Update from the Heartland
No.324
18.2.08 – 24.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.324
18.2.08 – 24.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Our youngest son, Taylor, uses this George Orwell quote as his signature line:
“We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those that would harm us.”
Lest we forget to whom we owe so much.
The follow-up news items:
-- The USS Lake Erie (CG-70) fired a single shot, Standard SM-3 missile at a non-functional spy satellite near the end of its decaying orbit. The available public evidence indicates the interception of the satellite was perfect and successful.
-- I suppose Ralph Nader [149, 151A] realized he was not getting any attention. On Sunday, Ralph announced his intention to run for president . . . again . . . this time as an independent.
-- An odd, partial mitigation for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Sharia pronouncement [323]:
“Islamic finance and the Square Mile – How does Sharia fit into the heated debate about the relationship between the British legal system and religious codes?”
Edward Fennell
The Times [of London]
February 19, 2008
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3372571.ece?&EMC-Bltn=BDJEN8
The key here is appropriate or reasonable adaptation of the law. The British, before us colonial Americans, have a long history of absorbing a wide variety of cultures and elements of many languages. However, the Archbishop’s “unavoidable” comment was not restricted to financial law; and, Sharia Law dictates that a thief should have his hand cut off, a homosexual should be executed, unmarried fornicators whipped, adulterers stoned to death, critics of the Prophet Muhammed should be executed, and women and children are subservient to men. I doubt Sharia Law will find much acceptance in the western democracies.
-- Fidel Castro has not been a prominent feature within the forum of this humble journal. However, his resignation on Tuesday, after nearly 50 years in power, as dictator of Cuba, deserves a modest mention. I suspect he is not longed for this world. We can hope the Cuban people take this opportunity to find the liberty they deserve, although I do not hold my breath. Fidel's brother, Raúl Castro, was anointed as his successor.
-- On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined a review of ACLU v. NSA [6CCA 06-2095/2140 (2007); USDC EDMI 06-CV-10204] [245, 307] – another of the challenges to the government’s post-9/11 electronic surveillance program. Two down, a bunch more to go!
The case noted above – ACLU v. NSA – does raise a larger, societal question, somewhat beyond the law. The 6th Circuit’s judgment properly focused on the law and the essential fact that the plaintiff’s – journalists, academics, and lawyers who regularly communicate with individuals located overseas – did not show or demonstrate actual injury as required by Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the 6th Circuit’s judgment by rejecting the case. Of interest here is Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman’s dissenting opinion, which goes beyond demonstrated injury to the perception of threat, and in turn opens a vast arena to challenge the government. While I broadly support the 6th Circuit decision and reasoning, the extension of modern technology and the possibility of a nefarious Federal element with access to such collected or derived intelligence does present a bona fide worry. I pose an appropriate hypothetical. What if the bad Feds use the intelligence to indirectly ‘injury’ a citizen or group? Before anyone jumps to accusations, the phenomenon has occurred before, notably rogue FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover – notorious for collecting information and ‘guiding’ the actions of politicians. Hoover collected his information via illegal wiretaps, foot surveillance, and such. The electronic media today vastly amplify the information potentially detectable via common data mining techniques. What if the Federal government or rogue elements with access decided to ‘ruin the life’ of a person with whom they disagreed? With today’s technology and fears, such action would be relatively easy to execute – to affect his job, his credit rating, his access to public services, ad infinitum. For the most part, the law protects us from overt, illegal action, but what about second or third level covert action using intelligence as the element of fact to substantiate the government’s injurious conduct? As much as I support the government’s electronic surveillance program, I worry about boundaries and constraints. Yet, conversely, hobbling the agility of the government to response to a fleeting threat hardly seems like a wise course.
The Press likes to refer to Senator Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric with words like ‘soaring,’ ‘lofty,’ ‘inspiring,’ ‘uplifting,’ ‘hopeful,’ and such; and, I suppose such descriptors are at least marginally appropriate. I can remember the very first time I heard Obama speak nationally – the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I was impressed then as I am impressed now. Regardless of the politics & policy behind the rhetoric, we can admire an accomplished public speaker. Powerful political oratory has common features – meter, intonation, construction, melody and imagery. For much of history, we are relegated to the printed words yet they are no less dramatic – Shakespeare’s fictitious rendition of King Henry V’s speech to his troops prior to the Battle of Agincourt, or President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Fortunately, we can hear the delivered words of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. Often, what is needed most in times of trial are those inspirational words of encouragement to help us believe, to focus our energy, and to instigate the journey beyond our comfort zone. Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee, but he sure is fun to watch and hear. It is easy to understand and appreciate why people are drawn to Obama’s rhetoric after the oratory abuse we have been subjected to for last eight years.
Comments and contributions from Update no.323:
“You raise the arguments that Mark Steyn and McCain would champion. They are important and worth discussing. I have been to Spain but nowhere else in Europe lately. I have seen the social unrest in France and the problems there on TV, but not in person. I have seen the news coverage from independent TV sources like freespeechtv and others. There are as many crazy clerics, although I don’t put al-Sadr in that bunch, as there are crazy preachers like John Hagee over here. Al-Sadr is as much a political leader as a religious leader. He is not looking for any European territory as far as I can determine, nor for that matter are the Iranians. Our buddies the Saudis are the bigger threat to a philosophical discussion that might threaten what Americans used to believe was important- freedom of speech and expression, and person because they are in bed with our power structure- Bush, Cheney and influence so much of our policies related to oil. It is a xenophobic problem and needs more discussion, because the misconceptions are keeping serious thinkers like you from recognizing the danger of such thinking. I don't mean that patronizingly. I see it all the time in many friends and business acquaintances. When you read the actual words that Ahmadinejad says compared to the spin that is put on it, and in context of the political situation he is in (he is more conservative and hard-line than the mullahs above him, and a lot of his constituents, too) you realize he is not so scary. I could go on- sorry to ramble.
My response:
Like you, I read as much as I can absorb and digest. I subscribe to publications from the hard Left to the hard Right, as well as the middle, and a half-dozen reputable European news sources. I try to find balance. I am not always successful, which is one of many reasons I continue this humble journal and forum; I need the contrasts of perspective and opinion from real citizens rather than processed news.
You raise a very interesting point. We could argue the culpability of al-Sadr, Nasrallah, et al, but I doubt that line would be productive. To me, the larger salient with these radial clerics as well as state-sponsors of terrorism like Saddam’s Iraq, Syria, Iran, et al, would be methods. To my knowledge, I have not seen a cleric (Islamic, Christian, or otherwise) take up the sword in combat. As with most clerics, they are quite adept at using religion, and inflammatory and indignant words from the pulpit to stir the passions of the believers to carry out their bidding. The popes and cardinals did it during the Crusades and the Inquisition. The mad mullahs are doing it now and have been for the last 40-50 years. In this sense, you are precisely correct Iran, Syria, Iraq, et al, do not seek territory in the classic sense of a nation-state; they don’t need the land. What they seek are minds – followers, believers, a body of agents. This is an ideological war, more so than any in recent history. I doubt Iran would invade Iraq, as Saddam did to Iran in 1980; they don’t need to. If they get radical fundamentalist Shia clerics like al-Sadr into dominant positions within Iraq, they will have accomplished their objective without firing a shot directly. I believe we are seeing a similar invasion across our southern border, probably not for such strident ideological reasons as the Europeans face with Islamic immigrants, but no less real. We have seen more than a few passing slogans about reclaiming what they lost in 1848. So, yes, al-Sadr may be just a simple cleric-politician, but he seeks power and domination for himself, and his sponsors in Tehran. This ideological combat is one principal reason intelligence, and specifically human and electronic intelligence, is so bloody important. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or even al-Qaeda will never invade the United States in the classic warfare sense; that is not their objective. They seek our death by a thousand cuts, to bleed us into our own destruction, so that they can dominate the world.
Another contribution:
Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus: "I hope US$170B achieves the desired result." --- “Desired result! I'll tell you what the desired result is going to be. Millions of Americans are going to go out and buy a new flat panel TV, and a good percentage of that revenue is going to go to the overseas companies who produce a majority of the components that go into making those TVs. Which leads me to ask: What do those in power think the economic stimulus is going to be? Did they completely miss the boat on this one, or what? In my mind, an economic stimulus would be taxing income appropriately, reducing or eliminating the penalties for saving, and requiring those who are able to work to do so for their welfare checks.”
My reply:
Yeah, there is that. I was skeptical from the get-go . . . kinda like Slick Willy lobbing cruise missiles around the countryside every time he got caught with his fly open or his pants around his ankles – a placebo diversionary action. We’ll see if it works. In our economy, perception is far more powerful than reality.
A continuing thread:
“I could not disagree more with your introductory statement: I believe this is a totally irresponsible anarchistic statement. Fortunately the founders of this nation understood and feared a pure democracy, which they had just observed destroy France. That is why they established our nation as a government by elected representatives. My observation is that an 'unregulated free enterprise system', which you appear to advocate, is a totally ruthless and destructive form of government. Any good we have in our society is the result of 'the rule of law' which is 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. I believe our nation is being severely damaged by Libertarianism, which is just another name for Anarchy: It, I believe, has created the multi-headed monster of a selfish, self-center people including and dominated by Feminists and Homosexuals with their morally decadent and diseased values into every aspect of our society.
“I would also like to make two points that you ended our earlier exchange with:
“First, you present a statement to the effect that: ‘We all worship the same God;’ this I believe is absolutely not true. My God is the God of Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit, who commands that we place no other god before HIM. This God also instructs us that our only way to Salvation is thru prayer repenting our sins and asking for forgiveness in the name of Jesus etc. It appears certain to me that any one not professing a faith in this Trinity does not worship the same GOD that I do. Obviously there are many gods that we may worship, including no god at all, which privilege our USA Constitution grants to each of us. This GOD of mine does not command us to acknowledge or worship him; in fact he only accepts us as his own when we act of our own FREE WILL in coming to him, and in-fact tells us that at our final day of judgment he will not hear the pleas of any who have rejected him at the conclusion of our mortal life. On the Contrary, he tells us he will hear all who repentantly come to HIM in the name of Jesus.”
My response:
There are a few elements of my character that some know and perhaps most do not know. My faith is between me and God; I see no benefit to publicly professing my faith – some may be repulsed; some may find a faux-affinity. I enjoy the middle ground of moderation and I like to say I am all religions and all political parties; I see goodness in each.
It is unfortunate you found offense in my introductory statement – the fault is entirely mine. Sometimes I try to be succinct when a few more words would have been illuminating. Yes, I agree; freedom without constraints can be and often does degenerate to anarchy. I hope you can see in my words that I am not an anarchist. Where I should have added a few more words was ‘within the private domain.’ We have a long history of trying to use the law to dictate private behavior going back to the Comstock Act of 1873, the 18th Amendment, Roosevelt’s New Deal, and the worst of the worst, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. And yes, there are Libertarian aspects to my argument. I have long espoused smaller, less intrusive government; if that is a sin, then I am a sinner. We have allowed government to subsumed far too many of the responsibilities vested in parents and individuals, and we have far too many citizens who are perfectly content having the government make their decisions for them. I resent the government’s intrusion upon my private life, and I would hope other citizens feel as I do.
I shall take umbrage with the equating of Libertarianism with anarchy, with our society being selfish and self-centered, and especially with the disparagement of feminists and homosexuals. For the record, I emphatically do NOT agree that femnists and homosexuals are morally decadent or have diseased values; in fact, I respectfully submit they possess some of the most noble of human qualities. Herein lies a focused argument for debate. A goodly portion of all those elements are private aspects of an individual that have absolutely nothing to do with their public conduct, performance or contribution. It is in this arena I said what I did at the opening of last week’s Update. I have no fear, no remorse, no hesitancy toward any citizen’s condemnation of my private character; that is their choice; I freely choose to let my public conduct be my testament. If people choose to judge me by some shallow, malevolent label born of their perception of what they do not know, then I doubt they will have any meaningful place in my life. I am not so easily summarized by such labels. As I have stated many times, everyone is entitled to their bigotry. Where such condemnation crosses my line of tolerance comes when someone or group of someone’s seek to produce a law dictating my private conduct and using the full weight of the State to enforce it. That is where my embrace of Libertarian principles begins. The point in my opening remark remains that the majority who may find contentment in projecting their moral values into the private lives of other citizens should find no comfort in such abuse, for one day the shoe may be on the other foot.
Re: God. You present the Christian dictum admirably. It is this parochialism of organized religion that has caused such incalculable destruction in human history. This factional parochialism rejects all other religions by creating a singular possessiveness toward God and concomitant jealousy toward all infidels, and provides the combustibles and ignition for great wars. I see God in a far larger context in that all religions worship the same God, as there is only one true God; the differences rest in the names by which we refer to God and the trivial trappings, incantations and rituals by which we mere mortal humans find meaning in our worship of God’s greatness. I am not a theologian and certainly no expert, but I am a sufficient lay student of religion to recognize the commonality among all religions. If anyone chooses to think less of me for my unwillingness for publicly profess my faith, then that is their choice entirely. I am what I am, and that’s all that I am. God knows my faith, and that is all that counts. I respect and do not think less of any person regardless of their faith. Likewise, their faith is between them and God; I care not.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“It appears to me that we (I, and perhaps also you, and for that matter, virtually everyone) have a tendency to isolate statements of others out of the total context from which they are drawn or spoken, to put down or diminish those opposing our point of view and to emphasis our own point of view. What you refer to as my generalizations ignores my own life experiences I cited in the text below your conclusion, which I do believe legitimately support my own conclusions; and my taking offense to your presumption of being sorry for me is that you dismiss that validity of my own experiences.
“Similarly, in our most recent exchange, you presume that my reference to conversions relates to Theological conversion (Saving Souls). On the contrary, like you I am not trained in Theology or Ministry, and, likewise, make no claims in that regard; I do not ‘Minister’ or ‘Save Souls’ either. But I have no hesitancy to reveal my faith, and in fact take great comfort when others tell me they observe my faith in my walk.
“Rather my reference is to conversions was not referring to Theological, but to career achievement or advancements based on our parentage-upbringing, schooling, training, job and Life experiences. (In the spirit of: To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Expected.) I was tremendously proud of my two brothers already serving in the Marine Corps in Korean service at that time (my youngest brother also enlisted and served his tour with The Marine Corps); and in fact my time in the service has proven to be the most valued years of my life. I take comfort in observing the character and achievements of our Marine Corps General Pace, who was forced into retirement from his position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I consider that to have been a most disgraceful event brought on by our national immorality, and a warning of horrible times to come. I conclude that this travesty against human decency which, again, I believe has been brought on by the Morally Decadent and Diseased Multi-headed Monster of Libertarianisms, Feminism and Homosexuality. ”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I do not share your view of General Pace's retirement. First, I am a Marine, and I was and still am quite proud that General Pace was the first Marine to be Chairman. However, Peter’s demise was not brought about by "Libertarianisms, Feminism and Homosexuality." His fate came at his hand. The American military has a long and noble history of being apolitical . . . at least in principle. Peter crossed the line. He made the choice. He bore the consequences. Like all American citizens, Peter is entitled to his opinions; unfortunately, in uniform, he is not entitled to express them.
The beauty of a free Republic . . . you have every right to profess your faith and religion; likewise, I have every right to leave my faith and religion between me and God.
In a slight departure, I offer my comments from a separate exchange with a following contribution:
Our youngest son, Taylor, uses this George Orwell quote as his signature line:
“We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those that would harm us.”
Lest we forget to whom we owe so much.
The follow-up news items:
-- The USS Lake Erie (CG-70) fired a single shot, Standard SM-3 missile at a non-functional spy satellite near the end of its decaying orbit. The available public evidence indicates the interception of the satellite was perfect and successful.
-- I suppose Ralph Nader [149, 151A] realized he was not getting any attention. On Sunday, Ralph announced his intention to run for president . . . again . . . this time as an independent.
-- An odd, partial mitigation for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Sharia pronouncement [323]:
“Islamic finance and the Square Mile – How does Sharia fit into the heated debate about the relationship between the British legal system and religious codes?”
Edward Fennell
The Times [of London]
February 19, 2008
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3372571.ece?&EMC-Bltn=BDJEN8
The key here is appropriate or reasonable adaptation of the law. The British, before us colonial Americans, have a long history of absorbing a wide variety of cultures and elements of many languages. However, the Archbishop’s “unavoidable” comment was not restricted to financial law; and, Sharia Law dictates that a thief should have his hand cut off, a homosexual should be executed, unmarried fornicators whipped, adulterers stoned to death, critics of the Prophet Muhammed should be executed, and women and children are subservient to men. I doubt Sharia Law will find much acceptance in the western democracies.
-- Fidel Castro has not been a prominent feature within the forum of this humble journal. However, his resignation on Tuesday, after nearly 50 years in power, as dictator of Cuba, deserves a modest mention. I suspect he is not longed for this world. We can hope the Cuban people take this opportunity to find the liberty they deserve, although I do not hold my breath. Fidel's brother, Raúl Castro, was anointed as his successor.
-- On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined a review of ACLU v. NSA [6CCA 06-2095/2140 (2007); USDC EDMI 06-CV-10204] [245, 307] – another of the challenges to the government’s post-9/11 electronic surveillance program. Two down, a bunch more to go!
The case noted above – ACLU v. NSA – does raise a larger, societal question, somewhat beyond the law. The 6th Circuit’s judgment properly focused on the law and the essential fact that the plaintiff’s – journalists, academics, and lawyers who regularly communicate with individuals located overseas – did not show or demonstrate actual injury as required by Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the 6th Circuit’s judgment by rejecting the case. Of interest here is Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman’s dissenting opinion, which goes beyond demonstrated injury to the perception of threat, and in turn opens a vast arena to challenge the government. While I broadly support the 6th Circuit decision and reasoning, the extension of modern technology and the possibility of a nefarious Federal element with access to such collected or derived intelligence does present a bona fide worry. I pose an appropriate hypothetical. What if the bad Feds use the intelligence to indirectly ‘injury’ a citizen or group? Before anyone jumps to accusations, the phenomenon has occurred before, notably rogue FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover – notorious for collecting information and ‘guiding’ the actions of politicians. Hoover collected his information via illegal wiretaps, foot surveillance, and such. The electronic media today vastly amplify the information potentially detectable via common data mining techniques. What if the Federal government or rogue elements with access decided to ‘ruin the life’ of a person with whom they disagreed? With today’s technology and fears, such action would be relatively easy to execute – to affect his job, his credit rating, his access to public services, ad infinitum. For the most part, the law protects us from overt, illegal action, but what about second or third level covert action using intelligence as the element of fact to substantiate the government’s injurious conduct? As much as I support the government’s electronic surveillance program, I worry about boundaries and constraints. Yet, conversely, hobbling the agility of the government to response to a fleeting threat hardly seems like a wise course.
The Press likes to refer to Senator Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric with words like ‘soaring,’ ‘lofty,’ ‘inspiring,’ ‘uplifting,’ ‘hopeful,’ and such; and, I suppose such descriptors are at least marginally appropriate. I can remember the very first time I heard Obama speak nationally – the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I was impressed then as I am impressed now. Regardless of the politics & policy behind the rhetoric, we can admire an accomplished public speaker. Powerful political oratory has common features – meter, intonation, construction, melody and imagery. For much of history, we are relegated to the printed words yet they are no less dramatic – Shakespeare’s fictitious rendition of King Henry V’s speech to his troops prior to the Battle of Agincourt, or President Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. Fortunately, we can hear the delivered words of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. Often, what is needed most in times of trial are those inspirational words of encouragement to help us believe, to focus our energy, and to instigate the journey beyond our comfort zone. Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee, but he sure is fun to watch and hear. It is easy to understand and appreciate why people are drawn to Obama’s rhetoric after the oratory abuse we have been subjected to for last eight years.
Comments and contributions from Update no.323:
“You raise the arguments that Mark Steyn and McCain would champion. They are important and worth discussing. I have been to Spain but nowhere else in Europe lately. I have seen the social unrest in France and the problems there on TV, but not in person. I have seen the news coverage from independent TV sources like freespeechtv and others. There are as many crazy clerics, although I don’t put al-Sadr in that bunch, as there are crazy preachers like John Hagee over here. Al-Sadr is as much a political leader as a religious leader. He is not looking for any European territory as far as I can determine, nor for that matter are the Iranians. Our buddies the Saudis are the bigger threat to a philosophical discussion that might threaten what Americans used to believe was important- freedom of speech and expression, and person because they are in bed with our power structure- Bush, Cheney and influence so much of our policies related to oil. It is a xenophobic problem and needs more discussion, because the misconceptions are keeping serious thinkers like you from recognizing the danger of such thinking. I don't mean that patronizingly. I see it all the time in many friends and business acquaintances. When you read the actual words that Ahmadinejad says compared to the spin that is put on it, and in context of the political situation he is in (he is more conservative and hard-line than the mullahs above him, and a lot of his constituents, too) you realize he is not so scary. I could go on- sorry to ramble.
My response:
Like you, I read as much as I can absorb and digest. I subscribe to publications from the hard Left to the hard Right, as well as the middle, and a half-dozen reputable European news sources. I try to find balance. I am not always successful, which is one of many reasons I continue this humble journal and forum; I need the contrasts of perspective and opinion from real citizens rather than processed news.
You raise a very interesting point. We could argue the culpability of al-Sadr, Nasrallah, et al, but I doubt that line would be productive. To me, the larger salient with these radial clerics as well as state-sponsors of terrorism like Saddam’s Iraq, Syria, Iran, et al, would be methods. To my knowledge, I have not seen a cleric (Islamic, Christian, or otherwise) take up the sword in combat. As with most clerics, they are quite adept at using religion, and inflammatory and indignant words from the pulpit to stir the passions of the believers to carry out their bidding. The popes and cardinals did it during the Crusades and the Inquisition. The mad mullahs are doing it now and have been for the last 40-50 years. In this sense, you are precisely correct Iran, Syria, Iraq, et al, do not seek territory in the classic sense of a nation-state; they don’t need the land. What they seek are minds – followers, believers, a body of agents. This is an ideological war, more so than any in recent history. I doubt Iran would invade Iraq, as Saddam did to Iran in 1980; they don’t need to. If they get radical fundamentalist Shia clerics like al-Sadr into dominant positions within Iraq, they will have accomplished their objective without firing a shot directly. I believe we are seeing a similar invasion across our southern border, probably not for such strident ideological reasons as the Europeans face with Islamic immigrants, but no less real. We have seen more than a few passing slogans about reclaiming what they lost in 1848. So, yes, al-Sadr may be just a simple cleric-politician, but he seeks power and domination for himself, and his sponsors in Tehran. This ideological combat is one principal reason intelligence, and specifically human and electronic intelligence, is so bloody important. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or even al-Qaeda will never invade the United States in the classic warfare sense; that is not their objective. They seek our death by a thousand cuts, to bleed us into our own destruction, so that they can dominate the world.
Another contribution:
Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus: "I hope US$170B achieves the desired result." --- “Desired result! I'll tell you what the desired result is going to be. Millions of Americans are going to go out and buy a new flat panel TV, and a good percentage of that revenue is going to go to the overseas companies who produce a majority of the components that go into making those TVs. Which leads me to ask: What do those in power think the economic stimulus is going to be? Did they completely miss the boat on this one, or what? In my mind, an economic stimulus would be taxing income appropriately, reducing or eliminating the penalties for saving, and requiring those who are able to work to do so for their welfare checks.”
My reply:
Yeah, there is that. I was skeptical from the get-go . . . kinda like Slick Willy lobbing cruise missiles around the countryside every time he got caught with his fly open or his pants around his ankles – a placebo diversionary action. We’ll see if it works. In our economy, perception is far more powerful than reality.
A continuing thread:
“I could not disagree more with your introductory statement: I believe this is a totally irresponsible anarchistic statement. Fortunately the founders of this nation understood and feared a pure democracy, which they had just observed destroy France. That is why they established our nation as a government by elected representatives. My observation is that an 'unregulated free enterprise system', which you appear to advocate, is a totally ruthless and destructive form of government. Any good we have in our society is the result of 'the rule of law' which is 'of the people, by the people and for the people'. I believe our nation is being severely damaged by Libertarianism, which is just another name for Anarchy: It, I believe, has created the multi-headed monster of a selfish, self-center people including and dominated by Feminists and Homosexuals with their morally decadent and diseased values into every aspect of our society.
“I would also like to make two points that you ended our earlier exchange with:
“First, you present a statement to the effect that: ‘We all worship the same God;’ this I believe is absolutely not true. My God is the God of Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit, who commands that we place no other god before HIM. This God also instructs us that our only way to Salvation is thru prayer repenting our sins and asking for forgiveness in the name of Jesus etc. It appears certain to me that any one not professing a faith in this Trinity does not worship the same GOD that I do. Obviously there are many gods that we may worship, including no god at all, which privilege our USA Constitution grants to each of us. This GOD of mine does not command us to acknowledge or worship him; in fact he only accepts us as his own when we act of our own FREE WILL in coming to him, and in-fact tells us that at our final day of judgment he will not hear the pleas of any who have rejected him at the conclusion of our mortal life. On the Contrary, he tells us he will hear all who repentantly come to HIM in the name of Jesus.”
My response:
There are a few elements of my character that some know and perhaps most do not know. My faith is between me and God; I see no benefit to publicly professing my faith – some may be repulsed; some may find a faux-affinity. I enjoy the middle ground of moderation and I like to say I am all religions and all political parties; I see goodness in each.
It is unfortunate you found offense in my introductory statement – the fault is entirely mine. Sometimes I try to be succinct when a few more words would have been illuminating. Yes, I agree; freedom without constraints can be and often does degenerate to anarchy. I hope you can see in my words that I am not an anarchist. Where I should have added a few more words was ‘within the private domain.’ We have a long history of trying to use the law to dictate private behavior going back to the Comstock Act of 1873, the 18th Amendment, Roosevelt’s New Deal, and the worst of the worst, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. And yes, there are Libertarian aspects to my argument. I have long espoused smaller, less intrusive government; if that is a sin, then I am a sinner. We have allowed government to subsumed far too many of the responsibilities vested in parents and individuals, and we have far too many citizens who are perfectly content having the government make their decisions for them. I resent the government’s intrusion upon my private life, and I would hope other citizens feel as I do.
I shall take umbrage with the equating of Libertarianism with anarchy, with our society being selfish and self-centered, and especially with the disparagement of feminists and homosexuals. For the record, I emphatically do NOT agree that femnists and homosexuals are morally decadent or have diseased values; in fact, I respectfully submit they possess some of the most noble of human qualities. Herein lies a focused argument for debate. A goodly portion of all those elements are private aspects of an individual that have absolutely nothing to do with their public conduct, performance or contribution. It is in this arena I said what I did at the opening of last week’s Update. I have no fear, no remorse, no hesitancy toward any citizen’s condemnation of my private character; that is their choice; I freely choose to let my public conduct be my testament. If people choose to judge me by some shallow, malevolent label born of their perception of what they do not know, then I doubt they will have any meaningful place in my life. I am not so easily summarized by such labels. As I have stated many times, everyone is entitled to their bigotry. Where such condemnation crosses my line of tolerance comes when someone or group of someone’s seek to produce a law dictating my private conduct and using the full weight of the State to enforce it. That is where my embrace of Libertarian principles begins. The point in my opening remark remains that the majority who may find contentment in projecting their moral values into the private lives of other citizens should find no comfort in such abuse, for one day the shoe may be on the other foot.
Re: God. You present the Christian dictum admirably. It is this parochialism of organized religion that has caused such incalculable destruction in human history. This factional parochialism rejects all other religions by creating a singular possessiveness toward God and concomitant jealousy toward all infidels, and provides the combustibles and ignition for great wars. I see God in a far larger context in that all religions worship the same God, as there is only one true God; the differences rest in the names by which we refer to God and the trivial trappings, incantations and rituals by which we mere mortal humans find meaning in our worship of God’s greatness. I am not a theologian and certainly no expert, but I am a sufficient lay student of religion to recognize the commonality among all religions. If anyone chooses to think less of me for my unwillingness for publicly profess my faith, then that is their choice entirely. I am what I am, and that’s all that I am. God knows my faith, and that is all that counts. I respect and do not think less of any person regardless of their faith. Likewise, their faith is between them and God; I care not.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“It appears to me that we (I, and perhaps also you, and for that matter, virtually everyone) have a tendency to isolate statements of others out of the total context from which they are drawn or spoken, to put down or diminish those opposing our point of view and to emphasis our own point of view. What you refer to as my generalizations ignores my own life experiences I cited in the text below your conclusion, which I do believe legitimately support my own conclusions; and my taking offense to your presumption of being sorry for me is that you dismiss that validity of my own experiences.
“Similarly, in our most recent exchange, you presume that my reference to conversions relates to Theological conversion (Saving Souls). On the contrary, like you I am not trained in Theology or Ministry, and, likewise, make no claims in that regard; I do not ‘Minister’ or ‘Save Souls’ either. But I have no hesitancy to reveal my faith, and in fact take great comfort when others tell me they observe my faith in my walk.
“Rather my reference is to conversions was not referring to Theological, but to career achievement or advancements based on our parentage-upbringing, schooling, training, job and Life experiences. (In the spirit of: To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Expected.) I was tremendously proud of my two brothers already serving in the Marine Corps in Korean service at that time (my youngest brother also enlisted and served his tour with The Marine Corps); and in fact my time in the service has proven to be the most valued years of my life. I take comfort in observing the character and achievements of our Marine Corps General Pace, who was forced into retirement from his position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I consider that to have been a most disgraceful event brought on by our national immorality, and a warning of horrible times to come. I conclude that this travesty against human decency which, again, I believe has been brought on by the Morally Decadent and Diseased Multi-headed Monster of Libertarianisms, Feminism and Homosexuality. ”
. . . and my follow-up response:
I do not share your view of General Pace's retirement. First, I am a Marine, and I was and still am quite proud that General Pace was the first Marine to be Chairman. However, Peter’s demise was not brought about by "Libertarianisms, Feminism and Homosexuality." His fate came at his hand. The American military has a long and noble history of being apolitical . . . at least in principle. Peter crossed the line. He made the choice. He bore the consequences. Like all American citizens, Peter is entitled to his opinions; unfortunately, in uniform, he is not entitled to express them.
The beauty of a free Republic . . . you have every right to profess your faith and religion; likewise, I have every right to leave my faith and religion between me and God.
In a slight departure, I offer my comments from a separate exchange with a following contribution:
In many respects, Islam, at least as practiced by some, seems to be a death-culture similar in many respects to the Bushido code of samurai / Imperial Japan – to die for Allah (as some clerics convinced them), or for the Emperor, was an honor to be sought.
There are too many reports, coming from too many sources, to categorize the clash in Europe between Islam and Christianity, and between Sharia law and western democratic principles, to label these issues propaganda. Yet, as with most things human, we choose to believe what we choose to believe, or what makes us feel good.
What I find troubling in the notion of ‘making peace’ with fundamentalist radical Islam is the implication that the United States or the West started this conflict, and that they [al-Qaeda, Wahabi Islam, Shia Islam, et al] care about some silly notion as peace. There are indications that peace to them is a martyr’s death to 72 virgins. Several generations of Muslims have been brainwashed by fundamentalist clerics to do their bidding. This war began in the 1960’s, if not earlier, and became open, armed conflict with the West at any number of dates – 5.September.1972, 4.November.1979, 18.April.1983, and definitely by 23.October.1983. The fact that we denied reality for decades or deluded ourselves does not alter the war. This has been, is, and will remain an ideological war that demands strength, resolve, persistence and ruthless prosecution. The United States has not been an occupier, an invader or a colonialist power since 1898. We have no desire whatsoever to make Iraq a state of the Union. Isolationism has been tried many times and to my knowledge has never worked. We either confront the oppressors or we submit; appeasement, accommodation and tolerance of oppressors cannot be sustained.
Even if Ron Paul became president or any of the other isolationists, it would only be a matter of time before Baghdad came to New York City. The Islamic fascists have not stopped in 30+ years. In fact, their violence has ratcheted up steadily over those decades. They took the bold step of attacking our Homeland several times, and it was not until 11.September.2001, that we drew the line in the dirt and took the fight to them. The government took aggressive steps to fight this new, non-linear, imbedded, modern warfare the Islamic fascists chose to employ, and they have been loudly condemned. Since then, several attempts (that we know of) have been foiled, but they have not stopped. And, IMHO, this war will not end with wishful thinking, or appeasing the oppressors/aggressors; this will only end when they are dead or they decide to live in peace with their neighbors. Again, IMHO, we have been and will continue to be in a multi-generational war we did everything humanly possible to avoid and pretend it was not happening.
The following contributing response:
“We have killed anywhere from a conservative estimate of 600,000 to a possible 1,500,000 bunches of humans in Iraq. I respectfully disagree with your take on the Munich attack, Iranian hostage taking, and even the bombings of the marine barracks-They may be connected loosely in that they were apparently Muslims, since they apparently were from the middle east- but these things should not be so generalized. And you are well read enough and know enough about history to not take everything at face value- e.g., the Klinghoffer murder. On its face it was the stupidest thing anyone would do in order to make a political point. It just showed the attackers to be beasts- hence all Muslims, etc must be wild suicidal beasts. The association was natural and very detrimental to any "cause" of Palestinian liberation, etc. Turns out it was a black-op by probably Israeli intelligence, as we are told by Ari Ben Menasche, ex-Israeli intel officer in his book Profits of War. Of course when you realize that, then it all makes sense. I'm not saying the other events are black-ops, false flag events, etc- I don't know- but we should not be so quick to condemn groups for individual's acts. The "terrorists" are condemning me and you for our foreign policy executed by individuals who I don't particularly agree with. So they are just as guilty of generalization as we are. In other words, we have either taught them well, or we have lowered ourselves to their level. I am trying to use words as I understand them.”
. . . and my reply:
First, not generalized . . . connected. Some of my parent's and grandparent's generations chose not to see 30.January.1933, 29/30.June.1934, 10.March.1935, 15.September.1935, 6.March.1936, 18.July.1936, 14.March.1938, 29.September.1938 and 9.Novermber.1938, as connected either. As a free people, we all have choices to believe what we wish.
Second, no one said the bad guys were always smart, e.g., Hitler's decision to execute Operation BARBAROSSA before he subdued Great Britain. The Islamofascists have done stupid things as well, but they have also adapted and innovated. Time shall tell who made the correct choices.
Third, the United States has not always made the correct choices. We are free to criticize those choices. The United States is broadly motivated by its self-interests. However, we have also been the most selfless and giving Nation in history, e.g., the Marshall plan. I know few will join me but I will add Iraq & Afghanistan.
Fourth, I think most Americans are like or similar to me . . . I hold no ill-will toward anyone until I have a reason to doubt their intentions. Conversely, if someone threatens my family, I feel no urge for compassion or mercy. I recognize such thoughts are not politically correct; so be it.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
There are too many reports, coming from too many sources, to categorize the clash in Europe between Islam and Christianity, and between Sharia law and western democratic principles, to label these issues propaganda. Yet, as with most things human, we choose to believe what we choose to believe, or what makes us feel good.
What I find troubling in the notion of ‘making peace’ with fundamentalist radical Islam is the implication that the United States or the West started this conflict, and that they [al-Qaeda, Wahabi Islam, Shia Islam, et al] care about some silly notion as peace. There are indications that peace to them is a martyr’s death to 72 virgins. Several generations of Muslims have been brainwashed by fundamentalist clerics to do their bidding. This war began in the 1960’s, if not earlier, and became open, armed conflict with the West at any number of dates – 5.September.1972, 4.November.1979, 18.April.1983, and definitely by 23.October.1983. The fact that we denied reality for decades or deluded ourselves does not alter the war. This has been, is, and will remain an ideological war that demands strength, resolve, persistence and ruthless prosecution. The United States has not been an occupier, an invader or a colonialist power since 1898. We have no desire whatsoever to make Iraq a state of the Union. Isolationism has been tried many times and to my knowledge has never worked. We either confront the oppressors or we submit; appeasement, accommodation and tolerance of oppressors cannot be sustained.
Even if Ron Paul became president or any of the other isolationists, it would only be a matter of time before Baghdad came to New York City. The Islamic fascists have not stopped in 30+ years. In fact, their violence has ratcheted up steadily over those decades. They took the bold step of attacking our Homeland several times, and it was not until 11.September.2001, that we drew the line in the dirt and took the fight to them. The government took aggressive steps to fight this new, non-linear, imbedded, modern warfare the Islamic fascists chose to employ, and they have been loudly condemned. Since then, several attempts (that we know of) have been foiled, but they have not stopped. And, IMHO, this war will not end with wishful thinking, or appeasing the oppressors/aggressors; this will only end when they are dead or they decide to live in peace with their neighbors. Again, IMHO, we have been and will continue to be in a multi-generational war we did everything humanly possible to avoid and pretend it was not happening.
The following contributing response:
“We have killed anywhere from a conservative estimate of 600,000 to a possible 1,500,000 bunches of humans in Iraq. I respectfully disagree with your take on the Munich attack, Iranian hostage taking, and even the bombings of the marine barracks-They may be connected loosely in that they were apparently Muslims, since they apparently were from the middle east- but these things should not be so generalized. And you are well read enough and know enough about history to not take everything at face value- e.g., the Klinghoffer murder. On its face it was the stupidest thing anyone would do in order to make a political point. It just showed the attackers to be beasts- hence all Muslims, etc must be wild suicidal beasts. The association was natural and very detrimental to any "cause" of Palestinian liberation, etc. Turns out it was a black-op by probably Israeli intelligence, as we are told by Ari Ben Menasche, ex-Israeli intel officer in his book Profits of War. Of course when you realize that, then it all makes sense. I'm not saying the other events are black-ops, false flag events, etc- I don't know- but we should not be so quick to condemn groups for individual's acts. The "terrorists" are condemning me and you for our foreign policy executed by individuals who I don't particularly agree with. So they are just as guilty of generalization as we are. In other words, we have either taught them well, or we have lowered ourselves to their level. I am trying to use words as I understand them.”
. . . and my reply:
First, not generalized . . . connected. Some of my parent's and grandparent's generations chose not to see 30.January.1933, 29/30.June.1934, 10.March.1935, 15.September.1935, 6.March.1936, 18.July.1936, 14.March.1938, 29.September.1938 and 9.Novermber.1938, as connected either. As a free people, we all have choices to believe what we wish.
Second, no one said the bad guys were always smart, e.g., Hitler's decision to execute Operation BARBAROSSA before he subdued Great Britain. The Islamofascists have done stupid things as well, but they have also adapted and innovated. Time shall tell who made the correct choices.
Third, the United States has not always made the correct choices. We are free to criticize those choices. The United States is broadly motivated by its self-interests. However, we have also been the most selfless and giving Nation in history, e.g., the Marshall plan. I know few will join me but I will add Iraq & Afghanistan.
Fourth, I think most Americans are like or similar to me . . . I hold no ill-will toward anyone until I have a reason to doubt their intentions. Conversely, if someone threatens my family, I feel no urge for compassion or mercy. I recognize such thoughts are not politically correct; so be it.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment