a
What ticks me off is the preposterous criticism of President Obama’s Tuesday oil spill speech. I would expect Sarah Palin, Fox News, and those other folks from the right to vilify the President. That’s par for the course. I would expect the folks who live in the Gulf region to be vociferous. After all, that spill is in their backyard. However, the criticism goes above and beyond these expectations, it seems American dissent from all quarters are putting-down his efforts.
From a Washington Post article, Susan Jacoby writes, “The chorus of voices--left, right and center--mocking Obama for talking about long-term roots and long-term solutions attests to the dearth of logical thinking that lies at the heart of every major, seemingly insoluble problem in this country. We have a president who, whatever disagreements one has with him, tries to think before he speaks and-- occasional appeals to the Almighty notwithstanding--generally tries to call on reason and offers his fellow citizens the unearned compliment of addressing them as if they were reasonable too. What a poor excuse for a leader! Bring on the tears and curses.”
In an email I received, the question was asked: Is this an example of leadership from our President? Of course, it is leadership. You might not agree with his administrative style in handling the catastrophe, or his cool demeanor may bring into question his commitment, but he has provided leadership.
I was asked, “What do I think of his speech? Disappointedly, I think it was a poor attempt simply to satisfy his critics. There was nothing new in the speech that in general he has not previously stated. Okay, so he didn’t layout some grand plan and he could perhaps have been more assertive. Nevertheless, in answer to the criticism that he has not gotten mad or shown some emotion on the issue, Fareed Zakaria, CNN’s GPS, has a great response.
And, as far as criticism of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) is concerned: Why would anyone unreasonably expect after decades of lax regulation that MMS would be turned-around in a year and a half. In the grand scheme of things, especially in view of political barriers, a year and a half is not a very long time. What occurred here is not different from the Wall Street or housing debacle – a failure to regulate. Moreover, it seems hypocritical that there is an expectation here of the President to do that for which he was denigrated by the right when he intervened in the private sector in attempt to prevent an economic disaster.
This Time Is Different is a column by Tom Friedman in which he supported the view expressed in a personal letter to the editor of the Beaufort Gazette in South Carolina by his friend, Mark Mykleby, who wrote, “This isn’t BP’s or Transocean’s fault. …. It’s my fault because I haven’t digested the world’s in-your-face hints that maybe I ought to think about the future and change the unsustainable way I live my life.”
The real world endemic causes of this disaster, its “long-term roots,” are that Americans and government are profligate and reactionary; that Americans expect immediacy. Americans and government will extravagantly spend until the well’s run dry. The American people are not willing to make sacrifices and conserve. Americans continue to buy gas-guzzlers even though they have no personal commercial purpose to do so. Personal and political self-gratification rules the day. America expects problems to be solved by 6 o’clock tomorrow morning, and don’t want to hear about “long-term solutions” or how we must plan for the future. Americans simply cannot look -- nor have the desire -- beyond the length of their collective noses in an effort to understand potential risks. And, Americans and their government tend to react after the horse has left the barn instead of preventing the horse from escaping from the barn in the first place.
Susan Jacoby’s, Tom Friedman’s, and Mark Mykleby’s conclusions are right on the money. All of us should accept the blame for the BP oil catastrophe because we culturally have accepted, by our acquiescence, the conditions that made it possible.
a
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Education and Reduced Speeds Are Greater Deterrents than a Mandatory Seatbelt Law
a
To his last broadcast in 1998, I was a regular listener of the Jerry Williams program, Boston’s “Dean of Talk Radio”, and muckraker extraordinaire. As Howie Carr of the Boston Herald once surmised, I do remember sitting in the driveway, not wanting to turn off the ignition because I was “annoyed” (one of Jerry’s signature words) over, or enthralled in, the discussion.
I have great appreciation for Jerry Williams. I did not always agree, many times he ruffled my feathers, but, whatever the issue, my impression was always that he deeply cared. It never seemed to be about ratings.
Then there was Grace, Queen of the Cockamamies, a regular caller to Jerry’s program who provided great comic relief whenever Grace and Jerry bantered.
But, putting comedy aside, Jerry was an indomitable opponent on issues close to his heart. In 1986, he was infuriated over a Massachusetts law that mandatorily required drivers and passengers to use seatbelts. He led a campaign to repeal this law, and his supporters collected signatures to place a repeal question on the November ballot. Consequently, a veto referendum of the statute succeeded. His leadership was one of Jerry’s legendary achievements.
Eventually, as Jerry predicted, the law was reinstated in 1994. Under that law, all seatbelt violations are secondary offenses. Since then, attempts have been made to make seatbelt law violations a primary enforcement.
Recently, Massachusetts Democratic State Senator Patricia Jehlen sponsored a bill making seatbelt compliance mandatory. Fortunately, it has not advanced beyond the Joint Public Safety Committee.
Is it that lives could be saved, or is it as viewed by Republican Representative George Peterson, “… something of a federal blackmail issue." States that implement primary enforcement are eligible for nearly $14 million in federal money, which could be a greater incentive to lawmakers than the mandatory seatbelt law predictions of lives saved.
In my life, I have had two significant automobile accidents. On a Bethel, S.C., highway in 1960, as a passenger in a van that tipped over, I was ejected out of the passenger side window. Other than lacerations, I was not seriously injured. And, in 1964 at about 2:00 in the morning, I rear-ended a car in the passing lane just before route 3’s exit 13, rolled down a 50-foot embankment and slammed into a tree (the driver had been at a Christmas Party, and on his way home, he parked there and fell asleep). I was cascaded to the passenger side floor. I eventually forced the door open and pulled my way out. My injuries were serious, but I was alive. In retrospect, in either accident, if I had been wearing a seatbelt it would have probably caused greater injury, or very possibly, it could have been fatal. So, my perception of any seatbelt safety declaration is ambiguous.
Being that as it may, excessive speed, distracted driving, or other driver incompetence cause accidents. Mandatory seatbelt laws are reactionary; they do not solve root causes. What should be done is a better job of educating motorists, and zero tolerance of DUI.
Through education, reducing highway speeds to within reasonable limits (55 mph or so), and improving the structural integrity of automobiles, we would proactively go much further to marginalizing the tragedy on our roadways.
We do not have Jerry Williams, who died in 2003, or anyone who has clout in the public square to lead Massachusetts out of another attack on our freedom. No one else except the power of we the people, which, by Jerry’s example, should be exercised in every state that mandatory seatbelt legislation is under consideration.
However, if seatbelts must be a part of our life, then as Jerry proclaimed, “…wear them, but do it voluntarily."
a
To his last broadcast in 1998, I was a regular listener of the Jerry Williams program, Boston’s “Dean of Talk Radio”, and muckraker extraordinaire. As Howie Carr of the Boston Herald once surmised, I do remember sitting in the driveway, not wanting to turn off the ignition because I was “annoyed” (one of Jerry’s signature words) over, or enthralled in, the discussion.
I have great appreciation for Jerry Williams. I did not always agree, many times he ruffled my feathers, but, whatever the issue, my impression was always that he deeply cared. It never seemed to be about ratings.
Then there was Grace, Queen of the Cockamamies, a regular caller to Jerry’s program who provided great comic relief whenever Grace and Jerry bantered.
But, putting comedy aside, Jerry was an indomitable opponent on issues close to his heart. In 1986, he was infuriated over a Massachusetts law that mandatorily required drivers and passengers to use seatbelts. He led a campaign to repeal this law, and his supporters collected signatures to place a repeal question on the November ballot. Consequently, a veto referendum of the statute succeeded. His leadership was one of Jerry’s legendary achievements.
Eventually, as Jerry predicted, the law was reinstated in 1994. Under that law, all seatbelt violations are secondary offenses. Since then, attempts have been made to make seatbelt law violations a primary enforcement.
Recently, Massachusetts Democratic State Senator Patricia Jehlen sponsored a bill making seatbelt compliance mandatory. Fortunately, it has not advanced beyond the Joint Public Safety Committee.
Is it that lives could be saved, or is it as viewed by Republican Representative George Peterson, “… something of a federal blackmail issue." States that implement primary enforcement are eligible for nearly $14 million in federal money, which could be a greater incentive to lawmakers than the mandatory seatbelt law predictions of lives saved.
In my life, I have had two significant automobile accidents. On a Bethel, S.C., highway in 1960, as a passenger in a van that tipped over, I was ejected out of the passenger side window. Other than lacerations, I was not seriously injured. And, in 1964 at about 2:00 in the morning, I rear-ended a car in the passing lane just before route 3’s exit 13, rolled down a 50-foot embankment and slammed into a tree (the driver had been at a Christmas Party, and on his way home, he parked there and fell asleep). I was cascaded to the passenger side floor. I eventually forced the door open and pulled my way out. My injuries were serious, but I was alive. In retrospect, in either accident, if I had been wearing a seatbelt it would have probably caused greater injury, or very possibly, it could have been fatal. So, my perception of any seatbelt safety declaration is ambiguous.
Being that as it may, excessive speed, distracted driving, or other driver incompetence cause accidents. Mandatory seatbelt laws are reactionary; they do not solve root causes. What should be done is a better job of educating motorists, and zero tolerance of DUI.
Through education, reducing highway speeds to within reasonable limits (55 mph or so), and improving the structural integrity of automobiles, we would proactively go much further to marginalizing the tragedy on our roadways.
We do not have Jerry Williams, who died in 2003, or anyone who has clout in the public square to lead Massachusetts out of another attack on our freedom. No one else except the power of we the people, which, by Jerry’s example, should be exercised in every state that mandatory seatbelt legislation is under consideration.
However, if seatbelts must be a part of our life, then as Jerry proclaimed, “…wear them, but do it voluntarily."
a
Thursday, June 10, 2010
In Memory of Robert F. Kennedy
a
June 6 was the forty-second anniversary of the death of Robert F. Kennedy, who was assassinated shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968 in Los Angeles, California. What the nation lost at that moment was a genuine leader who eloquently spoke out in support of civil rights, peace, the eradication of poverty and the abolishment of war.
Robert F. Kennedy had a deep-seated concern and a passion to “make gentle the life of this world.”
He said,
“If we believe that we, as Americans, are bound together by a common concern for each other, then an urgent national priority is upon us. We must begin to end the disgrace of this other America. And this is one of the great tasks of leadership for us, as individuals and citizens this year. But even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all. Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”
Robert F. Kennedy’s concern and passion for improving the human condition was brought front and center on the evening of April 4th, 1968 in Indianapolis, Indiana. On that occasion of the assassination of Martin Luther King, an extraordinary moment occurred when he, against the advice of police, climbed a platform and informed a gathering of largely African Americans of Martin Luther King’s death, and extemporaneously gave this speech:
Ladies and Gentlemen - I'm only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening. Because...
I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.
Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it's perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.
For those of you who are black - considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible - you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.
We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization - black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion and love.
For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.
But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond these rather difficult times.
My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He once wrote: "Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.
So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King, yeah that's true, but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love - a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke. We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past. And we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.
Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.
Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people."
When we lost Martin and Bobby, we lost not only two giants among men who possessed wisdom, probity, and good hearts, but we also lost their promise of a better country and world.
Robert F. Kennedy once said, “Some men see things as they are and ask why I dream things that never were and ask why not.” In order to make this a better world in which to live and raise our children, all of humanity must embrace this perspective. For starters, why not a moneyless world where poverty would not exist and where education throughout life and adequate healthcare would be available for all; why not an organized force ( military conversion) devoted to helping people rather than killing people, as we should in Afghanistan by helping them grow crops other than poppy, and promoting education; why not “make gentle the life of this world,” a life “dedicated …to love and to justice between fellow human beings.”
a
June 6 was the forty-second anniversary of the death of Robert F. Kennedy, who was assassinated shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968 in Los Angeles, California. What the nation lost at that moment was a genuine leader who eloquently spoke out in support of civil rights, peace, the eradication of poverty and the abolishment of war.
Robert F. Kennedy had a deep-seated concern and a passion to “make gentle the life of this world.”
He said,
“If we believe that we, as Americans, are bound together by a common concern for each other, then an urgent national priority is upon us. We must begin to end the disgrace of this other America. And this is one of the great tasks of leadership for us, as individuals and citizens this year. But even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all. Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”
Robert F. Kennedy’s concern and passion for improving the human condition was brought front and center on the evening of April 4th, 1968 in Indianapolis, Indiana. On that occasion of the assassination of Martin Luther King, an extraordinary moment occurred when he, against the advice of police, climbed a platform and informed a gathering of largely African Americans of Martin Luther King’s death, and extemporaneously gave this speech:
Ladies and Gentlemen - I'm only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening. Because...
I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.
Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it's perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.
For those of you who are black - considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible - you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.
We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization - black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion and love.
For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.
But we have to make an effort in the United States, we have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond these rather difficult times.
My favorite poet was Aeschylus. He once wrote: "Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.
So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King, yeah that's true, but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love - a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke. We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past. And we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.
Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.
Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people."
When we lost Martin and Bobby, we lost not only two giants among men who possessed wisdom, probity, and good hearts, but we also lost their promise of a better country and world.
Robert F. Kennedy once said, “Some men see things as they are and ask why I dream things that never were and ask why not.” In order to make this a better world in which to live and raise our children, all of humanity must embrace this perspective. For starters, why not a moneyless world where poverty would not exist and where education throughout life and adequate healthcare would be available for all; why not an organized force ( military conversion) devoted to helping people rather than killing people, as we should in Afghanistan by helping them grow crops other than poppy, and promoting education; why not “make gentle the life of this world,” a life “dedicated …to love and to justice between fellow human beings.”
a
Saturday, June 5, 2010
“Beneath the beauty of the lilies lies the ugliness of war”
a
James Carroll and I often agree on many things, particularly when it comes to the waste, futility, absurdity, cruelty, calamity, and immorality of war. His writing often buttresses my thought. In a Memorial Day piece, “Remembering the heroes, victims,” he writes the same sentiment I express in “Thoughts and Reflections of Memorial Day 2010.” He writes, “Indeed, the most fitting tribute that can be paid to those who made the ultimate sacrifice is a full reckoning with what that sacrifice actually cost — not just the fallen and their families, but the larger community that was deprived of the social contributions they would otherwise have made.”
Of concurrent significance, are those American men and women wounded, disfigured and disabled both mentally and physically, some with horrifyingly invisible wounds, to whom we also owe our remembrance.
In addition, we immortalize America’s war dead without acknowledgement of what the military euphemistically calls “collateral damage.” The unintended deaths of men, women, and children who were innocent victims of war, who suffered unrecoverable wounds, and who were also deprived of their futures and the social contributions they would otherwise have made to their nation, communities, and families as well.
“Just because we necessarily make something noble of war, by thinking gratefully of those who served to the point of death, does not remove the indictment of what killed them.” James Carroll continues, “War is a crime. Among its victims are its heroes. Yet in the modern era, they have been vastly outnumbered by men, women, and children for whom war was only catastrophic, in no way valorous. Memorial Day belongs to that legion of the dead also.”
As James Carroll points out, perhaps war’s most unsung casualty, in this context, is the future. So, not only on Memorial Day, but Veterans Day or on any other day that we acknowledge the service of our veterans, it should also serve as a reminder of a world that might have been.
For “Beneath the beauty of the lilies” as James Carroll metaphorically puts it, “lies the ugliness of war.”
But every American in a certain sense is a casualty of war.
Every American has been encultured with the false belief that our wars have been fought to preserve our freedom. We have been hoodwinked into thinking that war is necessary because we fight against an evil of one kind or another guided by divine providence over which the United States has the sole authority and responsibility to eradicate. The guiding principle of American exceptionalism dictates “a moral certitude that the killing is just.”
If one is a realist, they understand that the United States has never fought a war to preserve American freedom (1). The American Revolution was fought to free the colonies from British rule, not necessarily to protect the colonist from the same oppression within. In 1781 the U.S. Constitution secured the lives, liberties and properties of affluent white men -- women, Native Americans, the indigent, and persons of color did not apply. It also provided for a strong central government with the power to tax and regulate commerce. As James Carroll explains, “The Civil War began, on the northern side, as a war for union, not abolition of slavery.” And as it has been with every war, it has been about expansionism (imperialism/colonialism) and consumptionism. Americans perceive their personal freedom from America’s ability to acquire access to greater resources, and their freedom confirmed when their insatiable quest for more is met. American freedom equates to greater personal power and control. James Carroll as well as I see “war as trading human life for power, profit, and glory.”
This is one of the major indictments of America to which James Carroll writes,:”[we must] remove the indictment of what killed them.” This requires a new way of thinking: a paradigm shift in perception and abandonment of ideology for the sake of humanity.
“The human longing for an end to war must be revivified generation in and generation out — not just as a dream, but as a mandate. The waste, futility, and cruelty of war must focus our perceptions of it.” – James Carroll
(1) Arguably, World War II might be considered by some as a war fought to preserve our freedom. However, the United States never entered the war in Europe and in the Pacific with the explicit motive of preserving our freedom. Japan was a member of the military alliance named the Axis Powers lead by Germany. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan. But that war was fought to prevent expansionism in the pacific and Asia. As a result of our declaration on a member state of the Axis, Germany declared war on us. We reluctantly fought that war with European allies to contain German expansionism (to preserve Europe’s territorial and economic freedom). F.D.R. never entertained, except maybe rhetorically, entering into war with the Axis Powers to preserve America’s freedom.
a
James Carroll and I often agree on many things, particularly when it comes to the waste, futility, absurdity, cruelty, calamity, and immorality of war. His writing often buttresses my thought. In a Memorial Day piece, “Remembering the heroes, victims,” he writes the same sentiment I express in “Thoughts and Reflections of Memorial Day 2010.” He writes, “Indeed, the most fitting tribute that can be paid to those who made the ultimate sacrifice is a full reckoning with what that sacrifice actually cost — not just the fallen and their families, but the larger community that was deprived of the social contributions they would otherwise have made.”
Of concurrent significance, are those American men and women wounded, disfigured and disabled both mentally and physically, some with horrifyingly invisible wounds, to whom we also owe our remembrance.
In addition, we immortalize America’s war dead without acknowledgement of what the military euphemistically calls “collateral damage.” The unintended deaths of men, women, and children who were innocent victims of war, who suffered unrecoverable wounds, and who were also deprived of their futures and the social contributions they would otherwise have made to their nation, communities, and families as well.
“Just because we necessarily make something noble of war, by thinking gratefully of those who served to the point of death, does not remove the indictment of what killed them.” James Carroll continues, “War is a crime. Among its victims are its heroes. Yet in the modern era, they have been vastly outnumbered by men, women, and children for whom war was only catastrophic, in no way valorous. Memorial Day belongs to that legion of the dead also.”
As James Carroll points out, perhaps war’s most unsung casualty, in this context, is the future. So, not only on Memorial Day, but Veterans Day or on any other day that we acknowledge the service of our veterans, it should also serve as a reminder of a world that might have been.
For “Beneath the beauty of the lilies” as James Carroll metaphorically puts it, “lies the ugliness of war.”
But every American in a certain sense is a casualty of war.
Every American has been encultured with the false belief that our wars have been fought to preserve our freedom. We have been hoodwinked into thinking that war is necessary because we fight against an evil of one kind or another guided by divine providence over which the United States has the sole authority and responsibility to eradicate. The guiding principle of American exceptionalism dictates “a moral certitude that the killing is just.”
If one is a realist, they understand that the United States has never fought a war to preserve American freedom (1). The American Revolution was fought to free the colonies from British rule, not necessarily to protect the colonist from the same oppression within. In 1781 the U.S. Constitution secured the lives, liberties and properties of affluent white men -- women, Native Americans, the indigent, and persons of color did not apply. It also provided for a strong central government with the power to tax and regulate commerce. As James Carroll explains, “The Civil War began, on the northern side, as a war for union, not abolition of slavery.” And as it has been with every war, it has been about expansionism (imperialism/colonialism) and consumptionism. Americans perceive their personal freedom from America’s ability to acquire access to greater resources, and their freedom confirmed when their insatiable quest for more is met. American freedom equates to greater personal power and control. James Carroll as well as I see “war as trading human life for power, profit, and glory.”
This is one of the major indictments of America to which James Carroll writes,:”[we must] remove the indictment of what killed them.” This requires a new way of thinking: a paradigm shift in perception and abandonment of ideology for the sake of humanity.
“The human longing for an end to war must be revivified generation in and generation out — not just as a dream, but as a mandate. The waste, futility, and cruelty of war must focus our perceptions of it.” – James Carroll
(1) Arguably, World War II might be considered by some as a war fought to preserve our freedom. However, the United States never entered the war in Europe and in the Pacific with the explicit motive of preserving our freedom. Japan was a member of the military alliance named the Axis Powers lead by Germany. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, we declared war on Japan. But that war was fought to prevent expansionism in the pacific and Asia. As a result of our declaration on a member state of the Axis, Germany declared war on us. We reluctantly fought that war with European allies to contain German expansionism (to preserve Europe’s territorial and economic freedom). F.D.R. never entertained, except maybe rhetorically, entering into war with the Axis Powers to preserve America’s freedom.
a
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thoughts and reflections of Memorial Day 2010
a
During my formative years, those prided influential years immediately following a victorious World War II, it seemed the essentiality of nationalism, patriotism, and militarism gradually, subtly, and subliminally was encultured in every American. That enculturation instilled in me that I should support “my country right or wrong,” where nationalism and patriotism meant blind devotion to the United States of America, and a notion that if we didn’t have a military we wouldn’t have a country! It was a time when every Memorial Day was a major celebration; a time of unquestionable Christian devotion; a time when every young man was expected to serve in the Armed Forces; a time when every school day began with a prayer and a pledge of allegiance to the flag; a time when I thought my government would never be deceitful and to be a politician was an honorable profession.
It was also a time when Memorial Day, under the leadership of Everett Reed, meant a long parade to every cemetery where the flag was placed at the gravesite of every veteran on that day, not beforehand, and where at every cemetery echo taps were played. It was a day, as today, of war hero idolatry enhanced by legends and tales of war.
Memorial Day is a day we set-aside to honor those who gave their all for America; conversely, it is also a day when we glorify war, and a day we celebrate our nationalism, patriotism, and militarism via exploitation of our war heroes.
We should not forget on Memorial Day that many others did not give their lives, but they did give all of their futures: Men and Women wounded, disfigured/disabled mentally/physically, for the rest of their lives, some with very horrifyingly invisible wounds.
We should also not forget that it was a day three years ago, on May 19, 2007, when one of Pembroke’s sons, Matthew Bean, gave all he had to give during a door-to-door search for three captured U.S. soldiers in the Sunni Triangle region of Iraq, nor should we forget Brian McPhillips, who grew up in Pembroke and gave his all during a firefight in central Iraq on April 4, 2003.
Matthew and Brian gave all they had with nobility of purpose, as they understood it to be, and sacrificed their lives for it. Mathew Bean and Brian McPhillips are the quintessence of the Americans we honor on Memorial Day.
Memorial Day should also be a reminder for every American to speak out against a government and others who would hoodwink Americans, particularly our young people, into thinking that a Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan serves some nobility of purpose, as when I was a young man and unfortunately continues to this day, never again.
Iraq is not worth the life of Matthew Bean or Brian McPhillips. We should not just perceive Matthew or Brian as young men who so happened to have lost their lives -- after all lives are lost in war -- without profoundly understanding what their families and we have lost in our community and country as a result of their deaths. Think of the lost contribution that Matthew, Brian, other fallen veterans, and those who have suffered unrecoverable wounds, could have made to make this a better country; whatever the outcome in Iraq or Afghanistan it will not make us a better country. It is not what has been, but what could have been if only America had chosen a different course of action of which Matthew’s grave and Brian’s memorial are symbolic reminders, that is the reality of Memorial Day.
So, let’s pray that future Memorial Days will be in honoring fallen Americans from our very distant past, but not of those in our time.
a
During my formative years, those prided influential years immediately following a victorious World War II, it seemed the essentiality of nationalism, patriotism, and militarism gradually, subtly, and subliminally was encultured in every American. That enculturation instilled in me that I should support “my country right or wrong,” where nationalism and patriotism meant blind devotion to the United States of America, and a notion that if we didn’t have a military we wouldn’t have a country! It was a time when every Memorial Day was a major celebration; a time of unquestionable Christian devotion; a time when every young man was expected to serve in the Armed Forces; a time when every school day began with a prayer and a pledge of allegiance to the flag; a time when I thought my government would never be deceitful and to be a politician was an honorable profession.
It was also a time when Memorial Day, under the leadership of Everett Reed, meant a long parade to every cemetery where the flag was placed at the gravesite of every veteran on that day, not beforehand, and where at every cemetery echo taps were played. It was a day, as today, of war hero idolatry enhanced by legends and tales of war.
Memorial Day is a day we set-aside to honor those who gave their all for America; conversely, it is also a day when we glorify war, and a day we celebrate our nationalism, patriotism, and militarism via exploitation of our war heroes.
We should not forget on Memorial Day that many others did not give their lives, but they did give all of their futures: Men and Women wounded, disfigured/disabled mentally/physically, for the rest of their lives, some with very horrifyingly invisible wounds.
We should also not forget that it was a day three years ago, on May 19, 2007, when one of Pembroke’s sons, Matthew Bean, gave all he had to give during a door-to-door search for three captured U.S. soldiers in the Sunni Triangle region of Iraq, nor should we forget Brian McPhillips, who grew up in Pembroke and gave his all during a firefight in central Iraq on April 4, 2003.
Matthew and Brian gave all they had with nobility of purpose, as they understood it to be, and sacrificed their lives for it. Mathew Bean and Brian McPhillips are the quintessence of the Americans we honor on Memorial Day.
Memorial Day should also be a reminder for every American to speak out against a government and others who would hoodwink Americans, particularly our young people, into thinking that a Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan serves some nobility of purpose, as when I was a young man and unfortunately continues to this day, never again.
Iraq is not worth the life of Matthew Bean or Brian McPhillips. We should not just perceive Matthew or Brian as young men who so happened to have lost their lives -- after all lives are lost in war -- without profoundly understanding what their families and we have lost in our community and country as a result of their deaths. Think of the lost contribution that Matthew, Brian, other fallen veterans, and those who have suffered unrecoverable wounds, could have made to make this a better country; whatever the outcome in Iraq or Afghanistan it will not make us a better country. It is not what has been, but what could have been if only America had chosen a different course of action of which Matthew’s grave and Brian’s memorial are symbolic reminders, that is the reality of Memorial Day.
So, let’s pray that future Memorial Days will be in honoring fallen Americans from our very distant past, but not of those in our time.
a
A “Forked-Tongue-In-Chief at West Point” ?
a
President Obama’s West Point commencement speech was not a speech I would expect a Nobel Peace Prize recipient to make. It was a speech Martin Luther King Jr. would not make, and it certainly does not compete with John F. Kennedy’s American University commencement speech of June 10, 1963.
It’s tricky for the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces as well as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize to reconcile his responsibilities to both within the realities of today’s world -- particularly to one thousand and two cadet warriors at heart.
However, it was not a “Forked-Tongue” speech, either, as Kevin McCullough in his article, “Forked-Tongue-In-Chief at West Point,” called it.
McCullough wrote, “President Fork-Tongue spoke of his intent to shape a new ‘international order’ as it pertained to a strategy to keep America secure. Implying in his speech that America should not claim the mantle, nor the right of self-protection or self-responsibility.” He continued by quoting the President, “He [Obama] also referred to America's minimal role in ‘promoting democratic values around the world.’" However, I could not find that exact quoted phrase in the President’s speech.
What the President did say, “And so a fundamental part of our strategy for our security has to be America's support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding. And we will promote these values [‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’] above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; even when we're being attacked; even when we're in the midst of war.”
President Obama did say that America seeks an “international order,” but he did not imply America should not claim the mantle, nor the right of self-protection or self-responsibility. This conjecture is solely that of McCullough.
McCullough wrote, “…scrutiny at Obama's minimalist involvement in world affairs demonstrates the exact opposite [countering violent extremism and insurgency] because “Instead of countering violent terrorists, he's [Obama] permitted them to commit attacks against U.S. citizens on American soil six times since his inauguration.”
He is correct. There have been six terrorist attacks in our country on President Obama’s watch. What he does not say is that there were twenty-five attacks during President Bush’s watch, permitting (a word McCullough chose to use), most serious of them all, the horrific attacks of 9/11.
McCullough said that Obama has made overtures that he will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; that Obama mocked those who did not hold global warming to be truth; that instead of sustaining global growth, his economic policies have actually worsened the outlook for the American markets, and the global economy; that instead of helping other nations become self sufficient, he has taken punitive action against allies like Israel, and played footsies with nations like North Korea.
President Obama has never said that he would not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, nor did he ever mock those who did not believe in global warming.
As far as President Obama’s economic policies are concerned, it’s a matter of speculation, since we just simply do not know what would have happened if he did something else or nothing at all.
For McCullough to criticize Obama on taken a firmer stance with Israel than others have historically done and because he is willing to chance negotiation and diplomacy over belligerency or war with North Korea, to me, is simply unacceptable. It is what I would expect of a President who is trying to achieve peaceful outcomes.
To Obama’s statement, "America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation... but by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice," McCullough said the President was either “ignorant or purposefully misrepresentative.” He said, “To be clear, America has more often than not primarily succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation, leading the charge to form new coalitions, and when necessary going it alone out of a resolve to do so because of the moral demands placed upon us as the greatest nation on this planet.”
What makes us McCullough’s “greatest nation on this planet” is simply our firepower, our military machine. With few exceptions, we have “not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation.” We did lead the charge in forming coalitions in some instances, but that is just simply a matter of protocol.
McCullough says, “But behind the mask of attempting to sound moderate, reasonable, clean and articulate (Biden's favorite qualities) lies a shadow of his meaning that may sound like something on the surface and to most ears who hear, but mean something completely different to the President himself.”
“He is misguided at best, or a deceptive traitor at worst...”
A right-wing reader made a comment on one of my posts, which said, “When the left cannot win an argument with fact, they rely on supposition and innuendo.”
Conversely, McCullough’s (obviously a right-winger) conjecture is simply that: supposition and innuendo.
a
President Obama’s West Point commencement speech was not a speech I would expect a Nobel Peace Prize recipient to make. It was a speech Martin Luther King Jr. would not make, and it certainly does not compete with John F. Kennedy’s American University commencement speech of June 10, 1963.
It’s tricky for the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces as well as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize to reconcile his responsibilities to both within the realities of today’s world -- particularly to one thousand and two cadet warriors at heart.
However, it was not a “Forked-Tongue” speech, either, as Kevin McCullough in his article, “Forked-Tongue-In-Chief at West Point,” called it.
McCullough wrote, “President Fork-Tongue spoke of his intent to shape a new ‘international order’ as it pertained to a strategy to keep America secure. Implying in his speech that America should not claim the mantle, nor the right of self-protection or self-responsibility.” He continued by quoting the President, “He [Obama] also referred to America's minimal role in ‘promoting democratic values around the world.’" However, I could not find that exact quoted phrase in the President’s speech.
What the President did say, “And so a fundamental part of our strategy for our security has to be America's support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding. And we will promote these values [‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’] above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; even when we're being attacked; even when we're in the midst of war.”
President Obama did say that America seeks an “international order,” but he did not imply America should not claim the mantle, nor the right of self-protection or self-responsibility. This conjecture is solely that of McCullough.
McCullough wrote, “…scrutiny at Obama's minimalist involvement in world affairs demonstrates the exact opposite [countering violent extremism and insurgency] because “Instead of countering violent terrorists, he's [Obama] permitted them to commit attacks against U.S. citizens on American soil six times since his inauguration.”
He is correct. There have been six terrorist attacks in our country on President Obama’s watch. What he does not say is that there were twenty-five attacks during President Bush’s watch, permitting (a word McCullough chose to use), most serious of them all, the horrific attacks of 9/11.
McCullough said that Obama has made overtures that he will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; that Obama mocked those who did not hold global warming to be truth; that instead of sustaining global growth, his economic policies have actually worsened the outlook for the American markets, and the global economy; that instead of helping other nations become self sufficient, he has taken punitive action against allies like Israel, and played footsies with nations like North Korea.
President Obama has never said that he would not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, nor did he ever mock those who did not believe in global warming.
As far as President Obama’s economic policies are concerned, it’s a matter of speculation, since we just simply do not know what would have happened if he did something else or nothing at all.
For McCullough to criticize Obama on taken a firmer stance with Israel than others have historically done and because he is willing to chance negotiation and diplomacy over belligerency or war with North Korea, to me, is simply unacceptable. It is what I would expect of a President who is trying to achieve peaceful outcomes.
To Obama’s statement, "America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation... but by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice," McCullough said the President was either “ignorant or purposefully misrepresentative.” He said, “To be clear, America has more often than not primarily succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation, leading the charge to form new coalitions, and when necessary going it alone out of a resolve to do so because of the moral demands placed upon us as the greatest nation on this planet.”
What makes us McCullough’s “greatest nation on this planet” is simply our firepower, our military machine. With few exceptions, we have “not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation.” We did lead the charge in forming coalitions in some instances, but that is just simply a matter of protocol.
McCullough says, “But behind the mask of attempting to sound moderate, reasonable, clean and articulate (Biden's favorite qualities) lies a shadow of his meaning that may sound like something on the surface and to most ears who hear, but mean something completely different to the President himself.”
“He is misguided at best, or a deceptive traitor at worst...”
A right-wing reader made a comment on one of my posts, which said, “When the left cannot win an argument with fact, they rely on supposition and innuendo.”
Conversely, McCullough’s (obviously a right-winger) conjecture is simply that: supposition and innuendo.
a
Sunday, May 23, 2010
It’s the responsibility of columnist to inform, not entertain
a
Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News tabloid-styled denunciation, apparent in Michelle Malkin’s recent article,” The U.S. Department of Blame America First,” of human rights activist as “zealots”; of Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner as “badmouthing America,” and that the “former head agitator [Posner] at the transnationalist outfit Human Rights First trashed our country's human rights record to Chinese government officials”; of Tom Goldstein and George Soros over their Ground Zero Memorial plan proposal; of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, and State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, as “willful ignoramuses betraying America's interests”; of State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, as “one who believes that America has violated international law and that U.S. Supreme Court rulings should lean toward transnationalist jurisprudence”; of State Department transition team leader Samantha Power, as “one who pooh-poohs the threat of nuclear Iran” and praises Obama's commitment to negotiation and diplomacy over belligerence and war; of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as “busy coddling” Mexico who has been critical of Arizona's law, does not help, in the manner she writes, to explain earnestly and in good faith her opposition to these issues.
First, to admit that the United States is having issues with Arizona’s Immigration Law, Bill 1070, an issue known internationally, regardless of any dialogue of Bill 1070 between the United States and China in a forum on human rights, is not “badmouthing America.”
Furthermore, Human Rights First is a committee of lawyers who focus on the “principle that core human rights protections apply universally, and thus extend to everyone by virtue of their humanity.” It seems to me that the morality of this principle is inarguable.
Her denunciation of Tom Goldstein and George Soros because their plan for the Ground Zero Memorial was rejected is ridiculous. Plan proposals for the World Trade Center Memorial have been met with much criticism from many people, ranging from the design itself to the name change, from Mayor Michael Bloomberg to Donald Trump.
The criticism of Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, and State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley as “willful ignoramuses betraying America's interests,” because they have denounced Arizona’s Bill 1070 as unconstitutionally discriminatory, is certainly disingenuous.
To censure Harold Koh, as one who believes that America has violated international law, and that U.S. Supreme Court rulings should lean toward transnationalist jurisprudence reveals a certain level of ignorance: America has violated international law; and, “transnationalism is a social movement grown out of the heightened interconnectivity between people and the loosening of boundaries between countries …a new way of thinking about relationships between cultures.” It would be irresponsible for the Supreme Court not to be highly considerate of transnationalism in their decisions.
Samantha Power is “best known for her efforts to increase public awareness of genocide and human rights abuses, particularly in the Darfur conflict. [She] has become a leading voice calling for armed intervention into humanitarian crisis situations.” She has been “hostile towards the state of Israel [over their belligerence and treatment of Palestinians]. In an interview with Haaretz [Israel's oldest daily newspaper] … [she] insisted that she takes threats to Israel's security (such as the potential nuclearization of Iran) very seriously.”
The accusation that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as” busy coddling” Felipe Calderón, President of Mexico, who has been critical of Arizona's immigration law, is true. But how would you expect the Secretary of State to treat our neighbor to the south: with belligerence or friendship? The border problems are the result of failed leadership of the United States and Mexico. The Mexican gun and drug problem is a result of America’s failure effectively to take action -- guns go south, drugs head north.
It has been said that Rupert Murdoch's view was that” he was an entertainer, not an informer, and that he merely sold entertainment to his readers, most of whom were lower-class workers and middle-class women.” It seems Michelle Malkin, a frequent commentator for Fox News, writes in the same vein, to entertain rather than inform.
a
Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News tabloid-styled denunciation, apparent in Michelle Malkin’s recent article,” The U.S. Department of Blame America First,” of human rights activist as “zealots”; of Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner as “badmouthing America,” and that the “former head agitator [Posner] at the transnationalist outfit Human Rights First trashed our country's human rights record to Chinese government officials”; of Tom Goldstein and George Soros over their Ground Zero Memorial plan proposal; of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, and State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, as “willful ignoramuses betraying America's interests”; of State Department's legal adviser, Harold Koh, as “one who believes that America has violated international law and that U.S. Supreme Court rulings should lean toward transnationalist jurisprudence”; of State Department transition team leader Samantha Power, as “one who pooh-poohs the threat of nuclear Iran” and praises Obama's commitment to negotiation and diplomacy over belligerence and war; of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as “busy coddling” Mexico who has been critical of Arizona's law, does not help, in the manner she writes, to explain earnestly and in good faith her opposition to these issues.
First, to admit that the United States is having issues with Arizona’s Immigration Law, Bill 1070, an issue known internationally, regardless of any dialogue of Bill 1070 between the United States and China in a forum on human rights, is not “badmouthing America.”
Furthermore, Human Rights First is a committee of lawyers who focus on the “principle that core human rights protections apply universally, and thus extend to everyone by virtue of their humanity.” It seems to me that the morality of this principle is inarguable.
Her denunciation of Tom Goldstein and George Soros because their plan for the Ground Zero Memorial was rejected is ridiculous. Plan proposals for the World Trade Center Memorial have been met with much criticism from many people, ranging from the design itself to the name change, from Mayor Michael Bloomberg to Donald Trump.
The criticism of Secretary Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, and State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley as “willful ignoramuses betraying America's interests,” because they have denounced Arizona’s Bill 1070 as unconstitutionally discriminatory, is certainly disingenuous.
To censure Harold Koh, as one who believes that America has violated international law, and that U.S. Supreme Court rulings should lean toward transnationalist jurisprudence reveals a certain level of ignorance: America has violated international law; and, “transnationalism is a social movement grown out of the heightened interconnectivity between people and the loosening of boundaries between countries …a new way of thinking about relationships between cultures.” It would be irresponsible for the Supreme Court not to be highly considerate of transnationalism in their decisions.
Samantha Power is “best known for her efforts to increase public awareness of genocide and human rights abuses, particularly in the Darfur conflict. [She] has become a leading voice calling for armed intervention into humanitarian crisis situations.” She has been “hostile towards the state of Israel [over their belligerence and treatment of Palestinians]. In an interview with Haaretz [Israel's oldest daily newspaper] … [she] insisted that she takes threats to Israel's security (such as the potential nuclearization of Iran) very seriously.”
The accusation that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as” busy coddling” Felipe Calderón, President of Mexico, who has been critical of Arizona's immigration law, is true. But how would you expect the Secretary of State to treat our neighbor to the south: with belligerence or friendship? The border problems are the result of failed leadership of the United States and Mexico. The Mexican gun and drug problem is a result of America’s failure effectively to take action -- guns go south, drugs head north.
It has been said that Rupert Murdoch's view was that” he was an entertainer, not an informer, and that he merely sold entertainment to his readers, most of whom were lower-class workers and middle-class women.” It seems Michelle Malkin, a frequent commentator for Fox News, writes in the same vein, to entertain rather than inform.
a
Monday, May 17, 2010
An evolutionary change in the role of the U.S military
a
From 1775–1783 thirteen British colonies fought the American War of Independence and gained their liberty form Great Britain. Great Britain at the time was the greatest military, economic, and imperial power in the world. Its soldiers were highly trained, disciplined, and experienced.
The colonists were not trained, did not have the leadership or manpower, nor did they have the discipline required for linear warfare. They instead utilized hit and run, ambush, and sniper tactics learned fighting in the wilderness. The British never adjusted to the asymmetric warfare of the colonists.
Consequently, the colonists, who initially lacked an army and navy, whose militiamen were lightly armed, nevertheless, were triumphant.
Regardless, Great Britain’s greatest error was not attending to nation building. If they had put as much effort into winning hearts and minds, meeting the needs of the colonists and partnering with them, instead of killing, domination and subordination, America would most likely be a dominion of the British today.
Like eighteenth-century Great Britain, America today is the greatest military, economic, and imperial power in the world. Because of this, there has been an enculturation that has evolved into an American hubris that enhances that same warrior and imperialist mindset.
Americans are warriors at heart. They too believe that killing, domination, and subordination are what win conflicts. They are under the mistaken belief that belligerence is the way to keep others at bay, and that military firepower is the only strategy that works. To win means to obliterate and conquer.
In Iraq and in Afghanistan, “Shock and Awe” was our strategy. The war propagandist new that that would garner the American imagination.
Like the British, we never reacted to the tactics of our foes in either country with effective countermeasures. It was only when General Petraeus took command of the Multi-National Force in Iraq and General McChrystal took command of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan that we adopted a new strategy to countermeasure the asymmetric warfare of the enemy.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, was “on point” when he told the House Armed Services Committee in 2008, “We can’t kill our way to victory.”
Admiral Mullen has also said, “The Muslim community is a subtle world we don’t fully – and don’t always – attempt to understand. Only through a shared appreciation of the people’s culture, needs, and hopes for the future can we hope ourselves to supplant the extremist narrative. We cannot capture hearts and minds. We must engage them; we must listen to them, one heart and one mind at a time.”
In “Stones into Schools,” Greg Mortenson writes of an email he received from Lieutenant Colonel Chris Kolenda that in part stated, “I am convinced that the long-term solution to terrorism in general and Afghanistan specifically is education. The conflict here will not be won with bombs but with tolerance, and prosperity. The thirst for education here is palpable. People are tired of war after 30 years and want a better future. Education will make the difference whether the next generation grows up to be educated patriots or illiterate fighters. The stakes could not be higher.”
In America, nation building has had a negative connotation. However, it is now a central part of U.S. strategy. In Afghanistan, nation building must take place with an emphasis on a coalition of tribal communities and less on central governance.
No matter where one looks, there is every indication that the role of the U.S military is changing in an evolution that George Will describes as “The ‘Civilization’ Of the U.S. Military.”
For America to fail in Afghanistan, as the British failed in Colonial America against a force significantly lacking in America’s armaments and manpower, would be a humiliating national and international setback. Regrettably, Americans will not persevere in what they perceive as not a winning strategy, which means the utilization of American firepower; but viewed as a wishy-washy strategy, which may be their view of nation building.
a
From 1775–1783 thirteen British colonies fought the American War of Independence and gained their liberty form Great Britain. Great Britain at the time was the greatest military, economic, and imperial power in the world. Its soldiers were highly trained, disciplined, and experienced.
The colonists were not trained, did not have the leadership or manpower, nor did they have the discipline required for linear warfare. They instead utilized hit and run, ambush, and sniper tactics learned fighting in the wilderness. The British never adjusted to the asymmetric warfare of the colonists.
Consequently, the colonists, who initially lacked an army and navy, whose militiamen were lightly armed, nevertheless, were triumphant.
Regardless, Great Britain’s greatest error was not attending to nation building. If they had put as much effort into winning hearts and minds, meeting the needs of the colonists and partnering with them, instead of killing, domination and subordination, America would most likely be a dominion of the British today.
Like eighteenth-century Great Britain, America today is the greatest military, economic, and imperial power in the world. Because of this, there has been an enculturation that has evolved into an American hubris that enhances that same warrior and imperialist mindset.
Americans are warriors at heart. They too believe that killing, domination, and subordination are what win conflicts. They are under the mistaken belief that belligerence is the way to keep others at bay, and that military firepower is the only strategy that works. To win means to obliterate and conquer.
In Iraq and in Afghanistan, “Shock and Awe” was our strategy. The war propagandist new that that would garner the American imagination.
Like the British, we never reacted to the tactics of our foes in either country with effective countermeasures. It was only when General Petraeus took command of the Multi-National Force in Iraq and General McChrystal took command of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan that we adopted a new strategy to countermeasure the asymmetric warfare of the enemy.
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, was “on point” when he told the House Armed Services Committee in 2008, “We can’t kill our way to victory.”
Admiral Mullen has also said, “The Muslim community is a subtle world we don’t fully – and don’t always – attempt to understand. Only through a shared appreciation of the people’s culture, needs, and hopes for the future can we hope ourselves to supplant the extremist narrative. We cannot capture hearts and minds. We must engage them; we must listen to them, one heart and one mind at a time.”
In “Stones into Schools,” Greg Mortenson writes of an email he received from Lieutenant Colonel Chris Kolenda that in part stated, “I am convinced that the long-term solution to terrorism in general and Afghanistan specifically is education. The conflict here will not be won with bombs but with tolerance, and prosperity. The thirst for education here is palpable. People are tired of war after 30 years and want a better future. Education will make the difference whether the next generation grows up to be educated patriots or illiterate fighters. The stakes could not be higher.”
In America, nation building has had a negative connotation. However, it is now a central part of U.S. strategy. In Afghanistan, nation building must take place with an emphasis on a coalition of tribal communities and less on central governance.
No matter where one looks, there is every indication that the role of the U.S military is changing in an evolution that George Will describes as “The ‘Civilization’ Of the U.S. Military.”
For America to fail in Afghanistan, as the British failed in Colonial America against a force significantly lacking in America’s armaments and manpower, would be a humiliating national and international setback. Regrettably, Americans will not persevere in what they perceive as not a winning strategy, which means the utilization of American firepower; but viewed as a wishy-washy strategy, which may be their view of nation building.
a
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Arizona Bill 1070, a “probable cause” based on race and ethnicity
a
I remember an argument that the late David Brudnoy, a well-known and respected WBZ Boston talk radio host, made in support of profiling back in 2002. The issue then was terrorism. He analogized profiling with the story of a midget who robbed a local gas station. The police radio dispatch confirmed the perpetrator to be a midget. The police observed a midget a few miles away and arrested him for the crime. Brudnoy’s conclusion, if the police had not used profiling they would not have made the arrest.
The problem with Brudnoy’s analogy is that the profiling was in association of a midget with a particular crime. The police were not assuming that all midgets are armed robbers and, therefore, they are suspects in armed robberies, giving them authority and a responsibility to stop, search, and interrogate midgets.
The Arizona Law, Bill 1070, mandates that illegal immigration, which heretofore has been adjudicated under civil law, now will be adjudicated under criminal law. And, so, by making undocumented immigration a criminal offense, it requires law enforcement to take action when there is “probable cause” that someone has committed a crime. Under criminal law, “probable cause” is the standard by which a police officer with reasonable suspicion has the authority to conduct a personal or property search, and to make an arrest.
The Bill 1070 problem is that it’s not about Greeks, Italians, Poles, or New Zealanders -- it’s about Hispanics! It’s not about illegal immigration, per se, it’s about brown skinned, dark haired, Spanish-speaking people who easily can be identified (profiled) and thereby giving a police officer sufficient “probable cause” to detain, search, interrogate, and make an arrest.
Elena Letona, the associate director of the Massachusetts’s chapter of the National Alliance of Latin American & Caribbean Communities, put it succinctly when she told a noisy crowd of demonstrators on Boston Common: “It means not looking white. It means not sounding white. It means those who do not conform to a certain idea of what Americans should look like.’’
Arizona’s problem with illegal immigration, human trafficking, and drug smuggling is understandably acute. However, Arizona does not need to change the law when there are laws in place for the criminal behavior of human trafficking and drug smuggling. Evidently, what Arizona does not understand is that there are civil liberty laws that are in place and a U.S. Constitution that defends those liberties.
Traveling as a road musician in the Deep South of the early 60’s, it was common to see black Americans detained along-side any road or highway, some even spread-eagle with police officers standing over them. It was so common that it prompted the question to my fellow musicians who traveled these states for a long time -- why? The answer, they were being harassed and detained because of their race, not because they committed a crime.
At the time, not many northerners condemned the incivility and that outrageous police behavior in the south, and many even supported it.
The Boston Globe reported, “The Boston City Council approved a resolution Wednesday that urges the city to curtail economic ties with Arizona by pulling investments, ending city contracts and halting purchasing agreements to protest the state's recently passed immigration law.”
I support that resolution. I only wish Massachusetts and other states would follow suit. My fear is that, like my experience in the Deep South, Arizona will be harassing and detaining Hispanics along her streets, roads, and highways, with police officers standing over them, without any “probable cause” other than their race and ethnicity that may be adopted by other states, as well.
a
I remember an argument that the late David Brudnoy, a well-known and respected WBZ Boston talk radio host, made in support of profiling back in 2002. The issue then was terrorism. He analogized profiling with the story of a midget who robbed a local gas station. The police radio dispatch confirmed the perpetrator to be a midget. The police observed a midget a few miles away and arrested him for the crime. Brudnoy’s conclusion, if the police had not used profiling they would not have made the arrest.
The problem with Brudnoy’s analogy is that the profiling was in association of a midget with a particular crime. The police were not assuming that all midgets are armed robbers and, therefore, they are suspects in armed robberies, giving them authority and a responsibility to stop, search, and interrogate midgets.
The Arizona Law, Bill 1070, mandates that illegal immigration, which heretofore has been adjudicated under civil law, now will be adjudicated under criminal law. And, so, by making undocumented immigration a criminal offense, it requires law enforcement to take action when there is “probable cause” that someone has committed a crime. Under criminal law, “probable cause” is the standard by which a police officer with reasonable suspicion has the authority to conduct a personal or property search, and to make an arrest.
The Bill 1070 problem is that it’s not about Greeks, Italians, Poles, or New Zealanders -- it’s about Hispanics! It’s not about illegal immigration, per se, it’s about brown skinned, dark haired, Spanish-speaking people who easily can be identified (profiled) and thereby giving a police officer sufficient “probable cause” to detain, search, interrogate, and make an arrest.
Elena Letona, the associate director of the Massachusetts’s chapter of the National Alliance of Latin American & Caribbean Communities, put it succinctly when she told a noisy crowd of demonstrators on Boston Common: “It means not looking white. It means not sounding white. It means those who do not conform to a certain idea of what Americans should look like.’’
Arizona’s problem with illegal immigration, human trafficking, and drug smuggling is understandably acute. However, Arizona does not need to change the law when there are laws in place for the criminal behavior of human trafficking and drug smuggling. Evidently, what Arizona does not understand is that there are civil liberty laws that are in place and a U.S. Constitution that defends those liberties.
Traveling as a road musician in the Deep South of the early 60’s, it was common to see black Americans detained along-side any road or highway, some even spread-eagle with police officers standing over them. It was so common that it prompted the question to my fellow musicians who traveled these states for a long time -- why? The answer, they were being harassed and detained because of their race, not because they committed a crime.
At the time, not many northerners condemned the incivility and that outrageous police behavior in the south, and many even supported it.
The Boston Globe reported, “The Boston City Council approved a resolution Wednesday that urges the city to curtail economic ties with Arizona by pulling investments, ending city contracts and halting purchasing agreements to protest the state's recently passed immigration law.”
I support that resolution. I only wish Massachusetts and other states would follow suit. My fear is that, like my experience in the Deep South, Arizona will be harassing and detaining Hispanics along her streets, roads, and highways, with police officers standing over them, without any “probable cause” other than their race and ethnicity that may be adopted by other states, as well.
a
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Cape Wind, a misguided idea
a
Ken Burns’s “The National Parks: America's Best Idea is the story of an idea as uniquely American as the Declaration of Independence and just as radical: that the most special places in the nation should be preserved, not for royalty or the rich, but for everyone.”
The documentary film details “As America expanded westward, pioneers would ‘discover’ landscapes [‘from Acadia to Yosemite, Yellowstone to the Grand Canyon, the Everglades of Florida to the Gates of the Arctic in Alaska’] of such breathtaking and unusual beauty that written descriptions of the lands were sometimes assumed by people in the East to be works of fiction. Eventually, there emerged a belief that these special places should be kept untarnished by development and commerce so that they could be experienced by all people.”
Evidently, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the person responsible for our National Park System, does not share that belief. He, and the Obama Administration, made the decision to proceed with Cape Wind Associate’s plan for the nation's first offshore wind farm to be located on the Horseshoe Shoal region in Nantucket Sound.
The green light was given to a private developer, Cape Wind Associates, the innovation of CEO Jim Gordon, who proposed the Cape Wind Project. Since 2001, Cape Wind Associates has spent more than $45 million. Jim Gordon has refused to disclose potential earnings. Nevertheless, Cape Wind Associates stand to gain hundreds of millions in tax credits, government subsidies, and price guarantees, making developers rich at the expense of electric ratepayers who must pay for these costs.
The reality is that Cape Wind Associates and Jim Gordon’s primary interest is not in green energy or protecting the shoal’s ecology, but in profiteering from the project.
Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown criticized Salazar's decision, saying it was "misguided.” He said, further, "With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions [Salazar predicts 1,000] we have heard from proponents of the project,"
This whole project from the beginning was misguided in the belief that eliminating atmospheric greenhouse gases is the singularly most important issue, without an awareness that the sea and its very delicate ecology is equally important.
Despite what any environmental impact study might conclude, the construction of a wind farm covering 24 square miles with 130 turbines, 440 feet tall, with its conduit embedded six feet under the sea floor to facilitate electricity to the mainland will distinctly -- for some species it may displace -- destroy a very delicate ecosystem and its abiotic constituents; it can take thousands of years for ecological processes to mature, and yet hastily destroyed with projects like Cape Wind. Furthermore, any claim that Cape Wind will ensure that natural sites could be restored if the wind farms were ever shut down would be preposterous.
Beyond the ecology, it is easy for folks like Secretary Salazar, who may have never experienced simple things like fishing, boating, or who may have never seen the breathtaking and unusual beauty of Nantucket Sound or its beaches, to perceive, as Ken Burns has expressed, that written descriptions are sometimes assumed to be works of fiction.
So, it is as naturalist Paul Brook wrote in “The Art of Seeing Nature: How much we see depends on what we bring to the encounter,” and in “The Pursuit of Wilderness: We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism.”
a
Ken Burns’s “The National Parks: America's Best Idea is the story of an idea as uniquely American as the Declaration of Independence and just as radical: that the most special places in the nation should be preserved, not for royalty or the rich, but for everyone.”
The documentary film details “As America expanded westward, pioneers would ‘discover’ landscapes [‘from Acadia to Yosemite, Yellowstone to the Grand Canyon, the Everglades of Florida to the Gates of the Arctic in Alaska’] of such breathtaking and unusual beauty that written descriptions of the lands were sometimes assumed by people in the East to be works of fiction. Eventually, there emerged a belief that these special places should be kept untarnished by development and commerce so that they could be experienced by all people.”
Evidently, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the person responsible for our National Park System, does not share that belief. He, and the Obama Administration, made the decision to proceed with Cape Wind Associate’s plan for the nation's first offshore wind farm to be located on the Horseshoe Shoal region in Nantucket Sound.
The green light was given to a private developer, Cape Wind Associates, the innovation of CEO Jim Gordon, who proposed the Cape Wind Project. Since 2001, Cape Wind Associates has spent more than $45 million. Jim Gordon has refused to disclose potential earnings. Nevertheless, Cape Wind Associates stand to gain hundreds of millions in tax credits, government subsidies, and price guarantees, making developers rich at the expense of electric ratepayers who must pay for these costs.
The reality is that Cape Wind Associates and Jim Gordon’s primary interest is not in green energy or protecting the shoal’s ecology, but in profiteering from the project.
Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown criticized Salazar's decision, saying it was "misguided.” He said, further, "With unemployment hovering near ten percent in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project will jeopardize industries that are vital to the Cape's economy, such as tourism and fishing, and will also impact aviation safety and the rights of the Native American tribes in the area. I am also skeptical about the cost-savings and job number predictions [Salazar predicts 1,000] we have heard from proponents of the project,"
This whole project from the beginning was misguided in the belief that eliminating atmospheric greenhouse gases is the singularly most important issue, without an awareness that the sea and its very delicate ecology is equally important.
Despite what any environmental impact study might conclude, the construction of a wind farm covering 24 square miles with 130 turbines, 440 feet tall, with its conduit embedded six feet under the sea floor to facilitate electricity to the mainland will distinctly -- for some species it may displace -- destroy a very delicate ecosystem and its abiotic constituents; it can take thousands of years for ecological processes to mature, and yet hastily destroyed with projects like Cape Wind. Furthermore, any claim that Cape Wind will ensure that natural sites could be restored if the wind farms were ever shut down would be preposterous.
Beyond the ecology, it is easy for folks like Secretary Salazar, who may have never experienced simple things like fishing, boating, or who may have never seen the breathtaking and unusual beauty of Nantucket Sound or its beaches, to perceive, as Ken Burns has expressed, that written descriptions are sometimes assumed to be works of fiction.
So, it is as naturalist Paul Brook wrote in “The Art of Seeing Nature: How much we see depends on what we bring to the encounter,” and in “The Pursuit of Wilderness: We shall never understand the natural environment until we see it as a living organism.”
a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)