opa-opines.net

How do we treat our casualties of war?   Since the first Bush administration, the US has banned media from the ceremonies at Dover AFB, Maryland. The media claims that our citizens need to see the cost of the war. How can we accomplish that and still respect our beloved dead and their families? Often funeral services, especially graveyard services, have encountered groups of demonstrators who attempt to disrupt the ceremonies. How can we allow their demonstrations and still respect the casualties of our wars?

Dover is currently our mortuary. The bodies are brought there without the benefit of mortuary services. So the bodies are not cleaned or treated because the goal is to swiftly return them to US soil. The atmosphere is solemn and the ceremonies meaningful to the military participants and families. It is very personal and emotional. Media snapping pictures and asking questions would seriously interfere with this process.

During my time in the military I served as a casualty assistance officer and conducted graveyard services. Casualty assistance notifies the family of the loss of their loved one and organizes administrative, financial, and ceremonial support for the family. The family is always in shock for several days. Some family members become almost non-functional while they begin to process their grief. Vital decisions must be delayed. I cannot see the media being present when the families first see the remains.

Recently, John Barry offered an interesting suggestion. He suggested that we adopt the Canadian method for handling casualties. The Canadians off load bodies, without media present, then ship them over a hundred miles across busy streets and highways to the mortuary site. The hearses are escorted by police, and traffic is required to yield to the convoy.

Maybe we should adapt the Canadian system to our own use. Barry suggests we fly the remains to Andrews AFB and transport them over one hundred miles to Dover through Washington DC. If we adopted that concept we would make the citizens of our nation aware of the costs of the war, the media could cover the convoy, and the families could join the convoy or meet their loved one at Andrews, Dover, or both.

I can see it now, a ceremonial parade driving slowly past the Lincoln memorial, the Capitol building and the White House. Streets lined with citizens hailing our honored dead. News media filming the grand ceremony, filled with flags and honor guards saluting our fallen heroes.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

How hard is it to appoint a replacement for a US Senator? Governor Paterson of New York seems to think it is a very difficult task. When Senator Hillary Clinton accepted the job as Secretary of State, her seat became vacant and Caroline Kennedy told the Governor of New York that she would like the post. Simple, right? Either appoint her or not. Maybe ask for a resume and a background check then talk to a few people who know her, and decide. Otherwise a fairly simple process, right? Not for Governor Paterson.

There were several vacancies due to staffing the new administration. Two were simple: both the Governor of Colorado and the Governor of Maryland simply appointed a replacement without any fanfare. Illinois, of course, had some controversy when the sitting governor tried sell the appointment. But even Blagojevich, after being clobbered politically, simply appointed a replacement. The action of appointing a replacement for a midterm senatorial vacancy occurs frequently. I can not remember any situation similar to what happened in New York.

It is very unusual to ask someone to campaign for an appointment to a senate vacancy. Most of us would not be prepared to do so. We would not have our positions developed for the full range of current issues that a person would encounter in the Senate. Most sitting Senators would ask for time to develop policy positions before confronting the media. For some reason, Governor Paterson decided that Caroline Kennedy needed to tour the state and “campaign”. No one else who expressed interest in the job was asked by the governor to submit to the torture of having hostile press interviews. Why this treatment of Caroline Kennedy. Is it because she is famous, the daughter of a former president and niece of both Robert and Teddy Kennedy? Was the governor hoping for some political gain?

Other than being a member of a famous family, an attorney, and an active citizen in philanthropic work, I do not know if Caroline is the best person to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate. I do know, however, that no one should be treated with such disrespect. Governor Paterson, shame on you.

This nation is in a mess as we have several crises. Both political parties and most citizens agree that these are emergency times. What I fail to understand is why anyone – especially those in positions of power or responsibility – would stand in the way.

Rush Limbough said recently that he hopes Obama fails as President. Good as Rush may be, I think he is off base. In my many years in the active military I served 6 Presidents. I didn’t agree with some of their programs. Often, I admit, I would have preferred a different President, but I followed our leader.

We have a tradition in the USA. We fight one another during each election but once the votes are counted and a winner declared, the losing party or group follows the winning candidate. Sure we continue to point out mistakes and criticize decisions, but once a decision is made we submit (even unwillingly). This code has become the American way, the only exception I can find is the succession of the South during the Civil War.

So, Rush, you often accuse other people of not being patriotic, what about you. Disagree with the President all you want, but to wish that he fails is to wish that American fails – don’t you get that? If you have better ideas, just mention them and sell them. Tell us how you know that your way works. Many of your principled concepts were used during the past eight years. Please explain exactly what went wrong because it escapes most conservatives. Seldom have I been more disappointed in a person that calls himself a conservative. Ronald Reagan would be angry for your lack of patriotism.

In the early 60′s, a college friend introduced me to “Conscience of a Conservative” by Goldwater. My friend explained that if government does not interfere it allows business to function efficiently. Business grows and profits and the result is good for everyone. Sounded like a great idea.

Conservative economic leaders believe in the axioms of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The concepts of less regulation and lower taxes have indeed allowed business to flourish through the 1980s and 90s.  These axioms assume, however, that corporate leaders can be trusted to make decisions that are for the common good. The great American machine wants to allow everyone in the society to flourish.

Have the last several decades proved conservative economists wrong? When Enron failed and appeared corrupt, was that an exception? When AIG needed government bailout, did that deny the validity of the conservative concept? When financial wizards invented the CDS (Credit Default Swaps), were they using the rules of Goldwater?  When mortgage companies devised tricky loan documents for vulnerable “sub prime” customers, were they using the guides of Reagan?

How can we trust business again? The current economic crisis is resilient because of fear – people with money are reluctant to loan because they fear borrower default. What can be done to allow us to trust again? How do we fix the trust problem?  Some conservative genius must answer this question.

The election is finally over (unless you live in Minnesota or Georgia). No more misleading, often slanderous, television ads that play on the fears and prejudices of our citizens. Sure we are in a “lame duck” session, but events seem to be friendly and more honest. Our national problems, of course, continue during this time of waiting between administrations.

The last three weeks have provided a contrast between the President and the President Elect. President Bush appears to be ignoring the economic crises and focusing on executive orders he can issue before he leaves office. He is pardoning a few people. He is releasing governmental barriers that prevent companies from drilling and mining on National Park land. Accordingly Bush is upsetting his opponents.

Normally we expect a President Elect to use the time between the election and the inauguration to select an administrative team and cabinet. We know that it takes time to organize an administration that will manage the most powerful government in the world. This time is different. Pundits were asking what Obama was doing to solve our nation’s problems just a few days after the election. I remember explaining to many people that the power of the presidency begins on the 20th of January. In my circles I was a lone voice. People want action and are impatient.

Obama has risen to the call. He is finding subtle ways to send symbolic messages to foreign leaders. He has held several press conferences to discuss the economy and announce appointments of his economic team. The stock market has responded. With simple, positive actions, President Elect Obama is acting like he is the President and the world seems happy to get him early.

So, fasten your seat belts because the Obama Administration is going to be an exciting ride.

Little time has passed since the election and powerful issues are begging for attention.

The war is marching into a unique stage. Recently Iraq agreed to a “status of forces” compromise that will quickly move US troops out of combat and into enclaves, subject to the will of the Iraqi government. Afghanistan, noting the agreed withdrawal in Iraq, wants to negotiate the withdrawal of American forces. This is huge change in the war picture.

Iraq is an immediate problem for the new administration. The proposed status of forces agreement contains several unacceptable conditions: Iraqi government approval for operations outside U.S. enclaves; searching incoming supply packages and checking personal mail; and making American civilian contractors subject to Iraqi law. I can see the Iraqi politician’s point of view concerning US military activities, but a politically restricted army is very vulnerable. Bush, who has spoken against any time line for disengaging from Iraq, has suddenly taken an unfortunate reversal.

Inspecting a soldier’s personal mail violates his privacy rights. In previous wars it was common for our intelligence agencies to censor private mail to avoid a soldier unconsciencely compromising security by revealing operational data. Our soldiers complained, but accepted the practice since they knew the importance of security. Having a foreign government censor the mail is without justification.

Making civil contractors subject to Iraq law is a mistake. Because if our military restructuring since 1990s, we are dependent on civilian contractors for supply, providing meals, and transportation. Security of our diplomatic agencies has been outsourced to civilian contractors. If a terrorist attacks our Ambassadors. We cannot adequately protect such civilians without freedom of action – without fear of being arrested for using forceful techniques.

If our new administration is stuck with such an agreement, I believe we should quickly remove our forces from these countries.

Our election season is not over, Georgia is having a runoff election for the US senate. There is a clear choice in this senate race. Senator Chambliss seems to be a man without honor. In the 2002 election he ran against Max Cleland, and won by a narrow margin. How he “won” illustrates the evil that elections often celebrate.

Max Cleland is an American hero. Max served honorably during the Vietnam war and lost three limbs while serving his country. Max suffered the pain of surgical procedures, the emotional stress of adjusting to his damaged body, and the fatiguing work of extensive physical and occupational therapy. Max earned the title of patriot.

Chambliss artfully dodged the draft. Through many deferments, Saxby avoided military service and while Max worked to rebuild his body and his life, Chambliss moved up the ladder of “success”. While Max believed “country first”, Saxby practiced “me first”. Chambliss’s selfish attitude continues in his life.

In 2002, Saxby challenged Max for the US Senate. After waging a losing campaign for awhile, Saxby decided to smear Max. Chambliss paid for a fancy video that called Max a traitor and attempted to link him with our nations’ enemies. None of the claims against Max were true, but enough people questioned Max’s patriotism that he lost in a close election.

Will Georgia return such a man to the US Senate? I can’t see any “real” American reelecting a man without honor. Hopefully, Georgia will send a message: “do not dishonor our veterans.”

I read a historical novel where, when a Christian character says to a “pagan” character “have you seen the meaning of Christian love and forgiveness?” The “pagan” character replies “No, No, that is the last thing I have learned”, then cites examples of Christians and Christian leaders who hate each other, war against each other, and attempt to enforce Christianity at the point of a sword.* How many of us, often in the name of our religion, attempt or merely speak of enforcing our will or our philosophy upon others?

In the recent election, for example, I observed people calling themselves “Christian” while pushing their ideas of morality to become the law so that everyone, regardless of their religion, would be required to obey. I have seen many people judging the words or actions of others and reacting by communicating slanderous tales about those they have judged.

There are two references for consideration. First, the Bill of Rights, which promises freedom of religion, and speech. The second, Matthew 7:1-2

“Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.”

If I have freedom of religion how must it be protected? Does that mean that I have the right to make everyone Christian? I don’t think so. A wise philosophy professor I had in college said that “every right begats a duty.” Within our class discussion he made it very clear that for you to have a right I must recognize it. For example, if I wish to exercise my freedom of religion by going to church and the government outlaws churches, they are denying my right. How can I claim we have freedom of religion in the United States of America if I insist that everyone live by Christian beliefs?

The gospel of Matthew suggests to me that I avoid judging other people. To me that does not mean that I must accept your actions that I believe are immoral, but does suggest that I leave the “judgment” to God. I may pray for you. I may advise you if you will listen. I may decide not to vote for you if you are a political candidate. I may even refuse to associate with you. Those actions merely enforce my beliefs upon myself. But if I judge you I imply that I have power over you, and if I spread my judgement by circulating slanderous remarks to others, I have avoiding seeing “the beam in my own eye.”

* Valley of The Shadow, Peter Tremayne, p. 300.

In the last several elections leaders of the “Christian” right have appeared to have significant power by urging voters to seek candidates with “Christian” attitudes and policies. With support of the Christian right, Ronald Regan beat Jimmy Carter, and George W Bush beat Gore and Kerry. The Christian right has controlled 5 of the last 7 presidential elections.

 How does one determine if a candidate is “Christian” enough”? When evaluating a candidate, I was told that I needed to examine his stand on abortion and same sex marriage. Later lower taxes, smaller government, and reducing “welfare” rolls were added to the litany. It has been asserted that the Bible supports these issues. Well, what does the Bible say?

A careful study of the Scriptures revealed no mention of “gay marriage or abortion (abortion may be assumed from the Commandment “thou shall not kill”). I could find no reference to lowering taxes (although people disliked tax collectors) , having a small government, or reducing welfare rolls.

Newsweek, July 14, 2008, noted that during this coming election, a large number of conservative Christians, before committing to a candidate, are focusing upon the demands of the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.

MATT 25: 25:31-46 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations  will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Well, I see a real challenge here for many politicians. A few do help feed the hungry and provide shelter for the homeless, but many fight the concept that the less fortunate should be helped. How many fight having a comprehensive health care plan to care for those “least of our brothers” who are ill? How many are against providing for the welfare of the poor, unemployed, or the elderly? Some of the politicians who push the hardest against abortion and gay marriage are the most adamant about having the disadvantaged care for themselves.

So, who really are the “Christian” candidates?

After listening to Sarah Palin and to John McCain’s anti Obama ads, I finally know what is it to be an American. What follows are a list of requirements.          

Be ready to condemn people

Wear a flag pen

Be a Christian

Even better, be a conservative Christian

Listen to other citizen’s telephone calls

Attack your opponent even if you must lie

Do not enforce laws unless you like them

Invade other countries

Deny the right to vote to those who disagree with you

If you can’t win an election steal it.

If you don’t have a position blame your opponent

If people don’t like what you say – lie

You must be quick to condemn others if they do not speak out against:

Abortion

Gay rights – especially gay “marriage”

Sin

Action on these “core” issues is not required

Strategy:

Always use Fox News.

If you are not in the majority, condemn the majority

If you can’t win the vote of people – deny them the vote

Believe that the end justifies the means

Research your opponent’s life and publicize any mistakes or “bad” associations – remember “guilt by association.”

If your opponent does not have real evil in his life, exaggerate what you do find or invent evil and accuse him anyway (for example, his ninth cousin was “Jack the ripper”.

Have courage, the polls are wrong. Remember: We elected a draft dodger by claiming his opponent was not a true American (Senator Max Cleland – a decorated war hero who lost three limbs in battle). Also we successfully invented the “swift boat” charges that hurt John Kerry. Finally, we used that “doctored” picture of Harold Ford with a white woman, which energized the racial backlash against Ford.

Have courage, we will win no matter what it takes.