Sixty Years Since Truman Desegregated the Military

July 26 is the 60th anniversary of Truman's desegregation executive order. The AP has an interesting Insight piece on the subject.

Our comrade, IRRSoldier has posted often about ROTC abandoning certain demographics. Well, according to the AP piece:

A review of congressional nominations to the military academies shows that black and Hispanic lawmakers often recommend fewer students.

The fewest appointments to the academies came from Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., who forwarded just three names for the classes of 2009-2012. Two other members of Congress _ Massachusetts Democrat Michael Capuano and New York Democrat Jose Serrano_ sent up five names.

According to Pentagon data, the number of lawmakers who failed to nominate at least one candidate to each academy increased from 24 in 2005 to 38 this year. Of the 75 lawmakers overall who did not nominate someone to each academy in all four years, 40 were either black or Hispanic.


It would appear that some members of Congress have no interest in people from their constituencies becoming career military officers. Or, perhaps, the people in their districts do not seek military careers, even for a free education. IMHO, another downside of the AVF.

Al

But he's not "endorsing" Obama

Woke up to this interesting tidbit.

Seems that the Iraqi prime minister would like to see us out of his hair as soon as possible. Perhaps he feels that our presence only keeps the pot stirred. Further, McCain's "100 years, if necessary" cannot be a pleasant thought.

It will be interesting to see what comes of Obama's visit to Iraq.

And the beat goes on

In response to a question today as to why he had not stepped up and encouraged Americans to start conserving fuel, Pres Bush stated that the consumer was smart enough to to see the current price of fossil fuel and figure it out for himself. He said that consumers respond to market forces, and there was no need for a president to tell them what to do. That's why he lowered taxes, so that more money would be in the hands of these wise consumers to use as they see fit.

If that's the case, Mr President, then why are trillions of tax dollars going to be spent to rescue the free market mortgage and banking industries from greed, consumer excesses and flat out stupidity? Is it not incumbent upon a "leader" to offer sage counsel on issues effecting the nation at large? Or would suggestions of reigning in markets run amok be bad for business?

WASF

Al

Not Even Original Thought

This morning's IHT had an interesting piece on the origins of harsh prisoner treatment at Gitmo. Seems that our people can't be given a passing grade for originality on that program. Weren't even creative enough to rewicker the chart used, other than to change the title to remove the reference to the ChiComs.

I must add, they weren't even creative in using the materials. Same names for the techniques, etc.

So tell me all you commie hating, democracy loving folks, how does it feel to know we simply mimicked what we condemned 30 years ago?

Surprised? Hell no. Saddened? Extremely.

FISA and immunity for telecoms companies

My excellent Congressman responded regarding FISA and immunity for telecoms. I am not sure I agree with his rationale entirely, but he certainly provided a lot of detail and food for thought (below).

He refers to Mr. Bush's program as the "terrorist surveillance program." I think that is a mistake.

This is not about terrorists. Of course we should listen in on terrorists. And if Americans are involved in terrorism (Tim McViegh certainly was), we should listen in on them too. OF COURSE we should. Wiretaps are necessary.

This is about who oversees those wiretaps - the courts, like the People commanded in the Constitution, or just Mr. Bush and those he appoints - not a group known for getting things right on anything in the past, not a group known for putting partisan politics aside, thus not a group we should trust in the future.

I want all terrorists and suspected terrorists bugged, monitored, surveillance on them 24/7, I want their mail opened and read, I want their Internet activity in the hands of the government. I want the same for suspected terrorists. I want us to find them and eliminate them. That is not what this debate is about.

The problem is that Mr. Bush says he can't do that successfully if he has to allow a judge to be involved in that process in any way. Because of "national security." And he won't explain why, he just wants us to trust him. When questions are raised he attacks the questioners and pretends the issue is whether we should listen to terrorists. That is not - never has been - the issue.

Yes, we should listen to terrorists and suspected terrorists. Damn right we should spy on them. I don't hear anybody who says otherwise. But why can't a judge oversee that process like the Founding Fathers commanded? Mr. Bush won't even explain, he just keeps insisting that it is "complicated" and "national security" and "we need to listen in on terrorist phone calls." Well, yes, we do, but why not allow a judge to oversee the warrants like we do for every other kind of dangerous crime? Like the Constitution says? Like the FISA law passed by Congress and signed by President Ford says after they considered those same issues very carefully?

Yes we need to listen in on terrorist phone calls, but why can't we trust our judicial branch instead of trusting only the executive branch? The Constitution says they both have to agree that a warrant is necessary - but wiretaps can start immediately without any warrant, a judge just reviews it later - and there is even a special, secret, top-security clearance court just for that - the FISA Court, with judges that have the highest security clearances around. They even approved 99.99 of all warrants that were asked for in the past (the president won't even ask them). And they are fast - ask for a warrant after you have already started, and you will have a response in hours - and you never, ever, ever have to wait before you listen, you listen first and then ask later - and if the warrant is denied (less than .001 of 1 percent of the time) you aren't in trouble, you just have stop because the very-agreeable top-security clearance court thinks you are way out of line (such as "we have to bug Obama's office - terrorism you know."). The president didn't even ask for warrants - he just ordered the NSA to listen in anyway and screw the Constitution and the rule of law and the People and the Judicial Branch. And this wasn't in the hours and days after 9/11, this went on for years, and even after he pushed through the Patriot Act. He never even asked for a law to allow him to do so even when the Republican majority was giving him anything he wanted including a war in Iraq. He didn't even ask - he just did it, and still won't say why. And then, when it was a problem, he stopped (or says he has) - but if it was so vital to our national security, why? He still refuses to explain. After all, he is the president and there are scary terrorists out there you know.

Why couldn't the president use that special secret court and stay within the law? He refuses to explain - instead, as I said, he twists the discussion so it becomes one about whether we should bug terrorist phones instead of how we do it. He won't trust the FISA court, but he wants us to trust him - and he is breaking the law every time he refuses to get a warrant. Why? He won't say. Is it possible that perhaps he is spying on his political opponents, digging up blackmail info against congressmen, etc. Oh, of course not. He would never stoop so low, right? Right?

Sorry, Mr. Bush - the people didn't trust George Washington with such power (warrantless searches), and I think we had (and have) a little more confidence in his abilities and fidelity to the law than to you. If we didn't trust George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or FDR, given the huge threats they faced, I really don't see that we should confer such authority on you. That you just decided to take it anyway, hoping that by calling it the "terrorist survelliance program" it would silence critics because you could make the debate about scary terrorists and "weak-kneed liberals" rather than getting warrants like the law says, is certainly not a reason for us to trust you - even if you had a good track record of honesty and being right, which you sure as hell don't.

Which leads us to the immunity for telecoms companies that gave the executive branch of the federal government all of your emails and phone calls (yes, you too - ATT, for instance, allowed the NSA to monitor and copy everything on their networks - not just terrorists or suspects, but every email, phone call, text message, everything - yours and mine too. And they still have that data.). The president was willing to trust ATT, and ATT trusted the president - and the courts and the Constitution be damned, the president didn't trust either one.

And now lawsuits against ATT and others are tossed out. I was against that idea. Mr. Schiff voted for it. He explains why below, and I think he may be right. In any case, it was a tough call and he explained why he voted as he did. I am not sure I agree, but I sure will be proud to vote for Congressman Schiff again. I wish there were more dedicated public servants like him in Congress:

Dear Mr. Henderson:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent vote on the FISA Amendments Act. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome your feedback.

As you know, the House recently considered H.R. 6304, the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008." This legislation is intended to update the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to ensure that our intelligence agencies can operate effectively, while ensuring that we respect the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.

In December 2005, we learned that the President was engaged in warrantless eavesdropping of Americans, contrary to law. In response, I introduced the "NSA Oversight Act" - legislation that clearly prohibited these actions by reiterating the exclusivity of FISA and our criminal wiretap statutes with regard to domestic electronic surveillance. After the Republican Leadership refused to consider my legislation, I offered an amendment on the House Floor that came within 7 votes of shutting down the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program unless it was brought under court supervision. Shortly after, the President announced that the activities under that program would be ceased and brought under FISA.

Nevertheless, I continued to believe it was necessary for Congress to respond to the President's dangerous assertion of unilateral authority in this area. Therefore, I offered an amendment on the House Floor in 2007 that clearly stated that FISA is the exclusive authority for engaging in domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. My amendment passed by a vote of 245-178, and marked the first time that Congress spoke on this issue. Unfortunately, this language was stripped out by Senate conferees.

As you know, Congress has continued to work to address this issue in order to formally bring all of our intelligence activities within the framework of FISA. Last year, Congress hastily passed the so-called "Protect America Act," legislation that I strongly opposed. Since that time, Congress has considered alternatives in order to restore civil liberties protections in this area. Earlier this year, a measure was proposed that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate. The Senate bill did not include sufficient protections for the civil liberties of Americans, and included provisions that would provide for retroactive immunity to certain telecommunications companies. I could not support this bill.

In order to prevent enactment of the Senate bill - or a reauthorization of the so-called "Protect America Act" - an alternative compromise bill, the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008," was proposed on the House side. While this legislation was imperfect and included items that I would have preferred were removed, the bill also included important civil liberties protections that I have fought for over the last two and half years.

As you know, the final bill included language that provides a summary procedure in the district court to determine whether the telecommunications companies should be immune from civil liability for complying with the surveillance requests of the Bush Administration. I pushed for a different process by which a court could fully hear arguments on the merits of these cases, including any defenses available in current law, while also ensuring that classified information was protected. Under this process, an inspector general would be tasked with representing the privacy rights of the American people, and the court could make an independent determination about whether companies violated the law by cooperating with the government. My proposal was not adopted in the compromise, and regrettably, far weaker language was adopted on this issue.

Although this was not the language I preferred on the immunity issue, the final bill also included key provisions that will protect the civil liberties of Americans. Specifically, the bill finally responds to the President's assertion that he can eavesdrop on Americans without a court order, by clearly stating that FISA and our criminal wiretap statutes are the exclusive authorities governing this area. Without this language, nothing will stop this president or future presidents from claiming the inherent authority to wiretap Americans without a court order. The proposal also provides for important oversight by the FISA court on the front-end, contains new protections against warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons abroad, and includes important safeguards to protect against reverse targeting of Americans. These important provisions made this a compromise I could support on balance, and I joined Speaker Pelosi, Senator Obama , and others in supporting this compromise.

The bill requires a full review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies and of the President's warrantless wiretapping program to determine what took place in the past and to ensure accountability going forward. I continue to believe that Congress should fully investigate the actions of the Administration in this area. No immunity is provided to any government official who may have violated the law.

As a member of both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I intend to carefully monitor our nation's intelligence activities and to closely review the report by the Inspectors General. Since the bill includes an important sunset provision that calls for the expiration of the law in 4 years, Congress will be able to make any additional revisions needed and to ensure that any abuses are addressed.

An on-going job of a Representative in Congress is to help constituents solve problems with federal agencies, access services, and get their questions answered promptly. I also encourage you to subscribe to the Washington Update, my email newsletter which contains information on local events, my work in Washington , and even lets you weigh in on important issues through online polls. Visit me online at http://schiff.house.gov to subscribe. Please know that you can always reach me at (626) 304-2727 or via my website if I can ever be of additional assistance.

Thank you again for your thoughts. I hope you will continue to share your views and ideas with me.

Sincerely,

Adam B. Schiff

Member of Congress

Supporting a Declaration of War Should Be The Same As Volunteering to Fight It

The same day I posted my idea for a "token draft" of 10% of the force to ensure all Americans are at war, not just the military, this appeared in the USA Today. No, I did not read it before my post, it was simply a coincidence. I think the history is off - during most of America's history we had an all-volunteer force supplemented by a draft in wartime, not just since 1973 - but the points are valid. Here is the article in full:

All-volunteer Army: An ongoing experiment

By Leonard Wong and Stephen Gerras

In 1973, the military draft ended, and our nation began the experiment of manning an Army exclusively with volunteers.

A decade later, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger proclaimed, "To all the American people, I would say that the experiment is over. We know that an all-volunteer force can succeed, and we know what it takes to make it succeed."

And yet, perhaps today we really don't know all it takes to make the all-volunteer force succeed. Five years of war have turned recruiting for the Army into a continuous struggle. The challenge, however, is not merely recruiting enough soldiers, but "quality" soldiers.

A "quality" soldier is motivated to serve, learns quickly and flourishes in the Spartan conditions of military life. To assess "quality," the Army relies on a high school diploma as an indicator of motivation, higher aptitude test scores as a marker of trainability, and the absence of a criminal record.

Lower standards

Because more recruits lack high school diplomas or require waivers for misconduct, the Army developed plans for programs such as a prep school to attain a GED or more focused training to compensate for lower aptitudes. These recruits have proved very competent.

But the Army is more than enlisted soldiers. There is also the officer corps. Unlike the enlisted force where re-enlistment rates have been high, officer retention continues to be a problem.

The Army's recent incentives, including a $35,000 bonus, have failed to persuade enough captains to stay in uniform, especially officers from top-tier ROTC schools or West Point. These officers, who eventually account for the majority of Army senior leaders, are critical in providing the future direction of the military. These officers are also extremely marketable, even in a tight job market.

What should be done? One option is to mimic the enlistee-recruitment approach. The Army can lower standards to bring in more lieutenants, bypassing the requirement to attend ROTC, West Point or even college. Good training can compensate at the tactical level for the lack of an ROTC or West Point experience in the short term.

Future leadership

As officers progress through their careers, they are called on more for their ability to handle the unknown. But unlike corporations, the Army cannot hire external senior leaders. Bringing in lower-quality lieutenants today will result in lower-quality generals tomorrow.

Another option is a significant drawdown in Iraq, thereby giving our warriors a break from multiple deployments. Besides being a political rather than a military decision, however, this alternative is only a short-term fix that sidesteps the real issue.

The real issue confronting today's Army derives from three aversions held by Americans:

* We are skeptical of a sizable military. "The spirit of this country," Thomas Jefferson noted, "is totally adverse to a large military force."

* While many Americans yearn for some form of national service, few are eager to revisit the inequities of conscription.

* Americans have a low tolerance for long wars.

When the all-volunteer Army was envisioned 35 years ago, few predicted that it would be downsized from a force of 800,000 then to 547,000 today. It was assumed that the all-volunteer force would be supported by a standby draft and that long wars would not be measured in decades, but in years. The result is an Army struggling to maintain quality — especially in its officer corps — in an environment unforeseen by its architects.

Even after we eventually leave Iraq, the Army will still have to attract and retain quality people. Considering the circumstances, it appears this experiment called the all-volunteer Army is not over.

Retired lieutenant colonel Leonard Wong and retired colonel Stephen Gerras are faculty members at the Army War College. Their views are not necessarily those of the Army.

Posted at 12:15 AM/ET, June 25, 2008 in Forum commentary, Military issues - Forum

The Last Full Measure of Devotion - at a discount rate

As the war in Iraq drags on, I would like to point out something that all Americans should agree with regardless of whether you support the war or, like me, thought it idiocy from the start. That something is this: the burdens of this war have not been equally shared by the American People.

The Army and Marines are at war, the rest of us are not. It is not fair. It is a national disgrace.

We have never before asked, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, of so much from so few. And yes, we owe them so much. But we should never have asked for so few to bear the burden of this war. The Army said it needed more soldiers before we invaded. It still, over five years later, does not have them. We should be ashamed of ourselves. If the "surge is working," imagine if we had enough troops at the start! But here is the problem: regardless of whether the surge is working or not, we are still fighting in Iraq and we are sending the same soldiers over and over and over again. That is despicable.

It is not ok to say "well, they volunteered." The idea of our "all-volunteer military" was never, NEVER, intended to be like that of the French Foreign Legion. They are not a mercenary force and must not become one or we are all in danger. In World War Two we did not use only our pre-war all-volunteer military. We as a nation went to war, not just the Army and Marines.

An "all-volunteer military" is a standing army, in peacetime and for short and quick engagements, not for times of extended war. That has ALWAYS been the case in American history. We have had an "all-volunteer military" before - in fact, for most of our history the Army has been all-volunteer. We only initiated a peace-time draft - for the first time in US history - in 1940, to prepare for World War II. Why? Because it was understood - and always understood - that an all-volunteer military serves in peacetime so that we are prepared for war, but once we are in a war that lasts, that can't be handled quickly, the nation will - and should and must - mobilize. That is what we have done in the past. We did that because it was the right thing to do - whether our wars were just or unjust, our nation went to war as a nation. Agree or disagree, but we were in it together. E Pluribus Unum. The United States. When we don't do that we lose the war - and we lose our soul. And we are losing our national soul.

We have not mobilized. Five years down the line, with the Army and Marines worn out by repeated combat tours, we still have not mobilized. Whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, we should have mobilized to fight a war that we as a people authorized. We should be angry - and ashamed - of our betrayal of our volunteer military. We have betrayed our troops.

This is not, as some have called it, "Mr. Bush's war." Mr. Bush had to get - and he recieved - Congressional authorization for invading Iraq. OUR NATION DECLARED WAR, NOT MR. BUSH BY HIMSELF. And yet we let the same soldiers return to Iraq again and again and again and again. How disgraceful and shameful.

When the idea of a draft for this war was first raised, pre-invasion, many who "support the troops" were against it because it would harm the professionalism of an all-volunteer military. I disagree. We can keep the professionalism by having a limited - call it a "token" if you will - draft, ensuring that most of the Army remains volunteers, but ensuring that when our nation is at war that we all face the risk that we or our loved ones will face danger and might die. Perhaps a draft of 10% of the force - if the Army has 550,000 soldiers, we draft 55,000 young men and women to serve alongside the volunteers, and the same percentage for the Marines - and we ensure they serve in combat. For each draftee that does not make it through training and join a unit, we draft another. 1 draftee among 10 volunteer soldiers will not harm the professional nature of our all-volunteer military, and it will mean something much more - that our nation feels it is at war instead of just the military being at war. We will be in it together - as we should be when we declare war - not the Army, which does not and should not have the power to order our nation to war. We have that power - and we should face the consequences. Anything less is national cowardice.

And if that is "politically impossible" for this war, what does that say about this war? And what does it say about our nation? If our nation truly must wage war, it must do so. If not, it should not. To say we must wage war but not me or my family, send somebody else, I'm busy is a recipe for the destruction of the republic, a dangerous recipe for military adventurism without domestic political safeguards, and a recipe of absolute betrayal of our troops so many bumper stickers so easily - and falsely - claim to support.

If the nation is not willing to draft soldiers to fight the war, then the nation is not willing to fight the war and the People will have spoken. Agree or disagree as you may, that is the will of the People and that is supposed to be how our nation conducts itself - with the People as sovereign. Those who would not want to even ask the People to do so because they are afraid the People will refuse such a draft are doing two things:

1) betraying the troops they falsely claim to support - by not supporting them, and
2) betraying the cause of democracy they claim this war is all about.

For those who refuse to "enable" this war by a draft because they disagree with it, they are doing two things:

1) betraying the troops they falsely claim to support - by not supporting them, and
2) betraying the cause of democracy they claim their opposition to this war is all about.

Since 9/11 we have acted as a terrorized nation filled with cowards. Tough talk? Shocked by my words? Then imagine this: you are at a party with 1,000 people. There are 300 "bad guys" outside who attack and try to kill guests. 100 party guests who see what is going on rush to defend everybody inside the party, and they are outnumbered and are struggling to hold back the "bad guys." The rest of the 900 guests continue to party. The band plays on, the dances go on, the guests feast on shrimp cocktails, while the initial 100 guests fight to hold back the angry horde of bad guys who want to rush in and attack everybody. The host of the party occasionally takes the stage and says "let's have a round of applause for the volunteers!" and the guests cheer and then go back to partying. When the volunteers are exhausted they stagger back inside to rest - and after catching their breath, they are ordered back to the fight by men in tuxedos munching on shrimp who pat them on the back and say "I support you" and then return to the dance floor rather than help. When some guests criticize the way the fight is being conducted, the host tells them they don't understand the nature of the "bad guys" and the crowd boos the critics, accusing them of not supporting the 100 volunteers. The 100 volunteers return again and again to the fight. The 900 guests never do - they just continue partying while talking about how much they admire the volunteers. Eventually few of them even want to talk about the fight, they mostly ignore it.

Now imagine a similar scenario, except the "bad guys" didn't start it, and the 100 volunteers warned that it would be a disaster and said they needed help - and were ignored. Now imagine 5 years of this. You don't have to do so, it is the war in Iraq.

We as a nation have betrayed our Army. The Army remains loyal to the will of the People, but we as a people have not remained loyal to our Army. We have not supported them. We have instead partied on. Now we don't even talk about the war - it has mostly disappeared from the news.

A friend of mine who was killed last year - a great man, I served with him for years and my wife and his wife went to college together and we introduced them, and they were the only guests at our wedding (we eloped) - has two daughters. He served long before 9/11 and long after. He died from an IED in Iraq. The pain from his death continues - and most of us have no idea of that pain, it is not real for us, the dead are, for most of us, not real people, the soldiers in Iraq are not people we know. Our nation is not at war, only the military. My friend's wife wrote this recently about the death of her husband (I didn't ask her for permission to post this so I have redacted all identifying info):

I remember standing in the Atlanta airport, stranded, telling my crying daughter we would make it home and it was going to be ok, but not knowing where home was or if it was going to be ok. And fitful sleeps, violent dreams, and living off a cup of coffee and a brownie, one of our friends brought by. And reading the last letter, mailed just days before his death, then finding the notes hidden in our Christmas stockings, "Daddy will be home soon, I love you."

[redacted]'s loss is still so hard to fathom. But he loved me enough, to help me find my strength and use it. He loved me enough to show me the way. He loved me enough to make me a home. He loved me enough to show me how to have pride in honor, duty, and country. Our wounds will never heal fully. It is a daily struggle of learning to live with them, and trying to finding the joy in today and remembering the joy of the past.

A joy of the past... One of my favorite stories that makes me smile and laugh was our last motorcycle trip together to Charleston, North Carolina. It was gorgeous, the flowers were blooming the spring weather was perfect, and our new headsets were working great. We could talk helmet to helmet or listen to the radio. As we were headed back, I began one of my many bla, bla, rantings, or so [redacted] must have thought. He unplugged my headset so he wouldn't have to listen! I couldn't believe it, "plug me back in," I tried to scream through the helmet. He motioned back that he couldn't hear me, and I could see the huge grin behind his helmet. "Every husbands' dream," I thought, as I now sat in silent solitude on the back of the bike, "a mute button for the wife." A few miles down the road, I was magically plugged in again, on the condition that my rantings were over, and we had a good laugh.

Well, enough of my rambling, remember the grin, the huge arms and broad shoulders, and all those funny stories. In our hearts he will live forever.

He certainly will live on in my heart. Those fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are real flesh-and-blood people. They don't want to die. They don't want to be deployed. They love their families. They prefer being home to read bed-time stories to their children over facing danger and filth and tragedy in a foreign land for years at a time. But they do it because they obey the orders of the People - imagine the dedication to democracy it takes to obey such an order. Now imagine it if you have a family and you are facing your fourth tour. Imagine if, like a dear friend of mine, you are facing another tour in Iraq and your son was killed in Anbar province in 2005 because he followed in your footsteps. What have you done to support him? Plaster a bumper sticker on your car? How brave and selfless of you. For those who think he chose to serve in Iraq because he volunteered, my friend did not volunteer to fight in Iraq - he joined the Army in the early 1980s. He served - and continues to serve - to protect and defend the Constitution. He remains loyal to it. He didn't start the war. We did. What are you doing to support him? Don't you think you should do a little to support the Constitution too, since you and the rest of us are the reason for his being in Iraq? Or is it ok to just let him and his family bear the cost for our decisions?

We have betrayed these soldiers. We are dancing at the party and ignoring what we ordered them to do, as if it were their decision to wage war instead of our own. "Oh, I was against the war so it is not my fault." Yes, it is. Our nation declared war and you are part of it. That you let others bear the burden is not ok. And many soldiers were against the invasion too - but they did their duty. It is our duty too. We have shirked it. We have let a mere few bear the burden and that is national cowardice. We refuse to make hard choices - although we made the "easy" decsion to go to war. We started it, we have avoided the consequences, letting the same few face the danger time and again. That is cowardice. There is no other word that fits. It is cowardice.

If our nation thinks the way to wage wars is to send the same men again and again and again and again while the rest of us continue to party, we have become an evil and despicable people. If you disagree and think us better than that - then I ask WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS? Call your congressperson, write to your Senator, and let them know we should have a "token draft" - and you should do this whether you are for or against the war. This isn't about politics, it is about support for our troops. It is about our nation bearing responsibility for our national decisions. It is about self-government. It is about whether democracy should survive in the United States.

And if you do not, all the bumper stickers you paste on your cars are nothing but lies. And you know it.

Speaking of "Patriots"

FRESNO, Calif. (June 23) - John McCain distanced himself Monday from a top adviser who said another terrorist attack on U.S. soil this election year would benefit the Republican presidential candidate. Barack Obama's campaign called the comment a "complete disgrace."

Were I able to make my mind live in OZ, I would be able to say that Black's comment surprises me. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that winning the election is much more important than the well being of our nation and its people.

I have received all too many right wing e-mails that support this tortured logic. Stuff like "The terrorists are holding back only to get Obama elected.", or "If Obama gets elected, we deserve another 9/11."

I would not be surprised if these mutts haven't put together a campaign package ready to capitalize politically on any terror incident between now and Nov.

It is quite perplexing that one can be charged with a felony for discussing the impact of a bomb while in an airport, but not for discussing the political "benefit" of it in a magazine interview. How anyone can discuss a terror attack in terms of "benefit" is beyond me, unless, of course, you are the terrorist.

I would be so uplifted to hear anyone say, "Discussing human tragedy in terms of the political gain it can deliver is blasphemy."

WASF

I just couldn't resist

On a flight from Athens to London last week, I ended up sitting in the waiting area next to two young ladies who had just graduated from a major university. An Australian woman was talking to them, and she expressed her confusion over our recent "primaries and caucuses" and how it seemed that there wasn't a consistency. One young lady said, "Well, we elect our presidents by using an electoral college." In response to the Aussie lady's obvious increased confusion, I offered a very brief explanation of the primary and caucus process, explaining that these were how the parties, using party rules, selected the delegates to the conventions, and the final candidate was officially selected at the convention. Each state has relatively free to determine how it selected it's delegates, I added.

The Aussie lady, then asked the two young ladies who they were supporting. Again, the same girl answered, "Well, I really don;t think I could vote for Obama", which drew the expected response, "Why". "Well, I come from a conservative family. Even if I didn't, there's a lot about Obama I can't accept. I am more patriotic, I guess." The second girl simply stayed out of the conversation.

The conversation then drifted to what the girls would do upon return to the US. The quiet one said she would be continuing in an MBA program. The other said she wasn't sure, but was thinking about doing something that could be a "life altering experience" first, such as a couple of months of missionary work in Guatemala.

I ended up in the row in front of the two on the plane, and we exchanged a couple of pleasantries about this and that. Learned that the more talkative one attended the same high school as our oldest grandson. They asked what I did, and I told them that I was retired military.

As we were deplaning, I wished the MBA candidate good luck with her studies, and then said to the other, "Are you really looking for a life altering experience? Why don't you consider military service?" Her initial response was to look at her friend, who gave a "Well, why not?" look. "Oh, heavens", she said. "I'm not cut out for that at all." I responded, "We need bright, educated officers who are dedicated to our country. How would you know you aren't cut out for something you haven't tried?"

Well, she hummed and hawed and then said, "My dad served in the Navy. I don't think he'd want me to join."

I decided to let it end at that. The MBA candidate was grinning from ear to ear. I wished them both well and went on my way.

I have wanted ever so long to pose "The Question" to a self professed patriotic conservative college kid. I just couldn't resist.

Another Fighter for Freedom - RIP George Carlin

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Learning from the United States

The Bush Administration has been trying to get China to adopt a more market driven monetary policy. This recent snippet from AP gives a glimpse of how much authority our suggestions carry:

China has pledged to loosen currency controls, but has not given any timetable, saying that sudden change would expose the country's shaky financial system to excessive risks from outside speculators.

During the talks in Annapolis, Md., China's central bank governor, Zhou Xiaochuan, alluded to such risks by asking about the regulatory mistakes that may have helped precipitate recent U.S. financial troubles.

"China always hopes to draw lessons from the U.S. experience in macroeconomic management and market development," the official Xinhua News Agency quoted Zhou as saying. "However, during this time of discussion, we are also interested in drawing lessons from the U.S. financial turbulence."

Among the questions Zhou said raised was the role exchange rates can play "in maintaining the world's financial stability."

Seems China is more interested in learning from this administration's mistakes than the administration itself!

What's that old Chinese curse about interesting times?
215 DAYS, 10 Hrs, 15 Min, 44.8 Sec - but who's counting?

This is how they support our troops

Soldiers risk ruin while awaiting benefit checks

2008-06-16 14:07:45
By MICHELLE ROBERTS Associated Press Writer

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — His lifelong dream of becoming a soldier had, in the end, come to this for Isaac Stevens: 28, penniless, in a wheelchair, fending off the sexual advances of another man in a homeless shelter.

Stevens' descent from Army private first-class, 3rd Infantry Division, 11 Bravo Company, began in 2005 — not in battle, since he was never sent off to Iraq or Afghanistan, but with a headfirst fall over a wall on the obstacle course at Fort Benning, Ga. He suffered a head injury and spinal damage.

The injury alone didn't put him in a homeless shelter. Instead, it was military bureaucracy — specifically, the way injured soldiers are discharged on just a fraction of their salary and then forced to wait six to nine months, and sometimes even more than a year, before their full disability payments begin to flow.

"When I got out, I hate to say it, but man, that was it. Everybody just kind of washed their hands of me, and it was like, `OK, you're on your own,'" said Stevens, who was discharged in November and was in a shelter by February. He has since moved into a temporary San Antonio apartment with help from Operation Homefront, a nonprofit organization.

Nearly 20,000 disabled soldiers were discharged in the past two fiscal years, and lawmakers, veterans' advocates and others say thousands could be facing financial ruin while they wait for their claims to be processed and their benefits to come through.

"The anecdotal evidence is depressing," said Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., who heads a subcommittee on veterans disability benefits. "These veterans are getting medical care, but their family is going through this huge readjustment at the same time they're dealing with financial difficulties."

Most permanently disabled veterans qualify for payments from Social Security and the military or Veterans Affairs. Those sums can amount to about two-thirds of their active-duty pay. But until those checks show up, most disabled veterans draw a reduced Army paycheck.

The amount depends on the soldier's injuries, service time and other factors. But a typical veteran and his family who once lived on $3,400 a month might have to make do with $970 a month.

Unless a soldier has a personal fortune or was so severely injured as to require long-term inpatient care, that can be an extreme hardship.

The Army, stung by the scandal last year over shoddy care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, has been working to help soldiers during the in-between period, said Col. Becky Baker, assigned to injured soldier transition at the U.S. Surgeon General's Office.

In a change in policy that took effect last August, the Army is allowing wounded soldiers to continue to draw their full Army paychecks for up to 90 days after discharge, Baker said. It is also sending more VA workers to Army posts to process claims more quickly, and trying to do a better job of informing soldiers of the available benefits and explaining the application process.

"We make certain that we've covered all the bases before we discharge the soldier," Baker said.

She acknowledged, however, that the changes have been slow to take hold across an Army stretched by war. "It's definitely a practice that is new. It takes awhile for new practices to be institutionalized," the colonel said.

Stevens was moved to the Operation Homefront apartment after a social worker at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii, acting on her own initiative, rescued Stevens from a homeless shelter there.

"This is a situation where someone used their common sense and they did the right thing, versus saying, `This is the rules. We can't do this,'" Tripler spokeswoman Minerva Anderson said of the social worker.

Typically, the first 100 days after discharge are spent just gathering medical and other evidence needed to make a decision on disability, VA officials say. If paperwork is incomplete, or a veteran moves to another state before the claim is decided, the process can drag on longer. Disagree with the VA's decision, and the wait time grows.

"The claims are a lot more complicated than people think," said Ursula Henderson, director of the VA's regional office in Houston.

Amy Palmer, a disabled veteran and vice president of Operation Homefront, which helps newly disabled servicemembers, said: "Nobody's assigned to them. You're on your own once you get out."

Hall is pushing legislation that would force the VA to use compatible computer systems and more consistent criteria and to reach out to veterans better.

"A veteran goes and serves and does what the country asks them to do," the congressman said. "But when they come back they're made to jump through these hoops and to wait in line for disability benefits."

Simon Heine served three tours in Iraq as a tank mechanic before he was discharged with severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

His wife quit college so she could figure out how her four children could live on less than $1,000 a month. Eventually, she moved the family of six into an Operation Homefront apartment so they could finish navigating the bureaucracy and wait out the arrival of Social Security and VA benefits.

"It is like giving you a car and taking the steering wheel off. They say, `There is the gas and the brake. Just go straight,' and hopefully, you are going in the right direction," Heine said.

Freedom is...

F the CC

I used to listen to the radio
And I don't guess they're listenin' to me no more
They talk too much but that's okay
I don't understand a single word they say
Piss and moan about the immigrants
But don't say nothin' about the president
A democracy don't work that way
I can say anything I wanna say

So fuck the FCC
Fuck the FBI
Fuck the CIA
Livin' in the motherfuckin' USA

People tell me that I'm paranoid
And I admit I'm gettin' pretty nervous, boy
It just gets tougher everyday
To sit around and watch it while it slips away
Been called a traitor and a patriot
Call me anything you want to but
Just don't forget your history
Dirty Lenny died so we could all be free

Steve Earle
From the CD: Revolution Starts Now

France Bashing

Received the following from our 47 yr old son.

A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on a tour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. 'You have been to France before, monsieur?' the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. 'Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.' The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it.'

'Impossible. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France !' The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. 'Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in '44 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find any Frenchmen to show it to.'

I'm sure it was an innocent sharing of "humor", but it hit my hot button and I told him so, sharing a bit of history with him.

While France bashing became vogue under this inept administration, the details of history make us look less than stellar compared to 1940's France.

Yes, the Germans did indeed invade and conquer France with 136 divisions, 2,600 tanks and 3,200 aircraft, defeating the French military, and driving the British Army's 10 divisions into the sea at Dunkirk. They occupied only 1/2 of the country, and the first two years of occupation were "benevolent" by Nazi standards. Immediately after the fall of the French Govt, the Resistance began to grow. Accurate numbers are not available, except for the German records of Resistance members captured and imprisoned. That was about 56,000 over 4 years, of whom about 1/2 survived. The Resistance was a number of individual groups, all working to thwart or drive out the Germans. It is estimated that on D-Day, the Resistance numbered some 250,000 and about 100,000 members assisted the Allies landing at Normandy. Eisenhower is said to have opined that without this assistance, the landing might have failed. By the end of 1944, it is estimated that there were some 1.2 million Resistance members.

Many factors are said to have contributed to the lack of a more violent initial general resistance to the German occupation. First was the belief by many French that help was on the way from their old allies, the US and Britain. Of course, Britain was preoccupied with its own survival in 1940, and the general population of the US couldn't care less about France. The somewhat benevolent nature of the occupation in the beginning helped generate a "patience", reinforced by the belief that the Vichy govt was free to work out a "plan" and the Allies could be expected to help. Of course, while Vichy France was not occupied, the German intelligence network knew everything that was going on, and the Vichy govt quickly learned this and the consequences of resistance.

Summarizing the Resistance in terms of the general French population (40 Million), there was about 0.5% of the population in the Resistance on D-Day, rising to some 2.5% within a few months.

On 9/1/91, 19 men attacked the US armed with boxcutters. No divisions, no tanks, and just 6 highjacked airplanes. These 19 people stirred up such a great level of fear in the American population that they willfully surrendered many of their Constitutional rights and supported an invasion of another country out of fear of a third or forth rate dictator and weapons he did not possess. A general "war on terror" was launched. The main forces in this war were the Army and Marine Corps. On 9/1/01, they represented 0.4% (active and reserve) of the population. Seven years later, these forces still represent 0.4% of the population, and it has taken extreme measures (Lower standards, big signing bonuses, raising max enlistment age to 42, etc) to maintain that level of manning. In short, the numbers of people "answering the call" following 9/11/01 has been nothing like the 2.5% figure of 1944 France.

The French were wrong in thinking the US would immediately come to their defense in May 1940. Indeed, we did not enter the war until 19 months later, and then only after we were attacked by the Japanese.

The French were right in saying that Saddam posed no WMD threat to anyone, nor was he a major player in 9/11 or any other Al Qaeda operations.

So, how do you justify French bashing??

Just needed to vent.

Al

Sad News - RIP Gen. William Odom

Our nation lost one its most distinguished and brightest public servants recently, Gen. William Odom, US Army, Ret.

Gen. Odom was a brainiac. With such intelligence and such dedication he could have done anything. He chose to be a soldier. His service to our republic was exemplary.

General Odom spoke truth to power. He did not "go with the flow" and was not a general that would "go along to get along." In other words, he would have been forced out during this administration. He was one of the finest general officers the US Army has ever produced.

As the Bush Administration continues to claim that "everybody" thought it was right to invade Iraq based on "the intelligence" they had at the time, Gen. Odom's words before we invaded show the lie that truly is:

“The issue is not whether the Iraqi people will greet U.S. soldiers as their liberators, but what will they do six months after that,” Mr. Odom told The Washington Post in February 2003. “I find it naïve and disingenuous to claim that you can create democracy in Iraq any time soon.

“The administration has already assured us that the U.S. will not stay there for very long,” he added, “and, if that is the case, then the goal of establishing a constitutional system in Iraq is a joke.”

....Mr. Odom was dismissive of Iraq as a potential threat to the United States. Once the war was under way, he argued that the United States was in effect fighting only for the interests of Iraq’s regional rivals, Israel, Iran and Al Qaeda.

The Odom family's service to our republic continues. I had the honor of serving under the command of Gen. Odom's son, LTC Mark Odom, the most outstanding and inspiring and dedicated officer I ever met.

Rest in Peace, General Odom. You have my gratitude for all you did to protect and defend the Constitution and the fine example you set for the soldiers of the United States Army. The Army was a better institution for your having worn that honored uniform.

Freedom of the Very Expensive Press

From the NYT:

Katie Couric, the anchor of “CBS Evening News,” said on Wednesday that she had felt pressure from government officials and corporate executives to cast the war in a positive light.

Speaking on “The Early Show” on CBS, Ms. Couric said the lack of skepticism shown by journalists about the Bush administration’s case for war amounted to “one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism.” She also said she sensed pressure from “the corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kind of dissent or any kind of questioning of it.” At the time, Ms. Couric was a host of “Today” on NBC.

Another broadcast journalist also weighed in. Jessica Yellin, who worked for MSNBC in 2003 and now reports for CNN, said on Wednesday that journalists had been “under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation.”....

Mr. Williams, who was an anchor on MSNBC at the time, emphasized the climate of “post-9/11 America.” In the early days of the war, he said, he would hear from the Pentagon “the minute they heard us report something they didn’t like.”

Not everybody agreed the press had failed America:

“I think the questions were asked,” Mr. [Charles] Gibson, who was a host of “Good Morning America” before the war began, said in response to Ms. Couric. “It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. It is not our job to debate them. It is our job to ask the questions.”

Is that the same Charlie Gibson who along with George Stephanopoulos were the moderators of a Democratic debate and spent most of that time asking about American Flag lapel pins? He is right - he asked very important questions. Here is part of an article about that debate:

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with....

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

Thanks for your input, Chuck. I am sure your corporate masters are pleased with your response. Here is a pat on the head, and run along and play now. Good Boy.

I am not sure Ms. Couric's or Brian William's corporate masters are pleased with them, though:

A spokeswoman for General Electric, which owns NBC and MSNBC through its division NBC Universal, declined to speak about the specifics of the comments but said, “General Electric has never, and will never, interfere in the editorial process at NBC News.”

Well, GE, Ms. Couric just said that was not true. Are you lying, or is she? You can't both be right, you know. Either GE is lying, or Ms. Couric and Brian Williams - two of NBC's premier anchors - are liars.

Not all journalists drank the kool-aid. Some took brave stands and spoke truth to power. Some paid a high price. And many journalists have died in Iraq trying to bring the truth home to the People - more reporters have died covering the Iraq war than any other. And Phil Carter, a lawyer and a journalist, volunteered for a year-long tour in combat in Iraq with the 101st Airborne, and he did not cheerlead this war and has questioned authority. He and I disagreed about the war before it began (I always thought it would lead to disaster and was not justified) but he never once questioned my patriotism and admitted he was unsure about it. Not all journalists drank the kool-aid.

But most did. Some were like Charlie Gibson - they chugged down gallons of the stuff, wallowed in it, swam in it. They enabled this war. And they still are.

So here in the USA we have a free press. As long as you have millions of dollars to pay for it, it is free for you to buy and manipulate how you want. Our press is pretty much just like our federal government these days - free to the first buyer, and the price is very high.

And the price for us allowing that to happen? Our freedom.

A Secret Plan to End the War? Nooooo........

From CNN:

Sen. John McCain strongly criticized Sen. Barack Obama Wednesday for not visiting Iraq in more than two years and for turning down the Arizona senator's suggestion that the two should make a joint trip to the country....

McCain's comments come the same day the Republican National Committee launched a clock on its Web site noting how many days it has been since Obama traveled to Iraq, and three days after his supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, suggested the presumed Republican nominee and Obama tour the country together.

Gee, thanks for not trying to score cheap political points off of the war, Senator McCain. Sure, Mr. Bush might try to make unseemly and shameful partisan political attacks while overseas to score a few votes. But not Senator McCain. Oh, no. Not him. He would never stoop to cheap partisan tricks like Mr. Bush, instead he puts America first.

When two US Senators who are the presumed nominees of their respective parties and are actively campaigning against one another for the presidency spend several days "touring" the combat zone together there would be no chance of partisan politics and unseemly campaigning overseas, correct? Can you think of a better way to ensure we don't bring our messy partisan disputes into another country than by having the two leading candidates tour the combat zone together to present a united front? After all, what could go wrong? Neither would try to use such a visit to score cheap points, instead they would put our nation and our soldiers first and display national unity and patriotism, right?

McCain later said he agreed the Democratic presidential contender should accompany him on an upcoming trip, adding that he would "seize that opportunity to educate Sen. Obama along the way."

Sigh....

Sen. McCain didn't even finish out the day without trying to score points off of his proposed visit. Way to show you are the anti-Bush, Senator McCain! What better way than to follow the Rove playbook and make our soldiers and their sacrifices merely another shameful 30-second sound bite again, the war merely a "gotcha" event suitable for dividing our once United States yet again. Way to support the troops, Senator! Just like with his opposition to the GI Bill, Senator McCain supports the troops all the way.... to yet another tour in Iraq.

Perhaps on your trip you can educate Mr. Obama on economics, Senator McCain? Maybe by visiting a market and talking about how safe it is? As you do so, be sure to share your expertise with him. Mr. Obama's inexperience and lack of military training foolishly and naively led Mr. Obama to warn the invasion of Iraq was not a good idea. Yep, what a fool he made of himself, right Senator McCain? Share your "expertise" and "educate" him, Senator McCain.

Before the invasion McCain was one of the most prominent voices telling the American people that Iraq would be “easy” and that Americans would be "welcomed as liberators." Now he wants to "educate" Senator Obama. Here is how Senator McCain tried to "educate" the American people before we invaded Iraq:

“And I believe that the success will be fairly easy.” [CNN, Larry King Live, 9/24/02]

“I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time.” [CNN Late Edition, 9/29/02]

“Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators?” “Absolutely. Absolutely,” replied McCain. [MSNBC, Hardball, 3/12/03]

“There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone that we will be welcomed as liberators.” [MSNBC, Hardball, 3/24/03]

Ahhh, the expertise, the experience, the just plain being as wrong as one can be.

But don't think Bush or McCain are the only ones to use a war to gain cheap votes. Nixon was elected in part because he claimed he had a "secret plan to end the war." Of course there was no plan., Although he was elected in 1968 we didn't pull out combat troops until 1973. Eisenhower famously said he would go to Korea, and that helped elect him - but did nothing to end the Korean conflict. Guess who Eisenhower's running mate was? Richard "secret plan to end the war" Nixon. McCain is merely following a shameful and despicable precedent.

What a straight-talking maverick. Now imagine if he somehow wins the election and becomes president.

'bout time you admitted what we all know

via CNN:

The spokesman who defended President Bush's policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth.

In excerpts from a 341-page book to be released Monday, Scott McClellan writes on Iraq that Bush "and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war."

Really? Gosh, what a shock that all of the critics turned out to be right, and all of the defenders of the administration turned out to be wrong. Well, not a shock exactly, five years into this war, post-Katrina, with Bush and Osama Bin Laden now battling it out for who the American People are more disgusted by (I vote Bush, Osama never lied to us and killed fewer Americans, and he admits he despises us and admits the harm he has done).

My question is this: why should we allow those who betrayed our nation and furthered policies they KNEW to be wrong and dishonorable to profit from such tell-all books? In some states so-called "Son of Sam" laws prevent people from profiting from their crimes, such as murder, by selling books recounting the gory details - instead all the profits are taken away and given to the relatives of the victims. We can't ban free speech, but it would be nice if the relatives of the dead soldiers could sue those like Scott McClellan, who watched the administration betray the People, could have done something about it but instead helped that betrayal, and who now wants to sell books and make money off of his crime.

I hope somebody on his book tour asks him why he did not speak out or resign, and keeps pressing if he tries to avoid the question like he did all questions in his press conferences - if he doesn't answer the question, the host should say "the book sucks, don't buy it."

But I know I am dreaming. The truth is, they got away with what they did to America.

At times they played loose with the truth? Yep. And the rest of the time they just lied their ass off.

Update: Stephen Colbert puts it nicely: "Scott McClellan's new book accuses Bush of lying to get us into Iraq. That took balls, Scott... FIVE YEARS AGO."

That's one reason the man has his own show. I write pages and pages, he says more in single sentences.

A Sign of the Times

After seven years of observing what I thought was repugnant political manipulation of and pandering to the military, I am heartened to see that ADM Mike Mullen has begun to tell the troops to stay out of partisan politics.

Mullen said he was inspired to write the essay after receiving a constant stream of legitimate, if troubling, questions while visiting U.S. military personnel around the world, including, "What if a Democrat wins?" and, "What will that do to the mission in Iraq?"

While his writings address his spot-on guidance, sure would like to know how he handled this on the fly, and, if he answered in a manner consistent with his "all hands" message, whether intermediate commanders had the courage to fully reiterate this important guidance.

During the Clinton impeachment, there was a desire amongst some of the more vocal Republicans to see if the service chiefs would be willing to testify as to whether the troops willingness to obey the president had been weakened by the scandal. Since none of the chiefs took the stand, it would appear that the then serving crop of generals were not about to get sucked in to what I would call a pure and simple mutiny. Perhaps ADM Mullen's Navy roots helped him stand up to the plate and caution the troops to avoid mutiny and preserve one of the most sacred ideals of our American military.

It does offer a bit of hope.

Al

A Call To Arms and Minds

I sure hope we pay attention to this short essay by Ben Stein, "Running Out of Fuel, But Not Out of Ideas".

I'll quote part of it:

imports supply nearly two-thirds of our daily needs, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. Most of this oil comes from countries that are either unstable (Nigeria) or whose leaders or people dislike us (Venezuela, Saudi Arabia).... If there were another oil embargo, we would be in real trouble. If Mexico fell into chaos, if Venezuela stopped sending us oil, there would be extreme hardship.

Beyond that, what if we are close to peak oil — that point at which we have pumped out more than half the oil on the planet? What if supply slips and demand continues to skyrocket, as they are already doing, and these trends continue indefinitely? What if the world has a bitter fight over its remaining oil? Even if this battle is fought with money and not guns, we are at a disadvantage with our pitiful currency and our budget and trade deficits.

In my humble view, we are now in a short-term oil bubble. It will pass and correct, as bubbles do. And speculators will make millions, whichever way it goes. But the long run is terrifying. If we are at or past peak oil, if oil states stop or even hesitate to send us the juice, if Canada decides not to fill our needs, we are in overwhelming trouble....

He suggests we provide incentives to the oil companies. Most of us may not agree that oil companies need "incentives" other than profit. Profits are incentives. They need not be windfall profits to be effective incentives. Still, the profit margins of the oil companies are not relevant to the amount of, and finite nature of, the supply of the oil they sell. They don't make it, they just go and get it. When it runs out they can't make any more - and it will run out regardless of what they charge us for it.

He doesn't view global warming as a crisis on a par with running out of gasoline, but whether we go green or risk disaster from global warming we will still stop using fossil fuels. That is the nature of a finite supply - it will not remain abundant.

I agree with Mr. Stein that we are in a temporary oil bubble - there has not been a slow-down in production world-wide, all trade routes are open, and while demand continues to rapidly rise as China and India industrialize, it isn't rising faster than predicted. There is a record price in oil but no record shortage to go along with it. But the price of oil today, high or low, is not the point.

Mankind - and this may include our great-grandchildren in the near future - is going to stop using fossil fuels like it or not. I don't know if the needle on the gauge of the world's gas tank is closer to F, at the half-tank mark, or closer to E. That low-fuel light might be blinking, I don't know. We could argue about how much is left in the tank all day long. What should concern us is there are no filling stations with more gas for us ahead. Not "no gas next 100 miles." No gas for forever.

The Oil Age will end. The solution, hopefully, is to develop alternative energy. Mr Stein cites Glenn Beck, warning "we need a new moon-shot mentality here."

Sort of. I think we need to treat it as a national crisis to a larger degree. We need to plan for what to do in case of emergency, and we need a long-term plan to ensure our standards of living do not fall. We need to think in terms of the Cold War, yes, but not just the moon-shot - this effort will need to be much greater than that. The moon shot was only part of the Cold War. Think of the entire effort. We face our own tsunami, typhoon, hurricane, earthquake, whatever you want to call it - and this is not dismissive of the tragedy of events like the current tragedies in Burma and China. A worldwide and persistent fuel crisis has the potential to cost more lives, to reduce standards of living even lower, than any earthquake or flood or storm. Unlike a storm or earthquake, though, this threat might be and should be preventable.

And if not, then we prepare for it and carry on as a republic and a civil society - but we must face this crisis with more courage and more wisdom than we have used so far.