Update from the Heartland
No.279
9.4.07 – 15.4.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.279
9.4.07 – 15.4.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
I imagine most folks have heard of the latest faux pas of radio and television talk show host Don Imus. For those who may not have heard . . . long-in-the-tooth, shock jock, Don referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team in the national championship game as “nappy headed ho’s.” Don Imus has a long history of insulting people; he picked on the wrong group this time. He could have gone after gangsta’rappers or criminal sports figures being given special treatment, but no, he chose a multi-racial, college women’s basketball team that played their hearts out in a national championship game after an incredible struggle just to make it to the top. He is not paying for a single incident of indiscretion, but rather a professional career of uncivil insults. I will not endorse or repeat all the pronouncements of the talking heads. I will offer a slightly different take. Set aside the gauche, juvenile, playground, name-calling, this kerfuffle is political correctness gone stark raving mad. These are words, not baseball bats or lynching ropes. Like Ann Coulter, Michael Richards, Rush Limbaugh, Mel Gibson, and all other public figure bigots, Imus once again exposed his bigotry and paucity of basic civility to public scrutiny. We have a responsibility to publicly condemn such bigotry from individuals who enjoy a public bully pulpit. If I had said the exact same thing in the workplace as a leader within the company, I would most likely and fully expected to be fired. Name-calling is hardly new. Forty years ago, I was called a bottom-dwelling, blood-sucking, baby killer by some anti-war protesters; should I have been outraged over such verbal abuse? Where I diverge from Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson lays in their demands for offensive action, in essence demanding other folks do what they dictate, and most significantly, their blatant selective outrage is disgustingly hypocritical. And, where is the injury? Being offended by words is a matter of personal choice, and does not constitute injury in and of itself. My recommendation . . . if we disapprove, then we should shun Don Imus -- turn our backs to him and switch off his programs. Let the marketplace define his fate. Each of us is entitled to our opinions, beliefs and views regarding any one or a combination of the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, language, political affiliation, sexual orientation or disability. Why do we condone preferential treatment for race, and most often specifically dark skinned citizens, in contrast to all the other social factors? We are all entitled to publicly profess our beliefs as long as our words cause no harm, and as noted, I have seen no injury. We give Don Imus his pulpit by listening; we should take his pulpit away by not listening. When a few other citizens dictate conduct constraining freedom of speech, we have entered dangerous territory. Frankly, I would rather have the bigotry out in the open where I can see and confront it. Forcing bigotry underground only allows it to fester, mutate and become cancerous. They are just words, folks; let us be stronger citizens than the nearly intolerant level this kerfuffle represents.
Since we are talking about political correctness, I shall insert a paragraph I wrote for a different forum.
The English language has long been seen as a powerful medium for communications, because of its adaptability, its general absorptive nature, and the vast flexibility of the words. As a result, care in the use of such a powerful tool remains essential. That said, I shall respectfully submitted to a critical audience, the key in such questions as propriety rests heavily on context, as Don Imus is learning today. I find it hard to abandon gender or possessive pronouns simply because they are . . . it is the context that defines the meaning. In speech, the intonation of the words adds weight to the context. When I use the term "my wife," I mean my wife as opposed to your wife; I do NOT mean I own this woman -- body, mind and spirit; the emphasis is neutral. In days gone by, I used the gender neutral term spouse rather than the feminine wife in deference to my feminist friends. Likewise, for many years, I tried to use s/he or both to imply gender neutrality. I no longer do so, as I am comfortable allowing my usage in context and my intonation in speech to convey my neutrality on the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, language, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation and disability. I try hard to treat all human beings equally and with respect regardless of the social factors, and I do not feel I need to abandon the beauty, magnificence and expansiveness of the English language to "prove" my neutrality.
One last comment, for now, on political correctness . . . I am growing truly weary of these self-anointed, talking head, accusers of my generation who consistently, persistently, and with vengeance, weald their sanctimonious, hypocritical, selective outrage of racism only when it involves folks with dark skin pigmentation. I am tired of these incessant reminders of what some other citizen's ancestors did to citizens of color, two centuries ago. I have done my penance. I have stood and I continue to stand against discrimination involving any one or combination of the social factors including race. I am tiring of the message. I can only pray to the Good Lord Almighty that before I pass to dust, we shall know a society of individual citizens that "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," devoid of the shrill indignation so common to these events. Henceforth, I refuse to acknowledge any modifier to American; either you are an American, period, or you are not. I will continue to treat people with respect regardless of the social factors, and I refuse to treat someone better just because he has dark skin or certain anatomical characteristics. I see no reason to use offensive language or insulting labels in constructive and production social intercourse. Perhaps, we should all examine the content, character and intent of our language.
Several contributors forwarded a memorandum for the record written by General Barry R. McCaffrey USA (Ret) -- Adjunct Professor of International Affairs, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York -- titled "After Action Report - Visit Iraq and Kuwait 9-16 March 2007," and dated 26.March.2007. Barry offers a rather grim, but seemingly fair and reasonable assessment of conditions on the ground. He speaks with considerably more access and credibility than me. One particular sentence best summarizes Barry's independent opinion,
"In my judgment, we can still achieve our objective of: a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government."
We could discount Barry's view at just another self-servicing government appraisal, and such opinion would be rather narrow and parochial. I urge everyone, regardless of your views on the Battle for Iraq, to read Barry's trip report. The URL link is:
http://www.west-point.org/publications/AARMcCaffreyIraq032607.pdf
If you have any difficult retrieving the document, please let me know, and I would be happy to forward a copy.
A recent article raised an interesting point for our critical consideration.
"First They Came for the Jews"
by Dorothy Rabinowitz
Wall Street Journal
April 2, 2007; page A17
Rabinowitz reminded us of an important espionage case -- United States v. Rosen / Weissman [case no. 1:05cr225]. [229, 245] This particular case involves the allegation that a government employee passed classified information through two intermediaries -- Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman -- to the government of Israel. While I continue to watch this case play out in court, the episode illuminates a far more serious overarching issue. The State's witness -- Lawrence Franklin, who pled guilty -- along with the two defendants are minor players and the material (as best I can tell) is hardly earth shattering -- contemporary regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. I condemn anyone who discloses classified material to any unauthorized person for any reason. However, I note the Rabinowitz article and the Rosen case to highlight one sad, cruel reality -- the American justice system is hardly fair or equal. We press the prosecution of these relatively minor players to the fullest extent of the law, in the face of a mere slap on the wrist for former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and a Clinton pardon for former Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch, both men committed far more egregious mishandling of classified material. I acknowledge this example is hardly the first and certainly will not be the last inequity in the application of the law. As citizens, we must continue to remind ourselves of reality, and when we can, voice our indignation and demand for proper punishment for these transgressions . . . and here, I mean Berger and Deutch (although John already has the ultimate get-out-fail-free card), not Franklin, Rosen and Weissman. The title of the Rabinowitz article makes sense.
The House of Representatives recently joined the Senate when they introduced their version of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 [HR 1416]; the Senate's version is identified as S.185; both versions have been referred to the associated and respective committees for consideration. The language in both bills seeks to repeal portions of or amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and legislatively return writ of habeas corpus to the Guantánamo detainees. I repeat and maintain that giving battlefield combatants access to the civil justice system is wrong in the worst possible way and sets a terrible precedent for future conflicts . . . as surely as there will be.
'Tis the season after all . . . as the U.S. Supreme Court issues interesting rulings. Last week, the Court released its decision in the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [548 U.S. ___ (2007)] [No. 05-1120]. This ruling can supplant our top example of judicial activism, or at least it is in the top five of contemporary such cases. Further, Massachusetts v. EPA will not be on any list of excellent judicial scholarship or craftsmanship. And yet, I did manage to find a couple of notable pearls. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the dissent and noted, "The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases -- not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates," in his disagreement with the majority; and, that one sentence may well summarize Roberts' view on judicial activism. However, I must humbly confess my public recognition of Antonin the Impaler's wisdom in his dissent conclusion. “The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.” Bad boy Antonin made his case, and yet, the Court reversed the appeals court and remanded the case for reconsideration in accordance with the ruling. That said, global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles with internal-combustion engines is perhaps moot, in comparison to our need to find alternative energy sources for personal vehicular travel and so many other uses. Fossil fuels are not limitless, and emissions from burning fossil fuel cannot be viewed as helpful, no matter how we may slice and dice it. We must evolve the technology before we have no choice. If hyping global warming helps motivate the United States to develop and deploy non-greenhouse-gas-emitting automobiles and trucks, then let’s get ‘er done.
On Tuesday, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed into state law HB148 [SB634] – an Act concerning Presidential Elections – Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. I recognize and acknowledge that members in good standing of the Democratic Party are still pissed about the 2000 Presidential election, but this bill is constitutional foolishness and absurdity at its most corrosive level. Regardless of whether you are a resident of the State of Maryland, every U.S. citizen should read this law; the URL link is:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb0148t.pdf
The salient and critical segment of this law states, “the presidential electors shall cast their votes for the candidates for President and Vice President who received a plurality of votes cast in the National Popular Vote Total.” (emphasis added)
1. I am gobsmacked the citizens of Maryland would stand for such a law, and
2. I cannot imagine this law surviving judicial scrutiny.
The words in the law essentially say it does not matter what the vote count is in the State of Maryland . . . only the national popular vote matters. A candidate could literally get ZERO votes in the state, but the Maryland electoral votes in toto (10 in this case) would go to the national popular vote winner. Thus, the residents of Maryland have ceased to be relevant. Maryland has ceased to be relevant. If other states join this agreement as is suggested, only the population centers will matter. We are tinkering with the very essence of our representative democracy. I do not want to sound like Chicken Little here, but . . . elimination of just one of the checks and balances that have stood us in good stead for two centuries may well provide the kindling and perhaps the spark of a revolutionary conflagration comparable to the Civil War, or even worse, a disintegration of this Grand Republic, as the disenfranchisement of minorities coalesces into actionable resentment. The Founders carefully and wisely crafted a system of governance that stood against simple majority rule and for the protection of minority voices. This Maryland bill is the first bona fide abandonment of our Founding principles. I suspect future generations of Democratic Party members will be lamenting the 2000 election, much like some Southerners still yearn for the good ol’ days of the Confederacy. Lastly, I am seriously disappointed that a constitutional action of this magnitude was not placed before the people, rather than decided by a mere, simple majority of legislative representatives and a sympathetic executive.
Here’s a neat idea. Let’s convict the parents for the crimes of their juvenile delinquent children. While such a draconian law might seem harsh or inappropriate, it might also convince parents that they will be held accountable for the conduct of their children, and thus help them see the need to be more deeply involved in the training, education and rearing of their children. A beneficial collateral effect might well be convincing parents-to-be to re-think procreation and contraception, and avoid a societal state of being they are ill-prepared or committed to uphold.
Comments and contributions from Update no.278:
“You have looked into the discussion and evidence for the controlled demolition of building 7, haven't you? If not let me know so we can discuss.
[Quoted from my previous reply . . . ]
And, even if Building 7 was intentionally destroyed by city, state or federal agents, I am not able to see how that would alter the ultimate outcome.
"Whoa! I didn't see this the first time I scanned your comment- Are you serious? Care to elaborate? Have you looked into the 9/11 situation at all? This is an incredible comment!"
My response:
To be candid, I am not likely to devote precious time to independently research the WTC Building 7 collapse/demolition. We’ve discussed United 93 & the Pentagon attack before. If you wish to feed me data, I’ll do my best to assess it and render an opinion. As I said in an earlier post, I just don’t see the yield.
Now to yr questions . . .
Yes, I am stone-cold serious. There is not a scintilla of doubt in my little pea-brain that those four airliners were hijacked by 19 Islamofascist terrorists, and consequently, that three of the four aircraft hit their intended targets. As a result, the President of the United States sought congressional authorization, received said authorization, and executed two of many operational plans to deploy the military in what I refer to as the War on Islamic Fascism. I am a believer; as Commodore Stephen Decatur so eloquent stated, “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!” Or, as his toast to those in the naval services is so often modified . . . “My country, may she always be right, but right or wrong, my country!” My point being, once the trigger is pulled, I no longer have any concern for the reasons for the fight; I seek to do what must be done to prevail; we’ll sort out the righteousness of the action in the history books, and those who pulled the trigger shall stand in judgment. Five successive administrations, and especially the last two or three, have had ample justification to declare war on Islamic Fascism, but they repeatedly failed to do so, including the current administration, as we have discussed. To think that any American administration, and especially one that must operate in today’s hyperactive media environment, would, with malice of forethought, construct an elaborate false flag operation to take the country to war is beyond my comprehension. We have far too many people inside and outside any administration, including this one, who would not standby idly, in silence, at such an event; case in point, all those damnable intelligence means and methods leaks exposed to and reported by the New York Times; they are truly damaging to our warfighting capability, and yet they continue.
President Roosevelt has long been accused of knowing what was coming and “allowing” Pearl Harbor to occur with the specific intention of enflaming American passions and taking us into the world war raging around us. I have studied the latest developed information, both pro and con, and I do not and cannot subscribe to such hypotheses. While I continue to rail against federalism and specifically this administration’s arrogance of power, I truly believe they are well-meaning and doing what they believe is best for the country during a time of war. I do not agree with many of the choices they have made, but the President is still the Commander-in-Chief, period.
. . . round two:
"Good reply. Here's where I come at it: If the evidence leads me to suspect there was some complicity, then I do not feel it is my duty as an American to ignore it or let my desire to not believe people in power could be involved in such a thing keep me from asking the questions. As in the Kennedy assassination we are regularly and blithely told there is nothing to any so-called conspiracy that disagrees with sanctioned conclusions. Now I have spent quite a bit of time on the Kennedy thing and I am convinced, from the available evidence, that Kennedy was hit in the throat from the front, and that no bullet went through his back and out his throat. I will not bore you with all that detail- but after looking into it I realized that no matter what the reasons, who the conspirators or players were, the facts are not what we are told. In the 911 tragedy there are actually more discrepancies than in the Kennedy assassination, since there were so many different events and people involved. To realize that WTC7 was brought down late in the afternoon by controlled demolition one could stop there and say, well that's interesting. How it was done, who did it, why and so forth, are tantalizing questions but it is intellectually dishonest, to me, to say that there is no reason to suspect the other two were brought down on purpose as well, if one thinks the smaller one came down by controlled demotion of some kind. But I won't go there yet- let's just stay with wtc7 because we can't begin to question the big things until we answer some of the smaller ones. People a lot smarter than me have looked into this and I will give you a link to pursue this, if you have time. I am not in need of convincing you to change your mind, because I don't think you will, and I can't put you in my journey anymore than you can put me in yours. But you are often very factual and clear-headed in your logic so maybe you can factually and clear-headedly refute some ideas that the research suggests. I can change my mind because I have no reason to believe anything but the truth. But evidence and facts will have to win out as opposed to whatever is different from them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
"This site has too much information to summarize it adequately here. So, when you have time look into it. There are many out there and most are full of crap so, apply the chaff from the wheat rule. This is one of the best I have seen."
. . . my response to round two:
I try hard to avoid labels, for myself and others, with marginal success; far too limiting and rarely all encompassing. Likewise, I try to analyze events like I assess engineering failures and aircraft accidents. As noted in the previous message, I am a firm believer in the wisdom of Occam's Razor. And yet, one of the ever present traps in ambiguous events is objectivity, to avoid seeing what we wish to see and making the picture appear as we wish it to appear.
I think Roosevelt knew something was happening, but did not know enough to forecast the attack. A war warning had been issued, but the available intelligence was imprecise and the localization of the Japanese fleet did not make it through the intelligence process in time to sound the alarm.
I think Harry Truman decided to drop both atomic weapons on Japan for the very reason he gave -- to end the war and avoid the obscene loss of life in an invasion of the Home Islands.
I think Dwight Eisenhower fell victim to the Red Menace scare, Fidel Castro's surprising success, and encouraged the construction of various plans like the Bay of Pigs and Operation NORTHWOODS.
I think JFK was shot by Oswald, period. I've walked the ground, been through the most recent forensic analysis, and the Warren Report was a sample of abysmal investigative work.
I think LBJ was trying to do what he thought was right, but he was afraid of his own shadow when it came to the PRC & USSR, and their support of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. His failure cost the lives of 58,000 Americans and untold damaged lives.
I think Richard Nixon was a foolish, paranoid man, who was convinced he was doing the best thing for the country, given the societal trauma of the day.
I think Jimmy Carter truly thought he could rescue the hostages, but had no concept of special operations, combat leadership, and the role of the civilian leadership in military operations. His failure was a significant encouragement to the Islamofascists.
I think Ronald Reagan was so preoccupied by the USSR that he failed to recognize or respect the threat of Islamofascism. He deployed Marines without being prepared for the fight, withdrew the Marines when we got a bloody nose, and gave the Islamofascists another big shot of encouragement.
I think George H.W. Bush (41) did what had to be done regarding the liberation of Kuwait and the Somalia operation, but he failed to appreciate the importance of domestic politics. In stopping Schwarzkopf from going to Baghdad, Bush 41 choice the short term goal rather than face the true reality of burgeoning state-sponsored terrorism and Islamofascism.
I think Bill Clinton had and still has such contempt for the military and belief in his own infallibility that he refused to believe Islamofascism was anything more than a few bad criminals running around hurting people.
This forum has been active through the majority of George W. Bush's (43) presidency, and my criticism of his actions is established and remains valid.
None of these men were bad men. None of them conspired to do bad things. All of them made bad decisions. They are human. I am not condoning or rationalizing the conduct and missteps of our presidents . . . just my opinion as I read the facts.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
I imagine most folks have heard of the latest faux pas of radio and television talk show host Don Imus. For those who may not have heard . . . long-in-the-tooth, shock jock, Don referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team in the national championship game as “nappy headed ho’s.” Don Imus has a long history of insulting people; he picked on the wrong group this time. He could have gone after gangsta’rappers or criminal sports figures being given special treatment, but no, he chose a multi-racial, college women’s basketball team that played their hearts out in a national championship game after an incredible struggle just to make it to the top. He is not paying for a single incident of indiscretion, but rather a professional career of uncivil insults. I will not endorse or repeat all the pronouncements of the talking heads. I will offer a slightly different take. Set aside the gauche, juvenile, playground, name-calling, this kerfuffle is political correctness gone stark raving mad. These are words, not baseball bats or lynching ropes. Like Ann Coulter, Michael Richards, Rush Limbaugh, Mel Gibson, and all other public figure bigots, Imus once again exposed his bigotry and paucity of basic civility to public scrutiny. We have a responsibility to publicly condemn such bigotry from individuals who enjoy a public bully pulpit. If I had said the exact same thing in the workplace as a leader within the company, I would most likely and fully expected to be fired. Name-calling is hardly new. Forty years ago, I was called a bottom-dwelling, blood-sucking, baby killer by some anti-war protesters; should I have been outraged over such verbal abuse? Where I diverge from Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson lays in their demands for offensive action, in essence demanding other folks do what they dictate, and most significantly, their blatant selective outrage is disgustingly hypocritical. And, where is the injury? Being offended by words is a matter of personal choice, and does not constitute injury in and of itself. My recommendation . . . if we disapprove, then we should shun Don Imus -- turn our backs to him and switch off his programs. Let the marketplace define his fate. Each of us is entitled to our opinions, beliefs and views regarding any one or a combination of the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, language, political affiliation, sexual orientation or disability. Why do we condone preferential treatment for race, and most often specifically dark skinned citizens, in contrast to all the other social factors? We are all entitled to publicly profess our beliefs as long as our words cause no harm, and as noted, I have seen no injury. We give Don Imus his pulpit by listening; we should take his pulpit away by not listening. When a few other citizens dictate conduct constraining freedom of speech, we have entered dangerous territory. Frankly, I would rather have the bigotry out in the open where I can see and confront it. Forcing bigotry underground only allows it to fester, mutate and become cancerous. They are just words, folks; let us be stronger citizens than the nearly intolerant level this kerfuffle represents.
Since we are talking about political correctness, I shall insert a paragraph I wrote for a different forum.
The English language has long been seen as a powerful medium for communications, because of its adaptability, its general absorptive nature, and the vast flexibility of the words. As a result, care in the use of such a powerful tool remains essential. That said, I shall respectfully submitted to a critical audience, the key in such questions as propriety rests heavily on context, as Don Imus is learning today. I find it hard to abandon gender or possessive pronouns simply because they are . . . it is the context that defines the meaning. In speech, the intonation of the words adds weight to the context. When I use the term "my wife," I mean my wife as opposed to your wife; I do NOT mean I own this woman -- body, mind and spirit; the emphasis is neutral. In days gone by, I used the gender neutral term spouse rather than the feminine wife in deference to my feminist friends. Likewise, for many years, I tried to use s/he or both to imply gender neutrality. I no longer do so, as I am comfortable allowing my usage in context and my intonation in speech to convey my neutrality on the social factors -- age, gender, race, ethnicity, language, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation and disability. I try hard to treat all human beings equally and with respect regardless of the social factors, and I do not feel I need to abandon the beauty, magnificence and expansiveness of the English language to "prove" my neutrality.
One last comment, for now, on political correctness . . . I am growing truly weary of these self-anointed, talking head, accusers of my generation who consistently, persistently, and with vengeance, weald their sanctimonious, hypocritical, selective outrage of racism only when it involves folks with dark skin pigmentation. I am tired of these incessant reminders of what some other citizen's ancestors did to citizens of color, two centuries ago. I have done my penance. I have stood and I continue to stand against discrimination involving any one or combination of the social factors including race. I am tiring of the message. I can only pray to the Good Lord Almighty that before I pass to dust, we shall know a society of individual citizens that "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," devoid of the shrill indignation so common to these events. Henceforth, I refuse to acknowledge any modifier to American; either you are an American, period, or you are not. I will continue to treat people with respect regardless of the social factors, and I refuse to treat someone better just because he has dark skin or certain anatomical characteristics. I see no reason to use offensive language or insulting labels in constructive and production social intercourse. Perhaps, we should all examine the content, character and intent of our language.
Several contributors forwarded a memorandum for the record written by General Barry R. McCaffrey USA (Ret) -- Adjunct Professor of International Affairs, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York -- titled "After Action Report - Visit Iraq and Kuwait 9-16 March 2007," and dated 26.March.2007. Barry offers a rather grim, but seemingly fair and reasonable assessment of conditions on the ground. He speaks with considerably more access and credibility than me. One particular sentence best summarizes Barry's independent opinion,
"In my judgment, we can still achieve our objective of: a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government."
We could discount Barry's view at just another self-servicing government appraisal, and such opinion would be rather narrow and parochial. I urge everyone, regardless of your views on the Battle for Iraq, to read Barry's trip report. The URL link is:
http://www.west-point.org/publications/AARMcCaffreyIraq032607.pdf
If you have any difficult retrieving the document, please let me know, and I would be happy to forward a copy.
A recent article raised an interesting point for our critical consideration.
"First They Came for the Jews"
by Dorothy Rabinowitz
Wall Street Journal
April 2, 2007; page A17
Rabinowitz reminded us of an important espionage case -- United States v. Rosen / Weissman [case no. 1:05cr225]. [229, 245] This particular case involves the allegation that a government employee passed classified information through two intermediaries -- Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman -- to the government of Israel. While I continue to watch this case play out in court, the episode illuminates a far more serious overarching issue. The State's witness -- Lawrence Franklin, who pled guilty -- along with the two defendants are minor players and the material (as best I can tell) is hardly earth shattering -- contemporary regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. I condemn anyone who discloses classified material to any unauthorized person for any reason. However, I note the Rabinowitz article and the Rosen case to highlight one sad, cruel reality -- the American justice system is hardly fair or equal. We press the prosecution of these relatively minor players to the fullest extent of the law, in the face of a mere slap on the wrist for former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and a Clinton pardon for former Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch, both men committed far more egregious mishandling of classified material. I acknowledge this example is hardly the first and certainly will not be the last inequity in the application of the law. As citizens, we must continue to remind ourselves of reality, and when we can, voice our indignation and demand for proper punishment for these transgressions . . . and here, I mean Berger and Deutch (although John already has the ultimate get-out-fail-free card), not Franklin, Rosen and Weissman. The title of the Rabinowitz article makes sense.
The House of Representatives recently joined the Senate when they introduced their version of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 [HR 1416]; the Senate's version is identified as S.185; both versions have been referred to the associated and respective committees for consideration. The language in both bills seeks to repeal portions of or amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and legislatively return writ of habeas corpus to the Guantánamo detainees. I repeat and maintain that giving battlefield combatants access to the civil justice system is wrong in the worst possible way and sets a terrible precedent for future conflicts . . . as surely as there will be.
'Tis the season after all . . . as the U.S. Supreme Court issues interesting rulings. Last week, the Court released its decision in the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [548 U.S. ___ (2007)] [No. 05-1120]. This ruling can supplant our top example of judicial activism, or at least it is in the top five of contemporary such cases. Further, Massachusetts v. EPA will not be on any list of excellent judicial scholarship or craftsmanship. And yet, I did manage to find a couple of notable pearls. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the dissent and noted, "The constitutional role of the courts, however, is to decide concrete cases -- not to serve as a convenient forum for policy debates," in his disagreement with the majority; and, that one sentence may well summarize Roberts' view on judicial activism. However, I must humbly confess my public recognition of Antonin the Impaler's wisdom in his dissent conclusion. “The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.” Bad boy Antonin made his case, and yet, the Court reversed the appeals court and remanded the case for reconsideration in accordance with the ruling. That said, global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles with internal-combustion engines is perhaps moot, in comparison to our need to find alternative energy sources for personal vehicular travel and so many other uses. Fossil fuels are not limitless, and emissions from burning fossil fuel cannot be viewed as helpful, no matter how we may slice and dice it. We must evolve the technology before we have no choice. If hyping global warming helps motivate the United States to develop and deploy non-greenhouse-gas-emitting automobiles and trucks, then let’s get ‘er done.
On Tuesday, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed into state law HB148 [SB634] – an Act concerning Presidential Elections – Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. I recognize and acknowledge that members in good standing of the Democratic Party are still pissed about the 2000 Presidential election, but this bill is constitutional foolishness and absurdity at its most corrosive level. Regardless of whether you are a resident of the State of Maryland, every U.S. citizen should read this law; the URL link is:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/bills/hb/hb0148t.pdf
The salient and critical segment of this law states, “the presidential electors shall cast their votes for the candidates for President and Vice President who received a plurality of votes cast in the National Popular Vote Total.” (emphasis added)
1. I am gobsmacked the citizens of Maryland would stand for such a law, and
2. I cannot imagine this law surviving judicial scrutiny.
The words in the law essentially say it does not matter what the vote count is in the State of Maryland . . . only the national popular vote matters. A candidate could literally get ZERO votes in the state, but the Maryland electoral votes in toto (10 in this case) would go to the national popular vote winner. Thus, the residents of Maryland have ceased to be relevant. Maryland has ceased to be relevant. If other states join this agreement as is suggested, only the population centers will matter. We are tinkering with the very essence of our representative democracy. I do not want to sound like Chicken Little here, but . . . elimination of just one of the checks and balances that have stood us in good stead for two centuries may well provide the kindling and perhaps the spark of a revolutionary conflagration comparable to the Civil War, or even worse, a disintegration of this Grand Republic, as the disenfranchisement of minorities coalesces into actionable resentment. The Founders carefully and wisely crafted a system of governance that stood against simple majority rule and for the protection of minority voices. This Maryland bill is the first bona fide abandonment of our Founding principles. I suspect future generations of Democratic Party members will be lamenting the 2000 election, much like some Southerners still yearn for the good ol’ days of the Confederacy. Lastly, I am seriously disappointed that a constitutional action of this magnitude was not placed before the people, rather than decided by a mere, simple majority of legislative representatives and a sympathetic executive.
Here’s a neat idea. Let’s convict the parents for the crimes of their juvenile delinquent children. While such a draconian law might seem harsh or inappropriate, it might also convince parents that they will be held accountable for the conduct of their children, and thus help them see the need to be more deeply involved in the training, education and rearing of their children. A beneficial collateral effect might well be convincing parents-to-be to re-think procreation and contraception, and avoid a societal state of being they are ill-prepared or committed to uphold.
Comments and contributions from Update no.278:
“You have looked into the discussion and evidence for the controlled demolition of building 7, haven't you? If not let me know so we can discuss.
[Quoted from my previous reply . . . ]
And, even if Building 7 was intentionally destroyed by city, state or federal agents, I am not able to see how that would alter the ultimate outcome.
"Whoa! I didn't see this the first time I scanned your comment- Are you serious? Care to elaborate? Have you looked into the 9/11 situation at all? This is an incredible comment!"
My response:
To be candid, I am not likely to devote precious time to independently research the WTC Building 7 collapse/demolition. We’ve discussed United 93 & the Pentagon attack before. If you wish to feed me data, I’ll do my best to assess it and render an opinion. As I said in an earlier post, I just don’t see the yield.
Now to yr questions . . .
Yes, I am stone-cold serious. There is not a scintilla of doubt in my little pea-brain that those four airliners were hijacked by 19 Islamofascist terrorists, and consequently, that three of the four aircraft hit their intended targets. As a result, the President of the United States sought congressional authorization, received said authorization, and executed two of many operational plans to deploy the military in what I refer to as the War on Islamic Fascism. I am a believer; as Commodore Stephen Decatur so eloquent stated, “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!” Or, as his toast to those in the naval services is so often modified . . . “My country, may she always be right, but right or wrong, my country!” My point being, once the trigger is pulled, I no longer have any concern for the reasons for the fight; I seek to do what must be done to prevail; we’ll sort out the righteousness of the action in the history books, and those who pulled the trigger shall stand in judgment. Five successive administrations, and especially the last two or three, have had ample justification to declare war on Islamic Fascism, but they repeatedly failed to do so, including the current administration, as we have discussed. To think that any American administration, and especially one that must operate in today’s hyperactive media environment, would, with malice of forethought, construct an elaborate false flag operation to take the country to war is beyond my comprehension. We have far too many people inside and outside any administration, including this one, who would not standby idly, in silence, at such an event; case in point, all those damnable intelligence means and methods leaks exposed to and reported by the New York Times; they are truly damaging to our warfighting capability, and yet they continue.
President Roosevelt has long been accused of knowing what was coming and “allowing” Pearl Harbor to occur with the specific intention of enflaming American passions and taking us into the world war raging around us. I have studied the latest developed information, both pro and con, and I do not and cannot subscribe to such hypotheses. While I continue to rail against federalism and specifically this administration’s arrogance of power, I truly believe they are well-meaning and doing what they believe is best for the country during a time of war. I do not agree with many of the choices they have made, but the President is still the Commander-in-Chief, period.
. . . round two:
"Good reply. Here's where I come at it: If the evidence leads me to suspect there was some complicity, then I do not feel it is my duty as an American to ignore it or let my desire to not believe people in power could be involved in such a thing keep me from asking the questions. As in the Kennedy assassination we are regularly and blithely told there is nothing to any so-called conspiracy that disagrees with sanctioned conclusions. Now I have spent quite a bit of time on the Kennedy thing and I am convinced, from the available evidence, that Kennedy was hit in the throat from the front, and that no bullet went through his back and out his throat. I will not bore you with all that detail- but after looking into it I realized that no matter what the reasons, who the conspirators or players were, the facts are not what we are told. In the 911 tragedy there are actually more discrepancies than in the Kennedy assassination, since there were so many different events and people involved. To realize that WTC7 was brought down late in the afternoon by controlled demolition one could stop there and say, well that's interesting. How it was done, who did it, why and so forth, are tantalizing questions but it is intellectually dishonest, to me, to say that there is no reason to suspect the other two were brought down on purpose as well, if one thinks the smaller one came down by controlled demotion of some kind. But I won't go there yet- let's just stay with wtc7 because we can't begin to question the big things until we answer some of the smaller ones. People a lot smarter than me have looked into this and I will give you a link to pursue this, if you have time. I am not in need of convincing you to change your mind, because I don't think you will, and I can't put you in my journey anymore than you can put me in yours. But you are often very factual and clear-headed in your logic so maybe you can factually and clear-headedly refute some ideas that the research suggests. I can change my mind because I have no reason to believe anything but the truth. But evidence and facts will have to win out as opposed to whatever is different from them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html
"This site has too much information to summarize it adequately here. So, when you have time look into it. There are many out there and most are full of crap so, apply the chaff from the wheat rule. This is one of the best I have seen."
. . . my response to round two:
I try hard to avoid labels, for myself and others, with marginal success; far too limiting and rarely all encompassing. Likewise, I try to analyze events like I assess engineering failures and aircraft accidents. As noted in the previous message, I am a firm believer in the wisdom of Occam's Razor. And yet, one of the ever present traps in ambiguous events is objectivity, to avoid seeing what we wish to see and making the picture appear as we wish it to appear.
I think Roosevelt knew something was happening, but did not know enough to forecast the attack. A war warning had been issued, but the available intelligence was imprecise and the localization of the Japanese fleet did not make it through the intelligence process in time to sound the alarm.
I think Harry Truman decided to drop both atomic weapons on Japan for the very reason he gave -- to end the war and avoid the obscene loss of life in an invasion of the Home Islands.
I think Dwight Eisenhower fell victim to the Red Menace scare, Fidel Castro's surprising success, and encouraged the construction of various plans like the Bay of Pigs and Operation NORTHWOODS.
I think JFK was shot by Oswald, period. I've walked the ground, been through the most recent forensic analysis, and the Warren Report was a sample of abysmal investigative work.
I think LBJ was trying to do what he thought was right, but he was afraid of his own shadow when it came to the PRC & USSR, and their support of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. His failure cost the lives of 58,000 Americans and untold damaged lives.
I think Richard Nixon was a foolish, paranoid man, who was convinced he was doing the best thing for the country, given the societal trauma of the day.
I think Jimmy Carter truly thought he could rescue the hostages, but had no concept of special operations, combat leadership, and the role of the civilian leadership in military operations. His failure was a significant encouragement to the Islamofascists.
I think Ronald Reagan was so preoccupied by the USSR that he failed to recognize or respect the threat of Islamofascism. He deployed Marines without being prepared for the fight, withdrew the Marines when we got a bloody nose, and gave the Islamofascists another big shot of encouragement.
I think George H.W. Bush (41) did what had to be done regarding the liberation of Kuwait and the Somalia operation, but he failed to appreciate the importance of domestic politics. In stopping Schwarzkopf from going to Baghdad, Bush 41 choice the short term goal rather than face the true reality of burgeoning state-sponsored terrorism and Islamofascism.
I think Bill Clinton had and still has such contempt for the military and belief in his own infallibility that he refused to believe Islamofascism was anything more than a few bad criminals running around hurting people.
This forum has been active through the majority of George W. Bush's (43) presidency, and my criticism of his actions is established and remains valid.
None of these men were bad men. None of them conspired to do bad things. All of them made bad decisions. They are human. I am not condoning or rationalizing the conduct and missteps of our presidents . . . just my opinion as I read the facts.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment