Update from the Heartland
No.325
25.2.08 – 2.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.325
25.2.08 – 2.3.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
What a genuine treat! During my Tuesday morning exercise period, I listened to the New York Philharmonic Orchestra make beautiful music in their historic concert in Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Magnificent! Bravo!
I do this from time to time . . . if I was Usama bin Ladin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. . . I would definitely not want John McCain to be the American President. So, what could I do to ensure Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton gets elected? Oh, I know! Spill as much blood as possible in the last 3-6 months prior to the U.S. election in hopes of sparking sufficient revulsion and resentment in the American electorate as possible. We have the added dimension of Iran along with their surrogate Hezbollah entering their execution time window to avenge the assassination of Imad Fayez Mughniyah, a Hezbollah senior commander and killer of many Americans. The Jihadistanis will do everything they can to keep McCain out of the Oval Office. Let us be prepared for a summer/fall al-Qaeda and Hezbollah offensive.
The following URL drew my attention:
http://www.EarmarkReform.House.gov/
The site belongs to Representative John Andrew Boehner of Ohio – House Minority Leader. The general façade message points toward congressional reform of the disgusting earmark process. My initial guarded anticipation imploded as I found just another partisan political hack site. Legislative earmark reform will only come from We, the People. Unfortunately, far too many people are quite comfortable suckling at the public teat. Some of us see benefit from the hidden earmark process; most of us do not. And, most of us have not yet found our voice. The Press has reported majority party dissatisfaction with Boehner’s website and efforts to shut it down. If or when the minority party becomes the majority party again, Boehner’s site will disappear or transform instantly as their hands access the cookie jar. Even the public statements of Representative Ron Paul of Texas – erstwhile presidential candidate and earmark critic – fall upon deaf ears with his willingness to accept the largesse of his colleagues for his constituents while he votes against it to claim his faux objection. Who do these guys think they are fooling?
May I offer a few more thoughts sprouting from the ACLU v. NSA [324] reversal? Clearly, we have failed to refine the balance between the necessary modern warfighting tools and our precious freedoms. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511] came into existence when there were no personal computers; no Internet (at least accessible by the public); no cell phones; no satellite communications; no electronic mail; no 24-hour, cable news stations; no Global Position System; no personal navigation devices; ad infinitum.. International communications occurred via hard-wired, landlines (and underwater cables). Today, international air travel remains comparatively less expensive, plentiful, and readily available to virtually anyone and everyone. Our enemies have chosen to fight from the shadows, imbedded within a predominately innocent population. Contemporary warfare is heavily asymmetric and characterized by amplified, remote as well as suicidal attacks. Al-Qaeda operations add multiple site, coordinated aspects to these attacks. Local operations can be planned and executed by word-of-mouth, but international or dispersed activities virtually require use of modern communications and financial systems. Under FISA, an application for an order authorizing surveillance must include a description of the minimization procedures that will be utilized to protect privileged communications. No matter how efficient . . . the process takes time. FISA provides for post-surveillance application. Yet, the sheer volume of material to be processes makes such administrative action daunting at best. My proposal to find some balance between wartime intelligence operations and our precious freedom remains the same [301]. I hope we can help our congressional representatives find that balance without judicial dicta. We shall see.
The Pew Forum on Religion and American Life published a survey of religious affiliations in the United States. While Pew’s data are a sampling rather than a census tally, it is reasonable to assume the data are representative of the population today. In case anyone missed the results . . .
Christians 78.4%
Secular unaffiliated 6.3
Religious unaffiliated 5.8
Agnostics 2.4
Jewish 1.7
Atheists 1.4
Buddhists 0.7
Muslims 0.6
Hindus 0.4
New Age 0.4
Protestants make up 51% of the population (65% of Christians). Sort of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
You may recall our discussion of the Supreme Court's hearing of District of Columbia v. Heller [docket no. 07-290] [311] -- the challenge to the DC handgun ban. We will have the Court's opinion in the next few months. At this juncture, we note an odd and historic contribution to the judicial process. Vice President Richard B. Cheney joined 55 senators and 250 representatives to submit an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief that urges the Court to affirm the DC Circuit's ruling, declaring the DC handgun ban unconstitutional. Dick signed the congressional briefing with his proper but seldom used title "President of the United States Senate" rather than as "Vice President of the United States," ostensibly to demonstrate his disagreement with the Bush administration's filing in the case. Extraordinary! The Supremes' decision will undoubtedly be an interesting read, no matter what the outcome; and, I wonder if the Court will acknowledge the historic action of the Vice President. My opinion [311] remains unchanged.
The Georgia Court of Appeals delivered a ruling, reversing a trial court dismissal order and remanding to the trial court for consideration the case of Gregory A. Love – Love v. Morehouse College, Inc. [287 Ga. App. 743 (2007)]. Prima facie, this case deals with the failure of the college to provide a non-hostile environment. Love accused Morehouse of neglectfully ignoring homophobic conduct that resulted in his being beaten by another student with a baseball bat. It appears that the perpetrator assaulted Love, not for Gregory’s actions but his perception of Gregory’s sexual orientation. Another face of hate crimes . . . Oxnard, California, high school student Lawrence King, 15, publicly proclaimed his homosexuality. He endured harassment by his classmates and was murdered for his difference. A 14-year-old boy has been charged with King's murder. King’s assailant and those like him were NOT born with their hatred; they were taught to hate by their parents. The accused killer will stand before the bar for his judgment, but I contend the parents should be standing beside him. We have discussed the issue of ‘hate crimes’ laws [281-4, 307]. Both of these events qualify or should qualify. Federal hate crimes law seeks justice for victims, especially where a state fails to aggressively prosecute violent hate crimes, discrimination or persecution. The challenge in the Love case goes farther against the college, which Love contends condone homophobic conduct on its campus, thus contributing to his suffering a brutal and potentially fatal assault.
Comments and contributions from Update no.324:
“Be sure to read Benazir Bhutto's new book "Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West." It was finished just before her assassination. Helpful in understanding a more moderate view and how it can be promulgated.”
My reply in part:
I have not read her book, yet.
Another comment:
“George Orwell's quote got me thinking. I've certainly heard this before, but I just can't place it. So, I did some quick research. It seems to be attributed to George Orwell, but no one can seem to say exactly when or where he said it, save for possibly a connection with Rudyard Kipling. If Taylor could pin this down I would rest easier, not that I don't already rest easy thanks to the "rough men" standing ready in the night.”
My response:
I will look again tonight, but I think I’ve been through this question before, and those sources that offer the quote make attribution to Orwell, although, as I recall, definitive, written attribution cannot and most probably will never be made. I’ll try again.
Postscript:
I’ve gone through all my physical and on-line sources. The general attribution is to George Orwell, although numerous reputable sources note that the statement or versions thereof cannot be found in his writing. Some discussion refers to similar statements by Rudyard Kipling and Winston Churchill. I’ve gone back through all my notes and material on Churchill; no joy. Bottom line: I cannot find a clear, definitive attribution, other than the general, non-specific Orwellian references.
Another contribution:
“I haven’t done the research but I believe you are referring to events in Germany where the state moved against the Jews either through litigation (!) or action. I say litigation because the laws that were instituted were clearly bad and wrong, but actually were ‘legal’- so that is why I have a problem with the Patriot Act, the war powers acts, etc-Aren’t you comparing an organized gov’t, the Nazis, with something that is not comparable? The disenfranchised peoples of Palestine, etc have struck back at their oppressors, or occupiers, depending on how you look at it. Radicals like Osama have taken up these causes to rally a general hatred for foreigners who they consider either aiding Israel or occupying holy lands etc in the middle east Most Israelis want to live in peace- would give up land and make room for assimilation, at least according to an objective observer like Jimmy Carter. I know that he is not respected by those who are hard-line, but that is because he does not agree with the tragic hard-line approach which has proven to be so disastrous. But he is not the only one saying that it is the leadership of Israel that is out of synch, as our leadership has been out of synch for the past seven years. My point is you seem to be comparing a gov’t with simply reactions by various people to their various circumstances. The only connection is that they are Muslim, for the most part, I guess. We have interests in the Middle East- oil- we have allies that we have recognized as a bulkhead against communism- Israel. Oil should not cost the lives of so many people- and communism is dead. Should we leave Israel to the wolves, as many characterize it? Of course not. We should be promoting diplomacy, assimilation, dignity, rule of law and respect for differences. One of my heroes is Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish American educated diplomat who saw himself as a kind of scarlet pimpernel as he got himself posted to Budapest in Nov 44. He attempted to save as many Jews as he could from the final throes of Eichmann and the Arrow cross, the Hungarian pro-Nazi party which was systematically killing people at random in the most horrible ways. Wallenberg set up safe houses and fabricated fake paperwork to try to save people. He was captured by Russians in Jan 45 and was never seen again. But what a hero! He saved from 25,000 to maybe a hundred thousand people in a couple months. The next best thing we have to him was the diplomat Sergio Viera de Mello who was killed in Iraq in August 03. Sorry- I got sidetracked-my point is you are in fact generalizing the "enemy" as anyone who is a Muslim, and I think that is a mistake. 19 guys attacked us. Iraq didn’t. Iran never has and probably never will. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are a little scarier, though, and we should be practicing the best and shrewdest diplomacy we can muster. Comparing Hitler to ‘Islamofascists’ just isn’t even logical. Sorry. Who or what are they? Name names and then make specific points, otherwise you are just not being clear when you say you are not generalizing.”
My response:
First, we all had relatives consumed by the Holocaust whether we choose to admit it. What the Nazis did to Jews, homosexuals, the infirm and disabled, Gypsies, and all those whom they chose not to tolerate, was an insult, abuse and injury to us all. They did not move against the Jews; they moved against everyone that did not fit their mold of the Aryan ideal. Yes, 6 million Jews died at the hands of the SS; but, estimates range from 11 to 20 million in total were summarily murdered by the Nazi death camps and death pits.
Yes, those dates were the Nazi sequence. The signs were there for all to see, but most chose not to see them or refused to connect the dots. The one and most notable exception was Winston Churchill – he clearly saw the picture in 1933, and was condemned for his audacity to sound the clarion.
Yes, indeed, I am comparing Islamofascism to Nazi fascism. Just because the nation-states involved in today’s war use surrogates to carry out their nefarious and dastardly deeds does not absolve them of culpability. This is one dimension of what is called asymmetric warfare.
It seems you have bought into the popular propaganda of the Palestinians as oppressed victims. We can argue the wisdom of the Balfour Declaration, but nonetheless, the British began the process of drawing boundaries. The process was not perfect. We can also argue the wisdom of the British carving out a portion of their protectorate for a Jewish homeland; nonetheless, it was done. The Palestinians, Arabs and a goodly portion of Muslims have chosen to deny those decisions. They have chosen the aggressive path of exterminating Israel. Yes, there are political forces in Israel that do not want an accommodation with the Palestinians. But, rather than reaching out to the moderates (whom I believe are in the majority), the hostile faction among the Palestinians seek the path of terrorism, intimidation, and abuse. If we were in the position of the Israelis, I pray we would have a sliver of their strength to endure; when I listen to the Cindy Sheehan’s of our society, I doubt we do. So, when the Hamas & Hezoballah radicals lob rockets across the border at civilian targets, or send women and children to Israeli shopping centers with explosive vests, I stand with the Israelis. I truly believe the majority of Palestinians want to live in peace, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, Syria, and Wahabist Saudis do not want peace or even a raproach mal with Israel. [As a side note: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reminds me in so many ways of the recalcitrance of the Republicans & Democrats; when compromise is no longer an option, we have volatility and blood.]
Quite frankly, I am baffled why you continue to believe that I am xenophobic or even Islamophobic. For the record, let me state as succinctly and emphatically as I possibly can, I admire and embrace many aspects of Islam; I respect all Muslims . . . until I have a reason to distrust them; I advocate for all Muslim nations to join the body of peaceful nations of the world. I have no problem living with them, and long as they respect me and let me live my life as I choose.
As you say, “We should be promoting diplomacy, assimilation, dignity, rule of law and respect for differences.” Here, here! Spot on! I could not agree more. The difficulty here is, those with whom we should ‘promote’ are holding a pistol to our head . . . hardly a conducive diplomatic environment. My definition of ‘enemy’ is anyone who is trying to kill innocent people including Americans and/or seeking to impose their beliefs upon us. By my definition, only a small fraction of Muslims (some estimates range from 5 to 20%) are in the category of ‘enemy’ – certainly not all Muslims.
You are, of course, quite right. Iran, Syria, Saddam’s Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan . . . none of those countries have attacked us in the classical sense. And, yet, all of them have done so via their surrogates. To pretend there is no connection is foolhardy, IMHO.
Perhaps my analogy equating Islamofascists with Nazi fascists is wrong. I freely admit that potential. However, when you boil down threats to the lowest common denominator, the comparison for me is quite simple, direct and appropriate. You ask me to name names. I can give you a long list of names, but there is always plausible deniability between the leaders of nation-states, the clerics who instigate them all, and the field operatives who carry out their orders. Ahmadinejad is not stupid; if we found his name on an assassination document or a terrorist bombing directive, our actions would be crystal clear; yet, none of them are so stupid. Not even Saddam made that linkage. Just because our enemy chooses to hide in the shadows or beneath a Burka, does not make them any less our enemy. I see the connection, and apparently you do not; if so, it will be virtually impossible for me to make that connection for you.
Pardon me, but I failed to make one comment from last week’s exchanges. You said, “We have killed anywhere from a conservative estimate of 600,000 to a possible 1,500,000 bunches of humans in Iraq.” I cannot corroborate the numbers, so let’s assume they are accurate. By your words, at a minimum, you imply the United States has killed all those Iraqis. If we could analyze the true data, I think we would find only a tiny fraction of that number to have died at the hands of Americans. I believe the vast majority were killed by al-Qaeda in Iraq operatives intent upon sparking religious division and internecine sectarian warfare with one principal purpose – keep the United States engaged. To lay these deaths on the United States is wrong.
. . . round two:
“I appreciate your humble opinion, but your facts are so incorrect through out this that I don't know where to start. To end by saying al-Qaeda in Iraq, or whatever CIA label we claimed Zarqawi started, is responsible for all the deaths or even most of the deaths when our bombings and the civil war between Shiites and Sunnis are in fact responsible ,or how you can presume to know what the nations of Iran Syria etc want except as it fits into your premise, is baffling. Read Juan Cole, Antiwar.com, Glen Greenwald, just to name a few to get a more circumspect world view. Also, check out Rachel Cory, and the group she was working with. These are complicated issues we are bantering about and an entire nation has been practically annihilated because of jingoism and paranoia and, yes xenophobia. I attribute a lot of this to Fox news, CNN and other info outlets that have isolated us and dumbed us down to the horrors we, specifically this admin, has done to both our own citizens and the rest of the world. We are callous and insensitive to the death and destruction that our war culture has created. Young men who have gone to our highest levels of military education are ordered to shoot unarmed captives. This I know for a fact, and it is not an aberration. We should be ashamed and I hope we will be fortunate enough to avoid the kind of eventual balancing of justice the rest of the world and history has seen. We have been lucky so far.”
. . . my response to round two:
This is the point of an active debate, now isn’t it?
First, I do not believe I have ever used the term “. . . responsible for all the deaths or even most of the deaths . . . .” I think if you refer back to my words, I used the qualifier “vast majority;” in my parlance, that would be 50-75%, and I also further qualified my statement with “I believe.” My sources are predominantly within the military and from interpretation of corroborated reliable news outlets. There are at least three categories of ‘killers” here, in priority order: al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), regime remnants not otherwise affiliated with AQI, sectarian militas, criminal activity, and Allied military action. Likewise and as always, we must identify targets as AQI operatives, insurgents, militias, criminals and innocents. Lumping all these together to produce a nice inflated number hardly seems reasonable. This is combat . . . not some routine police action.
Second, I do not ask you to accept my words, prima facie. There are multitudinous sources to corroborate the involvement and culpability of the consistent state sponsors of terrorism – Iran, Syria, et cetera. My words cannot and will not ever convince you. The linkage of these states and others to terrorism and Islamofascism goes back through several Democratic and Republican administrations; I highly doubt the propaganda of subterfuge could have been successfully passed on through disparate administrations or even through generations of the military.
You said, “These are complicated issues we are bantering about and an entire nation has been practically annihilated because of jingoism and paranoia and, yes xenophobia.” Yes, they are indeed complicated issues. The leaders, sponsors, financiers and supporters of the jihadi movement are quite adept at plausible deniability, and we have only just begun to shine a light in that very dark room. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have been “practically annihilated,” and I categorically reject the notion that the United States is jingoistic, paranoid, or xenophobic; IMHO, precisely the opposite. Once again, I have no idea where such colored opinions of the United States come from. Perhaps you can help me (us) understand why we (Americans) are such bad people.
Further, you said, “We are callous and insensitive to the death and destruction that our war culture has created. Young men who have gone to our highest levels of military education are ordered to shoot unarmed captives. This I know for a fact, and it is not an aberration.” I do NOT share your views of the United States; we are neither callous nor insensitive; in fact, quite the contrary. Look at the various Press reports of children and adults injured by roadside bombs that we did not create or detonate; we treat them medically including some who are flown the United States or Europe for advanced medical treatment; these are not isolated events either; I believe the humanitarian events are far more prevalent than the aberrant behavior. Now, I shall attempt to contain my ire; I am a former Marine. I have been well trained to kill the enemy before me with an aircraft, a rifle, a pistol, my bare hands or any other convenient implement. Generations of Marines have been trained just as I have been trained. I am proud of my service to this Grand Republic; I am proud of my sons’ service, as I am proud of my father, his brothers, and his uncles and generations before him who have served the Nation honorably, and many of us in wartime. As I have stated many times, the military is a cross-section of society; just as there are murderers, rapists and thieves in society, so to in military. Murder has been committed in every war in human history including this one. I truly resent your implication that today’s soldiers and Marines are killing innocent people, intentionally or otherwise, and yes, sometimes captives. Let us put things in proportion and perspective. The exigencies of combat can be cruel, especially to the casual observer. In fact, we have too many good soldiers who have been wounded or killed because they hesitated to avoid such death of innocent civilians. I recently saw a combat video clip recorded from the targeting FLIR of an AC-130 gunship; the crew can be heard repeatedly cautioning the gunner to avoid hitting the church, or buildings, or certain vehicles; he withholds fire from those not acting aggressively; hardly indiscriminate killing. Yet, innocent people die in war; that is the nature of the beast. That is one of many reasons I am thankful the President chose the killing fields to be in Iraq rather than the United States. Lastly, on this thought, the killing would stop near instantly if the bad guys stopped fighting; we are trying to establish peace, not carry out some fictitious, xenophobic genocide or colonial subjugation.
A comment:
“I agree with you on Obama. He is a very good speaker. I wish I could say he's articulate, but when Joe Biden said it they accused him of being a racist . . . ha, ha. When you mention men like Churchill and JFK and Reagan, it always makes me think that today we really don't have anyone on the political stage who can move the country with inspirational words. GW seems to struggle with that, and I feel in my gut he feels the cause he is on is just and most people will come around to it without him having to use the bully pulpit. I think back to comments by the likes of Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Paine (actually a bunch of the leaders from the American Revolution) and how their very words touched and inspired people, and in some cases saved whole countries, perhaps the world. Even the profound writings of Sun Tzu can be looked at as inspirational when it comes to finding ways to defeat the Islamofascists. Unfortunately, most politicians today seem to only be able to talk in ten second sound-bites and do nothing but insult their political opponents or tell the American people "I will give you this, that and the other thing" as they try to play nanny for the country. Or they just throw up their hands when things get tough and say, "We can't win. We have to give up." Yeah, very inspirational. Again, I wonder how the old Roughrider Teddy Roosevelt would have reacted to a Congress with such a defeatist attitude. He'd probably give them one bully of a tongue-lashing, which of course, the current President is unwilling or incapable of doing.”
Another comment:
“To the author of the baseless rot spewed about ‘...Libertarians, Feminists, and Homosexuals’ in ‘A Continuing thread...;’ as a confirmed independent, my immediate intense reaction to your lashing out at these groups and dogmatic description of your God, was as visceral as you put your position. But, I waited until it passed to offer this more reasoned response.
“Unfortunately, it appears that you are ignorant of Libertarianism and perhaps Christianity as well. If you knew enough about what is a Libertarian, you would not be such a critic or would at least criticize from a position of knowledge. Anarchy is as far from the base as you are from the historic truth. Last time I looked, Libertarians do not run the country or even comprise any position of power over people. There are plenty of accurate websites available to teach you about what is a Libertarian.
“If you knew enough about your own religion, you would remember that three of the great religions in the world all stem from the God of Abraham. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all hold the prophet Abraham in high esteem. There are accurate websites devoted to this topic as well you can reference. In effect, Jesus is the foundation for Christianity, Mohammed is the foundation for Islam, and Abraham is the foundation of all three. It is hard to accept your argument of a disconnected and isolated God since Jesus was a Jew. This great country of these United States of America survives based upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, not the Christian tradition you espouse. As the USA matures as a nation, we are expanding that tradition to be more inclusive into a wider base of religious tolerance and freedom in operation, not just in words. To dig in your heels and show your bias against particular groups does you and all Americans, whether Christian or not, a disservice, not to mention the uneasiness your position brings to Jews and Muslims alike given their strong connection to Abraham.
“Being a Marine, I find your position impossible to defend with logic, but would always defend it with my life since that is the point of freedom and champions of it. My youngest son is doing so today with the Marines in harms way. He's not fighting just so you can stereotype particular Americans with whom you disagree or dislike. He does so for all of us just like all Marines before him and with him. If you wish to continue to be a judge and critic, learn all you can about what it is you wish to criticize and make certain you understand your own history as well. If you want us to listen to you whether we agree or not, develop a credible argument. Otherwise, pipe down or risk being typecast as an intolerant xenophobic zealot. Besides, screams from the manifestly intolerant make me deaf.”
Another contribution:
“Massive achievement by USN to dispatch USA 103. One cannot contemplate the trajectories/speeds involved.
“Must be a better bit of kit than little old sidewinder!
“Good shooting. The amazing thing is that over here none of the media praised the technology and science that enabled this event. As though it was every day and expected!
“Do we take the achievements of modern science for granted. Are we so blasé?”
My reply:
Indeed. The physics involved is awesome . . . a tremendous achievement. The Press coverage in the colonies was comparatively low-key as well. Either the reporters did not appreciate the physics, or they thought explaining the significance to the public was beyond their capability. Nice to know that an Aegis cruiser has that capability, which means it is deployable – it can be virtually anywhere there is water; no one reported on the knock-on effects of that demonstration. I wonder if the Iranians & North Koreans were paying attention.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
What a genuine treat! During my Tuesday morning exercise period, I listened to the New York Philharmonic Orchestra make beautiful music in their historic concert in Pyongyang, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Magnificent! Bravo!
I do this from time to time . . . if I was Usama bin Ladin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. . . I would definitely not want John McCain to be the American President. So, what could I do to ensure Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton gets elected? Oh, I know! Spill as much blood as possible in the last 3-6 months prior to the U.S. election in hopes of sparking sufficient revulsion and resentment in the American electorate as possible. We have the added dimension of Iran along with their surrogate Hezbollah entering their execution time window to avenge the assassination of Imad Fayez Mughniyah, a Hezbollah senior commander and killer of many Americans. The Jihadistanis will do everything they can to keep McCain out of the Oval Office. Let us be prepared for a summer/fall al-Qaeda and Hezbollah offensive.
The following URL drew my attention:
http://www.EarmarkReform.House.gov/
The site belongs to Representative John Andrew Boehner of Ohio – House Minority Leader. The general façade message points toward congressional reform of the disgusting earmark process. My initial guarded anticipation imploded as I found just another partisan political hack site. Legislative earmark reform will only come from We, the People. Unfortunately, far too many people are quite comfortable suckling at the public teat. Some of us see benefit from the hidden earmark process; most of us do not. And, most of us have not yet found our voice. The Press has reported majority party dissatisfaction with Boehner’s website and efforts to shut it down. If or when the minority party becomes the majority party again, Boehner’s site will disappear or transform instantly as their hands access the cookie jar. Even the public statements of Representative Ron Paul of Texas – erstwhile presidential candidate and earmark critic – fall upon deaf ears with his willingness to accept the largesse of his colleagues for his constituents while he votes against it to claim his faux objection. Who do these guys think they are fooling?
May I offer a few more thoughts sprouting from the ACLU v. NSA [324] reversal? Clearly, we have failed to refine the balance between the necessary modern warfighting tools and our precious freedoms. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) [PL 95-511] came into existence when there were no personal computers; no Internet (at least accessible by the public); no cell phones; no satellite communications; no electronic mail; no 24-hour, cable news stations; no Global Position System; no personal navigation devices; ad infinitum.. International communications occurred via hard-wired, landlines (and underwater cables). Today, international air travel remains comparatively less expensive, plentiful, and readily available to virtually anyone and everyone. Our enemies have chosen to fight from the shadows, imbedded within a predominately innocent population. Contemporary warfare is heavily asymmetric and characterized by amplified, remote as well as suicidal attacks. Al-Qaeda operations add multiple site, coordinated aspects to these attacks. Local operations can be planned and executed by word-of-mouth, but international or dispersed activities virtually require use of modern communications and financial systems. Under FISA, an application for an order authorizing surveillance must include a description of the minimization procedures that will be utilized to protect privileged communications. No matter how efficient . . . the process takes time. FISA provides for post-surveillance application. Yet, the sheer volume of material to be processes makes such administrative action daunting at best. My proposal to find some balance between wartime intelligence operations and our precious freedom remains the same [301]. I hope we can help our congressional representatives find that balance without judicial dicta. We shall see.
The Pew Forum on Religion and American Life published a survey of religious affiliations in the United States. While Pew’s data are a sampling rather than a census tally, it is reasonable to assume the data are representative of the population today. In case anyone missed the results . . .
Christians 78.4%
Secular unaffiliated 6.3
Religious unaffiliated 5.8
Agnostics 2.4
Jewish 1.7
Atheists 1.4
Buddhists 0.7
Muslims 0.6
Hindus 0.4
New Age 0.4
Protestants make up 51% of the population (65% of Christians). Sort of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
You may recall our discussion of the Supreme Court's hearing of District of Columbia v. Heller [docket no. 07-290] [311] -- the challenge to the DC handgun ban. We will have the Court's opinion in the next few months. At this juncture, we note an odd and historic contribution to the judicial process. Vice President Richard B. Cheney joined 55 senators and 250 representatives to submit an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) brief that urges the Court to affirm the DC Circuit's ruling, declaring the DC handgun ban unconstitutional. Dick signed the congressional briefing with his proper but seldom used title "President of the United States Senate" rather than as "Vice President of the United States," ostensibly to demonstrate his disagreement with the Bush administration's filing in the case. Extraordinary! The Supremes' decision will undoubtedly be an interesting read, no matter what the outcome; and, I wonder if the Court will acknowledge the historic action of the Vice President. My opinion [311] remains unchanged.
The Georgia Court of Appeals delivered a ruling, reversing a trial court dismissal order and remanding to the trial court for consideration the case of Gregory A. Love – Love v. Morehouse College, Inc. [287 Ga. App. 743 (2007)]. Prima facie, this case deals with the failure of the college to provide a non-hostile environment. Love accused Morehouse of neglectfully ignoring homophobic conduct that resulted in his being beaten by another student with a baseball bat. It appears that the perpetrator assaulted Love, not for Gregory’s actions but his perception of Gregory’s sexual orientation. Another face of hate crimes . . . Oxnard, California, high school student Lawrence King, 15, publicly proclaimed his homosexuality. He endured harassment by his classmates and was murdered for his difference. A 14-year-old boy has been charged with King's murder. King’s assailant and those like him were NOT born with their hatred; they were taught to hate by their parents. The accused killer will stand before the bar for his judgment, but I contend the parents should be standing beside him. We have discussed the issue of ‘hate crimes’ laws [281-4, 307]. Both of these events qualify or should qualify. Federal hate crimes law seeks justice for victims, especially where a state fails to aggressively prosecute violent hate crimes, discrimination or persecution. The challenge in the Love case goes farther against the college, which Love contends condone homophobic conduct on its campus, thus contributing to his suffering a brutal and potentially fatal assault.
Comments and contributions from Update no.324:
“Be sure to read Benazir Bhutto's new book "Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West." It was finished just before her assassination. Helpful in understanding a more moderate view and how it can be promulgated.”
My reply in part:
I have not read her book, yet.
Another comment:
“George Orwell's quote got me thinking. I've certainly heard this before, but I just can't place it. So, I did some quick research. It seems to be attributed to George Orwell, but no one can seem to say exactly when or where he said it, save for possibly a connection with Rudyard Kipling. If Taylor could pin this down I would rest easier, not that I don't already rest easy thanks to the "rough men" standing ready in the night.”
My response:
I will look again tonight, but I think I’ve been through this question before, and those sources that offer the quote make attribution to Orwell, although, as I recall, definitive, written attribution cannot and most probably will never be made. I’ll try again.
Postscript:
I’ve gone through all my physical and on-line sources. The general attribution is to George Orwell, although numerous reputable sources note that the statement or versions thereof cannot be found in his writing. Some discussion refers to similar statements by Rudyard Kipling and Winston Churchill. I’ve gone back through all my notes and material on Churchill; no joy. Bottom line: I cannot find a clear, definitive attribution, other than the general, non-specific Orwellian references.
Another contribution:
“I haven’t done the research but I believe you are referring to events in Germany where the state moved against the Jews either through litigation (!) or action. I say litigation because the laws that were instituted were clearly bad and wrong, but actually were ‘legal’- so that is why I have a problem with the Patriot Act, the war powers acts, etc-Aren’t you comparing an organized gov’t, the Nazis, with something that is not comparable? The disenfranchised peoples of Palestine, etc have struck back at their oppressors, or occupiers, depending on how you look at it. Radicals like Osama have taken up these causes to rally a general hatred for foreigners who they consider either aiding Israel or occupying holy lands etc in the middle east Most Israelis want to live in peace- would give up land and make room for assimilation, at least according to an objective observer like Jimmy Carter. I know that he is not respected by those who are hard-line, but that is because he does not agree with the tragic hard-line approach which has proven to be so disastrous. But he is not the only one saying that it is the leadership of Israel that is out of synch, as our leadership has been out of synch for the past seven years. My point is you seem to be comparing a gov’t with simply reactions by various people to their various circumstances. The only connection is that they are Muslim, for the most part, I guess. We have interests in the Middle East- oil- we have allies that we have recognized as a bulkhead against communism- Israel. Oil should not cost the lives of so many people- and communism is dead. Should we leave Israel to the wolves, as many characterize it? Of course not. We should be promoting diplomacy, assimilation, dignity, rule of law and respect for differences. One of my heroes is Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish American educated diplomat who saw himself as a kind of scarlet pimpernel as he got himself posted to Budapest in Nov 44. He attempted to save as many Jews as he could from the final throes of Eichmann and the Arrow cross, the Hungarian pro-Nazi party which was systematically killing people at random in the most horrible ways. Wallenberg set up safe houses and fabricated fake paperwork to try to save people. He was captured by Russians in Jan 45 and was never seen again. But what a hero! He saved from 25,000 to maybe a hundred thousand people in a couple months. The next best thing we have to him was the diplomat Sergio Viera de Mello who was killed in Iraq in August 03. Sorry- I got sidetracked-my point is you are in fact generalizing the "enemy" as anyone who is a Muslim, and I think that is a mistake. 19 guys attacked us. Iraq didn’t. Iran never has and probably never will. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are a little scarier, though, and we should be practicing the best and shrewdest diplomacy we can muster. Comparing Hitler to ‘Islamofascists’ just isn’t even logical. Sorry. Who or what are they? Name names and then make specific points, otherwise you are just not being clear when you say you are not generalizing.”
My response:
First, we all had relatives consumed by the Holocaust whether we choose to admit it. What the Nazis did to Jews, homosexuals, the infirm and disabled, Gypsies, and all those whom they chose not to tolerate, was an insult, abuse and injury to us all. They did not move against the Jews; they moved against everyone that did not fit their mold of the Aryan ideal. Yes, 6 million Jews died at the hands of the SS; but, estimates range from 11 to 20 million in total were summarily murdered by the Nazi death camps and death pits.
Yes, those dates were the Nazi sequence. The signs were there for all to see, but most chose not to see them or refused to connect the dots. The one and most notable exception was Winston Churchill – he clearly saw the picture in 1933, and was condemned for his audacity to sound the clarion.
Yes, indeed, I am comparing Islamofascism to Nazi fascism. Just because the nation-states involved in today’s war use surrogates to carry out their nefarious and dastardly deeds does not absolve them of culpability. This is one dimension of what is called asymmetric warfare.
It seems you have bought into the popular propaganda of the Palestinians as oppressed victims. We can argue the wisdom of the Balfour Declaration, but nonetheless, the British began the process of drawing boundaries. The process was not perfect. We can also argue the wisdom of the British carving out a portion of their protectorate for a Jewish homeland; nonetheless, it was done. The Palestinians, Arabs and a goodly portion of Muslims have chosen to deny those decisions. They have chosen the aggressive path of exterminating Israel. Yes, there are political forces in Israel that do not want an accommodation with the Palestinians. But, rather than reaching out to the moderates (whom I believe are in the majority), the hostile faction among the Palestinians seek the path of terrorism, intimidation, and abuse. If we were in the position of the Israelis, I pray we would have a sliver of their strength to endure; when I listen to the Cindy Sheehan’s of our society, I doubt we do. So, when the Hamas & Hezoballah radicals lob rockets across the border at civilian targets, or send women and children to Israeli shopping centers with explosive vests, I stand with the Israelis. I truly believe the majority of Palestinians want to live in peace, but the Islamic Republic of Iran, Syria, and Wahabist Saudis do not want peace or even a raproach mal with Israel. [As a side note: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reminds me in so many ways of the recalcitrance of the Republicans & Democrats; when compromise is no longer an option, we have volatility and blood.]
Quite frankly, I am baffled why you continue to believe that I am xenophobic or even Islamophobic. For the record, let me state as succinctly and emphatically as I possibly can, I admire and embrace many aspects of Islam; I respect all Muslims . . . until I have a reason to distrust them; I advocate for all Muslim nations to join the body of peaceful nations of the world. I have no problem living with them, and long as they respect me and let me live my life as I choose.
As you say, “We should be promoting diplomacy, assimilation, dignity, rule of law and respect for differences.” Here, here! Spot on! I could not agree more. The difficulty here is, those with whom we should ‘promote’ are holding a pistol to our head . . . hardly a conducive diplomatic environment. My definition of ‘enemy’ is anyone who is trying to kill innocent people including Americans and/or seeking to impose their beliefs upon us. By my definition, only a small fraction of Muslims (some estimates range from 5 to 20%) are in the category of ‘enemy’ – certainly not all Muslims.
You are, of course, quite right. Iran, Syria, Saddam’s Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan . . . none of those countries have attacked us in the classical sense. And, yet, all of them have done so via their surrogates. To pretend there is no connection is foolhardy, IMHO.
Perhaps my analogy equating Islamofascists with Nazi fascists is wrong. I freely admit that potential. However, when you boil down threats to the lowest common denominator, the comparison for me is quite simple, direct and appropriate. You ask me to name names. I can give you a long list of names, but there is always plausible deniability between the leaders of nation-states, the clerics who instigate them all, and the field operatives who carry out their orders. Ahmadinejad is not stupid; if we found his name on an assassination document or a terrorist bombing directive, our actions would be crystal clear; yet, none of them are so stupid. Not even Saddam made that linkage. Just because our enemy chooses to hide in the shadows or beneath a Burka, does not make them any less our enemy. I see the connection, and apparently you do not; if so, it will be virtually impossible for me to make that connection for you.
Pardon me, but I failed to make one comment from last week’s exchanges. You said, “We have killed anywhere from a conservative estimate of 600,000 to a possible 1,500,000 bunches of humans in Iraq.” I cannot corroborate the numbers, so let’s assume they are accurate. By your words, at a minimum, you imply the United States has killed all those Iraqis. If we could analyze the true data, I think we would find only a tiny fraction of that number to have died at the hands of Americans. I believe the vast majority were killed by al-Qaeda in Iraq operatives intent upon sparking religious division and internecine sectarian warfare with one principal purpose – keep the United States engaged. To lay these deaths on the United States is wrong.
. . . round two:
“I appreciate your humble opinion, but your facts are so incorrect through out this that I don't know where to start. To end by saying al-Qaeda in Iraq, or whatever CIA label we claimed Zarqawi started, is responsible for all the deaths or even most of the deaths when our bombings and the civil war between Shiites and Sunnis are in fact responsible ,or how you can presume to know what the nations of Iran Syria etc want except as it fits into your premise, is baffling. Read Juan Cole, Antiwar.com, Glen Greenwald, just to name a few to get a more circumspect world view. Also, check out Rachel Cory, and the group she was working with. These are complicated issues we are bantering about and an entire nation has been practically annihilated because of jingoism and paranoia and, yes xenophobia. I attribute a lot of this to Fox news, CNN and other info outlets that have isolated us and dumbed us down to the horrors we, specifically this admin, has done to both our own citizens and the rest of the world. We are callous and insensitive to the death and destruction that our war culture has created. Young men who have gone to our highest levels of military education are ordered to shoot unarmed captives. This I know for a fact, and it is not an aberration. We should be ashamed and I hope we will be fortunate enough to avoid the kind of eventual balancing of justice the rest of the world and history has seen. We have been lucky so far.”
. . . my response to round two:
This is the point of an active debate, now isn’t it?
First, I do not believe I have ever used the term “. . . responsible for all the deaths or even most of the deaths . . . .” I think if you refer back to my words, I used the qualifier “vast majority;” in my parlance, that would be 50-75%, and I also further qualified my statement with “I believe.” My sources are predominantly within the military and from interpretation of corroborated reliable news outlets. There are at least three categories of ‘killers” here, in priority order: al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), regime remnants not otherwise affiliated with AQI, sectarian militas, criminal activity, and Allied military action. Likewise and as always, we must identify targets as AQI operatives, insurgents, militias, criminals and innocents. Lumping all these together to produce a nice inflated number hardly seems reasonable. This is combat . . . not some routine police action.
Second, I do not ask you to accept my words, prima facie. There are multitudinous sources to corroborate the involvement and culpability of the consistent state sponsors of terrorism – Iran, Syria, et cetera. My words cannot and will not ever convince you. The linkage of these states and others to terrorism and Islamofascism goes back through several Democratic and Republican administrations; I highly doubt the propaganda of subterfuge could have been successfully passed on through disparate administrations or even through generations of the military.
You said, “These are complicated issues we are bantering about and an entire nation has been practically annihilated because of jingoism and paranoia and, yes xenophobia.” Yes, they are indeed complicated issues. The leaders, sponsors, financiers and supporters of the jihadi movement are quite adept at plausible deniability, and we have only just begun to shine a light in that very dark room. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have been “practically annihilated,” and I categorically reject the notion that the United States is jingoistic, paranoid, or xenophobic; IMHO, precisely the opposite. Once again, I have no idea where such colored opinions of the United States come from. Perhaps you can help me (us) understand why we (Americans) are such bad people.
Further, you said, “We are callous and insensitive to the death and destruction that our war culture has created. Young men who have gone to our highest levels of military education are ordered to shoot unarmed captives. This I know for a fact, and it is not an aberration.” I do NOT share your views of the United States; we are neither callous nor insensitive; in fact, quite the contrary. Look at the various Press reports of children and adults injured by roadside bombs that we did not create or detonate; we treat them medically including some who are flown the United States or Europe for advanced medical treatment; these are not isolated events either; I believe the humanitarian events are far more prevalent than the aberrant behavior. Now, I shall attempt to contain my ire; I am a former Marine. I have been well trained to kill the enemy before me with an aircraft, a rifle, a pistol, my bare hands or any other convenient implement. Generations of Marines have been trained just as I have been trained. I am proud of my service to this Grand Republic; I am proud of my sons’ service, as I am proud of my father, his brothers, and his uncles and generations before him who have served the Nation honorably, and many of us in wartime. As I have stated many times, the military is a cross-section of society; just as there are murderers, rapists and thieves in society, so to in military. Murder has been committed in every war in human history including this one. I truly resent your implication that today’s soldiers and Marines are killing innocent people, intentionally or otherwise, and yes, sometimes captives. Let us put things in proportion and perspective. The exigencies of combat can be cruel, especially to the casual observer. In fact, we have too many good soldiers who have been wounded or killed because they hesitated to avoid such death of innocent civilians. I recently saw a combat video clip recorded from the targeting FLIR of an AC-130 gunship; the crew can be heard repeatedly cautioning the gunner to avoid hitting the church, or buildings, or certain vehicles; he withholds fire from those not acting aggressively; hardly indiscriminate killing. Yet, innocent people die in war; that is the nature of the beast. That is one of many reasons I am thankful the President chose the killing fields to be in Iraq rather than the United States. Lastly, on this thought, the killing would stop near instantly if the bad guys stopped fighting; we are trying to establish peace, not carry out some fictitious, xenophobic genocide or colonial subjugation.
A comment:
“I agree with you on Obama. He is a very good speaker. I wish I could say he's articulate, but when Joe Biden said it they accused him of being a racist . . . ha, ha. When you mention men like Churchill and JFK and Reagan, it always makes me think that today we really don't have anyone on the political stage who can move the country with inspirational words. GW seems to struggle with that, and I feel in my gut he feels the cause he is on is just and most people will come around to it without him having to use the bully pulpit. I think back to comments by the likes of Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt and Thomas Paine (actually a bunch of the leaders from the American Revolution) and how their very words touched and inspired people, and in some cases saved whole countries, perhaps the world. Even the profound writings of Sun Tzu can be looked at as inspirational when it comes to finding ways to defeat the Islamofascists. Unfortunately, most politicians today seem to only be able to talk in ten second sound-bites and do nothing but insult their political opponents or tell the American people "I will give you this, that and the other thing" as they try to play nanny for the country. Or they just throw up their hands when things get tough and say, "We can't win. We have to give up." Yeah, very inspirational. Again, I wonder how the old Roughrider Teddy Roosevelt would have reacted to a Congress with such a defeatist attitude. He'd probably give them one bully of a tongue-lashing, which of course, the current President is unwilling or incapable of doing.”
Another comment:
“To the author of the baseless rot spewed about ‘...Libertarians, Feminists, and Homosexuals’ in ‘A Continuing thread...;’ as a confirmed independent, my immediate intense reaction to your lashing out at these groups and dogmatic description of your God, was as visceral as you put your position. But, I waited until it passed to offer this more reasoned response.
“Unfortunately, it appears that you are ignorant of Libertarianism and perhaps Christianity as well. If you knew enough about what is a Libertarian, you would not be such a critic or would at least criticize from a position of knowledge. Anarchy is as far from the base as you are from the historic truth. Last time I looked, Libertarians do not run the country or even comprise any position of power over people. There are plenty of accurate websites available to teach you about what is a Libertarian.
“If you knew enough about your own religion, you would remember that three of the great religions in the world all stem from the God of Abraham. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all hold the prophet Abraham in high esteem. There are accurate websites devoted to this topic as well you can reference. In effect, Jesus is the foundation for Christianity, Mohammed is the foundation for Islam, and Abraham is the foundation of all three. It is hard to accept your argument of a disconnected and isolated God since Jesus was a Jew. This great country of these United States of America survives based upon the Judeo-Christian tradition, not the Christian tradition you espouse. As the USA matures as a nation, we are expanding that tradition to be more inclusive into a wider base of religious tolerance and freedom in operation, not just in words. To dig in your heels and show your bias against particular groups does you and all Americans, whether Christian or not, a disservice, not to mention the uneasiness your position brings to Jews and Muslims alike given their strong connection to Abraham.
“Being a Marine, I find your position impossible to defend with logic, but would always defend it with my life since that is the point of freedom and champions of it. My youngest son is doing so today with the Marines in harms way. He's not fighting just so you can stereotype particular Americans with whom you disagree or dislike. He does so for all of us just like all Marines before him and with him. If you wish to continue to be a judge and critic, learn all you can about what it is you wish to criticize and make certain you understand your own history as well. If you want us to listen to you whether we agree or not, develop a credible argument. Otherwise, pipe down or risk being typecast as an intolerant xenophobic zealot. Besides, screams from the manifestly intolerant make me deaf.”
Another contribution:
“Massive achievement by USN to dispatch USA 103. One cannot contemplate the trajectories/speeds involved.
“Must be a better bit of kit than little old sidewinder!
“Good shooting. The amazing thing is that over here none of the media praised the technology and science that enabled this event. As though it was every day and expected!
“Do we take the achievements of modern science for granted. Are we so blasé?”
My reply:
Indeed. The physics involved is awesome . . . a tremendous achievement. The Press coverage in the colonies was comparatively low-key as well. Either the reporters did not appreciate the physics, or they thought explaining the significance to the public was beyond their capability. Nice to know that an Aegis cruiser has that capability, which means it is deployable – it can be virtually anywhere there is water; no one reported on the knock-on effects of that demonstration. I wonder if the Iranians & North Koreans were paying attention.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment