Author: Jeffersonian Democrat

(x-posted at Orange)

Where does the concept of an oath come?  Why do we, as honorable people, hold an oath with such sanctity?  These questions have been in my mind as I have witnessed, and sometimes participated in, the impeachment debate.  It touched a nerve within me again as I read Mike Stark’s excellent diary.  Nevertheless, I would like to stress that my musings here are no longer about impeachment and I rather not delve too deeply into those waters as much as possible as there are others here, on both side of the debate, who have so eloquently stated and argued, passionately, both sides of the debate.  In other words,

“I’ve come here to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”
I may perhaps, only partially, answer the questions above.  I am a budding expert at the advanced graduate level, of medieval Germanic literature.  Although there are many more explanations, I can point out where the roots of an oath lie within my own narrow field.  There are others who study the Classics, such as Homer and Virgil, as well as Eastern Literature who are also able to point out attitudes within their field as well, but I will stick to my own.

The oral and later written poetry of the early Germanic tribes was driven by the plot device and function of the oath, the blood oath, family ties and loyalty to kin.  In these old stories, we find that the act of the oath will trigger and play an all-encompassing role on the tragedy of the Saga.  It may be argued that the oath is the raison d’être of these old tales in Saga and Romance.  What does this tell us other than a good story and ripping yarn?  For one, it tells us (as literature, the musical arts, and fine arts are a reflection of society and culture) that the idea, the concept of an oath was regarded as perhaps one of the most important human qualities in human relations of the time.

Ok, but what does that have to do with today and us?

Our culture, for good or ill, is truly based on Western Civilization humanities, with influences from other cultures naturally since the United States is such a wonderful melting pot.  Truly, however, Classical and European humanities cannot be dismissed in our culture, in our way of thinking and our outlook to the material world in which we live.  Habeas Corpus is only one example of this.  In the same way, our concept of the oath was passed down to us.  The concept of the oath is larger than just an official oath, such as an oath of office.  We use it every day.  We use it in the form of promising to repay our debts, we use it when we vow ourselves to our significant other to be true and faithful, in other words, we use the concept of the oath when we give our word.

It is still strong in our culture, even our pop-culture.  Bob Mould once sang:

It used to be that a handshake was a man’s word
Now they settle arguments in court
No one trusts
Anyone’s intentions anymore

– “Compositions for the Young and Old”, Workbook

Yes, our word, our oaths to one another, is the glue that holds our society together in trust, faith, and honor.  Without our oaths, those concepts, those ideas or ideals would just be arbitrary words.  Therefore, it struck me deeply, when Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated this:

“Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.” – emphasis mine.

Followed by this:

“I take very seriously the pledge, the oath of office that we make to the Constitution – as does every person in our Congress.”

To be fair to Madam Speaker, I understand that she going about fighting for the system of checks and balances in a different way.  Regardless, it is also a method that I believe to be false and misguided.

This brings us to the argument of the pragmatists and the idealists on the impeachment issue.  I confess to being in the idealist camp, and very partisan about it.  Look, it is very simple, without the ideals, the idealism, behind that document we call The United States Constitution, it is only a series of arbitrary words.  Or as someone else put it in a more vernacular way: “it’s just a piece of paper”.  That is true when it is devoid of the ideals, the meaning, behind it.  In order to preserve those ideals against arbitrariness, they must never be sacrificed, even if it means fighting to the last in a lost battle.  When we lose those ideals, especially without even attempting to fight for them, we lose our souls, or more secularly, our identity to the easy, pragmatic road of arbitrariness.  It should be remembered that arbitrariness is a primary nature and quality of totalitarianism.

Allow me finally, to provide less of an abstract example, but a hypothetical example nonetheless.

In my enlisted military experience as well as my commissioned experience, I swore to similar oaths to which the members of the US Congress swear.  I gave my word of honor, on pain of death, to uphold that oath.  And before you accuse me of hyperbole, let me state that I honored that oath, under those conditions, when I earned my Combat Infantryman’s Badge on the battlefield.

Now think about this, what if a service-member on the battlefield conflicted with their sworn duty, their word of honor, is faced with a losing battle that may cost them and their peers their lives.  Furthermore, what if the service member simply stated:

“Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.”

And left the battle.  Not only taking back their word of their official oath, but also their unwritten oath to their comrades-in-arms.  Or as the Ranger Creed states:

“Never shall I fail my comrades. […]”

Now imagine if a whole unit with their officers simply stated:

“Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.”

Do not believe for a moment that Washington D.C. is not a battlefield.  Do not for a moment believe that we are not in a political struggle and a political war within our very country.  It is not fought with bullets and air strikes but rather rhetoric and laws.  What makes this war even more significant and vital than one on a military battlefield where people die is that it is the very ideal of our identity as Americans that is at stake here.  The reason people like others and myself who join the military are willing to lay our lives down – is for those very ideals!

It is not whether we have a criminal in the White House or not.  Impeachment is not the means in itself or the desired goal: it is a necessary implied task to reach the goal.  The desired goal is to restore our ideals, it is to restore not only who we are as Americans, but to correct our past misdeeds and make ourselves better according to the code of our ideals: the Constitution.

If Madam Speaker and all the members of those hallowed halls truly  “[…] take very seriously the pledge, the oath of office that we make to the Constitution […]”, then it is time for them to honor their oaths, regardless if the battle is lost or not.  Not to us, the Democratic Party nor even We The People, but rather to the fundamental grounding of our entire identity: The United States Constitution.

They gave their word.

Since I’ve been here a while, I thought that I would share my one and only publication so far.  This is an essay that shares the pages with such luminaries as George McGovern and Noam Chomsky.  I highly recommend (I do not recieve royalties) this work, entitled:

The United States in Global Context: American Studies after 9/11 and Iraq

edited by Walter Grünzweig, 2004, ISBN 3-8258-8262-4

Distributed by Transaction Publishers in North America
x-posted at kos & Eurotrib
This is my published writing so far, kind of embarrassed as I was absolutely wrong:

The forward is:

Richard Gallant is a graduate student in Germanic Languages and Literature at the University of Virginia with a focus in aesthetics, ideology, and revolutionary theater.  After spending a year in Dortmund as an exchange student two years ago, he is currently exchange lecturer at Dortmund teaching a course entitled “Pornography and Literature: Henry Miller, Anais Nin, Sacher-Masoch, and Vladimir Nabokov”

(that was 2004, I now focus on Germanic Saga)
The Dialectic of Perception, Ideology, and its Material Consequences
Richard Z. Gallant

America has traditionally been percieved as a beacon of democratic ideals of the Enlightenment manifested into a material example for the rest of the world.  It is this perception that greatly contributed to the unprecedented outpouring of sympathy and outrage immediatly following the tragedy of Semptember 11, 2001.
Political scientists, historians, and political pundits call September 11th a “watershed” moment in the history of the US and the world.  Put more academically, it was a dialectical and historical turn.  The initial reaction of the American people was confusion, fear, and bewilderment.  In this atmosphere, the American public readily accepted, indeed demanded, the government to turn to right in America’s response.  Democratic ideology  changed to a position of good verses evil and invoked this binary perception from WWII.  Indeed, the West also turned with us, temporarily, as evidenced by the overwhelming support of the Afghanistan operation.  This has proven to be dangerous as it led, gradually and event-by-event, by intentional manipulation of domestic perception, ideology and facts, to a war that was largely illegitimate in the perception of the world.  Now we have just witnessed, as a consequence, the next historical and dialectical turn: not only the perception of America, but the perception of the “beacon of democracy” – the exposure of atrocities in Abu Ghraib.

It is difficult to say which way this new dialectical turn will lead, however, I believe that it will lead back to the left and to the center as the American people now face the discrepancy between our perception of who we are and how we think of the “War on Terror” and our actions.  We have to examine how much damage our own ideology, and its turn to the right, has caused in the world’s perception of us and how that has weakened the influence of our “beacon”.  The material manifestation in the now infamous photographs of American torture forces us, as well as people all over the world, to reconsider our ideological turn and the perceptions relevant to it.  They are a material consequence of blind obedience to an ideology without, as Thomas Jefferson warned us against, questioning the authority of those directing our power, perceptions, and ideology.  If an al Qaeda gas attack comes before the election, as some analyst in the US intelligence community are concerned about, what will the world’s perception be and how will it affect current events and the power wielded by the US and the West in combating terrorism?  Will we still enjoy the outpouring of goodwill expressed by the world as it was on September 12, 2001?  The answer remains to be seen.  Nevertheless, we can be assured that regardless what happens, this chain of events have been a catastrophe not only affecting the perceptions of Americans, but of the world.

Some folks here have expressed an interest in the foreign press and what is going on outside of US domestic politics.  So, here is my contribution in that spirit, to bring to light a huge issue now happening in Germany complicated by an incident yesterday.

(x-posted at Booman and European Tribune)

A report in the German press, released Wednesday by Der Tagesspiegel, claims Israeli F16s conducted a low level fly-by and shoot twice in an “over the bow” warning, on the German Navy conducting UNIFIL operations off the coast of Lebanon.  Today’s follow up is at:

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/…

Nach einem Bericht des “Tagesspiegel” sollen bei dem Vorfall zwei israelische Kampfflugzeuge vom Typ F16 ein deutsches Schiff überflogen und zwei Schüsse in die Luft abgegeben haben. Außerdem hätten die Kampfflieger Infrarot-Täuschkörper zur Raketenabwehr abgefeuert. Die deutsche Marine kreuzt im Rahmen des Nahost-Einsatzes der Vereinten Nationen vor Libanons Küste. (tso/ddp)

(I am not a translator, so all mistakes from the German are mine; anyone with a better translation is more than welcome to correct me or rephrase it less awkwardly and more concisely and I will update if this is a successful diary.)  It basically, very roughly, states that:

After a report from Tagesspiegel, two Israeli F16 type fighters are said to have overflown a German ship and released two shots in the air.  Additionally, the pilots had fired infra-red counter measures [against] the anti-missile defense.  The German Navy patrols off of Lebanon’s coast within the framework of the United Nations Middle-East mission.

Translation Update from Migeru: According to a report from Tagesspiegel, two Israeli F16 type fighters would have overflown a German ship and released two shots in the air.

Today, Der Tagesspeigel (link above) as well as Haaretz have stated that the Israelis denied firing on the German ship:

http://www.haaretz.com/…

An Israel Defense Forces spokesman on Wednesday confirmed that Israel Air Force jets had been involved in an incident with a German vessel and helicopter, but denied reports that the jets had fired shots over the ship.

The Germany daily Der Tagesspiegel earlier on Wednesday quoted a junior German defense minister as telling a parliamentary committee that two Israeli F-16 fighters flew low over the German ship and fired two shots.

The jets also activated infra-red countermeasures to ward off any rocket attack, the paper quoted him as saying, in an advance release from Thursday’s edition.

In fairness to the Israeli authorities, they also stated in the same report:

IAF jets had been launched early Tuesday when a helicopter took off from a German aircraft carrier in waters close to Rosh Hanikra without identifying itself in accordance with United Nations regulations. The incident was quickly solved without confrontation, the spokesman said, and only flares were fired.

The German Navy doesn’t have an aircraft carrier, many surface ships have helicopter capabilities, but oh well.

This leads to my op-ed portion of the diary.  Living in Germany as a permanent resident awaiting citizenship, I’ve been on the position in this internal debate of German military presence in the world or just within Germany’s borders, as keeping the military within the borders.  It is also within the Party line of my political party here as well:

(in English)http://www.sozialisten.de/…

I don’t know what the Chancellor was thinking when she sent the German Navy to Lebanon.  No, I do know what she was thinking.  She is on the other side of this debate that German forces have a responsibility to Europe and the UN to participate in peacekeeping missions overseas.  The German military is currently in the Former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan – with a scandal there brewing in the German press:

Published photos of German soldiers desecrating a skull in Afghanistan have triggered a full blown image crisis for Germany. Officials are struggling to minimize what they fear could be major consequences.

http://www.spiegel.de/…

Also, they are in Congo, and now Lebanon.  Aside from the growing scandal, on the surface, it may seem like a good idea, we should all support irradicating things such as genocide in places like Dafur and this is an opportunity to show that Germany is now committed to stopping such things rather than the old wounds of inflicting them.

Well, it is exactly those old wounds that trouble me.  Especially in Lebanon.  We all know, and without judgements to whether it is right or wrong – that’s for a separate diary that when it comes to issues of Israels borders, security, and the IDF, that Israel is very aggressive in pursueing those issues.  Just in the last couple of weeks there was an incident with the French forces in UNIFIL, from the same Haaretz report:

In response to threats by French forces to open fire on IAF overflights, Peretz said, “we will in no way take these threats, and we’ve made that clear in conversations with all parties.”

Now my concern is this.  In modern Naval warfare, as the Falklands clearly demonstrated, one hit on a vessel is likely to be catastrophic.  Therefore, in order to protect the vessel, there must be a split second decision to employ counter-measures and/or counter attack the threat.  There isn’t much time due to the speed and velocity of naval weapon systems and their corresponding counter-measures.  Normally in a warzone there is no question to return fire, but with peacekeeping the ROE (rules of engagement) are more complicated and demand human decision making.

There are plenty of former US and non-US Naval surface warfare officers here on Kos, Booman, and I am sure ET, please feel free to correct me in any of my analysis if I got it wrong.

There was already a lot of debate in this country about sending ground troops to Lebanon and what would happen if German troops were forced to come into conflict with Israeli troops.  This is why the Navy was sent instead.  The implications of a conflict between German and Israeli troops, or more plainly put, between Germans and Jews, is not lost on neither the German population nor the German Bundeswehr.  Nevertheless, Israel reaffirmed that the Germans are most welcome and for their part, they are not thinking of the past – however, the Germans are.

Whether it turns out that the Israelis fired or not is really irrelevant.  What is relevant is the position that German forces are put into when they must decide to return fire on Israeli forces and whether it is self-defense.  For a German skipper of a Naval vessel this is a very heavy burden as he or she would be the first to engage in combat against Jewish forces since WWII.  Is that a decision that can be made in the few seconds necessary to defend one’s ship?  What is the human hesitancy factor here?

No, I believe it is a bad stew with bad ingredients.  There is a great potential for something tragic to happen either way, whether there is return fire or not.  Luckily, this incident didn’t turn out as bad as it may have.  Yet this is the debate that we here in Germany must confront (I say we because, as a legal resident, I may vote in regional elections but not federal, until I gain my citizenship.)  It is on the forefront of politics here and there are measures coming up in Parliament on whether to decide to let the military further participate in world-wide peacekeeping mission or whether to bring them home and operate only within the borders of Germany.

I, for one, vote with the latter camp.

x-posted at orange

I see trend passing, like a dark storm cloud over western civilization.  I cloud of immaturity, ignorance, superstition, regressive hatred, and self-loathing in the mind of western man (including women in that statement).  In just the last week:

“[Frisco, Texas]…School board members have voted to not renew the contract of a veteran art teacher who was reprimanded after one of her fifth-grade students saw a nude sculpture during a school trip to a museum.”

“A leading German opera house unleashed a furious debate over free speech Tuesday by pulling a production over fears it posed a security risk because of a scene featuring the severed heads of Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad.
The Deutsche Oper said it had decided “with great regret” to cancel a planned production of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” after Berlin security officials warned of an “incalculable risk” because of scenes dealing with Islam, as well as other religions.”

So I ask the question: What is Enlightenment?

Bear with me, in patience, as I build my argument and come back to the above stories at the end of the post.
Immanuel Kant had this answer, which I am inclined to agree with (in a Western sense of the Age of Enlightenment, not the Buddhist sense of Enlightenment).

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] “Have courage to use your own understanding!”–that is the motto of enlightenment.

Intellectual history shows that in the early and mid-seventeen hundreds, people like Rousseau, Herder, Voltaire, Goethe, Schiller, Kant, etc. started to link philosophy and language into a societal and political movement.  The material result is evidenced in the American Revolution and the following French revolution and the birth of the bourgeois nation-state.  The Forefathers of the US revolution were heavily influenced by these people and embraced what is known as liberal humanism.  These ideas were written down and manifested in 1789 in the US, manifested the US Constitution; in France as the Rights of Man.

It is reported that President Bush once said, “The Constitution is just a piece of paper” – and he is absolutely right.  It is only a piece of paper.  It is a piece of paper just as those green pieces of paper that come out of the US Treasury and pieces of paper.  What is the actual use of those pieces of paper?  Well, I could roll one up and sniff white powder up my nose with it, that’s a use; I could take a piece of paper entitled The US Constitution and wipe my ass with it, that’s a use as well.  But these documents are significant because of the ideas behind them, their exchange value, in the form of an idea that we place on them that is greater than the use value [see Marx and exchange value vs. use value].

These are ideas, represented by an object, that give value.  The people mentioned above had ideas (ideas>ideals>idealism).  Thomas Jefferson, a man of Enlightenment ideals of his age, believed that a man should work in the fields all day then go home and read Homer.   So how could what we are seeing in the world happen?

The Age of Reason gave in to the Age of Enlightenment and within Enlightenment came the revolt against cold, hard reason with the movement of Romanticism.  An idea in which the inner “Geist” or spirit of the human being rebelled against the hard reason of logic.  See, philosophers like Kant and Hegel devised metaphysical philosophical systems of absolutes, totality.  Total systems.  I mentioned that philosophy had a great influence on political thought.  These total, absolute systems had influence too [total>totality>totalitarianism].  A good source for the curious reader is Hannah Arendt’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism” and Adorno/Horkheimer “The Dialectic of the Enlightenment”.  Hegel’s Dialectic in Phenomenology of the Spirit was a total system but it dealt with the metaphysical stages of human consciousness.  Marx used Hegel’s system but replaced the “Geist” with materialism, what we can touch and feel, but still his thinking was a total system.  See where I am going with this?  The Dialectic theory stipulates that we start with a Thesis, it encounters an Antithesis, and they violently clash and merge into a Synthesis.  Hegel’s violence was metaphysical in the form of ideas; Marx’s was material in the form of revolution.,

So what is Enlightenment, the beginning of Modernism?  It started out as a good idea, the bourgeois rebellion against aristocratic authoritarianism.  But how did it produce so many horrors?   The evolution of intellectual theory shows a line of cause and effect of how that happened.  What we are now locked into is a reaction against further dialectic progress, but humanity cannot stop it.  So we see violence, we see a regression to ideas that are pre-Enlightenment: the censure of art as mentioned above, the dismantling of early Enlightenment ideas such as the Rights of Man as witnessed this week with the “Torture” Bill.  It is an urged to regress and react to simplelr times in which it is not mandatory to think critically, or as Kant said above, to a self-imposed immaturity.  The entertainment industry helps this along greatly with “Survivor”; no farmer is going home to read Homer.

No student is going to an art museum in Frisco, Texas and no one will see Indomeneo in Berlin.  The ideals behind the Constitution are under attack; they are the “quaint” ideals of an era of liberal humanism before the industrial revolution.  Why? Because the ideals of the humanities teach humanity in all of our strengths and weaknesses.  The humanities teach progression forward and the is a worldwide attempt now a days to stifle that.  As an old Professor of mine once said “They won’t come and arrest literature professors, they’ll arrest mathematic and science professors because they teach the indisputable truth, in literature, it always represents the national culture and therefore is used to indoctrinate…they need us.

What happened this last week in Frisco, Berlin, and Washington are only symptoms of a greater disease: the disease of reactionary fear to progress in an overdue turning point in history to a new age.

Hello all,

A small request for help here is anyone is web-savvy.  Looking at the list of supporters from various sites, T-Mobile, USA comes up as an advertiser of Sunday’s event.

As most of you know, I reside in Germany and am an active member of Die Linke/Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (PDS) as my political party.  So that’s my disclaimer, I’ve always said that I am a socialist.

Nevertheless, I’ve read disturbing news, without evidence, that T-Mobile USA is supporting advertising for the upcoming or perhaps cancelled “Path to 9/11”.
Whether it is cancelled or not is irrevelent.  What matters to me, is if T-Mobile actually supported this piece of propaganda in the first place.

T-Mobile is a part of T-Mobile/Deutsche Telekom Germany.  Now think about it: a German firm with a connection to it’s American counter-part supporting, through advertising, a propaganda film designed to put the right wing back into power in the United States.  Something is wrong here.  An international conglomerate affecting US politics?

The scandal here would be so enormous as this is so much like 1933: (Leni Riefenstahl in 1933, she directed the short film Der Sieg des Glaubens (Victory of Faith), an hour-long feature about the Nazi party rally at Nuremberg in 1933 (released on DVD in 2003).

So what I am trying to do, is research and ask help for web-links confirming the T-Mobile transaction.  I will then take it to higher-ups in the Party for discussion (we have a voice in Parliament in Berlin).  I am having problems finding the links, but this is what I wrote to T-Mobile, USA:

“Dear T-Mobile USA,

It has come to my attention that T-Mobile USA will support advertising for the ABC Docudrama “The Path to 9/11”.  I wish to confirm if this is true or not.

Not only am I a T-Mobile customer, but I am also an active member of Die Linke/Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus (PDS) NRW.  If it is true that a company associated with T-Mobile, DE is supporting an obvious propaganda film intended to influence US politics, then it is our duty here in Germany, considering the history, to bring this matter into the realm of political discourse.  I am sure you understand the sensitivity and complexity of this matter and would not want to make a mountain out of a molehill, therefore an affirmation or denial of advertising support would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much,”

If anyone has any other information, it would be greatly appreciated.
-JD

Once upon a time, in a distant land, I used to believe that the Christian Science Monitor was a fairly balanced source of news, similar to the Economist.  So, while getting my news fix for the day, I decided to visit the site since I’ve haven’t been there really for a couple of years.  And lo and behold, what did I find in an editorial?

“America’s youth must serve their country, one way or another”
By Edward Bernard Glick

PORTLAND, ORE. – The United States military has a very big problem: Too many global conflicts and commitments – and too few soldiers.

That’s why it’s time to reinstate the draft. A draft would do more than just harness the energy and idealism of the nation’s youth to meet the military’s unmet personnel needs. It would also tap more of the resources of the nation’s women, heeding their demands for more gender equality by making their obligations more consonant with their rights.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0905/p09s02-coop.html
There, he said it.  The dreaded “D-word” that is supposedly political suicide for any politician to utter except to refute it.  So, is Mister Glick just some hack shouting his opinion to the right-echo chamber.  Perhaps, but before rushing to judgement, considering that “Edward Bernard Glick is professor emeritus at Temple University in Philadelphia, where he specialized in civil-military relations. He is the author of “Soldiers, Scholars, and Society: The Social Impact of the American Military,” and “Israel and Her Army: The Influence of the Soldier on the State.”” I would place him a little above a hack and into the intelligencia.

So why do I believe this is not only a trial ballon, but a potential Hindenberg?  Well, remember that I stated that once upon a time I believed the CSM to be balanced?  Well, they had a reputation for that at one time, which means that they have a readership that crosses partisan divides.  To float an opinion like this into the echo chamber would do nothing to test its viability with the public.

To make it a viable option, though, we need a wide audience and we need to dress the wolf in liberal and progressive sheep’s clothing.  We started off with equal opportunity by including women, let’s see how much further his proposed policy “progresses” (couldn’t resist the pun).

“It would give the federal government more flexibility in dealing with conscientious objectors. And it would be fairer to African-Americans and other minorities, who might stop viewing military service as just another job choice.”

Ah, I see, we should include here in our militaristic policy room for “liberal” talking points of Affirmative Action – how’s that for a new twist of the race card.  To be fair…  If Professor Glick truly was concerned about the point of the military as a job choice, he wouldn’t be so divisive of race but rather hit the poverty issue.  After all, little uneducated Lyndie England and uneducated, sadistic Graner are considered by some quarters as poor “white trash” and some of the most infamous perpetrators of our Iraq fiasco.  Admittedly, I couldn’t stomach seeing all of those photos, but the ones I did see did not show any minorities.  Again, it is not necessarily minorities that the policy is unfair against but rather our inexcusable POOR in which minorities are a part of.  Do not try and muddy the issue Professor Glick in order to tug at our sentimentality to justify a draft.

He goes on to justify his idea for the draft based on issues that we, as progressives, genuinely care about.

“Here’s how the new draft should work:

• All able-bodied and able-minded 18-year-old men and women should have their names placed in a lottery. Depending on how many soldiers are needed – typically just a few thousand each year – a modest percentage would be drafted.
• Then, the names of all those who didn’t get drafted should be placed into a lottery for nonmilitary service in city or suburban slums, rural areas, native Americans reservations, or other poverty-stricken places.
• If the lottery puts draftees in a nonmilitary program – say, in healthcare – that requires more education and training than they possess, they could opt for getting that additional expertise in the civilian world. But then, the draftees would have to enter that nonmilitary program immediately after completing their studies.

Now, it is always possible that in any given year the number of young people eligible for both the military and nonmilitary lotteries may exceed the need for their services. But whenever any young people miss involuntary service by the luck of the draw, they will have done so more fairly and honorably than was true during the days of the Vietnam War.”

Point 1) ok, a lottery, on the surface that seems fair, right?  “Look folks, a draft won’t be soooo bad, your chances are almost nil that YOU will be drafted.”  Interesting, and what are my chances of being a victim of a terrorist attack again?   And why then should I be so afraid?  The logic just doesn’t work here.  Additionally, the good professor is leaving out what is known as “mission creep” which is like Pandora’s Box.  Once the regime has the ability to draft, it is very easy to keep ratcheting up those needed numbers of troops for further ill-concieved military adventures.

Point 2)  Ok, this too seems fair, right? Non-military service to help with social programs for our poor.  Again, wolf in sheep’s clothing, I say.  President Clinton instilled a wonderful program called Ameri-Corps, haven’t heard much about that program in recent years.  It was voluntary, and as the military has found out, volunteers are ALWAYS preferable to forced labor.  I’d bet though, it’s funding was gutted even before 9/11.  If Katrina is any indication of how this regime cares for the poor, I would not trust them to set up the enormous resources required for non-military service.  When was the last time this regime instituted an effective social program?  I call “empty promise” and refer to rebuttal of point one: mission creep for bodies in boots-on-the-ground.  It’s much more profitable.

Point 3)  Mister Glick, we already have such programs, the few that have survived tax-cuts for the wealthy.  My home-state of South Dakota has such a (underfunded) program of educating Lakota Sioux in medicine to return to their people and provide much needed medical services.  We don’t need a draft to implement much needed social programs, we need Congress to actually fund them instead of funding casino interests who in return pay for golf trips to Scotland.

Eventually the draft will require more bodies for military service not understaffed social services.  Everyone is concerned about Iran at the moment, as well as they should be.  Nevertheless, we should have more foresight than what has been written about such a gross mistake.  It won’t stop with Iran, no it will draw in the whole region and possibly Muslim South Asia as well, we’re going to need a lot of bodies and social security numbers for this next mis-adventure.  Again, wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“America must revisit the wisdom and morality of placing the responsibility for defending – and sometimes having to die for – this country only on volunteers.”

Again, twisting our own arguments against the progressive citizenry.  He’s now playing on our sense of duty and patriotism.  I agree, there is wisdom and morality in DEFENDING this country for all citizens.  The last time it was necessary to DEFEND the COUNTRY was after December 7th, 1941.  There is nothing defensive about our current and cold war aggressive policies.

“Consider the Israeli experience. Except for small minorities, Israelis feel that the responsibility for defending and dying for one’s country is a duty that must be shared equally. They feel that military service should not be determined by demographics, by social circumstances, by the unemployment rate, or any other aspect of the nation’s economy.”

Ah, here his true neo-con colors truly shine.  Look, Israel’s history is not our history.  Israel’s culture is not our culture.  Israel’s threats to her existence are not our threats to our existance.  Therefore, the sense of duty an Israeli feels is not comparable with the sense of duty an US citizen feels.  Apples and oranges, Professor; academically you should know better.

“The Vietnam War and America’s history and philosophy have led us to opposite conclusions: A universal draft is not sacred. And our democracy demands an all-volunteer military.”

Absolutely right!  What was that that Thomas Jefferson said again about no entangling alliances and sticking our nose in other people’s business?  A volunteer military is quite sufficient to protect our borders from aggression.  It is NOT sufficient in order to conduct wars of aggression and empire building.

He then finishes with the most insulting bastardizations of a quote from one of the greatest of Americans:

“Like all policy proposals, this one is based on assumptions: The first assumption is that it is proper for America to ask its youth for a period of service. And the second assumption is that it was right for President John F. Kennedy to declare, in his 1961 inaugural address, “And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Indeed Mister Glick, indeed.  And I cry Fie!  Fie!  A sheep in wolf’s clothing!  This is indeed, dear reader, a most subtle form of propaganda and academic dishonesty.

How’s this for a plan.  Not only do we pull our forces out of Iraq, but we pull our forces out of every corner of the world and bring them home.  That we dismantle missle defense and use money that is used for the military-industrial complex not only for social programs instead, but also for research and manufactoring of new energy sources, thereby creating jobs and educating our poor so they can compete in an ever shrinking world.  That we implement fair and equitable trade policies with developing countries.  And when we have our own house in order, imagine how much of the wealth that we could once again generate and could share with those in need, ONCE THEY ACTUALLY REQUEST OUR AID, rather than dirtying our nose uninvited.

It’s only a pipe dream as long as the Time Warners and Halliburtons have control of our political processes.

We are the richest country on the planet, there is no excuse that we have such awful conditions in places such as South Dakota and West Virginia, there is no excuse that a tiny Caribbean island, which has been under embargo for decades, has a higher literacy rate per capita and better health care for all citizens.  And at the same time, we are more than able to destroy the planet – it’s sick.

And just “imagine” that if we did such a thing, what would that do for other struggling people and despotic regimes to see, by the example we set with our own people, the United States of America become that “shining city on the hill”, fulfill the messianic myth of America by compassion instead of war.

No, dear reader, do not be fooled by such an “equitable” draft policy.  It’s still a DRAFT!

And, I argue, a trial balloon for things to come….

With six months left on my Inactive Ready Reserve contract, I received a gem of an email from some recruiting sergeant.  Seems to me they’re getting desperate.  I really don’t appreciate subtly veiled threats to try and coerce me back in, at least it didn’t work on me but they’re trawling trying to scare people back in so someone can make their monthly quota.  Just part of the new fear culture I guess.  Here’s an interesting email:
“Good day ****t,

My records reflect that you are not currently serving in a United States Army Reserve unit right now. The reason why I am contacting you today is to find out why and can I assist you getting back into one. I show that you still have mandatory obligation left to the Inactive Ready Reserves. If you choose to do so I can easily assist you getting  into a unit of your choice. If a rotation comes around to be deployed then the Human Resources Command in St. Louis will put you into the unit they need you to go in and not unit you might want to go in. Please contact me at your earliest convenience and we can discuss options. Also if you have a valid reason why your not in a unit or my records read incorrectly then please contact me as well so I can update.

Thanks I am looking forward to hearing back from you!!”

P.S. There is an affiliation bonus for qualified soldiers. Contact me for further details!

SFC Ch*****s
US Army Recruiter
(C)(*****3
(F)(****4

Notice how I must explain a “valid reason” to this SFC why I am not in a reserve unit and why not.  The answer is that I am in the IRR and I don’t need to give ANYONE a reason why I am not in an active unit.  Then there is the fear factor of HRC St. Louis deploying me.  Even this recent IRR call-up didn’t take people in their first or last year, his records surely reflect how much time I have left.  Lastly his records should indicate that my MOS was 18B, Special Forces Weapons Sergeant, which is only a National Guard or Active Duty job, not the US Army Reserves.  My IRR records reflect that I am living in Germany, obviously he missed that one too.  Lastly, if he wanted to sound scary with authority, the least he could do is run a grammar check as is “why you’re not in a…” as oppose to “why your not in a”.  Dear SFC Dinglenuts, ‘your’ is possessive, ‘you’re’ is as in ‘you are’.

Then there is the bribery attempt at the end with a “bonus” – whoo hoo!

On the surface perhaps it’s not so menacing, but read between the lines.  The military is getting desperate as never before have any recruiters gone to the IRR pool as they prefer getting fresh meat from high schools.

Parents, keep an eye out for things like this, teenagers don’t always catch these things or are sometimes timid when it comes to telling these people to f*k off.

Just thought I’d share, peace.

In this case there is no schadenfreude, there is no gloating that I was right.  God how I wish I was wrong.  I just stumbled upon this article from Salon: Torture teachers (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/29/torture/).

“An Army document proves that Guantánamo interrogators were taught by instructors from a military school that trains U.S. soldiers how to resist torture.”

If you’d like to see pictures of what we go through (not gruesome or anything) here is the SERE website: http://www.training.sfahq.com/survival_training.htm

You’ll recognize the hoods, wore one myself.

Yes, I knew this:

“”This is the missing link,” declared Leonard Rubenstein, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights. “It is proof that the SERE training was in fact used, for a time at least, as a basis for interrogations at Guantánamo.” “That is what I inferred had happened,” agreed retired Brig. Gen. Stephen Xenakis, former commanding general of the Southeast Regional Army Medical Command, “but I have never seen this documented anywhere.” The sworn statement suggests that Fort Bragg was the incubator of the abuse that later migrated from Guantánamo to Abu Ghraib, and is further evidence of the systematic nature of torture in the war on terror.”

How did I know it, in December I wrote this:

 SERE training and torture (http://www.boomantribune.com/user/Jeffersonian%20Democrat/diary)

“I haven’t written a lot of diaries, mostly because people here have much more insight, expertise, and perception than I.  Nevertheless, I think I’ll write this one up because it something I have personal experience with and the subject came up on another thread.  I’m a SERE grad, and although the program, especially the Resistance Training Laboratory (RTL, or mock POW camp) is classified, I think that I can comment on what’s been going on in the news about the program and correct a lot of misperceptions on the objective of torture…”

“…See, the point of this diary is not that torture is used to get information (forget 24 folks) but rather it is used to turn a person, exploit them and indoctrinate them.  There is no such thing as brain-washing, you can’t wash someone’s brain of their thoughts, but you can indoctrinate, just watch “Outfoxed” again.  The torturers of today know that, they don’t expect the “ticking bomb” scenario, they want to drive a wedge between the victim and the other detainees; to exploit, indoctrinate, and turn them.

See, I learned that physical pain is NOTHING (but I confess to not have a branding iron applied to my genitals but that attitude sure adds spice to the sex life).  No, the PSYCHOLOGICAL pain is much worse.  Not knowing if you are ever going home to friends and family is much worse than the physical pain because at a point, the brain shuts off the pain receivers, but the psychological rollercoaster remains.  These people at GITMO are not trying to commit suicide because of the physical pain, it’s the psychological pain that’s driving them; and consider that suicide is a mortal sin in Islam as it is in Judeo/Christianity and you have the extent of this psychological pain.

It’s a damn shame, to put it mildly, that these techniques were developed by our Communist “enemies” and now we’re the ones using them.  I recognized the techniques immediately when Abu Graib first broke.  I wanted to blog about it but I signed a sensitive information disclosure agreement and I wouldn’t get the same kid gloves treatment as Uncle Karl…”

I really hate this “I told you so moment” but we’ve seen the enemy, and it is us.  We’ve become exactly what we stood against.

Dear Neil,
I want to thank you for your honest new album Living With War.  See, I am a child of the sixties, no really, I was born in ’66.  My mom was a non-active hippie but a later active feminist with ERA and George McGovern signs on our lawn.  Though she now teaches art history and has illustrated two children’s books, she was a campaign photographer for Tom Daschle in the early eighties.  My dad was a Marine and they divorced when I was two and I ended up with my mom.  And I was a mistake.  I listened to you as a kid, but I didn’t “get” you because, well, I was young.

Like a normal kid, I rebelled against against my mom.  She rebelled against my grandfather who was a Marine aviator in WWII.

Know what I did?  I grew up and became a Green Beret.  I was just in time for Reagan/Bush I and was assigned to Latin America in 7th Special Forces Group.  Unfortunately, I am still paying for that with guilt and shame that comes with my recently diagnosed PTSD, but hey, those are the forgotten dirty wars of the US.

Now I will be 40 next month and I rediscovered you a few years ago.  I’ve been listening to your “old stuff” as if it was a new discovery for me because now I “get” it.  As well as the NY band Sonic Youth (you produced them once or twice, bravo), The Clash, Audioslave, Rage Against The Machine, and a host of others.

But you are the master.  I’m not being a syncophant here, it’s your experience from the sixties/seventies that’s replaying a tragic story today.  I only wish you didn’t have new material to draw from.  Nevertheless, your new album speaks to me just as your “old stuff” spoke to my mother’s generation (I rediscovered CCR too, BTW).

Neil, unfortunately your message applies today just as it did when I was six years old and I wanted Nixon to be reelected because he had the same first name as I do – ah, the comphrehension of children!

So I do enjoy your new album.  It’s remarkable.  It gives me hope and motivation to correct the personal wrongs I did as a perpetrator and help my younger brothers and sisters in the Armed Forces as they will have a heavy burden for the rest of their lives.  They may not realize it now, but it comes back, later in life, when one is out of the military subculture and one realizes what they have done.

So thank you, for your message of my mother’s generation; and thank you for speaking to mine.  It’s just a shame that we didn’t listen to it and learn the first (?) time around.

Ok, my good news diary was yesterday, now time to roll up the sleeves and get back to work.  This grinds my beans, puts my undies in a bundle and a whole shitload of other metaphors as it affects not only me personally, but also all of my brother and sister vets out there.  Yea, let’s throw our vets out of our consciousness because it’s easier to forget them, and it doesn’t cost us a lot of money, when they sleep on a park bench … now, how about that great, new missile defense system!

For more info: http://www.vawatchdog.org

Not my web-site but shamelessly pimping it (for a good cause!)
“Vets’ Commission Chair, General Terry Scott wants to study if vets should get VA compensation and Social Security disability at the same time with the aim of reducing benefits.  In an unconstitutional move, he asks Congress to interpret its own law so he would have the power to launch study.”

Aha, ok, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the system, this is how it works.  Let’s take the example of, hey it’s a modern world, two sister vets who retire today.  Both served honorably and did a hell of a lot for their country, ok.  One was in a position where there wasn’t a lot of physical danger, let’s say a financial specialist at NORAD, but nevertheless important work.  Let’s say our other vet was a Psychological Operations Specialist who was Airborne qualified.  Let’s say (using one of my own injuries here) that one day she was on a jump and the jump master or someone on the Drop Zone party made a mistake and our vet was one of four people put out the door when the ground winds were gusting way too high.  Let’s say she broke her neck and Lumbar on landing.

Still following? Good!  Let’s say both retire today with the same rank and same retirement.  Nevertheless, our airborne vet is not as physically healthy as our NORAD vet and has a disability inhibiting a lot of work that she could do.  Let’s say the VA says that she has a 40% work capability and COMPENSATES her for her disability at 60%.

Now, you would think that since our Airborne vet paid a high physical price, that COMPENSATION would be added on top of the same retirement amount our non-disabled vet has since she is still at 100% work capability and has the ability to be more productive.

But no, there is something called an offset – the amout of your disability COMPENSATION, though tax-free, is subtracted from your NORMAL RETIREMENT, so the sum remains the same as our non-disabled vet and the only REAL compensation is in a small tax break for the VA benefit although our IN-THE-LINE-OF-DUTY disabled vet is only at a 40% work capability.

See how the system is a little unfair?  But wait, you say, you can be compensated by none other than SOCIAL SECURITY too!  Woo Hoo!

Now back to the news story:

“The next step in dismantling veterans’ benefits could be a payment reduction, known as an offset, for veterans receiving disability compensation and Social Security.”

Nice! To the park bench with you!  BTW, Boo-parents of teenagers, ask about this the next time a recruiter come a calling.

“The Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC) was established by Public Law 108-136 and signed into being by President Bush in November 2003.  The VDBC’s charter states they are to study “whether a veteran’s disability or death should be compensated” and at what level if any.

Since the VDBC was first established it was obvious to veterans and veterans’ service organizations (VSOs) that the Commission had one thing in mind and that was cutting veterans’ benefits.  The VDBC is made up of 13 political appointees.  Four were appointed by Democratic Members of Congress, four more by Republican Members and the other five by President Bush.  The VDBC is truly a 9-4 politically-stacked deck even though they like to refer to themselves as bipartisan.  The legality of the VDBC has been questioned by some VSOs.

As the VDBC’s meetings progressed, veterans began to notice a “secretive” quality to the workings of the Commission.  Last fall the VDBC issued a list of questions they would study.  They asked for input and gave veterans just a few days, over a Holiday weekend, to respond.  The questions signaled the direction of the VDBC.  One question was:  “Does the disability benefit provided affect a veteran’s incentive to work?”

Now, “secretive” has taken on a new meaning.  In a recent editorial written by Arthur H. Wilson, National Adjutant for the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) we find:  “Optimism was in short supply at the Commission’s March 16-17 meeting as some of its members maneuvered to authorize collecting data about Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits paid to veterans who also receive VA disability compensation. That was done with a view toward an offset [reduction] of disability insurance if the veteran receives disability compensation from the VA.”

Wilson continues:  “A move to sidestep proper procedures and hold a secret ballot on the matter was postponed, but the issue is expected to resurface at the commission’s meeting in May.  If so, it could lay the groundwork for cutting or eliminating veterans’ benefits as a way of saving the government money.  The idea that disability compensation is some kind of income security or welfare program cheapens the service and sacrifice of disabled veterans. That kind of thinking might also open the door to cutting off VA compensation when a disabled veteran becomes eligible for Social Security retirement benefits.  Veterans’ benefits are separate and distinct from Social Security, so receiving payments under both programs is not dual compensation for the same disability, as some have tried to argue.””

So, they say about 1/3 of our Afghan and Iraq vets will come back with PTSD, not to mention the rise of brain injuries and amputees?  Hey you lazy vets, this is not a welfare state, get a job!  “But, sir, I can’t be a postal carrier, I don’t have any legs.”

“It appears the VDBC is about evenly split on the idea of studying the SSDI issue.  But the Chairman, retired Army Lt. General Terry Scott, is adamant about getting this on the agenda and wants the power to move forward.  And, he wants the help of Congress to push his agenda.  Scott has taken the liberty of writing to Congress asking them to interpret their own law that established the VDBC.

This presents a problem.  It is unconstitutional for Congress to interpret its own laws.  Congress passes laws and the courts interpret them.  But, this hasn’t stopped General Scott.

In an email to the House and Senate Armed Services and Veterans’ Affairs Committees, General Scott writes:  “Some Commissioners believe that this charge [the VDBC’s charter] should be interpreted broadly to mean all related benefits received by disabled veterans under the laws of the United States to include…SSDI payments…the Chairman would appreciate clarification of the intent of Congress in writing or in person during the next Commission public meeting May 19, 2006″”

So, surprise, surprise, the administration is once again extra-constitutional in order to “save money” (how about saving lives, you fucks!).  This time led by a traitorous general (not to the country but to his own troops and comrades-in-arms).  It’s all in the veil of secrecy happening under the I-support-our-troops public’s noses.  If this happens, is it only a vet issue?  No, think about the social consequences – homelessness, addiction, crime to survive, incarcenation, not to mention the flagrant trampling of the Constition that we swore to uphold and defend.

Action?  Maybe you could take the time to call your congress critter before 19 May.  I’m a cynic though.

“General Scott’s unconstitutional request has raised major concerns among the VSOs.  Christopher J. Clay, General Counsel for the DAV, has written to the four Chairmen involved.  In part, Clay’s letter states:  “…[General Scott’s] request, if honored…would violate one of the fundamental principles which have guided the government of the United States for more than 200 years.  That principle is the separation of powers…Congress exercises the sole power to enact laws while the Judicial and Executive Branches have the power to say what those laws mean…neither a committee of either the House or Senate nor the full Congress may interpret a statute after it is enacted, without passing a new law…The DAV is unaware of any precedent for the congressional interpretations requested by the Commission Chairman.  If the Committee responds to the Chairman’s inquiry, it will set a precedent that the courts are no longer the sole arbiters of disputes over our laws.”

Now, veterans play the waiting game.  Will any of the four Congressional Committees respond to General Scott’s request and interpret their own law?  Will General Scott get enough votes from VDBC members to push ahead with his idea to study a Social Security offset (reduction) for veterans’ disability compensation?  We will know by May 19.

But, what we don’t have to wait for is the fact that General Terry Scott and other members of the VDBC want to cut veterans’ benefits and will try to hold secret votes and try to get Congress to, unconstitutionally, interpret its own laws.

General Scott must be reminded that veterans’ disability compensation is not welfare.  It is not to be confused with welfare.  It is not to be confused with any other sort of compensation.  Veterans receive disability compensation because they earned it.  Many earned it on the field of battle.  They don’t deserve to lose it in a Commission hearing.”

Absolutely you fucking REPUGS!  It’s not welfare, it’s COMPENSATION for sacrifing part of my well-being and quality of life for your ideaology of “protecting our freedom”.  Same ideaology as “Support our Troops”.  Your flag waving and sentiment won’t buy me a cup of coffe, you can stuff your ideaology and your flag up your…  Oh, I know, I should’ve thought about that when I was 17 years old when I volunteered, my bad.

BTW, related to this, according to my Vietnam Veteran’s Association Service Officer, is that the military is now diagnosing PTSD as “combat stress”.  See, combat stress is only situational while PTSD is for life.  Once you’re out of the combat situation, ya don’t need COMPENSATION.