What Form Reparations?
I have given considerable thought to the subject of reparations for slavery and its legacy of late, a lot of thought. I have tried to wrap my mind around that which is fast becoming a flash point of both personal and political debate; not only across the country, but in Hollywood as well. A recent episode of the West Wing (a very fine show) addressed the issue and touched upon some of its complexities. And complexities there are.
But let’s leave that aside for now and address the broader issue; should the nation’s Black American population be given monetary compensation in order to atone for the forced labor of their ancestors? My short answer would have to be no! Now ask the same question another way; should the nation’s Black American population be given monetary compensation in order to atone for the forced labor of their ancestors and the resulting legacy of inequality that prevented many Black Americans from achieving even the basic tenets of the American Dream? My short answer is a hedged no, leaning towards a, “let’s see what we can do” refrain! All of which of course brings us back to the complexities of the situation.
The tide of support for reparations is rising all across the nation as the issue comes once more out of the doldrums of back room chats over poker and angry dinner table discussions, into the mainstream of American politics. Former President Clinton went on record as saying that he is against both an apology for slavery and reparations for slavery (http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/06/17/clinton.race/). Bush predictably has not mentioned either the apology or reparations issue. Blackvoices.com, a premiere web site dedicated to Black American issues conducted a poll on the issue, in which overwhelming support was given to the idea of reparations. The results of the poll can be viewed here (http://www.blackvoices.com/feature/reparations/main.html). And the old forty acres and mule argument is resurfacing as H.R. 29 introduced by Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, on March 11, 1867, makes its voice heard once again. The complete text of the bill can be read here (http://www.directblackaction.com/rep_bills/hr29_1867.txt).
But what form should reparations take? Except for the Thaddeus Stevens bill, that question has never been intelligently addressed. Should the reparations take the form of cash, real estate, or a college/technical school endowment, or voucher program? And how do we pay for them; through a special tax on just White people? Hardly fair. A one-time tax deduction, or some other tax relief for Black Americans? Again, hardly fair from a number of perspectives. And most importantly, how to craft the reparations so that they will be easy for all American to swallow (no mean feat I assure you!), or at least come to terms with?
And how does the government insure that only those directly descended from slavery receive reparations? Aside from the question addressed in the previous paragraph, this is undeniably the most vexing to answer.
Here are some thoughts. First, what form should reparations take? I think the reparations, if given, should take the form of educational vouchers to the school or technical institute of their choice for those Black Americans seeking a Technical, Vocational, Associates, Bachelor’s, Masters, or PhD degree. This not only helps Black Americans (especially Black American males) lift themselves out of poverty, but also helps the country as a whole. How you might ask? By assuring that a steady stream of highly educated and motivated individuals will join the work force well into this century as America continues to shift its economy away from heavy industry into high tech and the service industry. Any Black American alive when the bill is passed would be eligible and assured at least four years of study at an institution of higher learning, or technical program. And for those who have already completed their degrees, any and all outstanding student loans would be forgiven. The aforementioned would be the sole form(s) of reparations offered: no money, no cars, no land, and no houses.
Eligibility would be determined using census data from the latest census to determine heritage. Those Black Americans, who turned in their census forms and identified themselves, as Black Americans no matter what age, or social status, would be eligible for reparations. Census data currently on hand would be verified by home visits by census officials.
The only question left is funding. I am no economist, or self proclaimed expert on government funding, but I think a .5% to 1% hike in the corporate tax rate, along with a .25% tax on luxury items costing over $300,000 should be enough to fund the program, given the current state of the U.S. economy. In this way corporate America and the richest 1% of Americans give back to the country that gave them so much!
Good idea, or is there room for improvement? Or am I totally out to lunch? I don’t think so! The writing is on the wall; this issue will not go away and will no long stay under the rug where it has been brushed lo these past 135 years. If we are going to do justice to the past by addressing reparations for slavery and its legacy, why not do so with an eye on the future of our nation as a whole? An educated person is one of hope in the future and its promise of a brighter tomorrow. Education is now and will forever be the slayer of ignorance and the harbinger of hope. Let’s not waste yet another opportunity to enrich our nation and secure her future status by yet again turning our collective backs on her Black citizens.
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Apology for the Legacy of Slavery
Apology: an expression of regret for an offense or fault.
On May 17th 2000, the mayor of the America’s third largest city, Chicago, made a public apology to the Black Americans in his city for slavery.
After tiptoeing around the issue for weeks, Mayor Richard Daley on Wednesday came out squarely in favor of reparations for the descendants of African slaves and asserted it is only right for America to say it is sorry for what it did. "You apologize for a wrong," Daley declared. "Slavery was wrong. ... Slavery has had an enormous effect on generation after generation." The mayor's comments came as the City Council voted overwhelmingly to urge Congress to consider reparations. - Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2000, Chicago Illinois
Chicago is just the latest city in a growing list of cities across the nation that has joined the cry for Congress to address the issue of an apology and reparations (the question of reparations will be addressed next month in another article), for slavery. Most White Americans—and quite a few non-white American’s, chief among them, Native Americans—have opposed the call for an apology, asserting that it was not they who were responsible for slavery. Or they assert their forefathers were immigrants, or migrant workers, or indentured servants, and therefore not responsible for slavery and all of it well documented ills.
Let’s leave aside for a moment those individual arguments and address the larger issue: should the United States Government apology for slavery? I say no, not for slavery alone. It should instead apologize for the legacy that slavery left in its wake; a legacy I hasten to point out that the U.S. government helped endow, and fed through its own well documented institutionalized brand of discrimination, bigotry, and racism. It is the legacy of slavery that has haunted every Black American—man, woman, and child—for the last 135 years, and the haunting continues to this day!
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws-14th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America, ratified July 9th 1868.
Citizens yes, equal under the law; in theory yes, but in reality, NO. For some 100 years after the end of slavery, the federal government was a co-equal partner in the systematic denial of Black American’s equal treatment under the law. There has been case after case, after case in which Black Americans were humiliated before the eyes of the world, denied, disrespected, set upon. And they were murdered by gun and rope, raped, blown up, and treated like second class citizens under the watchful eye of all three branches of the federal government. A federal government, which gave its support to this vile treatment by either doing nothing to stop it, or acted in concert with those who would seek to promote and champion racism and discrimination.
This against the backdrop of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, the very words of which speak like no other document, before or since, to the human need to be free of the shackles of oppression, tyranny, and injustice! I have often wondered how forward thinking classically, or liberally educated persons who claim the word of God as their own, can come to terms in their minds, hearts, and souls with the very obvious contradictions and ethical, moral, and spiritual dilemma’s this paradox creates.
If, and I say again, if the federal government had upheld the Constitution and believed in the spirit and the letter of the Declaration of Independence and in so doing vigorously enforced the law from the outset (end of the Civil War), how different today would America be?
Would Jim Crow laws have been enacted and enforced in the south for close to 100 years? Would the KKK have ever become the force for evil, hatred, intolerance, and bigotry it became? Would Black family’s be torn asunder and Black children—especially Black boys—feel hopeless and rudderless, finding no cause in America to call their own? Would the American dream remain but a dream for so many disenfranchised Black Americans? Would the Black Panthers ever have been born? Would the race riots of the sixties have ever flared? Would Martin Luther King Jr. and countless other Blacks and Whites have lost their lives in a struggle to bring equality to a people who should have already been enjoying its fruits? Would the deep biting pain of school desegregation and forced busing have been necessary to enrich young Black minds that heretofore had gone undernourished by the blatant indifference of the many states? Would the Voting Rights Act or Civil Rights Act have been necessary? Would affirmative action and the entire ugly debate it invites have been necessary in our nation’s corporations and schools of higher learning? Would we today be talking of reparations and apology’s if the federal government had lived up to it obligation and responsibility’s to uphold the law fairly and equally for all its citizens? And in so doing binding the many States to their collective and individual obligations and responsibility’s to do the same? I think the answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO!
Apologize for slavery in and of itself, NO, because the federal government, indeed the country was not even in existence when slavery was introduced to the thirteen colonies. Apologize for allowing slavery’s legacy, a legacy born of hatred, racism, and intolerance, which it helped, foster, YES! An apology for that and the incalculable pain and emotional scaring it caused is in order and dually demanded! A nation of the people, by the people and for the people, should not tolerate the continued subjugation and unequal treatment of ANY of the people!
Apology: an expression of regret for an offense or fault.
On May 17th 2000, the mayor of the America’s third largest city, Chicago, made a public apology to the Black Americans in his city for slavery.
After tiptoeing around the issue for weeks, Mayor Richard Daley on Wednesday came out squarely in favor of reparations for the descendants of African slaves and asserted it is only right for America to say it is sorry for what it did. "You apologize for a wrong," Daley declared. "Slavery was wrong. ... Slavery has had an enormous effect on generation after generation." The mayor's comments came as the City Council voted overwhelmingly to urge Congress to consider reparations. - Chicago Tribune, May 17, 2000, Chicago Illinois
Chicago is just the latest city in a growing list of cities across the nation that has joined the cry for Congress to address the issue of an apology and reparations (the question of reparations will be addressed next month in another article), for slavery. Most White Americans—and quite a few non-white American’s, chief among them, Native Americans—have opposed the call for an apology, asserting that it was not they who were responsible for slavery. Or they assert their forefathers were immigrants, or migrant workers, or indentured servants, and therefore not responsible for slavery and all of it well documented ills.
Let’s leave aside for a moment those individual arguments and address the larger issue: should the United States Government apology for slavery? I say no, not for slavery alone. It should instead apologize for the legacy that slavery left in its wake; a legacy I hasten to point out that the U.S. government helped endow, and fed through its own well documented institutionalized brand of discrimination, bigotry, and racism. It is the legacy of slavery that has haunted every Black American—man, woman, and child—for the last 135 years, and the haunting continues to this day!
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws-14th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America, ratified July 9th 1868.
Citizens yes, equal under the law; in theory yes, but in reality, NO. For some 100 years after the end of slavery, the federal government was a co-equal partner in the systematic denial of Black American’s equal treatment under the law. There has been case after case, after case in which Black Americans were humiliated before the eyes of the world, denied, disrespected, set upon. And they were murdered by gun and rope, raped, blown up, and treated like second class citizens under the watchful eye of all three branches of the federal government. A federal government, which gave its support to this vile treatment by either doing nothing to stop it, or acted in concert with those who would seek to promote and champion racism and discrimination.
This against the backdrop of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, the very words of which speak like no other document, before or since, to the human need to be free of the shackles of oppression, tyranny, and injustice! I have often wondered how forward thinking classically, or liberally educated persons who claim the word of God as their own, can come to terms in their minds, hearts, and souls with the very obvious contradictions and ethical, moral, and spiritual dilemma’s this paradox creates.
If, and I say again, if the federal government had upheld the Constitution and believed in the spirit and the letter of the Declaration of Independence and in so doing vigorously enforced the law from the outset (end of the Civil War), how different today would America be?
Would Jim Crow laws have been enacted and enforced in the south for close to 100 years? Would the KKK have ever become the force for evil, hatred, intolerance, and bigotry it became? Would Black family’s be torn asunder and Black children—especially Black boys—feel hopeless and rudderless, finding no cause in America to call their own? Would the American dream remain but a dream for so many disenfranchised Black Americans? Would the Black Panthers ever have been born? Would the race riots of the sixties have ever flared? Would Martin Luther King Jr. and countless other Blacks and Whites have lost their lives in a struggle to bring equality to a people who should have already been enjoying its fruits? Would the deep biting pain of school desegregation and forced busing have been necessary to enrich young Black minds that heretofore had gone undernourished by the blatant indifference of the many states? Would the Voting Rights Act or Civil Rights Act have been necessary? Would affirmative action and the entire ugly debate it invites have been necessary in our nation’s corporations and schools of higher learning? Would we today be talking of reparations and apology’s if the federal government had lived up to it obligation and responsibility’s to uphold the law fairly and equally for all its citizens? And in so doing binding the many States to their collective and individual obligations and responsibility’s to do the same? I think the answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO!
Apologize for slavery in and of itself, NO, because the federal government, indeed the country was not even in existence when slavery was introduced to the thirteen colonies. Apologize for allowing slavery’s legacy, a legacy born of hatred, racism, and intolerance, which it helped, foster, YES! An apology for that and the incalculable pain and emotional scaring it caused is in order and dually demanded! A nation of the people, by the people and for the people, should not tolerate the continued subjugation and unequal treatment of ANY of the people!
In A Quest for National Identity
There can be no denying that since Black Tuesday our country has changed in ways we never would have imagined on September 10, 2001. Before September 11th, an attack on U.S. soil in which thousands of innocent people lost their lives in 30 minutes of stupefying evil was unthinkable to the average and above average American; it simply was not on our radar screens. And yet life hasn’t changed in America in some very important and costly respects. We still as society cling to the notion that we can have safety without giving up even a modicum of personal privacy or freedom.
I have read about and listened with consternation to the debates swirling around even the suggestion of a national identification card. For the record I see nothing wrong with a national I.D. card, one which has embossed upon its surface a picture of each citizen and embedded in its plastic sheathing a microchip with your current address, phone number, date of birth, blood type, drivers license number, SSN, and any police record. In other words nothing that is not already a matter of public record! All of this information would be part of a federal database and could be used by law enforcement officials to spot-check the collective identity. The card would be the size of a drivers license and clearly state that it was a federal I.D. card. Measures would taken to ensure that the card could not be counterfeited in much the same was our currency is now protected.
Much of the negative debate surrounding this issued has centered on issues of privacy and the right to be anonymous, to blend into the crowd, to go un-noticed by the various state and federal authorities. But haven’t we as a society already given up much of we seek to protect? Every baby born in the U.S. is now issued a Social Security Number before (s)he leaves the hospital; in order to dive a car you have to have a drivers license, with your picture, current name, address, birth-date, sex, and physical characteristics emblazoned across the front; colleges and universities issue student I.D.’s with the students picture on the front; and many companies require some sort of picture I.D. Credit card companies and other financial institutions routinely collect various types of personal information from us, and insurance companies delve into our personal medical histories with our consent. And yet we readily accept these intrusions into our lives, why, because it benefits us directly? Since when has public safety not been in our collective interests’?
For the record, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to anonymity, nor is there a stated right to privacy. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights, or the other Amendments to the federal constitution, does it say that Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the citizen to remain anonymous, nor shall Congress institute any law, which encroaches upon the citizen’s right to privacy. In the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court implied the right to privacy citing historical court precedent and the 14th Amendments guarantee to due process under law. However, constitutional scholars still debates the merits of the Courts decision, and point out again that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the citizenry have a right to privacy!
I personally believe that every citizen has a right to privacy within the confines of his or her home, or other private dwelling. That “right” sharply drops off once a citizen enters into the public domain, wherein he/she interacts with other citizens. In this domain the, the public domain, the overall safety of society must outweigh—to a degree—the right of the citizen to privacy. If this means that we have to carry national identification cards in order to differentiate between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, then so be it. Will the card in-and-of itself make the U.S. a safer country? Of course not, but it could be part of a whole range of steps we can take to ensure our national safety. Am I afraid the government will misuse the information gathered? No, not really, not any more than it already does, or has. Do state governments routinely misuse the information it gathers on its citizens as part of the many drivers’ license programs? I have yet to hear, or read about any wide spread abuse. Has the federal government used the vast amounts of personal information it stores about every service member and veteran that is servicing or has served in the U.S. Armed Forces to evil ends? I don’t think so. I have been retired from the Navy since 1995 and a have heard nary a peep from the government; they have not come knocking at my door, nor have they intercepted my mail, or in anyway interfered with my comings and goings from the country.
To me a national identification card is a small price to pay for putting into place another small piece of the home security puzzle. Perhaps instead of fighting the proposal, the civil libertarians could form a partnership with the government and come up with a system that protects the citizenry without compromising those rights we as a nation have come to embrace.
There can be no denying that since Black Tuesday our country has changed in ways we never would have imagined on September 10, 2001. Before September 11th, an attack on U.S. soil in which thousands of innocent people lost their lives in 30 minutes of stupefying evil was unthinkable to the average and above average American; it simply was not on our radar screens. And yet life hasn’t changed in America in some very important and costly respects. We still as society cling to the notion that we can have safety without giving up even a modicum of personal privacy or freedom.
I have read about and listened with consternation to the debates swirling around even the suggestion of a national identification card. For the record I see nothing wrong with a national I.D. card, one which has embossed upon its surface a picture of each citizen and embedded in its plastic sheathing a microchip with your current address, phone number, date of birth, blood type, drivers license number, SSN, and any police record. In other words nothing that is not already a matter of public record! All of this information would be part of a federal database and could be used by law enforcement officials to spot-check the collective identity. The card would be the size of a drivers license and clearly state that it was a federal I.D. card. Measures would taken to ensure that the card could not be counterfeited in much the same was our currency is now protected.
Much of the negative debate surrounding this issued has centered on issues of privacy and the right to be anonymous, to blend into the crowd, to go un-noticed by the various state and federal authorities. But haven’t we as a society already given up much of we seek to protect? Every baby born in the U.S. is now issued a Social Security Number before (s)he leaves the hospital; in order to dive a car you have to have a drivers license, with your picture, current name, address, birth-date, sex, and physical characteristics emblazoned across the front; colleges and universities issue student I.D.’s with the students picture on the front; and many companies require some sort of picture I.D. Credit card companies and other financial institutions routinely collect various types of personal information from us, and insurance companies delve into our personal medical histories with our consent. And yet we readily accept these intrusions into our lives, why, because it benefits us directly? Since when has public safety not been in our collective interests’?
For the record, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to anonymity, nor is there a stated right to privacy. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights, or the other Amendments to the federal constitution, does it say that Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the citizen to remain anonymous, nor shall Congress institute any law, which encroaches upon the citizen’s right to privacy. In the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court implied the right to privacy citing historical court precedent and the 14th Amendments guarantee to due process under law. However, constitutional scholars still debates the merits of the Courts decision, and point out again that nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the citizenry have a right to privacy!
I personally believe that every citizen has a right to privacy within the confines of his or her home, or other private dwelling. That “right” sharply drops off once a citizen enters into the public domain, wherein he/she interacts with other citizens. In this domain the, the public domain, the overall safety of society must outweigh—to a degree—the right of the citizen to privacy. If this means that we have to carry national identification cards in order to differentiate between U.S. and non-U.S. citizens, then so be it. Will the card in-and-of itself make the U.S. a safer country? Of course not, but it could be part of a whole range of steps we can take to ensure our national safety. Am I afraid the government will misuse the information gathered? No, not really, not any more than it already does, or has. Do state governments routinely misuse the information it gathers on its citizens as part of the many drivers’ license programs? I have yet to hear, or read about any wide spread abuse. Has the federal government used the vast amounts of personal information it stores about every service member and veteran that is servicing or has served in the U.S. Armed Forces to evil ends? I don’t think so. I have been retired from the Navy since 1995 and a have heard nary a peep from the government; they have not come knocking at my door, nor have they intercepted my mail, or in anyway interfered with my comings and goings from the country.
To me a national identification card is a small price to pay for putting into place another small piece of the home security puzzle. Perhaps instead of fighting the proposal, the civil libertarians could form a partnership with the government and come up with a system that protects the citizenry without compromising those rights we as a nation have come to embrace.
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
The Long, Slow, Painful Decline…
“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation…” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence 1776.
There was a time in American public discourse when words of eloquence and principle were the norm; when our political and spiritual leaders, intelligent, well-read, and grounded in philosophical astuteness were undeterred in their speech, and with words painted a vision for the nation. They are words from the minds of men (and women) percolating with intellect and wisdom and speak to a mastery of the English language seldom heard, spoken, or written in these modern times. From the quills of these great orators dripped words, phrases, principles, and ideas which launched a nation that would arguably become one of the greatest mankind had ever envisioned. Their words nurtured by lofty ideas with notable philosophical underpinnings, sprang forth with impassioned vigor, giving birth to speeches that moved the human spirit, and captured the imagination. They were (and are) words that inspired, that motivated, that warmed to such a degree, that men and women would die to see their edict carried to fruition.
“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.”…Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863
Fast forward to the here and now and wonder in the age of the sound bite and “Axis of Evil” speeches, where have all our great political leaders gone? Where are the great intellectuals and orators of our age? Our politicians today remind one not of the inspired brilliance and vision that fashioned a nation of principles, and ideas that fueled the imagination of the world, but of insipid, naughty, elementary school children vying for a piece of turf on the playground. Their words do not inspire, they do not motivate, they do not move the soul or swell the heart; they in short leave me wanting and waiting for greatness.
Nothing illustrates this shortcoming more than the recent one year anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which felled the World Trade Center. The nation’s political leaders so void of intellectual capital and inspired vision, so mired by the quicksand of modern American politics with it’s increasingly shallow center, could not produce one original or memorable speech for the day; NY Governor George Pataki recited the Gettysburg Address, while NJ Governor Jim McGreevey recited from the Declaration of Independence! As for Mr. Bush, well, no memorable words left his sneering lips that day.
We elected a President whose words tumble from a mouth fed by a befuddled brain, which doesn’t reason, a soul which has no vision, and a heart devoid of meaningful passion. We accept, and in some cases, celebrate the limitations of our Accidental President, while the world looks on in wonder at this sad spectacle we have spawned. How could a nation that bequeathed to the world wondrous institutions of higher learning such as DePaul, UIC, Northwestern, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Grambling and MIT, long suffer the unfocused ramblings of a dullard? How could a society which crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, documents hailed around the globe as enlightened, visionary, and worthy of emulation, suffer long the indignity of a body politic whose intellectual discourse is little above adolescent squabbling.
“Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”…Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From A Birmingham Jail, 1963
It is said that a nation receives the leadership it deserves. Is that true in our case? Have we started the long slow road to intellectual, moral and ideological decline that has marked the passing of so many great human civilizations? Does our current state of public intellectual malaise signal the closing curtain on the grand experiment that is American (flavored) democracy? Will this nation with its government so ineptly led; this nation founded on the principle of governance of the people, by the people, and for the people, perish from this earth, because the principles that form the foundation of its society, its government, its very way of live, no longer have an inspired voice in its public, private and political discourse? When did idealism and praiseworthy intellect, eloquent prose, and impassioned speech, become character flaws in a nation founded by men who wore all in unapologetically abundance?
“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation…” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence 1776.
There was a time in American public discourse when words of eloquence and principle were the norm; when our political and spiritual leaders, intelligent, well-read, and grounded in philosophical astuteness were undeterred in their speech, and with words painted a vision for the nation. They are words from the minds of men (and women) percolating with intellect and wisdom and speak to a mastery of the English language seldom heard, spoken, or written in these modern times. From the quills of these great orators dripped words, phrases, principles, and ideas which launched a nation that would arguably become one of the greatest mankind had ever envisioned. Their words nurtured by lofty ideas with notable philosophical underpinnings, sprang forth with impassioned vigor, giving birth to speeches that moved the human spirit, and captured the imagination. They were (and are) words that inspired, that motivated, that warmed to such a degree, that men and women would die to see their edict carried to fruition.
“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.”…Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863
Fast forward to the here and now and wonder in the age of the sound bite and “Axis of Evil” speeches, where have all our great political leaders gone? Where are the great intellectuals and orators of our age? Our politicians today remind one not of the inspired brilliance and vision that fashioned a nation of principles, and ideas that fueled the imagination of the world, but of insipid, naughty, elementary school children vying for a piece of turf on the playground. Their words do not inspire, they do not motivate, they do not move the soul or swell the heart; they in short leave me wanting and waiting for greatness.
Nothing illustrates this shortcoming more than the recent one year anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which felled the World Trade Center. The nation’s political leaders so void of intellectual capital and inspired vision, so mired by the quicksand of modern American politics with it’s increasingly shallow center, could not produce one original or memorable speech for the day; NY Governor George Pataki recited the Gettysburg Address, while NJ Governor Jim McGreevey recited from the Declaration of Independence! As for Mr. Bush, well, no memorable words left his sneering lips that day.
We elected a President whose words tumble from a mouth fed by a befuddled brain, which doesn’t reason, a soul which has no vision, and a heart devoid of meaningful passion. We accept, and in some cases, celebrate the limitations of our Accidental President, while the world looks on in wonder at this sad spectacle we have spawned. How could a nation that bequeathed to the world wondrous institutions of higher learning such as DePaul, UIC, Northwestern, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Grambling and MIT, long suffer the unfocused ramblings of a dullard? How could a society which crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, documents hailed around the globe as enlightened, visionary, and worthy of emulation, suffer long the indignity of a body politic whose intellectual discourse is little above adolescent squabbling.
“Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”…Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From A Birmingham Jail, 1963
It is said that a nation receives the leadership it deserves. Is that true in our case? Have we started the long slow road to intellectual, moral and ideological decline that has marked the passing of so many great human civilizations? Does our current state of public intellectual malaise signal the closing curtain on the grand experiment that is American (flavored) democracy? Will this nation with its government so ineptly led; this nation founded on the principle of governance of the people, by the people, and for the people, perish from this earth, because the principles that form the foundation of its society, its government, its very way of live, no longer have an inspired voice in its public, private and political discourse? When did idealism and praiseworthy intellect, eloquent prose, and impassioned speech, become character flaws in a nation founded by men who wore all in unapologetically abundance?
American Unilateralist; a Satirical Look
Prolog:
In our hunt for the perfect solution to what ales the world, the United States is slowly morphing into that which we fought so hard over the last fifty years, to slay; namely a unilateralist bully who seeks to dominate the world stage no matter the cost! In this new American awakening, where American policy, American values, and American power rein supreme, our allies have become a thorn the Bush Administration is gainfully trying to pull from its paw; but at what cost to the world at large, at what cost to peace and stability, at what cost to the American people?
My unending frustration over the issue, has given way to sardonic humor, the fruits of which I share below. I have taken passages from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney as written from the Supreme Court’s 1856 landmark case Dred Scott v. John Sanford. I have rewritten the passage to suit modern time in which we find ourselves, below each one of Justice Taney high biased, racially charged rantings. Please read and ingest it in the spirit in which is indented.
Main Body:
…[T]hey were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominate race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority…from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, United States Supreme Court in its ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford, 1856.
The United States its shores pristine; its people affluent; its economy robust and still the largest upon the Earth—despite the recent downturns in trade and industry; its military second to none and able to project our will upon ocean blue, the land it touches, and the air above, sees no need to wash its policies in the tub of world opinion.
…[T]hey had been for more then a century before been regulated as being of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the White race, either social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect… from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, United States Supreme Court in its ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford, 1856.
The rest of the world has no peoples, no laws, no treaties, or other articles of civilized governance the United States of America is bound to respect, or give the slightest consideration to. Indeed, our power, vast and unending, derived in whole from our overwhelming dominance both in the economic and military realms of human existence, guarantees us a higher perch from which to look upon the Earth and her hapless multitudes of people. We need not the burden of cooperation and compromise that flows from the substandard conventions of international treaties governing Civil Rights, Children’s Rights, Global Warming, Nuclear Proliferation, Women’s Rights & Suffrage, Chemical Weapons, Small Arms & Landmine Proliferation, etc., etc., etc. Fortress America will protect us from such petty evils and trivial concerns (except for the occasional airliner bomb) that man can think to devise.
And we need not the woefully inadequate and substandard pleadings of international laws and criminal courts, for the American citizen is a breed apart from the rest, and should be subject only to American laws, and American standards of justice, no matter his wanderings throughout the world, or the seriousness of his crimes against man or nature. Surely the world can see that the American Constitution and therefore by extension, American law and jurisprudence should be supreme in and among the worlds peoples and their varying ineffectual institutions.
And what would become of the American economic miracle if the American corporate Demi-Gods were forced to forgo their never ending quest for profit in the name of human preservation, goodwill, ethics, empathy for all living things, principles and heaven forbid, morals? Surely the world must see that what is good for America is good for the world at large? Has not the world built its standard of living off the very backs of the American worker and consumer? Are not American work ethics and American productivity the envy of the world?
…[T]hat a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they reduced to slavery, and governed as subjects with absolute and despotic power, and which they then looked upon as far below then in scale of created beings, that intermarriages between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes were regarded a unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes… from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, United States Supreme Court in its ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford, 1856.
But alas, if the world with its petty concerns, puny economy’s, feeble militaries, and second world (most often third and fourth world), populace cannot see the shinning city upon the mountaintop that is America and give its peoples their due as citizens of the first order, then America will be forced—albeit with profound reluctance and with the heaviest of hearts—to turn its magnificent glowing eyes way from the rest of the world. Alone we shall forge our path of capitalist democracy, a path that will lead to our greatest glory yet. This, while the rest of the world plunges further still into a unity of ethical puritanical thought that ignores the beauty and sublime saneness of the thoughtless pursuit of profit at any cost. And in so doing the world ignores the promise of “Pax America!”
We need the world not, for we are supreme, we are the epitome of self-serving unapologetic arrogance. We rule, we rock, and the rest of the world can in no uncertain terms snuggle close to our collective American bum and grace its grandness, its glory, its undisputed dominance (though China would love to try and unseat us, and Russia longs to be able to muster the intellectual capital to affect another stab a glory), with a multitude of wet kisses!
Prolog:
In our hunt for the perfect solution to what ales the world, the United States is slowly morphing into that which we fought so hard over the last fifty years, to slay; namely a unilateralist bully who seeks to dominate the world stage no matter the cost! In this new American awakening, where American policy, American values, and American power rein supreme, our allies have become a thorn the Bush Administration is gainfully trying to pull from its paw; but at what cost to the world at large, at what cost to peace and stability, at what cost to the American people?
My unending frustration over the issue, has given way to sardonic humor, the fruits of which I share below. I have taken passages from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney as written from the Supreme Court’s 1856 landmark case Dred Scott v. John Sanford. I have rewritten the passage to suit modern time in which we find ourselves, below each one of Justice Taney high biased, racially charged rantings. Please read and ingest it in the spirit in which is indented.
Main Body:
…[T]hey were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominate race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority…from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, United States Supreme Court in its ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford, 1856.
The United States its shores pristine; its people affluent; its economy robust and still the largest upon the Earth—despite the recent downturns in trade and industry; its military second to none and able to project our will upon ocean blue, the land it touches, and the air above, sees no need to wash its policies in the tub of world opinion.
…[T]hey had been for more then a century before been regulated as being of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the White race, either social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect… from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, United States Supreme Court in its ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford, 1856.
The rest of the world has no peoples, no laws, no treaties, or other articles of civilized governance the United States of America is bound to respect, or give the slightest consideration to. Indeed, our power, vast and unending, derived in whole from our overwhelming dominance both in the economic and military realms of human existence, guarantees us a higher perch from which to look upon the Earth and her hapless multitudes of people. We need not the burden of cooperation and compromise that flows from the substandard conventions of international treaties governing Civil Rights, Children’s Rights, Global Warming, Nuclear Proliferation, Women’s Rights & Suffrage, Chemical Weapons, Small Arms & Landmine Proliferation, etc., etc., etc. Fortress America will protect us from such petty evils and trivial concerns (except for the occasional airliner bomb) that man can think to devise.
And we need not the woefully inadequate and substandard pleadings of international laws and criminal courts, for the American citizen is a breed apart from the rest, and should be subject only to American laws, and American standards of justice, no matter his wanderings throughout the world, or the seriousness of his crimes against man or nature. Surely the world can see that the American Constitution and therefore by extension, American law and jurisprudence should be supreme in and among the worlds peoples and their varying ineffectual institutions.
And what would become of the American economic miracle if the American corporate Demi-Gods were forced to forgo their never ending quest for profit in the name of human preservation, goodwill, ethics, empathy for all living things, principles and heaven forbid, morals? Surely the world must see that what is good for America is good for the world at large? Has not the world built its standard of living off the very backs of the American worker and consumer? Are not American work ethics and American productivity the envy of the world?
…[T]hat a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they reduced to slavery, and governed as subjects with absolute and despotic power, and which they then looked upon as far below then in scale of created beings, that intermarriages between white persons and Negroes or mulattoes were regarded a unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes… from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, United States Supreme Court in its ruling in Dred Scott v. John Sanford, 1856.
But alas, if the world with its petty concerns, puny economy’s, feeble militaries, and second world (most often third and fourth world), populace cannot see the shinning city upon the mountaintop that is America and give its peoples their due as citizens of the first order, then America will be forced—albeit with profound reluctance and with the heaviest of hearts—to turn its magnificent glowing eyes way from the rest of the world. Alone we shall forge our path of capitalist democracy, a path that will lead to our greatest glory yet. This, while the rest of the world plunges further still into a unity of ethical puritanical thought that ignores the beauty and sublime saneness of the thoughtless pursuit of profit at any cost. And in so doing the world ignores the promise of “Pax America!”
We need the world not, for we are supreme, we are the epitome of self-serving unapologetic arrogance. We rule, we rock, and the rest of the world can in no uncertain terms snuggle close to our collective American bum and grace its grandness, its glory, its undisputed dominance (though China would love to try and unseat us, and Russia longs to be able to muster the intellectual capital to affect another stab a glory), with a multitude of wet kisses!
Historically Black Colleges & Universities: A Legacy on the Ropes
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent narrow decision in the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action decisions, and the question of whether or not there should be minority set-asides at the nation’s publicly funded white majority colleges and universities, broader questions beg to be asked, and answered. Namely should Black Americans continue to push to make inroads into these institutions, or should we as a community strive to make the Historically Black Colleges & University’s (HBCUs) a set of institutions that rival the best education Historically White Colleges & University’s (HWCUs), have to offer? Should the Black community forsake, whenever, and wherever possible, HWCUs in favor of HBCUs in an effort to continue the tradition of these fine institutes of higher learning, and in so doing ensure our future as an educated community of peoples dedicated to improving the American Idea?
Sprinkled predominately throughout the Southern states from Texas to Florida, and up the eastern seaboard from Georgia to Virginia, the 104 HBCUs are widely heralded for the part they played in creating much of the nation's black middle class. According to a February 21st, 2003 article by Ruby Bailey from the Detroit Free Press, some thirty percent of black PhD’s obtained them from black colleges…”as did 35 percent of Black-American lawyers, 50 percent of black engineers and 65 percent of black physicians.”
She went on to state, quoting M. Christopher Brown, a professor and researcher at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State University, that “[s]uch schools ‘remain the cultural repository for African-American history…[t]hese are institutions that demonstrated over time the ability to be effective and efficient with limited resources.’”
A Beginning Born Out of Necessity
At the end of Civil War, there were some four million uneducated newly emancipated slaves, who needed to be cared for, or they could be taught how to care for themselves. So through the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, the federal government used confiscated Confederate land and a $400,000 endowment (which lasted just three years) to start schools for the blacks across the south; blacks, who before the Civil War it had been largely illegal to educate.
As the South struggled through the pain of reconstruction, religious missionaries from the victorious Northern states began setting up makeshift schools in church basements and Union camp shacks. The schools likened themselves to colleges and universities, but in reality they were little more than tutoring at the elementary level, and a true college education was more of a distant goal than a reality. And the task was daunting, for most of the college-age ex-slaves could neither read, nor write.
It was a period of enormous uncertainty, but also unanswered prayers for the education of the newly freed black Americans. Grambling State University in Louisiana, perhaps one of the better known HBCUs was started by Black farmers; Fisk University in Nashville was started in wooden shacks on confiscated Confederate land. Again, Ruby Bailey in her February 21st, 2003 Detroit Free Press article, quoting Prof. Reavis Mitchell, chairman of Fisk University 's history department, states, “[e]very time it rained, little buildings got washed out…[i]n the summer, there were the mosquito infestations and the ticks.’” Two slaves started Talladega College in Alabama, and still other HBCUs were funded by well meaning white philanthropists. Spelman College, an all-women's college in Atlanta and perhaps the most well-known HBCU, was started in the basement of Friendship Church with 11 students. The room had dirt floors, and if it rained the floor turned to mud, and if the sun didn’t shine there was not enough light to conduct class.
And of course the schools were threatened by angry white men. Many were in the heart of the newly formed Ku Klux Klan, and had watch towers manned by students at night. But through it all HBCUs prospered and educated millions of Black Americans.
But that legacy is threatened.
Fighting To Stay Alive; a History of Under-funding
The 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessey vs. Ferguson condoning segregation, and institutionalizing “the separate but equal” doctrine, prompted states to finance public black colleges in an effort to keep young Black American students out of HWCUs. But the states only allocated enough funds so that they were seen as doing something, and the funding levels never reached that of HWCUs, and it shows in the paltry endowments all of the HBCUs have to operate from.
A recent Thurgood Marshall Fund (a scholarship program to help black students attend one of the 45 member HBCUs) study shows that of the 37 public HBCUs, that responded to its inquiries, 26 have endowments of $1 million to $6 million—much less than many comparable institutions. Consider the endowments of top fifty HWCUs in Year 2001 dollars: Harvard University ranks number one with some $17.5-billion; Yale University is in second with $10.4 billion, Mayo Foundation ranks 25 with some $1.5-billion, and Penn. State University ranks 50 with some $942 million in its endowment fund.
Contrast that with Howard University in Washington D.C. which ranks number one among HBCUs with an endowment of just $305 million, Spelman College with an endowment of $220-million, and Harris-Stowe State College in St. Louis has the smallest endowment fund of just $796,000, and three other HBCUs with endowments of less than $1million. The total endowment figure for all 104 historically black schools, public and private, will total some $1.6 billion for 2003 according to United Negro College Fund figures.
While the desegregation of the mid 20th century opened the doors for young black American students to attend HWCUs, the shift siphoned off some of the best and brightest black American students and professors from HBCUs. This led to declining enrollments. Forcing some of the financially weaker school to lower tuition only served to worsen an already dire situation.
Though the Bush administration recently proposed a 5-percent funding increase for HBCUs—to $224 million—in the 2004 federal budget, that is just a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what these schools really need to survive and thrive financially.
Morris Brown College in Atlanta, GA is struggling and may not survive. The college is $23 million in debt, and is fighting off lawsuits from unpaid vendors while the institution battles to pay daily operating expenses. The college lost its accreditation from the Southern Association of College and Schools in December 2002, citing among other things the Morris Brown’s record of bad bookkeeping and lack of faculty members with advanced degrees, as the reason for the Association’s decision. The school is appealing, and graduated its seniors early in March to ensure their diplomas would be accepted.
We have in our HBCUs a rich tradition of learning and service to our community. But because of a litany of problems, not the least of which is chronic under-funding (for all) and mismanagement (in some cases), that tradition for some HBCUs might well be coming to an end. What are the answers? Here is one. The push for reparation for the scourge of slavery is in full swing. But there is a wide disparity of opinion as to what form the reparations, if paid by the federal government, should take. In my previous article entitled “What Form Reparations?” I advanced the idea that reparations should be paid in the form of education vouchers given to black Americans to attend a college or university.
Now I would like to propose something even more far-reaching; a proposal that would help not only the black community, but enrich the lives of all Americans; from the reparations endow all of the HBCUs to the sum of $1 billion each. This would bring them up to the level of some the best HWCUs in the country, allow these schools to modernize and expand, and attract nationally recognized black professors, and other faculty. In addition, this money would greatly expand the scholarship offering from these schools and help attract the best and brightest black students.
Good idea? Drop me an email and let me know what you think.
Sources:
Bailey, Ruby L. Proud Past, Uncertain Future: Some Historically Black College are Fighting for
Their Lives. Detroit Free Press. February 21, 2003.
< http://www.freep.com/news/blackhistory2003/hbcu21_20030221.htm>.
Infoplease.com. 2002. College and University Endowments, 2002. 29 June 2003
< http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html>.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent narrow decision in the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action decisions, and the question of whether or not there should be minority set-asides at the nation’s publicly funded white majority colleges and universities, broader questions beg to be asked, and answered. Namely should Black Americans continue to push to make inroads into these institutions, or should we as a community strive to make the Historically Black Colleges & University’s (HBCUs) a set of institutions that rival the best education Historically White Colleges & University’s (HWCUs), have to offer? Should the Black community forsake, whenever, and wherever possible, HWCUs in favor of HBCUs in an effort to continue the tradition of these fine institutes of higher learning, and in so doing ensure our future as an educated community of peoples dedicated to improving the American Idea?
Sprinkled predominately throughout the Southern states from Texas to Florida, and up the eastern seaboard from Georgia to Virginia, the 104 HBCUs are widely heralded for the part they played in creating much of the nation's black middle class. According to a February 21st, 2003 article by Ruby Bailey from the Detroit Free Press, some thirty percent of black PhD’s obtained them from black colleges…”as did 35 percent of Black-American lawyers, 50 percent of black engineers and 65 percent of black physicians.”
She went on to state, quoting M. Christopher Brown, a professor and researcher at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State University, that “[s]uch schools ‘remain the cultural repository for African-American history…[t]hese are institutions that demonstrated over time the ability to be effective and efficient with limited resources.’”
A Beginning Born Out of Necessity
At the end of Civil War, there were some four million uneducated newly emancipated slaves, who needed to be cared for, or they could be taught how to care for themselves. So through the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, the federal government used confiscated Confederate land and a $400,000 endowment (which lasted just three years) to start schools for the blacks across the south; blacks, who before the Civil War it had been largely illegal to educate.
As the South struggled through the pain of reconstruction, religious missionaries from the victorious Northern states began setting up makeshift schools in church basements and Union camp shacks. The schools likened themselves to colleges and universities, but in reality they were little more than tutoring at the elementary level, and a true college education was more of a distant goal than a reality. And the task was daunting, for most of the college-age ex-slaves could neither read, nor write.
It was a period of enormous uncertainty, but also unanswered prayers for the education of the newly freed black Americans. Grambling State University in Louisiana, perhaps one of the better known HBCUs was started by Black farmers; Fisk University in Nashville was started in wooden shacks on confiscated Confederate land. Again, Ruby Bailey in her February 21st, 2003 Detroit Free Press article, quoting Prof. Reavis Mitchell, chairman of Fisk University 's history department, states, “[e]very time it rained, little buildings got washed out…[i]n the summer, there were the mosquito infestations and the ticks.’” Two slaves started Talladega College in Alabama, and still other HBCUs were funded by well meaning white philanthropists. Spelman College, an all-women's college in Atlanta and perhaps the most well-known HBCU, was started in the basement of Friendship Church with 11 students. The room had dirt floors, and if it rained the floor turned to mud, and if the sun didn’t shine there was not enough light to conduct class.
And of course the schools were threatened by angry white men. Many were in the heart of the newly formed Ku Klux Klan, and had watch towers manned by students at night. But through it all HBCUs prospered and educated millions of Black Americans.
But that legacy is threatened.
Fighting To Stay Alive; a History of Under-funding
The 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessey vs. Ferguson condoning segregation, and institutionalizing “the separate but equal” doctrine, prompted states to finance public black colleges in an effort to keep young Black American students out of HWCUs. But the states only allocated enough funds so that they were seen as doing something, and the funding levels never reached that of HWCUs, and it shows in the paltry endowments all of the HBCUs have to operate from.
A recent Thurgood Marshall Fund (a scholarship program to help black students attend one of the 45 member HBCUs) study shows that of the 37 public HBCUs, that responded to its inquiries, 26 have endowments of $1 million to $6 million—much less than many comparable institutions. Consider the endowments of top fifty HWCUs in Year 2001 dollars: Harvard University ranks number one with some $17.5-billion; Yale University is in second with $10.4 billion, Mayo Foundation ranks 25 with some $1.5-billion, and Penn. State University ranks 50 with some $942 million in its endowment fund.
Contrast that with Howard University in Washington D.C. which ranks number one among HBCUs with an endowment of just $305 million, Spelman College with an endowment of $220-million, and Harris-Stowe State College in St. Louis has the smallest endowment fund of just $796,000, and three other HBCUs with endowments of less than $1million. The total endowment figure for all 104 historically black schools, public and private, will total some $1.6 billion for 2003 according to United Negro College Fund figures.
While the desegregation of the mid 20th century opened the doors for young black American students to attend HWCUs, the shift siphoned off some of the best and brightest black American students and professors from HBCUs. This led to declining enrollments. Forcing some of the financially weaker school to lower tuition only served to worsen an already dire situation.
Though the Bush administration recently proposed a 5-percent funding increase for HBCUs—to $224 million—in the 2004 federal budget, that is just a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to what these schools really need to survive and thrive financially.
Morris Brown College in Atlanta, GA is struggling and may not survive. The college is $23 million in debt, and is fighting off lawsuits from unpaid vendors while the institution battles to pay daily operating expenses. The college lost its accreditation from the Southern Association of College and Schools in December 2002, citing among other things the Morris Brown’s record of bad bookkeeping and lack of faculty members with advanced degrees, as the reason for the Association’s decision. The school is appealing, and graduated its seniors early in March to ensure their diplomas would be accepted.
We have in our HBCUs a rich tradition of learning and service to our community. But because of a litany of problems, not the least of which is chronic under-funding (for all) and mismanagement (in some cases), that tradition for some HBCUs might well be coming to an end. What are the answers? Here is one. The push for reparation for the scourge of slavery is in full swing. But there is a wide disparity of opinion as to what form the reparations, if paid by the federal government, should take. In my previous article entitled “What Form Reparations?” I advanced the idea that reparations should be paid in the form of education vouchers given to black Americans to attend a college or university.
Now I would like to propose something even more far-reaching; a proposal that would help not only the black community, but enrich the lives of all Americans; from the reparations endow all of the HBCUs to the sum of $1 billion each. This would bring them up to the level of some the best HWCUs in the country, allow these schools to modernize and expand, and attract nationally recognized black professors, and other faculty. In addition, this money would greatly expand the scholarship offering from these schools and help attract the best and brightest black students.
Good idea? Drop me an email and let me know what you think.
Sources:
Bailey, Ruby L. Proud Past, Uncertain Future: Some Historically Black College are Fighting for
Their Lives. Detroit Free Press. February 21, 2003.
< http://www.freep.com/news/blackhistory2003/hbcu21_20030221.htm>.
Infoplease.com. 2002. College and University Endowments, 2002. 29 June 2003
< http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html>.
Saturday, May 24, 2003
Jayson Blair’s use of Race Card is Disingenuous
I interrupt my usually politically motivated muses to voice my outrage at the liar Jayson Blair. You know the man who duped the New York Times, and fabricated and/or plagiarized not one, not two, not three, not ten, or even 20, but an embarrassing 36 stories for the fabled newspaper. It’s not enough that the man has besmirched the venerable and highly respected name and reputation of the Times, and in so doing cast a pall over the entire face of print journalism, but now he has the audacity, and the gall to try and play the race card in order to cover up his lack of character!
Words alone cannot describe how disgusted and utterly disappointed I am in this man. As a Black male, this is indeed a sad day for me, and my honest hardworking fellows who must win our respect one deed at a time. Why oh why, must the race card be played every time an issue of character rears it ugly head, and those questioned are black? In a ground breaking and eye opening interview with the New York Observer, published on May 21, 2003, Blair lashed out at the Times, stating, “[a]nyone who tells you that my race didn’t play a role in my career at the New York Times is lying to you. Both racial preferences and racism played a role. And I would argue that they didn't balance each other out."
As any Black male will tell you, being one of us in America is not a walk in the park by any means, but the behavior portrayed by Blair has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a serious flaw in his individual character, far removed from race. His imperfections are all too human, and all too typical of this generation of young professionals; or should I say professional wannabes. Why work when I can take the easy way out. And why accept the blame for my own shortcomings; surely someone, or something else must be the blame!
Blair went on to say, "I was under a lot of pressure. I was black at the New York Times, which is something that hurts you as much as it helps you. I certainly have health problems which probably led to me having to kill Jayson Blair, the journalist. . . . So Jayson Blair the human being could live, Jayson Blair the journalist had to die." So what. I am black working for a major Technology out-sourcing company based in Texas. I have felt the bite of racism from colleagues and managers alike, but I do not respond by becoming less of a person than I was meant to be; I do not blame the entire corporation for the actions of a few and attempt to assassinate the whole. And it is rumored that Blair’s “health problems” were self-induced (alcohol and cocaine), yet another character flaw in a long, long list of many.
Blair blames everyone but himself for his shameful run at the Times, and indeed celebrates the fact the he was able to dupe the Times for so long, saying, “I fooled some of the most brilliant people in journalism...[t]hey're all so smart, but I was sitting right under their nose fooling them. If they're all so brilliant and I'm such an affirmative action hire, how come they didn't catch me?" Was this a game to him? It seems it was, and what is even more amazing is that he has no regrets. He has yet to earnestly apologize to the Times, or even more importantly, to the readers of the Times who depend on the newspaper for accurate, professionally written, unblemished news. To be sure, the Times editors should have kept a tighter rein on the young liar, but in the end the blame rests squarely on Blair’s slight shoulders.
And his claims that the editors at the Times are racist stand hollow in the face of his own deplorable behaviors. Indeed, by Blair’s own admission while interning at The Boston Globe in 1999, Blair was guilty of the same behaviors, faking an interview with D.C. mayor Anthony Williams. Blair has described his former Globe colleagues as "a bunch of thin-skinned, sheltered, cocooned babies." Were the Boston Globe editors guilty of racism as well?
Now there is talk of a book! And to add insult to grievous injury, Blair says he laughed at the Times’ recently published 7000 word Mea Culpa in which the newspaper detailed Blair’s trail of deceit.
I do not buy Blair’s assertion of racism; I reject it, as I reject him. In the end his downfall was not brought about by the color of his skin, but by the content (or lack thereof) of his shallow, reprehensible character.
I interrupt my usually politically motivated muses to voice my outrage at the liar Jayson Blair. You know the man who duped the New York Times, and fabricated and/or plagiarized not one, not two, not three, not ten, or even 20, but an embarrassing 36 stories for the fabled newspaper. It’s not enough that the man has besmirched the venerable and highly respected name and reputation of the Times, and in so doing cast a pall over the entire face of print journalism, but now he has the audacity, and the gall to try and play the race card in order to cover up his lack of character!
Words alone cannot describe how disgusted and utterly disappointed I am in this man. As a Black male, this is indeed a sad day for me, and my honest hardworking fellows who must win our respect one deed at a time. Why oh why, must the race card be played every time an issue of character rears it ugly head, and those questioned are black? In a ground breaking and eye opening interview with the New York Observer, published on May 21, 2003, Blair lashed out at the Times, stating, “[a]nyone who tells you that my race didn’t play a role in my career at the New York Times is lying to you. Both racial preferences and racism played a role. And I would argue that they didn't balance each other out."
As any Black male will tell you, being one of us in America is not a walk in the park by any means, but the behavior portrayed by Blair has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a serious flaw in his individual character, far removed from race. His imperfections are all too human, and all too typical of this generation of young professionals; or should I say professional wannabes. Why work when I can take the easy way out. And why accept the blame for my own shortcomings; surely someone, or something else must be the blame!
Blair went on to say, "I was under a lot of pressure. I was black at the New York Times, which is something that hurts you as much as it helps you. I certainly have health problems which probably led to me having to kill Jayson Blair, the journalist. . . . So Jayson Blair the human being could live, Jayson Blair the journalist had to die." So what. I am black working for a major Technology out-sourcing company based in Texas. I have felt the bite of racism from colleagues and managers alike, but I do not respond by becoming less of a person than I was meant to be; I do not blame the entire corporation for the actions of a few and attempt to assassinate the whole. And it is rumored that Blair’s “health problems” were self-induced (alcohol and cocaine), yet another character flaw in a long, long list of many.
Blair blames everyone but himself for his shameful run at the Times, and indeed celebrates the fact the he was able to dupe the Times for so long, saying, “I fooled some of the most brilliant people in journalism...[t]hey're all so smart, but I was sitting right under their nose fooling them. If they're all so brilliant and I'm such an affirmative action hire, how come they didn't catch me?" Was this a game to him? It seems it was, and what is even more amazing is that he has no regrets. He has yet to earnestly apologize to the Times, or even more importantly, to the readers of the Times who depend on the newspaper for accurate, professionally written, unblemished news. To be sure, the Times editors should have kept a tighter rein on the young liar, but in the end the blame rests squarely on Blair’s slight shoulders.
And his claims that the editors at the Times are racist stand hollow in the face of his own deplorable behaviors. Indeed, by Blair’s own admission while interning at The Boston Globe in 1999, Blair was guilty of the same behaviors, faking an interview with D.C. mayor Anthony Williams. Blair has described his former Globe colleagues as "a bunch of thin-skinned, sheltered, cocooned babies." Were the Boston Globe editors guilty of racism as well?
Now there is talk of a book! And to add insult to grievous injury, Blair says he laughed at the Times’ recently published 7000 word Mea Culpa in which the newspaper detailed Blair’s trail of deceit.
I do not buy Blair’s assertion of racism; I reject it, as I reject him. In the end his downfall was not brought about by the color of his skin, but by the content (or lack thereof) of his shallow, reprehensible character.
Friday, May 16, 2003
Bush Tax Cuts a Fool’s Errand
Is it me, or does anyone else find this constant push for a tax cut a bit wearying, not to mention overwhelmingly foolish? Don’t we have a war to pay for? Aren’t the vast majority of states running in the red? Aren’t there millions of Americans without basic healthcare, and still more unemployed? Is this really the best time to cut the government’s revenue stream?
Looking at my latest pay stub, I would be the first one to stand up and proclaim that I need tax relief, but then sobering reality would slap me in the face like the recent westerly winds hammered my newly built gazebo this past weekend. I, like the rest of my fellow sober, rational thinking, forward-looking, multi-dimensional Americans, must look at the larger picture. And that picture is fuzzy, its colors are starting to run, and fade. But it nonetheless illustrates an undeniable truth: we cannot afford tax relief, not now, nor anywhere in the distant future.
The President claims that the tax relief package—which seeks to significantly cut the dividend tax—will create new jobs, especially new small business jobs. Please, there are not enough small business jobs in America to employee the millions of people who have lost their jobs, let alone replace the income that has left the economy. When held up to the mirror of reality, the Presidents tax cuts are nothing more then a gift to the richest 1 percent of Americans; a thank you card from the President at our (the rest of the 99 percent of Americans) expense.
Consider the numbers: according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, under the President’s original tax relief plan, households with $40,000 to $50,000 in net (taxable) income would receive an average tax cut of $482 and an increase of 1.2 percent to their total after-tax income. For households earning more than $1 million, the average tax cut would be more than $89,500, with an increase in their after-tax income of 4.2 percent.
The $550 billion version of the President’s plan that passed the House of Representatives last week is even more generous to the rich. Those same middle-income households would receive a tax cut of $452 and an income boost of 1.1 percent, while the nation’s upper crust (those making over 1 million dollars) would receive a tax-cut of $93,537, enough to enlarge their after-tax income by 4.4 percent. The more unpretentious $350 billion tax cut that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week would trim the average millionaire's tax cut a smidgen, to $64,431. But it would also trim the middle class tax-cut to $415.
The 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut that passed in 2001, and gave us all $600 to spend, also gave the uber-rich a windfall, but it left the relative income tax burden of each income group largely untouched. That is because most of the cuts targeted income, and taxpayers at every income level received virtually the same percentage reduction. In contrast, the centerpiece of the Republican White House and Republican House tax plans—sharp cuts in taxes paid on dividends and capital gains—are aimed at investors, who tend to be very wealthy.
I, like most Americans, do not have large sums of money tied up in individual stocks. If we invest in the Market, our money is more than likely in mutual funds, 401(k)’s, CD’s and IRA’s. Therefore the benefit of the current round of tax-cuts for the vast majority of Americans would be negligible, unless of course you count the job creation angle. Just how does a cut in the dividend tax rate morph into a new job with health care benefits anyway?
This is not leadership; this is cronyism at its unabashed, unadorned, repugnant worst. And it only reinforces my belief that taken as a whole, the Republican Party has no political or social philosophy in which I feel comfortable supporting. The Bush tax cut proposal is a fool’s errand trumpeted by a Party that cares only for the rich conservative few that keep its coffers full, and its agenda at the center of American life, whether we like it or not. The tax-cut proposal is bad for America. At a time when we need bold leadership to see the country through the worst economic and fiscal malady since the end of WWII, we have Bush. Is it just me, or is anyone else looking for a safe place to hide for the next six years?
Source: Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Online. Bush Blunts 'Fairness Question' on Taxes
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47167-2003May12.html>
Is it me, or does anyone else find this constant push for a tax cut a bit wearying, not to mention overwhelmingly foolish? Don’t we have a war to pay for? Aren’t the vast majority of states running in the red? Aren’t there millions of Americans without basic healthcare, and still more unemployed? Is this really the best time to cut the government’s revenue stream?
Looking at my latest pay stub, I would be the first one to stand up and proclaim that I need tax relief, but then sobering reality would slap me in the face like the recent westerly winds hammered my newly built gazebo this past weekend. I, like the rest of my fellow sober, rational thinking, forward-looking, multi-dimensional Americans, must look at the larger picture. And that picture is fuzzy, its colors are starting to run, and fade. But it nonetheless illustrates an undeniable truth: we cannot afford tax relief, not now, nor anywhere in the distant future.
The President claims that the tax relief package—which seeks to significantly cut the dividend tax—will create new jobs, especially new small business jobs. Please, there are not enough small business jobs in America to employee the millions of people who have lost their jobs, let alone replace the income that has left the economy. When held up to the mirror of reality, the Presidents tax cuts are nothing more then a gift to the richest 1 percent of Americans; a thank you card from the President at our (the rest of the 99 percent of Americans) expense.
Consider the numbers: according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, under the President’s original tax relief plan, households with $40,000 to $50,000 in net (taxable) income would receive an average tax cut of $482 and an increase of 1.2 percent to their total after-tax income. For households earning more than $1 million, the average tax cut would be more than $89,500, with an increase in their after-tax income of 4.2 percent.
The $550 billion version of the President’s plan that passed the House of Representatives last week is even more generous to the rich. Those same middle-income households would receive a tax cut of $452 and an income boost of 1.1 percent, while the nation’s upper crust (those making over 1 million dollars) would receive a tax-cut of $93,537, enough to enlarge their after-tax income by 4.4 percent. The more unpretentious $350 billion tax cut that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week would trim the average millionaire's tax cut a smidgen, to $64,431. But it would also trim the middle class tax-cut to $415.
The 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut that passed in 2001, and gave us all $600 to spend, also gave the uber-rich a windfall, but it left the relative income tax burden of each income group largely untouched. That is because most of the cuts targeted income, and taxpayers at every income level received virtually the same percentage reduction. In contrast, the centerpiece of the Republican White House and Republican House tax plans—sharp cuts in taxes paid on dividends and capital gains—are aimed at investors, who tend to be very wealthy.
I, like most Americans, do not have large sums of money tied up in individual stocks. If we invest in the Market, our money is more than likely in mutual funds, 401(k)’s, CD’s and IRA’s. Therefore the benefit of the current round of tax-cuts for the vast majority of Americans would be negligible, unless of course you count the job creation angle. Just how does a cut in the dividend tax rate morph into a new job with health care benefits anyway?
This is not leadership; this is cronyism at its unabashed, unadorned, repugnant worst. And it only reinforces my belief that taken as a whole, the Republican Party has no political or social philosophy in which I feel comfortable supporting. The Bush tax cut proposal is a fool’s errand trumpeted by a Party that cares only for the rich conservative few that keep its coffers full, and its agenda at the center of American life, whether we like it or not. The tax-cut proposal is bad for America. At a time when we need bold leadership to see the country through the worst economic and fiscal malady since the end of WWII, we have Bush. Is it just me, or is anyone else looking for a safe place to hide for the next six years?
Source: Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Online. Bush Blunts 'Fairness Question' on Taxes
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47167-2003May12.html>
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Did anyone else see the season ending shocker on The West Wing last night? Even I, an amateur Constitutional scholar, didn’t see that one coming. Last night’s episode is why The West Wing continues to be the best 45 minutes of drama on television, cable or otherwise! Of course the Law & Order series comes in a close second, but the ensemble (writers, directors, and actors) of The West Wing keep me clued to the screen from the opening dramatic theme song (it moves me every time) to the close of the show.
Now the question on everyone mind will be how easy will it be for Bartlett to regain the Oval Office next season. On its face, the wording of the 25th Amendment would seem to suggest that it would be and easy enough task to accomplish, to wit, section 3 & 4 of the Amendment state:
Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. U.S. CONSTITUTION, amend 25, Sections 3 & 4.
All Bartlett need do is sign a piece of paper declaring himself fit for office once again, and the deed is done. But something tells me, that the Republican Speaker of The House, portrayed to perfection by John Goodman will not give up the trapping of the Oval Office that easily. Not to mention that in real life such a scenario has never played itself out; no President has ever faced the choices Bartlett had to face last night.
After the show the spouse and I lamented which past President would have had the character or devotion to duty, honor, and country to do what Bartlett did? I said Kennedy and Carter, and perhaps Ford would; she agreed on Carter. And would Bush faced with a similar situation today have the forethought, courage, and wisdom to invoke the 25th? Neither of us thought Bush capable of such a selfless act; sadly he lacks the character, intelligence, and wisdom.
Next season should be very interesting indeed. And I start Constitutional Process next year in Law School…very interesting indeed.
Now the question on everyone mind will be how easy will it be for Bartlett to regain the Oval Office next season. On its face, the wording of the 25th Amendment would seem to suggest that it would be and easy enough task to accomplish, to wit, section 3 & 4 of the Amendment state:
Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. U.S. CONSTITUTION, amend 25, Sections 3 & 4.
All Bartlett need do is sign a piece of paper declaring himself fit for office once again, and the deed is done. But something tells me, that the Republican Speaker of The House, portrayed to perfection by John Goodman will not give up the trapping of the Oval Office that easily. Not to mention that in real life such a scenario has never played itself out; no President has ever faced the choices Bartlett had to face last night.
After the show the spouse and I lamented which past President would have had the character or devotion to duty, honor, and country to do what Bartlett did? I said Kennedy and Carter, and perhaps Ford would; she agreed on Carter. And would Bush faced with a similar situation today have the forethought, courage, and wisdom to invoke the 25th? Neither of us thought Bush capable of such a selfless act; sadly he lacks the character, intelligence, and wisdom.
Next season should be very interesting indeed. And I start Constitutional Process next year in Law School…very interesting indeed.
Thursday, May 01, 2003
Hi All, sorry I have been away; there was a death in the family. My father passed on Easter Sunday, and I had to fly back east to attend the funeral, and deal with other family issues. As a result my mind hasn't been in the game--so-to-speak--for the last few weeks, but I am recovering. Please enjoy the following editorial I wrote for an upcoming issue of my school newspaper:
Powell v. Rumsfeld
These are troubled times. More troubling one could say than the heyday of the cold war era. At least then, there were sharply defined lines; we knew who the enemy was, and the world’s nations fell on one side of the iron curtain or the other. Life was simple.
Times have changed. The cold war has thawed and the United States stands alone in the superpower arena. We as a nation have no equal in terms of military and economic power. Democracy has proven itself the more resilient form of human governance and capitalism dearer to the human soul then any other economic model. The world is in flux as nations once dominated by the old dynamics of east-west conflict flex their political muscles, and radical Islam gives rise to a different flavor of threat.
At a time in world history when the United States could and should lead the world to a brighter future anchored in democratic principles and built on a foundation of liberty and equality for all, we are failing. We are faltering. The light is dimming and a darker tomorrow is dawning as the Bush administration conducts foreign policy with a school yard bully mentality.
In a skirmish that rivals the fabled War that just was, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are engaged in a war of words and petty back room maneuvers. The stakes: who will be the voice of American foreign policy; the traditionally dovish Department of State, or the overly conservative and hawkish Department of Defense?
On one side there is Rumsfeld and his people: VP Cheney, Deputy Sect. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, columnist William Safire, Fox News, the American Enterprise Institute, and the ultra-conservative members of the Defense Policy Board - Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich, and Ken Adelman.
On the other side there is Powell and his people: Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Deputy Sect. of State Richard Armitage, Richard Haass, the State Department and the Foreign Service, Senator Joe Biden, and well, the world.
The clash between Powell and Rumsfeld is so noteworthy because it goes beyond mere ego. It is central to whether the U.S. will lead by fear, intimidation, aggression, and force of arms, or by principles, diplomacy, moderation and example.
Conspicuous in his absence and leadership, has been the President. By not reining Rumsfeld in, Bush lends authority to his words and deed, and by not supporting Powell’s positions, he is in effect undermining Powell and the State Department’s credibility before the body politic of the world. At times it appears as though U.S. foreign policy is being conducted from the Department of Defense or worse yet, from the desk of the National Security Advisor.
The discredited former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, fired the latest salvo (most say with Rumsfeld’s blessing), when he personally attacked Powell in a recent speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute calling the State Department “ineffective and incoherent” for “six months of diplomatic failure” and its “propensity for appeasing dictators and propping up corrupt regimes.” Dissimilarly, he noted that the Defense Department “delivered diplomatically and then the military delivered militarily.” Gingrich went on to rebuke State diplomats for undue deference to the U.N. and for tolerating terrorism in Syrian-occupied Lebanon.
Response from the Powell camp can only be characterized as ad hominem attacking Gingrich personally and not his message. Elizabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, said of Newt: “[w]hat he said is garbage…he is an idiot and you can publish that.” Armitage responded by stating that Newt was "off his meds and out of therapy"; Mr. Baker called Mr. Gingrich "someone with no foreign policy or national security experience…who was in effect forced to resign" as House speaker; a Powell aide said it was "inconceivable that Newt could have made this extraordinary attack on his own without running it past Rumsfeld.”
While it is possible that Rumsfeld may merely be the front man for Vice President Cheney, who sparred with Powell for being too cautious in the first Persian Gulf war, and ridiculed Mr. Powell's strategy of going to the U.N. before the second, the outcome is the same; the U.S. Ship of State is adrift between two competing ideological camps. And while the world holds its collective breath wondering where the next MOAB might slide to earth, Bush’s failure to lead his administration past this impasse leaves nine billion people jittery and unsettled.
On a barely positive note, Powell has won support from the President in his ongoing negotiations with Syria of its support of terrorist, North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, and the newly emerging Palestinian leadership. Absent is the President’s support for any of Powell’s initiatives in Iraq, which by and large has been left in Pentagon hands.
We are at a crossroads in human history, and I for one am tired of WAR. The world needs peace, but I fear the course Rumsfeld and company have set for the United States will only lead to more WAR and continued distrust of U.S. motives. Hatred for America is on the rise, and the fear of a once principled nation is so pungent you can smell it on the air. Come next election we have a choice to make: empire building and the constant strife it entails, or a peaceful coexistence rooted in mutual respect and humility.
Powell v. Rumsfeld
These are troubled times. More troubling one could say than the heyday of the cold war era. At least then, there were sharply defined lines; we knew who the enemy was, and the world’s nations fell on one side of the iron curtain or the other. Life was simple.
Times have changed. The cold war has thawed and the United States stands alone in the superpower arena. We as a nation have no equal in terms of military and economic power. Democracy has proven itself the more resilient form of human governance and capitalism dearer to the human soul then any other economic model. The world is in flux as nations once dominated by the old dynamics of east-west conflict flex their political muscles, and radical Islam gives rise to a different flavor of threat.
At a time in world history when the United States could and should lead the world to a brighter future anchored in democratic principles and built on a foundation of liberty and equality for all, we are failing. We are faltering. The light is dimming and a darker tomorrow is dawning as the Bush administration conducts foreign policy with a school yard bully mentality.
In a skirmish that rivals the fabled War that just was, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are engaged in a war of words and petty back room maneuvers. The stakes: who will be the voice of American foreign policy; the traditionally dovish Department of State, or the overly conservative and hawkish Department of Defense?
On one side there is Rumsfeld and his people: VP Cheney, Deputy Sect. of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, columnist William Safire, Fox News, the American Enterprise Institute, and the ultra-conservative members of the Defense Policy Board - Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Newt Gingrich, and Ken Adelman.
On the other side there is Powell and his people: Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Deputy Sect. of State Richard Armitage, Richard Haass, the State Department and the Foreign Service, Senator Joe Biden, and well, the world.
The clash between Powell and Rumsfeld is so noteworthy because it goes beyond mere ego. It is central to whether the U.S. will lead by fear, intimidation, aggression, and force of arms, or by principles, diplomacy, moderation and example.
Conspicuous in his absence and leadership, has been the President. By not reining Rumsfeld in, Bush lends authority to his words and deed, and by not supporting Powell’s positions, he is in effect undermining Powell and the State Department’s credibility before the body politic of the world. At times it appears as though U.S. foreign policy is being conducted from the Department of Defense or worse yet, from the desk of the National Security Advisor.
The discredited former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, fired the latest salvo (most say with Rumsfeld’s blessing), when he personally attacked Powell in a recent speech at the conservative American Enterprise Institute calling the State Department “ineffective and incoherent” for “six months of diplomatic failure” and its “propensity for appeasing dictators and propping up corrupt regimes.” Dissimilarly, he noted that the Defense Department “delivered diplomatically and then the military delivered militarily.” Gingrich went on to rebuke State diplomats for undue deference to the U.N. and for tolerating terrorism in Syrian-occupied Lebanon.
Response from the Powell camp can only be characterized as ad hominem attacking Gingrich personally and not his message. Elizabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, said of Newt: “[w]hat he said is garbage…he is an idiot and you can publish that.” Armitage responded by stating that Newt was "off his meds and out of therapy"; Mr. Baker called Mr. Gingrich "someone with no foreign policy or national security experience…who was in effect forced to resign" as House speaker; a Powell aide said it was "inconceivable that Newt could have made this extraordinary attack on his own without running it past Rumsfeld.”
While it is possible that Rumsfeld may merely be the front man for Vice President Cheney, who sparred with Powell for being too cautious in the first Persian Gulf war, and ridiculed Mr. Powell's strategy of going to the U.N. before the second, the outcome is the same; the U.S. Ship of State is adrift between two competing ideological camps. And while the world holds its collective breath wondering where the next MOAB might slide to earth, Bush’s failure to lead his administration past this impasse leaves nine billion people jittery and unsettled.
On a barely positive note, Powell has won support from the President in his ongoing negotiations with Syria of its support of terrorist, North Korea over its nuclear weapons program, and the newly emerging Palestinian leadership. Absent is the President’s support for any of Powell’s initiatives in Iraq, which by and large has been left in Pentagon hands.
We are at a crossroads in human history, and I for one am tired of WAR. The world needs peace, but I fear the course Rumsfeld and company have set for the United States will only lead to more WAR and continued distrust of U.S. motives. Hatred for America is on the rise, and the fear of a once principled nation is so pungent you can smell it on the air. Come next election we have a choice to make: empire building and the constant strife it entails, or a peaceful coexistence rooted in mutual respect and humility.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
War Diary, April 9, 2003: Blitzkrieg 2003 - Baghdad has Fallen
Baghdad had fallen, Baghdad has fallen, and the people of the city are celebrating and looting. Like in Basra, in Baghdad chaos reins. And the people’s jubilation is tempered by anger and frustration. Those who can’t understand it should try for just a moment to walk 50 yards in their shoes.
Ruin, no water, no electricity, ruin, everywhere ruin. Anarchy is the rule of the day, the rule of law can find no purchase…whatever we do, we have to get this one right, we have to prove to the Iraqi people, the Arab community, and indeed the world that democracy can take hold in Iraq. We cannot botch this, we cannot install our own henchman to replace the one(s) we just toppled, we cannot and should not repeat the mistakes of the recent past, but instead look to end of World War II as a guide post of how to proceed.
That being said, this WAR is far from over, on that point I do agree with the Bushies. Three major cities in the north have to be taken and I have feeling that they will not go down as Baghdad did, especially the place of Saddam’s birth, Tikrit. I wonder when the armor will once again roll across the desert to do battle with evil…
Baghdad had fallen, Baghdad has fallen, and the people of the city are celebrating and looting. Like in Basra, in Baghdad chaos reins. And the people’s jubilation is tempered by anger and frustration. Those who can’t understand it should try for just a moment to walk 50 yards in their shoes.
Ruin, no water, no electricity, ruin, everywhere ruin. Anarchy is the rule of the day, the rule of law can find no purchase…whatever we do, we have to get this one right, we have to prove to the Iraqi people, the Arab community, and indeed the world that democracy can take hold in Iraq. We cannot botch this, we cannot install our own henchman to replace the one(s) we just toppled, we cannot and should not repeat the mistakes of the recent past, but instead look to end of World War II as a guide post of how to proceed.
That being said, this WAR is far from over, on that point I do agree with the Bushies. Three major cities in the north have to be taken and I have feeling that they will not go down as Baghdad did, especially the place of Saddam’s birth, Tikrit. I wonder when the armor will once again roll across the desert to do battle with evil…
Sunday, April 06, 2003
Here is another editorial I recently wrote for The DePaulia (http://www.thedepaulia.com/). The editorial is entitled, The Long Slow Painful Decline.
“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation…” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence 1776.
There was a time in American public discourse when words of eloquence and principle were the norm; when our political and spiritual leaders, intelligent, well-read, and grounded in philosophical astuteness were undeterred in their speech, and with words painted a vision for the nation. They are words from the minds of men (and women) percolating with intellect and wisdom and speak to a mastery of the English language seldom heard, spoken, or written in these modern times. From the quills of these great orators dripped words, phrases, principles, and ideas which launched a nation that would arguably become one of the greatest mankind had ever envisioned. Their words nurtured by lofty ideas with notable philosophical underpinnings, sprang forth with impassioned vigor, giving birth to speeches that moved the human spirit, and captured the imagination. They were (and are) words that inspired, that motivated, that warmed to such a degree, that men and women would die to see their edict carried to fruition.
“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.”…Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863.
Fast forward to the here and now and wonder in the age of the sound bite and “Axis of Evil” speeches, where have all our great political leaders gone? Where are the great intellectuals and orators of our age? Our politicians today remind one not of the inspired brilliance and vision that fashioned a nation of principles, and ideas that fueled the imagination of the world, but of insipid, naughty, elementary school children vying for a piece of turf on the playground. Their words do not inspire, they do not motivate, they do not move the soul or swell the heart; they in short leave me wanting and waiting for greatness.
Nothing illustrates this shortcoming more than the recent one year anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which felled the World Trade Center. The nation’s political leaders so void of intellectual capital and inspired vision, so mired by the quicksand of modern American politics with it’s increasingly shallow center, could not produce one original or memorable speech for the day; NY Governor George Pataki recited the Gettysburg Address, while NJ Governor Jim McGreevey recited from the Declaration of Independence! As for Mr. Bush, well, no memorable words left his sneering lips that day.
We elected a President whose words tumble from a mouth fed by a befuddled brain, which doesn’t reason, a soul which has no vision, and a heart devoid of meaningful passion. We accept, and in some cases, celebrate the limitations of our Accidental President, while the world looks on in wonder at this sad spectacle we have spawned. How could a nation that bequeathed to the world wondrous institutions of higher learning such as DePaul, UIC, Northwestern, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Grambling and MIT, long suffer the unfocused ramblings of a dullard? How could a society which crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, documents hailed around the globe as enlightened, visionary, and worthy of emulation, suffer long the indignity of a body politic whose intellectual discourse is little above adolescent squabbling.
“Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”…Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From A Birmingham Jail, 1963.
It is said that a nation receives the leadership it deserves. Is that true in our case? Have we started the long slow road to intellectual, moral and ideological decline that has marked the passing of so many great human civilizations? Does our current state of public intellectual malaise signal the closing curtain on the grand experiment that is American (flavored) democracy? Will this nation with its government so ineptly led; this nation founded on the principle of governance of the people, by the people, and for the people, perish from this earth, because the principles that form the foundation of its society, its government, its very way of live, no longer have an inspired voice in its public, private and political discourse? When did idealism and praiseworthy intellect, eloquent prose, and impassioned speech, become character flaws in a nation founded by men who wore all in unapologetically abundance?
“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation…” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence 1776.
There was a time in American public discourse when words of eloquence and principle were the norm; when our political and spiritual leaders, intelligent, well-read, and grounded in philosophical astuteness were undeterred in their speech, and with words painted a vision for the nation. They are words from the minds of men (and women) percolating with intellect and wisdom and speak to a mastery of the English language seldom heard, spoken, or written in these modern times. From the quills of these great orators dripped words, phrases, principles, and ideas which launched a nation that would arguably become one of the greatest mankind had ever envisioned. Their words nurtured by lofty ideas with notable philosophical underpinnings, sprang forth with impassioned vigor, giving birth to speeches that moved the human spirit, and captured the imagination. They were (and are) words that inspired, that motivated, that warmed to such a degree, that men and women would die to see their edict carried to fruition.
“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.”…Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 1863.
Fast forward to the here and now and wonder in the age of the sound bite and “Axis of Evil” speeches, where have all our great political leaders gone? Where are the great intellectuals and orators of our age? Our politicians today remind one not of the inspired brilliance and vision that fashioned a nation of principles, and ideas that fueled the imagination of the world, but of insipid, naughty, elementary school children vying for a piece of turf on the playground. Their words do not inspire, they do not motivate, they do not move the soul or swell the heart; they in short leave me wanting and waiting for greatness.
Nothing illustrates this shortcoming more than the recent one year anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which felled the World Trade Center. The nation’s political leaders so void of intellectual capital and inspired vision, so mired by the quicksand of modern American politics with it’s increasingly shallow center, could not produce one original or memorable speech for the day; NY Governor George Pataki recited the Gettysburg Address, while NJ Governor Jim McGreevey recited from the Declaration of Independence! As for Mr. Bush, well, no memorable words left his sneering lips that day.
We elected a President whose words tumble from a mouth fed by a befuddled brain, which doesn’t reason, a soul which has no vision, and a heart devoid of meaningful passion. We accept, and in some cases, celebrate the limitations of our Accidental President, while the world looks on in wonder at this sad spectacle we have spawned. How could a nation that bequeathed to the world wondrous institutions of higher learning such as DePaul, UIC, Northwestern, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Grambling and MIT, long suffer the unfocused ramblings of a dullard? How could a society which crafted the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, documents hailed around the globe as enlightened, visionary, and worthy of emulation, suffer long the indignity of a body politic whose intellectual discourse is little above adolescent squabbling.
“Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”…Martin Luther King Jr., Letter From A Birmingham Jail, 1963.
It is said that a nation receives the leadership it deserves. Is that true in our case? Have we started the long slow road to intellectual, moral and ideological decline that has marked the passing of so many great human civilizations? Does our current state of public intellectual malaise signal the closing curtain on the grand experiment that is American (flavored) democracy? Will this nation with its government so ineptly led; this nation founded on the principle of governance of the people, by the people, and for the people, perish from this earth, because the principles that form the foundation of its society, its government, its very way of live, no longer have an inspired voice in its public, private and political discourse? When did idealism and praiseworthy intellect, eloquent prose, and impassioned speech, become character flaws in a nation founded by men who wore all in unapologetically abundance?
Friday, April 04, 2003
War Diary, April 4, 2003: Blitzkrieg 2003 and Infidels at the Gate
Thank God it’s Friday! I am so tied, and dare I say irritable? I need sleep! Between work and school I am worn out! I think I will vegetate this weekend, catch up on recorded television programs and watch a couple of movies.
Now on to the WAR.
Saddam International Airport, has been renamed Baghdad International Airport. In less then two weeks, despite setbacks and hiccups, the United States Armed Forces, in a coordinated effort that will re-write the annals of modern warfare, have arrived at the gates of Baghdad with less then 100 dead. And in the process, no less then three Iraqi divisions have been eviscerated, with nary a scratch suffered by the 3rd ID, and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. A recent United Press International (UPI) article characterized it thusly:
“The U.S. military machine is unstoppable and looks set to continue the kind of global dominance that the British enjoyed in the century after their decisive defeat of France's naval power in 1805. A technological generation ahead of any other military on earth, the U.S. armed forces have built on the lessons of the German blitzkrieg of 1940 to pioneer a new style of war. The German panzer divisions integrated tanks, artillery, mobile infantry and close air support with radio communications and consistently defeated larger armies.”
I admit that I was skeptical that this new kind of war—the rolling start—would be effective given the tenacity of the Iraqi irregulars and para-military forces, and their single mined determination to disrupt supply lines and lines of communications stretching hundreds of miles across the desert. But the U.S. military planners adapted to the new conditions, and our troops like the true professionals they are, largely quelled the Iraqi opposition taking the fight to them on the street of their cities. The result: at the end of two weeks the Army has captured Iraq’s international airport some 10 – 12 miles from the center of the Iraqi capital, and the Marines have accepted the surrender of some 2500 Iraqi troops within the last two days. And the Kurds in the north with the help of U.S. Special Forces, have routed Iraqi troops and gained valuable territory. All of this scarce two weeks after the liberation of Iraq got underway. Again the UPI article stated:
"…the U.S. armed forces defeated the best army in the Arab world with one hand tied behind their back. The U.S. Army did not even field its first team. The 4th Division, the most technologically advanced of all, with a computer in every vehicle and TV camera on the helmet of every squad leader sending real-time images back to headquarters, never even arrived on the battlefield.
The tank-heavy Iraqis, trained and equipped according to the Soviet theories of armored warfare, were defeated by an outnumbered U.S. force that did not even contain an armored division. They were beaten by one U.S. mechanized infantry division (the 3rd), one Airborne division (the 101st) and a Marine Expeditionary Force fighting further from shore than any Marine unit before them. They had the backing, on a secondary front, of one reinforced British armored brigade.
This has been a campaign for the history books, an example of modern blitzkrieg that will convince every other military on Earth that there is no future in taking on the Americans…"
But still, the tough battle still remains: the mêlée for Baghdad itself. There is no doubt that if we go in, it will be a bloody and destructive undertaking, and the body count on both sides will climb alarmingly. And the question lingering like storm cloud over the world is will the Army wait for the Marines to catch up (believe it or not the 3rd ID is ahead of schedule), and then enter Baghdad, or will there be a true pause until the 4th ID can take the field?
I say this is a good time to pause, our troops need the rest; they surely must be exhausted and in need of a decent meal. Let’s see what the weekend will bring, hopefully not a chemical attack!
_____________________
Source: Martin Walker, Analysis: Blitzkrieg 2003, United Press International, Apr. 4, 2003 (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030404-031359-3767r)
Thank God it’s Friday! I am so tied, and dare I say irritable? I need sleep! Between work and school I am worn out! I think I will vegetate this weekend, catch up on recorded television programs and watch a couple of movies.
Now on to the WAR.
Saddam International Airport, has been renamed Baghdad International Airport. In less then two weeks, despite setbacks and hiccups, the United States Armed Forces, in a coordinated effort that will re-write the annals of modern warfare, have arrived at the gates of Baghdad with less then 100 dead. And in the process, no less then three Iraqi divisions have been eviscerated, with nary a scratch suffered by the 3rd ID, and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. A recent United Press International (UPI) article characterized it thusly:
“The U.S. military machine is unstoppable and looks set to continue the kind of global dominance that the British enjoyed in the century after their decisive defeat of France's naval power in 1805. A technological generation ahead of any other military on earth, the U.S. armed forces have built on the lessons of the German blitzkrieg of 1940 to pioneer a new style of war. The German panzer divisions integrated tanks, artillery, mobile infantry and close air support with radio communications and consistently defeated larger armies.”
I admit that I was skeptical that this new kind of war—the rolling start—would be effective given the tenacity of the Iraqi irregulars and para-military forces, and their single mined determination to disrupt supply lines and lines of communications stretching hundreds of miles across the desert. But the U.S. military planners adapted to the new conditions, and our troops like the true professionals they are, largely quelled the Iraqi opposition taking the fight to them on the street of their cities. The result: at the end of two weeks the Army has captured Iraq’s international airport some 10 – 12 miles from the center of the Iraqi capital, and the Marines have accepted the surrender of some 2500 Iraqi troops within the last two days. And the Kurds in the north with the help of U.S. Special Forces, have routed Iraqi troops and gained valuable territory. All of this scarce two weeks after the liberation of Iraq got underway. Again the UPI article stated:
"…the U.S. armed forces defeated the best army in the Arab world with one hand tied behind their back. The U.S. Army did not even field its first team. The 4th Division, the most technologically advanced of all, with a computer in every vehicle and TV camera on the helmet of every squad leader sending real-time images back to headquarters, never even arrived on the battlefield.
The tank-heavy Iraqis, trained and equipped according to the Soviet theories of armored warfare, were defeated by an outnumbered U.S. force that did not even contain an armored division. They were beaten by one U.S. mechanized infantry division (the 3rd), one Airborne division (the 101st) and a Marine Expeditionary Force fighting further from shore than any Marine unit before them. They had the backing, on a secondary front, of one reinforced British armored brigade.
This has been a campaign for the history books, an example of modern blitzkrieg that will convince every other military on Earth that there is no future in taking on the Americans…"
But still, the tough battle still remains: the mêlée for Baghdad itself. There is no doubt that if we go in, it will be a bloody and destructive undertaking, and the body count on both sides will climb alarmingly. And the question lingering like storm cloud over the world is will the Army wait for the Marines to catch up (believe it or not the 3rd ID is ahead of schedule), and then enter Baghdad, or will there be a true pause until the 4th ID can take the field?
I say this is a good time to pause, our troops need the rest; they surely must be exhausted and in need of a decent meal. Let’s see what the weekend will bring, hopefully not a chemical attack!
_____________________
Source: Martin Walker, Analysis: Blitzkrieg 2003, United Press International, Apr. 4, 2003 (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030404-031359-3767r)
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
WAR Diary:
1043 Hours: School had been taking most of my time of late; Spring Break is over and the grind is on again. As I write this (at work) I am tired, not bone tired, but red-eyed, sore-eyed tired. I need some sleep. I think I will skip class on Friday; I am due to miss a Legal Writing class.
If it is possible, we are getting almost too much information on the war. I find myself reading and listening to far less coverage, but perhaps that can be attributed to school as well.
The push towards Baghdad is on in earnest, and I’m not sure it is a wide thing, without the 1st ID pushing from the north and the 4th ID back up the 3rd. I certainly hope to WAR planner wait until the two extra divisions are ready before the final assault on Baghdad begins. Baghdad is far too large for just two divisions, heavily armed or not, to hold for long. I fear the battle for the capital will be long and bloody; a lot of Iraqi lives will be lost, innocent lives, and far too many martyrs for the cause of Islam and the punishment of the infidels (us) will be created in the process. I implore Franks to wait!
But, it is reported that the Marines have destroyed one Iraqi division near Kut and that the Army had swept aside opposition in Karbala, seized the surrounded the city and were once again on the move north. Not too fast, not too fast, let us learn from the very recent past shall we!
Ever wonder how the Army and Marines are organized? I offer below a simplified snap-shot:
Squad: four to ten soldiers, command usually falls to a non-commissioned officer.
Platoon: includes three to four squads, about 16 to 40 soldiers; usually led a first or second lieutenant.
Company: three or four platoons, about 100 to 200 soldiers; usually led by a captain.
Battalion: three to five company, or 500 to 900 soldiers; usually led by a colonel.
Brigade: three to five battalions 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers; usually led by a colonel.
Division: three brigades, 10,000 to 18,000 soldiers; led by a two-star general.
Corps: two to five divisions, 20,000 to 90,000 soldiers; led by a three-star general.
Field Army: between two and five corps, 100,000 to 250,000 soldiers; led by a four-star general.
The Navy and Air Force are organized differently of course; I’ll touch on their organization tomorrow.
1043 Hours: School had been taking most of my time of late; Spring Break is over and the grind is on again. As I write this (at work) I am tired, not bone tired, but red-eyed, sore-eyed tired. I need some sleep. I think I will skip class on Friday; I am due to miss a Legal Writing class.
If it is possible, we are getting almost too much information on the war. I find myself reading and listening to far less coverage, but perhaps that can be attributed to school as well.
The push towards Baghdad is on in earnest, and I’m not sure it is a wide thing, without the 1st ID pushing from the north and the 4th ID back up the 3rd. I certainly hope to WAR planner wait until the two extra divisions are ready before the final assault on Baghdad begins. Baghdad is far too large for just two divisions, heavily armed or not, to hold for long. I fear the battle for the capital will be long and bloody; a lot of Iraqi lives will be lost, innocent lives, and far too many martyrs for the cause of Islam and the punishment of the infidels (us) will be created in the process. I implore Franks to wait!
But, it is reported that the Marines have destroyed one Iraqi division near Kut and that the Army had swept aside opposition in Karbala, seized the surrounded the city and were once again on the move north. Not too fast, not too fast, let us learn from the very recent past shall we!
Ever wonder how the Army and Marines are organized? I offer below a simplified snap-shot:
Squad: four to ten soldiers, command usually falls to a non-commissioned officer.
Platoon: includes three to four squads, about 16 to 40 soldiers; usually led a first or second lieutenant.
Company: three or four platoons, about 100 to 200 soldiers; usually led by a captain.
Battalion: three to five company, or 500 to 900 soldiers; usually led by a colonel.
Brigade: three to five battalions 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers; usually led by a colonel.
Division: three brigades, 10,000 to 18,000 soldiers; led by a two-star general.
Corps: two to five divisions, 20,000 to 90,000 soldiers; led by a three-star general.
Field Army: between two and five corps, 100,000 to 250,000 soldiers; led by a four-star general.
The Navy and Air Force are organized differently of course; I’ll touch on their organization tomorrow.
Saturday, March 29, 2003
WAR Diary:
1539 Hours: I have not left the house today, I planned it that way. I am drained, mentally and emotionally from this WAR, and it is only a week old. And while I have noticed that I watch the coverage a lot less, I still thirst for the latest news of the carnage. I surfed over to Reuters.com (www.reuters.com) today and read a serious of short story’s about the WAR very different from those found in the American media. I recommend the site.
And I have to admit that I am anxious waiting for the next shoe to drop in the form of a terrorist attack. Where is it? We’ve all heard that it is coming, where is it, bring it on, so we can all stop wondering and waiting. Perhaps the terrorist are playing a mind game with us, much like we continue to play on the Iraqi’s. Get us to forget the horror of 9/11, long enough to pull off a strike that will once again catch us unawares, complacent, normal.
Anger and hatred of America and American is growing across the globe, especially in the Arab world; a quick read of almost any Arab daily will bear out the truth in of the statement. They seem to blame the “West” for all of their ills, spanning the last century, and we (the United States) is now the symbol of the west. But I find myself building up my own animosity towards them, despite my claim to enlightened thought. I wonder what kind of men would blow themselves up for a cause, however fleeting. To know in ones heart that the man I fight for is evil, but to give my life for him nonetheless; I can’t reconcile this in my mind. Or is it that they don’t think he is so bad, that because he is a fellow Muslim and we are the infidels, he is the worth of dying for. What kind of a mind thinks like that? How does one get to such a state of stunted intellectual growth?
The seeds of ignorance grow best in the fertile minds of the uneducated and unenlightened. And an uneducated mind is always easier to control and manipulate with fear and assault, by those with evil intent. And fear breeds mistrust in the proffered hand. Paradoxically, we sowed the seeds of that mistrust of our intentions at the end of Persian I. One need look no further then the strange circumstances in Iraq as proof of the proceeding statements. They say that hindsight is 20/20, but the U.S. government seems to lack this attribute. They keep repeating the mistakes of the past, over and over. We should have helped Iraqi’s when they raised against Saddam us in 1991. If we had, would we be fight this WAR now?
Food for thought…
1539 Hours: I have not left the house today, I planned it that way. I am drained, mentally and emotionally from this WAR, and it is only a week old. And while I have noticed that I watch the coverage a lot less, I still thirst for the latest news of the carnage. I surfed over to Reuters.com (www.reuters.com) today and read a serious of short story’s about the WAR very different from those found in the American media. I recommend the site.
And I have to admit that I am anxious waiting for the next shoe to drop in the form of a terrorist attack. Where is it? We’ve all heard that it is coming, where is it, bring it on, so we can all stop wondering and waiting. Perhaps the terrorist are playing a mind game with us, much like we continue to play on the Iraqi’s. Get us to forget the horror of 9/11, long enough to pull off a strike that will once again catch us unawares, complacent, normal.
Anger and hatred of America and American is growing across the globe, especially in the Arab world; a quick read of almost any Arab daily will bear out the truth in of the statement. They seem to blame the “West” for all of their ills, spanning the last century, and we (the United States) is now the symbol of the west. But I find myself building up my own animosity towards them, despite my claim to enlightened thought. I wonder what kind of men would blow themselves up for a cause, however fleeting. To know in ones heart that the man I fight for is evil, but to give my life for him nonetheless; I can’t reconcile this in my mind. Or is it that they don’t think he is so bad, that because he is a fellow Muslim and we are the infidels, he is the worth of dying for. What kind of a mind thinks like that? How does one get to such a state of stunted intellectual growth?
The seeds of ignorance grow best in the fertile minds of the uneducated and unenlightened. And an uneducated mind is always easier to control and manipulate with fear and assault, by those with evil intent. And fear breeds mistrust in the proffered hand. Paradoxically, we sowed the seeds of that mistrust of our intentions at the end of Persian I. One need look no further then the strange circumstances in Iraq as proof of the proceeding statements. They say that hindsight is 20/20, but the U.S. government seems to lack this attribute. They keep repeating the mistakes of the past, over and over. We should have helped Iraqi’s when they raised against Saddam us in 1991. If we had, would we be fight this WAR now?
Food for thought…
WAR Diary:
1000 Hours: Beginning of Week Two and life for us ordinary Americans goes on, while our soldiers fight, die, and are wounded in an increasingly hospitable foreign land. It all still seems surreal to me despite the fact that I watch, and read, and listen to reports about the WAR almost every waking minute. NPR, CNN, MSNBC, The BCC, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Los Angels Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post; these are just some of the news outlets I drink my daily dose of murder, mayhem, and madness from. I find myself listening to the daily 6:00am est., briefing from CENTCOM (Central Command), and marveling over how truly useless it is. No real information is passed out; the reporters there would gather a broader, more developed picture of the WAR from reading my sources.
But like I said above, life goes on, and I have to try and pull my thoughts from this maddening affair, and turn them instead to work, school, and family. I finally received and offer letter from EDS. I have been waiting forever it seems. Now I can get healthcare, and get my teeth cleaned! My off-spring are straying and like the Shepard I must bring them back into the fold; again! “Why can’t they just act right,” I find myself asking, well, myself, over and over again. I was never, well hardly ever, a problem for my mother when I was a teenager. I did what I was supposed to do when I was supposed to do it. The world I knew owed me nothing, and I expected nothing from it; I had enough disappointments in my life, without expecting the world to come knocking with riches and solutions. Now days it seems, most of the teenagers want to be grown, but want their parent to take care of their needs; i.e. food shelter, transportation, clothing, spending money, etc. In other words, they want to make their own decisions, but want Mom and Dad to back-stop them with they fuck it all up, which invariably they do, because they know only a fifth of what they think they do! And yet, despite the time we (parents) have put in on planet Earth, we know less then nothing about the way it, and life work. Isn’t that amazing!?
Sometimes I become so tired of it all. I want to shout at the top of my lungs, “GET OUT, LEAVE US ALONE, LIVE YOUR LIFE AS YOU WILL, AND DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT, EXPECT US TO BE HERE WHEN YOU FALL!” But of course I don’t, I have to keep it together, I’m the father, the man, the rock, a moniker I wear with pride most of the time, but occasionally wish to discard with extreme prejudice. So go on, plodding, one day at a time, repeating the same old mantra into ears that only half listen, and mind that care not at all, about the real world. Did I say I was tired? But I know I cannot rest until the last of my off-spring is out the door for good. Then can I divorce them? But I digress…
2200 Hours: No plan survives its first brush with reality! I said the two days ago, and it is proving very true as the second week of the WAR slides into the timeline. The critics have been blooming on the airwaves like buds on a tree in early spring. All have a problem with the U.S. battle plan, but it was a gamble and we lost! Our venerable and barely tolerable Secretary of Defense distanced himself from the Battle Plan yesterday, laying it formation, and execution at General Tommy Franks doorstep! I wonder if General Franks has removed the considerable shank from his backside yet? Make no mistake; General Franks was following the dictates of his civilian head and his foolhardy quest to open the chapter on a new type of warfare, one which relied too heavily on gee-wiz munitions, and not enough on tried and true stratagems of war fighting. Seeing the writing on the wall Rumsfeld’s mentor in all of this mess, Richard Perle, resigned yesterday as chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, an independent group that advises Rumsfeld on defense related matters. He says he resigned because of conflicts of interests, but I think he stepped down rather than stand by the plan the two had championed in the considerable months leading up to the war. “Perle, a strong conservative advocate for the Bush administration's hard-line approach to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, said he was resigning because ‘I cannot quickly or easily quell criticism of me based on errors of fact concerning my [business] activities.’ CNN On-line (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/perle.resigns/index.html)
The pieces of the Iraq warfare jigsaw puzzle plan did not all fall into place like a well written Hollywood movie. This is real life, and “shit happens” it was hard to slip the (23?) millions Iraqi’s a copy of the scrip, though we tried hard enough, and harder still to get them to follow it, so that we could have an easy, and clean victory! WAR is never clean and never easy, and it should be, less it become even more commonplace then it already is.
But the U.S. and British forces have adapted to the changing conditions admirable. They are now clearing out the cities little by little, trying to avoid civilian casualties, but they have to be mindful of the seasons…
Email me: thebard62@earthlink.net
1000 Hours: Beginning of Week Two and life for us ordinary Americans goes on, while our soldiers fight, die, and are wounded in an increasingly hospitable foreign land. It all still seems surreal to me despite the fact that I watch, and read, and listen to reports about the WAR almost every waking minute. NPR, CNN, MSNBC, The BCC, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Los Angels Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post; these are just some of the news outlets I drink my daily dose of murder, mayhem, and madness from. I find myself listening to the daily 6:00am est., briefing from CENTCOM (Central Command), and marveling over how truly useless it is. No real information is passed out; the reporters there would gather a broader, more developed picture of the WAR from reading my sources.
But like I said above, life goes on, and I have to try and pull my thoughts from this maddening affair, and turn them instead to work, school, and family. I finally received and offer letter from EDS. I have been waiting forever it seems. Now I can get healthcare, and get my teeth cleaned! My off-spring are straying and like the Shepard I must bring them back into the fold; again! “Why can’t they just act right,” I find myself asking, well, myself, over and over again. I was never, well hardly ever, a problem for my mother when I was a teenager. I did what I was supposed to do when I was supposed to do it. The world I knew owed me nothing, and I expected nothing from it; I had enough disappointments in my life, without expecting the world to come knocking with riches and solutions. Now days it seems, most of the teenagers want to be grown, but want their parent to take care of their needs; i.e. food shelter, transportation, clothing, spending money, etc. In other words, they want to make their own decisions, but want Mom and Dad to back-stop them with they fuck it all up, which invariably they do, because they know only a fifth of what they think they do! And yet, despite the time we (parents) have put in on planet Earth, we know less then nothing about the way it, and life work. Isn’t that amazing!?
Sometimes I become so tired of it all. I want to shout at the top of my lungs, “GET OUT, LEAVE US ALONE, LIVE YOUR LIFE AS YOU WILL, AND DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT, EXPECT US TO BE HERE WHEN YOU FALL!” But of course I don’t, I have to keep it together, I’m the father, the man, the rock, a moniker I wear with pride most of the time, but occasionally wish to discard with extreme prejudice. So go on, plodding, one day at a time, repeating the same old mantra into ears that only half listen, and mind that care not at all, about the real world. Did I say I was tired? But I know I cannot rest until the last of my off-spring is out the door for good. Then can I divorce them? But I digress…
2200 Hours: No plan survives its first brush with reality! I said the two days ago, and it is proving very true as the second week of the WAR slides into the timeline. The critics have been blooming on the airwaves like buds on a tree in early spring. All have a problem with the U.S. battle plan, but it was a gamble and we lost! Our venerable and barely tolerable Secretary of Defense distanced himself from the Battle Plan yesterday, laying it formation, and execution at General Tommy Franks doorstep! I wonder if General Franks has removed the considerable shank from his backside yet? Make no mistake; General Franks was following the dictates of his civilian head and his foolhardy quest to open the chapter on a new type of warfare, one which relied too heavily on gee-wiz munitions, and not enough on tried and true stratagems of war fighting. Seeing the writing on the wall Rumsfeld’s mentor in all of this mess, Richard Perle, resigned yesterday as chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, an independent group that advises Rumsfeld on defense related matters. He says he resigned because of conflicts of interests, but I think he stepped down rather than stand by the plan the two had championed in the considerable months leading up to the war. “Perle, a strong conservative advocate for the Bush administration's hard-line approach to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, said he was resigning because ‘I cannot quickly or easily quell criticism of me based on errors of fact concerning my [business] activities.’ CNN On-line (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/perle.resigns/index.html)
The pieces of the Iraq warfare jigsaw puzzle plan did not all fall into place like a well written Hollywood movie. This is real life, and “shit happens” it was hard to slip the (23?) millions Iraqi’s a copy of the scrip, though we tried hard enough, and harder still to get them to follow it, so that we could have an easy, and clean victory! WAR is never clean and never easy, and it should be, less it become even more commonplace then it already is.
But the U.S. and British forces have adapted to the changing conditions admirable. They are now clearing out the cities little by little, trying to avoid civilian casualties, but they have to be mindful of the seasons…
Email me: thebard62@earthlink.net
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
WAR Diary; End of Week One: no plan survives its first brush with reality! The situation from the outside looking in, look, while certainly not hopeless, or even disastrous, let’s just say troubling. We (the United States), have seemingly put too many eggs in one basket. We relied erroneously on the bulk of the Iraqi forces giving up without a fight—well almost without a fight—as they did in the last Persian Gulf War, now called Persian Gulf I. But then, unlike now, we pounded, assaulted, battered, and mauled the Iraqi Army with bombs and missiles to such a degree, that by the time the land war started in earnest, they had had enough, and gave up in large numbers. Now these Iraqi troops in contrast, are putting up a fierce illegal fight, giving the Army and especially, the Marines, no rest, harassing supply lines and whittling away at the nerves and (confidence?) of our troops.
Then too, we relied on Turkey allowing us to open a second front with the 4th Infantry Division (the 4th ID) to the North. And when that didn’t happen, instead of bringing the 4th ID’s heavy tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and armored personnel carriers, south out of the Mediterranean Sea and into the Persian Gulf, we let them linger close to the Turkish coast for almost a month wasting precious time. Now the ships have sailed, but they will not be able to off-load until at least the end of next week! Adding in time to prepare the vehicles for battle and we’re looking at the middle of April before the 4th ID can contribute to the push towards Baghdad.
Further, the lack of sufficient Human Intelligence (HUMIT), on ground in Iraq in the months leading up to this war has proven fatal, because we were caught unawares vis-Ã -vis the Iraqi irregulars, and militia or so called Saddam Fedayeen. Accurate and timely HUMIT might have shed considerable light on the numbers and concentrations of these civilian guised thugs and marauders.
Lastly, the strategy of playing leap-frog over heavily populated cities based on the forgoing has proved fool hearty, and is contrary to the stratagems of past wars of this magnitude. And while I can certainly understand the desire by U.S. war planners to want to shun the sort of fighting that would be necessary to secure these cities, not doing so has proved problematical to the long supply lines needed to prosecute this war. That, together with the constant and ongoing threat of the irregulars (paramilitary) and Saddam Fedayeen has slowed the progress of this war considerably.
All of these miscalculations and missteps have led to the current situation: troops from southern to central Iraq under constant attack from roaming bands of guerrilla fighters hell-bent on throwing out the invading infidels; supply lines under constant assault from along roads impossible to quell without a campaign of scoured earth warfare; a lack of true American military presence in Western and Northern Iraq, and the forward advance of the tip of the spear, the 3rd ID stalled fifty miles southwest of Baghdad. Reinforcements to subdue the opposition in the cities along the supply route, and a second front in the North are needed. Bottom line: Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz’s rolling start doctrine of ground warfare has serious flaws!
But there is hope; deployment of the 101st and 82nd Airborne divisions give me hope that soon the 3rd ID will soon get the reinforcement it needs. And the recent drop of 1,000 U.S. paratroopers from the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade which parachuted into Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq under the cover of darkness, in order to secure an airfield so that elements of the 1st Infantry Division, out of Wurburg, Germany, equipped with Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, can be airlifted into Northern Iraq gives me reason to believe that given time we can triumph in a significant way. And let us not forget the 4th ID which already has orders to deploy, albeit from Kuwait, but deploy nonetheless.
Busy day, can’t wait to see what the night has to bring.
Then too, we relied on Turkey allowing us to open a second front with the 4th Infantry Division (the 4th ID) to the North. And when that didn’t happen, instead of bringing the 4th ID’s heavy tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and armored personnel carriers, south out of the Mediterranean Sea and into the Persian Gulf, we let them linger close to the Turkish coast for almost a month wasting precious time. Now the ships have sailed, but they will not be able to off-load until at least the end of next week! Adding in time to prepare the vehicles for battle and we’re looking at the middle of April before the 4th ID can contribute to the push towards Baghdad.
Further, the lack of sufficient Human Intelligence (HUMIT), on ground in Iraq in the months leading up to this war has proven fatal, because we were caught unawares vis-Ã -vis the Iraqi irregulars, and militia or so called Saddam Fedayeen. Accurate and timely HUMIT might have shed considerable light on the numbers and concentrations of these civilian guised thugs and marauders.
Lastly, the strategy of playing leap-frog over heavily populated cities based on the forgoing has proved fool hearty, and is contrary to the stratagems of past wars of this magnitude. And while I can certainly understand the desire by U.S. war planners to want to shun the sort of fighting that would be necessary to secure these cities, not doing so has proved problematical to the long supply lines needed to prosecute this war. That, together with the constant and ongoing threat of the irregulars (paramilitary) and Saddam Fedayeen has slowed the progress of this war considerably.
All of these miscalculations and missteps have led to the current situation: troops from southern to central Iraq under constant attack from roaming bands of guerrilla fighters hell-bent on throwing out the invading infidels; supply lines under constant assault from along roads impossible to quell without a campaign of scoured earth warfare; a lack of true American military presence in Western and Northern Iraq, and the forward advance of the tip of the spear, the 3rd ID stalled fifty miles southwest of Baghdad. Reinforcements to subdue the opposition in the cities along the supply route, and a second front in the North are needed. Bottom line: Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Sec. of Defense Wolfowitz’s rolling start doctrine of ground warfare has serious flaws!
But there is hope; deployment of the 101st and 82nd Airborne divisions give me hope that soon the 3rd ID will soon get the reinforcement it needs. And the recent drop of 1,000 U.S. paratroopers from the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade which parachuted into Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq under the cover of darkness, in order to secure an airfield so that elements of the 1st Infantry Division, out of Wurburg, Germany, equipped with Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles, can be airlifted into Northern Iraq gives me reason to believe that given time we can triumph in a significant way. And let us not forget the 4th ID which already has orders to deploy, albeit from Kuwait, but deploy nonetheless.
Busy day, can’t wait to see what the night has to bring.
Monday, March 24, 2003
WAR, day seven. My mood is dark! This WAR has darken it considerably, more specifically the death of the Army and Marine soldiers and the capture of the other American serviceman, has cast a cloud over my mood that is almost palatable. I got very little sleep last night. Visions of men in camouflage lying dead in their own blood, a bullet hole through their heads haunted my sleep, chasing my dreams, making sleep almost unbearable.
My dark mood coupled with a lack of sleep, joined with the pure sometimes insanity of work, plus an incident that happened to me and mine a week ago, and life in general made me want to scream at the top of my lungs most of the day. The weight of it all was oppressive! I could think of nothing else but the WAR all day; I have a Legal Writing assignment due, past due as a matter of fact, and I couldn’t write it. I couldn’t form the thoughts, the words, the syntax, the rhyme, the reason, the logic…
I have slid gingerly out from under it now; the late afternoon warmth and an uneventful nap helped dispersed the cloud. This is a feeling I rarely experience, and one I loath to feel again.
I hate this WAR, I want us to win and win overwhelmingly, but I hate the fact that we are there. But there we are, and seemingly for the duration. We are not conducting an all out war as we should and that is what bothers me most. Politics and WAR DO NOT MIX! Lives are lost, honor betrayed, promises and trust broken, and American fight men lied to. It happened in every WAR since Korea, and it’s wrong! I state again, Politics and WAR DO NOT MIX!
No one wants civilians to die in the course of conducting a WAR, but oftentimes to achieve the ends of the pursuit, innocent people will die; it is why the institution of WAR should be avoided at all cost. That being said, we should not allow our fears of civilian fatalities and the ignorance induced backlash from the world at large it would cause, to temper our thirst for overpowering victory, and put our men under arms in undue harm. I know I spoke to this point last night, but it bears repeating for as long as necessary for the message to reach our Accidental Presidents’ feeble mind.
And soon the battle for Baghdad will be joined; the body count will rise…
Email me: Thebard62@earthlink.net
My dark mood coupled with a lack of sleep, joined with the pure sometimes insanity of work, plus an incident that happened to me and mine a week ago, and life in general made me want to scream at the top of my lungs most of the day. The weight of it all was oppressive! I could think of nothing else but the WAR all day; I have a Legal Writing assignment due, past due as a matter of fact, and I couldn’t write it. I couldn’t form the thoughts, the words, the syntax, the rhyme, the reason, the logic…
I have slid gingerly out from under it now; the late afternoon warmth and an uneventful nap helped dispersed the cloud. This is a feeling I rarely experience, and one I loath to feel again.
I hate this WAR, I want us to win and win overwhelmingly, but I hate the fact that we are there. But there we are, and seemingly for the duration. We are not conducting an all out war as we should and that is what bothers me most. Politics and WAR DO NOT MIX! Lives are lost, honor betrayed, promises and trust broken, and American fight men lied to. It happened in every WAR since Korea, and it’s wrong! I state again, Politics and WAR DO NOT MIX!
No one wants civilians to die in the course of conducting a WAR, but oftentimes to achieve the ends of the pursuit, innocent people will die; it is why the institution of WAR should be avoided at all cost. That being said, we should not allow our fears of civilian fatalities and the ignorance induced backlash from the world at large it would cause, to temper our thirst for overpowering victory, and put our men under arms in undue harm. I know I spoke to this point last night, but it bears repeating for as long as necessary for the message to reach our Accidental Presidents’ feeble mind.
And soon the battle for Baghdad will be joined; the body count will rise…
Email me: Thebard62@earthlink.net
Sunday, March 23, 2003
Bad news today my fellow Americans, confirmed 10 American Marines death and an untold number wounded. Tis a dark, dark day, and my heart is heavy. Even though I am no longer in the service, I still feel a deep kinship—that I find hard to explain to my wife—for the men and women in uniform; when they take casualties I morn as well, as I sure millions of veterans across the nation are. And it appears as though the Iraqis are violating the Geneva Convention on Armed Conflict. Parading dead American soldiers on television, possibly executing soldiers who have surrendered…
I knew in my gut that it was a mistake to simply by-pass those cities in our race to Baghdad. I have a feeling that the Bush Administration is playing politics, just as his father did before him, trying limit civilian fatalities, which is laudable, but it is not worth putting those charged with directly prosecuting this WAR, in harms way unnecessarily just because they wear a uniform. They too have families; they too have loved ones; they too have those who will miss them when they are gone; they too have a right to life and the American dream!
And now comes word that the Iraqis at An Nasiriya send women and children out into the street under Marine artillery fire. No doubt they had in their minds to stop the shells. If true, this is a shameful and reprehensible practice. What sort of men under arms sends innocent, defenseless, women and children out to protect them? Certainly, they are not men I would be obligated to respect, or greet as a man! Where is their honor? Have the Iraqi men none to wear? Appears not!
And the battle rolls on…
I knew in my gut that it was a mistake to simply by-pass those cities in our race to Baghdad. I have a feeling that the Bush Administration is playing politics, just as his father did before him, trying limit civilian fatalities, which is laudable, but it is not worth putting those charged with directly prosecuting this WAR, in harms way unnecessarily just because they wear a uniform. They too have families; they too have loved ones; they too have those who will miss them when they are gone; they too have a right to life and the American dream!
And now comes word that the Iraqis at An Nasiriya send women and children out into the street under Marine artillery fire. No doubt they had in their minds to stop the shells. If true, this is a shameful and reprehensible practice. What sort of men under arms sends innocent, defenseless, women and children out to protect them? Certainly, they are not men I would be obligated to respect, or greet as a man! Where is their honor? Have the Iraqi men none to wear? Appears not!
And the battle rolls on…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)