mishap occurred.
She said her grease gun exploded, getting the dark gray stuff all over a camera and her gloves. While wiping off herself, the white, backpack-size bag slipped out of her grip, and she lost all her other tools.
"Oh, great," she mumbled.
'Oh Great': Astronaut Loses Tool Bag During Spacewalk
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 (Associated Press)
HOUSTON — A spacewalking astronaut accidentally let go of her tool bag Tuesday after a grease gun inside it exploded, and helplessly watched as the tote and everything inside floated away.
It was one of the largest items ever to be lost by a spacewalker, and occurred during an unprecedented attempt to clean and lube a gummed-up joint on a solar panel.
Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper was just starting to work on the joint when the mishap occurred.
She said her grease gun exploded, getting the dark gray stuff all over a camera and her gloves. While wiping off herself, the white, backpack-size bag slipped out of her grip, and she lost all her other tools.
"Oh, great," she mumbled.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
A Continued Response
The friend answered with his observation that "many were jumping on the Bush-bashing bandwagon." Taking this personally I responded:
"It seems to me that everyone standing in line is not waiting to jump on any "bashing" bandwagon. I think the lines we see are quite simply the growing - though relatively static - lines for unemployment insurance, company grade officer resignations, Veterans care, bank/401K withdrawals, small business/student/home mortgage loans, criminal legal representation (primarily former Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, et al.) and voter registration (OK. This last one has almost all Bush bashing democrats)."
The friend then commented that he felt confident that he could show the democrats at least equally as responsible. And, so I said:
"Generally, you will not get an argument from me. It's an "Imperial Presidency" that I condemn. The elected representatives from both political parties, for most of at least the last 16 or so years, have consistently set the table in Washington so as to ignore, corrupt and devalue our country's higher ideals and the true common good of the people."
The friend then suggested that we might all agree that less government would be better. And, so I felt compelled to add:
"I agree - with a footnote. Cutting federal and state is certainly a very worthy effort. However, the cuts should be well considered. Wholesale chopping that eliminates or guts effective oversight has repeatedly shown human nature or "the market" incapable of sustained, reasoned, fair and legal conduct. The current financial crisis has a genesis in unrestrained greed and overreaching (bottom and top) in the mortgage market and, most significantly, in the derivatives markets where oversight was non-existent. In my own personal experience as a federal criminal prosecutor I saw the aftermath of the lifting of regulatory oversight in the airline industry with wide spread use of counterfeit/surplus repair parts and negligent repair and maintenance. I had ample job security when the savings and loan institutions were taken to account, again, as a direct result of the gutting of effective oversight by elimination of inspection positions and targeted budget constraints. So, I agree with the cutting of the duplicated, ineffective and unnecessary. Yet, until there is an even playing field for each and among all, there must be reasoned oversight. Caveat emptor is not a substitute for "Equal Justice for All."
Wasn't there an old NCO adage to the affect: "The only thing that is done well is that which is inspected."?" [My friend was kind to correct me. "The hero of St. Vith--BG Bruce Clarke wrote in his book for the Commander and Leader that a unit does well that which the commander checks."
This is not Plato, but, it has been cathartic.
"It seems to me that everyone standing in line is not waiting to jump on any "bashing" bandwagon. I think the lines we see are quite simply the growing - though relatively static - lines for unemployment insurance, company grade officer resignations, Veterans care, bank/401K withdrawals, small business/student/home mortgage loans, criminal legal representation (primarily former Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, et al.) and voter registration (OK. This last one has almost all Bush bashing democrats)."
The friend then commented that he felt confident that he could show the democrats at least equally as responsible. And, so I said:
"Generally, you will not get an argument from me. It's an "Imperial Presidency" that I condemn. The elected representatives from both political parties, for most of at least the last 16 or so years, have consistently set the table in Washington so as to ignore, corrupt and devalue our country's higher ideals and the true common good of the people."
The friend then suggested that we might all agree that less government would be better. And, so I felt compelled to add:
"I agree - with a footnote. Cutting federal and state is certainly a very worthy effort. However, the cuts should be well considered. Wholesale chopping that eliminates or guts effective oversight has repeatedly shown human nature or "the market" incapable of sustained, reasoned, fair and legal conduct. The current financial crisis has a genesis in unrestrained greed and overreaching (bottom and top) in the mortgage market and, most significantly, in the derivatives markets where oversight was non-existent. In my own personal experience as a federal criminal prosecutor I saw the aftermath of the lifting of regulatory oversight in the airline industry with wide spread use of counterfeit/surplus repair parts and negligent repair and maintenance. I had ample job security when the savings and loan institutions were taken to account, again, as a direct result of the gutting of effective oversight by elimination of inspection positions and targeted budget constraints. So, I agree with the cutting of the duplicated, ineffective and unnecessary. Yet, until there is an even playing field for each and among all, there must be reasoned oversight. Caveat emptor is not a substitute for "Equal Justice for All."
Wasn't there an old NCO adage to the affect: "The only thing that is done well is that which is inspected."?" [My friend was kind to correct me. "The hero of St. Vith--BG Bruce Clarke wrote in his book for the Commander and Leader that a unit does well that which the commander checks."
This is not Plato, but, it has been cathartic.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
A Response
A friend today sent around an email, apparently in support of the Iraq Invasion by George W. Bush, referring to an "Associated Press article this summer [that] revealed that our troops found 550 metric tons of yellowcake a few miles south of Baghdad in 2003 and kept it secret until recently. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ " I replied as follows:
Interesting but fundamentally irrelevant when considering the manner in which the Bush/Cheney Administration cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence, failed to follow fundamental intelligence procedures of verification (For example: "Curveball") and, when necessary to support its preordained intention to invade Iraq, lied to the American people. The more egregious of these, in my opinion, were the statements, primarily by Cheney, asserting existence of unquestionable evidence of a direct and nefarious connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
This "yellow cake" referred to in the article was stock existing in Iraq prior to 1991. The Bush Administration's repeated dire warnings were of then "current and continuing efforts" by Saddam to obtain uranium. Independent expert conclusions following the invasion and based upon evidence within Iraq (documents, interrogations and interviews) seem to be in agreement that Saddam had stopped efforts to build a WMD program in at least 1991.
We must beat the forces opposing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in a joint effort with nation-building assets from within our own government and from NATO countries, assist in establishing an allied front with the resulting governments against terrorism. When this is completed it will be almost solely the achievement of the United States military command and the military and intelligence forces on the ground. The decision to invade Iraq by Bush was the stupidest decision of any president in my lifetime. The fact that the proffered rationale for the necessity of invasion was false is wholly reprehensible and worthy of continuing condemnation whatever the outcome of the wars. But, that's just my humble opinion.
Interesting but fundamentally irrelevant when considering the manner in which the Bush/Cheney Administration cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence, failed to follow fundamental intelligence procedures of verification (For example: "Curveball") and, when necessary to support its preordained intention to invade Iraq, lied to the American people. The more egregious of these, in my opinion, were the statements, primarily by Cheney, asserting existence of unquestionable evidence of a direct and nefarious connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
This "yellow cake" referred to in the article was stock existing in Iraq prior to 1991. The Bush Administration's repeated dire warnings were of then "current and continuing efforts" by Saddam to obtain uranium. Independent expert conclusions following the invasion and based upon evidence within Iraq (documents, interrogations and interviews) seem to be in agreement that Saddam had stopped efforts to build a WMD program in at least 1991.
We must beat the forces opposing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in a joint effort with nation-building assets from within our own government and from NATO countries, assist in establishing an allied front with the resulting governments against terrorism. When this is completed it will be almost solely the achievement of the United States military command and the military and intelligence forces on the ground. The decision to invade Iraq by Bush was the stupidest decision of any president in my lifetime. The fact that the proffered rationale for the necessity of invasion was false is wholly reprehensible and worthy of continuing condemnation whatever the outcome of the wars. But, that's just my humble opinion.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
An Aside
I must admit that I have been anxious to put pen to paper or, rather, finger to key, given the events and propaganda pervading the media during these closing days of the presidential campaign. For example, I wanted to write about how McCain is being disserved by those running his campaign from my perspective as a target independent swing voter. And, I expect I soon will do that. But, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I have wasted a moment of my time to write to the on-screen personages of a television program that I never watch. After seeing a clip from "The View" and reading associated commentary, I sent the following into the bowels of their website:
"Elizabeth Hasselbeck is correct in her view of the importance of the personal associations chosen by candidates. Of course, there are general issues presented in this presidential election that are important for the electorate to consider. However, the character of the person who would be president is above all other matters the most crucial of these. It is not a "smear" to seriously discuss the associations a candidate choses to maintain in his or her personal and professional life. Recall the discusssions in the past of a candidate's membership in an "all-white" country club or an "all-male" business club. It is one thing to question the weight to be given any relevant issue and a far different matter to deny its relevance entirely. "You are known by the company you keep." Can the others on the show reasonably deny that?"
"Elizabeth Hasselbeck is correct in her view of the importance of the personal associations chosen by candidates. Of course, there are general issues presented in this presidential election that are important for the electorate to consider. However, the character of the person who would be president is above all other matters the most crucial of these. It is not a "smear" to seriously discuss the associations a candidate choses to maintain in his or her personal and professional life. Recall the discusssions in the past of a candidate's membership in an "all-white" country club or an "all-male" business club. It is one thing to question the weight to be given any relevant issue and a far different matter to deny its relevance entirely. "You are known by the company you keep." Can the others on the show reasonably deny that?"
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Gut Reactions
The first debate has just concluded and I can get back to the Cubs game. Since they are losing I’ll try to multi-task and write my initial reaction to the debate. I expected the debate to present the candidates in a forum and within a debate structure that would permit exposure of their comparative knowledge and “performance” skills. No one should make a decision on a candidate based on observations of a television debate. I had very limited expectations of the value of the exercise. This debate lived down to my expectations. First of all, there should have been tighter control of the timing. Each candidate appeared at times to be satisfied with their response but the moderator pushed simply for more of the same. Had the moderator asked a more focused second or third question we would have learned more about the stated position. McCain clearly showed more self-control and appeared the more secure. Sen. Obama frequently showed impatience and an immaturity in his facial expressions, body movements and attempts at interruption when Sen. McCain spoke. Sen. McCain’s expressions were, at worst, paternalistic at times.
Substantively, over an hour was spent discussing the current economic crisis although the debate was scheduled to concern foreign policy. With the relatively unbridled economic discussion there was little time remaining for foreign policy and a good portion of that time was spent on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran. Assuredly, these countries are important for our country and there was a limited time for discussion of Russia. Other important areas of foreign policy were left out completely. I have repeatedly heard their positions on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran and allowing the repetition was of no value to anyone but, possibly, a Van Winkle. I hoped to hear how they perceive and would deal with China, Venezuela, Cuba, Africa, India/Pakistan, India, or how about genocide, globalization, or differentiated Muslim extremism in the world. The debate as structured and controlled was a major disappointment.
During the movement through the channels to the Cubs channel, I heard the talking heads begin to discuss what they thought were the most important issues of criticism of the debate. McCain was expected to “hit a home run” in this debate on foreign policy and in their view he had not, so “points to Obama.” “Obama stood tall.” “Obama held his own.” I should admit that I never got over to Fox. Well, although I disagreed with McCain on a few of the issues and am sympathetic to Obama’s counter positions, I believe McCain was the clear winner of the overall debate. I have no doubt that Sen. Obama will be seen to have won on the economic portion. However, his strength in that portion of the debate is neither his substantive policies nor his abilities. Any perceived victory is purely the result of the effects now felt by Americans of the Bush/Republican debacles. Viewing the overall debate, McCain came across with confidence, knowledge and relevant experience and expressed himself clearly and decisively. Even Sen. Obama repeatedly said that he “agreed with John.” McCain was unnecessarily repetitious at times but a good part of the blame for that was in the structure of the debate and the lack of control by the moderator. Sen. McCain is still the best candidate but he still carries ugly luggage.
Substantively, over an hour was spent discussing the current economic crisis although the debate was scheduled to concern foreign policy. With the relatively unbridled economic discussion there was little time remaining for foreign policy and a good portion of that time was spent on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran. Assuredly, these countries are important for our country and there was a limited time for discussion of Russia. Other important areas of foreign policy were left out completely. I have repeatedly heard their positions on Iraq/Afghanistan and Iran and allowing the repetition was of no value to anyone but, possibly, a Van Winkle. I hoped to hear how they perceive and would deal with China, Venezuela, Cuba, Africa, India/Pakistan, India, or how about genocide, globalization, or differentiated Muslim extremism in the world. The debate as structured and controlled was a major disappointment.
During the movement through the channels to the Cubs channel, I heard the talking heads begin to discuss what they thought were the most important issues of criticism of the debate. McCain was expected to “hit a home run” in this debate on foreign policy and in their view he had not, so “points to Obama.” “Obama stood tall.” “Obama held his own.” I should admit that I never got over to Fox. Well, although I disagreed with McCain on a few of the issues and am sympathetic to Obama’s counter positions, I believe McCain was the clear winner of the overall debate. I have no doubt that Sen. Obama will be seen to have won on the economic portion. However, his strength in that portion of the debate is neither his substantive policies nor his abilities. Any perceived victory is purely the result of the effects now felt by Americans of the Bush/Republican debacles. Viewing the overall debate, McCain came across with confidence, knowledge and relevant experience and expressed himself clearly and decisively. Even Sen. Obama repeatedly said that he “agreed with John.” McCain was unnecessarily repetitious at times but a good part of the blame for that was in the structure of the debate and the lack of control by the moderator. Sen. McCain is still the best candidate but he still carries ugly luggage.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Love Thyself
This is a brief thought regarding the reaction of the media (Letterman included) to the possibility of a delayed presidential debate. Since Sen. McCain announced his desire to go to Washington and delay the debate scheduled for tonight there has been a chorus of wailings from talking heads who are part of the television media. Certainly, McCain's decision warrants a legitimate discussion and debate. Yet, it strikes me that the real basis behind their emphasis and comment is their belief in their own self worth. "They" seem to consider the candidate's selection of the financial crisis as more important then the televised debate as an affront to their perceived position of power and influence. The American people "want to see the candidates together on television." We are the real and essential dynamic of our system, they seem to be saying. They ask how a candidate can refuse to put himself out before fifty million Americans that "we" can provide? They have made this very personal. The correct answer was given by an interviewee on one of these "essentials" when he said that the work to be done for the 300 million Americans was the more important.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Crisis vs. Campaign
The descriptions are frightening to some and seriously troubling to all. “Financial meltdown,” "the most serious financial situation since the Depression,” “crisis” seem to be the milder terms. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve are quoted as saying the situation, if not immediately addressed, could have dire consequences for our Wall Street as well as international markets. They also assert that, unaddressed, the situation would directly harm an American’s ability to maintain her home, his job and savings.
Senator Obama’s staffers contacted the McCain campaign staffers this morning and proposed a joint declaration of principles on the crisis by the candidates which would be presented to Congress and the Bush Administration. Senator McCain called back and, apparently speaking directly with Sen. Obama, agreed with the proposal. Sen. Obama showed initiative and Sen. McCain showed a willingness to adopt a reasonable proposal, even from an opponent.
Later, Senator McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to engage in the resolution of congressional/Administration efforts. In this announcement he asked Sen. Obama to do the same and join him in meeting directly with the President to help resolve the differences between the Administration’s proposal and congressional objections. McCain asked that the debate scheduled for Friday on foreign policy, perceived by a vast majority of knowledgeable people to be a McCain strength, be postponed. McCain’s campaign also announced that he had directed all campaign media efforts on his behalf to cease while this suspension continued. Senator Obama has rejected the McCain concept and said that the joint proposal would be sufficient to get their points across and that the American people were anxious to see the debate. Up until moments ago Democrats, Speaker Pelosi included, today (N.P.R. interview) spoke of a substantial gap between the Administration and Congress. Beginning tonight with the six o’clock news, however, a couple of Democrats, when questioned about the McCain effort, said it wasn’t needed and that an agreement was nearly completed. So sayeth the Dervishes.
“Ride to the sound of the guns," has been around in military lore and tradition for centuries. The sound of the cannons is considered to be where the center of action is on the battlefield. A leader belongs at the place of battle where the outcome may be influenced by the exercise of leadership. In some situations the presence of the leader may be enough to influence the outcome while at other times the leader’s continuing decisions are significant to the outcome. If you need me to state an example of the soundness of this exhortation I suggest you go back to your copy of “People” magazine.
Sen. McCain is “riding to the sound of the guns.” This most important debate on the financial crisis facing this country, at least, in our lifetimes is ongoing in Washington. If there are principles and issues of import to a sitting United States Senator on this issue, that Senator belongs in Washington within the arena fighting for those principles and issues. The idea of sending a document of concerns in lieu of standing and asserting those concerns, debating, negotiating, and compromising where essential for the best interests of our country, is not the action of a leader. Each of these candidates is the presumptive leader of his party and one will inherit the results of this effort. Being the leader of the party includes leading the party. Sen. Obama cannot respond “present” in this crisis. As far as the desire of Americans to see a debate, that position is now overtaken and overwhelmed by the concerns of the citizens about their own and the country's financial future.
The Bush proposal is a mere skeleton yet contains Cheneyesk demands that have to be eliminated. The Congress must report for duty whatever the impact on their political futures. McCain is correct in taking this action in moving to the sound of the guns. Obama presents himself as what we used to refer to as a “base camp warrior.” I refer you down the page to my quotation of Teddy Roosevelt, “[T]he credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena…”
Senator Obama’s staffers contacted the McCain campaign staffers this morning and proposed a joint declaration of principles on the crisis by the candidates which would be presented to Congress and the Bush Administration. Senator McCain called back and, apparently speaking directly with Sen. Obama, agreed with the proposal. Sen. Obama showed initiative and Sen. McCain showed a willingness to adopt a reasonable proposal, even from an opponent.
Later, Senator McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign and returning to Washington to engage in the resolution of congressional/Administration efforts. In this announcement he asked Sen. Obama to do the same and join him in meeting directly with the President to help resolve the differences between the Administration’s proposal and congressional objections. McCain asked that the debate scheduled for Friday on foreign policy, perceived by a vast majority of knowledgeable people to be a McCain strength, be postponed. McCain’s campaign also announced that he had directed all campaign media efforts on his behalf to cease while this suspension continued. Senator Obama has rejected the McCain concept and said that the joint proposal would be sufficient to get their points across and that the American people were anxious to see the debate. Up until moments ago Democrats, Speaker Pelosi included, today (N.P.R. interview) spoke of a substantial gap between the Administration and Congress. Beginning tonight with the six o’clock news, however, a couple of Democrats, when questioned about the McCain effort, said it wasn’t needed and that an agreement was nearly completed. So sayeth the Dervishes.
“Ride to the sound of the guns," has been around in military lore and tradition for centuries. The sound of the cannons is considered to be where the center of action is on the battlefield. A leader belongs at the place of battle where the outcome may be influenced by the exercise of leadership. In some situations the presence of the leader may be enough to influence the outcome while at other times the leader’s continuing decisions are significant to the outcome. If you need me to state an example of the soundness of this exhortation I suggest you go back to your copy of “People” magazine.
Sen. McCain is “riding to the sound of the guns.” This most important debate on the financial crisis facing this country, at least, in our lifetimes is ongoing in Washington. If there are principles and issues of import to a sitting United States Senator on this issue, that Senator belongs in Washington within the arena fighting for those principles and issues. The idea of sending a document of concerns in lieu of standing and asserting those concerns, debating, negotiating, and compromising where essential for the best interests of our country, is not the action of a leader. Each of these candidates is the presumptive leader of his party and one will inherit the results of this effort. Being the leader of the party includes leading the party. Sen. Obama cannot respond “present” in this crisis. As far as the desire of Americans to see a debate, that position is now overtaken and overwhelmed by the concerns of the citizens about their own and the country's financial future.
The Bush proposal is a mere skeleton yet contains Cheneyesk demands that have to be eliminated. The Congress must report for duty whatever the impact on their political futures. McCain is correct in taking this action in moving to the sound of the guns. Obama presents himself as what we used to refer to as a “base camp warrior.” I refer you down the page to my quotation of Teddy Roosevelt, “[T]he credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena…”
Monday, September 22, 2008
Trust me. Again.
Today, President Bush spoke of the economic instability on Wall Street and his approach to Congress for immediate implementation of his proposed response. "The whole world is watching to see if we can act quickly to shore up our markets and prevent damage to our capital markets, businesses, our housing sector, and retirement accounts," Bush said Monday. "Failure to act would have broad consequences far beyond Wall Street. It would threaten small business owners and homeowners on Main Street."
On Monday October 07 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio President Bush also stressed the need for immediate, unquestioning approval of his policy initiative. Our President said then: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud....Understanding the threats of our time, ..., we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."
The current situation calls to mind another quote from this president "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Well, actually, he screwed that up too. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to approach proffered solutions to this mess with intelligence and a real concern for the common good. Congressional Republicans have an opportunity to salvage their honor lost in blind approvals of Bush's policies and Democrats, in control of Congress, have an opportunity to focus their oversight in a credible, timely manner for the common good as they have repeatedly said was their intention. All beware the lobbyists bearing gifts and draft proposals.
On Monday October 07 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio President Bush also stressed the need for immediate, unquestioning approval of his policy initiative. Our President said then: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud....Understanding the threats of our time, ..., we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."
The current situation calls to mind another quote from this president "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Well, actually, he screwed that up too. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to approach proffered solutions to this mess with intelligence and a real concern for the common good. Congressional Republicans have an opportunity to salvage their honor lost in blind approvals of Bush's policies and Democrats, in control of Congress, have an opportunity to focus their oversight in a credible, timely manner for the common good as they have repeatedly said was their intention. All beware the lobbyists bearing gifts and draft proposals.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Decision
I believe that John McCain is the best candidate for the office of the President of the United States. I believe that the Republican Party during the administration of George W. Bush has actively pursued and passively permitted policies contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States and the best interests of this country.
So I sit here angry and try to find something to give me comfort in deciding whether to vote for the best candidate or against his party. The media is of no help. In fact, the cable coverage of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox has been ludicrous in the respective bias of each. The coverage of the old networks has been insignificant. I think that I am a fairly intelligent, educated and well read citizen yet I haven't reached a decision. Assuredly there are differences in the stated proposals “for reform” between the candidates. The party platforms, the candidate speeches, the spin of their talking-heads and the point-counterpoint of the arguments, however, are all mostly hollow when considered in the historic viability of “candidate promises.” The “soul” of each party used to be apparent. I don’t recognize either one now.
I would unhesitatingly support the John McCain of 2000. I am angered that the best the opposition could come up with is Senator Obama. I cannot at this point actively support either one. But, how will I vote? For the moment, I am deeply angered by a statement made tonight by Rep. Eric Cantor of my state of Virginia, the Republican Chief Deputy Majority Whip, on an MSNBC cable talk show. When challenged to affirm or disavow the conduct of the Bush administration, Cantor said that fingers should not be pointed nor blame assessed for past conduct. He argued that the only relevant questions relate to the future and how the candidates would approach the present situations. Cantor’s protest of accountability is only the latest restatement of the position of a substantial number of Republican office holders over the last five to six years. It is obvious that their position is to avoid any accounting or review. It is not an unqualified support for the actions of the administration because such a position would be untenable and they understand that. This failure of the Republican Party is a decision to place their party over principle, over their oath of office and a dereliction of their responsibility as a co-equal branch of our government.
McCain is still the best candidate but his baggage is ugly.
So I sit here angry and try to find something to give me comfort in deciding whether to vote for the best candidate or against his party. The media is of no help. In fact, the cable coverage of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox has been ludicrous in the respective bias of each. The coverage of the old networks has been insignificant. I think that I am a fairly intelligent, educated and well read citizen yet I haven't reached a decision. Assuredly there are differences in the stated proposals “for reform” between the candidates. The party platforms, the candidate speeches, the spin of their talking-heads and the point-counterpoint of the arguments, however, are all mostly hollow when considered in the historic viability of “candidate promises.” The “soul” of each party used to be apparent. I don’t recognize either one now.
I would unhesitatingly support the John McCain of 2000. I am angered that the best the opposition could come up with is Senator Obama. I cannot at this point actively support either one. But, how will I vote? For the moment, I am deeply angered by a statement made tonight by Rep. Eric Cantor of my state of Virginia, the Republican Chief Deputy Majority Whip, on an MSNBC cable talk show. When challenged to affirm or disavow the conduct of the Bush administration, Cantor said that fingers should not be pointed nor blame assessed for past conduct. He argued that the only relevant questions relate to the future and how the candidates would approach the present situations. Cantor’s protest of accountability is only the latest restatement of the position of a substantial number of Republican office holders over the last five to six years. It is obvious that their position is to avoid any accounting or review. It is not an unqualified support for the actions of the administration because such a position would be untenable and they understand that. This failure of the Republican Party is a decision to place their party over principle, over their oath of office and a dereliction of their responsibility as a co-equal branch of our government.
McCain is still the best candidate but his baggage is ugly.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Financial Markets
Treasury Secretary Paulson in a briefing at the White House moments ago expressed relief and, more significantly, satisfaction that the private sector has come together to take over or bolster the failing financial institutions. Private commercial solutions would, I expect, relieve the federal government from direct intervention. Yet, it also appears to me that we are merely allowing bigger, more powerful profit-driven entities unregulated growth.
President Bush should immediately assemble an advisory panel consisting of non-partisan experts from a broad range of financial disciplines to review the current "corrective" efforts in the market and advise on immediate regulatory approaches. His Office and his administration, standing alone, have neither the confidence of the American people nor of the international community. Congress will take a long term view in the not distant future but by the time new books of regulations and new federal agencies are approved Congress will be able to merely massage rather than tame the beast.
President Bush should immediately assemble an advisory panel consisting of non-partisan experts from a broad range of financial disciplines to review the current "corrective" efforts in the market and advise on immediate regulatory approaches. His Office and his administration, standing alone, have neither the confidence of the American people nor of the international community. Congress will take a long term view in the not distant future but by the time new books of regulations and new federal agencies are approved Congress will be able to merely massage rather than tame the beast.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Palin Did Well While McCain Faltered.
Gov. Palin's speech at the convention should do more than bring a sigh of relief to Republicans. She showed the right combination of her personal strength and nature. She seemed to come across honestly. That was Sarah Palin; and I am more confident.
Frankly, it was McCain that caused me some concern after the speech. As he came on the stage after she had completed her speech and greeted her family, he seemed uncomfortable and unsure how to continue or fit into the energy of the crowd. More significantly to me, however, was his way of handling these moments. Although his vice presidential candidate stood to his immediate left McCain repeatedly turned away from her and directed comments to her husband as the crowd continued to cheer. McCain seemed to feel more comfortable with a "man to man" exchange than one with Palin. Palin had just made a most successful speech. McCain should have been able to show that he is personally comfortable with his choice. Had Palin been a more experienced politician she might have taken the initiative. Hopefully McCain and Palin will learn how to be natural together.
Frankly, it was McCain that caused me some concern after the speech. As he came on the stage after she had completed her speech and greeted her family, he seemed uncomfortable and unsure how to continue or fit into the energy of the crowd. More significantly to me, however, was his way of handling these moments. Although his vice presidential candidate stood to his immediate left McCain repeatedly turned away from her and directed comments to her husband as the crowd continued to cheer. McCain seemed to feel more comfortable with a "man to man" exchange than one with Palin. Palin had just made a most successful speech. McCain should have been able to show that he is personally comfortable with his choice. Had Palin been a more experienced politician she might have taken the initiative. Hopefully McCain and Palin will learn how to be natural together.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Palin and the Media (Chapter One)
The attacks on the candidacy of Gov. Palin, both direct and inferential, being presented now in the media are baseless and ridiculous. The question as to whether the mother of young children can handle substantial leadership responsibilities should have long been buried in the sands.
The lead to a New York Times "news report" today reads: "A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket." The NYT should have more correctly read "This newspaper is calling into question...." since the article describes it's own reporters calling the issue into question.
After referring to the pregnancy of Gov. Palin's daughter, the NYT article immediately continued: "Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge." These items, as presented by the NYT, individually and collectively, are meaningless. Certainly, the underlying issues of the ethics investigation are important and relevant to her qualifications. However, the fact, alone, that she has a lawyer to represent her in the investigation is suggestive of nothing more than her wisdom in seeking an advocate to insure her rights are protected. The NYT presents this as part of a "Law and Order" script where the detective announces "She lawyered -up." and the audience immediately concludes that she is guilty. I don't know the background of the "Independence Party" but it certainly doesn't have the ring of the Communist Party or anarchism. The secession of Alaska, or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico or Staten Island (which have each given it some consideration) is not a prelude to another Civil War though there is no telling what image that same "Law and Order" audience would conjure at the suggestion. Assuming Mr. Palin has matured since his marriage to the Governor and after his other adult accomplishments his arrest (conviction?) 22 years ago should be nothing more than a footnote. Her daughter's pregnancy is simply irrelevant to Gov. Palin's candidacy. Although the media appears to accept this, there are continuing and unnecessary references to the irrelevance thereby keeping the issue before the public as if it mattered. It doesn't.
The manner of the media's presentation of accumulated, insignificant events and conjectures may influence those Americans who read the headlines on the magazines at the checkout counter and walk out of the store wondering whether or not Jennifer Anniston really is a Russian spy. The conjectures are picked up and spun and re-spun on the 24 hour "news" channels with the addition of "analysis" by talking-heads who are vacuous, advocates for one side or the other. And my friends, on both ends, pick up this, so-called, news and analysis and their emails then bolster the truth and importance of nothing.
The lead to a New York Times "news report" today reads: "A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket." The NYT should have more correctly read "This newspaper is calling into question...." since the article describes it's own reporters calling the issue into question.
After referring to the pregnancy of Gov. Palin's daughter, the NYT article immediately continued: "Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge." These items, as presented by the NYT, individually and collectively, are meaningless. Certainly, the underlying issues of the ethics investigation are important and relevant to her qualifications. However, the fact, alone, that she has a lawyer to represent her in the investigation is suggestive of nothing more than her wisdom in seeking an advocate to insure her rights are protected. The NYT presents this as part of a "Law and Order" script where the detective announces "She lawyered -up." and the audience immediately concludes that she is guilty. I don't know the background of the "Independence Party" but it certainly doesn't have the ring of the Communist Party or anarchism. The secession of Alaska, or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico or Staten Island (which have each given it some consideration) is not a prelude to another Civil War though there is no telling what image that same "Law and Order" audience would conjure at the suggestion. Assuming Mr. Palin has matured since his marriage to the Governor and after his other adult accomplishments his arrest (conviction?) 22 years ago should be nothing more than a footnote. Her daughter's pregnancy is simply irrelevant to Gov. Palin's candidacy. Although the media appears to accept this, there are continuing and unnecessary references to the irrelevance thereby keeping the issue before the public as if it mattered. It doesn't.
The manner of the media's presentation of accumulated, insignificant events and conjectures may influence those Americans who read the headlines on the magazines at the checkout counter and walk out of the store wondering whether or not Jennifer Anniston really is a Russian spy. The conjectures are picked up and spun and re-spun on the 24 hour "news" channels with the addition of "analysis" by talking-heads who are vacuous, advocates for one side or the other. And my friends, on both ends, pick up this, so-called, news and analysis and their emails then bolster the truth and importance of nothing.
A Few Favorite Quotations
It is not the critic who counts; not the one who points out how the strong man or woman stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the one who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends themselves in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that their place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. (T.Roosevelt)[modified]
"I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men's hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder." Mohandas K. Ghandi, Autobiography.
"Desire life like water, yet drink death like wine." G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.
"With enough courage you don't have to worry about reputation." Rhett Butler, Gone WithThe Wind.
"He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself must be either a beast or a god." Aristotle, Politics.
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected...." Thucydides (circa 420 BCE) (Interesting, how "BCE" might also refer to the Bush/Cheney Era.), The Peloponnesian War.
"I had learnt the true practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men's hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties riven asunder." Mohandas K. Ghandi, Autobiography.
"Desire life like water, yet drink death like wine." G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.
"With enough courage you don't have to worry about reputation." Rhett Butler, Gone WithThe Wind.
"He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself must be either a beast or a god." Aristotle, Politics.
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected...." Thucydides (circa 420 BCE) (Interesting, how "BCE" might also refer to the Bush/Cheney Era.), The Peloponnesian War.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
McCain's choice of Palin
First of all, after the self-centered, morally corrupt years of the Clinton presidency and the corruption of our Constitution and national moral values by the Bush/Cheney cabal, I want to see, in anyone who would lead this Country, strength of character and integrity. That integrity should itself be premised upon a high personal moral code. The strength of character I look for is suggested in the words of the West Point Cadet Prayer: "Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half truth when the whole truth can be won. Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when truth and right are in jeopardy." I want an American who will defend not just America's shores against attack but also will defend the People's Constitutional and evolved liberties and sustain their pursuit of happiness.
For my adult life I have been a political independent. I grew up in Chicago where the Democratic precinct captain was the link to all political services. On one wall of our rented flat was a crucifix and a picture of FDR. I stood near and listened to JFK speak. I believed in him and believed in "The Impossible Dream" of that man from La Mancha. Later, despite the warning that voting for him would place me in Viet Nam, I voted for Goldwater.
For my adult life I have been a political independent. I grew up in Chicago where the Democratic precinct captain was the link to all political services. On one wall of our rented flat was a crucifix and a picture of FDR. I stood near and listened to JFK speak. I believed in him and believed in "The Impossible Dream" of that man from La Mancha. Later, despite the warning that voting for him would place me in Viet Nam, I voted for Goldwater.
I now understand more about the growth of this country than was presented in the history classes of the fifties and early sixties. I appreciate more the complexities of international policies and national politics. I have repeatedly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And I believe that whatever value to the United States there may be to "free-trade" and globalization, they are not a substitute for the evolved values of liberty and justice in our country. In other words, it is imperative that our leaders believe that the core of this "experiment" must be protected. There will be change, as in all things. But, the strength, the beauty, the value, the promise of the American experiment has now given way to self-centered consumerism and unbridled capitalism. The rhetoric of politicians espousing "our American values" is, and has been for some time, hypocritical in view of their actions and their inaction's.
I see hypocrisy in the McCain of 2008 as he does himself. I wholly disagree with some of his proposals; continuing the Bush tax cuts, for example. With the editors of The Economist (Aug. 30, 2008), I prefer McCain One. The Republican Party agenda under Cheney/Bush has been an affront to the vast majority of Americans. Yet, I have a confidence in McCain's integrity and strength of character that I just cannot find in Obama. The fluffy rhetoric of the Democratic Party and expansive promises are hollow. I am angry that the opposition party could do no better than Obama after the debacles of Bush. I am willing to trust McCain's judgment as president though I may shudder and say a prayer as to some of his stated policies. His decisions in office will be made, I believe, after honest, intellectual consideration of options for the common good within this country. I am encouraged by his honesty when he answers "I don't know the answer but I'll get back to you" to some off-the-wall question. But, let me get back to the questions surrounding Gov. Sarah Palin.
I am willing to trust McCain's judgment as president on critical international and national issues. I see no reason, at this point, not to trust his judgment on Palin. McCain will define the role and responsibilities he wants from his Vice President just as he will define the policies of the Republican Party for this election. I share the concern of others who question whether the scope and substance of Gov. Palin's life experience has given her the strengths necessary to lead a nation. As I see her in these first few days, I like the fact that she appears to have entered into politics more with a sense of selfless service to her community than political party ambition. I like her "frontier" persona. I like her positions and actions to bring integrity into government and on care for the environment. I like the choice of a strong woman who has shown the ability to lead, to make tough decisions. Her shortcomings in international affairs are the shortcomings of Obama as well. I do not have confidence in Obama's character. Presidents and Vice Presidents have the strengths of intellectual and experienced advisers. The "3:00 o'clock AM" calls are events in evolving situations that have been studied and briefed. The Pentagon, Homeland Defense, the CIA, et al. have contingency studies and plans. The real questions are in the personal character, intelligence, wisdom and decisiveness of the leader. These questions apply equally during the regular work day of the leader.
Gov. Palin should begin with the benefit from us of a trust in McCain's judgment and with a confidence in herself. As for me, I want to believe.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
In the News 3/4/08 and Beyond
"Venezuela and Ecuador sent troops to the Colombian border on Sunday in response to Colombia’s military raid on a rebel encampment in the jungle about a mile inside Ecuador. Colombian forces killed 21 guerrillas belonging to ... FARC, Colombia’s largest rebel group." In an announcement from the White House, President Bush announces his support for Columbia.
So the scenario develops:
1. Venezuela sends a substantial armed force into Columbia "to secure its own borders."
2. U.S. advisors currently in Columbia caught up in the fight.
3. Venezuela cuts off oil to U.S.
4. U.S. sends aircraft in support of U.S. advisors and Columbian forces. President Bush declares NAFTA Treaty authorizes use of force
5. U.S. states threat to Panama Canal requires significant increase in U.S. ground forces in South America. Shortage of available troops necessitates President Bush federalizing all ROTC (college and high school) and graduating all military academy cadets. Civil Air patrol is also federalized and provided with F-100 Super Sabre jets being recovered and reassembled in various locations throughout South Korea. All training and command responsibilities given to Blackwater in multibillion dollar contract.
6. All illegal entries into U.S. from Mexico cease as Halibuton begins massive hiring for no-bid contracts for U.S. troop support facilities to be built along the Amazon River in Brazil. Congress begins inquiry asking "Brazil?" A Haliburton subsidiary admits an undocumented agreement to use the removed lumber in construction of Bush's Presidential Library and Cheney's Great Pyramid.
7. Bush orders surprise flanking attack by US forces on Venezuela from Brazil along the Amazon citing already existing facilities built by Haliburton.
8. In a press conference, President Bush says that the C.I.A. had failed to inform him of the existence of heavy jungle along the Amazon but says forces will surge on with an expected arrival at the Venezuelan border within the year. The President declines further comment citing the need for secrecy to insure surprise.
9. In a move said to be necessary to protect U.S. civilian population, the president orders the internment of all Legal Aid attorneys of Hispanic ancestry. "Sesame Street" writers arrested in alleged plot to promote terrorist activities using Spanish alphabet codes.
10. U.S. Congress abdicates. Bush declaration of his Dynasty by Divine Right supported by Republican right wing, Fox News, Mike Huckabee and United Fruit Board of Directors.
11. In a move said by Viceroy Cheney necessary to protect rear echelons of U.S. forces fighting in Columbia, the U.S. invades Canada. The Japanese surrender documents signed following World War II are cited as authority for the invasion. Haliburton begins construction in Canada of eight NFL stadiums for troop moral.
12. All hostilities end abruptly as China calls in all U.S. debt.
So the scenario develops:
1. Venezuela sends a substantial armed force into Columbia "to secure its own borders."
2. U.S. advisors currently in Columbia caught up in the fight.
3. Venezuela cuts off oil to U.S.
4. U.S. sends aircraft in support of U.S. advisors and Columbian forces. President Bush declares NAFTA Treaty authorizes use of force
5. U.S. states threat to Panama Canal requires significant increase in U.S. ground forces in South America. Shortage of available troops necessitates President Bush federalizing all ROTC (college and high school) and graduating all military academy cadets. Civil Air patrol is also federalized and provided with F-100 Super Sabre jets being recovered and reassembled in various locations throughout South Korea. All training and command responsibilities given to Blackwater in multibillion dollar contract.
6. All illegal entries into U.S. from Mexico cease as Halibuton begins massive hiring for no-bid contracts for U.S. troop support facilities to be built along the Amazon River in Brazil. Congress begins inquiry asking "Brazil?" A Haliburton subsidiary admits an undocumented agreement to use the removed lumber in construction of Bush's Presidential Library and Cheney's Great Pyramid.
7. Bush orders surprise flanking attack by US forces on Venezuela from Brazil along the Amazon citing already existing facilities built by Haliburton.
8. In a press conference, President Bush says that the C.I.A. had failed to inform him of the existence of heavy jungle along the Amazon but says forces will surge on with an expected arrival at the Venezuelan border within the year. The President declines further comment citing the need for secrecy to insure surprise.
9. In a move said to be necessary to protect U.S. civilian population, the president orders the internment of all Legal Aid attorneys of Hispanic ancestry. "Sesame Street" writers arrested in alleged plot to promote terrorist activities using Spanish alphabet codes.
10. U.S. Congress abdicates. Bush declaration of his Dynasty by Divine Right supported by Republican right wing, Fox News, Mike Huckabee and United Fruit Board of Directors.
11. In a move said by Viceroy Cheney necessary to protect rear echelons of U.S. forces fighting in Columbia, the U.S. invades Canada. The Japanese surrender documents signed following World War II are cited as authority for the invasion. Haliburton begins construction in Canada of eight NFL stadiums for troop moral.
12. All hostilities end abruptly as China calls in all U.S. debt.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Another Retrospective
I received a notice yesterday announcing the premier of "Inside the Vietnam War" on the National Geographic Channel onMonday, February 18 at 8 PM EST. The program is three hours long.
Maybe I should just trust the proponents of this program but I have seen too many Vietnam retrospectives that simply p---- me off. In everything I have seen as time has passed there seems to be a need by these "historians" to give the vast number of non-veteran, baby-boomers who protested, evaded the draft or simply enjoyed the good life at home a "feel-good" sense of approval. Their protest, evasion or indifference has become an essential part of these productions because Vietnam was the "wrong war" or because of the My Lai atrocities or tales of fabrications of body counts or whatever. The narrations always point to the "big picture." The in-country portion invariably shows the same napalm run over a seemingly peaceful village, the naked child running from conflict and the early stages of the Tet Offensive. Of course, there are the interviews with troops who suffer from PTSD. My view or the conclusions of others on the "big picture" or the politics are not relevant to my views here.
It seems that it has taken 60 years to present, truthfully and dramatically, the bravery, integrity and selflessness during combat of the World War II grunts. A visitor to the magazine section at any bookstore will find multiple shelves reporting the battles and heroics of the Civil War and World War II. You may find a bi-monthly magazine on Vietnam. Maybe it will take a like period of time for the retrospectives or documentaries or motion pictures to pick up on the fact that the men, draftees or volunteers, who fought in the jungles of Vietnam have their own singular, monumental story. Those who fought all know some of those stories and those of the nurses and doctors, of those on the rivers and off the coast, of the chopper pilots and gunners, of the close air support, et al. The only venue for these stories now seems to be the scattered, almost anonymous, Internet web sites sought out primarily by other veterans.
The men and women now fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are now rightfully the focus of the public's interest. And there have been some good productions from Iraq on television. Even now, however, the fickle great-American-public seems to be losing interest in these combat experiences. "Hamburger Hill," like "Pork Chop Hill" before it, presented some of the best qualities of the veteran in combat. That snapshot is overwhelmed, however, by these supposedly historical documentaries. The bottom line for me is until the bravery, integrity and selflessness of the men and women who fought and died in Vietnam is made the singular thesis of a documentary I don't care to watch another supposedly "balanced" history.
Maybe I should just trust the proponents of this program but I have seen too many Vietnam retrospectives that simply p---- me off. In everything I have seen as time has passed there seems to be a need by these "historians" to give the vast number of non-veteran, baby-boomers who protested, evaded the draft or simply enjoyed the good life at home a "feel-good" sense of approval. Their protest, evasion or indifference has become an essential part of these productions because Vietnam was the "wrong war" or because of the My Lai atrocities or tales of fabrications of body counts or whatever. The narrations always point to the "big picture." The in-country portion invariably shows the same napalm run over a seemingly peaceful village, the naked child running from conflict and the early stages of the Tet Offensive. Of course, there are the interviews with troops who suffer from PTSD. My view or the conclusions of others on the "big picture" or the politics are not relevant to my views here.
It seems that it has taken 60 years to present, truthfully and dramatically, the bravery, integrity and selflessness during combat of the World War II grunts. A visitor to the magazine section at any bookstore will find multiple shelves reporting the battles and heroics of the Civil War and World War II. You may find a bi-monthly magazine on Vietnam. Maybe it will take a like period of time for the retrospectives or documentaries or motion pictures to pick up on the fact that the men, draftees or volunteers, who fought in the jungles of Vietnam have their own singular, monumental story. Those who fought all know some of those stories and those of the nurses and doctors, of those on the rivers and off the coast, of the chopper pilots and gunners, of the close air support, et al. The only venue for these stories now seems to be the scattered, almost anonymous, Internet web sites sought out primarily by other veterans.
The men and women now fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are now rightfully the focus of the public's interest. And there have been some good productions from Iraq on television. Even now, however, the fickle great-American-public seems to be losing interest in these combat experiences. "Hamburger Hill," like "Pork Chop Hill" before it, presented some of the best qualities of the veteran in combat. That snapshot is overwhelmed, however, by these supposedly historical documentaries. The bottom line for me is until the bravery, integrity and selflessness of the men and women who fought and died in Vietnam is made the singular thesis of a documentary I don't care to watch another supposedly "balanced" history.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
A letter to a classmate.
With all due respect, now, more than ever, is the time for such discussions. Your comment suggests that there had been an earlier conversation [about the Iraq War] among the class. I regret that I missed that opportunity. I believe that the conversation should have never ended. Our country is in an approach to a general election. Notwithstanding the cherry-picked issues of the candidates and the media during the primaries, the fundamental concern must be the character, competence and qualification of those who would be our elected leaders. The decisions of this present administration over the course of the past seven years now form the framework of what we as a nation have become and, to a great measure, define the position we maintain in each “crisis” situation around the world. Now is precisely the time, for example, to educate ourselves and discuss the events and actors that pulled us out of Afghanistan and put us into Iraq. Now is the time to discuss the competence, character and policies of the current administration and to apply those negative or positive lessons and value-judgments in our evaluation of which direction our country should now move.
I suggest that is it our duty, a duty greater than most other Americans, to the men and women now serving and who will serve over the next generation, to continue to educate ourselves and others about the leadership lessons of the Iraq war. One of my concerns has been that we as a nation will now blindly accept the status quo and not call to account the decisions and “deciders” that brought us to this point in Iraq. It is far too easy just to say “We are in Iraq so we need to support the troops.” I fully support the magnificent effort of the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot pullout precipitously. However, the fact that this effort is finally being applied in a tactically sound, counter-insurgent manner with increasing success, should not, must not, cause us to ignore the nature and conduct of the leaders who brought us to this moment. These lessons should control the present, presidential political debate. Who knows, there may even be time to discuss the use of torture, Middle-East policy, the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus or even why the Army forgot the lessons our men died teaching us in Vietnam. Having graduated in the bottom five percent of our class I have always admired the intelligence of my classmates [including those few whose names are found after my own]. With the experience and education gained since June 1965 I think we might just have something to contribute.
I suggest that is it our duty, a duty greater than most other Americans, to the men and women now serving and who will serve over the next generation, to continue to educate ourselves and others about the leadership lessons of the Iraq war. One of my concerns has been that we as a nation will now blindly accept the status quo and not call to account the decisions and “deciders” that brought us to this point in Iraq. It is far too easy just to say “We are in Iraq so we need to support the troops.” I fully support the magnificent effort of the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot pullout precipitously. However, the fact that this effort is finally being applied in a tactically sound, counter-insurgent manner with increasing success, should not, must not, cause us to ignore the nature and conduct of the leaders who brought us to this moment. These lessons should control the present, presidential political debate. Who knows, there may even be time to discuss the use of torture, Middle-East policy, the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus or even why the Army forgot the lessons our men died teaching us in Vietnam. Having graduated in the bottom five percent of our class I have always admired the intelligence of my classmates [including those few whose names are found after my own]. With the experience and education gained since June 1965 I think we might just have something to contribute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)