MAL Contends . . .

Obama to Announce Afghan Strategy Next Week

2009-11-24T07:02:00.005-06:00

Update: McClatchy Newspapers reports Obama to go the LBJ route, 34,000 more troops. If true, perhaps Obama can run in 2012 on a platform of 'not as many dead.' Nice job, Mr. President!

Coming from a president who has not challenged the assumptions behind this war, this news is not cause for optimism. The administration has done a fine job of lowering expectations.

Jeff Zeleny:

President Obama has conducted a final meeting on his military review for Afghanistan, administration officials said, and he is expected to explain his decision in an address to the nation next Tuesday.

'After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days,' Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday morning.

Sarah Palin: 2012-2014½

2009-11-23T12:33:00.003-06:00

Get Palin2012-2014½ bumper stickers.

Is today's Republican Party really so foolish as to nominate this woman in 2012? Yes.

To the chagrin of many Republicans, Sarah could happen.

Reason over Message

2009-11-23T07:44:00.010-06:00

With the rise of the public relations industry American politics—from the municipal alderperson to the chief executive—has been reduced to the point where a vacuous Sarah Palin can be talked about as a contender for the president of the United States.

In politics as in marketing, the overriding concern is to deliver a message to create and manage a brand, be it a product like a snow-blower or a political candidate like George W. Bush.

Managing a brand is done through delivering through every utterance, every visual image, every fleeting impression: A message; like strength or family-friendly, some such positive attribute, or negative attribute if you're referring to an opponent.

We have come to adapt this message imperative so unthinkingly that in discussions of matters of public policy, facts, logic, rights and history are of no concern for many in our dying democracy. We live in a make-believe world of messages and visual impressions.

Think that possession of pot should be lowered to a $10 ticket or be completely legalized, and the response from those most vested in message-speak will be: We're sending the wrong message.

Withdraw from Afghanistan: Wrong message. And so on.

How about a trial for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM)? No, KSM will deliver the wrong message at trial. And the trial itself is delivering the wrong message to terrorists everywhere.

Leonard Pitts Jr eviscerates such nonsense in his column this morning.

Pitts quotes Robert H. Jackson's eloquent opening statement at the Nuremberg trials of NAZIs on November 21, 1945, in serving as Chief of Counsel for the United States.

That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

Today, it is thought by the Glenn Becks, the Rudys and Republican Parties of the world, that such phenomena as Reason and the Rule of Law apparently deliver the wrong message, which is what is really important.

Attorney General Eric Holder deserves respect for apparently not giving a damn about message, in favor of Reason and the Rule of Law.

- via mal contends

Fear-mongering as patriotism

2009-11-20T07:36:00.002-06:00

From Joe Conason:

The loudest voices on the right never tire of telling us that they are the truest patriots. They claim to be the deepest believers in our system, the strongest defenders of our Constitution, the most upbeat, bold and courageous Americans anywhere. But now that the government is finally prepared to put the perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attacks on trial, these same patriots are the first to spread doubt, instigate anxiety and abandon constitutional principles. When did fearmongering in time of war become an act of patriotism?

Without fear, the GOP would not exist. Their back-up is hate.

Obama Is Close to Afghan War Decision

2009-11-18T07:52:00.002-06:00

What is President Obama signaling from China? That we will stay in Afghanistan or we will go? Unclear.

From Helene Cooper:

BEIJING — President Obama said Wednesday he is 'very close to a decision' on a troop increase for the war in Afghanistan, and will make his case to the American people for his Afghan strategy in the next 'several weeks.'

'I am very confident that when I announce the decision, the American people will have a lot of clarity about what we’re doing, how we’re going to succeed, how much this thing is going to cost,' Mr. Obama told CNN in an interview at his hotel in Beijing. Most important, he said, is that he is asking 'what’s the end game on this thing, which I think is something that unless you impose that kind of discipline, could end up leading to a multi-year occupation that won’t serve the interests of the United States.'

Onward Christian Athletes Scores

2009-11-17T08:54:00.016-06:00

Growing up in Wisconsin during the Bart Starr-coached years (1975-1983), I used to grimace as Bart announced that a new draft pick is a "good Christian."

'Chriiiiist Bart, who cares? Just get some players.'

But like everyone else I felt Bart is Bart, a winner from the glory years.

Over the last 15 years roughly as right wing Christians have taken aim at America's military, an authoritarian and evangelical strain of Christianity has taken aim at professional sports, in its own exclusionary and often wacky dogmatic way.

Muslim? They're spiritually dead. Jewish? Dead. Free-thinking agnostics? Dead. Oakland Raiders who played during the 1970s-80s? Beyond dead and not even Christ can save those guys.

Today, sportsfans notice say Notre Dame's receiver Golden Tate [looks like a future NFL Hall of Famer] often pointing to the sky and acclaiming that Christ is number one (though ND opponents Southern Cal and Pittsburgh don't respect this metaphysical ranking apparently) but the question arises why are players in sports evangelizing so much?

Tom Krattenmaker's new Onward Christian Athletes: Turning Ballparks into Pulpits and Players into Preachers (Rowman & Littlefield, October 2009) is a brilliant and much-needed investigative analysis for those viewing post-game, on-field prayer meetings as foolish displays of exclusionary, only-through-Christ silliness.

There's much more behind these displays and it's not divine intervention. The religious right is behind it and Christian athletes are eating it up [about 20 percent of them] as Krattenmaker demonstrates in his exhaustive exposé that should be sitting atop the Times nonfiction best seller list.

Writes Krattenmaker about the religious-political "Justice Sunday":

Seated around [former NFL player Herbert] Lusk at the altar of his packed Church, having already spoken or waiting to take their turn at the microphone, were some of the biggest names in Christan conservative politics—Rick Santorum, the junior U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania; Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral majority; James Dobson, the founder and leader of Focus on the Family; and Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. The latter was the chief organizer of this, the third rendition of Justice Sunday, an event billed as a stand of resistance by people of faith agings the supposed tyranny of a liberal judiciary bent on leading America from its Christian heritage. ... On that given Sunday in north Philadelphia in 2006, pro sports, Evangelical religion , and conservative politics cam together in a particularly stark framing of a powerful current in American public life.

The religious right is organized and often with professional teams' administrative support are pounding away to create a Christian America only for the saved, and the Republican Party.

Krattenmaker is sympathetic to the religious right in a sense and is not mean-spirited in his tone. But there is no doubt after reading his analysis that Krattenmaker prefers a pluralistic and tolerant America where people are free to choose their way to happiness and fulfillment.

This is a book that many Americans, and many sportsfans, have been waiting for and Krattenmaker has performed a public service in his rigorous and often funny investigation of something everyone sees in sports and then lets go by like a Miller Lite commercial.

It's about holiday season, so grab a few copies of Onward Christian Athletes: Turning Ballparks into Pulpits and Players into Preachers. You will not be disappointed. Thank you Tom Krattenmaker!

Democratic Strategist Blows It

2009-11-17T08:16:00.004-06:00

James Vega has a piece in the Democratic Strategist arguing in essence: If there is an escalation in Afghanistan—progressives, peace-minded folk and those just plain not wanting to see our troops kill and be killed should all be happy because President Obama has performed as though we do not live in a military junta. "Obama’s strategic review this fall may be seen by historians as the moment when America first began to 'step on the breaks' to slow the 'Long War' and Progressive and anti-war Democrats should keep this clearly in mind as they express their understandable disappointment and frustration," writes Vega.

What a tortured piece of reasoning. Is that what we can expect from Democrats defending the indefensible?

Sure, there is an escalation (if that happens), but Obama acted as though he had a choice. Most reassuring Mr. Vega.

Bush VA Appointees: 'Believe in God, You Won't Have PTSD'

2009-11-16T16:56:00.004-06:00

Tara McKelvey has an important piece in the Boston Review on the Bush administration's hostility to treating PTSD.

These political appointees ultimately went after Wisconsin Navy veteran Keith Roberts and railroaded the man.

Here's an excerpt:

[Paul] Sullivan was working as an analyst at the Veterans Benefits Administration in Washington in early 2005 when he was called to a meeting with a top political appointee at the VA, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Michael McLendon. McLendon, an intensely focused man in a neatly pressed suit, kept a Bible on his desk at the office. Sullivan explained to McLendon and the other attendees that the rise in benefits claims the VA was noticing was caused partly by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were suffering from PTSD. 'That’s too many,' McLendon said, then hit his hand on the table. 'They are too young' to be filing claims, and they are doing it 'too soon.' He hit the table again. The claims, he said, are 'costing us too much money,' and if the veterans 'believed in God and country . . . they would not come home with PTSD.' At that point, he slammed his palm against the table a final time, making a loud smack. Everyone in the room fell silent.

'I was a little bit surprised,' Sullivan said, recalling the incident. 'In that one comment, he appeared to be a religious fundamentalist.' For Sullivan, McLendon’s remarks reflected the views of many political appointees in the VA and revealed what was behind their efforts to reduce costs by restricting claims. The backlog of claims was immense, and veterans, often suffering extreme psychological stress, had to wait an average of five months for decisions on their requests.

Another Proven Innocent

2009-11-15T07:32:00.000-06:00

Madison man, who has served more than six years in prison, is ordered released
by Dee J. Hall

A Madison man who served more than six years in prison for a sexual assault he said he didn't commit was ordered released Friday after a Dane County Circuit judge overturned his conviction.

Oshkosh Corp Awarded $400-Million Contract

2009-11-12T16:28:00.001-06:00

From the DoD:

CONTRACTS: ARMY
Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded on Nov. 10, 2009, a $438,440,000 firm-fixed-price contract for 1,000 of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATVs) and associated basic items of issue (BII) with an option for 400 M-ATVs and BII. Work is to be performed in Oshkosh, Wis., with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2012. Five bids were solicited with five bids received. U.S. Army TACOM Contracting Center AMSTA-TAC-ATBC, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-09-D-0111).

Lou Dobbs Is a Joke, He'd Be Perfect for Fox

2009-11-12T08:14:00.005-06:00

The news that Lou Dobbs was forced out at CNN shows that even CNN had enough of the guy's bigotry. But its Dobbs' ideological ass-kissing that have gotten him fired.

Dobbs' biggest joke is a 2002 interview with Henry Kissinger where he actually saves Kissinger on-air from admitting Kissinger was going to go for bat for Bush-Cheney in the 911 Commission, interrupting Kissinger in mid-sentence after Kissinger said, "... this was an event [911 attack] that was totally unexpected to the American public; that it came from a direction that nobody had ever thought of. And that it was the first attack on the continental United States ... ."

Wisconsin Facing Fiscal Peril, Says Report

2009-11-11T16:11:00.006-06:00

"While California's economic problems take the spotlight, at least nine other states are toiling with hardships nearly as daunting."

So reads a report by the Pew Center on the States. Download the report on Wisconsin.

Wisconsin: To most, Wisconsin does not seem to have the same problems managing its money as California, its dairy rival. But the recession has hit Wisconsin harder than most state governments, especially when it comes to lost tax revenues and the size of the hole in its budget. On top of that, unemployment is climbing as the state’s largest sector—manufacturing—sputters. Wisconsin’s history of budget shortfalls and pattern of borrowing frequently to cover operating expenses, among other measures, made it poorly positioned to weather the most recent severe economic downturn. Download the report on Wisconsin.

Advocating for Veterans

2009-11-11T00:04:00.003-06:00

Update: "Do we call Afghanistan a war? It is more like Detroit," says a Marine veteran.

A few years ago I was contacted by a veteran's wife who told me her imprisoned Vietnam-era Navy veteran husband was being persecuted by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and the U.S. Department of Justice. Thousands of man-hours of research later, I say there is no question that she's right about her husband and not just him.

I work as a veteran's advocate and staff writer for Veterans Today, and I'm honoring Veterans Day. It's personal for me, not because my father's a veteran or my girlfriend's father is a veteran, it's because I'm proud that a piss-load of work for veterans made me a better person.

I was more PR consultant and writer than I was veterans' advocate when I began, still am. But honoring veterans is something I understand a hell of a lot clearer than say five years ago. The truth is I think this jailed, innocent Navy veteran will likely end up killing himself, and I have a good seat to this slow-burn sick show of betrayal this country committed against Keith Roberts. The fact that he has lots of company doesn't mitigate matters.

The imprisoned veteran's name is Keith Roberts who lost a friend who was crushed to death by the nose of a C-54 aircraft [at right] at an airbase in Naples, Italy in 1969, an act that pissed off Roberts and drove him to despair. [Some guy put a screwdriver where a pin should have been and Roberts lost a friend.] Roberts awaits a decision by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) on his 13-year-long benefits claim that could get his ludicrous criminal conviction overturned.

He is an innocent Vietnam-era, Navy veteran wrongfully jailed through a George W. Bush DOJ prosecution after he was targeted by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for “tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits” and making whistle-blowing accusations that the VA was fraudulently altering his C-file.

Former VA General Counsel attorney and VA national Director of Compensation and Pension Services, Renee L. Szybala [ask veteran Mike Bailey about her], helped engineer the prosecution of Roberts by former U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic, Eastern District of Wisconsin in 2005-06.

But this is not a missing-blond story, it's not sexy to the sensationalist appetite; it's an innocent man who the Bush-led feds nailed so who cares; you won't be reading this in the New York Times or on CNN.

Was all this time put into this case worth it? Did it change policy and help Roberts and other veterans? These questions remain to be answered. I doubt Roberts would have been persecuted and prosecuted under the Obama DVA and DoJ.

But I know now the work honors veterans so, yes, it's worth it so I state this today:
Happy Veterans Day, 2009, and Keith Roberts, you are not forgotten.

Those wishing to send the guy a post card or letter can reach him at:

Keith Roberts, 07827-089
FCI Englewood, East-Upper
FCI9595 West Quincy Avenue
Littleton, CO 80123

Just tell the guy to hang in there.

From Aug 10, 2009, Veterans Court Orders VA Info in Jailed Vet Case

As Wisconsin Navy veteran Keith Roberts fights for his innocence in veterans’ court, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), a development in the case may signal a heightened scrutiny on allegations that the Dept of Veterans Affairs (DVA) bypassed laws and regulations to target Roberts in a coordinated hostile act.

Last week [early August], the Court in Keith A. Roberts v. Eric K. Shinseki (05-2425) announced that it:

has determined that additional information from the [DVA] Secretary would be helpful to the Court's resolution of this appeal. The Secretary will describe the procedures, practices and polices used for severing service connection of protected ratings due to fraud in effect at the time of the August 2005 Board decision and the date those procedures, policies and practices were implemented. Additionally, the Secretary will provide the Court with any materials that support these procedures and any associated policies or practices, such as VA General Counsel Opinions, VA Manuals, Chairman of the Board Memoranda, VA Fast Letters, Directives, Circulars, or any training materials.

The en banc (full) hearing before CAVC, the national veterans court, will consider issues raised by Roberts including the imperative of the DVA to follow administrative rules and protect veterans' due process, and the mandate of the DVA to avoid a general adversarial posture toward veterans.

Roberts was convicted of wire fraud in 2007 after U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic's office had convinced a jury that Roberts and a deceased Navy airman (Gary Holland)--who was crushed to death by a C-54 aircraft at an airbase in Naples, Italy--were not friends though the two men had parallel service histories.

Not being friends and exaggerating his efforts to rescue his fellow airman; this does not seem just cause for a prosecution.

Most any veteran would tell you when the airbase equivalent of a general quarters alarm sounds, any man or woman on line duty would not ignore the alarm as is the U.S. government's official position in this perhaps most asinine case in DVA history.

An affirmative decision by CAVC may affirm that the argument made by veterans in the class action law suit by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that the DVA must perform its Congressionally-mandated function to serve veterans.

Roberts has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) by several private and public medical professionals, but again this documented medical condition is insufficient to establish his innocence of fraudulently receiving benefits, though this would change under newly proposed DVA rules.

Contra the government's case, writes Scott Horton in Harper's Magazine (Sept 7, 2007), "The prosecution smacks of retaliation and a plan to suppress veterans claims—Roberts was prosecuted for tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits, which VA resisted and which is still in the benefits review process."

On appeal, Roberts' criminal conviction for wire fraud was upheld last year with the Court opinion reading in part: "The record might also have supported a jury determination that Mr. Roberts sincerely believed that his statements were true and that he had no intention to defraud the Government. It is beyond our authority to disturb such a finding on appeal."

Writes James W. Ervin, stationed in Naples with Roberts, who supports Roberts' version of the circumstances in Italy that Roberts has for decades asserted was a Navy cover-up that resulted in a friend's death. Ervin wrote his comments after reading a piece on Roberts in Uppity Wisconsin:

I was stationed @ NAF Naoles, Italy at the time of this 'incident,' July 1968 thru Nov. 1969. I also remember the young sailor be trapped / crushed up inside the wheel well (nose) of the aircraft inside the hangar of NAF naples, Italy. I do remember someone wanting to drive a forklift into the side of the aircraft; but an officer or someone of authority would not let them do that. . . so what they did was have men climb up into the plane & go to the rear of the plane to put weight in the rear of the plane to let the nose come up to release the trapped sailor. Unfortunately that process was too slow to save the sailor from death. I also remember taking photographs of the 'Pin' that was in the nose gear at the time. I remember it as being a homemade looking pin without a locking clip to keep it from being removed without unlocking the device. As for the names of the people involved , I don't remember; but there definitely was someone there who wanted to use the fork lift to rescue the sailor from the collapsed nose wheel and was ordered NOT to use the fork lift.

But Ervin was not heard at trial so Roberts sits in prison.

Roberts was an early whistle blower in the shreddergate veterans scandal, accusing the Milwaukee VA Regional Office of destroying documents in his file and engaging in fraud as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which his retroactive disability pay was to become effective. Roberts, of Gillett, Wisconsin, sought a new retroactive date per the advice of his Shawano County (Wisconsin) Veteran’s Service Officer.

Anger and frustration with the VA drove Keith Roberts to phone the VA Inspector General’s regional office at Hines, Illinois, in November 2003 to complain. Roberts spoke with one VA Special Agent Raymond Vasil. When he accused the VA of outright fraud in November 2003, Vasil retaliated against this Vietnam-era who had reportedly become a pain to the VA regional office.

Several VA e-mails point to top officials in the VA engineering a criminal prosecution while gaming the veteran’s VA benefits adjudication, and subsequently putatively financially assaulting the veteran’s family.

Roberts is but one victim of a stacked-against-the-veteran benefits system that was the subject of a class-action lawsuit that found as fact benefits-hostile practices at the VA. Exercising an utter lack of prosecutorial discretion, the U.S. Atty after prodding from U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) officials began the bizarre prosecution that drew immediate fire from veterans’ groups, such as Colonel Daniel K. Cedusky’s, AUS, (Ret.) and the American Legion.

Adding insult to injury, the VA also began immediate collection actions against the veteran and his two young daughters who had received education benefits related to their father’s service in the Navy, though Roberts' claim is still pending to this day at CAVC.

What prompted the U.S. Atty’s office was a puzzle to many readers who have followed the case of Roberts who has been serving 48 months in a federal prison since 2007, as well as incurring associated costs of some $500,000.

But Keith Roberts was indisputably a major political and legal target of the VA that retaliated against this veteran for seeking retroactive PTSD-related disability benefits and calling out the VA on altering his C-file, a practice that was found to occur in 41 of the 57 VA field offices which have now adopted new procedures to preserve records such as what Roberts complained about in November 2003.

Revealing the Alice-in-Wonderland nature of the case is the fact that if Roberts claim is affirmed by CAVC, Roberts will have been found guilty of receiving benefits to which he was found to be entitled.

In August 2005, the DVA, taking its cue from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) had announced plans to review 72,000 PTSD cases with a 100 percent disability ratings like Roberts’.

But a torrent of criticism by veterans’ groups and Democrats forced the Bush administration to back down. On August 10, 2005 then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) blasted the administration in a letter to then VA Secretary Nicholson: "In order to truly create fairness in the claims system, the VA should concentrate its efforts on reviewing denials of PTSD claims. Without assessing why some PTSD claims are denied, it will be impossible to fully understand how the VA’s PTSD rating system can be improved. The process of gathering evidence to prove PTSD disability is extremely time-consuming. It requires the compilation of medical records, military service records, and testimonies from other veterans who can attest to a person’s combat exposure. I cannot fathom why the VA would require veterans to go through this emotionally painful process a second time."

Roberts became a target. Now many veterans' advocates are optimistic that under President Obama a change will come in how the DVA treats its veterans in the face of a hostile and selfish entrenched bureaucracy. There is now a political will from the administration to respect veterans.

For now the DVA claims process can be so frustrating that many vets (especially those suffering from PTSD) are thrown into fits of rage directed at the DVA itself, with nothing less that a sordid history, including such scandals demeaning veterans for seeking help with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in this “culture of trauma.”

The Pentagon at one point even blamed veterans “personality disorders” and lack of faith in God for veterans suffering after service.

See also:
- VA Document Contradicts US Atty in Jailed Vet Case
- Weakening US Criminal Case, VA Turns Down Jailed Wisc Vet’s PTSD claim
- Jailed Wisconsin Veteran Sent to Solitary Confinement, Seeks Help
- DVA Attacks Veteran
- National DVA Director Pushed US Atty Biskupic to Indict Wisconsin ...

Billionaires and Black Women

2009-11-10T07:46:00.006-06:00

Black women are the fasting growing demographic leaping ahead from 2004 to 2008 with the highest voter turnout rate in November's election (Pew Research Center).

Billionaires George Soros and Warren Buffett are making a difference in their own little way.

Soros is calling for a new world architecture, a multilateral financial system based on sounder economic and regulatory principles.

Buffett is running long ($37 billion) on Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad (BNI), an industry that just happens to be labor-intensive, environmentally friendly and significantly domestically energy-independent. These are qualities that would serve the American people and the Obama administration very well.

Free to Be Free

2009-11-09T07:35:00.001-06:00

Reading Jeff Gates' Today’s Ancient Warfare: Facts vs. Beliefs, a related question that always presents itself in reading analyses of propaganda and thought control and other systems employed to dissolve a target population's capacity to think is: Those opinionmakers and policymakers in a position to do something and in the know presumably that the political-propaganda game is on - in 2002 Colin Powell, Sens. Clinton, Biden, Edwards, Kerry, Kohl and so on - can turn around and defeat a carefully crafted propaganda effort in a democracy, correct?

We were short on Daniel Ellsbergs in 2002-03, one guesses in part because Joe Wilson and Valarie Plame-Wilson became a cautionary tale, but guts and humanity can defeat cowards and propaganda in a society where the formal structures of democracy exist.

In theory, can policymakers do the right thing? Robbing a population of its capacity to think is one objective of a propaganda operation, injecting despair is another.

As President Obama considers his course on the war without end, he will not offer up the 'thay hate for our freedom' bromides for justification. But he will adopt the same unstated assumptions and premises behind the same policy as Bush-Cheney, unless he shows courage.
Obama though is free to chart a different course.

President Obama, Read RE Afghanistan

2009-11-08T11:34:00.008-06:00

On the matter of the pending Afghanistan escalation, a Vietnam War elite Marine combat veteran shoots down this foolish idea of sending in more troops and delaying withdrawal, and proposes direct negotiations with the Taliban in Scotland [Robbie the Pict of Scotland, at left].

---
The Scottish Taliban Talks

by Gordon Duff

Forty years ago, 3 of us at Veterans Today, Bill Eckard, Eddie Harris and I were in South Vietnam, serving with an elite Marine Special Landing Team, looking for "terrorists."

Decades later, our memories are less than clear. It was 4 AM, 0400H, and we were searching a village. Bill remembers finding an AK47 in one hut, I think it was a Garand.

It's funny we all remember that morning, nothing outstanding about it. I remember being acutely aware I was in someone else's home, uninvited. This is how I was raised. Bill and I remember trying to read the "friendship" ID card, written in Vietnamese that theoretically authorized the weapon we found. Ed was uncovering a large cache of rice which had been supplying the "indigenous" forces we called the Viet Cong.

40 years later, the 3 of us are disabled veterans. Many, perhaps even most of our friends are dead. We can't even begin to count the Vietnamese who died, they numbered in the millions. Now we are invited to return to Vietnam for beach front vacations, our hosts, the people we were fighting.

We are not pacifists but we have learned a thing or two over the years. Not everything is worth fighting and dying over and war, too often, is something turned to for profit and seldom involves fighting to secure the safety of our home and families.

We have grown older in a world of lies.

We will come to Scotland and sit down at a table, meet with those who are said to be our enemies. We will go to Scotland. If we have to we will do it in Afghanistan.

It isn't my job to judge the United States or her NATO allies, such as they are. The reality of it is that a generation of our children is in Afghanistan. We can't change what people believe, not all at once, but we can start.

Few, even few in Scotland remember that it is an occupied country, part of the United Kingdom by force of arms, not free choice. Over 200 years ago, my family fled Scotland after a failed "rebellion," a family divided, half deemed terrorists. We became Canadians and Americans. Now, few remember any of this struggle, lost in history, a history, as we know, written by the victors. We were not the victors.

We now face new decisions and new opportunities. We are being invited to sit down with our enemies, not by clergy but by, of all people, soldiers, veterans like ourselves from Pakistan, those who have known a lifetime of war, political strife and instability, like ourselves.

We recognize the names of our new friends. These are tough people, strong willed and determined. We don't agree with everything they propose but much of it reflects what is in our hearts also.

We have fought too many wars against enemies we vilify as something less than men. This has to end. If we are going to hate each other, kill each other, we can do it as men. My concerns are selfish. I deal with the suffering of our veterans on a daily basis. Anything I can do to stop that suffering, within my power, I will.

If talking, meeting and understanding can provide a basis for something that can move us past conflict I am willing as are many with me.

If there has to be endless, senseless war, perhaps it would be better if we fought instead of our children. If anyone deserves this, it is us. It has been our indifference to the world that has allowed anarchy to rule.

We are the ones who sat by quietly while , what could have been a generation of science, righteousness and plenty has turned into one of continual war, war obviously manipulated by gangsters who have hijacked the political systems of, not only the United States but much of the world.

There is no William Wallace among us. We are all lesser men. Perhaps we live in the times of lesser men. Perhaps this is our doom, to be led, not by the great but by the sly, the servile and weak. Replacing the prowess of Attila or the cunning of the Borgias is an oligarchy of grinning con men enslaved by the leavings, the offal of their masters in the oil, arms and drug cartels.

We have lost the ability to determine who is or is not a threat, an enemy or an "evildoer" as the world itself has reformed itself as a cesspool where religious hypocrites of all faiths, spew their hate and fear. How have the great religions become so enmeshed in the scheming that has led humanity on this descent into barbarity? For every petty prince there are two "servants" of a higher power following close behind.

Maybe this is the century chosen to prove mankind isn't meant to survive. Little more could be done to prove this the case.

One-term Tommy Thompson in 2010 Has Appeal

2009-11-07T18:32:00.009-06:00

A constant in America over the last four years—epitomized in Wisconsin—is the startlingly anxious mood of the electorate.

Get everyone at the table and fix this is the prevailing popular sentiment. The great mass of apolitical voters don't want partisan blame now, just someone to clean it up.

Forget the Tea Partiers-GOP's implausible messages calling President Obama a dithering decider on one hand and a Chicago-based outlaw taking over the economy on the other. These guys are not serious.

Look at Wisconsin to lead. Whatever the result of the Gov. Doyle-Lt. Gov. Lawton-Mayor Barrett-local-national-Democratic-forces' machinations to take on the GOP nominee, a gubernatorial candidate who says, 'I will serve one term to clean up and then I'm out,' has a lot of appeal.

Brings to mind the relatively young, 68-year-old Tommy Thompson whom Scott Walker says is "pretty confident" will support Walker's candidacy. I'm pretty sure that's heavily qualified speculation.

Thompson would get killed in a race against Sen. Russ Feingold. That leaves governor.

Talk around political campfires this weekend is that Thompson is being asked often and is seriously considering a 2010 run for governor, no matter what any declared candidate says.

Clean it up. Tom Barrett gets that, though he seems a tad busy. Obama gets that. And so does Tommy Thompson.

No Religious War

2009-11-06T14:56:00.004-06:00

America does not fight religious wars, nor should we have religious escalations. The last thing we need now is to make this a Christian v. Islam thing.

Jason Leopold has a piece noting Mikey Weinstein, the founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, weighed in on the shooting rampage at Fort Hood.

Weinstein called upon President Obama to immediately issue a statement as Commander-in-Chief making it clear that there would be a zero tolerance policy against any member of the US military 'inflicting harassments, retribution or reprisal against an Islamic member of the US military.'

Obama issued a statement earlier Thursday condeming the shootings.

Weinstein, whose civil rights organization was recently nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace prize, said Obama must state, unequivocally, that the US does not judge the worth of a 'service member based on his or her religious faith.'

Weinstein's group has exposed the meteroric rise of fundamentalist Christianity within the US military and has called attention to the fact that military personnel have sought to cast the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as a crusade between Christianity and Islam.

Terrorsim and Propaganda

2009-11-06T09:08:00.004-06:00

One appreciates the initial restraint by the U.S. military officials in reporting the mass killing at Fort Hood correctly described as terrorism by commentators. Circumspect and factual, the facts came out few but solid.

Now, suddenly this morning, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, Fort Hood's base commander, tells CBS News that the presumed shooter is rumored to have said, 'Allahu Akbar' (Arab for 'God is great')during the shooting but Cone cannot confirm this.

What is the brass doing repeating rumors as the nation and stricken families ask 'why?' When the administration is deliberating the course in Afghanistan that has the brass pushing for a major escalation against some noun with a vaguely Islamic flavor?

Reporting a rumor seems a bit strange in light of the fact that during the first 12 hours, the brass was silent on the narrative of events and motivation. Now, the brass seems more interested in repeated rumors with no context, and no mention of the culture at Fort Hood.

Point being it's not beyond Pentagon and its lackeys to be utterly full of crap as they handle a crisis at a huge military base charged with maintaining military readiness during two politically unpopular wars.

Solid Pride

2009-11-05T10:25:00.005-06:00

As cable-TV know-nothings wail on about Virginia and New Jersey, Ruy Teixeira and Alan Abramowitz offer a sober analysis in the Times in Teixeira's column.

Sustaining their analysis are the people in Madison out for President Obama's visit to Madison yesterday.

Striking was the look in the eyes of several black women I saw, at street corners and lining the street of Fish Hatchery Road near the intersection of Badger Road. The look in the eyes was unmistakable and universal: Determined pride. One woman was a former Madison school principle, another drove up from Racine, others are Madison residents of the neighborhood.

Black women, this fastest growing voting demographic will save this country.

Veterans for Peace No Good, Say Crats

2009-11-05T06:37:00.002-06:00

Veterans Day parade excludes Vets for Peace. Enough said.

Open Letter to President Obama on Afghanistan

2009-11-04T06:14:00.007-06:00

President Obama,

Welcome to Madison, Wisconsin.

Saw you that below-zero night in February at the Kohl Center last year, the night the D.C.-area primaries put you on track to win the nomination. Never seen an event like that night; one of the guys I was with looked over at me and said "Bobby," a clear reference to the idea that we were electing someone to stop war and serve people and everyone believed it.

I have to say, not crazy about reading the newest DoD news that Combat Advisors See Afghan Troops in Action. Sounds like a lot of crap to me. Or the latest DoD release, DoD Identifies Marine Casualty. That's a waste of another good man.

As you make your deliberations on the future course of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, please consider the words of a Vietnam War Marine combat veteran who served after Bobby was taken from us in 1968.

"Ever wonder how so many 'warriors' [Generals] got so chummy with a government full of civilian draft dodgers? … Think of how much fun it is sending others out to fight unplanned and even utterly purposeless wars when you live in world dripping with nothing but the best life can give and still be called, not only a warrior but hero to boot. .... Now consider Afghanistan where two in a hundred can read. Ask a farmer if he is part of an Arab plot to plant sleeper cells across Europe and the US to kill millions of civilians so America will send thousands of troops to his poor and isolated country and blow up his hut? You are, of course, talking to someone who has never traveled more than 10 miles in his life.”

The brass didn’t elect you; we did. And killing poor people is not what we had in mind. Bring the troops home, yes we can.

Prediction: Wisconsin Overturns Gay Marriage Ban in 2010

2009-11-03T17:31:00.006-06:00

***Prediction—Four-to-three; Wisconsin's gay marriage ban overturned next year.—Aware of the problems of predicting the votes of judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, note Justice Prosser's skepticism as he pressed DoJ asst ag Lewis Beilin in a dialogue on interpreting, and formulating a method of interpreting the purpose—be it singular or multiple purposes—of a constitutional amendment.

Said Justice Prosser [begun at the 48-minute, 26-second mark], "How the heck do we figure out what the purpose of an amendment is? ... Again if I may, we get certified questions from the Court of Appeals all the time. We get questions posed and petitions for review all the time and we can rephrase those questions. There's considerable liberty in the Court in rephrasing the question to try to decide the case. Mr. McConkey is, for good or ill, is saying, 'here is a nice, clear-cut methodology, you look to the language and the relating clause of the [referendum] resolution and that will be your purpose.' You're saying, 'let's look at everything here, look at everything and then state the purpose.' I sort of agree with you in a sense, but it's so amorphous. Help."

Attorney Beilin's reply is less-than-specific, and certainly not convincing that the referendum's language is clear, of one purpose, and is a constitutional submission to the people of Wisconsin, much less a useful suggestion that establishes a rule of law in judicial policy in interpreting the "single subject" rule in Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Oral Arguments Held on Marriage Equity Case

2009-11-03T10:05:00.048-06:00

Oral arguments were heard before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the Wisconsin gay marriage case, William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen, that could overturn Wisconsin's gay marriage ban in an extended hearing lasting some 98 minutes this morning.

Though perhaps the most contentious legal issue concerns conformity with the "single subject" constitutional mandate, and not the merits of equity, equal protection and due process, the political sides have been chosen: Hardline, social rightwingers against civil libertarians, political liberals and humanists.

Lester Pines, attorney for William C. McConkey, argued today that the "rights of voters" were unlawfully violated by the 2006 gay marriage ban amendment's resolution that was not submitted in proper form and presented to the voters in the 2006 election because the referendum "submitted two separate amendments."

"William McConkey was denied the right to fully participate in the direct democracy that was going on" during the referendum campaign because of the referendum's non-single-subject form that is prohibited under the "single subject" rule in in Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution, said attorney Pines. Pines also asserted a violation of free speech rights of McConkey's, later stating this injury and denial of rights contributed to his standing under dispute.

Standing

At issue also is the question of standing of plaintiff McConkey to challenge the referendum, but legal observers see a Court affirmation of McConkey's standing as likely.

Purpose of a Proposed Constitutional Amendment

McConkey is seeking also to establish rules of interpretation by the Court's investigation of the purpose behind Constitutional amendment referendum questions generally, that would allow the Court to read the "plain words" and "plain meanings" of the referendum language, using accepted rules of statutory interpretation that currently are used to determine statutory purpose, Pines argued.

Pines argued that there are separate purposes in the referendum reading: "Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?" [Emphasis added]

These two questions comprising two purposes are an "unconstitutional submission" in the 2005 referendum language, Pines said.

Wisconsin Department of Justice (DoJ)

Wisconsin Department of Justice assistant attorney general Lewis Beilin and deputy attorney general Raymond P. Taffora were present, arguing against McConkey, in favor of the referendum form and the resulting constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Attorney Beilin said that for McConkey to prevail he would have to convince the Court that the two referendum questions "have absolutely nothing to do with one another," and furthermore that the legislature's constructing the referendum questions should be given deference by the Court.

Beilin is asking for the Court's interpretation of purpose on the referendum by looking at "context," and deference to the legislature's wording of the referendum and contemporaneous sources of information.

Justice David Prosser said attorney Beilin's suggested method of interpretation appeared "amorphous."

Justice Bradley quoted from a contemporaneous source on information in a Racine daily newspaper article in which a legislator and sponsor of the referendum suggested she would vote differently on the two separate clauses of the referendum question.

Pressed for the "plain words" of the constitutional amendments comprising two precise propositions, Beilin said there are two propositions but "one subject ... that furthered the same general purpose."

Beilin said the overall purpose is to limit marriage as one man and a woman; and limit marriage status as one and one woman, as in the ruling of a Dane County Circuit Court judge.

Justice Abrahamson appeared to express skepticism toward a hypothetical level of generality to be used to ascertain the purpose behind a multi-question referendum.

Standing

Beilin said that McConkey does not have standing because McConkey has suffered no injury because he would have voted "no" on both propositions of the referendum, were the propositions presented separately. Beilin later stated that he advises against searching for "empirical evidence" on how Wisconsin voters would have voted were the two propositions presented singly. Beilin asserted that McConkey was not "personally and directly injured."

McConkey Rebuttal

Pines said on the manner of ascertaining the purpose of referendum questions that the DoJ proposes a "wide-ranging standard, really kind of a kitchen sink" analysis that would allow the court to do anything it wanted without rules of interpretation and guidance. Pines called this a "free-for-all" test as against an "organized test for determining purpose" advocated by McConkey.

Oral arguments can accessed at WisconsinEye.

The William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen case is drawing attention as gay marriage retains its status as a politically contentions issue used by the Republican Party.

A case synopsis should be available sat the Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Arguments schedules.
See also:

- Brief Looks to Doom Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban
- DOJ Files Anti-Gay Marriage Brief
- Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban May Go Down
- Objection, Compound Referendum

Oral Arguments on Marriage Equity Case Tuesday

2009-11-02T12:59:00.011-06:00

Oral arguments are scheduled Tuesday, Nov. 3 for the marriage equity (gay marriage) case to be webcast on WisconsinEye before the Supreme Court at 9:45 A.M Central Time.

The William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen case is drawing attention as gay marriage retains its status as a politically contentions issue used by the Republican Party.

A case synopsis should be available shortly at the Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Arguments schedules.

One of the issues to be decided by the Court in McConkey is whether the referendum compound-question form is related to "a readily discernible single purpose."

It is not so related to a single purpose, in accordance with the "single subject" rule in Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The language of the 2005 referendum reads: "Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?" [Emphasis added]

Representative of rightwingers' tortured arguments is the amicus brief filed by "Community Leaders Dedicated to Children ...":

THE AMENDMENT HAS A READILY DISCERNIBLE SINGLE PURPOSE.
Put simply, the second sentence preserves (and prevents dilution of) the public meaning and unique legal status of marriage between one man and one woman established in the first by prohibiting official sanction and endorsement of any legal status 'identical or substantially similar' to it.

The danger from such sanction and endorsement is not the extension to non-married couples of any particular assembly of 'benefits,' but rather the evolution of alternative 'substantially similar' statuses that would, if recognized for non-marital relationships, undermine the legal, social and cultural norms of marriage that have developed from factors unique to heterosexual relationships and the inherent needs of children for a married father and mother.

Everyone get that? Neither do I.

Neither does the Court that took this case to develop some rules of interpretation of the process that brings forth Constitution-amending referenda.

The Court faces the rightwingers' ludicrous proposition that the single purpose in this case is readily discerned as concern over the "evolution of alternative 'substantially similar' statuses that would, if recognized for non-marital relationships, undermine the legal, social and cultural norms of marriage that have developed from factors unique to heterosexual relationships and the inherent needs of children for a married father and mother."

An educated guess on the decision by the seven-member Court: Three to three with Justice David Prosser as the wildcard.

See also:
- Brief Looks to Doom Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban
- DOJ Files Anti-Gay Marriage Brief
- Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban May Go Down
- Objection, Compound Referendum