I hate being prescient

Senate committee passes bill to define "journalist"
Forty years ago, as a young college journalist, I attended the national convention of Sigma Delta Chi as a student delegate. SDX, as it was called at the time, was what is now known as the Society of Professional Journalists.

At that meeting, during a session on the Watergate scandal involving the Nixon Administration, I got to ask a question of Benjamin Bradley, then the executive editor of the Washington Post and the response I got was “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

My question? It was simple and straight forward. Mr. Bradley was on a panel and I directed my question to him:

“Sir, in light of all the investigative reporting the Post has done on the Watergate affair, what is your view of shield laws to protect journalists?”

There was this long pause, and then Mr. Bradley said, “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

What followed was a lively discussion between the seven panelists (including one from the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s office (OSP)  who was in charge of negotiating with the media over getting information they had uncovered in their investigations). At one point, Mr. Bradley revealed that the Post that day had been served with a subpoena from the OSP, at which the poor fellow from the OSP about twisted his head off to look at the Post editor. You see, he was the first step in issuing those subpoenas and legal writs and he knew nothing about this one.

Now, I think Mr. Bradley and I shared a problem with Shield Laws. You see, the protections of the First Amendment apply to all American citizens, not just to people who work for newspapers, magazines or TV and radio stations (add in Cable Networks now).

So, if you are trying to protect freedom of the press by shielding reporters, etc., from having to divulge sources of information that ordinary citizens can be forced to divulge by court order then you have to define who is protected and who is not protected.

That is a very difficult problem because freedom of the press, as I have repeatedly pointed out over the intervening years, belongs to everybody, whether he or she is employed by a news gathering and disseminating organization or just somebody who is passing out leaflets on the street corner (or blogging on the internet). The people who promote shield laws want to make themselves protected like priests and lawyers but in each of those cases you have to meet a minimum requirement and basically be recognized (or licensed) by the government for the protect to apply.

My contention is that when you start “licensing” journalists then you are infringing on the freedom of the press of those people who are not employed by “media”. You see, for the court to say who is included in this special class of people, then somebody has to define what is qualifying news gathering organization.

If the court (government) only recognizes (therefore allows) only certain people the privilege of protecting their sources, then two things happen.

1. The equality before the law that is supposed to be the great hallmark of our system of governance is breached big time.
2. The government gets to say who gets to play and who does not and that opens the door wide for the suppression of unpopular views or even simple dissents from the consensus viewpoint.

Note that there is no way to define a journalist without running afoul of this trap, as I have patiently explained to an number of attorneys who were advocating journalist shield laws in a couple of states. They admitted I was right but argued that it was for a greater good.

My response to that is who set up journalists as gods and what requirements do they have to meet to be so designated. I say that because in my 30-plus years as a working journalist at 12 different newspapers across the United States, I have found many a good reporter / photographer / “journalist” who had none of the degrees or certifications that would qualify them as a “professional” other than their contributions to the publication that I was working for at the time.

I quit one editor job after the publisher told me that if he ever got sued, he was going to sue me. And he wanted me to play watchdog on local government officials? Oh boy, I got out of there as fast as I could.

Now, it seems the federal government is going to define who is a journalist and who is not. I warned people that this would happen if they started enacting shield laws. It also was just the first step in controlling the media. I repeat that warning now.

This is a bad law and I hope it won’t go anywhere.

Good cop, bad cop

Russians, Syrians jump on Kerry's proposal
After reading the WaPo’s story on the developments surrounding the US threat to bomb Syrian government military facilities in response to the Aug. 21, 2013, chemical attack that killed anywhere from 350 to 1400 Syrian civilians in a rebel-held area, I am so struck by the proposition that either President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry either have been played like a fiddle by the Russians or there was a whole lot of colluding going on to convince the Assad regime that it was in its best interest to divest itself of chemical weapons before the rebels seized them.

This is playing out like an old-fashioned crime movie, with the Russians playing the good cop and the US playing the bad cop. You know the scene where the perp is in the interrogation room and they are trying to get him to turn state’s evidence. The bad cop goes and threatens to wreak holy hell on the perp if he doesn’t turn over on his buddies in crime. The good cop comes in, offers the perp a cigarette and gets all buddy buddy with him. Warning that if he doesn't do the reasonable thing, the good cop won’t be able to protect him from the evils of the bad cop.

Bingo, the guy flips and tells all.

Now, if I was a conspiracy buff, it would seem awfully suspicious that Russian President Putin and US President Obama just happened to be at a joint meeting last week (the G-20 summit) and went to great lengths to put on a show how they couldn’t stand each other. And Kerry has his head together with his Russian counterpart where someone accidentally raises the concept. Nothing official mind you, just what do you think kind of thing.

Then, the week ends with Obama rattling the US saber as loudly as he can, but he backs off a bit to say: well, let me take this up with Congress. Over the weekend, all the talk is about trying to get Congress and the American people to buy into an act of war against Syria. Well, the media war began long ago, but that is beside the point.

Anyway, Deputy Sheriff Kerry, on his way home from a meeting with his European Union counterparts, holds a press conference and in apparent off-hand response to a question about what could avert a US attack, he say: well, if Syria would get rid of all its chemical weapons and put them under international (read UN) control in a week, then all would be hunky dory but … that’s not going to happen.

The next thing, the good cop deputy is calling the bad cop deputy and saying we got a deal and goes public with it.  By the time Deputy Kerry is on the ground, everybody knows and everybody who doesn’t want the bad cop to do anything is running around trying to figure out how they can make it happen.

Now, I am not saying this is the way things went down. I am not saying it is going to work. I am saying it does tend to make you think it might be what is going down and people in leadership positions are actually smarter than we think.

Or it really could just be another gaffe from the Obama Administration that the Russians are using for their gain and the detriment of the US.

Life is interesting, isn’t it?

Government by fiat

Obama, rejected by Congress, implements new gun control steps

Now, if you don’t have problems with the sentence above, then you have problems living in a democratic republic.

The Obama Administration, failing to get its gun control agenda through Congress, said it is going to go around Congress and by executive order implement its idea of gun control.

This is government by executive fiat and we are seeing a distressing increase in it in the United States under the current administration.

But let's take the gun control steps first.

By using the language (and most people’s limited understanding of what is really being said), the administration’s decision to block the re-importation of “military-grade” firearms given as military aid a half-century ago probably seems reasonable. Can’t have all those Army automatic weapons like machineguns being purchased by civilians.

However, the real impact is to block the re-importation of the staple weapon used by most of the infantrymen in World War II and the Korean War: the M1 Garand 30-06 caliber semiautomatic rifle. The problem with the Garand is that it makes a lousing weapon in the hands of a criminal. It is big with only an 8-round clip in its magazine. It one fires one bullet at a time and automatically ejects the clip when your 8th round goes down range. It also will smash the heck out of your thumb if you don’t get it out of the way of the bolt when you insert a new clip (and try manually setting up a clip some time, it ain’t fun). It does not even come close to fitting anyone’s description of the fearful “assault rifle.” No 30-round detachable magazines, etc.

Why the administration is banning the re-importation of such collectible weapons is beyond me, but there is some rationale there somewhere.

Still, back to the basic point: When is the current US administration going to be called to account for using its regulatory powers to circumvent the legislative powers of the Congress chosen by the people to enact the rules they want?

I think the American people need to start asking why Congress is laying down on the job and not challenging the executive branch’s usurpation of its powers.

Inequality is life

Obama: Inequality is morally wrong

 

President Obama, never my favorite person, just leaves me shaking my head with wonder.

Where did we find this guy?

Look, I think somebody needs to explain the realities of life to him (not that I expect it to happen).

When one speaks of  “equality” in the political/historical sense, we are not talking about equality of outcomes. We are not talking about everyone having the same as everyone else, or even anything approximating equality of what we may or may not possess.

No. what we are – or should be – talking about is equality before the law; with government treating us all equally and not showing favoritism toward any individual or group (or the flip side, persecuting or discriminating against any individual or group). However, it seems that concept has been lost in transition between generations somewhere … or maybe it was in translation.

Granted, the generations that came before us were not perfect, nor were they omniscient or omnipotent. Like us, they were flawed individuals who strove to make a more perfect union. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell people like President Obama and other progressives, that “union” does not mean people are to be shaped with a cookie-cutter to be exactly the same.

Equivalence of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, or – even more importantly – equality before the law.

As the President said in his speech this week, many people are being conditioned to believe: Inequality is wrong.

At first glance, it is hard to argue that “inequality” is wrong, but we have to define what is not being equal. If we are talking about economic outcome, then we are talking about something that is not the Provence of any government.

People are different. Individuals are essentially unique and therefore implicitly and explicitly INEQUAL. Sorry, but it isn’t going to happen. You can not use government to make everyone equal in life … it is impossible.

But our President is decrying the inequality of economic conditions and pledging to use the powers of government to correct this perceived problem … and if Congress doesn’t cooperate, he plans to do it by executive fiat.

If this doesn’t scare you, then you don’t understand that freedom isn’t free, liberty comes at a price and that if you want either then you have to accept that some people are just going to be different.

But no, we can’t have that. We have to resent all that others have.

That is beginning to scare me. I see far too many people, the President included, saying this group is wrong and that group is wrong and it is the federal government’s job to correct all that they define as evil, or wrong or an injustice.

We have lost our way, and unfortunately, the more I look at it, the more it seems that Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was politically prophetic.

 

This however is so very true:

Life is like a cup of coffee

Maybe the rest of the story

Egyptian cleric sentenced for burning Bible
When an Egyptian cleric burned a copy of the Bible last fall in front of the US Embassy in Cairo, it was interesting to read that Egyptian authorities arrested him and his son under that country’s blasphemy laws.
There was a trial about a month later and then the case seemed to drop beneath all radars, until this past week, when an Egyptian news agency reported the cleric noted for his presence on Egyptian broadcast TV had been sentenced for the act.
Apparently, such prosecutions apparently are relatively rare in Egypt, except when it is Christians who offend Muslims (according to most reports).
As a supporter of the rule of law, it is gratifying to see the law applied equally, or some semblance of it (the fine is ridiculously low when compare to the fine levied on a Coptic Christian which is cited in the HuffPo version).
On the other hand, as American and as a supporter of the US Constitution’s First Amendment, I would have opposed prosecution in both cases. People have the right to offend and be offended but that does not always give the State/Government the right or even obligation to punish the offenders. That is what freedom of speech is all about.
As the old saying goes: I may vehemently disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.
Unfortunately, the filmmaker who “started” this phoo-pha-rah apparently remains in a US jail for violating his probation on an unrelated charge. He was jailed after members of President Obama’s administration called for his prosecution. Now that is a sad commentary on the American sense of justice.

Forever wars

Will my grandkids be fighting our 'forever war'?
I apologize for being dormant for such a period, but I have relocated (moved) and have spent the last four-plus months getting settled in.
Having said that, it is not that I haven’t been thinking, just haven’t been writing … and there has been much on my mind.
This will be a short take, and a politically incorrect one at that.
The author of the above link asks a question: Will my grandkids be fighting our 'forever war'?
Simple answer: Yes
But my reaction was more on the perception that our current “war” is a Westphalian “war” – that is a war between organized nation states.  Westphalian wars are like the named wars in history, which basically were conflicts between two or more nation states over some political or economic objective. The Global War on Terrorism, or more accurately: The Global War on Islamic Jihadiis, is not a "Westphalian war".
The problem with Islamic Jihadiis is that they are not a nation-state and so drawing parallels with past wars against nation states – like World Wars I & II, Korea, Persian Gulf I, Iraq and most of the other wars in American history – really is trying to compare apples and oranges.
However, I feel there is a more apt parallel: the 300-year plus war fought against the Native American tribes in North America. Like the Indians, Jihadiis are more tribal than anything else and eschew controlling territory in favor of eliminating competitors.
Ok, simplistic view, I agree, but one that is more appropriate than viewing the current conflict through the 17th Century pact that ended one of the bloody endless wars in Europe and marked the dominance of the concept of nation-states (with capitals, and national armies and so forth).
What we are seeing now is more akin to the centuries of wars fought against the Indians … which, when you think about it, probably is much more representative of wars that have been fought throughout mankind’s history. Unfortunately, Americans (such as the author of the above referenced article) seem to demonstrate a real lack of understanding of not only the history of their country, but of history in general. I know it is a boring subject to most people, but to remain ignorant of it is to doom yourself to replicating earlier miscues. Trite cliché, I admit, but also very true. We must remember that experience is our best teacher.
So, using the Indian Wars as a template, the answer to the gentleman’s question is undoubtedly “yes”.
One must remember for this dedicated small slice of the realm called Islam, there is no second way; there is no compromise; there is no quarter to be given. It is surrender to our paradigm, or die.

My goodness

President tells Congress about US mission in Somali

It seems that the French fiasco in Somali at least got the president to admit that there is a War Powers Act. I hope the progressives are happy.

Now, if he would just to the same about the US support for the French intervening in Mali.

Abdication of responsibility

Reid tells Obama not to wait for Congressional OK to raise debt

Did I miss something, or has the Senate been out to lunch for a few years now.

Ok, Congress is split between the Republicans holding the House and the Democrats controlling the Senate. It has been a recipe for gridlock (which really isn’t all bad) but it supposed to be a recipe for compromise. Unfortunately, it seems, under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, compromise with the House is beneath the Senate under his watch.

Note that the Senate has not passed an actual budget in more than three years, and now Reid is telling the president that he can raise the congressionally mandated debt ceiling by executive fiat and to ignore those idiots in the House who are demanding some cuts to federal expenditures as the price for raising the debt ceiling.

It matters not that the federal government already owes $15 trillion (yes, that is TRILLION as in 15,000,000,000,000 – yeah … with 12 zeros). It will run into a problem, because it is borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar it spends these days. Of course, it is all in the name of stimulating the economy.

However, it is Congress, not the Executive Branch, which controls the federal government’s purse strings according to that document nobody seems to want to remember these days called the Constitution. You know the basic law and charter that underpins who does what in the federal government and what the federal government can and cannot do. Yeah, that obscure document.

Well, it seems to me that Sen. Reid and his cohorts have pretty much punted and have abdicated their responsibility for the last three years. Now, it seems they want to give up even more responsibility to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

You know, just how modern American is that. Nobody seems to what to take responsibility for what they are supposed to do, society-wide, it seems. Okay, I am being a bit harsh on a goodly chunk of Americans, but it does seem that the mindset of let the other guy (i.e. government) take care of what needs to be done is carrying the day.

Washington Post political columnist George Will recently pointed how just how much the Democrats have basically given up on ever balancing the federal budget. Time for a balanced budget

It really is sad, when the people who are supposed to be representing the states can’t seem to do their jobs. But then again, I remind myself, this is what 52 percent or so of the country voted for back in November.

Just remember two things when the train wreck hits.

1. It is all the Republicans fault.

2. The federal government can spend all the money it wants because the “rich” will pay for it.

But that is the way it is in America … instead of a nation of industrious ants, we have become a nation of grasshoppers as per the ancient fable.

What was it the poet laureate of my generation used to say?

“What? Me worry?”   – Alfred E. Neuman.

Off the deep end

I love it when American politicians use rhetoric to describe their foes that probably are merely self-reflections.



Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, assails the speaker of the House, his Republican counterpart, Rep. John Bohner of Ohio, as a dictator because he can't seem to get is fractious body to pass legislation that either the Senate or the President will approve. Ah, Sen. Reid, when was the last time the Senate passed a budget bill (rather than merely a continuing resolution which doesn’t really qualify).  Come to think of it, how many major bills the House have been voted on in the Senate?



Then Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, thinks all Republicans are freaky fanatics, or so he said in a Huffington Post piece. Heck, I could say that about a lot of the Democrats and progressives I know. Especially those who seem to freak out about guns.



I would like to point out to the latter the Second Amendment is not about hunting or shooting at targets. It is about giving the people the means to resist tyranny of the federal government. That is why the acts concerning the unorganized militia (the organized ones being the Reserves and National Guards) stipulate that the folks in the unorganized militias arm themselves with military caliber weapons (which right now means Remington’s .223 caliber and the Winchester .308 caliber, with 9mm being the choice for pistols – except for the Marines who may be going back to the .45 caliber ACP)


And whilst we toddle off the fiscal cliff, whatever that may be, it is comforting to see out president doing what he does best, it seems, leading from behind.

Oh, well, Doomsday didn’t happen and it won’t happen Jan 1, 2013, despite what the media pundits and politicians tell us.

Stormin’ Norman passes away

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the former commander of U.S. Central Command, passed away (a nice way to say he died) Dec. 27, 2012.


For those not familiar with Stormin’ Norman, he was the commander of allied forces during the Gulf War (aka Operation Desert Shield/Operation Desert Storm, or the 1st Iraq War).

I worked under him during Operation Desert Shield (though I never met the man – THANK GOD!), and for the commander the next echelon down from him during Desert Storm.

My memories of Swarzkopf? He had one a hell of a presence at a press conference.

From the testimonies of my superiors and those in my field who did have regular contact him: He was absolutely an SOB to work for and came by Stormin Norman aptly. He apparently had a real temper and did not suffer fools, incompetents, or uninformed lightly.

Still, he could motivate people to get the job done and his plan (although the solution was obvious to me like four months before I saw it) worked better than expected.

I have a few anecdotes, like the one about Lt. Gen. Fred Franks having to really scramble to get troops to the crossroads that Schwarzkopf had designated for the ceasefire talks. It seems when Franks reported the crossroads were under allied control by VII Corps, he meant that there were a pair of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters hovering over it and the nearest ground troops were some kilometers away. OOPSIE.

Anyway, the good general is gone now: May he rest in a warrior’s peace.