Update from the Heartland
No.280
16.4.07 – 22.4.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.280
16.4.07 – 22.4.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
New life! Judson James – 8 lbs. 9 oz., 20 in. – born at 23:47, Sunday, 22.April.2007, Earth Day, to Melissa and Tyson in Austin, Texas. Mom & Dad are tired and doing well after the ordeal of child birth. We cannot wait to see and hold our newest grandchild. Another blessing has come to our family.
As new life comes, so life goes. Yet another day of infamy – 16.April.2007 – Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University), Blacksburg, Virginia – the massacre of 32 innocent citizens, the wounding of at least 15 others, plus the shooter's suicide – the worst single incident in U.S. history. The shooter has been identified as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, an undergraduate, senior, English major who was also a South Korean native and resident alien. As is usually the case, I have some observations.
1. As most of us who have served in the security or shooting business know, there is no such thing as perfect security or perfect safety. A willful individual or group can penetrate any system. As such, all security processes are designed for and intended to provide time – to anticipate, to respond, to thwart. Security systems are all about balance.
2. The early outrage at the conduct of campus and public law enforcement appears to be misguided and misdirected. Our laws and our society allow for enormous freedom and resist preemptive action. And yet, we must react to actions, not thoughts. To seek the contrary heads us toward the thought police and Oceania.
3. There are always signs. The problem in such cases rests in the fact that many or most of the indicative signs exist in the private domain. Thus, those closest to potential offenders are best positioned to connect the dots. Unfortunately, especially with mass murderers and capital criminals it seems, those closest are often contributors, enablers or catalysts -- abusers by action or complacency.
4. Having been the leader of a university campus (in my case, a minute version of Virginia Tech), I can empathize with the president. Of all our institutions, universities must be open and extraordinarily tolerant places. I suspect most university educators and administrators can recount experiences with bizarre, strange or marginal students, and even professors. I certainly have my stories. While we had contingency plans, we did not have a plan for such a horrific event. As we are learning, the students and professors saw problems and appear to have gone beyond expectations to help Cho. Further, the administration and faculty have handled the aftermath with dignity, strength and respect.
5. This incident will undoubtedly bring a further and more determined direct assault on the 2nd Amendment. As is our common urge, we seek laws to constrain every single citizen in the fallout of the actions of one rogue person. If we truly seek intervention, let us look to the construction and conduct of a mass murderer rather than attack with band-aids on symptoms.
6. Interesting question: would Cho have acted so boldly if he had known that someone, anyone, might have been armed and fought back?
7. One last thought at this juncture: I see this tragedy in many different lights. And, without trying to be morose, I must say, suicide is one thing -- a final act -- that we should all be entitled. Yet, to me, suicide is the coward's way out. However, if you are so inclined, do the honorable thing and do it alone.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada publicly stated, "The war is lost." This magnitude of defeatism and negativism would have been private between the President and the Majority Leader, 70 years ago. Such is not the case today; political expediency vastly exceeds the interests of this Grand Republic. At least we know where Harry stands. Unfortunately, what a truly sad and abysmal commentary on the state of American society when the Senate Majority Leader publicly declares a war lost with troops actively engaged in combat.
Since I doubt there will be any direct action or fallout from the Middle East diplomatic mission of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi [278], I thought I might offer a few closing observations. Numerous references, predominately in the conservative segments of the Press, have been made to a violation of law. The law in question is the Logan Act of 1799 (1 Stat. 613), enacted 30.January.1799 [18 U.S.C. § 953]. The law was named for Dr. George Logan -- a Philadelphia Quaker, a doctor, a republican, and a Pennsylvania legislator (later U.S. Senator) -- who decided to attempt his own negotiations with France, to settle the frictional controversies of the time. The law is specific and yet contains ambiguity, and has not been constitutionally tested directly, as yet; and, since it has existed for 200 years with virtually no enforcement or judicial test, I think the Logan Act is thus, de facto, unenforceable. So, I guess we should add another title for the Honorable Nancy Pelosi – Secretary of State no.2.
Well, this is a fine mess you got us into, Ollie. The long-awaited and latest ruling on “abortion rights” from the Supreme Court came on Wednesday in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart [548 U.S. ___ (2007)] [no. 05-380]. The genesis of this ruling goes back to Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)], however, the instigating issue comes from the constitutional question raised by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [PL 108-105, S.3, HR.760; 18 U.S.C. §1531(a)] – a Federal law stemming from Stenberg v. Carhart [530 U.S. 914 (2000)]. An essential element of argument in this week’s ruling rests in the explicit minute details of the various late-term, medical procedures, and do not serve this debate. This is one of those rulings that I would not recommend for reading. Without getting into the gory details, let it suffice to say that the Court upheld the prohibition of one particular procedure while allowing a different late-stage procedure. The bizarre element of this ruling is the lack of any allowance for the mother’s health, or any reference to the overarching fundamental right to privacy for every citizen. This particular case reflects the intransigence of both sides in that Justice Blackmun virtually guided the process in Roe, separating the State’s interest in each trimester. And yet, this seems to be a classic example of people seeing what they wish to see and ignoring everything that does conform to the expectations. The Court has extended the power of the State into a woman's uterus. As such, that extension must include the concomitant responsibility for that intrusion, i.e., the resultant child should become a ward of the State or available for adoption at the earliest possible time for the benefit of the child. Regrettably, we are not as concerned about the child as we are about the embryo or the fetus. So, it seems a majority, or at least a very vocal minority, would rather force a woman to bring a child into this world that she knows she cannot or will not care for, and as is so often the case, these neglected and abused children become criminals of various grades and some, perhaps just a few in statistical terms, become serial killers -- angry at the world around them. I shall continue my admonition . . . when will we protect the children with even a sliver of the energy we seek to protect an unwanted embryo or fetus? One last thought: since some folks cannot seem to abstain or use proper protection, perhaps we should have a qualification test and a licensing process for parents who seek to have children.
In the imbroglio boiling up in the wake of the Carhart ruling, I found James Taranto’s comment in his 19.April, “Best of the Web Today” journal the most intriguing.
“If Justice Ginsburg thinks she's a doctor, Justice Kennedy seems to think he's a poet. Medicine and poetry are both noble callings, but America would be better off if those who sat on the Supreme Court were content to be judges, to follow the law rather than use it to impose their moral judgments on the rest of us.” (emphasis added)
Now, ain’t that sumpin’! Apparently, Taranto has no problem using the law to impose his moral will on the rest of us, but ‘lo be it that the Supreme Court or anyone else should do so. The government does not belong in the morality business, except where injury may occur or public conduct drops below a threshold of tolerance.
Comments and contributions from Update no.279:
“In a different way, the marketplace DID determine Imus' fate. Corporate sponsors were dropping the program and threatening CBS Radio and MSNBC. Notwithstanding comments about employee pressure against Imus, this likely was the key in his being canned. Thus, in a macro-view, the marketplace actually made the determination. Also, consider the victims of his comments--instead of a public figure, he picked on a group of college girls--mostly teenagers, who had merely done well in sports and school. This added to the disaster. I listened to him often--especially when he had political and media people on the show. But he and his staff were going beyond the edge--I am surprised that the Catholic church didn't strongly object to the "Cardinal" sketch that his producer often did-which was profanity-laced and racist.”
My reply:
I, as well, listened to “Imus in the Morning” during my drive to work. I have often found his brand of shock-jock dialogue offensive, but his access to politicians, authors, and thinkers kept me engaged. I heard the offending phrase live on the radio, and I must say, I expelled a string of profanity to myself in the cab of my truck. You are quite right, of course, that he picked on the wrong group. My principal point hinges upon method. If the companies pulled their advertisements because they did not want to be associated with Don Imus’ bigotry, that’s fine by me; their choice. But, if they pulled their ads because of Sharpton el al, then I object. The latter is fear mongering to me, and political correctness gone mad. Also, I am extraordinarily tired of hearing from Sharpton and Jackson; they bore me, and they offend me with their selective outrage. I know the sketch you refer to, and I suspect the Catholic Church is taking a more circumspect position. I have long practiced civility in the public domain; I try not to offend anyone with my conduct or speech. I also believe the use of profanity in public intercourse simply confirms the ignorance of the speaker; conversely, I choose to defend the freedom of speech of every citizen – ignorant or educated, civil or uncivil. The essential is actions – not words. We choose our reaction to words. Actions are finite.
. . . to which came this additional comment:
“Couple more points--Imus has done a lot of good charity work—especially for the center in Texas for wounded troops--that Congress and DoD wouldn't support or finance.
“He may have cooked his goose by going on Sharpton's TV show and getting into a pointless argument (which carried over to other news shows). That bit of petulance and showing of no remorse got him in further hot water. I didn't see the show live, but saw the argument later on the news. He couldn't have done a worse thing.”
. . . to which I added:
I only saw clips of his Sharpton show performance. I am well aware of his philanthropic activities, but none of that gives him license to offend people. As I said, I defend his right to say whatever he wants (as long as no injury is caused [which in this case, there was no injury]); likewise, I defend the right of companies to withdraw their advertising support. I think he was genuinely remorseful, but his patience for penance was low. He fell victim to his own ego.
Another contribution:
Re: JFK shot by Oswald.
"I’ve seen the latest micro sec(cond) by micro sec(cond) shots and Oswald did it – very difficult shot but HE did it."
Re: Jimmy Carter
"He thought that he was smarter than everyone else and still does. He is so impressed with the way he is treated by the Democratic party that he can’t see how stupid he looks to other people."
Re: Bill Clinton .
"He will do and say whatever he has to in order to create a legacy of his own beliefs."
Re: George W. Bush (43) .
"The mistakes have been to think that the Democrats behave in a civil manner, that they really care about the country and not regaining power, and that he should have gone full bore after he declared war – including heavy strategic bombing which probably would have involved collateral damage, and that he will not come out and say the Islamofascists will kill us and our children if we don’t kill them first by whatever means at hand."
And, another contribution:
"Having worked in radio since 1992, I certainly have my own thoughts on the Don Imus kerfuffle. Just so you know, I don't and have never listened to the Imus Show, one main reason is because, just like him, I work the morning shift. Now, was his comment stupid? Yeah. My understanding was he said it while doing a 'joke' on which team was better looking, Rutgers or Tennessee. Do I think Imus is a racist? I don't know and I can't base an opinion on three words, especially when used in a 'joke,' even though what I heard of it didn't sound particularly funny. Again, I have never listened to his show or any of his past 'insults' to really come up with a track record for the man in my head. And I seriously don't know about making these stupid comments into a platform for a national debate on racism, especially when you have race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton leading the charge against Imus. To me, the issue is between Imus and the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team, and anything they want to say about Imus I have no problem with. I have the attitude of, 'If you want to lay some smack talk on me, I'll smack talk back.' I'll agree with you on this, Cap. Imus did pick on the wrong group. While women's sports have probably gained more acceptance over the last decade or two, there are plenty out there who don't take their accomplishments seriously. I covered several women's teams , and many of these girls work just as hard, in some cases even harder, than male athletes, and their desire to win is just as big. It is unfortunate that these comments have created a stain on an incredible season for Rutgers. But this is something that could have been handled with a meeting and an apology. Imus' initial suspension I had no problem with. Obviously he created some negative press for CBS & MSNBC and that was their way of disciplining him. His firing was extreme. If Imus had come back and his ratings were down and they couldn't give away advertising time for his show, then you'd have no choice but to can him. Like you said, the marketplace should have been the ultimate judge in whether Imus stays on the air or goes. Also, who died and made Jackson and Sharpton the supreme chieftains for the black community? Hell, they've said things in the past even more divisive than what Imus said. And, as many have made the point, they go after Imus for his 'hos' comment but do little if anything about rappers who say 100x worse in their crappy songs. One real shame in all this is Jackson and Sharpton hogging the air waves probably took a good chunk of the spotlight away from a man who did more to bring together different people in this country than either of those race hustlers . . . I'm talking about Jackie Robinson. This past weekend marked the 60th Anniversary of his first game for the Dodgers, thus breaking baseball's color barrier. The crap that man had to endure makes the 'nappy headed hos' comment look like nothing. Robinson got death threats, for crying out loud. But he did not rant about social injustices, real or imagined (in his case, very real). He had every right to be angry and bitter, yet he went out on the field, played hard and conducted himself as a gentlemen. He did not change peoples' minds by throwing tantrums and whining. He changed peoples' minds with his actions on the field. By winning the 1947 Rookie of the Year Award and the MVP two years later, by helping the Brooklyn Dodgers win several National League pennants, Robinson showed blacks belong in Major League Baseball just as much as whites. Too few in the "modern" civil rights movement seem to possess even an ounce of the attitude Jackie Robinson did at a time when racism was far more prevalent than today.
"Also, I do have to disagree with your classification of Rush Limbaugh as a 'public figure bigot.' I am a frequent listener of his show and I have never picked up any racist tone in him. Heck, one of his guest hosts is Walter E. Williams, a black man and professor of Economics at George Mason University, as a very intelligent guy. He has also spoken highly of people like Ward Connerly, Dr. Thomas Sewell and Martin Luther King. Hardly sounds like a bigot to me.
"Well, that's it for me here. I assume next week Update will have a lot to say about the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. BTW, do you realize other significant events in this one week time frame include the Oklahoma City Bombing, Waco and Columbine? If it were up to me, every year around this time I'd up security everywhere possible and put a ton of cops on the street. Ounce of prevention and all that, you know."
My response:
Bigotry is an odd and insidious mental and emotional process, most often contained by societal forces and laws, and usually seen in glimpses induced by intoxication, or unguarded moments. Bigotry is also taught and learned, certainly not a genetic or biological process. Is Don Imus a racist and/or sexist? Realistically, only Imus can answer that question. However, as I have said too many times to count, "where there is smoke, there is fire." More properly, the adage should say, the potential for fire. We also have another key qualifier -- context -- case in point, George Carlin's decades of public comedy based on words. Whether any of us appreciates his comedy, I find it hard to ignore the artistry of his humor craftsmanship based on the association of words. I heard Imus's words -- the context could not have been worse, and thus struck me immediately as I still believe it was -- a nasty, mean-spirited, racist and sexist besmirchment of a valiant, young, basketball team. If the Imus kerfuffle accomplishes anything positive, I hope it is self-examination of each of us. If we use derogatory terms in private, even if we control it in public, then I respectfully submit we have some degree of bigotry in our hearts. Further, I have repeated incessantly, each of us is entitled to our bigotry, but society has a responsibility to define proper public conduct. Lastly, as we have been taught bigotry, we can learn to shed our bigotry and embrace tolerance of diversity. I have voiced my opinion on Sharpton and Jackson, but they are just flawed men, as we all are. My objection goes beyond their personalities to their being allowed a public pulpit to spew their selective outrage and hypocrisy. Their silence on matters of race or the other social factors that do not involve Americans with dark skin pigmentation is a reflective form of racism, in my humble opinion. They don't condemn racism; they only condemn racism when it involves Americans like them -- that speaks volumes to me. As I said, I am tiring of their message. I think most, if not all, of us look to Jackie Robinson with this veneration. Jackie's honor, courage and dignity are standards for us all. I included Rush Limbaugh on my list of 'public figure bigots' because of the Donovan McNabb imbroglio. I think if we look closer, we shall find that was not the only indicator . . . as noted above.
Here is yet another contribution:
“I find it hard to believe someone like Imus can even find an audience to speak to. And without an audience his words are in the wind.“They ask that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no creature there to hear it, does it make a sound? That's my point. He has listeners and financial supporters or he could not function. That is the same for ALL public figures, and those who would be.“Not sure I would include all YOU do as public figure bigots. Rush Limbaugh for instance. He is way to the right, full of himself and all the notoriety he has gained over the years, and in my opinion does not ever give an opposing view which has real substance any time. He cuts them off or just starts talking and ignores them. But, I would not include him in your list. The others? Could I add to your list Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Our ‘Beloved’ Jane Fonda, and others, some who have left our earthly association not so long ago, many of Them WILL be missed – but not missed for their political and ideological views.
“Depends on where you speak from as far as whether you will be protected under the rights to free speech clause. High Government figure? -- maybe. Military? -- almost always NO. Media person? -- mostly always. Celebrity (REAL celebrity)? -- virtually always. Joe Shit, the Ragman, from Podunk, wherever? Be very careful, Joe!!! Your job, your home, your ability to support your family, and more, could be on the line, depending on how BIG an entity you piss off, and how much what you say interferes with Their game in life.
“I agree with your explanation of how the English Language is supposed to operate, as to meanings of words, meanings having to do with context of some statement, etc. The example "my wife" is brilliant. It does not mean I own this woman. It means she is MY wife, not yours. Sometimes that explanations are necessary in ordinary conversation. But it can easily be taken out of context, and so made to ‘Apparently’ say this or that, or convey this meaning or that.
“Media people who are both Experienced and Good at what they do can spot potentials for exploiting the spoken words of Anyone -- be they amateur bystander or celebrity, or politician, and no matter how high up on the food chain that person might be. If that possibly means big $$$ for THEIR employer, it means some pretty big $$$ for them. And all, or virtually all is PROTECTED by our Constitution. Free Speech. A win/win situation for some reporter or news analyst.“Racism? It goes both ways. And it does so when it appears to be in the best interests or attention garnering aspects of any particular race. ALL have used racism as a concept to further their own aims and goals. Some have had valid complaints. Some not. But what became important was how much Media attention they could generate. A lot---then they may get heard. Not much---forget it.“OR -- how they could turn their complaint, (rightly or wrongly didn't matter at that point), into a Constitutional issue, THAT would get both judicial and media attention?”
My response:
Yes, Imus does have fans and supporters. As long as he stayed on the positive side of the ledger, his brand of insulting dialogue was tolerated by the rest of us. When he crossed the line one too many times, this is the result. The same comparison can be made for Janet Jackson's Super Bowl faux pas, or Michael Richards' racist rant; an appropriate venue or not aggressively personal . . . the reaction would not have been as severe. In this process, society has drawn a line of tolerance. My point with Imus, or Howard Stern, or Michael Richards . . . individual decisions are relevant; group action, as in the Imus kerfuffle, imposes the will of that group, often a vocal minority, upon everyone; and in that, I strongly disagree. If you don't like it, don't watch or listen; please do not tell me what I can watch or listen to; there is a huge difference. You are not alone in objecting to my inclusion of Rush Limbaugh. I will only point to his Donovan McNabb statement -- smoke. He'll stay on my list. I'm not so sure about your additions. Political difference does not constitute bigotry or intolerance. So, where does disagreement become intolerance? Perhaps Hanoi Jane should be on the list of "public figure bigots" for her injurious and treasonous actions in 1972. An added factor in the consequence of free speech is association or affiliation. Case in point, speaking out as a military officer means you are speaking for the chain of command; the message must be for the chain of command, or silence is appropriate. There is a huge difference between speaking out as a private citizen and as an employee of a company or the government. Thus, when I wear a uniform, I no longer enjoy my constitutional freedom of speech, as I represent my service. Celebrities have considerably greater latitude as they are virtually self-employed. Sean Penn is an exceptional actor; I disagree with his politics and his personal actions; but, I stand to protect his right to say what he wishes. There is a universe of difference between what Sean Penn has done politically and what Hanoi Jane has done. I'll watch Sean's movies; I'll never watch Hanoi Jane's movies, again. As a side-note: Kevin and I talked numerous times during the development of our book -- TWA 800 - Accident or Incident? -- regarding the potential for offensive action by agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a consequence of our book. Salman Rushdie lived for many years under an IRI death fatwa, just for the words he wrote. In the end, Kevin and I considered the risk low . . . and the rest is history.
And, one last contribution:
“I have to share a short quip relative to your discussion of Don Imus' ignorance. Yeah, he stepped on the big one, but he said nothing different than what anyone else has said or heard in our oral or visual entertainment venues. The only difference here is that, as you eluded to, certain individuals with their own political motivations and access to the media, continue to deepen the chasm of bigotry rather than move on with the fact that history is history and there are positive elements continuing to be nurtured. There was another quote the day after the incident that really got my adrenaline pumping, but I am sure that no one else even noticed. From USA Today: Pat Summitt, whose Tennessee team beat Rutgers in the final, said Tuesday, "Never should there be a time when student-athletes are in a position to receive this kind of verbal abuse." This got me jump started in that she was so short sited at the event she focused all of the attention on a very small, almost insignificant group rather than help recognize this as a national, social epidemic. The issue is significantly larger than her little world of basketball. Citizens across this country, male and female alike should all be looking beyond Don Imus' comment about a group of basketball players. This is a cultural stigma that has gone virtually unchecked for a rather long time. Maybe this will stir some reflection and hopefully people can get on with their lives. History is History. Life continues to move forward. Hopefully, I can do my part knowing that time provides us opportunities to do great things and live for the future, not in the past.
“Lastly, as of this writing, the tragedy at Virginia Tech is inescapable. Bad things happen to good people. Hopefully our freedoms, beliefs, and values for life provide healing for those who are suffering, but also for those who do not feel that this has affected them! God bless all of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, military and innocents alike!
“I should have included a short comment about your reference to ‘Wife.’ My wife has never really been my ‘Wife’ or ‘Spouse.’ I most typically refer to her as my ‘Bride.’ She has always been that special someone that was more than a one hour ceremony. She is my ‘Wife’ or ‘Spouse’ on April 15 or any other documents that the legal system insists we fill out to meet our societal obligations.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
New life! Judson James – 8 lbs. 9 oz., 20 in. – born at 23:47, Sunday, 22.April.2007, Earth Day, to Melissa and Tyson in Austin, Texas. Mom & Dad are tired and doing well after the ordeal of child birth. We cannot wait to see and hold our newest grandchild. Another blessing has come to our family.
As new life comes, so life goes. Yet another day of infamy – 16.April.2007 – Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University), Blacksburg, Virginia – the massacre of 32 innocent citizens, the wounding of at least 15 others, plus the shooter's suicide – the worst single incident in U.S. history. The shooter has been identified as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, an undergraduate, senior, English major who was also a South Korean native and resident alien. As is usually the case, I have some observations.
1. As most of us who have served in the security or shooting business know, there is no such thing as perfect security or perfect safety. A willful individual or group can penetrate any system. As such, all security processes are designed for and intended to provide time – to anticipate, to respond, to thwart. Security systems are all about balance.
2. The early outrage at the conduct of campus and public law enforcement appears to be misguided and misdirected. Our laws and our society allow for enormous freedom and resist preemptive action. And yet, we must react to actions, not thoughts. To seek the contrary heads us toward the thought police and Oceania.
3. There are always signs. The problem in such cases rests in the fact that many or most of the indicative signs exist in the private domain. Thus, those closest to potential offenders are best positioned to connect the dots. Unfortunately, especially with mass murderers and capital criminals it seems, those closest are often contributors, enablers or catalysts -- abusers by action or complacency.
4. Having been the leader of a university campus (in my case, a minute version of Virginia Tech), I can empathize with the president. Of all our institutions, universities must be open and extraordinarily tolerant places. I suspect most university educators and administrators can recount experiences with bizarre, strange or marginal students, and even professors. I certainly have my stories. While we had contingency plans, we did not have a plan for such a horrific event. As we are learning, the students and professors saw problems and appear to have gone beyond expectations to help Cho. Further, the administration and faculty have handled the aftermath with dignity, strength and respect.
5. This incident will undoubtedly bring a further and more determined direct assault on the 2nd Amendment. As is our common urge, we seek laws to constrain every single citizen in the fallout of the actions of one rogue person. If we truly seek intervention, let us look to the construction and conduct of a mass murderer rather than attack with band-aids on symptoms.
6. Interesting question: would Cho have acted so boldly if he had known that someone, anyone, might have been armed and fought back?
7. One last thought at this juncture: I see this tragedy in many different lights. And, without trying to be morose, I must say, suicide is one thing -- a final act -- that we should all be entitled. Yet, to me, suicide is the coward's way out. However, if you are so inclined, do the honorable thing and do it alone.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada publicly stated, "The war is lost." This magnitude of defeatism and negativism would have been private between the President and the Majority Leader, 70 years ago. Such is not the case today; political expediency vastly exceeds the interests of this Grand Republic. At least we know where Harry stands. Unfortunately, what a truly sad and abysmal commentary on the state of American society when the Senate Majority Leader publicly declares a war lost with troops actively engaged in combat.
Since I doubt there will be any direct action or fallout from the Middle East diplomatic mission of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi [278], I thought I might offer a few closing observations. Numerous references, predominately in the conservative segments of the Press, have been made to a violation of law. The law in question is the Logan Act of 1799 (1 Stat. 613), enacted 30.January.1799 [18 U.S.C. § 953]. The law was named for Dr. George Logan -- a Philadelphia Quaker, a doctor, a republican, and a Pennsylvania legislator (later U.S. Senator) -- who decided to attempt his own negotiations with France, to settle the frictional controversies of the time. The law is specific and yet contains ambiguity, and has not been constitutionally tested directly, as yet; and, since it has existed for 200 years with virtually no enforcement or judicial test, I think the Logan Act is thus, de facto, unenforceable. So, I guess we should add another title for the Honorable Nancy Pelosi – Secretary of State no.2.
Well, this is a fine mess you got us into, Ollie. The long-awaited and latest ruling on “abortion rights” from the Supreme Court came on Wednesday in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart [548 U.S. ___ (2007)] [no. 05-380]. The genesis of this ruling goes back to Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)], however, the instigating issue comes from the constitutional question raised by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 [PL 108-105, S.3, HR.760; 18 U.S.C. §1531(a)] – a Federal law stemming from Stenberg v. Carhart [530 U.S. 914 (2000)]. An essential element of argument in this week’s ruling rests in the explicit minute details of the various late-term, medical procedures, and do not serve this debate. This is one of those rulings that I would not recommend for reading. Without getting into the gory details, let it suffice to say that the Court upheld the prohibition of one particular procedure while allowing a different late-stage procedure. The bizarre element of this ruling is the lack of any allowance for the mother’s health, or any reference to the overarching fundamental right to privacy for every citizen. This particular case reflects the intransigence of both sides in that Justice Blackmun virtually guided the process in Roe, separating the State’s interest in each trimester. And yet, this seems to be a classic example of people seeing what they wish to see and ignoring everything that does conform to the expectations. The Court has extended the power of the State into a woman's uterus. As such, that extension must include the concomitant responsibility for that intrusion, i.e., the resultant child should become a ward of the State or available for adoption at the earliest possible time for the benefit of the child. Regrettably, we are not as concerned about the child as we are about the embryo or the fetus. So, it seems a majority, or at least a very vocal minority, would rather force a woman to bring a child into this world that she knows she cannot or will not care for, and as is so often the case, these neglected and abused children become criminals of various grades and some, perhaps just a few in statistical terms, become serial killers -- angry at the world around them. I shall continue my admonition . . . when will we protect the children with even a sliver of the energy we seek to protect an unwanted embryo or fetus? One last thought: since some folks cannot seem to abstain or use proper protection, perhaps we should have a qualification test and a licensing process for parents who seek to have children.
In the imbroglio boiling up in the wake of the Carhart ruling, I found James Taranto’s comment in his 19.April, “Best of the Web Today” journal the most intriguing.
“If Justice Ginsburg thinks she's a doctor, Justice Kennedy seems to think he's a poet. Medicine and poetry are both noble callings, but America would be better off if those who sat on the Supreme Court were content to be judges, to follow the law rather than use it to impose their moral judgments on the rest of us.” (emphasis added)
Now, ain’t that sumpin’! Apparently, Taranto has no problem using the law to impose his moral will on the rest of us, but ‘lo be it that the Supreme Court or anyone else should do so. The government does not belong in the morality business, except where injury may occur or public conduct drops below a threshold of tolerance.
Comments and contributions from Update no.279:
“In a different way, the marketplace DID determine Imus' fate. Corporate sponsors were dropping the program and threatening CBS Radio and MSNBC. Notwithstanding comments about employee pressure against Imus, this likely was the key in his being canned. Thus, in a macro-view, the marketplace actually made the determination. Also, consider the victims of his comments--instead of a public figure, he picked on a group of college girls--mostly teenagers, who had merely done well in sports and school. This added to the disaster. I listened to him often--especially when he had political and media people on the show. But he and his staff were going beyond the edge--I am surprised that the Catholic church didn't strongly object to the "Cardinal" sketch that his producer often did-which was profanity-laced and racist.”
My reply:
I, as well, listened to “Imus in the Morning” during my drive to work. I have often found his brand of shock-jock dialogue offensive, but his access to politicians, authors, and thinkers kept me engaged. I heard the offending phrase live on the radio, and I must say, I expelled a string of profanity to myself in the cab of my truck. You are quite right, of course, that he picked on the wrong group. My principal point hinges upon method. If the companies pulled their advertisements because they did not want to be associated with Don Imus’ bigotry, that’s fine by me; their choice. But, if they pulled their ads because of Sharpton el al, then I object. The latter is fear mongering to me, and political correctness gone mad. Also, I am extraordinarily tired of hearing from Sharpton and Jackson; they bore me, and they offend me with their selective outrage. I know the sketch you refer to, and I suspect the Catholic Church is taking a more circumspect position. I have long practiced civility in the public domain; I try not to offend anyone with my conduct or speech. I also believe the use of profanity in public intercourse simply confirms the ignorance of the speaker; conversely, I choose to defend the freedom of speech of every citizen – ignorant or educated, civil or uncivil. The essential is actions – not words. We choose our reaction to words. Actions are finite.
. . . to which came this additional comment:
“Couple more points--Imus has done a lot of good charity work—especially for the center in Texas for wounded troops--that Congress and DoD wouldn't support or finance.
“He may have cooked his goose by going on Sharpton's TV show and getting into a pointless argument (which carried over to other news shows). That bit of petulance and showing of no remorse got him in further hot water. I didn't see the show live, but saw the argument later on the news. He couldn't have done a worse thing.”
. . . to which I added:
I only saw clips of his Sharpton show performance. I am well aware of his philanthropic activities, but none of that gives him license to offend people. As I said, I defend his right to say whatever he wants (as long as no injury is caused [which in this case, there was no injury]); likewise, I defend the right of companies to withdraw their advertising support. I think he was genuinely remorseful, but his patience for penance was low. He fell victim to his own ego.
Another contribution:
Re: JFK shot by Oswald.
"I’ve seen the latest micro sec(cond) by micro sec(cond) shots and Oswald did it – very difficult shot but HE did it."
Re: Jimmy Carter
"He thought that he was smarter than everyone else and still does. He is so impressed with the way he is treated by the Democratic party that he can’t see how stupid he looks to other people."
Re: Bill Clinton .
"He will do and say whatever he has to in order to create a legacy of his own beliefs."
Re: George W. Bush (43) .
"The mistakes have been to think that the Democrats behave in a civil manner, that they really care about the country and not regaining power, and that he should have gone full bore after he declared war – including heavy strategic bombing which probably would have involved collateral damage, and that he will not come out and say the Islamofascists will kill us and our children if we don’t kill them first by whatever means at hand."
And, another contribution:
"Having worked in radio since 1992, I certainly have my own thoughts on the Don Imus kerfuffle. Just so you know, I don't and have never listened to the Imus Show, one main reason is because, just like him, I work the morning shift. Now, was his comment stupid? Yeah. My understanding was he said it while doing a 'joke' on which team was better looking, Rutgers or Tennessee. Do I think Imus is a racist? I don't know and I can't base an opinion on three words, especially when used in a 'joke,' even though what I heard of it didn't sound particularly funny. Again, I have never listened to his show or any of his past 'insults' to really come up with a track record for the man in my head. And I seriously don't know about making these stupid comments into a platform for a national debate on racism, especially when you have race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton leading the charge against Imus. To me, the issue is between Imus and the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team, and anything they want to say about Imus I have no problem with. I have the attitude of, 'If you want to lay some smack talk on me, I'll smack talk back.' I'll agree with you on this, Cap. Imus did pick on the wrong group. While women's sports have probably gained more acceptance over the last decade or two, there are plenty out there who don't take their accomplishments seriously. I covered several women's teams , and many of these girls work just as hard, in some cases even harder, than male athletes, and their desire to win is just as big. It is unfortunate that these comments have created a stain on an incredible season for Rutgers. But this is something that could have been handled with a meeting and an apology. Imus' initial suspension I had no problem with. Obviously he created some negative press for CBS & MSNBC and that was their way of disciplining him. His firing was extreme. If Imus had come back and his ratings were down and they couldn't give away advertising time for his show, then you'd have no choice but to can him. Like you said, the marketplace should have been the ultimate judge in whether Imus stays on the air or goes. Also, who died and made Jackson and Sharpton the supreme chieftains for the black community? Hell, they've said things in the past even more divisive than what Imus said. And, as many have made the point, they go after Imus for his 'hos' comment but do little if anything about rappers who say 100x worse in their crappy songs. One real shame in all this is Jackson and Sharpton hogging the air waves probably took a good chunk of the spotlight away from a man who did more to bring together different people in this country than either of those race hustlers . . . I'm talking about Jackie Robinson. This past weekend marked the 60th Anniversary of his first game for the Dodgers, thus breaking baseball's color barrier. The crap that man had to endure makes the 'nappy headed hos' comment look like nothing. Robinson got death threats, for crying out loud. But he did not rant about social injustices, real or imagined (in his case, very real). He had every right to be angry and bitter, yet he went out on the field, played hard and conducted himself as a gentlemen. He did not change peoples' minds by throwing tantrums and whining. He changed peoples' minds with his actions on the field. By winning the 1947 Rookie of the Year Award and the MVP two years later, by helping the Brooklyn Dodgers win several National League pennants, Robinson showed blacks belong in Major League Baseball just as much as whites. Too few in the "modern" civil rights movement seem to possess even an ounce of the attitude Jackie Robinson did at a time when racism was far more prevalent than today.
"Also, I do have to disagree with your classification of Rush Limbaugh as a 'public figure bigot.' I am a frequent listener of his show and I have never picked up any racist tone in him. Heck, one of his guest hosts is Walter E. Williams, a black man and professor of Economics at George Mason University, as a very intelligent guy. He has also spoken highly of people like Ward Connerly, Dr. Thomas Sewell and Martin Luther King. Hardly sounds like a bigot to me.
"Well, that's it for me here. I assume next week Update will have a lot to say about the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. BTW, do you realize other significant events in this one week time frame include the Oklahoma City Bombing, Waco and Columbine? If it were up to me, every year around this time I'd up security everywhere possible and put a ton of cops on the street. Ounce of prevention and all that, you know."
My response:
Bigotry is an odd and insidious mental and emotional process, most often contained by societal forces and laws, and usually seen in glimpses induced by intoxication, or unguarded moments. Bigotry is also taught and learned, certainly not a genetic or biological process. Is Don Imus a racist and/or sexist? Realistically, only Imus can answer that question. However, as I have said too many times to count, "where there is smoke, there is fire." More properly, the adage should say, the potential for fire. We also have another key qualifier -- context -- case in point, George Carlin's decades of public comedy based on words. Whether any of us appreciates his comedy, I find it hard to ignore the artistry of his humor craftsmanship based on the association of words. I heard Imus's words -- the context could not have been worse, and thus struck me immediately as I still believe it was -- a nasty, mean-spirited, racist and sexist besmirchment of a valiant, young, basketball team. If the Imus kerfuffle accomplishes anything positive, I hope it is self-examination of each of us. If we use derogatory terms in private, even if we control it in public, then I respectfully submit we have some degree of bigotry in our hearts. Further, I have repeated incessantly, each of us is entitled to our bigotry, but society has a responsibility to define proper public conduct. Lastly, as we have been taught bigotry, we can learn to shed our bigotry and embrace tolerance of diversity. I have voiced my opinion on Sharpton and Jackson, but they are just flawed men, as we all are. My objection goes beyond their personalities to their being allowed a public pulpit to spew their selective outrage and hypocrisy. Their silence on matters of race or the other social factors that do not involve Americans with dark skin pigmentation is a reflective form of racism, in my humble opinion. They don't condemn racism; they only condemn racism when it involves Americans like them -- that speaks volumes to me. As I said, I am tiring of their message. I think most, if not all, of us look to Jackie Robinson with this veneration. Jackie's honor, courage and dignity are standards for us all. I included Rush Limbaugh on my list of 'public figure bigots' because of the Donovan McNabb imbroglio. I think if we look closer, we shall find that was not the only indicator . . . as noted above.
Here is yet another contribution:
“I find it hard to believe someone like Imus can even find an audience to speak to. And without an audience his words are in the wind.“They ask that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no creature there to hear it, does it make a sound? That's my point. He has listeners and financial supporters or he could not function. That is the same for ALL public figures, and those who would be.“Not sure I would include all YOU do as public figure bigots. Rush Limbaugh for instance. He is way to the right, full of himself and all the notoriety he has gained over the years, and in my opinion does not ever give an opposing view which has real substance any time. He cuts them off or just starts talking and ignores them. But, I would not include him in your list. The others? Could I add to your list Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Our ‘Beloved’ Jane Fonda, and others, some who have left our earthly association not so long ago, many of Them WILL be missed – but not missed for their political and ideological views.
“Depends on where you speak from as far as whether you will be protected under the rights to free speech clause. High Government figure? -- maybe. Military? -- almost always NO. Media person? -- mostly always. Celebrity (REAL celebrity)? -- virtually always. Joe Shit, the Ragman, from Podunk, wherever? Be very careful, Joe!!! Your job, your home, your ability to support your family, and more, could be on the line, depending on how BIG an entity you piss off, and how much what you say interferes with Their game in life.
“I agree with your explanation of how the English Language is supposed to operate, as to meanings of words, meanings having to do with context of some statement, etc. The example "my wife" is brilliant. It does not mean I own this woman. It means she is MY wife, not yours. Sometimes that explanations are necessary in ordinary conversation. But it can easily be taken out of context, and so made to ‘Apparently’ say this or that, or convey this meaning or that.
“Media people who are both Experienced and Good at what they do can spot potentials for exploiting the spoken words of Anyone -- be they amateur bystander or celebrity, or politician, and no matter how high up on the food chain that person might be. If that possibly means big $$$ for THEIR employer, it means some pretty big $$$ for them. And all, or virtually all is PROTECTED by our Constitution. Free Speech. A win/win situation for some reporter or news analyst.“Racism? It goes both ways. And it does so when it appears to be in the best interests or attention garnering aspects of any particular race. ALL have used racism as a concept to further their own aims and goals. Some have had valid complaints. Some not. But what became important was how much Media attention they could generate. A lot---then they may get heard. Not much---forget it.“OR -- how they could turn their complaint, (rightly or wrongly didn't matter at that point), into a Constitutional issue, THAT would get both judicial and media attention?”
My response:
Yes, Imus does have fans and supporters. As long as he stayed on the positive side of the ledger, his brand of insulting dialogue was tolerated by the rest of us. When he crossed the line one too many times, this is the result. The same comparison can be made for Janet Jackson's Super Bowl faux pas, or Michael Richards' racist rant; an appropriate venue or not aggressively personal . . . the reaction would not have been as severe. In this process, society has drawn a line of tolerance. My point with Imus, or Howard Stern, or Michael Richards . . . individual decisions are relevant; group action, as in the Imus kerfuffle, imposes the will of that group, often a vocal minority, upon everyone; and in that, I strongly disagree. If you don't like it, don't watch or listen; please do not tell me what I can watch or listen to; there is a huge difference. You are not alone in objecting to my inclusion of Rush Limbaugh. I will only point to his Donovan McNabb statement -- smoke. He'll stay on my list. I'm not so sure about your additions. Political difference does not constitute bigotry or intolerance. So, where does disagreement become intolerance? Perhaps Hanoi Jane should be on the list of "public figure bigots" for her injurious and treasonous actions in 1972. An added factor in the consequence of free speech is association or affiliation. Case in point, speaking out as a military officer means you are speaking for the chain of command; the message must be for the chain of command, or silence is appropriate. There is a huge difference between speaking out as a private citizen and as an employee of a company or the government. Thus, when I wear a uniform, I no longer enjoy my constitutional freedom of speech, as I represent my service. Celebrities have considerably greater latitude as they are virtually self-employed. Sean Penn is an exceptional actor; I disagree with his politics and his personal actions; but, I stand to protect his right to say what he wishes. There is a universe of difference between what Sean Penn has done politically and what Hanoi Jane has done. I'll watch Sean's movies; I'll never watch Hanoi Jane's movies, again. As a side-note: Kevin and I talked numerous times during the development of our book -- TWA 800 - Accident or Incident? -- regarding the potential for offensive action by agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a consequence of our book. Salman Rushdie lived for many years under an IRI death fatwa, just for the words he wrote. In the end, Kevin and I considered the risk low . . . and the rest is history.
And, one last contribution:
“I have to share a short quip relative to your discussion of Don Imus' ignorance. Yeah, he stepped on the big one, but he said nothing different than what anyone else has said or heard in our oral or visual entertainment venues. The only difference here is that, as you eluded to, certain individuals with their own political motivations and access to the media, continue to deepen the chasm of bigotry rather than move on with the fact that history is history and there are positive elements continuing to be nurtured. There was another quote the day after the incident that really got my adrenaline pumping, but I am sure that no one else even noticed. From USA Today: Pat Summitt, whose Tennessee team beat Rutgers in the final, said Tuesday, "Never should there be a time when student-athletes are in a position to receive this kind of verbal abuse." This got me jump started in that she was so short sited at the event she focused all of the attention on a very small, almost insignificant group rather than help recognize this as a national, social epidemic. The issue is significantly larger than her little world of basketball. Citizens across this country, male and female alike should all be looking beyond Don Imus' comment about a group of basketball players. This is a cultural stigma that has gone virtually unchecked for a rather long time. Maybe this will stir some reflection and hopefully people can get on with their lives. History is History. Life continues to move forward. Hopefully, I can do my part knowing that time provides us opportunities to do great things and live for the future, not in the past.
“Lastly, as of this writing, the tragedy at Virginia Tech is inescapable. Bad things happen to good people. Hopefully our freedoms, beliefs, and values for life provide healing for those who are suffering, but also for those who do not feel that this has affected them! God bless all of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, military and innocents alike!
“I should have included a short comment about your reference to ‘Wife.’ My wife has never really been my ‘Wife’ or ‘Spouse.’ I most typically refer to her as my ‘Bride.’ She has always been that special someone that was more than a one hour ceremony. She is my ‘Wife’ or ‘Spouse’ on April 15 or any other documents that the legal system insists we fill out to meet our societal obligations.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment