From 1861 to 1865, the United State was at war with itself. It was the American Civil War, fought on its own soil. At the beginning of the war, thirty-four states comprised the United States, with two more added by the war's end.
Three key issues were at the heart of start of the war: slavery, states' rights, and westward expansion. With tensions between northern and southern states increasing, the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, who was openly anti-slavery, caused seven southern states to secede from the union (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas). That number increased by four (Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia) after the battle at Fort Sumter, the war's start. The eleven states were known as the Confederate States of America. The War Between the States, as it was known, not only pitted militias from states against one another, but also, literally, brother against brother. Nearly one-quarter of all those who fought in the war died.
At what would eventually become the midpoint of the war, a special dedication ceremony took place. The Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania -- a cemetery for Union soldiers, that even has monuments to both Union and Confederate soldiers -- was dedicated on November 19, 1863, roughly four-and-a-half months after the Union victory at the battle of Gettysburg.
The main speaker at the cemetery's dedication was Edward Everett, a former Secretary of State as well as former Massachusetts Governor, Representative, and Senator, among many other notable accomplishments. His speech, in terms of time, eclipsed Lincoln's remarks. Everett spoke first, for two hours; Lincoln spoke second, for just three minutes. In terms of remembrance and broadest importance, however, the 272 words Lincoln spoke have eclipsed Everett's lengthy oratory for a century-and-a-half.
His words spoke of the young nation's history to the testing of its mettle with the war; to honoring the war dead to what their sacrifice meant; to the continuing work of a greater good to the perseverance of a nation. It has been noted that Lincoln may have been interrupted as much as five times in his three minute commentary.
No words I have can match those of Mr. Lincoln. There are several versions of the text, but the words below are those that are most often cited and which appear on the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether
that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long
endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to
dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who
here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether
fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not
consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living
and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor
power to add or detract.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,
but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living,
rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who
fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be
here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these
honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they
gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve
that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under
God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the
people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
His words signal the cost of liberty and how high that cost can be; they remind us of the sacrifices made in the name of establishing this country...and, for us in 2013, how such conflict must never come to pass again.
Mr. Lincoln, we still remember and still note with reverence your words for this nation, seven-and-a-half score later.
Terry
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Friday, November 1, 2013
Term of the Day: WEDDING DAY
Today, two friends of mine got married. Now that, in and of itself, might not necessarily be noteworthy for a blog posting. One notable thing is that they wanted to go ahead and do this for a long time. Another notable thing is that they are both in their sixties. They have been together for thirty-four years. Yes, thirty-four years!
Another notable thing still is that they are gay.
Both my friends and I live in New Jersey, where gay marriage was given the final green light last week. A number of years ago, when civil unions were approved here, they went and had a civil union ceremony. The problem, however, is that civil unions nationwide, not just here in New Jersey, do not allow the same benefits as marriage. Thus, there was no equality. Gay couples could have the ceremony (that is, in those states that allowed civil unions) and the paper to prove it, but they did not have the same rights as heterosexual married couples. Is gay marriage a civil rights issue? You bet.
All of the arguments against gay marriage are based in religious beliefs. If that is what you believe religiously, that is your right, but it grants you no right to stop others. If you are against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same gender. Legalized inequality, like the lack of marriage equality, is not a religious issue; it is a legal issue. Many people had argued about the term "marriage" for gay couples. Personally, as a straight ally, I didn't see the need for the haggling. Call it "marriage" or something else -- the main issue is legal equality. The moniker is not what's important; equality is what's important. Inequality is intolerable.
New Jersey became the fourteenth state in America that allows gay marriage, making gay marriage legal in twenty-eight percent of the country.
After thirty-four years of being together, their commitment is clear. All they have ever wanted was to be treated equally under the law -- nothing more, nothing less. I am so happy for my friends and wish them all the best into their thirty-fifth year together and beyond.
Terry
Another notable thing still is that they are gay.
Both my friends and I live in New Jersey, where gay marriage was given the final green light last week. A number of years ago, when civil unions were approved here, they went and had a civil union ceremony. The problem, however, is that civil unions nationwide, not just here in New Jersey, do not allow the same benefits as marriage. Thus, there was no equality. Gay couples could have the ceremony (that is, in those states that allowed civil unions) and the paper to prove it, but they did not have the same rights as heterosexual married couples. Is gay marriage a civil rights issue? You bet.
All of the arguments against gay marriage are based in religious beliefs. If that is what you believe religiously, that is your right, but it grants you no right to stop others. If you are against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same gender. Legalized inequality, like the lack of marriage equality, is not a religious issue; it is a legal issue. Many people had argued about the term "marriage" for gay couples. Personally, as a straight ally, I didn't see the need for the haggling. Call it "marriage" or something else -- the main issue is legal equality. The moniker is not what's important; equality is what's important. Inequality is intolerable.
New Jersey became the fourteenth state in America that allows gay marriage, making gay marriage legal in twenty-eight percent of the country.
After thirty-four years of being together, their commitment is clear. All they have ever wanted was to be treated equally under the law -- nothing more, nothing less. I am so happy for my friends and wish them all the best into their thirty-fifth year together and beyond.
Terry
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Phrase of the Day: BAND-AID ON A BROKEN LEG
Well, it's over. It's finally over. The sixteen-day partial government shutdown of 2013 is over. The Senate and the House of Representatives passed a bill late last night and President Obama signed the bill just after midnight this morning. Many federal employees are back to work today. National parks and attractions, such as the Smithsonian Institute, are open again. The threat of the shutdown's effects expanding even further has been averted. All is well, right? No, not really.
If you think doing things piecemeal is doing things well, then you might say this shutdown was worth it. If constantly delaying issues so that you have to re-deal and re-deal and re-deal with them again and again is doing things well, then you might say the shutdown was a good thing. If you think holding the Congress and the entire country hostage while acting childish is doing things well, then you might say the ends justify the means. I could not, no matter how hard I might try, disagree with you any more strongly.
Just imagine if any of us performed our jobs in the manner Congress has performed during this shutdown. Would any of us still have our jobs?
To be clear, I am happy that the shutdown is over, but that is where my happiness ends. The result and how it was reached is ridiculousness ... and it is ridiculousness repeated. Two weeks ago, my blog posting summarized the government as useless. To expand on my earlier question, any one of us would be considered "unproductive" or "uncooperative" performing at our job in a similar manner, thus likely necessitating our boss firing us. While the term "useless" may or may not be used, we could be considered useless, or at least unhelpful, in terms of achieving the goal of desired productivity. How can Congress be considered useful or even productive when all they have done for the past several years is "kick the can down the street"? Temporary fixes of a few months, six months, or a year are no way to operate well. It is an example of operating poorly. It is estimated that the shutdown cost this country around twenty-four billion dollars ... and this same debate comes up AGAIN in a little more than 100 days.
When I worked at a company that did a whole bunch of temporary fixes as a result of piecemeal decision making, I called it putting a band-aid on a broken leg. In other words, yes, you tried to help, but it did little to nothing to address the bigger problem. The job was in Information Technology and there were a number of programmers working there. Temporary "patches" on a program were not unusual, but an eventual final fix of the issue in question was always sought. The overall culture at this job was putting band-aids on broken legs.
Congress thinks it has an indepletable box of band-aids, while the American people are fed up watching it go to the medicine cabinet.
To call what has happened this time around, as well as all of the other right-up-to-the-cliff moments (i.e. fiscal cliff, sequester, debt ceiling), political theater would be correct. (Have you noticed how they generally keep getting closer and closer to a deadline with nearly each successive manufactured crisis?) Moreover than just political theater, it shows a huge lack of interest in fixing larger problems once and for all. It shows an inability or a lack of desire to solve problems. It shows a culture of abdication.
This culture of abdication continues to be cultivated today by such things as members of Congress still getting paid during this debacle. Their staffers did not get paid, mind you, but the members of Congress themselves did. Since both a sense of duty to follow their oaths and a sense of general decency are in such short supply that they are negligible in Congress, there is no incentive to do better. Nether dutiful carrying out of their oaths nor a sense of decency would require any outside incentive; the incentive is inherently within those things.
It appears that this Congress, as well as its successive predecessors, is unwilling to change for the better. The numbers of those who want to change for better are too few to be persuasive. Can they change? I do not know, quite frankly. Maybe they can, but Congress needs to stop breaking legs and to stop putting band-aids on those broken legs.
Terry
If you think doing things piecemeal is doing things well, then you might say this shutdown was worth it. If constantly delaying issues so that you have to re-deal and re-deal and re-deal with them again and again is doing things well, then you might say the shutdown was a good thing. If you think holding the Congress and the entire country hostage while acting childish is doing things well, then you might say the ends justify the means. I could not, no matter how hard I might try, disagree with you any more strongly.
Just imagine if any of us performed our jobs in the manner Congress has performed during this shutdown. Would any of us still have our jobs?
To be clear, I am happy that the shutdown is over, but that is where my happiness ends. The result and how it was reached is ridiculousness ... and it is ridiculousness repeated. Two weeks ago, my blog posting summarized the government as useless. To expand on my earlier question, any one of us would be considered "unproductive" or "uncooperative" performing at our job in a similar manner, thus likely necessitating our boss firing us. While the term "useless" may or may not be used, we could be considered useless, or at least unhelpful, in terms of achieving the goal of desired productivity. How can Congress be considered useful or even productive when all they have done for the past several years is "kick the can down the street"? Temporary fixes of a few months, six months, or a year are no way to operate well. It is an example of operating poorly. It is estimated that the shutdown cost this country around twenty-four billion dollars ... and this same debate comes up AGAIN in a little more than 100 days.
When I worked at a company that did a whole bunch of temporary fixes as a result of piecemeal decision making, I called it putting a band-aid on a broken leg. In other words, yes, you tried to help, but it did little to nothing to address the bigger problem. The job was in Information Technology and there were a number of programmers working there. Temporary "patches" on a program were not unusual, but an eventual final fix of the issue in question was always sought. The overall culture at this job was putting band-aids on broken legs.
Congress thinks it has an indepletable box of band-aids, while the American people are fed up watching it go to the medicine cabinet.
To call what has happened this time around, as well as all of the other right-up-to-the-cliff moments (i.e. fiscal cliff, sequester, debt ceiling), political theater would be correct. (Have you noticed how they generally keep getting closer and closer to a deadline with nearly each successive manufactured crisis?) Moreover than just political theater, it shows a huge lack of interest in fixing larger problems once and for all. It shows an inability or a lack of desire to solve problems. It shows a culture of abdication.
This culture of abdication continues to be cultivated today by such things as members of Congress still getting paid during this debacle. Their staffers did not get paid, mind you, but the members of Congress themselves did. Since both a sense of duty to follow their oaths and a sense of general decency are in such short supply that they are negligible in Congress, there is no incentive to do better. Nether dutiful carrying out of their oaths nor a sense of decency would require any outside incentive; the incentive is inherently within those things.
It appears that this Congress, as well as its successive predecessors, is unwilling to change for the better. The numbers of those who want to change for better are too few to be persuasive. Can they change? I do not know, quite frankly. Maybe they can, but Congress needs to stop breaking legs and to stop putting band-aids on those broken legs.
Terry
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Phrase of the Day: THE MORE YOU KNOW
Today's posting stems from an odd combination: a visit to a children's playground and a book about genes.
I finished reading a book I've had for several years, but only just recently got around to reading. The book is The Divine Code of Life by Dr. Kazuo Murakami, Ph.D. Dr. Murakami is a geneticist who decoded the genetic makeup of the enzyme renin, which is responsible for high blood pressure.
Dr. Murakami's position is that genes can be "turned on" and "turned off", in opposition of the long-standing theory that genes are fixed and cannot be changed in any way. There is also a minor spiritual element to the book, in that Dr. Murakami states that the complexity of genes points to a non-human creative force; he calls this creative force "Something Great". Although some of the science presented in the book went over my head, I found the book to be a fascinating read.
In a chapter titled 'Life Lessons from the Lab', Murakami draws a distinction between what he calls "day science" (i.e. classes, class-related lab work, lectures, etc.) and "night science" (i.e. intuition, chance-taking, etc.). He argues that most scientific discoveries stem from "night science" -- sometimes out of sheer curiosity, sometimes out of sheer frustration.
His furthering of this distinction can best be described by the phrase "ignorance is bliss". He cites a conversation between him and Masaru Ibuka, one of the founders of Sony Corporation regarding the secret behind his success. He quotes Ibuka as saying:
"In retrospect, I think that I was lucky not to be an expert. If I had fully understood tape
recorders or transistors at the time, I would have been far too intimidated to attempt such
a thing. When I learned more about them later, I was aghast at my own foolhardiness."(pg. 85)
Murakami argues that too much "day science" can get in the way of "night science". In other words, too much scientific knowledge can actually be a hindrance to scientific pursuits. One example was his entering into research of the enzyme renin. He states that his students with higher grades were far more resistant to this pursuit because there was so much uncharted territory. He does not suggest that those with lower grades or lower intellect are more open to new ideas, but rather the accumulation of massive amounts of knowledge can persuade one to be less curious and, by extension, less persistent.
Murakami answers the question of how excess knowledge can sometimes be a hindrance:
"It is not that information itself is inherently bad; rather, knowing more than others can
delude us into believing our judgment to be superior. Overdependence on knowledge
dulls our intuition and can make us look too far ahead. When an endeavor does not
proceed smoothly, excessive knowledge can cause us to jump to conclusions; the
conclusion reached in such a situation is likely to be pessimistic; and we assume the
project is doomed to failure when there is still a prospect for success." (pp 87-88)
Here's where my visit to a children's playground comes in. I was at an outdoor crafts festival last weekend and it was sunny and hot. The area the festival took place was out in the open. The only shade to be found was just outside the festival space. A friend of mine, who I had not seen in some time, and I sought relief from the sun on a bench blissfully engulfed in shade next to a playground.
While we sat on the bench catching up the other on the goings-on in our lives, we watched the children playing. I thought of their sheer delight and pure abandon while climbing steps, sliding down slides, swinging on swings, etc. I thought of how we, as adults, for the most part, lose that sheer delight and pure abandon. Certainly, many of us engage in recreational activities in which we can experience such things, but we have to plan when it will happen (i.e. weekend, days/nights of the week, vacation). (No argument here about planning, as long as you can find the opportunities to feel that delight and abandon.) All a child needs is a parent or guardian willing to say, "Let's go!"
Children come by such things so much more easily, don't they?
Obviously, it is because of their age, which means less responsibility and less knowledge than an adult. Then, "growing up" -- not getting older, but "growing up" -- happens. We have to go to school; we have to try and get good grades; we have move out on our own; we have to go to work; we have to meet responsibilities, such as doing out job well, paying our bills, saving money, and so on. If marriage is in the cards, we have to be faithful to our spouse and meet familial responsibilities.
During this time, we also add to our accumulated knowledge. We learn the proverbial "readin', writin', and 'rithmetic"; we learn chores are a part of family life and how to do them; we learn going to bed late when you have to get up early is a really bad idea; we learn how to do the duties of our job; we learn that frivolous and unrestrained spending leaves little to no money for paying bills and that not paying them is a big problem; we (hopefully) learn that money does not grow on trees; we learn to love and that love can be as beautiful as it can be hurtful; we learn the value of truthfulness, honesty, integrity, and loyalty, etc.
We also learn the down side of humanity and of life. Life is hard; life is not always fair. People can be helpful; people can be hurtful.
Just as Dr. Murakami finds excessive knowledge a hindrance in science, so too we might say the same, to a degree, in terms of life itself. If I was playing in a playground and the size and height of the equipment were adjusted for adults, I might to be so keen to try some things. Why? Because I might not have the abandon because I am aware that could get hurt, like landing funny and injuring a foot or an ankle. Keep the equipment kids' size, I'd be more apt to climb on board. Knowledge (i.e. an injured foot or ankle hurts a lot) is a hindrance. Not necessarily a bad hindrance, in terms of caution and safety, but a hindrance of sorts.
Just as those who have a fear of failure, the same may be argued. Someone who has tried a similar course of action(s) and failing at them, whatever failure would mean, might be less likely to try again because of their knowledge of their past experiences. Similarly, someone who has never tried a particular course of action being afraid to try is likely basing it on his/her knowledge of failure as a whole. Neither past experiences with one result nor the general knowledge of failure are logical reasons to not try, but those forms of knowledge, in addition to fear, of course, become hindrances.
If you are familiar with the phrase "the more you know, the less you know", you may have guessed that was where I was going with today's posting. It would seem that Dr. Murakami's corollary to that adage would read as "the more you know, the less you're likely to try".
Smarts are one thing. I would not trade the knowledge I have gained through life experiences and formal schooling for anything, and am truly grateful for them. I try to not let that accumulated knowledge get in the way of experiences. I admit I do not regularly engage in a lot of "jumping off cliffs", but I try to at least push myself to try new things and, possibly, to learn new things along the way.
It is not hard to imagine the scientific discoveries that would have been abandoned had it been that knowledge held scientists back time and time again. The same can certainly be said for ourselves in our day-to-day lives. We are not meant to simply learn and apply knowledge. We are meant to engage and to experience new things. In other words, do not let the more you know keep you from the more you can try.
Terry
I finished reading a book I've had for several years, but only just recently got around to reading. The book is The Divine Code of Life by Dr. Kazuo Murakami, Ph.D. Dr. Murakami is a geneticist who decoded the genetic makeup of the enzyme renin, which is responsible for high blood pressure.
Dr. Murakami's position is that genes can be "turned on" and "turned off", in opposition of the long-standing theory that genes are fixed and cannot be changed in any way. There is also a minor spiritual element to the book, in that Dr. Murakami states that the complexity of genes points to a non-human creative force; he calls this creative force "Something Great". Although some of the science presented in the book went over my head, I found the book to be a fascinating read.
In a chapter titled 'Life Lessons from the Lab', Murakami draws a distinction between what he calls "day science" (i.e. classes, class-related lab work, lectures, etc.) and "night science" (i.e. intuition, chance-taking, etc.). He argues that most scientific discoveries stem from "night science" -- sometimes out of sheer curiosity, sometimes out of sheer frustration.
His furthering of this distinction can best be described by the phrase "ignorance is bliss". He cites a conversation between him and Masaru Ibuka, one of the founders of Sony Corporation regarding the secret behind his success. He quotes Ibuka as saying:
"In retrospect, I think that I was lucky not to be an expert. If I had fully understood tape
recorders or transistors at the time, I would have been far too intimidated to attempt such
a thing. When I learned more about them later, I was aghast at my own foolhardiness."(pg. 85)
Murakami argues that too much "day science" can get in the way of "night science". In other words, too much scientific knowledge can actually be a hindrance to scientific pursuits. One example was his entering into research of the enzyme renin. He states that his students with higher grades were far more resistant to this pursuit because there was so much uncharted territory. He does not suggest that those with lower grades or lower intellect are more open to new ideas, but rather the accumulation of massive amounts of knowledge can persuade one to be less curious and, by extension, less persistent.
Murakami answers the question of how excess knowledge can sometimes be a hindrance:
"It is not that information itself is inherently bad; rather, knowing more than others can
delude us into believing our judgment to be superior. Overdependence on knowledge
dulls our intuition and can make us look too far ahead. When an endeavor does not
proceed smoothly, excessive knowledge can cause us to jump to conclusions; the
conclusion reached in such a situation is likely to be pessimistic; and we assume the
project is doomed to failure when there is still a prospect for success." (pp 87-88)
Here's where my visit to a children's playground comes in. I was at an outdoor crafts festival last weekend and it was sunny and hot. The area the festival took place was out in the open. The only shade to be found was just outside the festival space. A friend of mine, who I had not seen in some time, and I sought relief from the sun on a bench blissfully engulfed in shade next to a playground.
While we sat on the bench catching up the other on the goings-on in our lives, we watched the children playing. I thought of their sheer delight and pure abandon while climbing steps, sliding down slides, swinging on swings, etc. I thought of how we, as adults, for the most part, lose that sheer delight and pure abandon. Certainly, many of us engage in recreational activities in which we can experience such things, but we have to plan when it will happen (i.e. weekend, days/nights of the week, vacation). (No argument here about planning, as long as you can find the opportunities to feel that delight and abandon.) All a child needs is a parent or guardian willing to say, "Let's go!"
Children come by such things so much more easily, don't they?
Obviously, it is because of their age, which means less responsibility and less knowledge than an adult. Then, "growing up" -- not getting older, but "growing up" -- happens. We have to go to school; we have to try and get good grades; we have move out on our own; we have to go to work; we have to meet responsibilities, such as doing out job well, paying our bills, saving money, and so on. If marriage is in the cards, we have to be faithful to our spouse and meet familial responsibilities.
During this time, we also add to our accumulated knowledge. We learn the proverbial "readin', writin', and 'rithmetic"; we learn chores are a part of family life and how to do them; we learn going to bed late when you have to get up early is a really bad idea; we learn how to do the duties of our job; we learn that frivolous and unrestrained spending leaves little to no money for paying bills and that not paying them is a big problem; we (hopefully) learn that money does not grow on trees; we learn to love and that love can be as beautiful as it can be hurtful; we learn the value of truthfulness, honesty, integrity, and loyalty, etc.
We also learn the down side of humanity and of life. Life is hard; life is not always fair. People can be helpful; people can be hurtful.
Just as Dr. Murakami finds excessive knowledge a hindrance in science, so too we might say the same, to a degree, in terms of life itself. If I was playing in a playground and the size and height of the equipment were adjusted for adults, I might to be so keen to try some things. Why? Because I might not have the abandon because I am aware that could get hurt, like landing funny and injuring a foot or an ankle. Keep the equipment kids' size, I'd be more apt to climb on board. Knowledge (i.e. an injured foot or ankle hurts a lot) is a hindrance. Not necessarily a bad hindrance, in terms of caution and safety, but a hindrance of sorts.
Just as those who have a fear of failure, the same may be argued. Someone who has tried a similar course of action(s) and failing at them, whatever failure would mean, might be less likely to try again because of their knowledge of their past experiences. Similarly, someone who has never tried a particular course of action being afraid to try is likely basing it on his/her knowledge of failure as a whole. Neither past experiences with one result nor the general knowledge of failure are logical reasons to not try, but those forms of knowledge, in addition to fear, of course, become hindrances.
If you are familiar with the phrase "the more you know, the less you know", you may have guessed that was where I was going with today's posting. It would seem that Dr. Murakami's corollary to that adage would read as "the more you know, the less you're likely to try".
Smarts are one thing. I would not trade the knowledge I have gained through life experiences and formal schooling for anything, and am truly grateful for them. I try to not let that accumulated knowledge get in the way of experiences. I admit I do not regularly engage in a lot of "jumping off cliffs", but I try to at least push myself to try new things and, possibly, to learn new things along the way.
It is not hard to imagine the scientific discoveries that would have been abandoned had it been that knowledge held scientists back time and time again. The same can certainly be said for ourselves in our day-to-day lives. We are not meant to simply learn and apply knowledge. We are meant to engage and to experience new things. In other words, do not let the more you know keep you from the more you can try.
Terry
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Word of the Day: USELESS
Two days ago, after much political maneuvering, the U.S. government was shut down. Once again.
This is not the first time a government shutdown has taken place. The U.S. government has been shut down a total of eighteen times, including this shutdown, over the past thirty-seven years. While polls, for what they're worth, show that most Americans blame the Republican party for the current shut down, it is easy to make an argument that such a move is usually mostly one or another party's fault. Such an argument is easy and lazy. Historically, it is a mixed bag. Ten out of the eighteen times, the President has been a Republican, while Democrats have controlled the Congress half the time during shutdowns.
The first government shutdown was in 1976, during the Gerald Ford administration, and lasted ten days. In the 1970's, the average length was around eleven days, with a total of six shutdowns. In the 1980's, the average length was roughly two days, but the number of shutdowns increased to eight. The 1990's saw only three shutdowns, but the average number of days went up to ten.
The 1990's average is so high with the fewest number of shutdowns because that decade saw the longest government shutdown in history, three weeks, running from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996. This number is often coupled with an earlier shutdown in mid-November 1995 that lasted for five days.
The 2000's saw no government shutdowns, but the same is now no longer true for the 2010's. The current shutdown is in day three as of this posting.
This shutdown is based on House Republicans wanting to attach a defunding or delaying of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) to a spending bill that would also raise the debt ceiling. A short, pointed statement by President Obama on the afternoon of September 30 did nothing to stop the shutdown from happening at midnight that night. A meeting at the White House yesterday between the President and congressional leaders to find a way to end the shutdown proved fruitless, with some news outlets saying it did nothing but cause both sides to dig their heels in deeper. It is being reported today that President Obama issued a challenge of sorts to House Speaker John Boehner to allow a vote on an already-Senate-approved spending bill which has no strings attached to the Affordable Care Act. My speculation is that Speaker Boehner will not bring the bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.
If nothing is done soon, the benefits and government employee paychecks that are cut-off will be added to by Social Security benefits not being paid out as well as other services being stopped. (Let's not forget that the Congress recently voted to cut billions of dollars from the food stamps program.) With my mother on Social Security, living on a fixed income, I do not want to see that happen. A CNN online article hihglights that members of Congress -- not their staffers, just members of Congress themselves -- still get paid, no matter what.
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives,
shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
That is the 27th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it means any change in congressional pay cannot happen until the mid-term elections in 2014. After that, it cannot happen again until the presidential election year of 2016.
Minnesota Representative Rick Nolan has introduced a bill in Congress which would stop congressional pay during the entire stretch of a government shutdown, calling for common sense to be used in governmental operations. I think it is a great idea, but it cannot be implemented until at least next Fall at the mid-term elections.
Now that I have presented all this, let me get down to brass tacks.
As great of an idea Representative Nolan's bill is, do you think it has any chance of passing? Seriously, do you? Politicians agreeing to have their pay stopped? Politicians willing to accept their "just desserts" and operate under the same standards as you or I do? Politicians working around the clock to fix a manufactured crisis that they themselves manufactured? I could say that I would believe it when I see it, but that seems pointless. I doubt Representative Nolan's bill, or any bill similar to it, will get anywhere in Congress. If it does, there will be so many additions, exceptions, loopholes, and conditions included within that it will be watered down from the get-go.
I ask you, is it a sensible expectation that those who hold the power to screw over the American public without any likely repercussions to themselves, other than possibly not getting re-elected, are completely willing to do the right thing all the time, or completely willing to admit they screwed up and to fix it, and completely willing to restore the integrity of government that government had generations ago? My response is it is not a sensible expectation at all.
Again, for what polls are worth, the public's congressional approval rating is down to a pathetic 9-10%, depending on whose information you read. Whether it is that low or even a little higher, it is clear that Americans hate Congress and it job itis isn't doing. I cannot blame them; I wholeheartedly agree.
Are you as sick and tired of hearing terms like debt ceiling, fiscal cliff, sequester, defunding, and delaying, year after year, as I am? They are nothing but advertising buzzwords for ideological squabbles and agenda advancements at the expense of the American.
This is the oath of office taken by U.S. senators and representatives: "I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." How does this shutdown support or defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies? (Is President Obama the enemy or, more importantly, are the American people?) Are we to assume that the shutdown is an example of discharging the duties of office well and faithfully? (Are ideological battles and agenda advancements part of those duties?) And they want God to help them benefit themselves while allowing Americans to suffer? (What does that say about their religion and their personal religious beliefs?)
It is not hard to imagine those in politics for centuries have received perks that they should not have or that they have made deals to benefit themselves. This is not to say doing that is okay, but it has been even more obvious for many years that the benefit of themselves, and their business interests, is standard operational procedure. That increased obviousness has led to an increase in America's dissatisfaction and disillusionment with Congress. It may or may not be hard to accept that those in power receive perks, but the willful intent to do so is not part of what those in Congress were voted in to do.
However, I find it unacceptable to engage in obstructionism and see it as what those voted into office are supposed to do. I find it unacceptable that a faction of one of the two political parties controls that entire party, and even steers the entire country directly toward actions like a government shutdown, is what those in office are supposed to do. I find it unacceptable that those who can take paychecks and benefits, as well as access to public places and health care, away from both federal and non-federal employees suffer no consequences for their actions is the way that things are supposed to be. And yet, these are the things that have been, and are, happening.
Therefore, Congress is useless.
Terry
This is not the first time a government shutdown has taken place. The U.S. government has been shut down a total of eighteen times, including this shutdown, over the past thirty-seven years. While polls, for what they're worth, show that most Americans blame the Republican party for the current shut down, it is easy to make an argument that such a move is usually mostly one or another party's fault. Such an argument is easy and lazy. Historically, it is a mixed bag. Ten out of the eighteen times, the President has been a Republican, while Democrats have controlled the Congress half the time during shutdowns.
The first government shutdown was in 1976, during the Gerald Ford administration, and lasted ten days. In the 1970's, the average length was around eleven days, with a total of six shutdowns. In the 1980's, the average length was roughly two days, but the number of shutdowns increased to eight. The 1990's saw only three shutdowns, but the average number of days went up to ten.
The 1990's average is so high with the fewest number of shutdowns because that decade saw the longest government shutdown in history, three weeks, running from mid-December 1995 to early January 1996. This number is often coupled with an earlier shutdown in mid-November 1995 that lasted for five days.
The 2000's saw no government shutdowns, but the same is now no longer true for the 2010's. The current shutdown is in day three as of this posting.
This shutdown is based on House Republicans wanting to attach a defunding or delaying of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) to a spending bill that would also raise the debt ceiling. A short, pointed statement by President Obama on the afternoon of September 30 did nothing to stop the shutdown from happening at midnight that night. A meeting at the White House yesterday between the President and congressional leaders to find a way to end the shutdown proved fruitless, with some news outlets saying it did nothing but cause both sides to dig their heels in deeper. It is being reported today that President Obama issued a challenge of sorts to House Speaker John Boehner to allow a vote on an already-Senate-approved spending bill which has no strings attached to the Affordable Care Act. My speculation is that Speaker Boehner will not bring the bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote.
If nothing is done soon, the benefits and government employee paychecks that are cut-off will be added to by Social Security benefits not being paid out as well as other services being stopped. (Let's not forget that the Congress recently voted to cut billions of dollars from the food stamps program.) With my mother on Social Security, living on a fixed income, I do not want to see that happen. A CNN online article hihglights that members of Congress -- not their staffers, just members of Congress themselves -- still get paid, no matter what.
"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives,
shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
That is the 27th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it means any change in congressional pay cannot happen until the mid-term elections in 2014. After that, it cannot happen again until the presidential election year of 2016.
Minnesota Representative Rick Nolan has introduced a bill in Congress which would stop congressional pay during the entire stretch of a government shutdown, calling for common sense to be used in governmental operations. I think it is a great idea, but it cannot be implemented until at least next Fall at the mid-term elections.
Now that I have presented all this, let me get down to brass tacks.
As great of an idea Representative Nolan's bill is, do you think it has any chance of passing? Seriously, do you? Politicians agreeing to have their pay stopped? Politicians willing to accept their "just desserts" and operate under the same standards as you or I do? Politicians working around the clock to fix a manufactured crisis that they themselves manufactured? I could say that I would believe it when I see it, but that seems pointless. I doubt Representative Nolan's bill, or any bill similar to it, will get anywhere in Congress. If it does, there will be so many additions, exceptions, loopholes, and conditions included within that it will be watered down from the get-go.
I ask you, is it a sensible expectation that those who hold the power to screw over the American public without any likely repercussions to themselves, other than possibly not getting re-elected, are completely willing to do the right thing all the time, or completely willing to admit they screwed up and to fix it, and completely willing to restore the integrity of government that government had generations ago? My response is it is not a sensible expectation at all.
Again, for what polls are worth, the public's congressional approval rating is down to a pathetic 9-10%, depending on whose information you read. Whether it is that low or even a little higher, it is clear that Americans hate Congress and it job it
Are you as sick and tired of hearing terms like debt ceiling, fiscal cliff, sequester, defunding, and delaying, year after year, as I am? They are nothing but advertising buzzwords for ideological squabbles and agenda advancements at the expense of the American.
This is the oath of office taken by U.S. senators and representatives: "I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." How does this shutdown support or defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies? (Is President Obama the enemy or, more importantly, are the American people?) Are we to assume that the shutdown is an example of discharging the duties of office well and faithfully? (Are ideological battles and agenda advancements part of those duties?) And they want God to help them benefit themselves while allowing Americans to suffer? (What does that say about their religion and their personal religious beliefs?)
It is not hard to imagine those in politics for centuries have received perks that they should not have or that they have made deals to benefit themselves. This is not to say doing that is okay, but it has been even more obvious for many years that the benefit of themselves, and their business interests, is standard operational procedure. That increased obviousness has led to an increase in America's dissatisfaction and disillusionment with Congress. It may or may not be hard to accept that those in power receive perks, but the willful intent to do so is not part of what those in Congress were voted in to do.
However, I find it unacceptable to engage in obstructionism and see it as what those voted into office are supposed to do. I find it unacceptable that a faction of one of the two political parties controls that entire party, and even steers the entire country directly toward actions like a government shutdown, is what those in office are supposed to do. I find it unacceptable that those who can take paychecks and benefits, as well as access to public places and health care, away from both federal and non-federal employees suffer no consequences for their actions is the way that things are supposed to be. And yet, these are the things that have been, and are, happening.
Therefore, Congress is useless.
Terry
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Phrase of the Day: PLEA FOR CAUTION
[The following is the Op-Ed letter posted yesterday in The New York Times newspaper and on its website from Russian president Vladimir Putin. What do you think?]
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to American About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published September 11, 2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by
growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the
nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on
American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what
makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional." It is
extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as
exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small
countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and
those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too.
We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must
not forget that God created us equal.
Terry
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to American About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published September 11, 2013
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood
against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once,
and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international
organization -- the United Nations -- was then established to prevent such
devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and
peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the
veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United
Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the
stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of
Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is
possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take
military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong
opposition from many countries and major political and religious
leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and
escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's
borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of
terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the
Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further
destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire
system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict
between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are
few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all
stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has
designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,
fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal
conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one
of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of
militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our
deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience
acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved
on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a
compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian
government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations
Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's
complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international
relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we
must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international
law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the
Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations
Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every
reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition
forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who
would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are
preparing another attack -- this time against Israel -- cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in
foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in
America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world
increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying
solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan
"you’re either with us or against us."
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling,
and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw.
Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war
continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw
an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would
want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons,
civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children,
whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law,
then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing
number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is
logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with
talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is
being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few
days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international
community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to
place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent
destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with
Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we
agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in
June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in
international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our
shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical
issues.
Terry
Friday, September 6, 2013
Words of the Day: UNCONVINCED & OPPOSED
I have been watching with great interest for the past two weeks the developments in Syria. I have also been watching with great interest the response by President Obama to those developments. To say that he has been banging the war drums would be an understatement.
The premise is based on the following: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is alleged to have launched a chemical weapons strike on his own people on August 21. This was the latest action by Assad's regime against his people as part of the Syrian civil war that has been going on since 2011. The civil war broke out as a part of the Arab Spring, which began back in 2010. The Syrian people want political reforms, reinstatement of civil rights, and greater freedom. Assad and his representatives have been repeatedly stating publicly that the fighting between government forces and rebel forces is due to outside involvement.
After the August 21 attack, President Obama began to call for military action against Syria. Not all U.S. politicians were convinced. Not all world leaders were convinced, either. In the ensuing two weeks since the attack, the rhetoric has been ratcheted up by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, directed to U.S. politicians and world leaders. President Obama drew a proverbial "red line" that Assad has crossed, only to later roll back that comment by saying, "The world set a red line."
President Obama's argument is partly on moral grounds. (More on that later.) He has stated that several nations agreed to find the use of chemical weapons as unacceptable under international agreement. The result of the Chemical Weapons Convention was an arms control agreement, first drafted in September of 1992, signed into ratification in January of 1993, and took effect in April of 1997. The agreement, in effect, outlawed the use of chemical weapons, as well as their production and stockpiling, in addition to regular monitoring and inspection of chemical plants and military bases. To date, all but seven U.N. member states have signed the agreement. Syria is one of the seven, along with Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea, and South Sudan.
The rhetoric being used sounds very similar to that was used in the lead up to the Iraq War. We are certain ... We have proof ... We are convinced . . . Britain just released a report that said clothing and soil samples taken from a patient treated for apparent chemical weapons exposure last month near Damascus showed the presence of sarin gas. Interesting about Britain, though, was a vote in British Parliament on August 29 that was against the use of military force in Syria.
It seemed to many observers, as well as current Prime Minister James Cameron, that it was a foregone conclusion that Britain would stand side-by-side with the U.S. on this matter -- considering former Prime Minister Tony Blair's walking in lockstep with former President George W. Bush regarding Iraq -- but they did not. (At least for now.) France seems to be the closest ally to the U.S. on this matter. (Considering the past historical relationship between France and the U.S. on matters of military engagement, this is quite the historical development, in and of itself.)
The talk of coalitions has resurfaced. It has been mentioned by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry that all of those who signed the Chemical Weapons Agreement are in opposition to Assad's actions in Syria. Thus, they are part of a coalition. If so many other countries and nation-states are against what's been happening in Syria, then why aren't any of them stepping out to the forefront on this matter? It has been suggested that the U.S., being the superpower that it is, should take the lead. Okay, fine. The U.S. has taken the lead on this and, so far, no one is else, save for France, is jumping on the bandwagon. So, where is the coalition? If President is at the G-20 Summit in Russia attempting to drum up international support, then where is the coalition? The pushback and lack of gung ho attitude in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives shows that Iraq is still fresh in peoples' minds.
Let me return to the idea mentioned earlier of attacking Syria as the morally correct thing to do. That is a tricky argument, at best. Yes, the use of chemical weapons is immoral. No, it should not be treated with impunity. Yes, the use of chemical weapons is an act of aggression, but so is the use of any weapons. I do not find merit in the use of missiles fired by U.S. warships as a deterrent to the use of chemical weapons fired within Syria, since both are weapons of mass destruction. Or do the American people think (or do our politicians want us to think) that only countries that are not our allies possess "weapons of mass destruction"? Not to mention the civil war going on, and how likely we are to get embroiled in that, as well as the likelihood of Iran jumping into the fray.
I do not believe our military involvement is warranted here. Something needs to be done, but not militarily. To that end, let me posit the following scenario: (You can use 9/11 or the attack on Pearl Harbor for an example, if you wish, but I mean this in the broadest possible sense.) We are attacked by another country's missiles. Wouldn't a likely response be retribution? Wouldn't we see that as an act of war against us? Of course we would.
If our government used chemical weapons against us and another country was thinking about bombing our country, albeit military and chemical locations, would we, the masses, see that as an act of war? Some would; some would not. (Depends on where the bombs and collateral damage end up.) Would our government see it that way? Of course it would.
The point is not that President Obama is using chemical weapons against U.S. citizens, just as Syrian President Assad is doing against his people. The point is that any government, attacking its citizens or not, is going to see this as an act of war. Yes, they are 100% in the wrong and on the side of immorality in the Syrian government, but their government will still see it that way, just as our government would. (In both cases of 9/11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor, the actions of Al-Qaeda and the Japanese were seen as acts of war.)
I am not siding with Assad. The reality is that those doing such immoral atrocities don't want to be found out and attacked themselves, and those not doing such immoral atrocities have no reason to be attacked.
I have learned how our government got us into the Vietnam War, to my chagrin. I saw how our country was viciously attacked on 9/11, to my chagrin. I saw how our country destroyed the goodwill shown to it in the shadow of 9/11 by engaging in an ongoing "war" against an ideology, including the use of preemptive strikes, to my chagrin.
If Syria has not attacked us and has not said (or it hasn't been discovered) that these attacks are a precursor to attacks on the U.S., then where is the imminent threat to the U.S. that could lead to a military response? In short, a bombing campaign that sounds as though it might rival "shock and awe", even if intended for military and chemical locations, will have collateral damage. There is no such thing as a "surgical strike"! I am unconvinced to the merit of President Obama's argument, except to the military industrial complex. (And even if Congress votes against action, the President is likely to proceed, anyway.) Sadly, very sadly, Eisenhower remains 100% correct.
My plea is for restraint in the midst of this crisis. We are becoming what we stood against for generations. In addition to being seen as such, our military action will be an act of war.
Terry
The premise is based on the following: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is alleged to have launched a chemical weapons strike on his own people on August 21. This was the latest action by Assad's regime against his people as part of the Syrian civil war that has been going on since 2011. The civil war broke out as a part of the Arab Spring, which began back in 2010. The Syrian people want political reforms, reinstatement of civil rights, and greater freedom. Assad and his representatives have been repeatedly stating publicly that the fighting between government forces and rebel forces is due to outside involvement.
After the August 21 attack, President Obama began to call for military action against Syria. Not all U.S. politicians were convinced. Not all world leaders were convinced, either. In the ensuing two weeks since the attack, the rhetoric has been ratcheted up by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, directed to U.S. politicians and world leaders. President Obama drew a proverbial "red line" that Assad has crossed, only to later roll back that comment by saying, "The world set a red line."
President Obama's argument is partly on moral grounds. (More on that later.) He has stated that several nations agreed to find the use of chemical weapons as unacceptable under international agreement. The result of the Chemical Weapons Convention was an arms control agreement, first drafted in September of 1992, signed into ratification in January of 1993, and took effect in April of 1997. The agreement, in effect, outlawed the use of chemical weapons, as well as their production and stockpiling, in addition to regular monitoring and inspection of chemical plants and military bases. To date, all but seven U.N. member states have signed the agreement. Syria is one of the seven, along with Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea, and South Sudan.
The rhetoric being used sounds very similar to that was used in the lead up to the Iraq War. We are certain ... We have proof ... We are convinced . . . Britain just released a report that said clothing and soil samples taken from a patient treated for apparent chemical weapons exposure last month near Damascus showed the presence of sarin gas. Interesting about Britain, though, was a vote in British Parliament on August 29 that was against the use of military force in Syria.
It seemed to many observers, as well as current Prime Minister James Cameron, that it was a foregone conclusion that Britain would stand side-by-side with the U.S. on this matter -- considering former Prime Minister Tony Blair's walking in lockstep with former President George W. Bush regarding Iraq -- but they did not. (At least for now.) France seems to be the closest ally to the U.S. on this matter. (Considering the past historical relationship between France and the U.S. on matters of military engagement, this is quite the historical development, in and of itself.)
The talk of coalitions has resurfaced. It has been mentioned by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry that all of those who signed the Chemical Weapons Agreement are in opposition to Assad's actions in Syria. Thus, they are part of a coalition. If so many other countries and nation-states are against what's been happening in Syria, then why aren't any of them stepping out to the forefront on this matter? It has been suggested that the U.S., being the superpower that it is, should take the lead. Okay, fine. The U.S. has taken the lead on this and, so far, no one is else, save for France, is jumping on the bandwagon. So, where is the coalition? If President is at the G-20 Summit in Russia attempting to drum up international support, then where is the coalition? The pushback and lack of gung ho attitude in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives shows that Iraq is still fresh in peoples' minds.
Let me return to the idea mentioned earlier of attacking Syria as the morally correct thing to do. That is a tricky argument, at best. Yes, the use of chemical weapons is immoral. No, it should not be treated with impunity. Yes, the use of chemical weapons is an act of aggression, but so is the use of any weapons. I do not find merit in the use of missiles fired by U.S. warships as a deterrent to the use of chemical weapons fired within Syria, since both are weapons of mass destruction. Or do the American people think (or do our politicians want us to think) that only countries that are not our allies possess "weapons of mass destruction"? Not to mention the civil war going on, and how likely we are to get embroiled in that, as well as the likelihood of Iran jumping into the fray.
I do not believe our military involvement is warranted here. Something needs to be done, but not militarily. To that end, let me posit the following scenario: (You can use 9/11 or the attack on Pearl Harbor for an example, if you wish, but I mean this in the broadest possible sense.) We are attacked by another country's missiles. Wouldn't a likely response be retribution? Wouldn't we see that as an act of war against us? Of course we would.
If our government used chemical weapons against us and another country was thinking about bombing our country, albeit military and chemical locations, would we, the masses, see that as an act of war? Some would; some would not. (Depends on where the bombs and collateral damage end up.) Would our government see it that way? Of course it would.
The point is not that President Obama is using chemical weapons against U.S. citizens, just as Syrian President Assad is doing against his people. The point is that any government, attacking its citizens or not, is going to see this as an act of war. Yes, they are 100% in the wrong and on the side of immorality in the Syrian government, but their government will still see it that way, just as our government would. (In both cases of 9/11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor, the actions of Al-Qaeda and the Japanese were seen as acts of war.)
I am not siding with Assad. The reality is that those doing such immoral atrocities don't want to be found out and attacked themselves, and those not doing such immoral atrocities have no reason to be attacked.
I have learned how our government got us into the Vietnam War, to my chagrin. I saw how our country was viciously attacked on 9/11, to my chagrin. I saw how our country destroyed the goodwill shown to it in the shadow of 9/11 by engaging in an ongoing "war" against an ideology, including the use of preemptive strikes, to my chagrin.
If Syria has not attacked us and has not said (or it hasn't been discovered) that these attacks are a precursor to attacks on the U.S., then where is the imminent threat to the U.S. that could lead to a military response? In short, a bombing campaign that sounds as though it might rival "shock and awe", even if intended for military and chemical locations, will have collateral damage. There is no such thing as a "surgical strike"! I am unconvinced to the merit of President Obama's argument, except to the military industrial complex. (And even if Congress votes against action, the President is likely to proceed, anyway.) Sadly, very sadly, Eisenhower remains 100% correct.
My plea is for restraint in the midst of this crisis. We are becoming what we stood against for generations. In addition to being seen as such, our military action will be an act of war.
Terry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)