Roman Polanski: A Case of Pure Injustice

No, I’m not about to contradict the article I wrote yesterday concerning Roman Polanski’s deserved punishment. Yet while the case of Polanski illustrates the importance of honoring the philosophical traditions of justice, pure justice as I called it, it also illustrates a justice system gone horribly wrong.

Last night I watched the documentary film “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” and if you get beyond the film maker’s attempt to humanize Polanski, what you get is a picture of a dysfunctional judicial system. Let’s get to the plea bargain and the influence of Polanski’s fame later, since it is the most important issue in my mind. First let’s look at why Polanski fled the country.

When Polanski plead to the lesser charge of “unlawful sex with a minor” (what other states call statutory rape), he was then examined by a psychiatrist who declared that he was not an “MDSO” mentally disturbed sex offender. Probation was advised. The judge, a grandstanding egomaniac, not wanting to appear soft on Polanski, “sentenced” him to 90 days at a psychiatric prison for further observation. He engineered the equivalent of a mock proceeding where the defense and prosecuting attorney’s made arguments before the judge, already fully knowing the 90 day deal that had been struck behind closed doors.  After Polanski was released having served only 42 days, the judge got nervous and told the defense and prosecuting attorney’s that he wanted Polanski to serve another 48 days and waive his rights to challenge deportation. At this point neither the prosecuting nor defense attorneys trusted the judge anymore. Polanski’s attorney told him the judge could not be trusted to commit to any particular sentence. Uncertain what his fate would be, and distrusting what he viewed as a circus court, Polanski fled the country.

Now I am not defending Polanski’s decision to run. However I am saying that a judge, operating by the seat of his pants as well as outside the law (the judge had no authority in the area of deportation) greatly contributed to a disorderly proceeding. The fascinating thing about the film “Wanted and Desired” is that it shows the defense and prosecution  were on the same page regarding the judge’s behavior. Both men didn’t find Polanski’s self imposed exile the least bit surprising.

To blame a rogue judge for the 32 year delay in punishing Polanski does not go far enough. Polanski drugged his victim and even while under the influence the victim said no to Polanski’s advances. As he progressed from one sex act to another, the victim asked him to stop.  This is rape, plain and simple. It is not statutory rape. So why did the plea bargain proceed? Oddly there was unanimity of opinion among Polanski’s attorney, the state prosecutor and the victim’s private attorney that the media circus that might result from a trial was not worth the trouble. This is where the real shame of the Polanski trial can be found. To make matters worse, prior to going to psychiatric prison, Polanski was given a 90 stay of sentencing so he could finish working on a film. Could a rape be made any more trivial than that?

Sadly, the injustice that goes on in our criminal justice system is standard operating procedure. Plea bargains are used all the time to stem the flood of cases going to trial. Perhaps some consolation can be found in the cases of Phil Specter and OJ Simpson, the latter of whom got away with murder but was finally incarcerated for another crime (in what I am convinced was an attempt to right the wrong of his earlier acquittal).

Still, too often, media attention and deals with the devil compromise our justice system. Had the legal system worked the way it was supposed to back in 1978, Polanski would have been convicted of the right crime and done the proper time.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Roman Polanski: A Case of Pure Justice

The question of what exactly justice is has been debated since the days of Socrates and Plato. This week we have a case that raises this debate anew. I consider the case of film director Roman Polanski an issue over what is justice in its purest sense.

Thirty two years ago, Roman Polanski drugged a 13 year old model who was posing for him, and engaged in various sex acts with her including intercourse while she was in a compromised state and could not resist his advances. The victim won a judgment in a civil suit and Polanski plead guilty to a lesser charge (i.e. statutory rape rather than a host of other charges of which he was originally charged). When Polanski got the impression that his sentence would be stiffer than expected he fled the country, settling in France from where he could not be extradited to the States. When he visited Switzerland this past Saturday he was arrested. (Why after several trips to Switzerland over the years, they suddenly decided to arrest him is a topic for another post.)

The notion of punishment in our criminal justice system usually has three motivating drivers:

1. Compensation to the victim: We punish the criminal to right the wrong committed against the victim.
2. Protection of society: We punish the criminal to influence him not to commit his crime again.
3. Deterrence to others: We punish the criminal to make an example of him to others so they will not commit similar crimes.

Let’s examine how these drivers apply to Polanski.

1. Compensation to the victim: the victim Samantha Geimer received a civil case settlement from Polanski. She now wants the criminal charges dropped because she has gone through the healing process and does not want the wounds re-opened.

2. Protection of society: Polanski has no documented repeat offenses over the past 32 years, nor any prior to the 1977 incident. He is now 76 years old and an unlikely threat to society.

3. Deterrence to others: Punishing Polanski now hardly amounts to deterring others. If anything the sad moral of the Polanski case is with enough money and connections you can escape punishment and live the rest of your life in luxury.

So what is left? What purpose does punishing Roman Polanski now serve? The answer to this question lies in the concept of justice unrelated to any wronged individual. When Polanski assaulted a minor he committed a crime against civil society. For society to function properly we all must abide by certain rules. When we break those rules we break a covenant with society as a whole. The case of Roman Polanski tests our definition of justice at its most philosophical and conceptual level.

Kate Harding has a blunt and compelling analysis of this in Salon.com:

But what of the now-45-year-old victim, who received a settlement from Polanski in a civil case, saying she’d like to see the charges dropped? Shouldn’t we be honoring her wishes above all else?

In a word, no. At least, not entirely. I happen to believe we should honor her desire not to be the subject of a media circus, which is why I haven’t named her here, even though she chose to make her identity public long ago. But as for dropping the charges, Fecke said it quite well: “I understand the victim’s feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn’t work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice.”

It works on behalf of the people, in fact — the people whose laws in every state make it clear that both child rape and fleeing prosecution are serious crimes. The point is not to keep 76-year-old Polanski off the streets or help his victim feel safe. The point is that drugging and raping a child, then leaving the country before you can be sentenced for it, is behavior our society should not — and at least in theory, does not — tolerate, no matter how famous, wealthy or well-connected you are, no matter how old you were when you finally got caught, no matter what your victim says about it now, no matter how mature she looked at 13, no matter how pushy her mother was, and no matter how many really swell movies you’ve made.

via Reminder: Roman Polanski raped a child – Broadsheet – Salon.com.

Justice is not specific to any particular victim. Society establishes a set of norms that specify how its members will conduct themselves. When those norms are violated, a price must be paid. It is time for Roman Polanski to pay that price.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Is An Effigy No Longer Good Enough?

It was only a matter of time until the anti-government sentiment now so prevalent in this country resulted in bloodshed. An ominous wind blows from Kentucky and while the jury is still out on what exactly happened, lots of people are thinking, is this what we have come to?

Bill Sparkman, a US Census worker was found hanging near a graveyard in Clay County, Kentucky. This could easily be dismissed for a suicide were it not for the fact that the word “FED” was scrawled across the man’s chest. In the backdrop we have the general government discontent stirred by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Perhaps more damning, the explicit census-paranoia sparked by Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann.

Much of the media is approaching this story with caution. Clearly, the investigation is just beginning and this could be either a very bizarre suicide or a “prank” homicide completely unrelated to any political agenda. If either case proves to be true, we should still stop and contemplate this moment. Regardless of what really happened, what are many of  us thinking right now and why?

I have said this before but I will say it again. The time has come for the political rhetoric to be tamped down. While conservatives are quick to point to Nancy Pelosi as a pot stirrer, the truth is that the activities Pelosi labeled “unamerican” were the rude, uncivil activities demonstrated by a minority of protesters. On the other hand, we have Glenn Beck surmising that Barack Obama has a deep seated hatred for white people. We have Rush Limbaugh blaming black on white school violence on “Obama’s America”. Our public discourse has gone off the rails in a way that truly eclipses the negative press of the Bush administration. With Bush there were very specific gripes, mostly centered around the war in Iraq. No one was saying “I want my country back.” There was not an overriding sense that government could do no right.

That has changed. Government now is the suspect. Trust is at an all time low. The 24 hour news cycle enables the loudest craziest voice to be heard over more reasonable ones.

I don’t know that Mr. Sparkman was killed by an anti-government nutjob. I do know that if the climate in this country were different, we wouldn’t all be wondering about the likelihood that Mr. Sparkman was indeed a human effigy for the US government.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Obama, Racism and Inevitable Self-examination

Over the past few weeks, I’ve written about the ambiguity of racism in America, the paranoia regarding Barack Obama and the disrespect paid to this President from folks with questionable motives. America is like the person with a troubled background who refuses to go into analysis and get some help. Every now and then, an issue causes us to talk about our troubled background, our troubled racial history, but the conversation is short lived and ultimately fruitless. We reach no epiphanies that set us straight long term.

From the moment that candidate Barack Obama made the famous “race speech” last year, we should have been able to predict that as long as Obama was an important player on the national scene, race would not go away. Still, I was naive. I thought once he won the election, if for no other reason than political correctness, we’d clean up our act racially. Recent weeks have proved me wrong. The events have escalated. A quick recap:

Shortly after South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouted “You lie” at the President during a joint session of Congress, a Glenn Beck instigated protest march on Washington took place on September 12. This was a tie-in to Beck’s 9-12 initiative which was designed to bring back the sense of common purpose that we had the day after the 9-11 attack on our country. To say that the demonstration on September 12 was divisive is to put it mildly. Here is a small sampling of signs carried during the gathering:

Editor’s note: The actual images have been removed in response to a copyright challenge. Simple descriptions will have to do. I have linked each description to the original image. These links will work for as long as the folks who posted them keep them public:

Sign 1: “CAP” CONGRESS AND “TRADE” OBAMA BACK TO KENYA

Sign 2: THE ZOO HAS AN AFRICAN LION AND THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A LYIN’ AFRICAN

Sign 3: We came unarmed (this time)

The protest signs became a Rorschach test for America. Where some saw patriotic dissent, others saw blatant racism. Clearly, comparing Obama to an animal is at the very least dehumanizing. It is equally hard to deny that derogatory references to his Kenyan heritage carry a racial overtone. The other disturbing element is the thinly veiled threats of violence (“we came unarmed this time” and “cap congress”). The media latched onto this phenomenon for all it was worth. Republicans cried “race card”. Democrats, for the most part stayed strangely silent and the White House avoided the issue like the plague.

Then a prominent Democrat, humanitarian and former President of the United States weighed in:

The rub here was that this was not some “Northern snob” talking down to Southerners. This was a man raised entirely in the South … some 85 years of experience. Jimmy Carter knows racial bigotry when he sees it and Carter declared without hesitation that racism was stoking some of the 9-12 demonstration. The reaction by defensive conservatives was that Carter was wrong to label the Tea Party/Healthcare protest as racist. But of course that is not what Carter did. He simply pointed out that the folks in the crowd who waddled like ducks and quacked like ducks were indeed ducks. A great many of the folks in the crowd may have had legitimate concerns (too much government, spending out of control, etc.) but they were drowned out by the attention getters and the current climate allowed those folks to get attention in the worst way possible.

When we combine the signage with this new phenomenon of people bringing guns to rallies, sometimes taking place outside of Obama speaking venues, we get a volatile cocktail that finally moved the Speaker of the House to express her concerns:

Pelosi went on to say that incendiary language might provoke unbalanced people to take violent action. Her experience in late 70′s San Francisco, with the murders of Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk fueled her concern.

And so here we are, finally dealing with the ultimate question of whether the current climate endangers the life of the President. Whether you view this question as melodrama or not, there is no doubt that America is going through a period of self-examination. Self-examination that I should have known was inevitable when Barack Obama was elected. As I look at the discussions that revolve around this self-analysis, I see everything from confessions to angry denial that there is any problem at all.

America is on the psychiatrist’s couch wrestling with its demons in front of the entire world. Republicans who want to deny there is a problem and Democrats who would rather just see the problem disappear without discussion make it very unlikely that we will find a cure to what ails us. It makes me wonder if we should just bury the wound deep underground again and hope that by ignoring it, we can avoid its consequences. Or should we keep talking with the risk that such talk will only further polarize the nation, sending everyone to their respective corners and increase the climate of danger just over the horizon?

This post is not about conclusions as much as it is about questions. What are we to do? Can our nation ever resolve and repair its birth defect? Will we have to learn through another tragedy to finally abandon old prejudices or will we see the light before harm is done? It is interesting that while Congress debates health care reform, our country is going through an entirely different health care crisis, one involving our mental health.

If our collective mental health fails us, there is no insurance policy that can make it right.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Another Fine Moment for Republicans

As if it weren’t bad enough that our President apparently could not be trusted talking to our children, last night he was called a liar not once but twice on national television.

The first incident, called by some the insult heard ’round the world, was when Obama told a joint session of Congress that health care reform would not cover illegal aliens. After some rumbling from the crowd, South Carolina Republican representative Joe Wilson shouted “you lie.” I’ve watched my share of presidential addresses to Congress, and folks older and more seasoned than I have confirmed my belief that this kind of rudeness was never displayed to a President before during a joint session.

Many are ready to move on because Wilson issued an apology before the night was over. Trouble is that in his own words, he did so after being urged by senior members of his party. It did not occur to him on his own that you don’t call the President a liar on national TV while he is giving an address? Some (like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough) say this was out of character for Wilson, who is normally mild mannered. Others say this is the real Wilson. Regardless, the current mood in our country made Wilson feel comfortable telling the President of the United States that he is a liar. Wilson will get his comeuppance as his challenger for the 2010 election is already raking in the dough, in protest against Wilson’s unbridled insolence. Of course, Wilson’s behavior should not overly surprise us as he is a”deather” (supporter of  Sarah Palin’s delusions), a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and is on record criticizing Strom Thurmond’s bi-racial daughter for bringing “shame” to him by revealing her identity.

The lying accusations did not end there. After Obama’s speech, we got treated to the Republican response. The last Republican response was the infamously awkward response delivered by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. For reasons known only to the geniuses in the Republican party, they went to the Louisiana well again, this time choosing Charles Boustany, an LA representative to deliver the response. Boustany within a minute of speaking referred to the “government takeover of healthcare” in direct contradiction to Obama who stated there was no such thing afoot. Wow I guess Obama told lots of lies last night.

But it gets better. Boustany, a heart surgeon, has been sued three times for malpractice. (In his defense, many doctors are sued in this litigious society … but three times?) And now … wait for it …. Boustany is … keep waiting …. a birther! Yes you read it right. The best the Republican party could do in finding a speaker last night was someone who doubts Barack Obama was born in this country.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday, Tom Friedman made the following remark regarding the “Obama will indoctrinate our children” kerfuffle:

What it needs is for people to stand up and say that’s flat out stupid, ok? That’s flat out stupid what you’re talking about.

Indeed the Republican party has graduated from the Party of No to the Party of Stupid. Instead of universal condemnation of Wilson’s outburst, we get near silence from his fellow Republicans. Instead of asking Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney or even the slightly unpredictable Mike Huckabee to deliver the Republican response, they turn to a deservedly unknown incompetent doctor who as a birther is at best stupid and at worst racist.

While I am a liberal to my core, I am almost rooting for a resurgence of the Republican party in the intellectual corridors of the northeast and the west. Intelligent men in the mold of William F. Buckley seem to have disappeared from the Republican party and what is left is a bunch of backwoods, south-will-rise-again, would be secessionists. Perhaps I should be delighted at  this development? Let’s face it, because of idiot Joe Wilson, very little attention has been paid to what even ultra-liberal MSNBC and Huff Post contributor Lawrence O’Donnell felt was an underwhelming speech by Obama. People are not talking about how Obama will pay for healthcare. They’re talking about the  House Rep who stepped out of a scene from “Deliverance” into the House chamber last night.

Yet I’m not delighted. Last night’s display is another in a series of incidents that show our country to be on very shaky social ground. While it is true that the office of the Presidency has not regained its luster since the debacle that was Richard Nixon’s second term, never has the level of disrespect risen to this level, this very personal level, where the President is a threat to our children and a liar in the eyes of our elected officials who are willing to humiliate him in public to make their point. On MSNBC’s “Hardball” the son of the Great Communicator, Ron Reagan warned that we are headed down a dangerous road.  He is right.

How can we expect the general public to control their darkest impulses when we can no longer expect civility from those who set an example, our elected officials? The Republicans need to clean up their act and fast. It is only so long before the fuse that they keep lighting eventually runs out and the resulting explosion has consequences for which they alone will be responsible.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Live Blogging Obama’s Joint Session Health Care Address

It’s time for another live blogging event. Join me live at 8pm EDT tonight (9/9/09)  as I remark on Obama’s address to Congress as it happens.

Click here to watch the live blog or to see the transcript, after the fact.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

An Open Letter to United States High School Students

I am addressing this post to the citizens of the United States currently in grades nine through twelve. Today at school, you may have seen an address that President Barack Obama made to a group of students in a high school in Arlington, Virginia. You saw the President call for personal responsibility. You saw him emphasize that it is ultimately up to you whether you fail or succeed in this society. Success comes through hard work.

These are valuable lessons but unfortunately another lesson was taught to you in the days leading up to this speech. You see, there are some among you who did not get to see the President’s address. Sadly, there are adults in our government and on television and the radio who deliberately tried to scare your school district or your parents into keeping you from seeing this address. They told lies in order to make your principals and your teachers and even your parents believe that our President would say things that might be harmful to you. It is sad that at such a young age you must learn the lesson that some people care more about what they believe, true or untrue, than they care about the welfare of you and your family.

So for those of you who could not see the video at school today, I am posting it below. Whether you are a freshman or a senior looking forward to college next year, you are old enough to start making some of your own critical decisions. Watch the video and decide for yourself whether the President’s message is a good one or a bad one. I’m guessing that if you want to be an overnight success, the President’s message will disappoint you. I also imagine that you might find it a bit corny when the President tells you to wash your hands, but remember he is not just the President, he is a father too and he doesn’t want his kids or you to get the flu this season.

If you have already seen the President’s message, or after you view it here, forward the link to this article to all your friends who might not have seen it. And ask your parents to sit down and watch it with you. It is so important that you do not let anyone in government, television or radio, no matter how well meaning, prevent you from hearing ideas that might enrich your life. The America we live in is built on the notion that obstacles to enlightenment will not be thrown in your way.

I will not be accepting comments directly on this article. If you are a student who has read this article and would like to share your thoughts, use my contact page to get in touch with me. I will update this post with your comments as I receive them (and I will of course not use your full name so don’t worry about saying exactly how you feel).

We learned a lot of lessons in the past few days about personal responsibility and freedom to express ideas. I hope the debates of the past few days have made us a better nation. Thanks for reading this, and to echo our President, stay in school and work hard. You owe it to yourself, your family and your country.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Time to Impeach Barack Obama

When my daughter returned home from Kindergarten Friday afternoon, I discovered in her backpack a letter to parents  from the school district superintendent. It read, in part:

President Obama has scheduled a back-to-school address to our nation’s school children on Tuesday, the 8th of September, 2009 The White House informed schools that the President’s speech will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

Students in grades nine through twelve will have the opportunity to listen to, or opt out of, the President’s speech. President Obama’s message aligns well with secondary level instruction.

Opt out of?

Excuse me?

The President will “challenge students to work hard.”

Opt out of?

The President will encourage students to “set educational goals.”

Opt out of?

The President will ask students to “take responsibility for their learning.”

What the hell is there to opt out of?

I could barely contain my outrage. If the school district planned to show a video of Bill Cosby urging kids to stay in school, no letter would have been sent home. No opt-out options would have been presented. It would have been either in the curriculum or out of the curriculum and if it was in, all students would have been expected to partake of it. But in the case of this strange President, whose motives are suspicious, we need a letter to go home to parents. Kids get to opt out of this strange scary leader’s message.

I ask you, if some kid’s nutjob parents were holocaust deniers, would that kid be allowed to “opt out of ” instruction on WWII? The school district in this case sees fit to include President Obama’s address in their curriculum but political pressure from an insatiably viscous right wing, forced them to give parents an “out”. “It’s bad enough that strange looking man is our President, I’m not going to have him lecturing my kid.”

So folks, I’ve had it. I’m tired of waking up each morning to some new half-baked, cock-eyed, nutjob theory about Barack Obama. I say let’s cut our losses. It’s time for impeachment and since our Congress can’t seem to get anything productive done in a decent amount of time (look at health care reform), I shall help them. Here are the articles of impeachment in no particular order.

Article I: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama is not a citizen of these United States and has therefore been illegally sworn into office, he must be removed.

Article II: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama wishes to legislate the deaths of the elderly and sickly or retarded infants to fulfill his devious socialist agenda, he must be removed.

Article III: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama intends to dismantle our sacred Constitution and rob the country from its citizens, he must be removed.

Article IV: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama intends to supplant Christianity and make our nation a Muslim state, he must be removed.

Article V: Whereas Barack Hussein Obama shall attempt to brainwash our children, forcing them to deviate from our time honored traditions, he must be removed.

Seems to me five articles of impeachment are a good start, don’t you think?

And think what a better country we will have with Barack Obama returned to ordinary civilian life. All order will be restored. We’ll have a President we can be “comfortable” with again, one who reminds us of the 42 men who held the office prior to Obama. That’s what we really want, isn’t it? We didn’t ask for this much change. We didn’t really think before we voted last November of what it would really be like to see someone like him addressing the nation as if he were the leader of us all. My God, as if he were the leader of us all.

Well guess what folks! He is our President! Barack Obama is our President. He is your President if you voted for him. He is your President if you did not. He is your President if you are black. He is your President if you are white. He is your President if you are progressive and dammit, he is your President if you are conservative. He is OUR President.

Perhaps once we present our five articles of impeachment to the US Congress and they see the foolishness in black and white, they will for one moment stop worrying about the next election. They will for one moment stop currying favor with the lunatic or severely retarded among their constituents. Maybe they will finally say once and for all:

Obama is my President. I will challenge him on policy. I will challenge him on ideology. But he is my President and as a patriotic citizen of this country, I will defend his honor. I will defend to my last breath the assertion that regardless of political differences, he loves this country and wants what is best for it.

Obama is our President and your children have nothing to fear from him.

And then with that message stated loud and clear by every United States Congressman and Senator, Americans will finally understand that silly season is over.

If you still cannot accept Barack Obama as your President then it is time for you to opt out of this country. Get on a plane, leave and don’t look back. You are a sad excuse for an American citizen. Who needs you?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Hot in Herre — Obama Video Address: August 29, 2009

When Nelly sang “Hot in Herre”, he wasn’t talking about the weather but this week, President Obama was. In this week’s video address, Obama addresses his renewed commitment to emergency preparedness as we approach the fourth anniversary of hurricane Katrina.

I distinctly remember being on vacation in a hotel room in 2005 watching a grown man cry on TV as he pleaded to the government for help down in New Orleans. Of course, we all remember then President Bush’s accolade “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” to his incompetent head of FEMA, Michael Brown. One of Obama’s campaign pledges was effective government in times of crisis and it is good to see him reinforcing this in this week’s message.

Of course, when we talk about the weather, we can’t skip the topic of “global warming” or perhaps the more accurate term “climate change”. That so many are still climate change skeptics is truly frightening for our nation. In Monday’s “Huffington Post”, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry makes a clear and chilling case for the impending crisis.

Facts, as John Adams said, are stubborn things. Here are a few you need to know: Atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have risen 38% in the industrial era, from 280 to 385 parts per million (ppm). Scientists have warned that anything above 450 ppm — a warming of 2 degrees Celsius — will result in an unacceptable risk of catastrophic climate change.

The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now. — via John Kerry: We Can’t Ignore the Security Threat from Climate Change.

Kerry goes on to say that this ecological deterioration is not only a biological threat but a security threat as well. Groups like al-Qaeda will use any weakness to attack our country and an ecological destabilization could be just the opening they need to strike us again.

There are those who stubbornly call climate change much ado about nothing. As Kerry points out, the memo “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” was viewed similarly and we see how that ended up. This is definitely an instance where “better safe than sorry” is the best way to go.

And now the President of the United States of America:

Afghanistan — A Different Kind of Heat

I kind of thought hell would freeze over before I found myself agreeing with conservative pundit George Will but he has hit the right note where Afghanistan is concerned. In Tuesday’s Washington Post, he writes:

Even though violence exploded across Iraq after, and partly because of, three elections, Afghanistan’s recent elections were called “crucial.” To what? They came, they went, they altered no fundamentals, all of which militate against American “success,” whatever that might mean. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one. U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a “renewal of trust” of the Afghan people in the government, but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai’s government — his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker — as so “inept, corrupt and predatory” that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords, “who were less venal and less brutal than Mr. Karzai’s lot.”

Mullen speaks of combating Afghanistan’s “culture of poverty.” But that took decades in just a few square miles of the South Bronx. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, thinks jobs programs and local government services might entice many “accidental guerrillas” to leave the Taliban. But before launching New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan, the Obama administration should ask itself: If U.S. forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases — evidently there are none now — must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?

via George F. Will – Time for the U.S. to Get Out of Afghanistan – washingtonpost.com.

I’ve said before in the comments section of this blog that I’m all for stopping al-Qaeda but lately there is talk of nation building in Afghanistan and Will points out with unusual humility and all nationalistic pride put aside, that we still have nation building to do in our own country (can you spell Katrina?). There has been talk of the right war and the wrong war. The typical construct is that Iraq was the wrong war, Afghanistan is the right one. But Afghanistan was the right war. Time changes everything. We squandered our riches on Iraq. We no longer have the money to pour into Afghanistan and at this point in time we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns. al-Qaeda has been pushed into the Afghan-Pakistan border so, as Will points out, bringing the fight to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is no longer critical. With Afghanistan’s tribal structure, bringing democracy there is next to impossible. For that matter, we are not even nation building in a grateful nation. As I pointed out in a May article, Hamid Karzai is very quick to criticize American military strategy in his country, not realizing our presence there has been a substitute for his incompetent leadership.

Our priority should be working with Pakistan to ensure that neither al-Qaeda nor any other terrorist organization gets hold of Pakistan’s nukes. As for Afghanistan being another Vietnam, no, it is worse than that. In Vietnam we had the bogeyman of communism to fight. The enemy was clear, if over dramatized. The mission, easy to define even if we were nosing into another country’s business. With Afghanistan there is no clear end-game and  no government worth defending. The enemy is elusive and in my opinion better defeated through effective intelligence and selective strikes.

You know the old saying about if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen? Afghanistan has become too hot. It’s time to get out.

A Michele Bachmann Aside (or Should That be Ass-ide?)

The dumber half of the dumb and dumber Bachmann-Palin Overdrive, dropped another brain-turd Monday night when she said:

What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes.

“This thing” was opposition to health care reform. Is Michele aware that blood brothers prick fingers? Suicide pacts slit wrists. The only explanation can be that in her daily conversation with her Lord, she was instructed to go to any length not to say the word “prick”.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance