Update from the Heartland
No.365
8.12.08 – 14.12.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.365
8.12.08 – 14.12.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Justice Department unsealed the indictment of five (5) Blackwater security personnel [305, et al] on 35 counts ranging from manslaughter to weapons violations linked to a 2007 Baghdad incident in which 17 Iraqis were killed. My opinion of this incident and now these charges remains unchanged. Regardless, these Americans will have their lives altered as they are tried by a jury of their peers (who will have little understanding by which to judge them). Such is the story of our time.
-- The sole surviving Mumbai terrorist provided a detailed confession regarding the plans for and execution of the tragic attack [363/4]. In other related news, the Pakistani government moved quickly to capture the leaders/planners of the Mumbai attack. Pakistani security services raided a riverside camp near Muzaffarabad, the main city in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, where they captured (alive) Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the Laskhar-e-Taiba operations chief, and at least 12 other individuals. I am certain Lakhvi will be given the opportunity to sing.
-- The Indian Navy, on patrol in the Gulf of Aden, received a distress call from a merchant vessel MV Gibe, under attack from two small boats [361]. INS Mysore dispatched its helicopter and sped to the scene, whereupon they captured 23 Somali pirates. Congratulations to the Indians. I say to the various allies in the region, good hunting!
A contemporary philosophical question for your critical rumination:
Even if we assume homosexuality (or other than heterosexuality) is entirely a matter of hedonistic personal choice with no genetic, hereditary, biological, environmental, or educational linkage, does the majority have a right to dictate who an individual adult citizen can choose to enter into a state-sanctioned, binding relationship?
This week’s presidential nominations:
Thomas Andrew ‘Tom’ Daschle – Health and Human Services
Steven Chu – Energy
Shaun Donovan – Housing and Urban Development
Lisa P. Jackson – Environmental Protection Agency
Jeanne M. Lambrew – White House Office of Health Reform (new)
Carol M. Browner – White House Office of Energy and Climate Policy (new)
Nancy Sutley – White House Council on Environmental Quality
Economic news:
-- Merrill Lynch CEO John Alexander Thain eventually and ultimately decided to forego his annual multimillion dollar bonus after considerable Press scrutiny. I am shocked! The audacity of some folks is mind-boggling. I am all in favor of business executives having a greater portion of their compensation at risk, the higher up they go. In some measure, we must question the performance of the Merrill Lynch Board of Directors. It is the Board that determines and defines the conditions under which to award executive bonuses. And, if the Board has not established performance metrics for the determination equation, then shame on that Merrill Board (and all the other corporate boards who fail to perform their fiduciary duties).
-- The Bank of Canada – the nation’s central bank – reduced its key lending rate by 0.75 points to 1.5% and declared the Canadian economy officially in recession.
-- The scaled down, automobile industry bailout effort stalled in the Senate after the House passed the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act (H.R.7321) [House: 237-170-1-26(1)]. Then, the White House hinted they might use TARP funds to support the industry into the next administration and Congress.
[NOTE: Much ado has been made about the apparent paucity of conditions and vastly larger numbers of federal treasury funds going to the banking industry, Wall Street, and the insurance & mortgage industries in comparison to the ‘pound of flesh’ Congress is attempting to extract from the automobile industry. The criticism is valid, and worthy of scrutiny and debate; however, there one major factor – manufacturing industrial costs and specifically excessive labor costs.]
-- Bank of America announced planned work force reductions of up to 11.3% (35,000 jobs) over the next three years. Part of the reductions are a consequence of acquiring Merrill Lynch, which should be completed early next year, but there is also a portion that reflects the contracting U.S. and international economies.
-- Prominent New York lawyer, 58-year-old, Marc S. Dreier was arrested in Toronto on felonious impersonation charges and was also charged by U.S. Federal prosecutors for securities and wire fraud involving a multi-million dollar real estate scheme and hedge funds.
-- Amid the worries and horrors of the economic crisis, and expanding criminal cases, FBI agents arrested 70-year-old, Bernard Leon Madoff – a long-term, Wall Street, trading guru – on securities fraud charges related to what may well be a US$50B Ponzi scheme – a new, infamous record if proven. The list of his victims is equally as impressive as the numbers involved, and reportedly include New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, GMAC Chairman J. Ezra Merkin, former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman, among dozens of other seemingly sophisticated investors. I suspect the legal fallout and collateral damage from the mortgage meltdown are only just beginning. This will pale the Enron debacle [2001].
-- Economists are estimating the current recession to be the longest and deepest since the Great Depression with the unemployment rate reaching 8.4% and recovery not beginning until mid-2009, which means the worst is still ahead of us.
-- General Motors joined Chrysler [364] in retaining their bankruptcy / restructuring specialists – just in case, they say – Weil Gotshal & Manges; Evercore Partners; and Blackstone Group.
-- U.S. retail sales declined by 1.8% in November, which the Commerce Department declared was less than expected, and at the same time, the Labor Department announced that wholesale prices dropped by 2.2%.
I try mightily to avoid commenting on criminal conduct of individuals, yet the events of Tuesday morning in Chicago cannot be brushed aside. In the early morning hours, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) called Illinois Governor Milorad R. ‘Rod’ Blagojevich on his cell phone informing the governor that he needed to go to the front door to be arrested by several waiting FBI special agents. The FBI handcuffed the state chief executive in front of his family and carted him off to jail for processing. He stands accused of a myriad of corruption, extortion and other crimes, not least of which was trying to “sell” the open Senate seat of President-Elect Barack Obama. I know Blago is innocent until proven guilty, but I must say, things are not looking good for the governor. Regardless of the outcome of his trial, Blago has defined a new, deeper gutter even for Chicago machine politics.
In an unusual but understandable action, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court to declare Governor Blagojevich unfit, to remove him from office, and to seek a restraining order against him until he is removed from office. The governor’s ego is likely to bring this to a constitutional confrontation at a very inopportune time for President-Elect Obama. This is going to get uglier before it is done.
Comments and contributions from Update no.364:
“I've been intending to write and say I read you letter to the editor a couple of weeks ago on gay marriage and heartily agree.”
Another contribution:
“For me, mixed feelings about the [Army-Navy] game--and actually it was a pretty poor ‘game.’ I knew a couple of [my son’s] classmates from USMAPS who were playing – one was a defensive co-captain. If the game doesn't get more competitive, we may loose national TV – we almost did in the 70's.”
My reply:
You are of course quite correct. It was not a good game . . . one of the more embarrassing games for our brothers of the Long Grey Line. In fact, it was rather painful to watch. But, c’est la vie, e c’est la guerre.
A different contribution from the same contributor:
“Regarding Senator Chambliss' re-election. The 60-seat majority is not the ironclad instrument that allows "unfettered control of the instruments of state." In any bill, there will be Democrats who vote against their party's position for various reasons and Republicans who vote for the presumed Democratic position for their own reasons-- usually related to their own electorate's demands. 58.59 or anything in the high fifties, usually denotes that the party with that majority will have smoother sailing getting something through, but 60 does not always mean that a bill is filibuster-proof.
“Also, Sen. Chambliss is not friendly to veterans. He won his seat the first time using very slandering and defamatory ads against triple amputee Max Clelland. Chambliss was clearly out of bounds in comparing Clelland to Osama bin Laden and terrorism--he also used false data. Further, Chambliss has not supported veterans at all with his voting record. The most recent was his vote against the new GI Bill. I find it very hard to congratulate someone with a record like that who won using racist code words, as well.”
My response:
OK. Perhaps I was not explicit and expansive enough. Yet, when all that remains to be decided is the Senate composition, with the Executive and House firmly in the hands of Democrats, then it is easy to see how the last bulwark is the Senate. I am not a fan of Saxby – never have been, never will be – however, I am far less a fan of any party dominating the elected bodies, which would leave only the Judiciary as defense against abuse and oppression. You are also correct that numbers alone do not connote cohesion. So, they may not have the magic 60 seats in the Senate, but their number is far larger than I care for. I prefer 50-50, or maybe even 45-45-10 with enough independents to make it interesting.
From another contributor:
“Thanks for the ‘update.’ I read them all, although some with more scrutiny than others depending on time and subject matter. I’m particularly enthused about your crusade against Islam-Fascist terrorism and much appreciate the information on the recent Indian attack. I think all major religions have problems, to a lesser or greater degree, dealing with modernity, but with Islam it appears to be irreconcilable. Modernity represents two trends that Islam sees as unacceptable: loss of control of the masses (putting self above Islam, the ‘me-centricity’ of our own society) and focus on this life instead of the next. Western civilization may indeed be a deadly virus to Islam, probably is. And, who knows, THEY may be right in the long run. But there can be no doubt that the only way we can ‘accommodate’ the long term goal of the Islamic religion is to surrender our way of life and/or die. It is, in fact, that kind of struggle, and you are either on one side or the other. Doing nothing is always a COA [Course Of Action], as is negotiation, but time is not on our side.
“For those that would attack India for the intolerance toward their Islamic minority, when/where was the last successful, major state ruled by an Islamic majority and how tolerant was that state of its ‘minorities’? I personally do not think Western Civilization is perfect, but I do think it’s worth passing on to my grandchildren. I have very little ‘tolerance’ for those that cannot, or will not see how important our current efforts are in securing our way of life for our grandchildren. Hope is not a strategy – at least not now that the ‘silly season’ is over.
“As to Hedges, you are much too kind. It’s typical, myopic, liberal-minded, Imperialist America, ‘why can’t we all just get along’ dribble. Isn’t it funny how the same people that believe there is nothing worth fighting for and that everyone is basically good are the same people that triple lock their doors at night and buy thousand-dollar alarm systems for their cars. How far did he have to go back in history to find ONE Islamic leader that had ‘philosophers’ in his court, somewhere in the 1500’s? And if he really does not understand the difference between going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Indian terrorist attacks, he’s not worth talking to, let alone reading.
“On a much lesser note, I do not totally disagree with your other crusade against some of the more ridiculous morality issues that seem to grab center stage in our media from time to time. I am much less sympathetic to the specific drug legalization COA. Perhaps the ‘foolish, impotent’ war on drugs has not been as successful as we might have hoped, but one can only truly critique the COA selected. I have very little confidence that your COA would yield any better results and the unintended consequences could very well be devastating. It’s often very easy to prescribe COA’s based on failure of another, instead of any real analysis of chances of success of the new one. Criticism and critique and critical analysis all share approximately the same etymology, but they are far from synonymous.
“Lastly, in the semi-immortal words of Kris Kristofferson, ‘freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.’ The relationship between the citizen and the state is a balancing act through a minefield. Our society is not perfect and of course always bears watching, but neither is it the worst current or historical example. The problem with our society, as I see it, is most of us have lost the ability to distinguish between ‘needs’ and ‘wants.’ Personally, if I’m talking to a known terrorist on my cell phone, I EXPECT my government to be listening and to take appropriate action on that, while ignoring overheard references (hypothetically speaking) to any 1-900 numbers or any (hypothetical) clandestine affairs with the red head down the street. Of course the devil is always in the details.”
My reply:
Indeed, all major religions do have problems. IMHO, all those problems hang upon the megalomania of the flawed men who serve as clergy. The revealed religions tend to be far more aggressive and evangelical; each has periods of offensive projection of their beliefs to convert the infidels to the ‘true’ faith. Christianity outgrew its violent years during the Renaissance as political thinkers began the process of separating the domains of church & state. Unfortunately, we live in an era where Islam is evolving about 600 years behind Christianity; they are still in their Crusades and Inquisition phase. I do not condemn the religion, only the clerics who foster violence and intolerance for the furtherance of their control and their power. I am optimistic that Islam will eventually mature into a more tolerant and confident form.
The admixture of church & state, religion & politics, will never be a stable condition. The thinkers of the 17th & 18th Centuries understood that reality; they had multitudinous examples to help them see that reality. There is one, central, fundamental reason – there are no checks & balances with religion; clerics turn to God for their validation and justification, which is precisely why that wall of separation must be high, strong and broad.
Western civilization and specifically this Grand Republic are inherently flawed, and far from perfect; in fact, in the political domain, there is no such thing as perfect, which is exactly why the Founders / Framers constructed a system of governance with checks & balances, forcing compromise, negotiation, debate and deliberation. Hope is indeed not a strategy, just as idealism offers no protection.
I agree on Hedges, but I always like to hear as broad a spectrum of opinion as possible. I call opinions like Hedges’ the “Rodney King Syndrome” – “C-c-c-can’t we all just get along?”
BTW, I assume COA = Course Of Action, in your usage. If so, I understand and appreciate your doubt in my espousal of drug legalization. This is hardly the forum and I am but a humble, perhaps naïve, novice pragmatist. I am not proposing change for the sake of change, or simply because the contemporary policy has failed. My social model proposal is based on lay observation of addiction – alcohol, tobacco, psychotropic substances, et cetera. I think validation is easily established that addicts cannot be cured; there are only two outcomes: 1.) he reaches his bottom, and convinces himself he must change and avoid intoxicants, or 2.) he dies by his substance of choice. There is no medical, psychological, mental, emotional, legal or familial action that can alter the addict’s chosen path [and I use chosen not to ignore a genetic element in addiction, but rather to acknowledge the internal forces within the addict]. Prohibition will never, ever work; we have millennia of history & examples to prove that axiom. My objective is to:
A.) eliminate the criminal sub-culture that is the source of so much injurious crime,
B.) protect the public from collateral damage by the addict’s consumption,
C.) allow the addict the selfish, ego-centric, self-indulgent, self-destruction he seeks, and
D.) recognize the fact that some people will not be saved and that we must focus on those who truly seek salvation.
Distinguishing between wants and needs. Interesting observation that carries some weight. I have supported the USG’s surveillance initiatives, while being critical of the administration’s execution – Elliott Spitzer being the poster-child for the USG’s abuse of anti-terrorism tools for political purposes.
Another contribution:
“I believe a combatant is a combatant, whether or not he or she wears the uniform of some country, or dresses to blend in with local populations.
“So if we capture any, they are prisoners. IF they are found to be actual soldiers of some country, and are not in uniform, especially if they carry no Correct Identification, then perhaps they should be treated as spies. I think that was WW2 rules. Not sure about the Geneva Convention nowadays. If they are Not military but fighting as sympathizers to some ‘Group,’ then I feel they HAVE NO STANDING, anywhere. They took the chance, and lost. Sorry about that.
“But that is actually the position that Many Many fighters in Al-Qaeda, The Taliban, and seemingly always increasing splinter groups, small individual ‘cells,’ etc., some with actually their own agendas really, though hiding under cover of some more recognizable group. None belong to any Country at war with any other Country. They are terrorists, bent on advancing whatever cause they may have by attempting to destroy or at least put dire fear in the peoples they oppose.
“When it comes to acting against the USA, such Groups, Organizations, Cells, whoever they may be, have good reason to believe they have at Least a better than Reasonable chance of success or at least some advancement of their agenda when going against us. Look at our ‘Record’ since about 1979 or so, of acting immediately and definitively against those who have hurt us. That record is dismal!! And that blame cannot be put on just Democratic Administrations ---- I give you Reagan and the Beirut Bombing as just One Republican folly. There are others, from Administrations on Both sides.
“It does not speak well about us in MY opinion. But it speaks quite clearly to our adversaries and would be adversaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I believe passage of Prop 8 in CA was wrong. In spite of the fact that I am not enthusiastic about Gays marrying Gays and having all the rights, privileges, etc. of Man/Woman Marriages. I might be a bit more amenable to that stuff if in Divorce cases, the gay adversaries would be treated the same as any heterosexual couple divorcing in the particular State. However ----- that might prove hard to do. How do you legally determine which of the couple plays what role, and is that important anyway? What if they have adopted children? Which partner gets custody, let’s say when the reason for divorce is, as is the case a lot now, ‘Irreconcilable Differences.’
“BUT---I do believe in all of us having equal rights. The key word in my last sentence is ALL. So I disagree with Prop 8 from a legal standpoint.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have, in the last year or two have found myself becoming more closely aligned in my thoughts and convictions with the folks who say that Life begins at conception and so Abortion is wrong. Period. HOWEVER, I am a Long way from being totally aligned with them! One can put forth, and Many have, any number of arguments, both generally and by asking specific ‘What IF’ questions, whereby I think many, if not a Majority of Americans would find themselves in a quandary---in an almost unsolvable moral dilemma. A dilemma having not so much to do with the teachings of ANY particular religious faith, or secular denomination, as just plain Personal Feelings. And THOSE most often having to do with the particulars of a single particular case.
“No broad-brushing of legalities will EVER satisfy all. Never.
“I do have one not completely thought out opinion. It might be the beginning of the 3rd trimester, or some other earlier semester, or week, or anytime determined by proper medical authority, as seconded by another proper medical authority, that the fetus is viable. SO---NO abortion.
“I'd never want to be in THAT position. It is untenable. What is viable? Define that please! Legally. Aha! Can't. Again --- ‘What If’ we will lose the Mother in a possibly unsuccessful attempt to save the new life? ‘What If’ we can save the Mother, and pretty much guarantee she can have future chances at giving birth, but we will lose the fetus? I could go on and on, as HAVE the very serious advocates for Both sides of this very important, though virtually insolvable quandary.
“In times past, throughout all of humanity, and as it always has been in all of the animal world, reproduction took/takes it's course. Regardless and in spite of who survives and who does not. Various species, over eons of development, mutation and adaptation, have found ways to try and guarantee the survival of their own species. Sometimes over time successfully, though not always, with those unsuccessful species disappearing. The word we use is Extinct. It still happens, though perhaps not always due to the specie’s best efforts, but to loss of needed habitat.
“What makes Us think we can somehow LEGISLATE what is a totally natural, evolutionary, biologically imperative process? We cannot! Again, my opinion.
“It all may not be life in the ‘Fast Lane’ of today desires to influence and change life, but it is definitely in the ‘Reality Lane’ of life on This planet.”
My response:
Precisely. A combatant is a combatant in wartime. You also got it correct; the Geneva Convention does define un-uniformed combatants in the category of spies. Yet, the difficulty in the present war comes with many sub-elements:
1. None of the battlefield combatants are uniformed. Most are trans-national individuals often without identification. They fight for no state entity. And, some of these combatants carry no conventional weapons, but rather keyboards, cell phones, and single elements of binary explosives.
The follow-up news items:
-- The Justice Department unsealed the indictment of five (5) Blackwater security personnel [305, et al] on 35 counts ranging from manslaughter to weapons violations linked to a 2007 Baghdad incident in which 17 Iraqis were killed. My opinion of this incident and now these charges remains unchanged. Regardless, these Americans will have their lives altered as they are tried by a jury of their peers (who will have little understanding by which to judge them). Such is the story of our time.
-- The sole surviving Mumbai terrorist provided a detailed confession regarding the plans for and execution of the tragic attack [363/4]. In other related news, the Pakistani government moved quickly to capture the leaders/planners of the Mumbai attack. Pakistani security services raided a riverside camp near Muzaffarabad, the main city in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, where they captured (alive) Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the Laskhar-e-Taiba operations chief, and at least 12 other individuals. I am certain Lakhvi will be given the opportunity to sing.
-- The Indian Navy, on patrol in the Gulf of Aden, received a distress call from a merchant vessel MV Gibe, under attack from two small boats [361]. INS Mysore dispatched its helicopter and sped to the scene, whereupon they captured 23 Somali pirates. Congratulations to the Indians. I say to the various allies in the region, good hunting!
A contemporary philosophical question for your critical rumination:
Even if we assume homosexuality (or other than heterosexuality) is entirely a matter of hedonistic personal choice with no genetic, hereditary, biological, environmental, or educational linkage, does the majority have a right to dictate who an individual adult citizen can choose to enter into a state-sanctioned, binding relationship?
This week’s presidential nominations:
Thomas Andrew ‘Tom’ Daschle – Health and Human Services
Steven Chu – Energy
Shaun Donovan – Housing and Urban Development
Lisa P. Jackson – Environmental Protection Agency
Jeanne M. Lambrew – White House Office of Health Reform (new)
Carol M. Browner – White House Office of Energy and Climate Policy (new)
Nancy Sutley – White House Council on Environmental Quality
Economic news:
-- Merrill Lynch CEO John Alexander Thain eventually and ultimately decided to forego his annual multimillion dollar bonus after considerable Press scrutiny. I am shocked! The audacity of some folks is mind-boggling. I am all in favor of business executives having a greater portion of their compensation at risk, the higher up they go. In some measure, we must question the performance of the Merrill Lynch Board of Directors. It is the Board that determines and defines the conditions under which to award executive bonuses. And, if the Board has not established performance metrics for the determination equation, then shame on that Merrill Board (and all the other corporate boards who fail to perform their fiduciary duties).
-- The Bank of Canada – the nation’s central bank – reduced its key lending rate by 0.75 points to 1.5% and declared the Canadian economy officially in recession.
-- The scaled down, automobile industry bailout effort stalled in the Senate after the House passed the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act (H.R.7321) [House: 237-170-1-26(1)]. Then, the White House hinted they might use TARP funds to support the industry into the next administration and Congress.
[NOTE: Much ado has been made about the apparent paucity of conditions and vastly larger numbers of federal treasury funds going to the banking industry, Wall Street, and the insurance & mortgage industries in comparison to the ‘pound of flesh’ Congress is attempting to extract from the automobile industry. The criticism is valid, and worthy of scrutiny and debate; however, there one major factor – manufacturing industrial costs and specifically excessive labor costs.]
-- Bank of America announced planned work force reductions of up to 11.3% (35,000 jobs) over the next three years. Part of the reductions are a consequence of acquiring Merrill Lynch, which should be completed early next year, but there is also a portion that reflects the contracting U.S. and international economies.
-- Prominent New York lawyer, 58-year-old, Marc S. Dreier was arrested in Toronto on felonious impersonation charges and was also charged by U.S. Federal prosecutors for securities and wire fraud involving a multi-million dollar real estate scheme and hedge funds.
-- Amid the worries and horrors of the economic crisis, and expanding criminal cases, FBI agents arrested 70-year-old, Bernard Leon Madoff – a long-term, Wall Street, trading guru – on securities fraud charges related to what may well be a US$50B Ponzi scheme – a new, infamous record if proven. The list of his victims is equally as impressive as the numbers involved, and reportedly include New York Mets owner Fred Wilpon, GMAC Chairman J. Ezra Merkin, former Philadelphia Eagles owner Norman Braman, among dozens of other seemingly sophisticated investors. I suspect the legal fallout and collateral damage from the mortgage meltdown are only just beginning. This will pale the Enron debacle [2001].
-- Economists are estimating the current recession to be the longest and deepest since the Great Depression with the unemployment rate reaching 8.4% and recovery not beginning until mid-2009, which means the worst is still ahead of us.
-- General Motors joined Chrysler [364] in retaining their bankruptcy / restructuring specialists – just in case, they say – Weil Gotshal & Manges; Evercore Partners; and Blackstone Group.
-- U.S. retail sales declined by 1.8% in November, which the Commerce Department declared was less than expected, and at the same time, the Labor Department announced that wholesale prices dropped by 2.2%.
I try mightily to avoid commenting on criminal conduct of individuals, yet the events of Tuesday morning in Chicago cannot be brushed aside. In the early morning hours, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) called Illinois Governor Milorad R. ‘Rod’ Blagojevich on his cell phone informing the governor that he needed to go to the front door to be arrested by several waiting FBI special agents. The FBI handcuffed the state chief executive in front of his family and carted him off to jail for processing. He stands accused of a myriad of corruption, extortion and other crimes, not least of which was trying to “sell” the open Senate seat of President-Elect Barack Obama. I know Blago is innocent until proven guilty, but I must say, things are not looking good for the governor. Regardless of the outcome of his trial, Blago has defined a new, deeper gutter even for Chicago machine politics.
In an unusual but understandable action, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a motion with the Illinois Supreme Court to declare Governor Blagojevich unfit, to remove him from office, and to seek a restraining order against him until he is removed from office. The governor’s ego is likely to bring this to a constitutional confrontation at a very inopportune time for President-Elect Obama. This is going to get uglier before it is done.
Comments and contributions from Update no.364:
“I've been intending to write and say I read you letter to the editor a couple of weeks ago on gay marriage and heartily agree.”
Another contribution:
“For me, mixed feelings about the [Army-Navy] game--and actually it was a pretty poor ‘game.’ I knew a couple of [my son’s] classmates from USMAPS who were playing – one was a defensive co-captain. If the game doesn't get more competitive, we may loose national TV – we almost did in the 70's.”
My reply:
You are of course quite correct. It was not a good game . . . one of the more embarrassing games for our brothers of the Long Grey Line. In fact, it was rather painful to watch. But, c’est la vie, e c’est la guerre.
A different contribution from the same contributor:
“Regarding Senator Chambliss' re-election. The 60-seat majority is not the ironclad instrument that allows "unfettered control of the instruments of state." In any bill, there will be Democrats who vote against their party's position for various reasons and Republicans who vote for the presumed Democratic position for their own reasons-- usually related to their own electorate's demands. 58.59 or anything in the high fifties, usually denotes that the party with that majority will have smoother sailing getting something through, but 60 does not always mean that a bill is filibuster-proof.
“Also, Sen. Chambliss is not friendly to veterans. He won his seat the first time using very slandering and defamatory ads against triple amputee Max Clelland. Chambliss was clearly out of bounds in comparing Clelland to Osama bin Laden and terrorism--he also used false data. Further, Chambliss has not supported veterans at all with his voting record. The most recent was his vote against the new GI Bill. I find it very hard to congratulate someone with a record like that who won using racist code words, as well.”
My response:
OK. Perhaps I was not explicit and expansive enough. Yet, when all that remains to be decided is the Senate composition, with the Executive and House firmly in the hands of Democrats, then it is easy to see how the last bulwark is the Senate. I am not a fan of Saxby – never have been, never will be – however, I am far less a fan of any party dominating the elected bodies, which would leave only the Judiciary as defense against abuse and oppression. You are also correct that numbers alone do not connote cohesion. So, they may not have the magic 60 seats in the Senate, but their number is far larger than I care for. I prefer 50-50, or maybe even 45-45-10 with enough independents to make it interesting.
From another contributor:
“Thanks for the ‘update.’ I read them all, although some with more scrutiny than others depending on time and subject matter. I’m particularly enthused about your crusade against Islam-Fascist terrorism and much appreciate the information on the recent Indian attack. I think all major religions have problems, to a lesser or greater degree, dealing with modernity, but with Islam it appears to be irreconcilable. Modernity represents two trends that Islam sees as unacceptable: loss of control of the masses (putting self above Islam, the ‘me-centricity’ of our own society) and focus on this life instead of the next. Western civilization may indeed be a deadly virus to Islam, probably is. And, who knows, THEY may be right in the long run. But there can be no doubt that the only way we can ‘accommodate’ the long term goal of the Islamic religion is to surrender our way of life and/or die. It is, in fact, that kind of struggle, and you are either on one side or the other. Doing nothing is always a COA [Course Of Action], as is negotiation, but time is not on our side.
“For those that would attack India for the intolerance toward their Islamic minority, when/where was the last successful, major state ruled by an Islamic majority and how tolerant was that state of its ‘minorities’? I personally do not think Western Civilization is perfect, but I do think it’s worth passing on to my grandchildren. I have very little ‘tolerance’ for those that cannot, or will not see how important our current efforts are in securing our way of life for our grandchildren. Hope is not a strategy – at least not now that the ‘silly season’ is over.
“As to Hedges, you are much too kind. It’s typical, myopic, liberal-minded, Imperialist America, ‘why can’t we all just get along’ dribble. Isn’t it funny how the same people that believe there is nothing worth fighting for and that everyone is basically good are the same people that triple lock their doors at night and buy thousand-dollar alarm systems for their cars. How far did he have to go back in history to find ONE Islamic leader that had ‘philosophers’ in his court, somewhere in the 1500’s? And if he really does not understand the difference between going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Indian terrorist attacks, he’s not worth talking to, let alone reading.
“On a much lesser note, I do not totally disagree with your other crusade against some of the more ridiculous morality issues that seem to grab center stage in our media from time to time. I am much less sympathetic to the specific drug legalization COA. Perhaps the ‘foolish, impotent’ war on drugs has not been as successful as we might have hoped, but one can only truly critique the COA selected. I have very little confidence that your COA would yield any better results and the unintended consequences could very well be devastating. It’s often very easy to prescribe COA’s based on failure of another, instead of any real analysis of chances of success of the new one. Criticism and critique and critical analysis all share approximately the same etymology, but they are far from synonymous.
“Lastly, in the semi-immortal words of Kris Kristofferson, ‘freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.’ The relationship between the citizen and the state is a balancing act through a minefield. Our society is not perfect and of course always bears watching, but neither is it the worst current or historical example. The problem with our society, as I see it, is most of us have lost the ability to distinguish between ‘needs’ and ‘wants.’ Personally, if I’m talking to a known terrorist on my cell phone, I EXPECT my government to be listening and to take appropriate action on that, while ignoring overheard references (hypothetically speaking) to any 1-900 numbers or any (hypothetical) clandestine affairs with the red head down the street. Of course the devil is always in the details.”
My reply:
Indeed, all major religions do have problems. IMHO, all those problems hang upon the megalomania of the flawed men who serve as clergy. The revealed religions tend to be far more aggressive and evangelical; each has periods of offensive projection of their beliefs to convert the infidels to the ‘true’ faith. Christianity outgrew its violent years during the Renaissance as political thinkers began the process of separating the domains of church & state. Unfortunately, we live in an era where Islam is evolving about 600 years behind Christianity; they are still in their Crusades and Inquisition phase. I do not condemn the religion, only the clerics who foster violence and intolerance for the furtherance of their control and their power. I am optimistic that Islam will eventually mature into a more tolerant and confident form.
The admixture of church & state, religion & politics, will never be a stable condition. The thinkers of the 17th & 18th Centuries understood that reality; they had multitudinous examples to help them see that reality. There is one, central, fundamental reason – there are no checks & balances with religion; clerics turn to God for their validation and justification, which is precisely why that wall of separation must be high, strong and broad.
Western civilization and specifically this Grand Republic are inherently flawed, and far from perfect; in fact, in the political domain, there is no such thing as perfect, which is exactly why the Founders / Framers constructed a system of governance with checks & balances, forcing compromise, negotiation, debate and deliberation. Hope is indeed not a strategy, just as idealism offers no protection.
I agree on Hedges, but I always like to hear as broad a spectrum of opinion as possible. I call opinions like Hedges’ the “Rodney King Syndrome” – “C-c-c-can’t we all just get along?”
BTW, I assume COA = Course Of Action, in your usage. If so, I understand and appreciate your doubt in my espousal of drug legalization. This is hardly the forum and I am but a humble, perhaps naïve, novice pragmatist. I am not proposing change for the sake of change, or simply because the contemporary policy has failed. My social model proposal is based on lay observation of addiction – alcohol, tobacco, psychotropic substances, et cetera. I think validation is easily established that addicts cannot be cured; there are only two outcomes: 1.) he reaches his bottom, and convinces himself he must change and avoid intoxicants, or 2.) he dies by his substance of choice. There is no medical, psychological, mental, emotional, legal or familial action that can alter the addict’s chosen path [and I use chosen not to ignore a genetic element in addiction, but rather to acknowledge the internal forces within the addict]. Prohibition will never, ever work; we have millennia of history & examples to prove that axiom. My objective is to:
A.) eliminate the criminal sub-culture that is the source of so much injurious crime,
B.) protect the public from collateral damage by the addict’s consumption,
C.) allow the addict the selfish, ego-centric, self-indulgent, self-destruction he seeks, and
D.) recognize the fact that some people will not be saved and that we must focus on those who truly seek salvation.
Distinguishing between wants and needs. Interesting observation that carries some weight. I have supported the USG’s surveillance initiatives, while being critical of the administration’s execution – Elliott Spitzer being the poster-child for the USG’s abuse of anti-terrorism tools for political purposes.
Another contribution:
“I believe a combatant is a combatant, whether or not he or she wears the uniform of some country, or dresses to blend in with local populations.
“So if we capture any, they are prisoners. IF they are found to be actual soldiers of some country, and are not in uniform, especially if they carry no Correct Identification, then perhaps they should be treated as spies. I think that was WW2 rules. Not sure about the Geneva Convention nowadays. If they are Not military but fighting as sympathizers to some ‘Group,’ then I feel they HAVE NO STANDING, anywhere. They took the chance, and lost. Sorry about that.
“But that is actually the position that Many Many fighters in Al-Qaeda, The Taliban, and seemingly always increasing splinter groups, small individual ‘cells,’ etc., some with actually their own agendas really, though hiding under cover of some more recognizable group. None belong to any Country at war with any other Country. They are terrorists, bent on advancing whatever cause they may have by attempting to destroy or at least put dire fear in the peoples they oppose.
“When it comes to acting against the USA, such Groups, Organizations, Cells, whoever they may be, have good reason to believe they have at Least a better than Reasonable chance of success or at least some advancement of their agenda when going against us. Look at our ‘Record’ since about 1979 or so, of acting immediately and definitively against those who have hurt us. That record is dismal!! And that blame cannot be put on just Democratic Administrations ---- I give you Reagan and the Beirut Bombing as just One Republican folly. There are others, from Administrations on Both sides.
“It does not speak well about us in MY opinion. But it speaks quite clearly to our adversaries and would be adversaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I believe passage of Prop 8 in CA was wrong. In spite of the fact that I am not enthusiastic about Gays marrying Gays and having all the rights, privileges, etc. of Man/Woman Marriages. I might be a bit more amenable to that stuff if in Divorce cases, the gay adversaries would be treated the same as any heterosexual couple divorcing in the particular State. However ----- that might prove hard to do. How do you legally determine which of the couple plays what role, and is that important anyway? What if they have adopted children? Which partner gets custody, let’s say when the reason for divorce is, as is the case a lot now, ‘Irreconcilable Differences.’
“BUT---I do believe in all of us having equal rights. The key word in my last sentence is ALL. So I disagree with Prop 8 from a legal standpoint.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------
“I have, in the last year or two have found myself becoming more closely aligned in my thoughts and convictions with the folks who say that Life begins at conception and so Abortion is wrong. Period. HOWEVER, I am a Long way from being totally aligned with them! One can put forth, and Many have, any number of arguments, both generally and by asking specific ‘What IF’ questions, whereby I think many, if not a Majority of Americans would find themselves in a quandary---in an almost unsolvable moral dilemma. A dilemma having not so much to do with the teachings of ANY particular religious faith, or secular denomination, as just plain Personal Feelings. And THOSE most often having to do with the particulars of a single particular case.
“No broad-brushing of legalities will EVER satisfy all. Never.
“I do have one not completely thought out opinion. It might be the beginning of the 3rd trimester, or some other earlier semester, or week, or anytime determined by proper medical authority, as seconded by another proper medical authority, that the fetus is viable. SO---NO abortion.
“I'd never want to be in THAT position. It is untenable. What is viable? Define that please! Legally. Aha! Can't. Again --- ‘What If’ we will lose the Mother in a possibly unsuccessful attempt to save the new life? ‘What If’ we can save the Mother, and pretty much guarantee she can have future chances at giving birth, but we will lose the fetus? I could go on and on, as HAVE the very serious advocates for Both sides of this very important, though virtually insolvable quandary.
“In times past, throughout all of humanity, and as it always has been in all of the animal world, reproduction took/takes it's course. Regardless and in spite of who survives and who does not. Various species, over eons of development, mutation and adaptation, have found ways to try and guarantee the survival of their own species. Sometimes over time successfully, though not always, with those unsuccessful species disappearing. The word we use is Extinct. It still happens, though perhaps not always due to the specie’s best efforts, but to loss of needed habitat.
“What makes Us think we can somehow LEGISLATE what is a totally natural, evolutionary, biologically imperative process? We cannot! Again, my opinion.
“It all may not be life in the ‘Fast Lane’ of today desires to influence and change life, but it is definitely in the ‘Reality Lane’ of life on This planet.”
My response:
Precisely. A combatant is a combatant in wartime. You also got it correct; the Geneva Convention does define un-uniformed combatants in the category of spies. Yet, the difficulty in the present war comes with many sub-elements:
1. None of the battlefield combatants are uniformed. Most are trans-national individuals often without identification. They fight for no state entity. And, some of these combatants carry no conventional weapons, but rather keyboards, cell phones, and single elements of binary explosives.
2. A significant portion of our society has never been convinced that we are at war. They believe the war is a fictitious construct of a rogue president. As such, they see these battlefield combatants as simple citizens, “innocent until proven guilty” with full rights to writ of habeas corpus, legal counsel, and trial by jury.
3. Since so many of these battlefield combatants operate as individuals or in small groups, thus even the label of “battlefield combatant” can be and is contested, forcing the judiciary to evaluate inherently very loose, circumstantial ‘evidence’ to establish the classification for EACH individual.
Once you make those decisions / determinations, all the rest of the arguments regarding the present war fall apart. You are precisely correct, IMHO; this legal fiasco surrounding captured battlefield combatants does not speak well of us and our ability to prosecute a war against Islamo-fascists intent upon destruction of our society, our culture, our very way of life. Conversely, we can be proud of how generous, tolerant, magnanimous and sympathetic we are toward those who would harm us.
Thank you for voicing your concern regarding non-heterosexual marriage. I assume your concerns are represented by your questions. If there are other issues, I would like to hear your arguments. To your questions, let us set aside the religious element of some marriages and define marriage as a civil recognized contract between two people. That contract bears certain rights, privileges and responsibilities. If the principal worries center upon the potential dissolution of a marriage contract, I think we can resolve the elements. To my limited, lay knowledge, modern divorce has become less and less affected by gender alone. The serious factors in most divorces are the children. Joint custody must be the baseline, unless or until one party relinquishes their rights or is proven incompetent or incapable of proper parenting. Some number of divorces today are carried out and agreed to outside of court, between the parties, and simply sanctioned by the court. Contemporary divorce is not what it was 50 years ago. I do not see any different or unusual legal procedures being needed or created as long as we recognize civil marriage as a state-sanctioned contract between two people.
Also, I might add, as I acknowledge the sensitivity, I do not see a fundamental limitation to the number of adult citizens who might seek to bond their relationship by civil marriage.
The notion of abortion is repugnant. I share your concerns regarding the medical procedure; I always have. Yet, for me, the conflict arises when We, the People, via the instruments of State attempt to impose our will upon an individual citizen, and in this particular case, invade the body of that citizen to take control of a single cell or clump of cells. I seek a solution to the abortion issue via elimination of the need (the demand). This is an area of public debate where religion continues to strong-arm and impose its will on all citizens, and specifically those who find themselves in the dilemma you note. I see the abortion debate as largely an ideological confrontation deeply rooted in religious beliefs, and yet, I can and will be able to recognize that debate when those so inclined to project their moral values into the lives of all citizens show / demonstrate as much concern for unwanted, abused, neglected children as they do for a single cell imbedded within a woman’s uterus.
One last contribution:
“The Assisted suicide scene is ‘hotting’ up over here [UK] with SKY television showing the actual death of a client of the ‘Digitas’ organization In Switzerland. Our public prosecutions seem to be making decisions depending on the situation per case, i.e., not one rule for all. There will be more on this I’m sure.”
My reply:
Yes, indeed. I just saw the notice of the latest . . . refusal to prosecute. I think citizens will begin to see the wisdom of Death with Dignity laws. As I am learning, apparently there is no requirement for a judge to write down their rulings. I’ve been hunting for several unrelated cases including one local case. I’ll keep looking. This issue is too important to be ignored. The case-by-case approach will not engender confidence in what we will all face in those moments ahead.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
Once you make those decisions / determinations, all the rest of the arguments regarding the present war fall apart. You are precisely correct, IMHO; this legal fiasco surrounding captured battlefield combatants does not speak well of us and our ability to prosecute a war against Islamo-fascists intent upon destruction of our society, our culture, our very way of life. Conversely, we can be proud of how generous, tolerant, magnanimous and sympathetic we are toward those who would harm us.
Thank you for voicing your concern regarding non-heterosexual marriage. I assume your concerns are represented by your questions. If there are other issues, I would like to hear your arguments. To your questions, let us set aside the religious element of some marriages and define marriage as a civil recognized contract between two people. That contract bears certain rights, privileges and responsibilities. If the principal worries center upon the potential dissolution of a marriage contract, I think we can resolve the elements. To my limited, lay knowledge, modern divorce has become less and less affected by gender alone. The serious factors in most divorces are the children. Joint custody must be the baseline, unless or until one party relinquishes their rights or is proven incompetent or incapable of proper parenting. Some number of divorces today are carried out and agreed to outside of court, between the parties, and simply sanctioned by the court. Contemporary divorce is not what it was 50 years ago. I do not see any different or unusual legal procedures being needed or created as long as we recognize civil marriage as a state-sanctioned contract between two people.
Also, I might add, as I acknowledge the sensitivity, I do not see a fundamental limitation to the number of adult citizens who might seek to bond their relationship by civil marriage.
The notion of abortion is repugnant. I share your concerns regarding the medical procedure; I always have. Yet, for me, the conflict arises when We, the People, via the instruments of State attempt to impose our will upon an individual citizen, and in this particular case, invade the body of that citizen to take control of a single cell or clump of cells. I seek a solution to the abortion issue via elimination of the need (the demand). This is an area of public debate where religion continues to strong-arm and impose its will on all citizens, and specifically those who find themselves in the dilemma you note. I see the abortion debate as largely an ideological confrontation deeply rooted in religious beliefs, and yet, I can and will be able to recognize that debate when those so inclined to project their moral values into the lives of all citizens show / demonstrate as much concern for unwanted, abused, neglected children as they do for a single cell imbedded within a woman’s uterus.
One last contribution:
“The Assisted suicide scene is ‘hotting’ up over here [UK] with SKY television showing the actual death of a client of the ‘Digitas’ organization In Switzerland. Our public prosecutions seem to be making decisions depending on the situation per case, i.e., not one rule for all. There will be more on this I’m sure.”
My reply:
Yes, indeed. I just saw the notice of the latest . . . refusal to prosecute. I think citizens will begin to see the wisdom of Death with Dignity laws. As I am learning, apparently there is no requirement for a judge to write down their rulings. I’ve been hunting for several unrelated cases including one local case. I’ll keep looking. This issue is too important to be ignored. The case-by-case approach will not engender confidence in what we will all face in those moments ahead.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment