Random Thoughts

Just a few random thoughts: I certainly do not intend to diminish the dangers existing to primarily future generations in the proposed spending of this administration. We elder types, as well, should be concerned and watchful. There comes a time, I believe, in science, for example, that a paradigm of unquestioned validity will lose its validity in the course of research and observation. Economics and so called social science do not rise to the level of "pure" science in their ability to develop such fundamental "truths." We are clearly in a time where our economic and social "truths" may be reevaluated. I say "may" because we can ignore the opportunity and muddle through without change but with very high risk. The conclusions that will evolve from a democratic review now may result in changes in the existing structures that we would not recognize but would efficiently and effectively carry us to the next period of necessary evaluation. The difficulty in such a systemic reevaluation is the fear of the unknown and the inherent uncertainty. The path to revised structures will, of necessity, involve trial and error though the extent of each can be minimized. The path and establishment of new structuring will be expensive – maybe shockingly so. As with any capital investment the books will take an immediate redlining.

Our medical insurance and provider systems, our electrical power grids, our fossil fuel dependency, social security, global warming/climate change, our national existence in a global economy and others each have some need for reevaluation, revision and/or rejection. I believe that this country is worth investing in to bring about necessary changes – and they are necessary. Keeping an eye on the short term costs in the context of long term progress is very tough in political cycles where decision makers look primarily if not solely at their personal and party short term election goals and current capital investment in the country is at risk. If we are the risk takers of the same mettle as the settlers, the founding fathers, the entrepreneurs of industry and science and IT we should be willing to accept reasoned risks for rewards. This President may well be taking on more than he should but I cannot fault him for identifying the needs and accepting his own level of political risk in the process. No doubt we are backing with our futures but this is time for reasoned discussion, debate and decision and not hyperbole, misinformation and lies. It is that time for "statesmen" and men and women of unbiased integrity willing to put aside eroded paradigms and step out front to guide and lead. I wish I could see more involvement in these discussions by the 20 and 30 year olds who will reap whatever we plant. In that age group in history have been the revolutionaries and paradigm changers. Unfortunately, I just don't see such independent thinking and initiative rising outside of bastions of the old orders. And the NFL pre-season has started so first things first.

A Response to a Review: "The Hurt Locker"

Your reviewer’s simplistic review of “The Hurt Locker” dis serves your readers and the community. This independently produced film should be seen by every adult citizen. The conservative lip-service given to our “support of the troops” would benefit from an exposure to a portrayal of the intensity and often chaos of combat and of what we are asking of our men and women. This film is a gripping, intense movie of war and not, as your reviewer seemed to suggest, a political piece. The crucible just happens to be Iraq in 2004 but in reality it could be set in a trench in France or a submarine in the Atlantic. The plot is not burdened with the extraneous. This is not to say, as your reviewer put it that the movie is “missing a story.” Your reviewer, I suggest, may have become accustomed to being spoon fed a story line as in the vast majority of Hollywood’s screened comic books. “The Hurt Locker,” with powerful photography that seems to place you at the scene, follows a bomb disposal team of three men jointly confronting fear and death in their assigned mission. Each man is uniquely affected by the external threats as well as the adjustments necessitated when the internal dynamic of the team changes.

I have no personal experience to vouch for the accuracy of the tactics or circumstances of the urban warfare in Iraq in 2004 as portrayed. One extended scene in a desert setting seemed to represent, without loss of credulity, a composite of different combat roles. However, the events, actions of the characters and the impact on the team members were to me, a combat veteran, appropriate and unnervingly honest. The wired, buried artillery rounds looked just as deadly and challenging as they did along routes in Viet Nam. Your reviewer displaces obvious truth with biased misconceptions. These are not depictions of “stereotypical Americans … and Iraqis.” The American soldiers are shown in the intensity of war doing tasks essential in war. Accomplishment of dangerous tasks does not make them gung-ho and they are assuredly not presented in that manner. Iraqis security forces are shown working with the team to identify possible IED’s for the team to defuse. Iraqi civilian locals are shown observing the team while set back on the perimeter of the action just as are American soldiers waiting for the team to do its work. Your reviewer says the film makes a stereotypical portrayal of Iraqis as “cowardly, skulking, roadside bombers.” The reality, however, that one of the observing Iraqi civilians may electronically set off the IED is a fact of life in this war.

This is not one of those surreal “Full Metal Jacket” fiction-type pieces. This movie surfaces feelings in its viewers, the feelings that, while in combat, for example, you never allow to surface. This is a very rare presentation of the intensity of war and its affects both during and following deadly combat. Seeing this movie will not make you a combat veteran but it will give you a greater understanding of why you display that magnetic ribbon “I support the troops” on your SUV.
Richmond, Virginia August 1, 2009

Let's Get Serious

I have now read Palin's Facebook response to the President and regarding Section 1233(by now I expect it needs no further identification) and find her contentions as well as those of the people she quotes as functionally, baseless fear-mongering. "The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context." sayeth Palin. Now, I do not intend to state or infer a position of my own on the subject of abortion but it seems to me that a conservative like Palin would most assuredly argue to the contrary, i.e. that there would be no coercive effect, if the "context" being referred to was a proffered discussion by medical personnel with a young woman of alternatives to a planned abortion.

A person may speculate that any meeting with a government representative in any context may be used for intimidation. A traffic court requiring a senior citizen to retake a driving test following a ticketed offense could surely intimidate the citizen to relinquish the privilege to drive thereby limiting contact with the world outside his home, inducing depression and ultimately suicide which would address social security and medicare shortfalls and reduce unattended flashing turn signals on the roads. Just how many police officers and judges could be convinced to knowingly participate in such atrocities?

The singular coercive effect of a discussion of the matters covered in 1233 would be to have the patient, due to age and/or changed medical condition decide what they wanted to be done in their care. Just how many of these medical professionals could be corrupted to become "Angels of Death" ala Mengele for the good of the country? There are more than enough legitimate issues to address in this and subsequent legislative proposals without this type of political, extreme propaganda.