Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair
THE PRACTICE OF MEDDLING
Secretary Gates, our Defense Secretary, is reported this week to have confirmed that Libya posed no threat to the United States and that it was not in our vital national interest to intervene there.
I ask you to reflect a few minutes on that statement.
Presidents do not have the authority under our constitution to simply engage other nations over issues that do not affect our nation.
In fact, any such intent is covered under the checks and balances our forefathers placed in that document. Clearly, we could have a man or woman heading the executive branch who might wish to engage an enemy for a variety of reasons. With the stroke of a pen he could send hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of missiles into the air to rain down on another nation.
This is exactly what happened in Libya.
Many in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are grousing over the “semblance” of advise and consent. A few have even called for impeachment.
We are in a period now when we are already caught up in two major involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of these was of Obama’s making but decisions regarding the continuation of both were his to make over the past two years.
We played games with our old ally Egypt and assisted in bringing down that government. Recent news articles report that we replaced Mubarak with the military and they now seem to share governing with the Muslim Brotherhood. You might recall how much those folks like us!
Now we are playing in Libya’s “sandbox” with the potential result being the overthrow of their current government or the victory of that government guaranteeing the everlasting hatred of the United States.
News reports tell us Jordan and Syria are now having internal troubles. One wonders how long it will be before we decide to invest time and money in trying to direct the outcome of those controversies.
For anyone still left in the United States who wonders why Muslim nations hate us so, take another look at our involvements, interferences, and attempts to gerrymander the governing structures of governments in the Middle East and perhaps you will discover that we have a long history of backing the wrong fellow, turning on those who have been our allies for years, and appearing to be meddling in everyone’s internal affairs.
Ask yourselves these questions:
1. are the revolutionaries in these countries really seeking democracy?
2. If they are, and they succeed in bringing down a government, do you really think the power brokers will then permit them to democratize?
3. When the shooting stops, do you see any way the United States enjoys either a new friendship or a sense of partnership with the succeeding governing group?
4. Can you find any reason why a long time ally of ours in the Middle East, or any potential future ally, should find comfort in our having their back?
5. By what stretch of the imagination could you find justification for our meddling in the affairs of these nations?
6. And most importantly, what provision of our Constitution permits these sorts of sorties into other countries?
Bulletin: if you or your home or your loved ones have been attacked recently by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Libya or any other Middle Eastern nation, please advise the U.S. Departments of State and Defense and The White House as they have all gotten out ahead of the curve and we have a good head start on the war that would then be Constitutionally appropriate.
Readers, we need a course change and we need it soon.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
SENSES OF FALSE SECURITY
Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair
Senses of False Security
So you have decided to take a trip that will involve boarding a plane at one of America’s airports.
You will be treated to a multi-step procedure that will include having your photo ID scrutinized at the check-in counter, again as you enter the line for security, at the security point and again later when you are asked to board your airplane.
You will be asked to take off your shoes before going through security.
You will be asked to remove everything from your pockets before going through security.
You will be asked to place your laptop computer in a separate bin before sending it through x-ray.
Then you will be asked to stand, arms raised high, while a machine projects a somewhat graphic picture of you without clothes to either a man or woman who operates the machine.
Finally, you may well be asked to submit to a “pat down” that will seem quite an invasion of your privacy.
When you are finally cleared you are supposed to have a feeling of security, a sense that your flight will be safe and uneventful.
These procedures have cost the government millions of dollars and have raised the price of your airline ticket quite a bit. They have also added a great deal of time to your pre-flight wait at any airport.
These procedures provide a semblance of security. But actually, I am not convinced any of us are significantly safer. Recent new headlines and stories have told of youngsters hiding in the wheel wells of aircraft. We have read about people getting through security procedures with handguns. We read about people managing to clear security with sharp scissors in their carry on luggage.
The list of security breaches is endless.
While passengers line up in seemingly endless queues a person wanting to climb a fence on the far side of the airport and run to a plane and climb into a wheel well seems to have very little difficulty.
While passengers take off their shoes it appears some can get through security with a handgun in their purse.
While the airport takes away the bottle of water you brought with you because it just might be explosive they miss the lady with the sharp scissors in her briefcase.
There is a bottom line.
Travel is not as safe as we are led to believe.
We continue to take flights because it is also dangerous to cross the road, to ride with drivers talking on cell phones, to purchase a bottle of pain reliever at the local drugstore that has been tampered with.
The list is endless.
Life can be a roll of the dice.
But we are still called upon to live it!
And so we venture forth each day, knowing the risks but trusting in the odds.
Bon voyage!
…Jack Blair
Senses of False Security
So you have decided to take a trip that will involve boarding a plane at one of America’s airports.
You will be treated to a multi-step procedure that will include having your photo ID scrutinized at the check-in counter, again as you enter the line for security, at the security point and again later when you are asked to board your airplane.
You will be asked to take off your shoes before going through security.
You will be asked to remove everything from your pockets before going through security.
You will be asked to place your laptop computer in a separate bin before sending it through x-ray.
Then you will be asked to stand, arms raised high, while a machine projects a somewhat graphic picture of you without clothes to either a man or woman who operates the machine.
Finally, you may well be asked to submit to a “pat down” that will seem quite an invasion of your privacy.
When you are finally cleared you are supposed to have a feeling of security, a sense that your flight will be safe and uneventful.
These procedures have cost the government millions of dollars and have raised the price of your airline ticket quite a bit. They have also added a great deal of time to your pre-flight wait at any airport.
These procedures provide a semblance of security. But actually, I am not convinced any of us are significantly safer. Recent new headlines and stories have told of youngsters hiding in the wheel wells of aircraft. We have read about people getting through security procedures with handguns. We read about people managing to clear security with sharp scissors in their carry on luggage.
The list of security breaches is endless.
While passengers line up in seemingly endless queues a person wanting to climb a fence on the far side of the airport and run to a plane and climb into a wheel well seems to have very little difficulty.
While passengers take off their shoes it appears some can get through security with a handgun in their purse.
While the airport takes away the bottle of water you brought with you because it just might be explosive they miss the lady with the sharp scissors in her briefcase.
There is a bottom line.
Travel is not as safe as we are led to believe.
We continue to take flights because it is also dangerous to cross the road, to ride with drivers talking on cell phones, to purchase a bottle of pain reliever at the local drugstore that has been tampered with.
The list is endless.
Life can be a roll of the dice.
But we are still called upon to live it!
And so we venture forth each day, knowing the risks but trusting in the odds.
Bon voyage!
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
THE MIDDLE EAST DEBACLE
Notes of Concern...
...Jack Blair
THE MIDDLE EAST DEBACLE
I ask you to suspend your disbelief and consider:
The Middle East is in turmoil.
These Middle East countries have, by and large, been run by their military through dictators. And the religious leaders have run the military.
Most of these nations have strong religious beliefs and those beliefs involve eliminating competition from other religions through whatever means is necessary.
The dictators pay at least lip service to religion.
The military pay at least lip service to religion.
It would be impossible for either the dictator or his military support to exist without the backing of religious leaders in that part of the world.
Then comes the “revolution.”
People are running in the streets demanding the overthrow of the dictator. The people running in the street are religious, too.
The armies are called upon to defend their dictator but to do so they would have to fire on their people. The religious leaders are in a quandary.
Tough choice.
Solution: remove the dictator and replace him with someone really different in political and religious thinking. I don’t think so.
Remove the dictator and replace him with someone who thinks just like him with reference to political and religious thought. Much more likely.
Around the world our “newsies” start categorizing these riots, protestors and regime changers as people wanting freedom and democracy.
What do you suppose those writers are smoking?
Do the reporters and pundits really find it that easy to completely ignore history in that part of the world? Do they really think these tradition rich countries, nations that are also economically wealthy, are simply going to abandon long held religious beliefs and somehow convert life- long military officers to the belief that the free reign they have enjoyed for years under the current set of rules should be quietly abandoned?
I would argue that these nations have enjoyed considerable economic prosperity.
I would argue that their strongly held religious beliefs make it impossible for them to embrace any sort of democracy.
It has never been the dictators, or the army, who have controlled these people, but rather their religious leaders operating behind the scenes and providing either support to the governments or, as in the current situation, reminding governments of who really controls things.
I do not expect to see any time soon anything remotely resembling what we call “democracy” in any of these countries.
The best I think they can hope for is more of the same but a different face on the statues and billboards. This would be a new sort of dictator, backed by a military, and with both enjoying the support of the various religious leaders.
The worst I think they could see would be a theocracy where the religious leaders just decide to own up to their prominence and control and actually run the government in plain sight of the masses.
Either way, they will be no real friends to us.
Dictators do not give up power easily.
Armies rarely give up power.
The leaders of religions prevalent in the Middle East have more power than any western religious leader, including the Pope, and there is no way they are interested in “democracy” as we see it practiced in other parts of the world.
The more we think we see change in that part of the world the more it will remain, essentially, the same.
Our nation stood quiet at first. Then we supported our old friends in leadership. Then we supported the gangs in the street. Then we decided we could only help out if other countries joined us in the effort. Then we decided to support “no fly zones” to keep dictators and the army from killing people. Later we sent some diplomats.
We have absolutely no idea how to play this out.
In the end not much will really change over there. More importantly, no sudden love for the West will rise up nor will the people of these countries suddenly want to bond with the Christian world.
The West needs to get a quick dose of “reality thinking” and to see that part of the world as “history rich” and “oil rich” and unlikely to want to be “westernized” any time soon.
In fact, they are driven much more by their religious zeal in either converting or eliminating the rest of us.
My take on what is happening is that it is not “democracy” in the streets of the Middle East but rather “theocracy.” I think the people want their country to take a stronger stance against Israel and against the West and against “unbelievers.” Those folks do not now, and never have, “played well with others.”
Some will find my comments cynical.
It would be fine with me to be wrong on this one.
But don’t bet the farm on it.
...Jack Blair
THE MIDDLE EAST DEBACLE
I ask you to suspend your disbelief and consider:
The Middle East is in turmoil.
These Middle East countries have, by and large, been run by their military through dictators. And the religious leaders have run the military.
Most of these nations have strong religious beliefs and those beliefs involve eliminating competition from other religions through whatever means is necessary.
The dictators pay at least lip service to religion.
The military pay at least lip service to religion.
It would be impossible for either the dictator or his military support to exist without the backing of religious leaders in that part of the world.
Then comes the “revolution.”
People are running in the streets demanding the overthrow of the dictator. The people running in the street are religious, too.
The armies are called upon to defend their dictator but to do so they would have to fire on their people. The religious leaders are in a quandary.
Tough choice.
Solution: remove the dictator and replace him with someone really different in political and religious thinking. I don’t think so.
Remove the dictator and replace him with someone who thinks just like him with reference to political and religious thought. Much more likely.
Around the world our “newsies” start categorizing these riots, protestors and regime changers as people wanting freedom and democracy.
What do you suppose those writers are smoking?
Do the reporters and pundits really find it that easy to completely ignore history in that part of the world? Do they really think these tradition rich countries, nations that are also economically wealthy, are simply going to abandon long held religious beliefs and somehow convert life- long military officers to the belief that the free reign they have enjoyed for years under the current set of rules should be quietly abandoned?
I would argue that these nations have enjoyed considerable economic prosperity.
I would argue that their strongly held religious beliefs make it impossible for them to embrace any sort of democracy.
It has never been the dictators, or the army, who have controlled these people, but rather their religious leaders operating behind the scenes and providing either support to the governments or, as in the current situation, reminding governments of who really controls things.
I do not expect to see any time soon anything remotely resembling what we call “democracy” in any of these countries.
The best I think they can hope for is more of the same but a different face on the statues and billboards. This would be a new sort of dictator, backed by a military, and with both enjoying the support of the various religious leaders.
The worst I think they could see would be a theocracy where the religious leaders just decide to own up to their prominence and control and actually run the government in plain sight of the masses.
Either way, they will be no real friends to us.
Dictators do not give up power easily.
Armies rarely give up power.
The leaders of religions prevalent in the Middle East have more power than any western religious leader, including the Pope, and there is no way they are interested in “democracy” as we see it practiced in other parts of the world.
The more we think we see change in that part of the world the more it will remain, essentially, the same.
Our nation stood quiet at first. Then we supported our old friends in leadership. Then we supported the gangs in the street. Then we decided we could only help out if other countries joined us in the effort. Then we decided to support “no fly zones” to keep dictators and the army from killing people. Later we sent some diplomats.
We have absolutely no idea how to play this out.
In the end not much will really change over there. More importantly, no sudden love for the West will rise up nor will the people of these countries suddenly want to bond with the Christian world.
The West needs to get a quick dose of “reality thinking” and to see that part of the world as “history rich” and “oil rich” and unlikely to want to be “westernized” any time soon.
In fact, they are driven much more by their religious zeal in either converting or eliminating the rest of us.
My take on what is happening is that it is not “democracy” in the streets of the Middle East but rather “theocracy.” I think the people want their country to take a stronger stance against Israel and against the West and against “unbelievers.” Those folks do not now, and never have, “played well with others.”
Some will find my comments cynical.
It would be fine with me to be wrong on this one.
But don’t bet the farm on it.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The "Supremes" Sing Off Key
Notes of Concern…
….Jack Blair
THE “SUPREMES” SING OFF KEY
Imagine.
Your child or the child of a friend or close relative dies in the service of his country in a far away land. His remains are returned to you in an impressive military ceremony at an airport where his coffin is somberly carried, covered by the flag of The United States of America, to a waiting hearse for transport to your funeral home and eventually to the memorial service you have carefully planned as a celebration of his life.
But.
The Supreme Court of The United States has ruled (8-1) that a bunch of angry people can picket the funeral. None of these people knew your son. None of them, in fact, have any connection with anyone who knew your son.
Their presence is a publicity stunt.
Their presence will successfully transfer attention from the sacrifice of your son to the political question regarding the armed conflict abroad.
They will use your son’s tragic death to bring attention to their displeasure with their government.
And.
The “Supremes” rule that they most certainly can disrupt your service because their right to free speech trumps your son’s right to a dignified ceremony honoring his service to his country and his untimely passing.
The same government that placed a uniform on your son and sent him out to die has decided that civility and common decency will not prevail at the time of his funeral.
We could argue all day about freedom of the press. It is not my intention to deal with nuances of the importance of that Constitutional guarantee. I just want to suggest we use a little compassion in applying the guarantee.
It is my intention to suggest that common sense, common decency and compassion for the grieving family of a fallen soldier should trump the intellectual and scholarly argument of the “Supremes” on this matter.
When we sink to the level of taking basic, elementary understandings of decency and shoving them aside in support of a broad general principle never meant to be applied in such a manner, we label ourselves a society in decline.
May God Bless the fallen heroes and their families who are required to deal with such silliness in the name of protecting free speech and may God Bless Associate Justice Samuel Alito for standing up to his eight colleagues in writing the dissenting opinion on this matter.
“The First Amendment protects freedom of speech but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct.” –Justice Alito
How long my fellow citizens must we put up with the outrageous interpretations applied to our Constitution, a document meant to be a guide for future generations and not, in my opinion, meant to be a hard and fast rule never to be interpreted with generosity and compassion in reference to the sensitivities of the nation?
….Jack Blair
THE “SUPREMES” SING OFF KEY
Imagine.
Your child or the child of a friend or close relative dies in the service of his country in a far away land. His remains are returned to you in an impressive military ceremony at an airport where his coffin is somberly carried, covered by the flag of The United States of America, to a waiting hearse for transport to your funeral home and eventually to the memorial service you have carefully planned as a celebration of his life.
But.
The Supreme Court of The United States has ruled (8-1) that a bunch of angry people can picket the funeral. None of these people knew your son. None of them, in fact, have any connection with anyone who knew your son.
Their presence is a publicity stunt.
Their presence will successfully transfer attention from the sacrifice of your son to the political question regarding the armed conflict abroad.
They will use your son’s tragic death to bring attention to their displeasure with their government.
And.
The “Supremes” rule that they most certainly can disrupt your service because their right to free speech trumps your son’s right to a dignified ceremony honoring his service to his country and his untimely passing.
The same government that placed a uniform on your son and sent him out to die has decided that civility and common decency will not prevail at the time of his funeral.
We could argue all day about freedom of the press. It is not my intention to deal with nuances of the importance of that Constitutional guarantee. I just want to suggest we use a little compassion in applying the guarantee.
It is my intention to suggest that common sense, common decency and compassion for the grieving family of a fallen soldier should trump the intellectual and scholarly argument of the “Supremes” on this matter.
When we sink to the level of taking basic, elementary understandings of decency and shoving them aside in support of a broad general principle never meant to be applied in such a manner, we label ourselves a society in decline.
May God Bless the fallen heroes and their families who are required to deal with such silliness in the name of protecting free speech and may God Bless Associate Justice Samuel Alito for standing up to his eight colleagues in writing the dissenting opinion on this matter.
“The First Amendment protects freedom of speech but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct.” –Justice Alito
How long my fellow citizens must we put up with the outrageous interpretations applied to our Constitution, a document meant to be a guide for future generations and not, in my opinion, meant to be a hard and fast rule never to be interpreted with generosity and compassion in reference to the sensitivities of the nation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)