Protecting First Amendment Rights

Posted: April 12, 2016 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

— First Amendment to the Constitution

I must admit that I am somewhat baffled by the string of new laws passed by various state legislatures pretending to protect religious beliefs as they pertain to same-sex marriage and to the LGBT community. Rightfully, several governors vetoed the work done in their legislatures, but others did not and signed them into law.  Taking it one step further, Tennessee passed a law making the Bible the official state book. (As of this writing, it is unclear whether the governor will veto or sign the bill.) In most, if not all, of these cases, legislators claim that religion is under attack.  In fact, they really mean that in their view, conservative Christianity is under attack.  If they felt that “religion” was under attack they would decry Mr. Donald Trump’s and Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas) proposals to ban all Muslims from entering the United States and to spy on those already here.  That is certainly a threat to Muslims practicing their religion.

So why do they feel that way?  The short answer is that I cannot pretend to know what is in their hearts. I will say this, however. I am a practicing Catholic with close ties to my local parish and in no way do I feel that my religion or my ability to practice it is in any kind of danger.  And Catholics know something about being discriminated against for their religion. Without going into a lengthy history lesson, let me remind you that Catholics in most of the original thirteen colonies were widely discriminated against, especially in matters of property, voting or holding office.  Even after the Revolution many of them had prohibitions against Catholics holding office, or requirements for them to denounce their religion before they could hold office. Other religions were equally mistreated.  With the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, freedom of religion as provided in the First Amendment became the law of the land, but it did not preclude suspicion and  intolerance of Catholics which carried into the Twentieth Century and included anti-Catholic criminal acts by the Ku Klux Klan. Some of that sentiment was a carry over from the Reformation.  Much of it centered on immigrants, especially from Germany and Ireland.  Other manifestations centered on a belief that American Catholics, if given a chance, would turn the country over to the Pope in Rome.  In my lifetime I remember the anti-Catholic sentiment directed at John F. Kennedy as he ran for president leading him to make a major speech that certified his loyalty to the United States rather than to the Pope.  There is more, but you get the idea.

So, yeah, I will say it again, I know a little something about “attacks on religion” and I most definitely do not feel that I am under attack.

I do feel that the separation of church and state ratified in the Constitution is under attack. State legislators, and those that support them, seem to feel that the government is forcing them to do something evil by treating LGBT folks as they themselves would want to be treated.  I will say up front, again, that I do not know what is in their hearts or the sincerity of their beliefs, I just fail to see the logic behind the idea that if one serves a same-sex couple a cake that one will then burn in hell. Just like I am not a Constitutional scholar, I am also not a theologian, but I have read the Bible (cover to cover — not bragging, just saying most people I know only read excerpts of it) and I do not see anything about serving cakes to same-sex couples.  I also do not understand the belief that by doing so, one condones the same-sex marriage.  By serving divorced people does one condone divorce?  By serving atheists does one condone atheism?  Of course not, especially since there is nothing to condone, condemn or otherwise get one’s knickers in a knot over.  It’s nobody’s business.

Some argue that the real issue is “protecting” young girls from predatory men in bathrooms. Thus the laws state that one must use the bathrooms designated for use based on one’s birth sex. Besides wondering how that will be enforced, because there is no use in passing a law if it will not be enforced (bathroom police?  which gives a whole new meaning to “drop ’em mister”), I see that issue as a smoke screen to hide much more ominous provisions of those laws that can lead directly to unabashed discrimination under the claim of religious freedom.

The heart of the First Amendment regarding religion is the Establishment Clause.  As interpreted and accepted as law, it is not only the idea that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also that it cannot pass any law that favors one religion over another and cannot pass laws that favor religion over non-religion or vice versa.  In that context, laws created ostensibly to allow religious tolerance can easily become religious intolerance laws as they push the tenets of one religion over others.

I also do not buy the “slippery slope” arguments used by some.  Serving cake to a same-sex couple is not going to result in the eventuality of the government forcing clergy to marry everyone or anyone in their community.  We will have much bigger problems to contend with prior to reaching that point.  It isn’t going to happen.

It seems that in the context of civility and mutual respect that we could survive in a “live and let live” world without having to pass laws over who does or does not get served based on one’s personal religious beliefs. Discrimination is discrimination, however one tries to justify it.

Same-sex marriage is now a reality in the United States and other countries.  With the Supreme Court decision in 2015 in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriages receive equal protection under the law. One may agree or disagree with the decision, but it is what it is and efforts to circumvent the decision by using state laws under the cover of religious tolerance is in my view an abuse of power, and I suspect, will also be shown to be un-constitutional.

I try to understand the real motivation behind such laws.  I am sure there are many that are truly concerned from a religious stand point.  (Which of course assumes that LGBT people are not religious, which is no more true than that all straight people are religious.)  More probably, I think that some of the legislators are really trying to score political points with their constituents.  By that I do not mean that they have listened to the religious concerns of those constituents.  I think instead they are really reacting to what they consider an “out of control” federal government and Supreme Court. They are really trying to show that they will not “tolerate” directions from a “godless” Obama administration.  And they have succeeded — they are ably demonstrating just how intolerant they are.

Happy New Year and Good Luck in 2016

Posted: December 31, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 1 Comment

As 2015 comes to a close, I wish each of you a wonderful new year in 2016 and hope that our country comes through the coming elections in better shape than what I fear may be the case given our experience over this past year.

I am normally an optimistic, the glass is half-full kind of guy, but I am discouraged by the political discourse of the last few months.  I am concerned that it will only get worse in the new year.  The rhetoric is depressing and may become more so as some candidates find that it works to their advantage to vilify others, and as some candidates become desperate to be noticed before they fade away.

I also learned long ago to stay out of the prediction game.  With the right knowledge and experience, it used to be feasible to make a meaningful, if not always correct, educated guess as to the direction of certain events and the resulting policy decisions that follow.  I do not feel that way anymore. Additionally, as I have expressed in previous pieces, I think that it is too early to begin discussing which candidates from which political parties will be our choices in November.  I have no idea who will make it through the spring and summer and emerge as a viable candidate.  Therefore, at this point in the process, I have no idea who I will vote for and I will try to keep my mind open as the campaigns progress.  That said, I have already decided who I cannot vote for no matter their popularity or the alternative candidate from the other party.  Out of the roughly 15 candidates combined in the Republican and Democrat parties still running (and sometimes it is hard to keep track) there are at least five that I know that I cannot vote for, no matter what.  Some fall into that category because of their hateful rhetoric and others because in my view, they are just plain unqualified to lead this country. Some fall into both categories.  Hopefully, they will not end up running against each other.

Logically, and historically, I know that we have experienced shameful demagoguery in campaigns past.  I know also that our nation’s history has had shameful periods of racism and bigotry that were considered main stream.  And as much as I would like to think that as a nation we have moved past those misguided beliefs, I know that some racists and bigots still exist in our country.

So the politics of racism, bigotry, hatred and fear — dealing in the mysterious “other” who are not like us and do not belong in our country — is, unfortunately, not new to this nation.  We now have at least two leading candidates, Mr. Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), that are experts at exploiting the fear and hatred of others and who also have little use for the truth should it not coincide with their narrative.  They seem to be very popular — although it is difficult to know whether that popularity will translate at the voting booth.  While I am deeply disappointed in their campaigns, it is really nothing new in our history.  What has truly discouraged me is the number of people who pollsters of all stripes tell us support their campaigns.  I knew there were bigots and racists out there, what is discouraging is the number that seem still to exist in the year 2015. And before someone gets their hair on fire, I recognize that not all supporters of Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz are bigots or racists.  I know that. However, too many seem to fit in that category.  By a lot. Anger and fear are powerful motivators, but when exploited for purely personal gain, it becomes dangerous.  Both Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz are well polished exploiters of those emotions.  I see their hateful ways reflected in all sorts of social media and other outlets.  Although I am never sure if the anonymity of social media creates more salacious comments “just because” — “trolls” that enjoy stirring things up — or if the anonymity of social media allows people to expose what is really in their hearts without fear of being considered haters, but whichever is the case, Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz through their speech and actions, make it okay to be anti-social.

Please spare me the accusations of “political correctness.”  For these two candidates (and others) claiming that they do not have to be politically correct has become a crutch.  It is an anti-intellectual and facile claim that assures that no substantive discussion of the issues is needed and that to be polite and not rude in political discourse is not necessary.  We are the worse for it.  Bigots and racists are given free rein to malign others.

Before Christmas, Danielle Allen wrote an interesting opinion piece about “political correctness.”  (It can be found here.)  The term, according to Professor Allen was first coined by James Wilson in 1793.  James Wilson was a representative to the Continental Congress and an influential member of the committee that gave us the Constitution and was one of the original Justices of the Supreme Court.  The first substantive case heard by the new court was Chisolm v. State of Georgia which established that individuals could sue states.  The decision was later effectively over-turned by the Eleventh Amendment. (I am not a legal scholar, but should one want to read an interesting analysis of the case, it may be found here.)  What is pertinent to this discussion, is that the rhetoric following a lazy interpretation of “politically correct” has subverted the original use of the phrase.  In some ways it may be better said as “correct politically” or Justice Wilson’s emphasis on “We the People” and his belief that sovereignty rested with the “people of the United States” rather than individual states.

This interpretation was presaged by a speech of his on July 4th 1788 following the achievement of the minimum number of states needed to ratify the Constitution.  In his speech he laid out the vision of the crafters of that great document, its importance and how it is up to us, the people, to vote for good leaders.  He emphasized how each vote was important (perhaps because his was the deciding vote for independence in the Pennsylvania delegation).  Or as he said in part in his stem-winder of a speech (original spellings used below, italics and bold are mine):

Allow me to direct your attention, in a very particular manner, to a momentous part, which, by this constitution, every citizen will frequently be called to act. All those in places of power and trust will be elected either immediately by the people; or in such a manner that their appointment will depend ultimately on such immediate election. All the derivative movements of government must spring from the original movement of the people at large. If, to this they give a sufficient force and a just direction, all the others will be governed by its controuling power. To speak without a metaphor; if the people, at their elections, take care to chuse none but representatives that are wise and good; their representatives will take care, in their turn, to chuse or appoint none but such as are wise and good also. The remark applies to every succeeding election and appointment. Thus the characters proper for public officers will be diffused from the immediate elections of the people over the remotest parts of administration. Of what immense consequence is it, then, that this primary duty should be faithfully and skillfully discharged? On the faithful and skillful discharge of it the public happiness or infelicity, under this and every other constitution, must, in a very great measure, depend. For, believe me, no government, even the best, can be happily administered by ignorant or vicious men. You will forgive me, I am sure, for endeavouring to impress upon your minds, in the strongest manner, the importance of this great duty. It is the first concoction in politics; and if an error is committed here, it can never be corrected in any subsequent process: The certain consequence must be disease. Let no one say, that he is but a single citizen; and that his ticket will be but one in the box. That one ticket may turn the election.

In other words, no government, no matter how well conceived and designed, can function properly unless good, educated, and competent people — not “ignorant or vicious men” — are elected.  The government is only as good as those elected to it.  In my view, we lost that principal and fundamental element to good governance with the likes of Mr. Trump and Senator Cruz.

 

 

Searching For A Better Life

Posted: September 1, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 1 Comment

I recently returned from a vacation tour through Europe.  We were fortunate enough to travel from Budapest, Hungary to Amsterdam, Netherlands and had a great time.  It was interesting on many levels — history, culture, fellow travelers, all of it.  As always when traveling overseas, of course, it also reminded me of how lucky I am to live in the United States.  For all of our troubles and differences of opinions, at least in my lifetime, we have been incredibly fortunate.

This was brought home in one way by the opportunity to visit cities and towns throughout central Europe that were occupied by the Soviets, Nazis, or both.  As I am always reminded, it is one thing to learn history from a book, and quite another to talk to people who lived through the experiences. To these people, it is still a living history.  In the former communist states of Hungary and Slovakia, the rebuilding from World War II is nearly complete.  Construction was delayed for decades because of the Soviet occupation and the reluctance or lack of caring (or both) to put any thought or effort into rebuilding locally important buildings.  While the Soviets (and local regimes) obviously built structures during the period leading up to 1989, they did so without regard to historic local norms, desires or long-standing culture.  And, not to put too fine of a point on it, but what they did build is down right ugly.

In Austria and Germany the scars of World War II remain.  Perhaps not so much with respect to rebuilding cities, but with their history.  Indeed, we were told that the now famous museum in Nuremberg retelling the story of Hitler’s rise and rule — used to educate German youth of the horrors of that period — was not built until 2002.  According to our guide, it could not have been built any earlier because no one wanted to confront that chapter of German history.  Only the younger generation could face the facts.  Many of the medieval cities along the Main and Rhine Rivers had to be rebuilt as they were mostly 90% or more destroyed by Allied bombing.  For the locals this was just a fact — not something raised in acrimony — although they often pointed out that there was no tactical or operational reason for the bombing.  There was only the strategic goal of breaking the will of the people through sheer helplessness.  We have not experienced anything like that since the 1860’s.

Likewise, it was with helplessness that many in these countries watched the flow of thousands upon thousands of people from the Middle East into Europe.  We have seen the reports on  the news here in the U.S., but again, in Europe they are living the reality of the situation.  It is a tragedy seemingly without a solution.  Hundreds, if not thousands, have died making the attempt to get to safety, primarily by sea to Greece where they then try to move on to wealthier nations.  The European Union is grappling with how to deal with the situation.  Provide humanitarian assistance and it probably entices more people to make the dangerous run.  Do nothing to help them and thousands of people suffer and die.

From a distance, the most interesting discussion involved what to call these people.  Perhaps that discussion is relevant to our own political debates in the run-up to the 2016 elections.  The question was whether they were “migrants,” “refugees” “asylum seekers” or “immigrants.”  The question is more than one of semantics as under international law and under the standards of humanitarian treatment, how they are categorized makes a difference in how nations should, and will, deal with them.  To those making the dangerous trek however, it may matter little.  It is a problem that is only going to continue to grow as the civil war in Syria continues, and ISIS and other groups operate in the Middle East.  Without solving that root problem, the mass migration, the largest since World War II according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will continue.

In 1980’s I had two experiences with people fleeing what must have been intolerable conditions. I still think about them to this day.  They were on a smaller scale than those going on today in Europe, but in some ways are even more unbelievable.  Today’s refugees leaving the Middle East for Europe take boats across the Mediterranean Sea headed for Europe.  It is very dangerous and they are horribly mistreated by smugglers profiting from the endeavor.  But they have a destination in mind and a relatively short trip.  In the early 80’s refugees were leaving Viet Nam in small boats heading out to sea. No destination, per se — they were just hoping that a passing freighter (or their greatest hope, a U.S. Navy ship) would spot them and pick them up.  Some made it, some did not. There is no real way of knowing because those that didn’t make it were lost at sea without a trace.  Those that got picked up ended up all over the Pacific because most ships would continue to their destinations before off-loading those they had picked up.  On two different USN ships I was part of the ship’s company that picked up some of these refugees.  We were not on any mission to do so, it was purely luck or providence that we spotted them adrift at sea as we proceeded through the area.  Of the several occasions, it was nearly always the same. We would spot a rickety non-sea worthy vessel of about 50 feet adrift with upwards of 75 or 80 people on board. Usually those on board consisted of a couple of extended families (babies to grand parents) from the same geographic area. They were out of fuel and food and nearly out of water. They had nothing but the clothes on their back as in each case pirates intercepted the boats before we did and took everything of value from the people — including pulling teeth with silver or gold fillings. There were rarely young women on board as the pirates took them too.

Unbelievable.  To this day I ask myself how bad things would have to be to put my entire extended family in a non-sea worthy boat and push out to sea with no destination and only a vague hope that a friendly ship would stop and help us.  And the odds were that no one would see us.   I cannot imagine risking the lives of my entire family in such a way.  I still think about it.

(As a footnote, I later served on ships where some of the new crew members reporting aboard were babies or small children on those boats rescued at sea in the early 80’s by U.S. Navy ships.  Only in America.)

In the late 1980’s my ship was operating in the Caribbean Sea on a mission unrelated to the migration then taking place from Haiti.  The U.S. Coast Guard was actively involved in rescuing those migrants, also in flimsy boats, from the sea.  They would take the refugees to the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where they would be processed by Immigration and State Department personnel and then generally returned to Haiti.  Pure chaos. Again what came through was the overwhelming desperation of the people.  While we were not directly involved in that operation, we were certainly able to observe at close hand how difficult it was to effect the rescues on a mass scale and then to humanely treat the people once they reached shore while still trying to maintain some degree of orderliness and safety.  It is an extremely difficult task.

I can only imagine what is going on at sea and ashore in Europe as the numbers of people flowing into Europe dwarf anything that I participated in or observed.  A very tough situation.

We are so lucky in so many ways.  As partisan divides emerge, I trust that all of us will realize how lucky we are compared to so many in this world — past and present.

Moving On

Posted: July 12, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

On Friday, the Confederate battle flag was lowered for the final time on the statehouse grounds of South Carolina.  Huzzah!  I am glad that the majority of South Carolinians rallied to get the state legislature, spurred by Governor Nikki Haley (R), to pass legislation that caused its relocation to a place where it belongs — in a museum.

Unfortunately, those that want to see the flag fly at the statehouse accused South Carolina politicians of bowing to “political correctness” in removing the flag.  They claim that it is not a symbol of treason or slavery but rather a celebration of their heritage.  Many brave and valiant Confederate soldiers died under that banner and, many claim, that is what they celebrate when it is flown.  I merely point out that many brave and valiant people have died protecting their homes fighting for causes that were evil. World War II comes to mind. I do not see the citizens of France flying the Vichy flag as part of their heritage, for example.

The Civil War is part of the history of the United States.  (Note that it is the United States.)  As such museums, books and other chroniclers of our history should depict the various elements of that war. However, a secessionist flag should not fly on government buildings. Ours is a “government for the people, of the people and by the people”.  Not just for some people.  All the people.  I have written on this blog in the past about my lack of understanding as to why people still demand to fly the Confederate flag. I hear what they say, but I don’t buy it if our nation is truly united.  Divided perhaps by politics, but not by our values as a nation.  I really did not get the continued demand by various state governments to fly it.  Perhaps that argument is finally behind us. I also do not get why individuals continue to fly it, but that is their choice and it is a freedom of speech issue. They can do so if they desire, but I hope that they truly understand its meaning.

Symbols are symbols for a reason.  They stand for something, otherwise none of us would care about them.  The symbol of the United States is our national flag.  There is no “southern” flag and there is no “northern” flag.  There is only one flag — the symbol of our collective nation.

Perhaps some believe that the Confederate flag now stands only for states’  rights. I do not really buy that argument either.  I thought that since we have individual state flags, that those would be the symbols of one’s home state and the government located there.

Others argue that white supremacists and organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan usurped the Confederate flag and that it really was not a symbol of racism or slavery.  For the sake of discussion, I will say that it may have been “usurped” by white supremacists, but why does one think that they chose that symbol?  I would remind us all that the Confederate flags did not reappear on capital buildings and other state buildings in the South until the 60’s.  The nineteen sixties in response to changes in Civil Rights laws targeted at ending the Jim Crow era.

Those that argue that the Civil War was over states rights or the preservation of their economy or “way of life” are correct, in so far as they point out that the states rights issue, the economic issues, and the “way of life” issues were all based on slavery.  Whether individual Confederate or Union soldiers approved or disapproved or owned or did not own slaves is not relevant.  Slavery was the proximate cause of the war. The Missouri Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850 are the precursors to the war. The southern states wanted slavery to continue and to spread as new states entered the Union.  The northern states wanted to contain slavery to the South.  Indeed, one could almost argue that the Civil War was about states’ rights — northern states rights.  Specifically, their right not to return fugitive slaves to the slave owners.  The South Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Seceding States says it clearly.

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia.

“Fugitives” of course are slaves.

Or this passage from the Texas version of the Declaration.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

There are other passages and numerous speeches from the time that make it clear that the southern states did secede from the Union over slavery.  To be fair, the people of that day were products of their times and circumstances.  I hesitate to put the values and knowledge of today up against those of the past when they did not have the same advantages to learn and understand all that we do today.  None-the-less, one cannot say that slavery was not the prime issue of the war.

I think my biggest problem with the Confederate flag as a symbol is that we should not re-fight, re-litigate, or rehash something settled 150 years ago.  We are united.  We are one nation.  I do not think that most people who fly the Confederate flag wish that the south had succeeded in breaking apart and forming their own nation.  I cannot imagine what our nation, indeed our world would be like had they succeeded.  That is my biggest stumbling block as to why people continue to “fight” the Civil War.  What do they think would be better had they won?

Some may think that I “hate” the south or do not understand it.  Not so.  I’ve lived in Texas, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Maryland — all south of the Mason-Dixon line — for a total of over 30 years as both a child and an adult.  I enjoy the south.  I also enjoy other parts of the United States.  To me it is not a matter of liking or disliking a particular region of our great nation.  It is a matter of why some people continue to hang on to one of the most traumatic events in our history in some romantic belief that life was “better” then.  I guarantee that folks in other parts of the country hang on to their heritage.  Coloradans as mountain people are very independent.  New Englanders are a different breed with different customs, traditions and even language.  Each of our national regions have their own history, heritage, and pride, but they do not insist on flying any flag other than the United States flag or insist secession is something to celebrate.

I am proud of the great citizens of South Carolina.  They are moving on with grace and humility. Others are getting the picture.  As Americans — north, south, east and west — let’s all move on.

And We Let These People Vote…

Posted: November 13, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , | 2 Comments

… but they don’t do it.  As you may have seen, it was widely reported that voter turnout for the election last week was the lowest since 1942, when the population may have been preoccupied by other matters. As tabulated by the United States Election Project , only 36.4% of the population eligible to do so voted. Within individual states there was a wide-ranging result.  Indiana had the worst voter turnout at 28% and Maine had the best at 59.3%.  While non-presidential election years are historically lower than when the presidency is up for election, such a low turnout is shameful.

There is much speculation as to why Americans do not vote and I cannot pretend to know why there is such low turnout.  Some speculate that the low turnout this year was the result of a voter “protest” — not voting so as to show displeasure with the candidates.  If this is the case, then I am not sure what impact those citizens thought that they were going to have.  Somebody is going to get elected whether or not everyone votes.  Non-voting only allows the respective base voters to dictate the results.  Anyone that did not vote (and allowing for the fact that there are some people who were truly unable to vote for circumstance beyond their control) has no right to complain about the course our country takes with its incoming crop of elected officials.  Not voting to protest the candidates is about as silly of a logic train as I can imagine in a democracy.  As the saying goes, elections have consequences, and not voting increases the likelihood that as a society, we are not going to like those consequences.

I also truly hope that in the next two years (until the next election) I do not hear any politician of any stripe saying “what the American people want” based on the outcome of this election cycle.  How can anyone possibly know what all of America wants (no one ever calls me to ask), especially when only about one-third of our fellow citizens participated.  The primary purpose of an election in this country is to allow the American people to indicate what they want.  I cannot believe that nearly two-thirds of the country simply does not care.

Some western nations — most famously Australia — have mandatory voting.  I do not advocate that as I am not sure that it would work in our society and I can think of some serious “cons” to the “pro” of getting everyone involved.  At least it would eliminate the need for the millions of dollars spent this year to get out the vote, money that could best be spent on other things, although I suppose it does help the economy, or at least the advertising industry and political consultants.  The biggest argument against it in my mind (besides our national aversion to mandatory anything having to do with government) is that it would lead to people voting for officials or ballot measures of which little to nothing is known by the voter. Although that happens enough as it is.

The irony of this low voter turnout was brought home to me on Tuesday with the celebration of Veteran’s Day.  Universally, people from all walks of life thanked our service men and women for their devotion to our country.  Many in their tributes mentioned the right to vote and how precious that right is to us.  A better tribute to our veterans than celebrity public service announcements would be for people to actually go out and vote.  The defense of that right comes at a high cost.  A visit to Arlington National Cemetery, especially Section 60 where many veterans of our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are buried, is a stark reminder.  I have occasion to visit the National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland from time to time.  One only has to spend about five minutes in any part of the hospital to see the tragic results of sending our young men and women to war.  The results impact not only the lives of these young veterans, but also their families and friends.  All are easy to spot and none ask for our sympathy or for anything else.  I am amazed at their positive spirit and determination.

I often think of the young people I see there when I hear our elected leaders arguing for military involvement in this spot or another.  It becomes real when you visit Section 60 or the military hospital in Bethesda.  It would be good for all of our leaders to think beyond the political abstract and think in terms of real people being asked to sacrifice their future and their lives.  These young folks will answer the call to go in harm’s way, but to them such decisions are not abstractions or theories or political gamesmanship.  It is real.

And yet, we can only muster 36.4% of our eligible voters that manage to make it the polls.

In Search Of Evil

Posted: September 30, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | 3 Comments

Please forgive me while I muse out loud about the nature of evil.  This piece is not meant to be about, for, or against, any particular religious view.  Most religions address the nature of evil and the human dimension of fighting it off.  In many religions, Satan, or a similar being, is the embodiment of evil. While I will muse about Satan, this is not intended to be a religious discussion.  Or at least I think not. Non-religious people certainly recognize and ponder the nature of evil.  It is more than just a religious concept.  Spoiler alert:  That said, I will write about God and Satan, among other approaches to trying to understand evil.  Stop reading if this is not your thing and you would rather not get into it.

With the nearly constant bombardment of video images depicting the actions of the Islamic State (or ISIS, or ISIL — all the same entity), one immediately thinks of that group as evil.  Adolf Hitler and his Nazi supporters were evil.  Josef Stalin was evil.  Pol Pot was evil.  Narco-terrorists are evil. The list could go on and on.

However, I wonder why, or perhaps more accurately, how, people become evil.  I do not think that it is in the nature of humankind to be evil.  My premise has been and continues to be that, given a chance, people are inherently good and will do the right thing.  Although this premise is tested daily, I still consider the vast majority of people to be good.  So what happens to the others?  I do not think that they were born evil.  Although there are psycho-paths and people lacking any empathy what-so-ever, I see their actions as more a matter for psychiatrists than necessarily a manifestation of the existence of evil, which still leaves some of their actions clearly defined as evil.  Nor do I excuse their behavior in any way, shape or form.  However, I do not think that most of what we see today, or historically, as evil actions in the name of nations or dictators is coming purely from mental disorders. Perhaps some, but not many.  It is too facile to say that they are all psychopaths.

On a Judeo-Christian religious level, most believe that God is the Supreme Being.  God knows all and as the Creator, by definition, created everything in the universe.  God would not create Satan.  In the Old Testament (such as in the Book of Job) God sometimes sends Satan to do his bidding — in this case to test Job. If Satan exists, it is not as an equal to God.  How can there be an equal competition between good and evil — manifested as God versus Satan — for the souls of mankind?  There cannot.  God is all-powerful. He is not going to lose to Satan in any endeavor.

To me, Satan stands as a symbol of free will.  We have the curse and the gift of determining our own destiny.  It is a human decision as to whether or not to do the right thing.  When humans choose the wrong path, evil deeds occur.  So do our historical evil doers choose to be evil or are they on some other path?  I am not sure.  To some degree, it depends on which side of history one sits.  As has been written many times, the winner dictates the history.  In war, evil things happen on both sides. From other cultures’ perspectives the United States has done evil things.  Did we choose to do evil?  I say no we did not.  Either we were ignorant of the consequences of certain actions, or as a nation we decided that certain actions were necessary to achieve our goals.  Is it possible that Hitler, Stalin, and others, including the current leaders of the Islamic State were not born evil?  Is it possible that their actions were, and are, in the pursuit of what they consider to be a greater good and thereby necessary? If they wrote the history would they depict their actions as evil?  Are people evil or are their actions evil?  Does it matter?  I am no expert.  And I am no apologist for those that do evil things — there are no moral equivalencies here.  I am merely trying to find my way through a troubling problem.  Why does evil exist and how is it manifested?

How do good people go bad?  Nature or nurture?  I am not the first to ponder these questions, nor will I be the last.  The world is a fearsome and complicated place.  Perhaps the answer to what constitutes evil lies somewhere near Justice Potter Stewart’s opinion on hard-core pornography — that it is hard to define but “I know it when I see it.”  (An opinion he later professed to regret.)

This is not to say that evil is in the eye of the beholder.  It is to say that some things are universally considered evil and other things may be subject to motivation and context.  Some profess that all war is evil.  Evil things happen in war, but the necessary aspect of many wars (not all) does not inherently make them evil.

I have grappled with this for a long time and have no good conclusion.  I hold to my basic premise that humans are born good and want to do the right things with their lives.  I am challenged in resolving that outlook with the day-to-day evidence to the contrary in our lives.

 

Danger, Will Robinson!

Posted: March 19, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

It may be time to heed the warning of the robot in the 1960’s television show “Lost in Space” when it comes to Ukraine and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech at the Kremlin yesterday concerning the annexation of Crimea.  (The Kremlin transcript of the speech may be found here.  If one takes him at his word, and I think we should, beware.)

It is past time to stop categorizing Putin’s pronouncements as nothing more than incredible Russian propaganda.  He is serious.  Yesterday he laid down a blue print for restoring Russia to what Putin believes is its rightful place in the world order.  I do not think he is bluffing and I do believe that he says what he means in this speech.  In it, he uses several historical references to bolster his claim that what Russia did in the Crimea was in keeping with previous precedent.  He is taking the long view  — a vision of Russia for the future — in the speech.  Clearly when he uses words like “plundered” in reference to the end of the cold war and the loss of Crimea to Ukraine and the departure from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)  (the immediate follow-on to the Soviet Union) of former Soviet republics, he is laying the groundwork for his case that Russia should reclaim its historical lands.  (Historical in the context of a Russian empire, not necessarily the context of the totality of history.)  He follows it up with claims that following the break up of the CIS, Russian citizens “went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.”  Given his actions in Moldova, Georgia and now Ukraine, this statement should set off all kinds of alarm bells in Europe, the United States and indeed, the rest of the world. When he speaks of an “outrageous historical injustice” it is not rhetoric, it his view of the world.

He may not act in the next few weeks, or even in the next year, but clearly Putin has designs to restore the empire formerly known as the Soviet Union.  In my view it does not mean that he will literally do so, and it does not mean a return to communism in Russia (he and his pals are getting too rich off the current system to want to go back).  It does mean that he intends to restore what he sees as the glory of the Russian state and that he will not tolerate nations on Russia’s borders that do not bow in the direction of Moscow.  He doesn’t need to occupy as long as he can intimidate them and have them join his Eurasian Economic Union of former Soviet states vice join the European Union and move towards the west.  This is where Ukraine ran afoul of the Russian bear.

In his speech, Putin uses a very legalistic approach as he delineates why the Russians not only can act, but should act.  To me, this further defines that his speech is not meant as propaganda or even only to justify his actions in Crimea.  It means that further actions in the same context are justified.   Clearly, time and again in the speech, Putin makes clear that Russia has been wronged and that it is time to act to rectify the situation and to restore Russian greatness.  He refers to the policy of containment in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries by the west and sees it as the height of “hypocrisy.”  In so doing, he claims that “our western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.”  Sound familiar?

A significant trigger to his actions is the growth of NATO.  This is considered a direct threat to the well-being of Russia.  Ukraine joining NATO (whether or not that was a realistic development) was probably the last straw in Putin’s view.  As he says; “For all the internal processes within the organisation, NATO remains a military alliance, and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors.”

Despite some of the domestic political rhetoric in the United States, it would not have mattered who was sitting in the Office of the President of the United States when the events in Ukraine unfolded.  Putin acted predictably when his chosen ally, deposed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych left the country and a pro-western interim government emerged.  The question is now what to do about it?

International diplomacy is a tough, slow endeavor.  This is especially true in a situation such as the annexation of Crimea where the average European or American citizen cannot really see what difference it makes to their lives.  So what?  Likewise, the west has been trying to give Putin “off ramps” and face-saving solutions to the problem.  Why?  Putin is now rubbing the results in our face — he is not interested in saving face because he feels that he has the upper hand.  It is the west, in his view, that needs to save face.

Coupled with this is the clear unlikelihood, barring an outright military invasion of Poland (sound familiar?) or other NATO nations, of US or NATO military action and Putin knows he is in the position of strength.  Just as after World War I, the US and Europe have expressed their war weariness following Iraq and Afghanistan and have expressly demonstrated no interest in engaging in another military action.  (See Syria:  Pundits blame President Obama for drawing a “red line” on Syria and not following through, but remember that it was the UK Parliament and the US Congress that refused to support it, among others.)

Make no mistake, I am not advocating military action to return Crimea to Ukraine, nor should any other direct military action now be on the table under the current set of events.  The steps taken to reassure our NATO allies with increased deployments of aircraft, although more symbolic than militarily effective, are sufficient for now as a military response.

Where we do have the upper hand is economically.  Russia’s economy is very weak and both the nation’s economy and the oligarchs surrounding Putin depend heavily on exports of gas and oil.  This is where significant efforts to convey to Putin that we take him seriously, and he should take us equally seriously, can be made.  Russia has threatened counter-sanctions should the west impose sanctions and follow-up on the rhetoric.  So be it.  Taking the long view, Russia will suffer far more than Europe or the United States.  The problem is that few people take the long view.  Short term comfort or profit seems to be more important.  It’s cold so we need natural gas.  We like the money the oligarchs have invested in the west, especially Germany and the UK.  (How many people know that the NBA Brooklyn Nets are owned by Russian billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov?  I’m not saying he is necessarily a Putin crony, just that most people do not know how wide-spread the business interests of Russian billionaires — making their billions in the post-Soviet chaos of Russia in the 1990s — may be.)

Likewise, major US corporations are heavily invested in Russian markets and fear losing those investments if the US and Russia get into an economic tit-for-tat.  They have been lobbying heavily for minor actions to protest Russian movements without jeopardizing their stake in Russia today.

What is clear is that putting sanctions against seven relatively minor Russian officials and four former Ukrainian officials is not going to have any impact on Putin or his decisions.  (The European Union put travel bans and asset freezes on twenty-one people — still not even really a slap on the wrist.)

Additionally, US and European actions thus far have been reactive in nature.  Telling Putin “if you do this, then we may do something” is not going to deter him, especially when the actions we do take are more symbolic than practical.  We are in a period where miscalculation on either side can lead to long-term negative consequences.  Stop sending ambiguous messages and formulate specific meaningful actions.

Look, I am no former Cold Warrior looking to restore the good ol’ days of yesteryear.  Those days are gone — good riddance — and I don’t think that in this interconnected world that we will see those days again.  I do believe, however, that the world continues to be a dangerous place with dangerous people in it.  Taking Russian actions around the world in totality — support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, support to Iran, granting temporary asylum to Edward Snowden, the nationalistic display at the Sochi Olympics, etc. etc. — means that the Russian bear must be taken seriously.  We cannot become grand foes once again, but we must have our own interests at heart and follow through on our commitments.  In my mind, we have yet to do so concerning Russia, Ukraine, and the impact on surrounding nations that we now call our friends.

Just as I think our inaction in Syria sends a signal to the world, inaction here will strengthen the misperception that the US is too tied up in domestic issues to get involved in world issues.  As a nation, it is time we put partisan politics aside, buckle our chin straps, and get into the game.

Danger, Will Robinson.  We cannot ignore it.  I am not an alarmist or war-monger, but I think we are coming up short on our understanding of Putin’s intentions.  We need to take the long view, put Putin’s actions in their historical context and work to keep his nationalistic adventurism in check.  Deterrence, not reaction is needed.  Serious economic sanctions are our best weapon.

Friday Thoughts

Posted: March 14, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

There are at least two big stories that continue to percolate along today and that have been going on for some time.  One is a mystery and one is an old story that I hope does not repeat itself.

A Modern Mystery

Like some mystery in a movie or an episode of “Lost” the search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 continues with rampant speculation coming from every source, but with no resolution of the fate of the 239 people on board.  You have undoubtedly seen the news reports that lead one to believe that no one knows what happened to the Boeing 777 airliner — an aircraft with an exemplary safety record — and  thus no one is sure exactly where to look.

Several things come to mind.

  • The world is not as interconnected as everyone thinks.
  • It is not possible to survey every bit of the world at every moment watching for everything, unlike popular belief.  Satellites have to be focused on particular locations and tasked to look for particular events.
  • The ocean is vast and holds its secrets dear.  Those of us that have spent time at sea know that it is an unforgiving place and even a jet liner can get swallowed up.

None-the-less, it is amazing that after seven days no sign of it has appeared.  If it crashed into the jungle of Malaysia or elsewhere, it is not surprising that it has yet to be found.  The jungle can be as unforgiving as the ocean for those unprepared and without guidance.

The one thing that is clear is that the fun of speculating on what happened, ranging from the aircraft being lost at sea to being abducted by aliens, is not so humorous in comparison to the fate of those on board and the feelings of frustration and loss of those family and friends that need to know answers.

Get Ready Ukraine

The part of Ukraine that has been taken over by Russian sailors and troops — the Crimea — is scheduled to hold a referendum to vote on re-joining Russia (it became a part of Ukraine in 1954).  Incredibly, Russia continues to deny that Russian forces are deployed in Crimea and in fact, according to news reports earlier this week, Russian television continues to broadcast that armed gangs are roaming Kiev (the capital) killing pro-Russian sympathizers and that the U.S. 82nd Airborne has deployed to keep what they call the illegal regime in power in Kiev.  It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.

Given his KGB background, Russian President Vladimir Putin is not above creating an “incident” in the eastern part of Ukraine as an excuse to move troops into that part of the country.  Indeed just today the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement, reiterating Putin’s earlier claim, that Russia is prepared to invade eastern Ukraine to protect “compatriots” and “fellow citizens.”  Yesterday protests in the eastern city of Donetsk left one protester dead, an incident specifically mentioned by the Russian Foreign Ministry in their statement.  Anti-Moscow protesters claim that the dead man was actually from their group.  The details will be unimportant for Putin, indeed there don’t need to be any actual details, for him to act.

It is unclear whether Russia will actually annex Crimea — in fact they don’t have to formally do so to have de facto control — although the Russian Duma or Parliament, has already passed a resolution allowing it.

Once the referendum is complete and the Crimean vote (fair or not) is for leaving Ukraine, stand by for the next round of events involving the rest of Ukraine.  Although Russian forces are currently holding “exercises” on the border with the rest of Ukraine, it is unclear whether Putin will decide to invade.  Only he knows for sure.  However, if I lived in Ukraine, I would expect and plan that he will do so sometime in the next few weeks following increased tensions and a series of incidents (probably manufactured, certainly presented as a major threat).

Why is this important to us?  This will be the first time in Europe since World War II that one country has annexed territory from another.  Following the events in Georgia in 2008 (where there was no contest but Putin learned that his troops were not as effective as they needed to be and thus embarked on a program to improve their training and equipment), events in Ukraine become part of a pattern.  Where will it stop if not here?  The impact of Russia annexing part or all of Ukraine will have profound effects on the rest of Europe, but most especially on those former Soviet republics that border Russia.

Initial efforts to impose political and economic consequences on Russia have been minimal.  The US is working to build an international consensus and that takes time, especially since many nations not directly on the Russian border are taking a wait and see approach to determine whether the annexation takes place and whether further Russian encroachment takes place.

The international community must take action now to make the risks apparent to Putin, in a meaningful way that keeps him in his box.  If the world does not deal with him now, it most certainly will have to deal with him later when the stakes are likely to be higher.

Shaken, Not Stirred

Posted: July 30, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.” — James Branch Cabell

With apologies to James Bond for borrowing his famous tag line, I would say that despite the deep divide within our Congress today, when put into historical perspective it’s bad, but not historically bad.  We are shaken in our belief in the ability of the system to accomplish anything meaningful, but we are not stirred to action to undo it or, seemingly, to even vote for someone new.  It is however, no less frustrating that important, if not easy, issues get side-tracked over partisan political bickering.  (Of course like many of us that take to the internet to blog, I think that all right thinking people will agree with my view of things.)

Recent opinion polls rating Congressional job approval are abysmal with an average across five different polls of 15.8% approving and 76.2% disapproving of the job that our representatives in Congress are doing.  The President’s approval ratings are better (46%) but still historically lower than average for this point in a president’s term, at least since Gallup began polling in 1938.

But keep it all in perspective because we often forget as a nation that the absolute worst period in our history has to be the years leading up to and including the Civil War.  We may have a war of words in the political circles of our capital, but no one is talking about secession.  Or at least no one that the main stream citizenry takes seriously.

It wasn’t just the Civil War.  In the period immediately following our independence serious disagreements existed among our Founding Fathers as to how the country should be run.  Washington and Adams were Federalists with a distinct view of how government needed to operate to preserve our hard-fought independence.  The Republicans (a different flavor of political party in those days),  represented by Jefferson, avowed that as president he would undo nearly everything his predecessors had implemented in forming a new government and differed greatly on how it should operate.   (As with many politicians, reality set in once in office and he found that much of what took place before him could not, and should not, be undone without hurting the country more than the sting of  his distaste for some of their policies — also true today.)

When did this letter arrive at the White House?

“You have brought the government to the jaws of destruction. I do not undertake to say whether by supineness, timidity, or enthusiasm. The effect is certain.”

According to Jon Meacham in his award-winning biography of Thomas Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power) those words were written in  February 1809 to the President as he was preparing to leave office.  There were more from people of many walks of life that were even more critical of his time in office.

Even our Founding Fathers found that politics in the United States is a full contact sport.  The nature of our democracy (often grossly misunderstood by adversaries past and present) is that we are a contentious people as we strive to make our country better.  Our history and current events support that view.

But, come on guys and gals.  Seriously.  I think you can do a lot better than 16%.

Newer Entries →