Not at West Point

The headline: "DoD: Reported Sexual Assaults Up at Service Academies" http://www.military.com/news/article/dod-reported-sexual-assaults-up-at-service-academies.html?ESRC=eb.nl

The article begins: "The number of reported sexual assaults at the nation's three major military academies rose overall in the latest academic year from one year earlier,..."

The article concludes: "West Point reported the same number in both years,..."

The headlining and editing of this article and similar articles at CNN and other news outlets are misleading as they fail to distinguish among the academies by making it clear that the number of reports did NOT rise at West Point which had the lowest number of reports each of the two years. The articles are a wrongful affront to the cadets at West Point and the efforts at this academy to preclude such criminal conduct and foster appropriate relations.

To Those of a Faith II

A friend has asked for a clarification to my last comment ("To Those of a Faith"). On Christmas eve I took a young family member to a church service we had attended annually for the last three years. The Christian service in a group, self-described as a "non-denominational multi-ethnic church, drawn from 20 nationalities," included hymns and Christmas messages familiar to this old Catholic. Without bogging down in detail, suffice to say that I no longer share a belief in fundamental doctrines of Christianity, whether in Catholic or other variations. Nor do I share all the tenets of other major religions. I never challenge the faith held by anyone else. I do believe, however, that the truly fundamental teachings of all major religions are love and compassion for others. Religions seem to set aside or ignore doctrinal differences during periods of "high" Holy days, such as at Christmas for Christians, and return to those fundamentals.

Joining in the singing at the service, however, I wondered whether I was being hypocritical or professing, to my young companion at least, a false piety. After some reflection during the Bible readings, I concluded as I discussed with her following the service and then published here. Where any group meets to declare or solidify an honest message of unselfish love and compassion, whether in a religious or other context, I feel no hypocrisy in joining with them. Christmas eve is, for that reason, my one annual direct involvement with Christianity. My lack of foundation in the specific rituals of other religions precludes my recognition of similar opportunities.

To Those of a Faith

Holding the same doctrines sacred is irrelevant when encouraging and joining with believers who promote unselfish love and compassion. And if many chose only to foster those feelings one day or seven or thirty of the year it is, yet again, a beginning.

Payroll tax extension: Cynicism or Conspiracy

The "Ol' Payroll Tax extension" argument has a sinister feel to it. Now, I have never been a "conspiracy" theorist. Highly cynical, yes. But, does anyone else see the possibility of a Republican conspiracy between their own Senate and House leadership? A brief recap: The President asks for a one year extension of the relief and Republicans recoil in horror. The matter, as required by no less than the Constitution, is handed to Congress and the Republican controlled House passes its own version with reasonable and unreasonable add-ons. A significant number of Republicans go on the record as opposed to the tax relief - go figure on that one. The Senate in a burst of unexpected cooperation by Republicans and after some quiet debate passes its own version with the inclusion of a Republican victory on a pipe-line issue. So, the President gives in on the pipeline and only gets two of the twelve months he asked for earlier. House Speaker Boehner, who we were told had consulted and nodded agreement with the Senate version, then demurs saying that only the twelve month extension would be reasonable and acceptable. The House demands, as might otherwise be normal, a joint committee to resolve the different versions in the remaining 11 days. House Republicans "pack" the committee with seven members, five of whom are on record as opposed to the tax relief extension.

This seems to me to be the situation in a nutshell at the moment. Other twists and turns, of which there are many, are generally irrelevant to my question. The maneuvering of the Republican leadership has placed their Party as the Party fighting for the twelve month extension. Ignoring, as the general population is want to do, their predicate conduct, Republicans may now argue that they are the defenders of the middle class. Please understand that I credit very few Republicans (I speak of a potential Republican conspiracy) in Congress with ability to successfully act clandestinely. I credit more in Congress with the Machiavellian determination and lack of integrity to attempt such a slight of hand.

Isn't it possible that the Senate Republican leadership intended to limit the extension in their negotiations to a two month period and thereby position the issue for the House Republican leadership to take the "higher ground" demanding the President's original twelve month extension? The value to the Republicans is in the rhetoric and not in the substance. The value to the American people is irrelevant.

A Brief Hope Shattered

Leaving the drugstore this morning I glanced at the newsstand and seeing the Washington Post on display I stopped. My eyes fixed on the heavy black print on the left of the front page. I began to smile, do a fist pumping and exclaim loudly "Yes! There can be justice!" Regrettably, the moment passed when I realized that the headline did NOT refer to the Supreme Court Justice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper?dt=2011-12-03&bk=A&pg=1

UwillNotESCapeOccupation

As baseless excuses go for similar past expansive actions this one seems consistent. So Israel does the following after Palestine is recognized and accepted into UNESCO. I'll leave it to some of you to look up the evil objectives of UNESCO, balance the relative values, compare relative physical strengths and weight cultural fear against a cultural vacuum while I leave to others to fire from behind a Maginot Line. There is only an indefensible Zionist expansion wrapped loosely in legitimate security concerns and manifest against an occupied people. Starving a society because of a political affront is pathetic and Israel, of all nations, should be ashamed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15548585

The Charge of the Right Brigade

From Wikipedia: "Saint Crispin's Day falls on 25 October and is the feast day of the Christian saints Crispin and Crispinian) ... , twins who were martyred c. 286. It is a day most famous for the battles that occurred on it: the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the Battle of Balakava (Charge of the Light Brigade) during theCrimean War in 1854 and the Battle of Leyte Gulf ... in 1944." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Crispin%27s_Day

Shakespeare's "Agincourt" has been appropriately mentioned in this forum in the past but the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava strikes me at the moment. A charge toward the wrong objectives, with brash indifference to individual lives, driven by unchained ego and blind nobility, their leaders sent those who were "not to make reply" and "not to reason why" to destruction. Sitting now, tequila in hand, I see the same in the "Charge of the Right Brigade." Whether the destruction may be limited to their Party or extend to the country will have to be seen.. And it is said that the debacle was followed by champagne dinner for the leaders on a waiting yacht. Picture today's gathering at a private club.

The Success in Libya

I find it interesting that as President Obama today announced the killing of Gaddafi the President said that it was accomplished "without putting U. S. service members on the ground...." As I suggested some time ago, it seems to me that the statement does not preclude the probability that the CIA's "silent boots" had been a part of the successful effort. Well done.

By the way, I think it is disgraceful the way elected Republican leaders still denigrate the President for his strategic handling of what is a successful revolution in Libya. The President either did too little or too much, acted too late or acted too indirectly or too directly. In the midst of his criticism of the President and while emphatically congratulating England and France, Senator McCain emphasized in an afterthought how "grateful Libyans are" now toward the United States and how we should leverage that fact. Now, just why would they be so grateful to the U.S. if the strategy was wrong.

I suggest to the Republicans that, putting political posturing aside, and standing openly with the President to accept the Libyan appreciation jointly with NATO would be a bold statement to the world and would kick start the leveraging in Libya and greater Africa. After all, it was Congressional funding and Presidential direction that brought this about.

Foreign affairs are not going to be a major aspect of the 2012 election. It will of course be the economy. Accordingly, the denigration of the President now is only harmful to the future prospects of our country overseas and baseless in the internal political struggle. Putting Party loyalty and objectives aside and standing as Americans is probably too much to ask of those within the conservative juggernaut.

Limbaugh's Reality and the Lord's Resistance

A friend suggests that Mr. Limbaugh's defense of the Lord's Resistance Army, a group responsible for horrific atrocities, is proof of Limbaugh's insanity. I disagree

Isn't a definition of insanity the repeating of the same conduct while expecting different results? Limbaugh knows and acts repeatedly in the belief that when he makes an idiotic, false or twisted statement it will be picked up by his loyal and obedient actual-nutcases and take on a life of its own - a depraved but continuing existence. See, for example, http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/201110170022 Limbaugh has yet to accurately describe to his audience the L.R.A. or to accept personal responsibility thereby holding a semblance of credibility for his fools. And let's not forget another false assertion made during his broadcast that "Obama has sent troops to another war" intent on support of Muslim factions in Sudan. We have not seen the last of this either.

Even after he was advised on the air of the depravities committed by the LRA he blew on the coals saying: "But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys -- and they claim to be Christians."

And listen to the end of this brief portion of Limbaugh follow-up http://mediamalpractice.com/mmtv/201110180013 it's all one big laugh -- got that loyal, obedient, actual-nutcases it's just a joke and don't we pass on a good joke. No, my friend, he is not insane.Post Options

What Powers Your Pickup Truck?

A friend forwarded an interesting news article about the development of anger-powered automobiles. http://origin.theonion.com/audio/new-angerpowered-cars-may-revolutionize-the-way-we,26244/

Since anger-powered vehicles would be useless for the far left, kumbaya singing crowd, development of engines powered by compassion, love and hugs would be necessary as well. Of course, one can imagine how the vehicles made for the far right wingers would be powered:

1. momentum: enormous size of competitive models compensating for personal performance inadequacies.
2. spin: auto batteries charged by connecting to plugs within "spin rooms" occupied by "spin doctors" spinning ... post-Republican debates excellent power storage potential.
3. confabulation cylinders: unconscious filling in of gaps in the memory of voters by telling imaginary "facts" with easy recharge hookup to Fox HD.
4. ideology: actually a power source for both right and left wing vehicles ... ironically, the more concrete the ideology the more fluid the ride.
5. greed: awesome acceleration with no brakes ... however, good for the environment, economy, churches, hookers, illness, golf game, etc. and all future generation models.

6. selfishness: compact vehicle model for those not yet ready for greed driven vehicles.
7. hummer models: powered by "hum"= human "m"= migration "e"= emigrant "r"= refugees preferably illegals more inclined to run quietly ... power train easily transferable for garden work and house chores. Some interior variations to accommodate interns available.

A Salute

"We meet 'neath the sounding rafter,
And the walls around are bare.
As they shout back our peals of laughter,
It seems that the dead are there.
Then stand to your glasses steady,
We drink in our comrades' eyes.
One cup to the dead already,
Hurrah for the next man that dies."

World War I song, "Stand to Your Glasses."

A Rush to Judgment

The U. S. Attorney General has requested and, accordingly, will probably see an early decision by the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Conservative challengers to its constitutionality have been pressing the issue as well for an early decision by the Court.

A decision prior to the election by the Supreme Court upholding the Law would place the issue of repeal squarely at the top of the Republican 2012 election agenda. Given the almost total misunderstanding of the American people about the law and the lack of time for education, the Republicans may well achieve their goal of winning in 2012.

On the other hand, a decision of the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2012 holding the law or a critical element of the law unconstitutional would be a benefit to the President. He could then face the electorate honestly claiming to have tried to better their lives albeit with a slightly inappropriate approach and promise to correct the effort.

I assume therefore that the administration expects or at least hopes for a holding of unconstitutionality.

In any event, the fact that the Republicans orchestrated and acceded to the lies and distortions at the core of America's lack of faith in the law will not help the President. The fact that the Republican administration of George Bush created the breeding fields for those who nearly destroyed our economy will not help the President. The facts that Republicans in Congress purposely both created major delays and built legislative impasses to economic recovery will not help the President.

Why not? Because there are too many American people who are too easily manipulated, disinterested in learning facts about important issues, selfish and self-centered, disorganized, short-memoried and lacking the deep pockets of Republican backers interested only in maintaining existing financial/economic paradigms without oversight.

Useless Candidates = Useless Party

The question has been asked:"Why are the Republican presidential candidates so useless?" http://www.economist.com/node/21530979?fsrc=nlw%7Cedh%7C09-29-11%7Ceditors_highlights

I suggest that the answer lies in the absence of substance at the core of a Republican Party. The Republican Party, as presently constituted and self-defined, offers nothing but redundant rhetoric to the American people. For almost three years, the elected officials of the Republican Party, nationally and regionally, have fostered fear and a perverse adhering to ideology. Acceding to Right Wing fanaticism (itself paid for and promoted by corporate self-interest) the Party has foregone rational examination of its own identity. These candidates pander and rant on with tautological rhetoric now decomposing. To propagandize lies and distortions successfully to a citizenry does not validate the lies and distortions. Republican candidates see the success of such propaganda and point vigorously only to what they see as the flotsam of the current administration and on each others' resumes. At least a few of the candidates may recognize the isolation the Party has created for itself. It cannot produce a candidate with the courage to hold up a mirror. The Republican Party cannot produce a voice with the promise desired by and in the best interests of the new silent majority.

You See Surrender. I See Necessity.

A friend presents two articles in which he finds "subdued towel-tossing" on the left. I suggest that he continues to see only what you wants to see.

I respond: The "Obama captained ship," you surely must recognize, has a crucial portion of its crew, over which the "captain" has no control, intent on insuring that the ship makes no progress.

Your labeling of an "embedded towel-signal" in a Friedman note that lambastes the Republican intransigence is merely a recognition of a personal crying towel for one disappointed writer of opinion. Friedman is obviously disappointed with the President's strategy not aligning with what he had "argued [was] the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the G.O.P. has become....." (my emphasis). While defending his proffered tactic Friedman firmly reasserts his belief in the substance of the President's stance on issues. "[W]e cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education, immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would understand thatt you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which are precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with its brutal ups and downs." So, despite his tactic not being employed as he would like it he keeps the faith. "My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?src=me&ref=general

And while Friedman acknowledges the validity of the President's proposals for "jobs," Brooks tearfully finds it "a campaign marker, not a jobs bill." Again, my friend, you see what you want in reading this as "subdued towel-tossing." Brooks decries the tactics or "governing style," as he puts it , and not the substance of the President's policies. "The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too.... So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach....The White House has decided to wage the campaign as fighting liberals. I guess I understand the choice, but I still believe in the governing style Obama talked about in 2008. I may be the last one." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?src=me&ref=general

He is not. Brooks believes in what the President would be if there existed a political arena in which there could be a true contest of ideas and issues. I do as well. Brooks wants, as most intellectually engaged willing to subdue ideology, a grand solution that will be embraced joyously by a waiting populace. It ain't going to happen. Even in the best of political worlds such a construct would and should require congressional deliberation toward consensus.

But, what alternatives are available with a Congress intransigent on the most rational solutions to just keep the government functioning to protect its citizens. In this crucible, only surrender or confrontation will engage the masses. If our nation was composed of citizens who were all educated and engaged in the important issues of our time such as "serious tax reform and entitlement reform," rational political discourse could result in decisions for the common good. The engaged citizenry today are a combination of those unemployed and struggling, those wanting a Leviathan premised on faith and doctrine, the established holders and direct beneficiaries of capital, and assorted special interest (conservative and progressive) groups. Neither individually nor collectively do they speak for or represent the majority of citizens. Most will not comprehend (look at medical reform) nor react politically to an ultimate solution that necessarily will project events well into and beyond their personal future.

The greater number of citizens, unfortunately, will engage politically as they do socially with a discourse of confrontation on simple issues easily understood and fostered. The Right having recognized this has engaged a defined "ideology" as boogieman: "socialism." The Right has selectively challenged segments of the working class to eliminate unions. The Right has skirmished on the brink of a Class War. "The White House" seeks to survive and continue. Regrettably, the Right has chosen the battlefield on low ground. Attempts by the White House and moderate/rational Republicans to maneuver off this ground have failed so the "silent majority" must be recruited and the "engaged" engaged where they are found.

Resilience in Place of Fear

NEW YORK --- After a decade of war with al-Qaida the potential for another devastating terrorist assault "remains very real," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday following a somber visit to ground zero of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

It seems clear that the Secretary of Defense has an obligation to promote the military successes and responsibilities in preparing for the inevitable and imminent budget conflicts in Congress. However, it is imperative in that effort that he not bolster the fear-mongering that unnecessarily pervades national discourse. Reasoned debate in Washington among politicians and implementers of policy is essential. However, there is an obligation among them to present a balanced perspective to citizens. Prof. Zelikow, former Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, summarized what Americans should be brought to understand and believe in, is our "resilience" as individuals, families and a nation. Of course, vigilance is imperative but, in the context of our successes, particularly against al-Qaida, and our established counter structures, terrorism need not be on the Top Ten list of a citizen's personal concerns. So "Cool it." Mr. SecDef.

A Complete Footnote

Viet Nam combat veterans brought up Jane Fonda during discussion. Many, after forty years, still held strong feelings of contempt for her while there was expression of the need to "let go" and put her and the war behind us. Jane Fonda should never become irrelevant in our memories or in the history of the war and the American culture that has come to define "that time." By her choice of actions back then she established herself in a role that must continue to define her. Her chosen images back then created strong feelings among the grunts who had fought and were fighting in Viet Nam. Don't dare to suggest that she has cleansed herself through the passage of time or a carefully worded "my bad." To "let go" is to pardon the unpardonable. Each veteran has the ability and right to forgive. But, her niche in this history must remain for future generations to judge as well. If, whenever and however small the footnote may be written, it should include the strength of the disdain of American veterans. Possibly, future conduct will be forestalled by an appreciation for the seriousness of its affect.

U.S. Sovereign Credit Downgrade

Standard & Poors (S&P) has downgraded the US "long term sovereign credit rating" to AA+; t,he first downgrade in United States history. Now, one may challenge the capacity of S&P to render any valid judgment given their part in the last economic debacle or challenge on the numbers. As I expressed earlier, the perception and reality of the rhetoric from the Republican Right, which created the unnecessary fight over the debt ceiling, built a debt "situation" into political stagnation and economic chaos. Banks, businesses (small and large), pensioners, foreign markets, citizens (red and blue) and our own ratings agencies became the Henny Pennys, and Goosey Loosies, taking in the T-bag carrying Chicken Little rants that the "sky was falling" on the United States. Again, we, the mere farm animals, had better wake up before Foxey Loxey (A Bachman, Perry, Palin, Cain, or ....) takes control.

S&P says "too little, too late" in the budget agreement numbers but the broader fundamental issue as stated by S&P is that:

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.


Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon."

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

I say again that the Republican Party, as presently constituted and directed, is a greater threat to our democracy and constitutional structure than the Communist Party of the United States" ever attained.

Democrats: Wrong Again.

The "balance" within the Debt Ceiling agreement calls for matching reductions in military spending and entitlements programs to "kick-in" automatically if the bipartisan congressional panel fails to agree to alternative cuts totaling $1.2 trillion. Each, defense and entitlements, would then face $600 billion reductions over 10 years.

Unchallenged news reports place the Democrat leadership as the initiators of military spending as a counter-weight to Republican ideological and fiscal imperatives within the panel agenda. After all, it is suggested, Democrats hold that military spending is a "Republican" political paradigm. Democrat logic then sees a Republican acquiescence to Democrat initiatives to protect military spending in the congressional panel discussions. To be sure, elements of the Democrat base are against military spending, some at any level, and against the two ongoing wars while Republicans are generally seen as bulls in military spending.

Assume for the moment (for it would have no validity beyond this single moment) that the panel talks are productive and agreements are reached in rational compromise. Now, coming back to reality, let's assume that the Republicans refuse any discussion of revenue increase and the Democrats hold firm (this time) to their demand for a balanced reduction/revenue outcome. In either of these events the Democrats are going to have to face a strong political argument from the Republicans stemming from their own (Democrat) construct of this military/entitlements balance.

Cuts to the military are always styled as cuts to the "defense" budget. We are presently engaged in two wars. Anonymous "senior Pentagon officials" already warn of dire consequence if the "kick-in" occurs. Republicans may reasonably and with some validity argue in the coming months that the Democrats are willing to put the entrenched, "undeserved" entitlements of a few before the defense of this country while jeopardizing the lives of men and women in the front lines. Whatever the inflation to the Democrat base, this creature of compromise will definitely NOT play well with Independent voters. The Independents (as I) will not accept an outcome, real or gambled, detrimental to our Armed Forces, that is, to our defense.

The Democrats placement of "Defense" as the counter-weight was, at the least, short sighted while, more correctly, plain dumb. They could simply have stood on equity and principle. Leadership, in a country already demanding a balanced outcome, would have been a powerful counter-weight. Watch as it plays out.

Stupidity Agenda: FAA

Having observed the FAA failing to balance the dual and contradictory missions (promoting success of US air carriers/insuring public safety) Congress has imposed, I find it incredible that this is the field chosen for the next confrontation. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/us/03faa.html?pagewanted=1&hp “We are going to lose $1 billion in the aviation trust fund if we leave this Congress for the month of August and we don’t extend the F.A.A.”

Other news reports refer to stoppage of ongoing airport construction (jobs!) and "you betcha" if there is less inspection there will be safety problems in an industry rampant with economic shortcuts. One Department of Transportation (oversight of FAA) executive said to me a few years ago during a discussion of a national problem of defective aircraft replacement parts on commercial aircraft: "I never fly if I can avoid it." This may be the real explanation for tax breaks for corporate/executive jets!

If you have flown during this imposed break you may be entitled to a return of the amount paid for the federal tax. Could this be the Democrat's way of extending another stimulus giveaway? Or, is it a Republican ideological, gangster tactic? I know but am not saying.

Republicans! Wake Up!

As an Independent in Rep. Cantor's District and once supporter of the McCain/Palin ticket, I have been sickened and repulsed by the rhetoric on the Right and the tactics of the Republican Party since President Obama took office. Rep. Cantor, for his own political ambition and obviously generated by a flawed personality, has helped the Republican Party lead this Nation to a precipice over economic chaos.

It is particularly disheartening to read comment from those identifying themselves as Republicans expressing obvious ignorance of the facts at issue regarding the debt ceiling. This is not to say that Democrats on particular issues do not likewise follow blindly the Party line at times. But this issue is enormously important to our country and the world economic situation. The Republican Party repeating, over and over, no matter the context, question or opportunity, the same phrase "job creators," for example, or other "speaking point du jour" while deliberately avoiding accurately educating their constituents borders on reckless endangerment. Those new in Congress after pledging T-Party rhetoric, particularly had an obligation to educate themselves (they have not) and to honestly inform their constituents of the facts. That IS their responsibility in a representative democracy. That is Rep. Cantor's responsibility. There are issues for reasoned debate with the Democrats. Wake up Republicans. Or are you too scared, busy, blindly loyal, selfish or indifferent to learn the truth. If so, check your citizenship at the club door.

Amalgamated Self-Interest

It all comes down to self-interest. The Right has amalgamated the profit interests of the dehumanized corporation with the self-interest of unrestrained greed defining personal achievement for its vassals into a ideological construct disguised as a political party in a democracy. Although once it did exist in this country, there is no corresponding, challenging integrated whole from the Left. The paradigms of corporate existence and "success" have not changed. They have only expanded. The American society that underwrote by investment of wealth, sweat and brain the success of pre-Globalization, "American" corporations has been abandoned. American society must defend itself. It must amalgamate its varied self-interests toward new economic success in this country. Contrary to the fear mongering of the Right, this amalgamation from the "Left" need not and should not become the "feared Socialism." This new "Center Left" amalgam must find its identity and forcefully move politically now or it will never seed "the coming revolution." And I don't care who funds it. The self-interested corporate related funds nursed and directed the T party to gleeful success and is rashly and unjustifiably bringing our Nation to the brink of economic crises. The Right's Self-Interest is seeking a stronger platform in the 2012 elections. As one of its leaders has said, the Republican Party, the avatar of the amalgamated Right, will protect its brand at the expense of the country in order to achieve the sole objective of the defeat of President Obama.

The Debt Debacle

Republican intransigence on the issue of the debt ceiling is a national disgrace, severally stifling our economic recovery, creating instability in our international standing, and risking a dangerous level of economic chaos. The Republican refusal to moderate the supposedly "ideological" extreme is a substantial move toward increased wealth inequality, stabilization of an existing oligarchy and stagnation of economic and social progress. Their America is purely an economic unit wholly distinct from the ideals fundamental to our experiment as the first nation founded on moral principles.

Memorial Day 2011

MEMORIAL DAY 2011We each have our own thoughts and memories that provide a context to this Memorial Day weekend. All Americans share the responsibility to remember and to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms and in defense of freedom around the world. Whether lost to us in direct combat, during clandestine operations or in support of those missions, their memory must be cherished or this nation will be unworthy of their sacrifice. You will be unworthy of their sacrifice. The monuments that we erect are to stand as reminders of sacrifice and not as substitutes for personal reflection on duty, honor and appreciation.

The families who have lost a cherished son, daughter, father or mother need no reminder. We, combat veterans, need no reminder. Thoughts now of those dead in wars long past are no longer accompanied by a personal memory. Today brief media glimpses at the pain that remains with families as another American killed in Afghanistan, Iraq or some other distant place is honored and buried must provide a reminder to all Americans. The freedom we enjoy today is the legacy of the blood and sacrifice of the heroes in all our wars, past and present.

"you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer. For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb;" (Pericles 430 BCE)

The children in the photo are the sons of friends, a non-commissioned officer and his wife serving in the Army's 10th Mountain Division. The respect, innocently presented in their salute as our flag was being lowered one afternoon recently, may remind us of what values we bring to our own children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and neighbors by our deeds and our words. What have we said to our own about the meaning of Memorial Day. What have we done to show them that we remember and honor.

"However horrible the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind." Douglas MacArthur, 12 May, 1962, West Point, NY

Executive Power

A brief thought responding to a friend's comment: "Presidents have always used foreign affairs as an excuse to claim more executive power."

Agreed but, wouldn't you also accept that, at times, valid necessity presented more of the justification than an offer of excuse. Necessity having to be valued in the context of the then perceived "reality" where there was no reasonable choice but to grant the executive authority. Our failure has, more often than not, been the continuing acquiescence rather than the initial allowance.

A Response.

My friend, responding to my Friday the 13th comment challenged me saying that my "espousing the need for civility in one breath and then race bating and name calling in the next" was hollow commentary.

Well, I answered that I had intended merely to identify policies and ideological positions in the political arena that I find generally detestable on the present Right. I guess that I do regret having to call the proponents "Republicans."

To clarify, I reject levels of civility that constrain responses from the Democrat Party to what I have described. On the other side, the diversity within the Democrat Party fosters elements of selfishness similar to what I decried in the Republican Party and which work to destroy opportunity for the common good. As with the Right, some of the entrenched political, social and ideological cliques on the Left, though without power to control the nation, seek their own estates no matter the costs to the common good.

After receiving over the last two years blatantly racist jokes, cartoons and commentaries from many sources who each cloak themselves in conservative Republican association and observing the "birthers" driven by antagonistic disbelief that any man of mixed racial blood could be President, I conclude that racist beliefs form a portion of what has stimulated the Republican Party. I do not insinuate. I accuse.

Friday the 13th and I am Scared

The conversation began with a discussion of Ron Paul's latest affiliation. As is often the case, a sub-topic took over and we began to discuss political perspectives of the "media." A friend countered: "I will admit that from my political perspective here on the left coast, the [New York] Times and [Washington] Post seem pretty reasonable and it’s the FOX and other Murdock-controlled types of media that is scary."

And I added: I know that this may surprise some but I agree. However, for me, the baseless inflammatory rhetoric, the racist underpinnings, the fear mongering lies, the non-compromising political extortions, the preference for oligarchical sustainment, the defense of extreme wealth inequality over liberty, the ideological purity demanded, the narrowing of constitutional rights, the duplicitous propaganda concealing political agendas, and the exaltation of unbridled selfishness of and by the Republican Party, its backers, promoters, and the "tea" swallowing, flag wearing fellow travelers who, at best, know neither history nor reality, scare the hell out of me and, in all honesty, deeply anger me.

The America they represent to me is a mockery of a democracy which was to evolve from our declaration of an endowment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism is merely the carriage of economic progress. It must not form the engine of democracy. Most of us teach our children that capital will provide a measure of sustenance and goods but it will not provide character. So should it be with this evolving nation.

Gen. Patraeus and the CIA (cont.)

Responding to a friend's comment:

I am glad that you brought up the record of Sec. Gates as we discuss the expected transition in leadership within the administration. By all current accounts he has been the best example of civilian leadership in recent memory. It appears that the quality of his public character and management abilities might well be taught those aspiring to public service and to many now so engaged.

I believe that you correctly point out the transferrable management skills of those at the four star level in the military. As a four star general, I am confident that Gen. Patraeus has those skills. I am more concerned, and have been, about the recent and ongoing construct of the CIA and its ability to effectively support both para-military and classic intelligence and counter-intelligence programs. The spotlight has been on the para-military and Patraeus has held the leash in those counter terrorism and insurgency operations. Decades of service in uniform will, presumably, cause substantial concern for continuing military missions and objectives. What I suggest is that counter terrorism/insurgency is not the greatest threat to the United States and the CIA's directives and Patraeus's leadership will need to address that shifting paradigm.

It is now an open question whether Gen. Patraeus will remain on active duty while CIA Director. Should he do so, he should not follow the example of Michael Hayden who in his roles with the CIA and NSA continued to wear his military uniform. The distinction in responsibilities and authority must be clear.

General Patraeus to CIA

The New York Times reports today that President Obama is expected to name Leon E. Panetta Defense Secretary and David H. Petraeus C.I.A. Director.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28team.html?_r=1&hp

The Panetta move is understandable, in part, because it allows consistency at policy level. Hopefully, Panetta's tour at the CIA will have formed in him an appreciation for the role of the Intelligence Agency that will correctly distinguish and define intelligence programs within the military establishment. The Patraeus assignment is, in my view, extraordinary. Certainly there have been former military flag officers assigned in the past. Not certain if Stansfield Turner was active duty while head of CIA in the '70s, but, whatever Turner's rank or status, he was a disaster for the Agency and the country in that role.

Patraeus is of different mettle and experience. I would have thought that his experience and credibility would have warranted a role with a broader portfolio. His experience and abilities should provide the leadership essential for the CIA as well as enhance its credibility among critics. His experience has however focused him on military needs and applications almost exclusively in counter terrorism and insurgency. Notwithstanding the substantial para-military components now within the Agency, the need for "classic" intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities are critical. Efforts to counter cyber-terrorism include human and other clandestine operations. China, for example, has only, it appears, tangentially touched his primary military responsibilities. Africa (now becoming fixed in China's sphere of influence) as well has not been a primary focus. South America will take independent study. His recommendations to the President on current and long term intelligence directions and policy may accordingly be parochial. In the past these factors would not concern me to the degree they do today because in the past the Agency was staffed by career intelligence officers with extraordinary dedication to the best interests of the Country. Today a substantial number of positions are staffed by contract personnel whose enhanced salaries and corporate influence must present conflict in dedication.

In sum, he will have a learning curve, be unable to speak candidly to a broad audience and enters a field of endeavor fraught with potentials for all sorts of scandals, diversions and failures. His acceptance of the role seems to speak, in my view, to his own personal integrity, devotion to duty and love of this country.

Fire that writer, Mr President

Mr. President: Fire the writers who wrote your budget speech today. The issues are lost, the seriousness is lost, and the strength of your arguments are ineffectively presented in a rambling disjointed speech. The ideological flow will not persuade or convince those now so used to hyperbole and simple, baseless slogans. Choose 4 to 6 specifics and break down each to simple three word summary for presentation to the masses.

Budget on Facebook

The budget impasse - my Facebook responses:

"Where does the blame rightfully lay?"

Of course, this is politics. The players: a Democrat executive and Senate protecting values through programs deemed important and Republican operatives attempting to undo and void those programs. This is politics at this point in time having nothing to do with the deficit. In Congress, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maine and elsewhere, Republicans seek to roll back programs for ideological purposes under the guise of fiscal necessity. We are seeing the first battles and skirmishes of a class war only now being met with a defense by "the silent majority."


"We must do something like this for the sake of our Grandkids---Wake up America!"

Agreed we must do something and "Wake up" to do it. Our country has encountered and survived past "crises" by the strength of our ingenuity and willingness to adapt to overcome the challenge. As I read the paper outlining the Republican/Ryan strategic approach to the deficit and our future, I see nothing but the same failed ideology that, in large measure, created this "crisis." The rhetoric of the paper is comforting and inviting. But the invitation is to class war with further economic loss to all but corporations and the elite. New paradigms and an adaptation to global challenges with investments in education and freeing entrepreneurs must displace the existing oligarchy.

The Budget Battle

Assuming for the sake of argument that the most recent national election constituted a political "mandate" to firmly address the federal deficit, there is NO national mandate rationally discernible from that election to cut either federal regulation of air quality standards or support for women's health programs (labelling this by both political parties as "abortions" is inaccurate and misleading) or remove funding, for purely ideological reasons, for other programs of relatively insignificant budgetary effect.

Nor should a majority party in one House of Congress presume to speak for all Americans when the Executive and the Senate are controlled by the opposing party under the continuing mandate of two national elections. Eliminate all "riders" to the funding bill and the ideological issues can be argued and presented directly to the electorate for 2012.

Awards of Valor (II)

Recently the 9th United States Circuit Court issued an opinion holding the "Stolen Valor Act" unconstitutional. The Act was passed by Congress in 2005 to deal with the false claims of awards for military heroism. The case before the court dealt with a man who, among other lies of military service, claimed to have been awarded a Medal of Honor.

The lie is created from the the motivation of the liar. Is the liar acting out of derision toward the armed forces or its medals of valor or does the liar intend to accomplish some other end for which the medal of valor lie is merely a prop? The liar may perform his or her role as "military hero" admirably, for example, in a patriotic speech, so what is the harm? The script he voices may be appropriate and inspirational, so what is the harm? Whether the liar is a "nutcase, a "wannabe," or uses the lie for self-aggrandisement or personal ambition, the liar cloaks himself with the recognition and prestige that is rightly granted to recipients of the Medal of Honor in particular. The false assumption of that authority diminishes the Medal of Honor's unique status within our national culture and identity. The liar does not have the human capacity of a Medal of Honor recipient to script or speak as such an individual. By singular or multiple acts the true recipient has exposed certain elements of his humanity and thereby retains a unique quality of character that no actor/liar could replicate. The "audience" is thereby harmed by assimilating the speech and watching the behavior having been made to believe that the liar actually possessed a unique quality of character when those qualities do not exist in the liar. In my own experience, would the "Duty, Honor, Country" speech of General MacArthur in 1962, now iconic in the US Army, have retained its power if we were to have learned that it had been presented by an actor? It could not. Once the liar is exposed the audience loses some faith generally in the trustworthiness of veterans and in the military to speak to them from a position of unique experience and commitment.

Earlier here I had written: "Medals and ribbons are, in one sense, a part of the theatre costuming of the armed forces. But more, medals of valor are important recognitions of necessary and exemplary conduct in war. In the community of servicemen and women and veterans, as they should in the civilian world, the ribbons command a degree of respect." The loss credence and respect by citizens for the extraordinary, violent, agonizing work of the Armed Forces can lessen the sense of value they attribute to the men and women who serve. Disbelief in the recognition of heroism may correspondingly lessen the citizens' appreciation for the quality of heroism. The conduct of war needs and produces heroism in defense of all citizens. The movies and games create lies about war. Citizens have to be told the truth by those who know from their own experience the reality of war and duty or our volunteer army, less valued, may become our mercenary army and our veterans more readily ignored. One or two liars, by their individual acts will not affect the general population but such lies coupled with false reports from battle fields, media "spins," anti-military activism, etc. that have become the corollaries of war, will each contribute to a cumulative effect eroding respect and confidence. Look no further back than the '60s for an example. The protection of the integrity of awards of valor and the belief in their validity then is a vital component of our military's relationship with our civilian citizens.

Failing to protect the integrity of the Medal of Honor and awards of valor will encourage further incidents of lying. Veterans proudly and legitimately wearing an award of valor will face cynical disbelief and disregard from citizens rather than the handshake and thank you that they deserve. Liars, however motivated, mock and diminish the awards and their recipients. The theatre created by liars is, as all theatre, not reality. The belief in this particular untruth, however brief, affects all of us adversely.

Dear Rep. Cantor

I strongly oppose the attacks on the environment included in the amendments to H.R. 1 and I urgently ask that you stop reversing progress and that you work to reasoned compromises.

The Republican Party has shown itself to be a far greater threat to American democracy than the Communist Party of the United States ever was in this country. Your personal, ideological hypocrisy, baseless hyperbole and indifference to the best interests of ALL Americans is shameful at best. As a Virginia Representative, you above most, should act with statesman like qualities transcending party interests.

As a decorated combat veteran, long time Virginia citizen and a West Point graduate, I have an investment in this country and the Commonwealth. The ideological extremes of either political party repulse me. The Republican Party has shown itself, however, willing to sacrifice the best interests of the vast majority of Americans for the benefit of the few.

Herodotus wrote of the values of democracy but warned how a few could readily deceive the citizens into acting against their own best interest. The onslaughts, directly and indirectly, by you and your party on this administration, an administration that I did not support, from the very beginning have created and promoted that deception. You are now in a position to rectify this situation. Bring your party to negotiate and compromise in the crucible of the political system and your party will gain more for their political success and more for America. You owe America that change. I am available for further discussion at your convenience.

The First Step

Speaking only of Egypt, one of the more probable reactions of the United States will be to overreact. The greatest threat to moderation in Egypt and stability in the region may come from our overreaction to a more vigorous defense of the Palestinians (from which Hezbollah would be an unintended beneficiary) by the new Egyptian government. First, I assume that the tide of democratic aspirations retains a vitality and that the morality of the defiant, yet peaceful, youth that carried those aspirations will form a significant part of the zeitgeist within Egypt. Finally, I assume that the Egyptian military's Supreme Council will, in fact, allow "to materialize the aspirations of the Egyptian people." While most in the population will be focused on personal self-interest and, necessarily, economic progress, Egypt will seek to redefine external politics. This redefinition may include a stronger commitment to the Palestinians who fit a model of an oppressed, fellow Arab people. Rather than wait for an evolving Egyptian foreign policy to solidify in this direction, a direction that assuredly would prompt Israel to strengthen its counter-position, the United States should seize an opportunity to move toward a resolution. Commentators have been looking to the possible continuation of this popular movement in the other Arab countries with oppressive regimes and the probability of violence. Israel has no immunity nor should it.

Egypt: An Early Thought Re-Thought

1/28/2011 2:01:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time

"Egypt could now change the balance in the Mid-East to our disadvantage. Yemen and Jordan are also beginning to feel the internal pressures. We need a strong, non-sectarian Egypt as an ally. Liberty and Freedom are assuredly objectives we should foster but once that opening is created in an oppressive regime anarchy can be the immediate state of conditions. The population will then look to or fall to existing or dynamic leadership for direction. Muslim extremists now in Egyptian prisons (progeny of the "Brotherhood" that was the doctrinal foundation of al Qaeda) as "enemies of the state" and their followers may readily fill that leadership vacuum with the masses already committed to Islam. The same alternative would exist in Yemen and Jordan. Saudi Arabia would hastily crush any opposition to its strong Islamist establishment.

"One approach would be for the US to take affirmative, clandestine actions to either guide Mubarak to enlightened yet firm leadership with appropriate concessions to the people now in the streets (something we should have been doing over the last 30 years). Should the opposition in the streets continue to grow, using existing assets, we might support and guide a coup displacing Mubarak with, if not "friends" then at least a faction not Muslim extremist."

Upon further reflection it would seem grossly irresponsible to "guide" Egyptian military, politicians or others toward a coup d'etat. Given the sieve that purports to be our control of sensitive information, there should be no reasonable confidence in our being able to plausibly deny the actuality or appearance of control. The existing, direct, personal relationships at the higher levels of our militaries should provide the opportunity for highly selective "private" discussions. With Egypt's high command officers having just spent several days in Washington, DC the accusations of conspiracy may be unavoidable.

I suspect that with whatever may be happening on the streets across the Middle-East, there are groups, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in particular, now behind the scenes seeing the opportunity and moving toward the reinstatement of the caliphate. The impact earlier in Tunisia and now across the Middle-East of the Al Jazeera network is interesting not the least because of the Saudi control of the Arab press. Saudi Arabia having granted an asylum to the Tunisian President and with a history of association with Mubarak can be expected to act within its own substantial national interests. The Saudi regime will probably work to re-stabilize what has been the balance - probably. Yet, even the now relatively silent, yet influential (and rich), Saudi ruling family members may set aside doctrinal differences with the Brotherhood and other factions for strategic Islamic advantage and continuing Saudi influence. Israel, while staying alert and ready, should stand quietly and halt any overt, provocative conduct (actual or perceivable) toward Palestinians and its own adjacent neighbors. In fact, Israel should keep its many mouths silent.

It's Only a Game

It was the Bears. It was the Packers. It was Soldier Field. It was bitter cold. It was professional football and it was Chicago. There remain memories of men playing their game while pained, blooded and broken. There are memories of men determined not to fail or abandon their teammates. Now sits the image of Jay Cutler.

Vigorous, Honorable, Political Rhetoric

It would seem to me that, rather than attempting to defend the indefensible, the political leaders from Right and Left might best serve the Nation (and their individual political parties) by ignoring all in the past and publish a joint manifesto for political discourse in the future - at least through 2012. Although in my view the Right has been the far greater transgressor, by foregoing the opportunity to spank (non-violently) the bottoms of the Becks, Cantors and Limbaughs, the Left will better serve the political system and the country by moving on. This is viable only if elected leadership of the Right and the Left make a concerted move toward an agreement on civility and both act with self discipline, leadership and integrity (Wow, will that be a tough one!).

Whatever the evidence will show as to the probability of the Arizona shooter's specific motive, sanity and motivation, it would be a travesty if we as a Nation were to be talked into ignoring this opportunity to demand civility and cooperation within the political structures at all levels of government now that the political leaders have our attention.

Arizona Shootings and Responsibility

In mid-year 2009 I responded to a comment in a discussion forum:

"The threat I addressed in an earlier message which I think you are answering was not that of “Republican wingnuts.” The threat is that some wingnut, whether Republican, Anglican or resident Vulcan, will see in the unconstrained rhetoric “of the Right” a justification, license or opportunity for individual notoriety in violent conduct. The Republican Party holds itself out as the party of the conservative right and is, in fact, the party in opposition to the present administration. Since it asserts itself in those capacities I believe it assumes a responsibility to do whatever possible to bring the opposition rhetoric within reasoned constraint or, at least, disassociate itself from any inference of or potential for violent acts."

The Republican Party leadership chose, for its own political ambitions, to allow and at times encourage vitriolic rhetoric against the President and his policies. Commentary reacting now to events in Arizona is far too little, far too late and suspect now that the foundations of violent intolerance have been established.