The President stated, "The Time for Peace is Now", as he opened the Middle East Peace Summit currently being held at Camp David.
I certainly agree with that sentiment, but I can't help believing that the time for Peace in the Middle East was last week, last month and the last seven years too. While some would say, "Better late than never"....my reply would be "Better never late!"
Still, I'm happy the President seems to have finally recognized the need for fuitful negotiations, and I pray that this summit represents more than simply a half-hearted attempt by the Administration to garner publicity points.
Real negotiations involve a give-and-take process that demands flexibility on the part of all concerned and the courage and willingness to move from ideological positions that are set in stone, a stance heretofore not exhibited by the Bush Administration.
Here's to hoping for some genuine success!
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Immigrant Hearts Challenges the Demonic Label
It's become the favorite pastime of many in this country to demonize undocumented immigrants and other foreign nationals who try to enter this country without permission. The "illegal immigrant" label is more popular today than "The Scarlet Letter" was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and it unfairly fosters the notion that those entering this country without permission are, at best, common criminals and, at worst, subhuman beings.
The recent act of Jesus Manuel Cordova puts that notion to the test.
Mr. Cordova was entering the United States without permission by treking through the Southern Arizona desert when he came upon a 9-year old American boy who, with his mother, had been involved in a car accident. The mother died at the scene. Mr. Cordova tossed his own self-interest aside, stayed with the boy and comforted the youngster throughout the night until help arrived the next morning.
It behooves this society to recognize that those who seek a better life here have hearts too...and very often they are filled with the greatest of human kindness. Instead of dehumanizing them, perhaps it's time we return the favor!
The recent act of Jesus Manuel Cordova puts that notion to the test.
Mr. Cordova was entering the United States without permission by treking through the Southern Arizona desert when he came upon a 9-year old American boy who, with his mother, had been involved in a car accident. The mother died at the scene. Mr. Cordova tossed his own self-interest aside, stayed with the boy and comforted the youngster throughout the night until help arrived the next morning.
It behooves this society to recognize that those who seek a better life here have hearts too...and very often they are filled with the greatest of human kindness. Instead of dehumanizing them, perhaps it's time we return the favor!
Saturday, November 24, 2007
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER
A friend recently shared the following story with me. It's a piece worth considering by everyone. The author is unknown.
The Two Wolves
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between two 'wolves' inside all of us. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a moment and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
The Two Wolves
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between two 'wolves' inside all of us. One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."
The grandson thought about it for a moment and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"
The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
Friday, November 23, 2007
FALLEN EVANGELICAL HUCKSTERS
Two noted evangelical hucksters fall in one week. It’s probably not a record, especially given the plethora of hucksters out there masquerading as preachers, but it’s worth noting in difficult economic times such as these that the lure for money and power knows no bounds.
Last week, Archbishop Earl Paulk of the Atlanta mega-church, the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill Harvester Church, was exposed as an adulterer…not necessarily big news in this age…but the man he fathered is now the pastor of the same mega-church Archbishop Faulk founded.
Folks thought D.E. Paulk was Archbishop Paulk’s nephew. Turns out he was the Arcbishop’s son…the product of an affair between the Archbishop and his brother’s wife.
The church and the Archbishop are being sued for other instances of alleged sexual-related conduct on the part of the Archbishop as well and the Archbishop faces possible perjury criminal charges for lying about the affair.
And then, there’s Richard Roberts, the son of note televangelist, Oral Roberts. Richard Roberts, the President of Oral Roberts University – until today when he resigned – has been accused of converting millions of dollars from the Oral Roberts University’s endowment to line his own pocket and support his lavish lifestyle. The evidence against him is overwhelming.
The shame in both stories is not just the fall of two powerful men, but the missed opportunities for good work both men left in their wake.
People give millions of hard-earned dollars to charities expecting those funds to be used to better the lives of others in need of assistance. Unfortunately, too often those funds simply enrich the hucksters.
It’s time for the government to be more aggressive in their investigation of charities to insure compliance with tax regulations that require charitable donations to be used for charitable purposes. This is not a freedom of religion issue. This is a tax issue.
Churches and Charitable Foundations that properly used donated funds have no reason to fear. Those who don’t use donations properly should. If the fear of God doesn’t work, perhaps fear of the IRS will.
Last week, Archbishop Earl Paulk of the Atlanta mega-church, the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit at Chapel Hill Harvester Church, was exposed as an adulterer…not necessarily big news in this age…but the man he fathered is now the pastor of the same mega-church Archbishop Faulk founded.
Folks thought D.E. Paulk was Archbishop Paulk’s nephew. Turns out he was the Arcbishop’s son…the product of an affair between the Archbishop and his brother’s wife.
The church and the Archbishop are being sued for other instances of alleged sexual-related conduct on the part of the Archbishop as well and the Archbishop faces possible perjury criminal charges for lying about the affair.
And then, there’s Richard Roberts, the son of note televangelist, Oral Roberts. Richard Roberts, the President of Oral Roberts University – until today when he resigned – has been accused of converting millions of dollars from the Oral Roberts University’s endowment to line his own pocket and support his lavish lifestyle. The evidence against him is overwhelming.
The shame in both stories is not just the fall of two powerful men, but the missed opportunities for good work both men left in their wake.
People give millions of hard-earned dollars to charities expecting those funds to be used to better the lives of others in need of assistance. Unfortunately, too often those funds simply enrich the hucksters.
It’s time for the government to be more aggressive in their investigation of charities to insure compliance with tax regulations that require charitable donations to be used for charitable purposes. This is not a freedom of religion issue. This is a tax issue.
Churches and Charitable Foundations that properly used donated funds have no reason to fear. Those who don’t use donations properly should. If the fear of God doesn’t work, perhaps fear of the IRS will.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Bearing Arms
Now that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to resolve the question of whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an individual citizen the right bear arms, there is little suspense in my mind as to the outcome of said decision. Rather, the question in my mind is what logic will be employed to arrive at the Court’s conclusion.
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in 1791, provides as follows: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Gun Rights advocates maintain that the final two clauses of the Second Amendment should be deemed controlling in the debate. Such a finding would obviously require the elimination of gun-banning statutes, since those laws infringe on an individual’s ability to own firearms.
The flaw with that argument is that it calls on the Supreme Court to totally disregard the meaning of the first two clauses of the Second Amendment, clauses that provide the context for the people’s right to bear arms and, in 18th century grammar, were used as modifying clauses. If the Second Amendment is to be interpreted as an 18th century writer, using then proper grammar, intended it, then there is no other conclusion but that the right to own firearms only extends to those individuals who are members of the State’s militias.
A 21st century interpretation, using modern day grammar, would reach an opposite conclusion. A modernist interpretation would find the final two clauses of the Second Amendment controlling, noting in the process that while the justification for the Amendment – the ability to overthrow the government - might no longer be a relevant consideration, the crux of the constitutional protection is the individual's right to gun ownership.
The dilemma facing the Supreme Court at this juncture is choosing which line of reasoning to follow.
It is my belief that the United States Supreme Court will rule that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment, despite the fact that the District possesses no militia. Given the Court’s ultra-conservative make-up, there is little doubt in my mind that it will interpret the Second Amendment as conferring on all individuals the right to possess firearms. However, that conclusion will assuredly require individual justices to depart from their normal ideological positions.
The conservative wing of the Supreme Court, and their supporters around the country, have heretofore argued for a literal, strict-constructionists reading of the Constitution that requires strict adherence to 18th Century interpretations of the document, and have mocked in the process those who view interpreting the Constitution as a ‘living document’ that is capable of changing, modern-day interpretations. Ironically, those same conservatives represent the core constituency of gun rights advocates. To uphold an individual’s right to gun ownership, a cause they hold near and dear to their hearts, conservatives will be required to abandon the strict constructionist approach of constitutional interpretation in favor of a living, breathing constitution, a view many conservatives consider to be an anathema. A victory for gun rights advocates will require Supreme Court justices to engage in the very reasoning they and their conservative supporters have previously labeled a "fraud".
Therein lies the rub!
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, passed in 1791, provides as follows: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Gun Rights advocates maintain that the final two clauses of the Second Amendment should be deemed controlling in the debate. Such a finding would obviously require the elimination of gun-banning statutes, since those laws infringe on an individual’s ability to own firearms.
The flaw with that argument is that it calls on the Supreme Court to totally disregard the meaning of the first two clauses of the Second Amendment, clauses that provide the context for the people’s right to bear arms and, in 18th century grammar, were used as modifying clauses. If the Second Amendment is to be interpreted as an 18th century writer, using then proper grammar, intended it, then there is no other conclusion but that the right to own firearms only extends to those individuals who are members of the State’s militias.
A 21st century interpretation, using modern day grammar, would reach an opposite conclusion. A modernist interpretation would find the final two clauses of the Second Amendment controlling, noting in the process that while the justification for the Amendment – the ability to overthrow the government - might no longer be a relevant consideration, the crux of the constitutional protection is the individual's right to gun ownership.
The dilemma facing the Supreme Court at this juncture is choosing which line of reasoning to follow.
It is my belief that the United States Supreme Court will rule that the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment, despite the fact that the District possesses no militia. Given the Court’s ultra-conservative make-up, there is little doubt in my mind that it will interpret the Second Amendment as conferring on all individuals the right to possess firearms. However, that conclusion will assuredly require individual justices to depart from their normal ideological positions.
The conservative wing of the Supreme Court, and their supporters around the country, have heretofore argued for a literal, strict-constructionists reading of the Constitution that requires strict adherence to 18th Century interpretations of the document, and have mocked in the process those who view interpreting the Constitution as a ‘living document’ that is capable of changing, modern-day interpretations. Ironically, those same conservatives represent the core constituency of gun rights advocates. To uphold an individual’s right to gun ownership, a cause they hold near and dear to their hearts, conservatives will be required to abandon the strict constructionist approach of constitutional interpretation in favor of a living, breathing constitution, a view many conservatives consider to be an anathema. A victory for gun rights advocates will require Supreme Court justices to engage in the very reasoning they and their conservative supporters have previously labeled a "fraud".
Therein lies the rub!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
MUSHARRAF COURT PRACTICES LIKE THOSE IN U.S.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the new Supreme Court of Pakistan, hand-picked by President Musharraf himself after he ousted the former justices, would rule that President Musharraf’s continued hold on power was legal. If you can’t trust your buddies to rule as you wish, whom can you trust?
Of course, the United States envoy in the region, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, conveyed this Country’s displeasure at Musharraf’s move away from a transparent democratic process, but the Administration’s bark regarding the replacement of Supreme Court Justices was dampened, in part, because Musharraf’s Supreme Court shenanigans reflects similar ideological shenanigans practiced here in the United States.
It’s not whether the justice will be fair that counts. It’s whether the justice will follow the nominating President’s ideology. Unfortunately, there’s a huge difference between the two!
Of course, the United States envoy in the region, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, conveyed this Country’s displeasure at Musharraf’s move away from a transparent democratic process, but the Administration’s bark regarding the replacement of Supreme Court Justices was dampened, in part, because Musharraf’s Supreme Court shenanigans reflects similar ideological shenanigans practiced here in the United States.
It’s not whether the justice will be fair that counts. It’s whether the justice will follow the nominating President’s ideology. Unfortunately, there’s a huge difference between the two!
Monday, November 19, 2007
WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH OF HATE…AND DISHONESTY
The hate-mongers of the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas, the group that recently lost a federal civil trial brought by the father of a fallen Marine whose funeral they targeted for protest in March 2006, submitted financial papers last week to the Federal Court judge who oversaw the trial. Since jurors returned a verdict of nearly $11 million dollars against the Westboro Church and several of its members, the Court ordered that financial statements be filed in order to ascertain just how much of the judgment the church itself should be forced to pay.
Unfortunately, the financial disclosure papers filed by the Westboro Church failed to reveal how the Church was paying for its members to travel around the country to conduct their hateful protests. The glaring nature of said omissions caused the attorneys of the deceased Marine’s father to assert that the Church was outright lying to the Court.
What? A church lying?
I find the message of hate being spread by members of the Westboro Church to be of the loathsome variety, and I have no sympathy for the plight of any of its members for seeking to shower hate and psychological anguish on grieving military families, but I’m also concerned about what affect the Westboro suit will have on the exercise of First Amendment Rights by groups who do not follow the opinions and sensibilities of the public-at-large. Whether the Westboro protests have crossed the constitutional boundary of protected free speech, given the facts of that case, is an issue the federal appellate Courts will have to decide. Nevertheless, the Westboro Church has done an huge disservice by not being forthright in their court-ordered financial disclosure statements. The First Amendment does not protect them from such dishonesty!
Come to think about it…neither does their God!
Unfortunately, the financial disclosure papers filed by the Westboro Church failed to reveal how the Church was paying for its members to travel around the country to conduct their hateful protests. The glaring nature of said omissions caused the attorneys of the deceased Marine’s father to assert that the Church was outright lying to the Court.
What? A church lying?
I find the message of hate being spread by members of the Westboro Church to be of the loathsome variety, and I have no sympathy for the plight of any of its members for seeking to shower hate and psychological anguish on grieving military families, but I’m also concerned about what affect the Westboro suit will have on the exercise of First Amendment Rights by groups who do not follow the opinions and sensibilities of the public-at-large. Whether the Westboro protests have crossed the constitutional boundary of protected free speech, given the facts of that case, is an issue the federal appellate Courts will have to decide. Nevertheless, the Westboro Church has done an huge disservice by not being forthright in their court-ordered financial disclosure statements. The First Amendment does not protect them from such dishonesty!
Come to think about it…neither does their God!
Sunday, November 18, 2007
PUT UP OR SHUT UP TIME FOR WAR SUPPORTERS
The Congressional Joint Economic Committee issued a report this past week confirming that the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have reached $1.6 trillion dollars, a figure that produces a war bill of $20,900 for the typical “family of four” household.
Unfortunately, American taxpayers have not paid a single dollar on this war debt. Every appropriation for war expenses since 2001 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been approved as a supplemental appropriation, which means that the appropriation was not part of the government’s regular budget or paid for by budgeted tax revenues. Instead, the government sold treasury bills (government IOU’s) to foreign countries like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia to secure funds to finance the wars. The interest on those treasury bills compounds daily, and will continue to do so until the debt, with interest, is repaid.
This begs the question: When do war supporters plan to pay off the debt?
Millions of American have eagerly displayed, “We Support the Troops” bumper stickers and flags on their vehicles, but if that display represents the extent of actual support they are willing to provide, one has to question the sincerity of the gesture.
It seems to me that it’s time for every supporter of these wars to open their wallets and checkbooks, to take out second and third mortgages and to dip into savings to pay off this war debt. And, if like the President of the United States, folks are not willing to pony-up for the war they wanted, well then, its time to shut up on the claim of supporting the troops or the war, pack up the military and bring them home.
When a country goes to war it requests its soldiers and military personnel to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. If the citizenry isn’t willing to make a corresponding sacrifice and pay for the war, it should never be fought in the first place.
The Bush Administration is wrong in refusing to ask the American people to make the financial sacrifice necessary to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s wrong to refuse to increase taxes to pay for a war or to continue conducting such an endeavor if the citizenry refuses financial support. It’s put up or shut up time – and bumper stickers don’t count!
Unfortunately, American taxpayers have not paid a single dollar on this war debt. Every appropriation for war expenses since 2001 for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been approved as a supplemental appropriation, which means that the appropriation was not part of the government’s regular budget or paid for by budgeted tax revenues. Instead, the government sold treasury bills (government IOU’s) to foreign countries like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia to secure funds to finance the wars. The interest on those treasury bills compounds daily, and will continue to do so until the debt, with interest, is repaid.
This begs the question: When do war supporters plan to pay off the debt?
Millions of American have eagerly displayed, “We Support the Troops” bumper stickers and flags on their vehicles, but if that display represents the extent of actual support they are willing to provide, one has to question the sincerity of the gesture.
It seems to me that it’s time for every supporter of these wars to open their wallets and checkbooks, to take out second and third mortgages and to dip into savings to pay off this war debt. And, if like the President of the United States, folks are not willing to pony-up for the war they wanted, well then, its time to shut up on the claim of supporting the troops or the war, pack up the military and bring them home.
When a country goes to war it requests its soldiers and military personnel to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. If the citizenry isn’t willing to make a corresponding sacrifice and pay for the war, it should never be fought in the first place.
The Bush Administration is wrong in refusing to ask the American people to make the financial sacrifice necessary to support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s wrong to refuse to increase taxes to pay for a war or to continue conducting such an endeavor if the citizenry refuses financial support. It’s put up or shut up time – and bumper stickers don’t count!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Hitler Cowardice in Bush Bunker
In the final days of the Hitler regime, the Butcher of Berlin sent out frequent radio broadcasts of the bellicose variety threatening his enemies with annihilation and warning his citizens that the allied attackers were criminals of the worse sort and should be resisted down to the last man, woman and child. In actuality, Hitler didn’t care one iota for the fate of the ordinary German citizen, as he was too obsessed with his own position, ideology and power. Days later, Hitler confirmed that fact when he undertook the ultimate act of cowardice – suicide.
In the waning months of his own failed administration, President Bush fires off a bellicose demand to Congress to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which this year will hit many taxpayers earning below $100,000, without paying for said tax relief by raising the taxes millionaires who were the very people the Alternative Minimum Tax was meant to target. He’s vowed to veto any congressional bill that makes a millionaire pay one penny more.
Nothing illustrates the cowardice of President Bush more than tax policy. Days ago, the President acted like a bellicose “Hitler Tough Guy” when he waxed on angrily about what he called the ‘irresponsible fiscal discipline of Democrats in Congress’, but as soon as Democrats showed fiscal discipline by requiring a tax cut for the middle class to be offset by a tax increase for the rich, the President’s true cowardice emerged as he confirmed that he too is only obsessed with his own position, ideology and power. Under Bush, Middle class Americans will be left to their own devices.
But that shouldn’t surprise anybody.
During his term in office, Bush refused to come to the aide of unemployed workers when unemployment was skyrocketing and benefits were set to expire. He demanded tax cuts for his rich supporters as the price for eventually extending benefits.
Bush refused to come to the aide of consumers when gas and power companies engaged in price gouging during times of disrupted supply. He demanded tax cuts and energy subsidies for energy company (his supporters) as the price for eventually agreeing to investigate price gouging, though nothing ever came of the investigations.
Bush refused to come to the aide of millions of Americans who saw their pensions eliminated or crippled via corporate raiding and mismanagement. He demanded lower corporate tax rates as the price for greater government oversight in corporate governance, though most rules initially promulgated have since been eliminated.
And now Bush refuses to come to the aid of middle class Americans without another financial windfall for his own wealthy friends. Like Hitler, Bush doesn’t care one iota for the fate of the ordinary citizen. It was cowardice back then. It is cowardice today.
In the waning months of his own failed administration, President Bush fires off a bellicose demand to Congress to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, which this year will hit many taxpayers earning below $100,000, without paying for said tax relief by raising the taxes millionaires who were the very people the Alternative Minimum Tax was meant to target. He’s vowed to veto any congressional bill that makes a millionaire pay one penny more.
Nothing illustrates the cowardice of President Bush more than tax policy. Days ago, the President acted like a bellicose “Hitler Tough Guy” when he waxed on angrily about what he called the ‘irresponsible fiscal discipline of Democrats in Congress’, but as soon as Democrats showed fiscal discipline by requiring a tax cut for the middle class to be offset by a tax increase for the rich, the President’s true cowardice emerged as he confirmed that he too is only obsessed with his own position, ideology and power. Under Bush, Middle class Americans will be left to their own devices.
But that shouldn’t surprise anybody.
During his term in office, Bush refused to come to the aide of unemployed workers when unemployment was skyrocketing and benefits were set to expire. He demanded tax cuts for his rich supporters as the price for eventually extending benefits.
Bush refused to come to the aide of consumers when gas and power companies engaged in price gouging during times of disrupted supply. He demanded tax cuts and energy subsidies for energy company (his supporters) as the price for eventually agreeing to investigate price gouging, though nothing ever came of the investigations.
Bush refused to come to the aide of millions of Americans who saw their pensions eliminated or crippled via corporate raiding and mismanagement. He demanded lower corporate tax rates as the price for greater government oversight in corporate governance, though most rules initially promulgated have since been eliminated.
And now Bush refuses to come to the aid of middle class Americans without another financial windfall for his own wealthy friends. Like Hitler, Bush doesn’t care one iota for the fate of the ordinary citizen. It was cowardice back then. It is cowardice today.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Queer Eye for the G.I.
Long before the campaign against Saddam Hussein and his non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the search for Osama bin Laden and the ousting of former Serbian dictator, Slobidan Milosevitch, United States military forces commenced a fierce battle against a perceived opponent that to this day exposes our military’s greatest weakness and strikes fear in the heart of millions of military personnel and their supporters, including our commander-in-chief, George Bush. The name of that perceived enemy: homosexuals.
On January 16, 2004, Jim Wolf of the Reuters syndicated news service authored an article in which he disclosed the United States Military had considered in 1997 a multi-million dollar proposal to develop a chemical “gay bomb” at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The goal of the proposal was to create a chemical to stimulate homosexual behavior among enemy troops in hopes of destroying morale and military discipline. Presumably, United States forces would have used the chemical weapon in advance of a planned invasion to weaken the enemy’s resistance.
Although the “gay bomb” funding request was ultimately rejected, the fact that such a proposal made it to the funding request stage illustrates the depths of our military’s fear of homosexuality and exposes a major weakness in the ranks of our armed services – machismo counts more than intelligence.
In the months leading up to the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, when military translators able to speak local dialects were at an all-time premium, the armed services discharged many such soldier-translators who had admitted to engaging in homosexual relationships. Rather than maintain a critical communications need the military dismissed the soldiers in question claiming the need to uphold troop morale was a higher priority. That practice continues up to this very day.
The military’s position on homosexuals begs the obvious question: Can an army of gays without weapons defeat the heaviest armed force in the world? Obviously, the United States military thinks so! And they’re so afraid of gays they’re not taking any chances.
The search for Osama bin Laden has been relegated primarily to a few hundred U.S. soldiers and a small Pakistani military contingent with questionable allegiances. The hunt for Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction has ended. But the military pursues homosexuals in their midst with ardent vigor and determination. One wonders who is their greatest threat?
In retrospect, the decision not to develop a “gay bomb” was probably prudent. Like the atomic bomb, once a weapon is brought into existence there’s no turning back. Military strategists must have reasoned that such a weapon, had it fallen into the wrong hands, would have brought American forces to their knees. By not opening Pandora’s Box, our soldiers can live to fight another day.
When I was a kid I was afraid of the bogeyman I imagined living under my bed. It seems as if our military is afraid of a bogeyman too; the only difference is now he’s out in the open.
On January 16, 2004, Jim Wolf of the Reuters syndicated news service authored an article in which he disclosed the United States Military had considered in 1997 a multi-million dollar proposal to develop a chemical “gay bomb” at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. The goal of the proposal was to create a chemical to stimulate homosexual behavior among enemy troops in hopes of destroying morale and military discipline. Presumably, United States forces would have used the chemical weapon in advance of a planned invasion to weaken the enemy’s resistance.
Although the “gay bomb” funding request was ultimately rejected, the fact that such a proposal made it to the funding request stage illustrates the depths of our military’s fear of homosexuality and exposes a major weakness in the ranks of our armed services – machismo counts more than intelligence.
In the months leading up to the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, when military translators able to speak local dialects were at an all-time premium, the armed services discharged many such soldier-translators who had admitted to engaging in homosexual relationships. Rather than maintain a critical communications need the military dismissed the soldiers in question claiming the need to uphold troop morale was a higher priority. That practice continues up to this very day.
The military’s position on homosexuals begs the obvious question: Can an army of gays without weapons defeat the heaviest armed force in the world? Obviously, the United States military thinks so! And they’re so afraid of gays they’re not taking any chances.
The search for Osama bin Laden has been relegated primarily to a few hundred U.S. soldiers and a small Pakistani military contingent with questionable allegiances. The hunt for Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction has ended. But the military pursues homosexuals in their midst with ardent vigor and determination. One wonders who is their greatest threat?
In retrospect, the decision not to develop a “gay bomb” was probably prudent. Like the atomic bomb, once a weapon is brought into existence there’s no turning back. Military strategists must have reasoned that such a weapon, had it fallen into the wrong hands, would have brought American forces to their knees. By not opening Pandora’s Box, our soldiers can live to fight another day.
When I was a kid I was afraid of the bogeyman I imagined living under my bed. It seems as if our military is afraid of a bogeyman too; the only difference is now he’s out in the open.
The Meaning of "Pro-Life"
Every year on January 22nd, the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, I take notice to the thousands of demonstrators around the country who take part in anti-abortion rallies and every year I find myself returning to the same simple question, “What does it mean to be pro-life?”
The few people I asked for their definition of being “pro-life” all replied with the same answer: “being anti-abortion”. Had I polled a much larger group I’m fairly confident I’d have received predominantly the same answer. That certainly explains why anti-abortionists call themselves “pro-lifers”, but it does little to clarify what it means to be “pro-life”.
Since next year is a presidential election year where millions of Americans will cast their ballot on the basis of that question alone, it behooves all of us to make an honest assessment of what it means to truly respect and support human life. It may surprise many to realize that those candidates who claim to be “pro-life” are actually less respectful and supportive of human life than those candidates who do not make such a claim.
The few people I asked for their definition of being “pro-life” all replied with the same answer: “being anti-abortion”. Had I polled a much larger group I’m fairly confident I’d have received predominantly the same answer. That certainly explains why anti-abortionists call themselves “pro-lifers”, but it does little to clarify what it means to be “pro-life”.
Since next year is a presidential election year where millions of Americans will cast their ballot on the basis of that question alone, it behooves all of us to make an honest assessment of what it means to truly respect and support human life. It may surprise many to realize that those candidates who claim to be “pro-life” are actually less respectful and supportive of human life than those candidates who do not make such a claim.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
AMERICA - changing together!
A lot of people scoffed when the first President Bush spoke of the need for a kinder, gentler nation, but you know, its hard to agree with the opposite notion that bickering is an efficient way of getting things done. And if fighting isn’t the answer, then finding ways of getting along, working together and establishing common ground are the keys to moving forward.
Did you ever watch a locksmith cut a key? They start with a medal blank and cut the grooves with a hard stone wheel. The medal blank doesn’t just change at the snap of a finger. There’s friction between the stone and medal. Sparks fly. But when the process is complete, the once useless blank is then able to unlock and open doors, start machinery and set progress in motion.
If America is going to learn how to change, we’re going to require several keys to do so. The keys we’ll need as both individuals and a nation are the willingness to listen to others, the willingness to understand and validate opposing viewpoints, the willingness to share our talents and resources for the betterment of all humankind and the willingness to make sacrifices in our own lives.
Did you ever watch a locksmith cut a key? They start with a medal blank and cut the grooves with a hard stone wheel. The medal blank doesn’t just change at the snap of a finger. There’s friction between the stone and medal. Sparks fly. But when the process is complete, the once useless blank is then able to unlock and open doors, start machinery and set progress in motion.
If America is going to learn how to change, we’re going to require several keys to do so. The keys we’ll need as both individuals and a nation are the willingness to listen to others, the willingness to understand and validate opposing viewpoints, the willingness to share our talents and resources for the betterment of all humankind and the willingness to make sacrifices in our own lives.
THE HYPOCRISY OF U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS
The Conference of U.S. Catholic Bishops has raised its hypocritical head again by calling for its Catholic followers to ignore Christ’s call for social justice for the poor and to take up instead the Bishops’ favorite target – candidates who won’t make abortion a crime. The Bishops have released a statement calling for all Catholics to vote only for candidates who would make abortion a crime. Apparently, the Bishops would rather cram U.S. prisons with women and doctors than feed the poor or end state-sponsored killings.
What it boils down to is this: Catholic Church officials are threatening candidates who will not use their position of power to impose their own moral beliefs on those who don’t share their viewpoint, and they’re telling their followers that voting for certain candidates is a sin.
Such claims by Catholic Church officials are cheap shots by the lowest of standards. They also represent hypocrisy of the highest order. The candidates Catholic Bishops support vote consistently for upholding the death penalty (state-sanctioned killing), a practice morally repugnant to the Catholic faith. The candidates Catholic Bishops support vote consistently for supporting the Iraq war, a war the Vatican denounced the war as morally unjustified and contrary to Catholic teachings. Those same politicians routinely vote against aide to organizations who provide life-saving medical services in disease-infested African countries causing thousands of people to die without access to treatment. Did the U.S. Catholic Bishop’s Conference ever direct followers to vote against those candidates? No! Come to think of it, nobody called for non-support of all those priests who sexually abused kids either. They just moved them to another parish.
That Catholic Church officials should engage in attack politics is troubling enough, but when you add to the mix the hypocrisy of singling out for punishment individuals who won’t force others to make their moral choices, the Catholic Church actions are downright maddening. It demonstrates that some Church officials have lost their sense of what it truly means to mimic the life of Christ.
What it boils down to is this: Catholic Church officials are threatening candidates who will not use their position of power to impose their own moral beliefs on those who don’t share their viewpoint, and they’re telling their followers that voting for certain candidates is a sin.
Such claims by Catholic Church officials are cheap shots by the lowest of standards. They also represent hypocrisy of the highest order. The candidates Catholic Bishops support vote consistently for upholding the death penalty (state-sanctioned killing), a practice morally repugnant to the Catholic faith. The candidates Catholic Bishops support vote consistently for supporting the Iraq war, a war the Vatican denounced the war as morally unjustified and contrary to Catholic teachings. Those same politicians routinely vote against aide to organizations who provide life-saving medical services in disease-infested African countries causing thousands of people to die without access to treatment. Did the U.S. Catholic Bishop’s Conference ever direct followers to vote against those candidates? No! Come to think of it, nobody called for non-support of all those priests who sexually abused kids either. They just moved them to another parish.
That Catholic Church officials should engage in attack politics is troubling enough, but when you add to the mix the hypocrisy of singling out for punishment individuals who won’t force others to make their moral choices, the Catholic Church actions are downright maddening. It demonstrates that some Church officials have lost their sense of what it truly means to mimic the life of Christ.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
President Sees Good Sign...Taliban Leader Released
Only the President of the United States, George Bush, would see positive developments in Pakistan at a time when the country is in the grips of a military dictator who is suppressing and arresting dissidents and, at the same time, releasing high-ranking Taliban leaders from prison, like Mullah Akhund, also known as the highest ranking Taliban leader ever arrested by the Pakistani military.
Mullah Akhund is a terrorist, every bit as dangerous as Osama bin Laden, and for this government to express anything but the highest outrage at Akhund's release is a travesty unto itself. For the President to praise the Pakistani government while it purposely thumbs its nose at our efforts to eradicate terrorism says volumes about President Bush's lack of vision and underscores his ineptitude in carrying out an effective campaign against terrorism.
Currently, the real 'war against terrorism' - in Afghanistan - is being overshadowed by the continuous strength sapping civil war in Iraq and the increasing unstable situation in Pakistan.
The resurgence of the Taliban, via poppy production and the heroin trade, has been directly linked to the failure of U.S. policy to help rebuild the economic infrastructure in Afghanistan, a failure that left a vacuum only the Taliban appeared ready to fill.
Against this backdrop, it's hard to see much that is rosy about the situation in Pakistan, as the President does. Then again, this is the President who saw weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that weren't there.
Mullah Akhund is a terrorist, every bit as dangerous as Osama bin Laden, and for this government to express anything but the highest outrage at Akhund's release is a travesty unto itself. For the President to praise the Pakistani government while it purposely thumbs its nose at our efforts to eradicate terrorism says volumes about President Bush's lack of vision and underscores his ineptitude in carrying out an effective campaign against terrorism.
Currently, the real 'war against terrorism' - in Afghanistan - is being overshadowed by the continuous strength sapping civil war in Iraq and the increasing unstable situation in Pakistan.
The resurgence of the Taliban, via poppy production and the heroin trade, has been directly linked to the failure of U.S. policy to help rebuild the economic infrastructure in Afghanistan, a failure that left a vacuum only the Taliban appeared ready to fill.
Against this backdrop, it's hard to see much that is rosy about the situation in Pakistan, as the President does. Then again, this is the President who saw weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that weren't there.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Good for Goose, Good for Gander
Several members of Congress properly called Yahoo officials to task at a Congressional Hearing on Tuesday for passing information to the Chinese government regarding Internet use activities of Chinese dissidents who are trying to bring democracy to that nation. The Chinese government regards those individuals as subversives and routinely jails them for having engaged in political activities.
In 2004, information Yahoo turned over to the Chinese government was used to send a pro-democracy journalist to jail for ten years simply because he was a political dissident.
Congressional leaders were right to complain about Yahoo’s activities, but such complaints should not be limited to information provided to foreign governments.
The current debate regarding government wiretapping of citizens in this country raises the same serious questions as the Chinese government spying case does. Yahoo assistance of the Chinese government is no different from A.T & T and other U.S. telephone companies providing information to our government without warrants or without notifying its customers.
When political dissidents become the target of unchecked government intrusion into their lives, everyone suffers, not just the Chinese.
In 2004, information Yahoo turned over to the Chinese government was used to send a pro-democracy journalist to jail for ten years simply because he was a political dissident.
Congressional leaders were right to complain about Yahoo’s activities, but such complaints should not be limited to information provided to foreign governments.
The current debate regarding government wiretapping of citizens in this country raises the same serious questions as the Chinese government spying case does. Yahoo assistance of the Chinese government is no different from A.T & T and other U.S. telephone companies providing information to our government without warrants or without notifying its customers.
When political dissidents become the target of unchecked government intrusion into their lives, everyone suffers, not just the Chinese.
A Political Dilemma
In the midst of a heated election, candidates often get charged with waffling on the issues or being out of step with the electorate. A candidate’s instinct is usually to deny both charges, but I’m not so sure that’s a good idea.
Let’s assume the American people were 98% in favor of Frosted Flakes with 100% of the original sugar content added. You can bet that every candidate will come out in favor of “full sugar content” for every cereal. However, suppose a month later, fueled by the release of yet another scientific report indicating sugar is unhealthy, the American people drastically change their view. Let’s say, at that point, 65% of people actually favor the “1/3 less sugar” alternative. What should a candidate do?
If a candidate announces support for the “1/3 less sugar” option, that candidate will immediately be accused of waffling and flip-flopping on the issue. If, however, a candidate retains his or her support for the “full sugar content”, he or she will be labeled “out of step with the American people”. It’s a no-win proposition!
This raises a fundamental question: Which do we want, candidates who waffle or candidates who are out of step?
The argument can be made that an “out of step” candidate would make a worthy leader because of his or her ability to make unpopular choices in times of peril, especially when what is popular is not always the best course of action. On the other hand, a “waffling” candidate fulfills the most basic premise of a democracy – that a country's leaders carry out the will of the people. If the collective wisdom of a country shifts, it would seem that the decisions of its elected representatives ought to follow suit if democratic principles are to hold any meaning. In the end both choices carry inherent strengths and weaknesses. It would appear that neither holds a clear advantage over the other.
It’s not surprising that many partisans claim that their candidate neither waffles nor are out of step with the will of the majority, but it wouldn’t take much effort to illustrate that every candidate holds a stand on an issue that is at odds with a majority of the people or has changed his or her stance on an issue at some point in their careers. Only a dunce with no opinions on anything can honestly avoid the “waffle” or “out of step label”.
Perhaps a candidate who both “waffles” and is “out of step” is actually what is best for this country. There are times when both qualities are necessary. So, the next time you hear your candidate being accused of waffling or being out of step it might be wise to take a moment to reflect on whether that label might actually be a worthwhile attribute. It might give political discourse a whole new perspective.
Let’s assume the American people were 98% in favor of Frosted Flakes with 100% of the original sugar content added. You can bet that every candidate will come out in favor of “full sugar content” for every cereal. However, suppose a month later, fueled by the release of yet another scientific report indicating sugar is unhealthy, the American people drastically change their view. Let’s say, at that point, 65% of people actually favor the “1/3 less sugar” alternative. What should a candidate do?
If a candidate announces support for the “1/3 less sugar” option, that candidate will immediately be accused of waffling and flip-flopping on the issue. If, however, a candidate retains his or her support for the “full sugar content”, he or she will be labeled “out of step with the American people”. It’s a no-win proposition!
This raises a fundamental question: Which do we want, candidates who waffle or candidates who are out of step?
The argument can be made that an “out of step” candidate would make a worthy leader because of his or her ability to make unpopular choices in times of peril, especially when what is popular is not always the best course of action. On the other hand, a “waffling” candidate fulfills the most basic premise of a democracy – that a country's leaders carry out the will of the people. If the collective wisdom of a country shifts, it would seem that the decisions of its elected representatives ought to follow suit if democratic principles are to hold any meaning. In the end both choices carry inherent strengths and weaknesses. It would appear that neither holds a clear advantage over the other.
It’s not surprising that many partisans claim that their candidate neither waffles nor are out of step with the will of the majority, but it wouldn’t take much effort to illustrate that every candidate holds a stand on an issue that is at odds with a majority of the people or has changed his or her stance on an issue at some point in their careers. Only a dunce with no opinions on anything can honestly avoid the “waffle” or “out of step label”.
Perhaps a candidate who both “waffles” and is “out of step” is actually what is best for this country. There are times when both qualities are necessary. So, the next time you hear your candidate being accused of waffling or being out of step it might be wise to take a moment to reflect on whether that label might actually be a worthwhile attribute. It might give political discourse a whole new perspective.
Comments On The Headlines
-Study finds that one out of every four homeless Americans is a Veteran.
Apparently, troop support only extends to bumper sticker use.
-Former Governor Starts Prison Term
A better question is why aren’t the rest doing so?
-Good Hygiene Can Stop Staph Infections
It prevents a host of other things too.
-Passenger Plane Forced to Land After Engine Falls Off
Yep, that’s how gravity works!
-Reagan Library Can’t Locate Thousands of Items
Institutional Alzheimer’s suspected.
-Priest Arrested for Stalking Conan O’Brien
The next Catholic Scandal?
-Georgia Governor Prays for Rain
Georgia citizens pray for new policies
-Fred Thompson Returns to Television
Finally, a politician who recognizes his true calling?
Apparently, troop support only extends to bumper sticker use.
-Former Governor Starts Prison Term
A better question is why aren’t the rest doing so?
-Good Hygiene Can Stop Staph Infections
It prevents a host of other things too.
-Passenger Plane Forced to Land After Engine Falls Off
Yep, that’s how gravity works!
-Reagan Library Can’t Locate Thousands of Items
Institutional Alzheimer’s suspected.
-Priest Arrested for Stalking Conan O’Brien
The next Catholic Scandal?
-Georgia Governor Prays for Rain
Georgia citizens pray for new policies
-Fred Thompson Returns to Television
Finally, a politician who recognizes his true calling?
-Michael Jackson Says He Ignores Negative Stories
…as would any child molester
-Man Breaks Into Church, Calls Sex Line
…shortening the distance between sin and penance
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Just Admit It: America Tortures
It’s truly astounding to hear George Bush claim that America does nor torture prisoners when, in the next breath, he refused to ban the use of “waterboarding” on prisoners, a technique that simulates drowning. The President’s claim is just as believable as Bill Clinton denying he had sex with Monica Lewinsky.
Americans can put two and two together. We’ve seen the photos of prisoner tortured at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. We’ve read the reports of the government’s systematic administration of interrogation methods at Guantanamo Bay that violate the Geneva Convention’s definition of torture. We know government officials engage in ‘extraordinary rendition’, a program of sending foreign prisoners abroad to other countries to be tortured. We’ve heard about the secret C.I.A. prisons in Europe and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Administration continues to insist that any ban on torture should not apply to the C.I.A.. Let’s face it: America does torture prisoners. And the President of the United States isn’t fooling anybody by lying about it!
Americans can put two and two together. We’ve seen the photos of prisoner tortured at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. We’ve read the reports of the government’s systematic administration of interrogation methods at Guantanamo Bay that violate the Geneva Convention’s definition of torture. We know government officials engage in ‘extraordinary rendition’, a program of sending foreign prisoners abroad to other countries to be tortured. We’ve heard about the secret C.I.A. prisons in Europe and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Administration continues to insist that any ban on torture should not apply to the C.I.A.. Let’s face it: America does torture prisoners. And the President of the United States isn’t fooling anybody by lying about it!
Tax and Spenders
“Tax and spend”…”Tax and spend”…”Tax and spend”! That’s all my Republican friends jeer at me when I try to talk about fiscal responsibility in government these days. They know it gets under my skin since I’m a diehard Democrat. I wish I could think of a three-syllable phrase that would do the same to them, but nothing short of a few, choice cuss words comes to mind and friends generally don’t lob epithets at one another. Most of the time I simply console myself with the notion that three words is the extent of their debating prowess.
It’s a historical fact is that since the income tax was established in the early part of the 20th century every President, both Democrat and Republican, has taxed the American people. Every President, both Democrat and Republican has spent taxpayer dollars. Thus, every President since the establishment of the income tax has been a “tax and spender”.
“Don’t tax but spend”…”Don’t tax but spend”…”Don’t tax but spend”! You have to admit, those words just don’t roll off your tongue like “Tax and spend” does.
It’s a historical fact is that since the income tax was established in the early part of the 20th century every President, both Democrat and Republican, has taxed the American people. Every President, both Democrat and Republican has spent taxpayer dollars. Thus, every President since the establishment of the income tax has been a “tax and spender”.
“Don’t tax but spend”…”Don’t tax but spend”…”Don’t tax but spend”! You have to admit, those words just don’t roll off your tongue like “Tax and spend” does.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Second Amendment Logic
The right to bear arms and the subject of “gun control” has evoked strong sentiment from various groups within our society and much debate has been held over how the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted, but relatively little discussion has been made over the actual wisdom of retaining or repealing this contentious civil right. Perhaps such an exchange would provide both sides of the “gun debate” with a greater understanding of the legitimate concerns and fears of the other.
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution passed in 1791 provides as follows: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What exactly were the founding fathers thinking? Consider the following samples:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." -- Samuel Adams
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." – John Adams
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
Having experienced first-hand the oppression of English rule the founding fathers believed that the individual right to possess firearms was an essential protection against tyrannical rule and sought to preserve the ability of individuals to rise up and overthrow any government that sought to impose its own views over those of the people. Given the life experiences of the colonists, the 2nd Amendment protections made sense and appear to have been a prudent reservation of power in the hands of ordinary citizens. Whether that rationale remains true today is another question.
I've watched news accounts over the years about the federal government sending teams of experts and high-tech equipment around the country trying to detect radioactive material. The efforts are part of an on-going security operation designed to guard against terrorism though the use of nuclear or radioactive “dirty” bombs. Knowing those radioactive material locater teams were roving the country certainly gave me a feeling of greater safety, but it also provoked a question that goes to the core of the 2nd Amendment. Were it necessary for our own citizens to rise up against a tyrannical government in this country, what would it take for the people to re-establish their own sovereignty? Swords? Muskets? Tanks? Nuclear weapons?
On one hand, the thought of individuals owning nuclear weapons is a ludicrous suggestion. In a matter of hours, the entire country would resemble our pothole-filled Pennsylvania highways. On the other hand, if the overthrow of a tyrannical United States government were necessary in this day and age, nothing short of nuclear weaponry would suffice. Where then do we draw the line?
Some individuals want to possess firearms to hunt. Some wish to protect themselves, their families and their property. Others wish to defend themselves against what they see as an oppressive and tyrannical federal government. All three groups share the same concerns of the founding fathers and would seem to have legitimate claims to protection of their right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
To insure 2nd Amendment protections are meaningful one ought to ask, “What are arms?” To the colonists arms meant muskets and muzzle-loaded pistols. It meant cannons too. Not many folks owned them, but a few of the wealthy did. If our goal is to preserve the original intent of the framers, shouldn’t we allow folks to own as many muskets, muzzle-loaded pistols and cannons as they wish and regulate the rest under the theory that our new automatic weapons aren’t arms? However, if the term “arms” within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment includes any weapon necessary for the overthrow of a tyrannical government, shouldn’t assault weapons, tanks and nuclear devices be considered “arms” too? After all, those would be the only kinds of weapons that would stand a chance against our own military if a citizen uprising were necessary. Surely, the founding fathers did not intend our right to bear weapons against government tyranny to be an ineffectual right?
It would seem that following 2nd Amendment logic takes us to some rather absurd and unacceptable conclusions. However, instead of trying to engage in twisted logic to rectify gun-control legislation in one form or another with the 2nd Amendment, perhaps it's time we ask ourselves the broader question of whether the 2nd Amendment is worth keeping.
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution passed in 1791 provides as follows: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
What exactly were the founding fathers thinking? Consider the following samples:
"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." -- Samuel Adams
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." – John Adams
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
Having experienced first-hand the oppression of English rule the founding fathers believed that the individual right to possess firearms was an essential protection against tyrannical rule and sought to preserve the ability of individuals to rise up and overthrow any government that sought to impose its own views over those of the people. Given the life experiences of the colonists, the 2nd Amendment protections made sense and appear to have been a prudent reservation of power in the hands of ordinary citizens. Whether that rationale remains true today is another question.
I've watched news accounts over the years about the federal government sending teams of experts and high-tech equipment around the country trying to detect radioactive material. The efforts are part of an on-going security operation designed to guard against terrorism though the use of nuclear or radioactive “dirty” bombs. Knowing those radioactive material locater teams were roving the country certainly gave me a feeling of greater safety, but it also provoked a question that goes to the core of the 2nd Amendment. Were it necessary for our own citizens to rise up against a tyrannical government in this country, what would it take for the people to re-establish their own sovereignty? Swords? Muskets? Tanks? Nuclear weapons?
On one hand, the thought of individuals owning nuclear weapons is a ludicrous suggestion. In a matter of hours, the entire country would resemble our pothole-filled Pennsylvania highways. On the other hand, if the overthrow of a tyrannical United States government were necessary in this day and age, nothing short of nuclear weaponry would suffice. Where then do we draw the line?
Some individuals want to possess firearms to hunt. Some wish to protect themselves, their families and their property. Others wish to defend themselves against what they see as an oppressive and tyrannical federal government. All three groups share the same concerns of the founding fathers and would seem to have legitimate claims to protection of their right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.
To insure 2nd Amendment protections are meaningful one ought to ask, “What are arms?” To the colonists arms meant muskets and muzzle-loaded pistols. It meant cannons too. Not many folks owned them, but a few of the wealthy did. If our goal is to preserve the original intent of the framers, shouldn’t we allow folks to own as many muskets, muzzle-loaded pistols and cannons as they wish and regulate the rest under the theory that our new automatic weapons aren’t arms? However, if the term “arms” within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment includes any weapon necessary for the overthrow of a tyrannical government, shouldn’t assault weapons, tanks and nuclear devices be considered “arms” too? After all, those would be the only kinds of weapons that would stand a chance against our own military if a citizen uprising were necessary. Surely, the founding fathers did not intend our right to bear weapons against government tyranny to be an ineffectual right?
It would seem that following 2nd Amendment logic takes us to some rather absurd and unacceptable conclusions. However, instead of trying to engage in twisted logic to rectify gun-control legislation in one form or another with the 2nd Amendment, perhaps it's time we ask ourselves the broader question of whether the 2nd Amendment is worth keeping.
Monday, November 5, 2007
The Presidential Selection Toilet
Thirty-three years ago, I participated in a team high school debate exercise where we argued that the current method for selecting a president should be scrapped in favor of erecting a giant toilet in the middle of the United States Senate, allowing each Senator to submit a nominee on a sheet of toilet paper and then flush the sheets. The specially constructed toilet would allow only 99 of the 100 sheets to pass through it. The name on the remaining sheet would be declared president. Our “talking points” included protecting the environment by cutting down on campaign paper use, reducing special interest influence by eliminating the need for campaign expenditures and finally, promoting good will by avoiding divisive campaign advertising. Admittedly though, this nutty idea never really took off.
Eight presidential campaigns later, mass mailing, bumper stickers, yard signs and billboards will litter this country’s landscape like never before. Over one-half billion dollars, financed mostly by special interests, will be spent in an attempt to influence voters and the country is more divided now than it’s been since the civil war.
Ask anybody you meet. They’ll confirm that if the “other guy” is elected, the country is going down the toilet. The whole thing makes me wonder whether the “giant toilet” idea is finally worth considering.
Eight presidential campaigns later, mass mailing, bumper stickers, yard signs and billboards will litter this country’s landscape like never before. Over one-half billion dollars, financed mostly by special interests, will be spent in an attempt to influence voters and the country is more divided now than it’s been since the civil war.
Ask anybody you meet. They’ll confirm that if the “other guy” is elected, the country is going down the toilet. The whole thing makes me wonder whether the “giant toilet” idea is finally worth considering.
Monday Morning Wit & Wisdom
-Hang out with a Democrat. Democrats have more fun and you can always cancel out their vote.
-If you ever go looking for a man again, look for one with a well-tended garden. A meaningful life is a growing experience that requires an appreciation for the art of cultivation.
-If you date a guy with a flashy car and wreck it, ditch the guy who asks about the car first.
-You can admire a man whose overcome great odds to make something of himself; but not everyone can live with a Hitler.
-People who have been on teams that overcame great obstacles recognize the value of teamwork.
-Money may not always equal power, but it’s a pretty darn good metaphor of it.
-There is no clearer sign of danger than the words: “Just sign this!”
-Past foolishness is a luxury most of us can afford. Future foolishness tends to be more costly.
-Having money is not the same as being materialistic. You can be materialistic and have no money. Conversely, you can have money and not be materialistic.
-Where a person has been isn’t half as interesting as where they’re going.
-Keep going to school. A sagging intellect can’t be cured with plastic surgery.
-If you stand before the mirror in your room and don’t like what you see, breaking the mirror is a good start.
-At the end of a long tiring day a therapist should never go home to a patient.
-Rose-colored glasses only make the world look rosy.
-There isn’t a problem in this world that can’t be cured with a nice warm bath and a bowl of chocolate ice cream…except yours!
-Your home is where your slippers are now located…and they feel fuzzier with you in it.
-Start planning for the rest of your life today.
-FYI, any e-mail account can be set up to block mail from any e-mail address. Some accounts can be set up to accept mail only from those addresses you list as acceptable sources. There’s no law that says you have to accept mail.
-Telling the Emperor he’s naked is all a matter of courage.
-A bad marriage is one that you walk away from having learned nothing about yourself.
-The people who stand with you in a crisis are the real treasures in your life.
-If you’re looking for an effective, non-violent way to vent any anger or frustration you have towards your estrange spouse, try writing his or her name on the toilet paper in your bathroom.
-Buy tissues in bulk…if you’re going to cry, make sure it’s not over wasted money.
-Listen to yourself. You’ve got a wealth of wisdom and healing capacity inside.
-If you ever go looking for a man again, look for one with a well-tended garden. A meaningful life is a growing experience that requires an appreciation for the art of cultivation.
-If you date a guy with a flashy car and wreck it, ditch the guy who asks about the car first.
-You can admire a man whose overcome great odds to make something of himself; but not everyone can live with a Hitler.
-People who have been on teams that overcame great obstacles recognize the value of teamwork.
-Money may not always equal power, but it’s a pretty darn good metaphor of it.
-There is no clearer sign of danger than the words: “Just sign this!”
-Past foolishness is a luxury most of us can afford. Future foolishness tends to be more costly.
-Having money is not the same as being materialistic. You can be materialistic and have no money. Conversely, you can have money and not be materialistic.
-Where a person has been isn’t half as interesting as where they’re going.
-Keep going to school. A sagging intellect can’t be cured with plastic surgery.
-If you stand before the mirror in your room and don’t like what you see, breaking the mirror is a good start.
-At the end of a long tiring day a therapist should never go home to a patient.
-Rose-colored glasses only make the world look rosy.
-There isn’t a problem in this world that can’t be cured with a nice warm bath and a bowl of chocolate ice cream…except yours!
-Your home is where your slippers are now located…and they feel fuzzier with you in it.
-Start planning for the rest of your life today.
-FYI, any e-mail account can be set up to block mail from any e-mail address. Some accounts can be set up to accept mail only from those addresses you list as acceptable sources. There’s no law that says you have to accept mail.
-Telling the Emperor he’s naked is all a matter of courage.
-A bad marriage is one that you walk away from having learned nothing about yourself.
-The people who stand with you in a crisis are the real treasures in your life.
-If you’re looking for an effective, non-violent way to vent any anger or frustration you have towards your estrange spouse, try writing his or her name on the toilet paper in your bathroom.
-Buy tissues in bulk…if you’re going to cry, make sure it’s not over wasted money.
-Listen to yourself. You’ve got a wealth of wisdom and healing capacity inside.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Musharraf Steals Bush Playbook
It must be particularly bothersome to the Bush Administration that Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, has apparently stolen the Bush playbook on usurping power. If Musharraf's move didn't hold such serious ramifications for the rest of us, it would almost be comical. The situation does, however, provide a valuable lesson on why abuse of power should never be tolerated, even when terrorism is used as its justification.
Musharraf has suspended the Pakistani Constitution and its protections in the name of fighting extremists and the ever-increasing wave of terrorism that is spreading in his country. He's already survived two fairly sophisticated assassination attempts, so one can understand why Musharaff would be fearful for his own safety.
Musharraf justified his suspension of constitutional protections, in part, by pointing out that our very own Abraham Lincoln found it necessary to suspend habeas corpus and other civil liberties during our Civil War. He didn't target the Bush Administration specifically, but the reference to past presidential action in similar circumstances was a veiled reminder that, today, the same thing is happening in America, with the seeming approval of the American people. If such action is acceptable in America in the name of fighting terrorism, why not Pakistan?
The man's got a point, but there are flaws in his thinking. Musharraf is wrong in misjudging the level of dissent in this country - there are millions of people opposed to the Bush-Cheney assault on civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. He's also wrong, just as Bush and Cheney and their followers are, that suspension of civil liberties and constitutional protections are the solution for effectively fighting terrorism. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Suppression of individual freedoms and liberty, added with unchecked government authority, actually encourages the abuse of power and leads to greater government oppression over its citizens. The more government restricts the lives of its citizens, the madder the citizenry will become. Frustration and bitterness foment, and then hate ensues. In short order, hate seeks an outlet, and terrorism is that outlet.
President Musharraf doesn't get the fact that suppressing the liberties of his people will not make he or them safer, but you can't blame him for reaching that conclusion since he's taken it straight from the playbook of the current Bush Administration.
Musharraf has suspended the Pakistani Constitution and its protections in the name of fighting extremists and the ever-increasing wave of terrorism that is spreading in his country. He's already survived two fairly sophisticated assassination attempts, so one can understand why Musharaff would be fearful for his own safety.
Musharraf justified his suspension of constitutional protections, in part, by pointing out that our very own Abraham Lincoln found it necessary to suspend habeas corpus and other civil liberties during our Civil War. He didn't target the Bush Administration specifically, but the reference to past presidential action in similar circumstances was a veiled reminder that, today, the same thing is happening in America, with the seeming approval of the American people. If such action is acceptable in America in the name of fighting terrorism, why not Pakistan?
The man's got a point, but there are flaws in his thinking. Musharraf is wrong in misjudging the level of dissent in this country - there are millions of people opposed to the Bush-Cheney assault on civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. He's also wrong, just as Bush and Cheney and their followers are, that suspension of civil liberties and constitutional protections are the solution for effectively fighting terrorism. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Suppression of individual freedoms and liberty, added with unchecked government authority, actually encourages the abuse of power and leads to greater government oppression over its citizens. The more government restricts the lives of its citizens, the madder the citizenry will become. Frustration and bitterness foment, and then hate ensues. In short order, hate seeks an outlet, and terrorism is that outlet.
President Musharraf doesn't get the fact that suppressing the liberties of his people will not make he or them safer, but you can't blame him for reaching that conclusion since he's taken it straight from the playbook of the current Bush Administration.
HATE IS A HEAVY THING
Hate is a heavy thing. It consumes people. It engulfs their souls. From the dawn of mankind hate has been responsible for countless horrors and atrocities and there is nobody living on this planet who hasn’t experienced, in some form, hatred’s destructive force.
I recently read an editorial letter where the writer expressed hatred of liberals. All week, I’ve been haunted by her words. I’ve wanted to ask her why. I’ve wanted to figure out what about me (a liberal) gives rise to such loathing. I’ve struggled to understand the reason behind the hateful venom. Unfortunately, all I have are questions.
I’ve heard it said, “Hate has no rational answer”.
It’s become commonplace for folks to use the word liberal in much the same fashion as racists hurl the “n-word” at African Americans. If you listen closely enough, you can hear the hate. Although few are as honest and forthright regarding their hatred of liberals as the editorial letter writer I mentioned, that same hatred for those espousing liberal beliefs has spread in our society faster than cancer. And like cancer, that hatred has consumed, divided and engulfed souls.
America was born of liberal men who eschewed hatred, yet two centuries later, segments of society appear hell-bent on crushing liberal principles in the name of our forefathers with hatred as their weapon. Politicians routinely invoke the values of our nation’s founders in the same breath as they sling the word liberal as a political epithet. Underlying it all is hatred and every one of us, conservative and liberal alike, suffers as a result.
Although I espouse liberal beliefs, I cherish my friends and neighbors who are more conservative in their opinions. I may not agree with their political and/or social beliefs, but they enrich my life with unique perspectives that would otherwise be lost if everyone followed the same mantra.
God bless liberals, God bless conservatives and God bless “haters” too! Hatred is simply too heavy a burden to bear.
I recently read an editorial letter where the writer expressed hatred of liberals. All week, I’ve been haunted by her words. I’ve wanted to ask her why. I’ve wanted to figure out what about me (a liberal) gives rise to such loathing. I’ve struggled to understand the reason behind the hateful venom. Unfortunately, all I have are questions.
I’ve heard it said, “Hate has no rational answer”.
It’s become commonplace for folks to use the word liberal in much the same fashion as racists hurl the “n-word” at African Americans. If you listen closely enough, you can hear the hate. Although few are as honest and forthright regarding their hatred of liberals as the editorial letter writer I mentioned, that same hatred for those espousing liberal beliefs has spread in our society faster than cancer. And like cancer, that hatred has consumed, divided and engulfed souls.
America was born of liberal men who eschewed hatred, yet two centuries later, segments of society appear hell-bent on crushing liberal principles in the name of our forefathers with hatred as their weapon. Politicians routinely invoke the values of our nation’s founders in the same breath as they sling the word liberal as a political epithet. Underlying it all is hatred and every one of us, conservative and liberal alike, suffers as a result.
Although I espouse liberal beliefs, I cherish my friends and neighbors who are more conservative in their opinions. I may not agree with their political and/or social beliefs, but they enrich my life with unique perspectives that would otherwise be lost if everyone followed the same mantra.
God bless liberals, God bless conservatives and God bless “haters” too! Hatred is simply too heavy a burden to bear.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Debt of Honor (revisiting the past)
(The following piece is a "reprint" of an unpublished editorial I wrote on May 21, 2002. It's worth remembering.)
On September 7, 1989 former President George Bush appeared at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland for the Star-Spangled Banner Ceremony with author Tom Clancy who the elder President called, “an esteemed author” and “his friend”. In 1994, that Bush friend released a blockbuster book, Debt of Honor, involving a Japanese terrorist who hijacks and flies a 747 airliner into the Capitol while the President is delivering the State of the Union message. The Executive Branch, the Congress and the Supreme Court are wiped out in one gigantic explosion. The book sold millions of copies here in the United States alone. Another Clancy novel, The Sum of All Fears, is slated for release on May 31st as a movie, starring Ben Affleck. If its anything like former Clancy books made into movies, it will reap millions at the box office.
National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was quoted last week as saying that nobody in the current administration could have foreseen terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Nonsense!
Let’s forget for a second about what the F.B.I. knew about the middle- eastern men training at the Arizona flight schools. Let’s also forget about F.B.I. concerns regarding flight student, Zacarious Moussaoui and his connections with terrorism. Let’s instead focus on people working in the White House.
If you walked into the situation room at the White House today and asked for a show of hands as to how many people read Debt of Honor prior to September 11th, at least 95% of the military people would raise their hands. If they were honest, at least half of the civilians in the Bush White House would say they have read it too. That’s because Tom Clancy is a widely respected and outspoken supporter of the United States military and a champion of military readiness given the proliferation of terror and aggression in the world. Clancy’s knowledge of the armed forces and their capabilities is widely respected and his books are universally read in military circles. It is said that even our enemies read Clancy. Equally respected is the research he has conducted on terrorist thinking, terrorist methods and the ideology they employ to spread terrorism worldwide. And Tom Clancy didn’t just become popular in the aftermath of September 11th. His first bestseller novel, The Hunt for Red October, was published in 1984. Since that sensational introduction onto the literary stage, he’s written many bestsellers, including Executive Decisions, Cardinal of the Kremlim and Patriot Games. In-depth military analysis, tactical planning and terrorist thinking are the stalwarts of every Clancy novel and are one of the main reasons they are popular with both the military and this nation’s populace. If you pick up a Clancy novel, you simply cannot put it down. They’re spellbinding, brilliantly written and unforgettable.
Clancy has spent years publicly criticizing the Clinton Administration’s military policy arguing vehemently that this country must improve its state of military readiness. He’s claimed repeatedly that any of the scenarios in his books were possible and the government should take every step to make sure none of them occurred. For those reasons he’s become an icon in military circles, a shining star and a staunch supporter of the Republican Party.
Furthermore, Tom Clancy has been a major supporter of the current President. If you visit http://www.americansforbushcheney.com, you will see that Tom Clancy was a named supporter of the BUSH/CHENEY steering committee. Remember too that he is a friend of the Bush family. The elder Bush has read all Clancy’s books. You can bet his son has too.
As I said before, Clancy’s books are unforgettable. Anyone who’s ever read Debt of Honor cannot watch a plane leaving Reagan Airport without wondering what would happen if the plane turned towards the Capitol. On September 11th, when I watched the pictures of the burning Pentagon and heard reports that a plane had circled the White House, Clancy’s book was the first thing that popped into my head. “Where were the patriot missiles that were supposed to be guarding these buildings?” I screamed.
I suppose you could blame Clinton for that lapse, but Bush had nine months to rectify the problem and didn’t take action either. That’s not the issue anyway. The issue is who should have connected the dots. For National Security Advisor Rice to suggest that in 2001 nobody in the White House, including the President could have imagined such an event is pure rubbish!
They all read Debt of Honor, and it’s coming to a theater near you!
On September 7, 1989 former President George Bush appeared at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland for the Star-Spangled Banner Ceremony with author Tom Clancy who the elder President called, “an esteemed author” and “his friend”. In 1994, that Bush friend released a blockbuster book, Debt of Honor, involving a Japanese terrorist who hijacks and flies a 747 airliner into the Capitol while the President is delivering the State of the Union message. The Executive Branch, the Congress and the Supreme Court are wiped out in one gigantic explosion. The book sold millions of copies here in the United States alone. Another Clancy novel, The Sum of All Fears, is slated for release on May 31st as a movie, starring Ben Affleck. If its anything like former Clancy books made into movies, it will reap millions at the box office.
National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was quoted last week as saying that nobody in the current administration could have foreseen terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Nonsense!
Let’s forget for a second about what the F.B.I. knew about the middle- eastern men training at the Arizona flight schools. Let’s also forget about F.B.I. concerns regarding flight student, Zacarious Moussaoui and his connections with terrorism. Let’s instead focus on people working in the White House.
If you walked into the situation room at the White House today and asked for a show of hands as to how many people read Debt of Honor prior to September 11th, at least 95% of the military people would raise their hands. If they were honest, at least half of the civilians in the Bush White House would say they have read it too. That’s because Tom Clancy is a widely respected and outspoken supporter of the United States military and a champion of military readiness given the proliferation of terror and aggression in the world. Clancy’s knowledge of the armed forces and their capabilities is widely respected and his books are universally read in military circles. It is said that even our enemies read Clancy. Equally respected is the research he has conducted on terrorist thinking, terrorist methods and the ideology they employ to spread terrorism worldwide. And Tom Clancy didn’t just become popular in the aftermath of September 11th. His first bestseller novel, The Hunt for Red October, was published in 1984. Since that sensational introduction onto the literary stage, he’s written many bestsellers, including Executive Decisions, Cardinal of the Kremlim and Patriot Games. In-depth military analysis, tactical planning and terrorist thinking are the stalwarts of every Clancy novel and are one of the main reasons they are popular with both the military and this nation’s populace. If you pick up a Clancy novel, you simply cannot put it down. They’re spellbinding, brilliantly written and unforgettable.
Clancy has spent years publicly criticizing the Clinton Administration’s military policy arguing vehemently that this country must improve its state of military readiness. He’s claimed repeatedly that any of the scenarios in his books were possible and the government should take every step to make sure none of them occurred. For those reasons he’s become an icon in military circles, a shining star and a staunch supporter of the Republican Party.
Furthermore, Tom Clancy has been a major supporter of the current President. If you visit http://www.americansforbushcheney.com, you will see that Tom Clancy was a named supporter of the BUSH/CHENEY steering committee. Remember too that he is a friend of the Bush family. The elder Bush has read all Clancy’s books. You can bet his son has too.
As I said before, Clancy’s books are unforgettable. Anyone who’s ever read Debt of Honor cannot watch a plane leaving Reagan Airport without wondering what would happen if the plane turned towards the Capitol. On September 11th, when I watched the pictures of the burning Pentagon and heard reports that a plane had circled the White House, Clancy’s book was the first thing that popped into my head. “Where were the patriot missiles that were supposed to be guarding these buildings?” I screamed.
I suppose you could blame Clinton for that lapse, but Bush had nine months to rectify the problem and didn’t take action either. That’s not the issue anyway. The issue is who should have connected the dots. For National Security Advisor Rice to suggest that in 2001 nobody in the White House, including the President could have imagined such an event is pure rubbish!
They all read Debt of Honor, and it’s coming to a theater near you!
Family Values
With all the political rhetoric flying around this election season concerning who does and who does not honor “family values” the last thing folks probably want to read is another piece on the subject, but before you move on ask yourself this question: “What is your definition of family values?”
I put the question to about twenty friends and acquaintances, my group pretty well spilt between Democrats and Republicans. Here’s the list I compiled, in no particular order:
--Honoring God,
--Keeping one’s word,
--Telling the truth,
--Respecting the rights and beliefs of others,
--Sharing what we have,
--Paying our debts,
--Protecting children and those who cannot fend for themselves,
--Being law abiding,
--Learning from mistakes,
--Saving for a rainy day,
--Being reliable and dependable
If these are the true “family values”, it appears as if neither political party holds a monopoly over them!
I put the question to about twenty friends and acquaintances, my group pretty well spilt between Democrats and Republicans. Here’s the list I compiled, in no particular order:
--Honoring God,
--Keeping one’s word,
--Telling the truth,
--Respecting the rights and beliefs of others,
--Sharing what we have,
--Paying our debts,
--Protecting children and those who cannot fend for themselves,
--Being law abiding,
--Learning from mistakes,
--Saving for a rainy day,
--Being reliable and dependable
If these are the true “family values”, it appears as if neither political party holds a monopoly over them!
Friday, November 2, 2007
A Just Reason for Diplomat's Concern
It’s a staple tactic of the Bush Administration to face opposition with personal attacks, name calling and questioning the patriotism of their opponents. Yesterday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calf), the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee borrowed a page from the Administration’s playbook when he viciously attacked members of the State Department Diplomatic Corp who were up in arms about the State Department’s recent decision to force a sizeable number of diplomats to serve in Iraq or be fired. The diplomats have been protesting that decision, claiming that forced service in the civil war torn country under its current condition amounts to a death sentence.
Rep. Hunter issued a statement saying, “Let’s replace these reluctant Nellies with America’s finest citizens.” He then suggested that wounded soldiers be sent in their stead.
When Duncan Hunter travels to Iraq, he does so on highly protected military transports, as opposed to diplomats who are routinely required to use less protected commercial airlines. When Duncan Hunter is in Iraq, his itinerary includes activities mainly in the heavily fortified ‘Green Zone’, unlike diplomats whose job entails frequent meetings with lower-level Iraq government agencies all over the country without the level of military presence Hunter enjoys. It’s a bit hypocritical of Hunter to label concerned diplomats ‘Nellies’ when he himself doesn’t operate under similar conditions.
An ordinary diplomat’s trade is accomplished with words and reason. It cannot be successful if he or she is perceived to using overt force as a tool, and thus, such work often requires that a diplomat operate without a large military contingent in tow. Unfortunately, that reality also exposes a diplomat to extreme danger, especially in a country ravaged by civil war and the existence of groups who would like nothing better than to kidnap an American diplomat and bring about his or her violent death.
In the past, the State department has withdrawn diplomats in far safer areas of the world where turmoil erupted due to the lack of adequate safety to its employees. Now, the Administration has decided to eliminate that concern from their diplomatic placement decisions and seeks to require diplomats to operate in an untenably hostile and unsafe environment without regard for the diplomat’s safety.
Diplomats in Iraq have justifiable reason for concern. Over the past several years it’s been painfully documented that Administration officials and their supporters in Congress, like Rep Hunter, who was then head of the Armed Services Committee, sent servicemen and women into Iraq without the military equipment, planning and protection they needed to get their job done. Little wonder diplomats would fail to trust their own lives in those same hands.
Members of the United States diplomatic corp. have served this nation with valor and distinction in many hostile environments around the globe and do not deserve to be called ‘Nellies’ simply because they’ve questioned the current administration decision to ignore unacceptable risks in the placement of their employees. Nor do our diplomats deserve to have their patriotism or careers jeopardized by people who would not, for even one second, operate under the same condition diplomats do every day.
It’s no coincidence that Representative Hunter’s solution would be to send wounded veterans back to Iraq in the diplomat’s stead. This is the guy who failed in his congressional oversight role to insure wounded veterans had the proper tools for war in the first place. This is a politician who neglected to see wounded veterans received the finest medical care upon their return (recall the conditions of military flagship Walter Reed Hospital), or that they not have to fight a second battle in the quest for veteran’s disability benefits.
It should come as no surprise then, that Duncan Hunter would return the wounded to a war zone without the tools necessary to do a job, or that if the wounded balked at the idea, he’d call them a ‘Nellie’ too.
Duncan Hunter is no diplomat. He’s a congressman. Let’s not mix the two.
Rep. Hunter issued a statement saying, “Let’s replace these reluctant Nellies with America’s finest citizens.” He then suggested that wounded soldiers be sent in their stead.
When Duncan Hunter travels to Iraq, he does so on highly protected military transports, as opposed to diplomats who are routinely required to use less protected commercial airlines. When Duncan Hunter is in Iraq, his itinerary includes activities mainly in the heavily fortified ‘Green Zone’, unlike diplomats whose job entails frequent meetings with lower-level Iraq government agencies all over the country without the level of military presence Hunter enjoys. It’s a bit hypocritical of Hunter to label concerned diplomats ‘Nellies’ when he himself doesn’t operate under similar conditions.
An ordinary diplomat’s trade is accomplished with words and reason. It cannot be successful if he or she is perceived to using overt force as a tool, and thus, such work often requires that a diplomat operate without a large military contingent in tow. Unfortunately, that reality also exposes a diplomat to extreme danger, especially in a country ravaged by civil war and the existence of groups who would like nothing better than to kidnap an American diplomat and bring about his or her violent death.
In the past, the State department has withdrawn diplomats in far safer areas of the world where turmoil erupted due to the lack of adequate safety to its employees. Now, the Administration has decided to eliminate that concern from their diplomatic placement decisions and seeks to require diplomats to operate in an untenably hostile and unsafe environment without regard for the diplomat’s safety.
Diplomats in Iraq have justifiable reason for concern. Over the past several years it’s been painfully documented that Administration officials and their supporters in Congress, like Rep Hunter, who was then head of the Armed Services Committee, sent servicemen and women into Iraq without the military equipment, planning and protection they needed to get their job done. Little wonder diplomats would fail to trust their own lives in those same hands.
Members of the United States diplomatic corp. have served this nation with valor and distinction in many hostile environments around the globe and do not deserve to be called ‘Nellies’ simply because they’ve questioned the current administration decision to ignore unacceptable risks in the placement of their employees. Nor do our diplomats deserve to have their patriotism or careers jeopardized by people who would not, for even one second, operate under the same condition diplomats do every day.
It’s no coincidence that Representative Hunter’s solution would be to send wounded veterans back to Iraq in the diplomat’s stead. This is the guy who failed in his congressional oversight role to insure wounded veterans had the proper tools for war in the first place. This is a politician who neglected to see wounded veterans received the finest medical care upon their return (recall the conditions of military flagship Walter Reed Hospital), or that they not have to fight a second battle in the quest for veteran’s disability benefits.
It should come as no surprise then, that Duncan Hunter would return the wounded to a war zone without the tools necessary to do a job, or that if the wounded balked at the idea, he’d call them a ‘Nellie’ too.
Duncan Hunter is no diplomat. He’s a congressman. Let’s not mix the two.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Sex, Lies & Whatever Follows the Loss of Integrity
I remember quite vividly a discussion I had with a group of Republican friends during the Clinton Impeachment hearings and how they were quite eager for Clinton’s ouster. Nobody wanted to hear my argument that lying about sex, even under oath, wasn’t what the framers envisioned as a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ – the constitutional prerequisite for removal from office. I sensed then, as I still believe today, that Clinton’s impeachment hearings had little to do with constitutional issues and everything to do with the Republican Congress’ dissatisfaction with him personally and his policy agenda.
One of my friends best summarized the position when she stated, “Look, the guy flat out lied. He’s got no integrity and if you’re going to be President of the United States, you’ve got to have integrity and tell the truth. Otherwise, nobody can trust what you say, you’ve got no moral authority and there’s no way you can lead.”
My friend’s position didn’t address the constitutional question I was trying to defend, but I couldn’t refute the claim she made, and as much as I admired Clinton for the work he did as President, it didn’t remove the sting of truth behind my friend’s comment.
Years later, the shoe is now on the other foot.
For going on seven years, President Bush has systematically lied to the American people, ranging from the justification for going to war in Iraq, to the use of torture against prisoners and the circumstances surrounding government surveillance on its own citizens.
Some of my Republican friends now find themselves similarly disturbed at the lack of integrity displayed by President Bush, but others have taken a more dismissive attitude towards his lies and deception, claiming such behavior was justified to preserve national security. The latter claim rings hollow!
The steady stream of lies emanating from President Bush and his Administration have deprived the President of genuine moral authority, not just in the eyes of a majority of Americans, but a majority of the world as well. The President has lost his integrity, and while that’s not a constitutional justification for removal from office, the man clearly can’t lead…and that’s everyone’s loss.
One of my friends best summarized the position when she stated, “Look, the guy flat out lied. He’s got no integrity and if you’re going to be President of the United States, you’ve got to have integrity and tell the truth. Otherwise, nobody can trust what you say, you’ve got no moral authority and there’s no way you can lead.”
My friend’s position didn’t address the constitutional question I was trying to defend, but I couldn’t refute the claim she made, and as much as I admired Clinton for the work he did as President, it didn’t remove the sting of truth behind my friend’s comment.
Years later, the shoe is now on the other foot.
For going on seven years, President Bush has systematically lied to the American people, ranging from the justification for going to war in Iraq, to the use of torture against prisoners and the circumstances surrounding government surveillance on its own citizens.
Some of my Republican friends now find themselves similarly disturbed at the lack of integrity displayed by President Bush, but others have taken a more dismissive attitude towards his lies and deception, claiming such behavior was justified to preserve national security. The latter claim rings hollow!
The steady stream of lies emanating from President Bush and his Administration have deprived the President of genuine moral authority, not just in the eyes of a majority of Americans, but a majority of the world as well. The President has lost his integrity, and while that’s not a constitutional justification for removal from office, the man clearly can’t lead…and that’s everyone’s loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)