Nuclear Weapons Are Serious Business

Posted: February 1, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 1 Comment

You may be aware that the United States Air Force is investigating cheating by as many as 92 officers on proficiency exams given to Air Force missileers responsible for our nation’s Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force.  That is 92 out of approximately 500 in the force, or nearly twenty percent.  This is serious business on many levels.

In the way of a little background let me say that I have never been in the United States Air Force.  I was a Navy officer.  I also will point out that it has been too many years since I was in the service so I can no longer speak authoritatively on current practices.  I did however, along with my shipmates throughout the crew on several of the warships I served on, have to go through proficiency tests to certify our ability to carry, and if necessary, use nuclear weapons.  (I can neither confirm nor deny that any of those ships actually carried such weapons.  Whether or not we actually carried them, the certification process was the same.)

Thus it was surprising, if not shocking, to read a quote from Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James stating that the cheating scandal appears to have its root cause in the nature of the work which creates “undo stress and fear.”   Really? Doesn’t that come with the territory?   (The entire transcript of her remarks may be found here.)

To be fair, there are a couple of points to be made.  Secretary James was only confirmed as Secretary a little over two weeks ago.  She is likely still learning the job.  Additionally, as I understand it her remarks about stress and fear were directed not at the job itself (the destruction of the world can be stressful after all) but at the command atmosphere surrounding the units that they are in.  In other words, the importance of the test was so high that if they did not get a perfect score — not merely passing, but a perfect score — then they feared they could be fired from the job or not recommended for promotion.   Well, yeah.  That’s how it’s always been, at least in my experience with the Navy.  The deal with nuclear weapons is that nothing short of perfection will do.  That is the basis of the “trust but verify” motto (which comes out of the Navy’s nuclear power program and not from Ronald Reagan who borrowed it).

The standards are very high — just as they should be.  She is quoted as saying; “I heard repeatedly that the system can be very punitive, come down very hard in the case of even small, minor issues that crop up.”  She goes on to say; “I believe that a very terrible irony in this whole situation is that these missileers didn’t cheat to pass, they cheated because they felt driven to get 100 percent.  Getting 90 percent or 95 percent was considered a failure in their eyes.”  I am not sure if she is saying that “good enough” is okay with nuclear weapons or not.  It seems that if there is one area that everything needs to be perfect, it is with nuclear weapons.  I should point out that I am not talking about mistakes during training.  Training is undertaken under very controlled circumstances and never with actual weapons.  I am talking about proficiency testing — the stressful but necessary certification process to make sure there are no mistakes.

Over the course of my career I saw some good officers fail for promotion because of minor mistakes in their certification process.  Indeed, it sometimes seemed that the performance evaluations of the inspectors themselves depended upon how many ships they could fail in an inspection and they went at it with a vengeance.  This could rightly be an area of discussion — what should the standards be or what do they need to be in order to protect the arsenal?  That is a reasonable area to debate.  However, once those standards are established, they must be met if we are serious about continuing a very impressive safety record in this area.

To help put it into perspective, recall that then Secretary of Defense Gates fired the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force in 2007 when an Air Force B-52 flew cross-country with nuclear weapons onboard that the crew did not know were real.  He obviously thought that it was a serious business and I would have thought that the rest of the force would get the picture following that incident.

I do not want to jump too quickly to any conclusions.  The inquiry into the incident is just getting underway and I have no first hand knowledge of how serious the situation may have been or exactly what part of the proficiency tests were compromised.   None-the-less, I keep coming back to this thought:  What part of maintaining and employing our land based nuclear deterrent is not serious business?

I suppose that Secretary James was trying to make the rest of us feel better when she said;  “I want to reassure everybody again that this is the failure of integrity on the part of certain airmen.  It was not a failure of the mission.”  Somehow, that doesn’t make me feel better.  The success of the mission starts with the integrity of those carrying it out.

A Disappointing State of Affairs

Posted: February 1, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 3 Comments

While watching the news reports building up to the Super Bowl and the Olympics in Sochi Russia, I was struck by the fact that if one accounts for the difference in language, I was looking at the same picture.

That picture was one of police, soldiers, and others in flak jackets, carrying automatic weapons, with over head air support, on the water boat support, canine units, fences, high-resolution cameras and monitors, heat sensing devices, hazardous material detectors and on and on.  Russia and the United States were the same — a difficult pill to swallow for this former cold warrior.  It made me more than a little disappointed that the visuals were indistinguishable.  Turn off the sound to the television and I would be hard pressed to know which one was which.

Don’t misunderstand me and think that I am saying that our countries are the same.  Likewise it is obvious that events over the last fifteen to twenty years have caused many nations to institute a nearly universal effort to defend their citizens with an abundance of concern about security.  In this day and age, no one can be “against” security.  The common knowledge is that “soft” targets are more likely to be hit than “hard” targets and if nothing else, the appearance of strength may deter a terrorist (or criminal) act.  I suppose it is necessary and I understand it.

It still makes me a little sad.  In the halcyon days of the mid-1980s I taught a college course that included an examination of the roots and elements of terrorism.  One of the maxims is that terrorists are working to change society and that the use of terror as a weapon is the tool to do so.  In so many respects, our society has changed as a result of the threat of terrorism.  Compare our large public events from twenty or thirty years ago with those of today.  For that matter, compare almost any public gathering today compared with twenty years ago.  No longer do we go care-free to a large sporting event such as the Super Bowl.  Instead we undergo the kind of scrutiny once reserved for getting into the most secure of secret installations.  I am not entirely convinced that everything we do these days in the name of “security” is necessary or even effective.  In some respects certain measures are  more for the psychological impact they create in order to make people “feel” safer.  If I was a little more cynical I would suggest that some of the measures are only instituted to cover the authorities should something happen — they can then argue that they did everything possible — whether or not it actually makes any real difference to our degree of safety.

I know there is no turning back.  I still don’t have to like it.

Why Is This Necessary?

Posted: January 29, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 2 Comments

On Tuesday President Obama reported on the State of the Union to a joint session of Congress and to the American people.  It was his fifth since being elected (traditionally the first speech given by a president, when it occurs, is an “annual message” rather than the “State of the Union” since they just took office days before the speech, so this is his sixth such speech).  Following his speech, the Republican Party offered their rebuttal to the president.   Why is this necessary?  Why does the party not holding the presidency always have to have “equal time” to present their political viewpoint when the president’s speech is fulfilling an official obligation of the office?

Article II, section 3 of the United States Constitution states that “He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”  (Of course the founding fathers could never imagine that the president might one day be a woman, since women did not get the right to vote until 1920, thus the “he” reference concerning the president.)

The Constitution does not say anything about the party or parties not in power having the obligation, or even the right, to follow what is a Constitutionally proscribed event with a requirement of their own.  This has been ongoing for years, for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been a staple of televised State of the Union addresses since 1966.  But why does it have to continue?

Indeed, the president does not even have to make a speech to a joint session of Congress to deliver his message.  As many of you may know, George Washington did so, but starting with Thomas Jefferson, most presidents sent an annual letter to meet the requirement.   Woodrow Wilson revived the custom of actually speaking before a joint session, and it was solidified under Franklin Roosevelt in its current form.

My question remains, however, as to why the “other” party must be given air time on national television to give a scripted rebuttal to a speech that they do not directly address, as the rebuttal is written prior to the original speech being delivered.

This year there was not even a unified rebuttal.  The “official” Republican response was delivered nearly immediately after President Obama finished by Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) in English.  A nearly identical “official” speech was given by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FLA) in Spanish.   (I am sure that the choices were merely a coincidence and had nothing to do with the perception that the Republicans have lost voters among women and Hispanics in recent years.)  Additional “rebuttals” were given by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT).  Senator Paul’s speech was “his own” (and pre-recorded) — coincidentally he will undoubtedly run for president in 2016 — and Senator Lee’s response was the “official” Tea Party position.

It all makes for great political theater and provides employment for the various analysts and strategists employed by the networks, media outlets and political campaigns.  So in that way, I guess that makes them all “job creators.”

I just wish that all that “speechifying” was useful.  Can’t they actually talk to each other?

Puhleeze!

Posted: January 21, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 4 Comments

It struck me today while reading the Washington Post print edition that our Congress may be even more under-handed than I thought.  I doubt that it was the editors’ intent to do so, but in just the “A” section of the paper there were numerous articles, editorials and opinion pieces that when put together show just how self-centered and narrow-minded some members of Congress can be.  While arguing for smaller government, reduced spending, and the elimination or reduction of various government agencies, the omnibus spending bill that just passed was full of what used to be called “pork”.   Since the current rules of the House and Senate eliminate anything that resembles good old-fashioned bring-home-the-bacon pork barrel spending, they are now called “add-ons” or “specialized programs” or prohibitions for eliminating programs that benefit specific Congressional districts.

Here is a short list of some of these dubious exploits outlined in today’s paper.  It is hardly exhaustive and does not include everything a casual look at the news will reveal.

The 605.7 billion dollar Department of Defense (DOD) budget (over half of the total 1.1 trillion dollar total budget) is riddled with unwanted and unnecessary spending mandated by Congress, as highlighted by Walter Pincus in his piece in today’s paper.  The money comes by shifting money from the “base” DOD budget to the Operational Contingency Operations (OCO) fund.  The OCO fund is outside the regular budget and is not part of the agreement.  It is intended to be used to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but through accounting sleight of hand moving funds around, billions of dollars become available for “special projects” while being able to trumpet the savings to the base budget which does not directly reflect all of these expenditures.  Much of that spending is unwanted, unrequested and only minimally related to achieving the military’s mission or desired spending levels.

In an article about the United State Postal Service (USPS) which has come under withering criticism from the Congress for its increasing debt, we find that the USPS is trying to sell off surplus post offices but is being prohibited from doing so by House members until a study by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is completed.  Remember that the USPS tried to change delivery days to Monday through Friday — dropping Saturday delivery to save money — and was prohibited from doing so by the Congress.

As explained on the editorial page, Congress is considering a “tax extenders bill” to continue specific tax exemptions or tax breaks for special interests for everything from Puerto Rican rum to auto race tracks.  Historically, there are no increased revenue sources nor spending off-sets from other parts of the budget to pay for these special exemptions.  Yet, the proposed extension of added unemployment benefits is held up by those that insist it cannot be passed without corresponding reductions to “pay for it” in other areas.

Despite the chemical spill in West Virginia that contaminated the water supply for hundreds of thousands for over a week, many in Congress still want to eliminate or severely inhibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

I could go on.  This was only in a few pages of one paper today.  Puhleeze!  Spare me!  Enough!

This is the same Congress that has members that want to do away with or at least limit unemployment benefits, significantly reduce SNAP (food stamps), reduce the Cost of Living (COLA) payments to veterans, and on and on.

By focusing on the deficit and deficit reduction, some members have put their energy on the wrong issue.  While there is little criticism of trying to get spending under control, the real issue is where the money is spent and how effective it is in achieving the intended result.  Focusing only on dollar amounts and screaming about debt limits does little to enhance the effectiveness of government in achieving those things that can only be done on the scale needed to get at root problems.  And it does not help their credibility as they continue to add pork barrel spending while the demagoguery continues about too much spending.

I understand that some of the spending outlined above is about the give and take of doing business in our government following many,  many years of doing business in that way.  Sometimes these “add-ons” grease the wheels of progress towards larger issues.  I get that.

My problem is the callous deceit and phony-baloney lecturing about getting spending under control by focusing on spending on social issues while at the same time inflating spending in order to satisfy special interests that support their re-election.

While this is nothing new, I suppose, I have just grown tired of all of the posturing and self-righteousness that has no actual meaning.  Governing our country is a messy business and politics are a necessary part of it.  What I miss is a clear vision for the country and demonstrable leadership that extends beyond parochial interests or self-promotion.

One cannot be a “leader” in name only.  It must be demonstrated and focused towards a definable goal that contributes to society.

Where are the leaders?

Here We Go Again

Posted: January 15, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Yesterday there was another school shooting.  This one was in a middle school in New Mexico.  This is the thirty-third shooting of one kind or another at a school since the 14 December 2012 massacre of twenty children and six adults at Newtown, Connecticut.

Even the Russians cannot believe what is happening with gun violence in the United States.

It is impossible for me to accept that nobody cares enough to do something about it.  Turning our schools into armed fortresses is not the answer.

There is an epidemic of gun violence that needs to be addressed.

What Does Our Nation Want?

Posted: January 7, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 3 Comments

For it’s Tommy this an’ Tommy that, and “Chuck ‘im out the brute!”

But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot,

An’ it’s Tommy this an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please,

Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!

— From “Tommy” by Rudyard Kipling

Before breaking for the holiday recess, the House and Senate both approved The Ryan-Murray Budget Compromise Act of 2013.  The bill creates the framework for budget issues for the next two years and is designed to eliminate the partisan in-fighting that caused our nation to lurch from “fiscal cliff to fiscal cliff” and reached its zenith (or nadir depending on one’s view) with the government shutdown last fall.

To many, the compromise is a good news/bad news piece of legislation.  The good news is that the Congress promises to do its fundamental job — authorize and appropriate funds for the functioning of government.  The bad news is that it does not take on any of the difficult fiscal challenges facing our nation.  Except one.  The Act includes a provision to decrease the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) for military retirees that are younger than 62 every year until they reach that age.  Beginning in December 2015, every serving military person and retiree under age 62 will be impacted.  The reasoning was that personnel costs are allegedly escalating out of control and eating up too much of the Pentagon’s budget.  The “entitlements” (more on that later) that retired military personnel are receiving are “out of control,” or so the reasoning goes, and therefore the military services cannot properly finance and build modern equipment or even provide proper training for currently serving forces.  The sequester and other budget cuts, of course, have nothing to do with it.  Apparently, needing people to man the new equipment has nothing to do with it either because if those people do not feel that they are being properly treated, then they will leave.

In  the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am a twenty-eight year veteran of the Navy and my spouse is a twenty year veteran.  Depending on what source you look at, the impact of the change to COLA is minimal or will have a major financial impact on those leaving the service following their retirement.  Plenty has been written on that, including editorials from major news organizations that it is a “minor” inconvenience and the rebuttals from veterans groups that it is a “major” breach of faith.

I do not intend to get into the dollars and cents arguments.  I intend to take a different view as to what it all does, or at least could, mean.  First however, I would like to take issue with two points often made in defense of the Congressional action.  One is that the military, especially retirees, have too many “entitlements” and that it is not fair to the rest of the citizenry since the pension model used by the military is “antiquated” and not in keeping with current business practices.

Let’s be clear, the military, active or retired, receives no, zero, nada, zilch in the way of “entitlements.”  They do have a benefit package that is designed to keep people in the military for twenty years or more.  Look at it as an attempt to keep people around in order to get a return on the investment spent in training and equipping those people to be the best fighting force in the world.  Additionally, regardless of “best business practices”, the last time I looked the military was not a business.  Trying to compare it to any corporation fundamentally shows a complete lack of understanding about what the life of a service member is like.

The second point is that many argue that in times of tough financial decisions, everyone must do their “fair share.”  I note that the Congress chose to only put the fair share burden on folks that have literally offered to lay down their lives for the rest of the country.  After twelve years of war, the only sacrifice asked of the citizens of the United States that are not in uniform or have family members in uniform is to…. is to…. is to….. On second thought I cannot think of a single sacrifice asked of the rest of the country to support the war effort, other than President Bush encouraging people to show the courage to go to the mall and carry on with their normal lives and to spend money to keep the economy going.  I think that service members have already done their “fair share.”

However, I would like to take a different approach to the questions, and get to the real point of this piece.  The United States must decide what kind of military it wants to have as we move through the twenty-first century.  Whereas I am not claiming that there are no economies to be had in the way that the leadership in the Pentagon currently spends money, I am saying that a global fighting force able to reach anywhere in the world and succeed does not come cheaply.  To train and equip a force with the capabilities that we currently possess, and to succeed in the endeavors the American people think important, is expensive.  That expense includes paying service members a wage that allows them to take care of their families and it includes providing benefits that entice combat experienced and well-trained leaders, officer and enlisted, to stay in for a career.  As my former boss RADM Wayne E. Meyer would say in terms of desired capabilities to be built into warships, “she costs what she costs.”  In other words, if you want a given capability it is going to cost a certain amount.  If you do not want to spend that money, then you will not get the capability.

Among other proposals percolating through the halls of the Pentagon is one that is oft touted in editorials and opinion pieces.  That is to do away with the current retirement system and move to a “401-K type” system where service members essentially pay for their own retirement (with some matching funds from the government), are invested after their initial commitment, can leave at any time with some retirement income, and regardless of years served, no one can draw upon it until age 62.  The details are to be worked out, but all of us are probably in similar plans so we understand the basic concept.

If such a plan is adopted, you will see the slow destruction of our military.  Let’s think about this.  Take a typical mid-grade officer or senior enlisted.  They have about 8-10 years experience and the nation has invested a lot of money in training them and equipping them to be the best in the world.  They likely have a wife (or husband) and two children, with the promise of more on the way.  Why in the world would they risk their lives by going off to Afghanistan or Iraq or some other foreign land for a year at a time, every other year, to get shot at and possibly killed or maimed for life when we offer them the same retirement plan as the neighbor who has a nine to five job, comes home every night to his family, and does not risk his life on a continuing basis?  Most people do not join the military for the money.  Some will stay on because of a sense of duty and because they enjoy the camaraderie, adventure and excitement or some other personal motivation.  Young people are young people and there is much appeal in joining the military.  As many of us know, however, when we start to get older and take on the responsibilities of a family, our priorities often change and with that would inevitably come a re-evaluation of making a career in the military.  Thus, given continued recruiting efforts,  we would probably have sufficient numbers of new recruits to fill the ranks (I for one never thought about retirement benefits when I first entered the Navy), but at some point we will begin to lose our mid-grade leaders that are vital to effectively leading troops into battle and on missions of high importance.

If we truly want to save money, go back to the draft.  It would also create the “citizen army” that many think we ought to have in the first place.  But it would not be the same fighting force we have today.  I served in the era of the draft, but thankfully most of my service was in the all volunteer force (AVF).  With no disrespect to those that served during the draft, many of whom were great soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, the AVF is across the board a far more professional force capable of the successes our nation has had since its implementation.  The citizen in me thinks a draft is a good idea, but the professional sailor that I was knows that the AVF was far and away a better idea.  However, it does not come cheaply and thus my point, the nation must decide what kind of military it wants and then be willing to pay for it.

In the post-Vietnam era, many administrations (Republican and Democrat) have taken the approach that we need to keep our technical and technological edge and thus money for the military should be spent on research, development and procurement of “things.”  Cut people because they are expensive and we can always get people when we need them, or so the theories go.  Time and again we forget that it takes people to operate that equipment and to actually go in harm’s way and that if they are not properly trained, and just as importantly, experienced, then our nation has wasted a lot of money on equipment that cannot be used to its full potential — not to mention the lives that are lost until we figure it out.

If we want a “citizen army” of conscripts augmenting a small core of neglected professionals in time of war (the model our nation used until the Korean War) then so be it.  However, we cannot be a major player in world affairs today with that type of military.

Undoubtedly there are areas of savings within the military budget that can help the nation reel in some of its expenditures and get back on a firm financial footing.  There are probably areas where retirees can contribute more, but without giving the impression that the nation is reneging on its contract with those willing to risk their lives.  Note that the budget compromise impacts no other group with a contract with America.  No changes to Medicaid, Social Security or other citizen-government agreements.  I would speculate that they chose military retirees because they “had to do something” to show they are trying to reign in expenses, but figured that since by one account only 0.45% of Americans serve in the military now (as opposed to 11.2% in World War II and 4.3% during the Korean War), they would be facing a very small group of citizens pushing back on their decision.  Most people just are not impacted, aware, or care.

My basic point remains.  Regardless of the dollar amounts or motivations of Congress, the real issue is not how much retirees should be paid.  Rather it is more fundamental.  What kind of military does the nation want?  What do we think our place in the world will be or should be?  Do financial constraints take precedence over being a world military power?  Is military power even relevant anymore?  These are the questions that should be answered first, and then we find out what “she costs.”


		



		
		

	
A Sad Anniversary

	Posted: December 13, 2013 | Author:  | Filed under: Uncategorized  | Tags: , ,   | 1 Comment
	
Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the sad events in Newtown Connecticut where twenty children and six adults were murdered in Sandy Hook Elementary School.  In this post I do not intend to get into a wide discussion about the pros and cons of gun ownership or gun control.  Although I have definite opinions on necessary changes to current gun laws, it is a topic for a different time as emotion often clouds everyone’s discussion of the issue.  I will only say this for now — gun violence is a plague on our nation that must be addressed.  Since that awful day Congress has passed only one piece of legislation related to guns.  That legislation continues a ban on “plastic” guns, basically those that are deemed undetectable in metal detectors.


I do not buy the facile arguments as to why the United States has such a high incidence of gun violence.  Arguments that it is mental health, violent video games or movies, American attitudes in general and countless other stated reasons do not resonate with me.  Indeed, some or all of those reasons may be part of the problem, but in my mind they cannot be the only reasons behind the illegal and murderous use of guns.  My simple logic says that nations like us — Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and others — have mentally ill people, watch the same movies, play the same games and on and on and do not have anywhere near the incidence of gun violence found in this country.  Those countries also have hunters and sports shooters and yes, criminals, yet there are significantly less incidents of murder by guns in those countries.


It would be helpful to study the issue in a non-partisan, unemotional way.  There have been studies, and indeed earlier this year the president asked the Center for Disease Control to review the existing studies to look for patterns.  Unfortunately the CDC cannot do their own reearch because in 1996 Congress passed a law pushed by the National Rifle Association banning CDC funding for any research to “advocate or promote gun control.”  While this technically does not prohibit all research on gun issues, it has had the effect of severely restricting studies of this topic as those providing funding and doing the research are concerned about the repercussions.


It seems to me that rather than arguing over what the Second Amendment does or does not mean, we should first all recognize that there is a problem in this country concerning the illegal use of guns.  Perhaps before we get into arguments over whether or how to control access to guns, there should be a “clean piece of paper” study by leading researchers, properly funded and free of political or lobby pressure to see how and why we are the only “civilized” country in the world with such a high level of gun violence.  Perhaps then we can begin to confront the problem.


As this awful anniversary comes upon us, please take a moment to remember the families of those we lost that terrible day.

		



		
		

	
The Passing of a Lion

	Posted: December 10, 2013 | Author:  | Filed under: Uncategorized  | Tags: , , ,   | Leave a comment
	
The life of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was celebrated today in South Africa at the memorial service for him following his death on 5 December.   There is little that I can add to the many deserving accolades pouring in from leaders around the world or that I can add to the celebration of his life by ordinary South Africans.  Still, we should note in his passing that greatness has left our world.  There is much that we can learn from this man and given the state of politics in this country, I hope that our government leaders pause to appreciate the way that he lived his life and then apply some of that positive outlook and leadership in their own lives.


Given the post-colonial history of Africa, it is amazing that the evolution of South Africa as a nation has unfolded as it has.  We may tend to forget over the years just how evil the policy of apartheid actually was and how it played out in the daily life of most black South Africans.  Yet, through Nelson Mandela (and the foresight of his co-winner of the Nobel Peace Price, former President F.W. de Klerk) the transition to a true democracy with a duly elected government took place without revolution or civil war.  Take a closer look and think about what that means, especially in the context of all other similar transitions of power from one group to another throughout much of Africa and the world.  Simply amazing, and a true testament to his leadership and to his positive outlook in making his country better.


South Africa today has many problems.  A number of them are serious and many black South Africans have yet to gain the economic where-with-all to improve the quality of their lives.   However, the country is on the right path and the opportunities now exist where there were none before his release from 27 years as a political prisoner in 1990.  The subsequent negotiations with the existing government led to the end of apartheid and free  elections resulting in his rise to president in 1994 and creating a new South Africa.  He became a symbol of hope and endeared himself to the vast majority of his countrymen, black and white, through his example of kindness, reconciliation and reunion rather than bitterness, revenge and divisiveness.


Let us also not forget that average citizens in the United States and elsewhere in the world played a significant part in ensuring his release from prison and to the end of apartheid.  Throughout the 1980’s and early 1990’s South Africa was a pariah on the world stage.  The country was banned from many international venues and events as a result of pressure from average citizens on their governments.  Foremost among the pressures brought to bear were the protests in the U.S. that moved our government to impose increasingly harsh economic sanctions on South Africa.  Additionally, consumers and investors brought increasing pressure against corporations to break all ties with South Africa.  It worked, even if it took Republicans and Democrats together in the Senate and the House to come together to over ride President Ronald Reagan’s veto and pass the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986 that codified sanctions on South Africa until concrete steps were taken to lift apartheid and bring true democracy to the country.


Nelson Mandela will be long remembered for more than being the first black president of South Africa.  He should be remembered for his life-long struggle to do what he thought was right without losing his humanity or hating his enemies.  When he left prison he said, “As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn’t leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I’d still be in prison.”


There are many lessons to be learned from this lion’s life.

		



		
		

	
Who Keeps the Secrets?

	Posted: November 7, 2013 | Author:  | Filed under: Uncategorized  | Tags: , , , ,   | 2 Comments
	


Since last summer, much has been said and written about the National Security Agency (NSA) and the release of sensitive information through the actions of Edward Snowden, the disaffected contract employee in the Hawaiian division of the agency.  Some argue that he is a whistleblower, or a “hero” for exposing the extent of NSA operations.  Others call him a “traitor” or an egomaniac out for his own purposes.  I tend to gravitate towards the latter.


In studying why people spy, or betray their country, or otherwise do harm to their nation’s security, old-time analysts refer to the motivation as being a result of MICE.   That is, Money, Ideology, Coercion, or Ego are the prime motivators.  Usually it only takes one, but sometimes it is a combination of things.  Obviously I have no idea what motivated Edward Snowden because I have never talked with him.  However, based on his actions and pronouncements via news sources, it seems to me that he is pretty full of himself, regardless of his stated intentions.  It appears that he thinks that he and he alone, can best determine what may or may not be in the best interests of the United States and his fellow citizens.  That to me takes a huge ego.  Further evidence of the ego involved comes from the fact that he has not released all of the information in one grand action.  Rather, he is letting it out in bits and pieces, apparently to keep his name at the forefront of the furor he has created.


More importantly, now that the information is out there, and we as citizens as well as those of other nations are aware of the extent of the collection capabilities of the NSA, the question becomes one of whether it is right to do all of things that Snowden’s revelations indicate are being done.  Henry Stimson, Herbert Hoover’s Secretary of State, is to have famously said, “Gentlemen do not read each others mail.”  This came after he learned of the “Black Chamber” or a combined U.S. Army and State Department cryptanalysis effort started following World War I.  (He later had a totally different viewpoint of such activity when he became the Secretary of War during World War II.)


Such a hands off approach, then or now, is disingenuous to me.  Of course nations need to gather intelligence, even in times of peace and about our friends.  The real question is how does a nation, especially the United States, balance the need for collecting such information with the freedoms that we hold dear in our country?  There is a saying that “the price of safety is eternal vigilance” and surely we cannot be naive enough not to understand that there are people and nations that wish us harm.  At the same time, we do have laws that govern what may and may not be done in the name of that vigilance.


I am not entirely comfortable with the system of checks and balances that have been instituted under the law to protect our rights to privacy.  The courts and Congressional over sight are not foolproof, but I think that despite my qualms, they are sufficient to ensure our basic freedoms.  While no system is perfect, and serious inquiry into how well it is working is welcomed, in fact it is a necessary part of our warning systems to protect our nation from harm.


I am not a “whatever it takes” kind of person when it comes to securing our nation.  If all of the safety and security people had their way we would all be lined up in little plastic cocoons with no danger of hurting ourselves or others.  Our basic way of life is fraught with risks.  Indeed, our form of government is fraught with risks.  It seems that every time something “bad” happens a new program, requirement, or system is installed and everyone is subjected to the same scrutiny, whether or not the odds of it ever happening again are very high, whether or not the danger is real, and whether or not the impact of that activity is very substantive.  Some of these new procedures and requirements in the name of safety and security are not always better, or even very good, ideas.


Thus our current dilemma continues.  What is in the best interest of our national security while preserving the ability to know that what should be private remains private?   I am somewhat distressed at the protests over the NSA activities (which by the way, by law, cannot be conducted against U.S. citizens without court approval) compared with the nonchalant acceptance of Google, or Facebook or Amazon learning every thing there is to know about your habits, likes, dislikes, etc. etc.  I daresay that those internet companies know a lot more about individual Americans than the NSA could ever hope to know.  I for one am significantly less comfortable with the information collected by businesses of all types in the daily transactions of existence, and what they do with that information, than I am with the NSA.


Let Edward Snowden be a warning not only about the capabilities of the NSA in collecting data, but perhaps in even stronger terms, let it be a warning of what takes place in our everyday world on behalf of businesses and other non-governmental organizations in the name of “convenience” as we live our lives.

		



		
		

	
Parental Discretion Advised

	Posted: October 31, 2013 | Author:  | Filed under: Uncategorized  | Tags: , , ,   | Leave a comment
	
While it made the national news, it was even bigger news in the area where I live.  It seems that Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler was photographed at a “Beach Week” celebration last summer.  For those not from the mid-Atlantic states, Beach Week is the post high school graduation tradition of renting a beach house on the Delaware or Maryland shore and “partying” to celebrate the end of high school.  I’m sure there are similar exploits in other parts of the country even if the name is different.  According to Mr. Gansler, he was there to pass on some information to his son who was a part of the gathering.  The problem is that it is highly likely (especially when one looks at the pictures) that significant underage drinking was taking place.  Back to that in a minute.


You should also know that Mr. Gansler is running for the Democrat’s nomination for governor of Maryland and a number of unusual anecdotes and stories about him have been appearing in the news lately.  His supporters claim it is a “dirty tricks” campaign from his primary opponent, the current Lieutenant Governor.  I do not intend to get into the politics of the situation, but in the name of full disclosure, that is probably how this issue came to the public’s attention in the first place.


The real question to me is the role of parents in supervising their children and what they allow and do not allow them to do.  For now I will ignore the fact that Mr. Gansler is the senior law enforcement officer for the state of Maryland and that underage drinking is against the law.  (He claims that he did not know such activity was going on and that regardless, he had no jurisdiction in Delaware.)


So the question remains, what was his role as a parent?  This issue came up in my own neighborhood this past summer.  It became apparent to some in our neighborhood that underage drinking was occurring on some community owned property (basically a park).  The Home Owner’s Association wanted to put an end to the activity and proposed hiring off-duty police officers to randomly patrol the area on likely “party” nights.  Seemed like a good idea — not!  I could not believe (or understand) the reaction from a vociferous portion of the neighborhood (many with teenage children) in strong opposition to hiring anyone to patrol the area.  The arguments against it broke down to two major objections.


First, the police would “hassle” their children.  I was appalled that the initial reaction of parents would be that the primary focus of the police is to make life hard on their kids.  Trying to present the fact that community policing efforts actually enhance the relationship between the police and neighborhoods and their residents (everyone gets to know everyone and incidents go way down, and those that do occur are de-fused quietly).  No!  The police, the argument went, would be out to “get” their kids.  Hmmm.  Pointing out that if their kids were doing nothing wrong there would be no reason for them to interact with the off-duty officers and thus there would be no “hassling”  was also rejected,  That is when the light went on for me.  I realized that the parents in opposition were actually talking in code.


Thus the second and more important of their arguments dawned on me.  The code words were “safe” “experiment” “learn from their mistakes” “blow off some steam” and others like them.  In other words, some of the most vociferous parents knew (or would rather not be confronted with the fact) that their kids were partaking in underage drinking.  Ahhhh.  Now I get it.  When asked about drinking and driving, vandalism, accidentally falling down and hurting themselves, or some unwanted physical activity the response was always that our kids are “good kids” and would never do anything like that.


In the end the community did not hire the off-duty officers and the opposition parents formed a committee to check on the area at night.


Thus Mr. Gansler’s actions or inactions become relevant.  What is a parent’s responsibility when it comes to underage drinking?  I’ve found that many parents take the approach that it will happen anyway and so they would rather it happen in a controlled (“safe”) environment and thus those parents condone it.  To me, that is a short-sighted outlook.  Besides instilling in their children the idea that they do not have to follow the law, those parents are opening themselves up to the possibility of tremendous heart-break.  There are just way too many stories of high school and college underage drinkers hurting themselves or others or partaking in sexual activities that all regret (or bring charges forward) afterwards or some other life changing event.


Many parents want to be “popular” and allow it.  Probably more accurately many parents want to give their children the freedom to learn from their own experiences including the “mistakes” that they make.  Give them their independence.  I’m all for that — but there are limits to a teenager’s level of experience and more importantly, limits to their judgement.  That’s where the parent needs to step in and prevent something awful from happening.  In our neighborhood, warnings such as those were considered some kind of disparagement of their children and greatly resented.  In Mr. Gansler’s case he argued that he had no responsibility for other parent’s children, only his own who, he said, he knew was not drinking.


Look.  I made my share of mistakes when I was young. as most of us did.  But mine were certainly never condoned, much less encouraged, by my parents.  I’ve also had my share of “learning experiences” raising our son, but he understood that underage drinking was a serious problem that would not be tolerated.


Parenting is hard — perhaps the toughest and most important job that any of us will ever undertake.  The use of alcohol by minors is a problem and is not an issue that parents can abdicate.  While I’m sure he would rather this never become an issue to him, especially on a national level, I thank Mr. Gansler for creating a national dialogue on the dangers of underage drinking and a parent’s responsibility in dealing with it.

		



		
		

			
← Older Entries

			
Newer Entries →