Update no.291

Update from the Heartland

No.291

2.7.07 – 8.7.07

Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
A Nation at war makes the celebration of America’s Independence Day all the more poignant and dramatic. The Wichita Eagle published the Declaration of Independence in toto with a similar thought, reflective of my view of our foundation document; we used the newspaper medium this year. Also, this year marked another milestone for our family. Our children grew up listening and then reading the Declaration of Independence word for majestic word. This year, our oldest grandchild – 10-year-old Aspen Shae – read the preamble to the family for the first time; her mother – our oldest child, Jacy Lynn – finished the list of grievances and the somber conclusion of resolve – “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Listening to our granddaughter read those glorious words brought an ear-to-ear grin and tears of pride to my eyes. We are blessed.

Aspen Shae reading the Declaration of Independence

The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, President Bush commuted the prison term portion of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby’s sentence after he was convicted by a jury of perjury and obstruction of justice. [199, 203, 270, 287] The President reportedly believed Scooter's sentence was too harsh given the underlying crime. I think the judge's sentence was on the heavy side given the crime, but the President's action, while partially beneficial to Libby, will only serve as yet one more example of elitist political patronage that thumbs its nose at We, the People. I acknowledge that the original investigation rapidly turned political, but no one directed Libby to lie to the grand jury. A contempt charge (without Executive Privilege) would have been more tolerable than perjury. No matter what placed him in that position, he chose to commit a crime that compromises our judicial processes. The appeals process is there to ensure fair and reasonable treatment. The President decided to take Libby's case above the law. I have no sympathy for Libby, and I condemn the President's injection into the judicial process. The message: political cronies are above the law -- not a good message in my book. It seems W. believes partisan political motivation is a tolerable rationale for lying to a grand jury. Just because Slick Willy Clinton did these sorts of things does not mean anyone else should; and, for someone who claimed to be so principled, this was a really bad move.
-- In last week's Update [290], I referred to the unusual number of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions. Thanks to Linda Greenhouse at the New York Times, who took the time to count those rulings, we have some interesting statistics. Of the 68 spring term opinions, an unusually high number – 24 (35%) – were decided by a narrow 5-4 margin; of those, 19 were fully polarized along ideological lines. Further, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy voted with the majority is all of the 5-4 cases; and he dissented only twice in all 68 cases. Since Kennedy appears to be assuming the role as the swing vote, much as Sandra O’Connor did in her day, we can expect more conservative opinions as he seems to be ideologically to the right of O’Connor.

A year ago, I acknowledged and offered my opinion on the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, in the case of American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency [Case No. 06-CV-10204] regarding the government’s warrantless surveillance program. [245] On Friday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court decision in ACLU v. NSA (Nos. 06-2095/2140), based on plaintiffs’ lack of standing, i.e., the plaintiffs did not demonstrate injury or impact from the program. I do not need to take us into another court ruling of standing, similar to Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation . [290] Yet, based on the Supreme Court’s Hein ruling, I suspect the 6th Circuit’s ACLU v. NSA decision will not exceed the Court’s Hein standing criterion, and thus will likely stand without Supreme Court intervention. The exception might hang upon an overriding concern regarding the definition of the President’s War Powers, but I suspect not. In addition to recognizing the 6th Circuit’s proper decision, I must illuminate a news article written by Associated Press Writer Lisa Cornwell, titled: “Court rejects Ohio domestic spying suit.” She chose to set the tone for her news article by focusing on the political party of the president who appointed the circuit judges to the appeals court bench. We appear destined to further politicize and polarize the Judicial Branch and the judicial process. As Cornwell implies, she apparently believes politics are more relevant than the legal arguments. Further, I can find no evidence that she has read either of the court decisions or even cares about the law involved. Since many folks do not take the time to read these legal epistles, reporters like Cornwell can effectively and seriously color any judicial ruling. Such is the case here. Forewarned is forearmed. The federal level judges tend to be a rather independent lot, and I truly believe that politicization of the Federal Judiciary does a significant disservice to this Grand Republic. I reject Cornwell’s rendering of the 6th Circuit’s ACLU v. NSA ruling.

Here is another thought that came to me . . . fiscal conservative . . . can any politician claim that label? I doubt it. Those who claim the ideology are far more likely to be fiscally conservative with everyone else's spending, but not their own grotesque spending. Based on popular information, I cannot find such an animal. They all spend the public treasure like drunken sailors . . . every damn one of them . . . and such an accusation does a serious disservice to honorable sailors. These weak politicians cannot stop their largesse; they all do it; they seek their share for their constituents – it is a vicious vortex that proves too strong for these weak men to extricate themselves. And, We, the People, pay the price for their lack of fiscal responsibility and accountability. In a quotation I find particular coherent and resonant:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
-- attribution unknown (several attempts at attribution have failed to coalesce)
Despite the lack of a clear, unequivocal progenitor for the quotation, the premise seems quite reasonable, logical and appropriate. We cannot continue the insanity of secret, attached earmarks and unchecked spending, especially in the face of so many failures to deal with the serious fiscal threats we face – social security, health care, unconstrained illegal immigration, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.

In the aftermath of last week’s flurry of Supreme Court rulings, coupled with a long standing frustration in my inability to engage a respected constitutional scholar within my sphere of friends regarding certain fundamental rights, I continue my rumination on one central puzzling and essential question. How are we to view the boundary between public and private, and the hierarchy of relationships between the individual citizen and the various levels of government instituted to serve the People? The 6th Circuit’s ACLU v. NSA ruling, noted above, adds to the body of law associated with the relationship between the State and any particular individual citizen. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote 172 years ago, “Within these limits, the power vested in the American courts of justice of pronouncing a statue to be unconstitutional forms one of the most powerful barriers that have ever been devised against the tyranny of political assemblies.” That reality has certainly become more striking in the last 60 years. We can look at a growing number of cases where one group of Americans see judicial activism or legislation by judicial fiat, while at the very same time, another group of Americans see the Court as their only protector, their only defender . . . the only bulwark against the oppression of a willful majority using the instruments of State to further their aims. While the following list is most assuredly not exhaustive or all-inclusive, these cases represent the dilemma we face.
Sipuel v. University of Oklahoma [332 U.S. 631 (1948)], racial discrimination;
McCollum v. Board of Education [333 U.S. 203 (1948)], school prayer;
Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)], racial integration;
Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)], citizen’s right to privacy;
Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967)], racial equality;
Stanley v. Georgia [394 U.S. 557 (1969)], privacy;
Swann v. Charlotte Board of Education [402 U.S. 1 (1971)], forced busing;
Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)], privacy and freedom of choice;
Carey v. Population Services International [431 U.S. 678 (1977)], privacy and choice;
Romer v. Evans [517 U.S. 620 (1996)], homosexual rights;
Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)], privacy;
Gonzales v. Oregon [546 U.S. 243 (2006)], right to die with dignity;
All of these cases, along with several of last week’s decisions, share a common theme – the rights of the individual versus the power of the State. So much seems to hinge upon the political interpretation of the seldom cited 9th Amendment.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The words are simple and direct as well as expansive, and yet, I think the Court fears the words of the 9th Amendment and the potential consequences of too liberal an interpretation. The fundamentalists see the cases noted above as judicial activism -- defining rights of the people not expressly provided within the Constitution. As a consequence, lacking constitutional definition, the laws passed by Congress and the states establish the rights of the People. Further, since the rights "retained by the people" in the 9th Amendment are not precisely defined or established, then the Court has no place or authority to define those rights. Such logic implicitly creates the primacy of federalism rather than the People or even the states. Associate Justice David Souter’s dissenting opinion in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. [290] got me thinking. We read the English language of these judicial rulings, and we understand the meaning through the lens of our beliefs in the primacy of the individual or of the State. So it is when we view pivotal cases like Brown, Griswold, Roe, et al. I believe in the individual -- each and every citizen. This Grand Republic depends upon the individual citizen -- good, bad and ugly. We must have faith.

Another clear example of contrasted, or I would say slanted, press reporting can be found in several newspaper articles. The topic is: Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. 551 U.S. ___ (2007)] (06-969). For those so inclined in this exercise, I offer this article:
“Unfree Speech”
by Robert J. Samuelson
Washington Post
Wednesday, July 4, 2007; Page A15
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH029DCD0BD059C0E3931507AC70
I offered my opinion in last week’s Update [290], and some related thoughts as noted above. If you wish to develop your own opinion of the ruling, here is the link:
Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (06-969)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=06-969
Samuelson struggles with the meaning of the conflicted ruling. He concludes his article, "Politics requires money. Try to purge politics of money and politics is crippled. Free speech's value is not only a diversity of views; it is also the ability of people to contest those views. The only desirable controls are contribution disclosures. Let people see who's giving to whom. Free speech involves no right to secret speech. Otherwise, recognize that campaign finance 'reform' is a dagger in the First Amendment." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? The key, in my humble, novice opinion, lays in the dissenting and concurring opinions of Associate Justices David Souter and Antonin Scalia, respectively, in the FEC v. WRL decision. Congress has struggled with the adverse consequences and impact of "concentrated wealth" on the electoral and representative processes, thus, the feeble attempt of McCain-Feingold. The Court's struggle with finding the proper balance in our most fundamental processes of governance and protection from the corrupting influence of "concentrated wealth" can be seen in the FEC v. WRL ruling. I am not arguing in favor of McCain-Feingold, but I am most assuredly arguing against the corruption of "concentrated wealth." Nonetheless, as with Cornwell's rendering of ACLU v. NSA above, so it is with Samuelson's version of FEC v. WRL. We cannot continue down our present path; we must recognize the corrupting influence of money; I would rather do something than add campaign financing to the list of irreconcilable issues. And, writing like Cornwell and Samuelson keeps me motivated to continue reading these court rulings, to understand and appreciate the significance of these judicial pronouncements.

Another newspaper article offers up an interesting history debate.
"Why Winston Wouldn't Stand For W --
George W. Bush always wanted to be like a wartime British prime minister. He is. But it's not the one he had in mind."
by Lynne Olson
Washington Post
Sunday, July 1, 2007; Page B01
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W6RH029DCD7A9059C0E3931507AC70
Olson's contention is George W. Bush is more like Neville Chamberlain than Winston Churchill. Olson makes an interesting argument with good facts, at least those he chooses to use to make his point. He is, of course, correct in the perspective he offers. However, a contrary perspective can also be presented, as is so often the case. I am not a defender of W's mistakes, missteps or failures; he and his administration have made them. However, given the nature and character of our enemy, I am thankful he took a resolute, determined, focused commitment to the War on Islamic Fascism. To ignore W's successes is to tell only half the story. Franklin Roosevelt made his share of mistakes. Churchill was not perfect, and neither is George W. Bush. Regardless, there is a war going on, and there is a war to fight.

In the on-line Patriot Post of 15.June.2007 (vol.07, no.24), Publius wrote,
“Dr. Jim Lee, a pastor and director of Living Free ministries, writes that the Christian marriage paradigm is built on a foundation of five principles:
“first, God is the creator of the marriage relationship;
“second, heterosexuality is God’s pattern for marriage;
“third, monogamy is God’s design for marriage;
“fourth, God’s plan for marriage is for physical and spiritual unity; and
“fifth, marriage was designed to be permanent.”
I thought about letting this pass . . . too sensitive and too controversial, but I am obstinate and opinionated enough to take the shot. I have no intention of arguing God's plan. To Christians and Jews, Lee’s version of marriage is readily identifiable and acceptable; to other religions, less so. As free and independent citizens, each of us is guaranteed the right to our religious beliefs. Yet, the part I find offensive emanates from the implication of Lee’s words and the underlying faith of the nation. Our national motto “In God We Trust” in combination with Lee’s definition means anyone who does not agree with his rendition must not believe in the principles of this Grand Republic and is defying God’s plan; therein lies my objection. If we separate the interest of the State from the religious beliefs of a Christian pastor, we can take a broader, more tolerant and expansive view of what is the most personal and intimate of human relationships. I return to an earlier suggestion [116, 166, 284] . . . let us put things in their proper perspective. Unfortunately, the emotions involved with mixing church and State, as implicit in Lee’s words, corrode and contaminate the proper public debate.

The Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland approved a new sex-education curriculum for 8th and 10th graders that reportedly acknowledges homosexuality but goes no farther. There are conflicting reports whether this decision is from the Maryland State Board of Education or the Montgomery County Board as reported by the Washington Post; I believe the Post is correct. The supposedly Christian, American Family Association (AFA) expectedly puts a clearly homophobic spin on the school board’s decision, claiming that the State of Maryland is superseding parental rights, and promoting homosexuality and the so-called homosexual agenda. Interesting spin! I can find nothing in the publicly available information on this subject that even remotely substantiates or validates the AFA contention. To ignore homosexuality or gender identity in sex education is to ignore the facts and reality of life. I have faith that one day we shall back away from and overcome the emotionalism and mysticism of ignorance. The State of Maryland may not have it correct, but at least they are trying.

Comments and contributions from Update no.290:
“As the SC's term comes to an end in a flurry of pronouncements, what I find most surprising and interesting is their willingness to take on the Gitmo question in the next term.
“Most of this term's decisions split 5 to 4, not a huge surprise, as Bush's latest appointments feel their way among a group of more seasoned Justices. I suspect that Roberts will be an asset to the Court for many decades, but I also suspect that the general election of 2008 will force him to reconsider his approach to the Constitution. Those on the 4 side will hang on until the next president's inauguration to announce their resignation, unless, of course, they die by the side of the road before then. Because as polls seem to indicate, the next president will not be a member of the GOP.
“Our Constitution has endured through some truly atrocious decisions that flew in the face of the written word(s). Your most recent contribution to the ongoing discussion of America's political system identify the most well-known of those decisions, but they don't really address how far afield we have come from 1789 that we rely on the decisions of nine people to somehow bolster and affirm or undermine and deny the decisions of legislatures at the state and federal level.
“We live in a form of popular government that has never been equaled in world history, and yet, too many people in this country are willing to abrogate their responsibilities as citizens of the United States. A reliance on the ‘Supremes,’ as you call them, smacks of ancient reliance on the wisdom and prescience of demi-god-like beings informed by a special relationship with the deity.
“The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address and numerous other formative documents are available to all Americans. They are short and readable. I suggest that we all read them, make decisions based on our reading and abandon our reliance on the federal judiciary to make decisions for us.
“Read, absorb and write your representatives at every level. Talk to your neighbors and your co-workers to form a consensus. And on July 4, celebrate that we are unique in the world. That we have the opportunity to continue a discussion of ideas begun in July, 1776.”
My response:
On to a couple of different thoughts . . . we seems to be missing as essential baseline of citizenship. And, we have confused, or allowed to be confused, the relationship between the baseline citizenship and governance. Most of my objections seem to sprout from this caldron of conflict. Perhaps someday, we shall achieve a proper, reasonable and stable relationship, but we are a long way from that state. As we have seen graphically demonstrated, those who seek positions of political power are predominately self-serving, ego-centric and to various degrees corrupt. The two dominant political parties serve up flavors of corruption, but corruption nonetheless. They spew forth into the public domain information that should be confidential, and they keep secret information that should be public . . . all for one purpose – selfish political partisanship and retention of power. Politicians are certainly NOT serving the People. As has been written in his forum, the rumblings of revolution can be heard. In my naïveté, I truly believe that one day we shall actually achieve Lincoln’s ideal – “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We have strayed from the path to that ideal. And, while I certainly agree with your view of the Supremes, I see them as the only, albeit flawed, bulwark against a willful majority bent upon subjugation of those who do not subscribe to their dictates. Until we achieve a basic equality and respect for every citizen’s Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness, we shall not know peace. We have few protections . . . case in point, the obscenity of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, et al. Thus, my irrational, dogged insistence upon a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy beyond the paucity of any constitutional reference, among other elements of that baseline.
. . . with this reply:
"But here is what this is really about. We have a whole bunch of morons out there who have adjusted history and philosophy and documents to support their understanding of America. It doesn't matter what the controversial issue is--proponents pronounce and proclaim the most egregious misrepresentation of history and our founding documents. Unlike most Americans, I have read the documents and studied the history--over and over and over again--because that is part of the rite of passage to being a responsible citizen.
"Sadly, citizenship in this country does not depend on responsibility. Like parenthood, Americans largely fall into it. It is a sad commentary that most of our naturalized citizens know more about American history and American government than the native-born.
"Maybe what we need is a confirmation process for all Americans at the age of 18. Failure to identify the three branches of government identified in the Constitution will result in temporary citizenship.
"Of course, I am one of these strange people that believes in mandatory service to the country for all high school graduates. God, I am a dinosaur!"
. . . to which I add this response:
National service . . . a citizenship qualification process . . . yea verily; I can support that . . . and, you are certainly not a dinosaur, but rather a concerned citizen, indeed. Too many of our citizens choose complacency . . . to follow their flock like sheep, or perhaps more appropriately, like lemmings. I would like to claim altruistic motives for the time it takes to listen, read and write the weekly Update, but mixed in there are my curiosity, need to learn, and my enjoyment of a vigorous, public debate. Among my many fears as a citizen are the growing influence of dysfunctional federalism, the corrosive consequences of moral projection into our private lives, and the paucity of parental responsibility and accountability. I keep plugging away. We are a long way from stable, proper, functional governance. We have been through rough patches and convulsive growing pains before, I have faith we shall endure and survive this phase of our evolution as well.
Happy Independence Day. “We hold these truths to be self-evidence . . .” magnificently glorious words; and, the principles they represent have stood us in good stead for 231 years. May God bless America.

Another contribution:
"'Manage things, Lead People.' Adm Grace Hopper.
"It's a philosophy I tried to follow, even Well before I even KNEW that that was what I was trying to do -- throughout my career in the Marines. I didn't always do it as well as I'd wanted to do in some situations, and in fact failed, in MY opinion, a couple times, But in others I did pretty well -- even VERY well at least a few times. That applies to both sides of that philosophy.
"But the point is that I never ever gave up on that philosophy. It is one worth believing in for Military folks. Probably for most others too.
"On Criticism: As I got more senior in the Marine Corps and had jobs of Commanding Officer or high ranking staff officer, I found that my subordinates, with few exceptions, were very reluctant to "criticize" my thoughts, opinions, and certainly my decisions. We Marines are trained from early on to say no more than yes sir, aye, aye, very well, sir, etc, when a commander makes a decision. BUT -- that is not always the right thing to do -- in MY opinion. It certainly CAN be in the heat of battle when the commander makes his decision. But back in the command in the states, the CO needs every bit of intelligence, every bit of opinion, every idea, and every voice from his/her subordinates, in order to make the hopefully best decision. Unfortunately, as an officer advances thru the ranks, the junior officers willing to speak out become fewer. So the Commander gets, as HE gets more senior, less and less honestly felt advice from his subordinates. Thus being sometimes forced to make a decision which Might not have been the best one available or possible.
"But unfortunately it is now the decision from the Commander. It will be carried out. And, because, at least in the Marine Corps, all Junior Commanders, right on down to a Fire Team or Squad Leader in the Junior Enlisted ranks have the right and authority to change an order from above because the circumstances have changes or at least are not the same as anticipated. It is always, in the Corps, the commander or leader on the ground, up front, and in the middle of it, who has the authority. I think this philosophy is perhaps unique to the Marine Corps as a whole Service, though may be the same in certain very specialized parts of other Services. Military folks will know what I mean.
"I cannot say if Bush was wrong in vetoing the stem cell legislation. I have not been keeping up with the specifics of it. I do, however, believe in the principle of stem cell research, as a way to further our abilities to help people in the future.
"Standing behind your man: Is Gonzales a Texas man? Is Peter Pace? Sometimes I think our President's loyalties are based on who they are, where they came from, and why he appointed them, rather than any sort of reasonable/logical thought.
"Where can I get Tom Rick's book, Fiasco? I already know him as a brilliant interpreter of what is actually happening or what Has happened in various dangerous times past. Plus his superb account of what goes in to making a Marine. And from what you've said, Tom says in a much better way than I ever could have, just what I was saying, and now cannot seem to find since I changed computers, back just before Bush actually made the decision to invade Iraq. One piece published on the GoLakeChelan website, but now apparently lost. I said then that we could no doubt defeat the Iraqis, and bring down Saddam. But then what? I'd been a participant in the beginning, the middle, and the end (very end) of the Vietnam War. I felt that we were going to get ourselves into another Vietnam -- in whatever form that might take. Win the battle, so to speak, but then lose the war in the end. Because there was no REAL and viable geopolitical strategy, which would take into account that just like the orientals, these more radical, and determined middle eastern peoples can and will fight for years, or even centuries, to win. While WE always look for the short time solution and cannot seem to stay the course for very long. If we don't win it soon, then get out. What is it President Nixon called it as we left Vietnam? 'Peace With Honor.' BULLSHIT!!!
"I think that has happened."
My response:
The phenomenon of less criticism with higher rank exists in the corporate world just as it does in the military. I think, in many cases, it is the tone set by the commander or executive. I've seen the process far too many times . . . the executive wants candid, straight-up advice, and then bites the head off the first guy to offer a serious criticism; puts the damper on further proffered criticism. The higher you go, the harder you must work to encourage constructive criticism and dissent.
Well, I can say that W. is wrong on embryonic stem cell research. I am certainly not an expert, but I know enough to have an opinion and to argue in favor of federal support of and involvement with embryonic stem cell research.
Alberto Gonzales and W. go way back. Peter Pace was not of that group. Unfortunately, W. seems to be far more consumed by personal loyalty than by performance and leadership.
I got my copy of "Fiasco" from Amazon.com. But, I'm sure any bookstore chain, like Barnes & Noble or Borders, will have copies. I think you will see quite a bit of commonality in Tom's words, and I'm fairly certain he will tell you some things, fill in some knowledge gaps . . . sure did for me. Tom does an exceptional job articulating tragic mistakes perpetrated by Rummie, Franks, Sanchez, et al. You have the same view of Nixon's ludicrous façade for our defeat in Vietnam.
. . . to which came this reply:
"I already told you about my experiences as an ever higher ranking Commander and/or senior staff officer (perhaps more importantly in the view of my subordinates -- the Reporting Senior or possibly the Reviewing Officer on their FitReps). It took one of my finest subordinate CO's to stand up at a staff meeting and flat disagree with what I proposed to do about something. I asked him why. He told me, and backed it up with some facts and a lot of well thought out ideas. I asked for comments from others and slowly got them. In the end I changed my mind about what I would do and issued an order mostly along the lines of what my subordinates felt was the right way to go. It turned out to be right -- or at the very least far better than my idea. Why? Those officers were at least one step closer to the actual situation than I was.
"I began to slowly get more and more officers speaking up. I listened to all. I asked them questions and wanted them to show me why their way was better. They began to do that. I did not ALWAYS do what others thought best, and sometimes because of a larger picture I was privy to and they were not. But I found that ALWAYS, I got 100% backing once my decision had been made. They had had their input -- had not been left out. That's maybe all they expected. So 'Aye aye, Sir' in MY command meant it would get done, and done well. Maybe even better than I had hoped for. I never faulted a guy on a FitRep for speaking out. If I thought (which only once I did -- that what the officer was saying/proposing was a serious breach of good judgment on his part, I talked to him in private with no common knowledge among other officers that I was doing so. His FitRep never had a word about it because he made definite improvements). Anyway, I was now doing a better job as CO than I had been before my guys trusted me.
"Yes, Our Pres is wrong on the stem cell thing. I also agree with you that he is more into loyalty to friends than in performance. Seems if you were one of the Boys back in Texas, then you still are."
. . . to which I add my response:
Well said. We all handle leadership in different ways. I was driven to leave the cockpit and the controls of an aircraft to prove that you did not have to be an asshole to be successful in business. I failed. And, I lost the drive, ambition and ego for that path now. But, the fire still burns within me. I truly enjoy working with people toward a common goal. If you respect the people you work with, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished.
I wanted W. to be successful, despite his flaws and limitations. But, he has been a serious disappointment, although I still believe he did what had to be done in the War on Islamic Fascism; and yet, so many mistakes and failures. Life is what we make it.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)