Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Help! I Agree with Nancy Pelosi!!!

H.R. 2389 passed the United States House of Representatives today by a margin of 260-167. The bill is intended to protect school children across this fair land from the horrid fate of being prevented from uttering the Pledge of Allegiance in their classrooms because it contains the phrase "Under God".

Quoting Jim Abrams from his Associated Press article "House OKs bill guarding Pledge from courts": Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.. . . . The pledge bill would deny jurisdiction to federal courts, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to decide questions pertaining to the interpretation or constitutionality of the pledge.

It is this element of the bill that is particularly frightening. How could the Congress possibly imagine it can pass a law that is not subject to judicial review? Schools may in theory be local institutions, but the reality is that federal funding has effectively nationalized all public education. The provision of the bill that would allow individual states to determine whether the Pledge passes local muster is purely cosmetic and not at all a viable solution in the real world. When little Johnny's parents move up the street from Bristol, Tennessee, to Bristol, Virginia, is he going to be tossed in jail the first day in his new school for inadvertently uttering the "G" word in front of his highly impressionable peers?

The world is becoming a truly frightening place when I am forced to admit that I wholeheartedly agree with Nancy Pelosi. Commenting on the bill she said, "We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail."

If Pelosi is talking sense, can the men with the extra long sleeved white jacket be far behind?

Sunday, July 16, 2006

A Final Nail in Childhood's Coffin

In 1982 I turned 18. The Viet Nam War was still fresh in everyone's mind, the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks had not yet happened, Grenada was not even in the planning stages yet. Patriotic fervor was far from running rampant among the youth of America, and like so many of my peer group I saw no value to military service. As I grew older my views matured, and by the time the first Gulf War rolled around I was ready to enlist. Not because I wanted to get shot at, or had any romantic notions that my single rifle would stand between Democracy and the Abyss, but simply because I had long since come to understand that some actions simply ought to be undertaken because they are the right thing to do. Two young children, and more importantly the mother of those children, can be very powerful persuaders against voluntary entry into military service. Especially during a time of war.

When the current conflict in Iraq came to a head, the various service branches were all in agreement on one thing - I was too old to be of any use. Opportunity lost. One son and one son-in-law in uniform were the only contributions I had left to make to an obligation I had been too immature to recognize at the time.

On June 22, the United States Army raised the age for enlistment to 42, once again cracking that door open. June 25 I discovered this. June 26 I was researching what would be needed to throw in my lot with the Army, and by June 30 I was at the door of my local recruiter.

Summer vacations can be so inconvenient at times. Between phone calls, email, and sheer persistence I did finally make contact with him, a phone call received on the morning of July 5. He was initially unaware of the details of the change in enlistment requirements, as that change had taken place while he was spending quality time with the family instead of with his employer. He promised to do a bit of research and get back to me. By the early part of that afternoon he called back.


Slamming that particular door forever. It seems that 42 actually means in Basic no later than one week prior to ones 42nd birthday. In many ways, it is far more disappointing to have squandered the legitimate chances given me as a younger man and then had this carrot dangled before me and snatched away than it would have been to get a chance to try and fail.

So the last feeble chance at holding on to youth is finally and formally laid to rest. But! Tomorrow keeps on coming. As long as we keep remembering that simple fact and continue to face the sunrise the opportunities and possibilities are endless.

For all of you who have had the maturity and wisdom to serve, in the past, at present, or during the years to come, thank you and stay well. For all the spouses, children, and parents who support that service and make it possible thank you as well. They could not do it without you in their corner.

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Long Live the Sharon Doctrine

It must be nice to be the biggest bully in the neighborhood, especially if you have the comfort of an even bigger bully standing behind you to save your bacon should that prove necessary.

Ariel Sharon's policy of provoking aggression on the part of Palestinians, of setting impossible conditions and then holding the parties accountable when those conditions are not achieved, continue to thrive in the Israel of Ehud Olmert. The most recent example is the ongoing handling of the situation involving Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

After suggestions in recent weeks that there might be signs of a softening of the Hamas stance calling for the elimination of Israel, Olmert took the opportunity of Shalit's capture to make Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh personally responsible for Shalit's safe return and placing him under penalty of death. On Sunday they even went so far as to launch a missile attack against his office - even while negotiations for a peaceful return of the soldier appeared to be progressing. And completely ignoring the fact that it is believed those holding Shalit take their orders not from Haniyeh but instead from Syrian-based Khaled Mashaal.

News flash for Prime Minister Olmert: Killing people is not a proven method of convincing others not to reciprocate. Shalit is still alive, and it is more probable your actions threaten that state rather than enhance his chances of remaining so.

There is no question that Israeli civilians have suffered horribly from the actions of suicide bombers. It is unconscionable that the bombings continue. It is unacceptable that Palestinian gunmen invaded sovereign Israeli territory to capture Cpl. Shalit. But, both eyes for an eye and a whole room full of teeth for a tooth has not worked as a policy thus far. It is incumbent upon Israel as the exponentially more powerful party in this conflict to contain violence, and to not resort to murder in the guise of military response to provocation as a means of pretending to solve anything.

Perhaps the Israeli intent is to provoke the execution of Shalit so that they will be "justified" in executing an overwhelming military response that will, based on past history, take a heavy toll on unarmed civilian Palestinian women and children. Or perhaps Israel is reacting in anger instead of implementing a fully reasoned and considered policy. The first notion is despicable, the second frightening if being conducted by a military with the capacity of Israel's.

In either event, Israel does not need to fear the results of their actions. If too many of their neighbors become concerned and threaten a response, any help Israel may need will be immediately forthcoming from a United States who will justify any action to preserve its ally in the Middle East. The issue for American politicians is not one of right or wrong, but rather one of being all too aware the Cuban immigrants and American Jews are the linchpin for victory in too many important elections.