It is good to be rid of General McCyrstal

General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), made incredibly disrespectful comments in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. He, and others in his staff, mocked the vice president and the president’s staff. The general’s comments demonstrated a tragic disrespect for the constitution and the office of the president. For this, President Obama was right to fire the general. But, perhaps more importantly, it was right to fire the general to maintain a total, unquestioned, control of the military by the civilian government of the country.


The founding fathers wanted nothing to do with a standing army. All of the kings of England had used them as their personal enforcer. The armies of England had invaded other countries, put down justifiable rebellions and enforced otherwise unenforceable edicts of the kings. Of course, the armies were sent to the New World to keep the colonist in line.

It is clear from the original wording of the constitution that there was not to be an army that might be used against the citizen’s will. In the constitution, it clearly states that armies should only be raised to repel invasion and other such events. Then, only for two years at a time. The constitution also states that the President of the United States, a civil politician, should be the commander in chief of the army. All of this to maintain control of a military that could became threatening if it gained too much power.

From the time of the early republic, generals have been fired. Although, it is not a common event in the country. All of them because they had challenged the President’s policy at the time. None of them, at anytime – at least in public – actually suggested in any form that the government should be over turned, just policy. A general’s job is to carry out the policy of the United States. While it is natural to want as much power as possible to complete any task, the level of power can never be greater than the president.

It isn’t just the generals that we need be concerned about. When the people at the top are mocking those that are in control, the chain of command will be compromised. As orders come down from the president, those that are assigned to carry out the directives are to respond with total commitment. Disrespectful attitudes from superiors about those that are issuing the orders may mean someone will second guess a command. That could be deadly to themselves, their fellow soldiers and to the republic.

It is good to be rid of General McCyrstal.

-----

Drug wars in Mexico is our responsibility

It is an old cliché that is attributed to Einstein that goes, “if you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results, you are ignorant of reality”. Well, yes, I did add the ignorant part because sometimes reality is right in front of us and we fritter away at treating symptoms.


The University of Michigan issued an order banning all travel to Mexico on University paid trips. The university, like many other organizations, have banned travel because of the extreme drug violence all across Mexico but especially in the border towns with the United States.

Drug violence in Mexico is getting out of hand, or in this case, out of country. The violence in Juarez is so bad, that up to 20 people a day are murdered. Sometimes four or five are killed at once, in the middle of town in clear daylight. Two cartels have decided that Juarez is to be their battle ground for control of drugs moving into the United States.

This is our responsibility. No, not that we should go storming into Mexico like we did in the early 1800’s. But drug consumption in the United States is causing this problem in Mexico. Our inability to deal with the consumption of drugs is hurting not only us, but also Mexico and every other country that produces the drugs.

The law enforcement approach is failing. Arrests, jail time, court ordered probation and other authority based approaches have not stopped drug use in America. Will drug use ever go away completely? No, it will not. But we could set realistic goals and develop plans to get there.

Communities should come together and hold discussions on the problem. Families, schools, local police and businesses need all work with each other. This may sound idealistic and a set up for failure but unless this happens, drug use will be here to stay and violence will become a long term part of life along the border with Mexico.

-----

Forgive Virginia

You can’t Separate the Confederacy from Slavery


"We went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery. Men fight from sentiment. After the fight is over they invent some fanciful theory on which they imagine that they fought."

-- Confederate Col. John S. Mosby (1)

Now that the dust has cleared about the governor of Virginia declaring a new marketing campaign, we should all jump in the car and vacation in the state. The campaign asks people to come to the state to see Civil War sites and honor the brave men who served in the Confederate Army.

But, the tourist sites we may not be able to visit are the plantation living quarters for the slaves. Or the auction sites where people were bought and sold like cattle. The docks on the sea posts most likely don’t have the slave ships that would come and drop their “chattel” off, the term applied to the slaves on board in the Dred Scott Supreme Court ruling. (A trip to Detroit’s own African-American museum has a replica of the hold of one of those ships, it is something worth seeing – dreadful).

Why should we preserve those you may ask? Ask the Jewish Community in southeast Michigan why they have opened a museum about the Holocaust. They have spent millions to remind us that, no matter how cliche-ish (forgive me for making up a word) it sounds, the old statement is true: If we forget the past we will repeat it.

Forgive Virginia though, that is why I suggest we all take a vacation in the fine state. The governor was just trying to come up with a marketing plan that would get tourist in the state and boost the economy not make a political statement. The idyllic vision of the southern plantation and all that hospitably stuff must have been too much to ignore when they were brainstorming about ideas to lure tourist dollars.

But, to brush away the past like it didn’t happen is to forgive all that happen. None of the people that supported the slave economy during the civil war are alive anymore. So, there is no one to blame directly. But, if we glorify that past, we risk it happening again.

If you don’t think it could, talk with a White Supremacist. They would just love for you to forget about the past.

(1) John Singleton Mosby (December 6, 1833 – May 30, 1916), also known as the "Gray Ghost," was a Confederate cavalry battalion commander in the American Civil War. His command, the 43rd Battalion, 1st Virginia Cavalry, known as Mosby's Raiders, was noted for its lightning quick raids, partisan or ranger-like tactics and his ability to successfully elude his Union Army pursuers and disappear with his men, blending in with local farmers and townspeople.

-----

There Arizona goes again

There Arizona goes again…


In Arizona, they are proposing a law that would deny birth certificates to children born of parents that are in the country illegally. This is an indirect assault on the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. It doesn’t specifically deny citizenship, but does prevent a birth certificate from being issued that would be needed to prove that someone was born in the country.

When Arizona passed the last illegal immigration law, directing law enforcement to determine the citizenship of people that are in custody (as it was amended), it brought plenty of attention to the state from both sides of the argument. This one is sure to make things much more complicated for everyone from the hospital that births the child to the federal government.

But, it should still not change anything as far as a child being granted citizenship.

Right now, there are two ways to gain citizenship; you are born here or you are granted citizenship through application. Many feel that just because a child is born in the United States while the mother is in the country illegally, the child should not be given automatic citizenship. But, the Fourteenth Amendment states that children born in the United States are citizens. It states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Because a birth certificate will not be issued doesn’t mean the child is not born here. (for more details about why the Fourteenth Amendment was created see blog post, “Citizenship as Birth Right”)

As was the position of the Responsible Community when the previously law was enacted, so it is with this one. The responsibility of citizenship and immigration rest with the federal government. It was given to the national government by the Fourteenth amendment. The lawmakers in Arizona are either making a cheap political statement on the backs of children or are attempting to force the country to address the immigration issue in America. Seems that it is a little of both.

As a country, we may decide to make some changes in the way citizenship is granted. That would take a change in the Fourteenth amendment, or, perhaps a challenge to the interpretation of the amendment by the Supreme Court But, until then, birthright citizenship is there for everyone born in the country.

As a nation of immigrants, we should not change what has made us strong.

-----

Health care for autistic children is needed now!

In Michigan, families with autistic children are considering suing health insurance companies to force them to provide care for their children. Insurance companies give many reasons why they do not cover these deserving children, but it is really about costs. In this market economy, if a company can offer less expensive premiums by excluding coverage of individuals with rare disorders, the company will gain an advantage in the market. Even though it will cost everyone a few more dollars, insurance companies should be forced to cover them.


It is reported that families lose their homes, retirement funds, declare bankruptcy and even have to give up jobs to take care of their children. All of those homes that are lost lowers the value of other homes. The lose of the retirement funds means there is less money for investment, savings and people have to work longer into their lives, keeping jobs from the young. Each dollar that is lost in bankruptcy by companies must be made up by raising the cost of everything. This raises the cost of living for all of us. It could be more than the few dollars more in premiums that insurance companies would need to charge to cover their cost for the additional coverage.

But it is more than money that we lose. It is a bit of our own humanity and community. We didn’t gather in communities at the beginning so that we could continue on just as we still lived as individuals in the wild. Communities were formed so that everyone could share in many of the responsibilities that individuals have in common. As the community expects each individual to live up to their own responsibility so each individual expects the community to do its part. To intentionally leaving out even one individual from the full benefits of the community is a violation of that pact.

Insurance is part of the market’s answer to help the community work. It is a way of sharing the responsibility for many of the dangers and risks that all of us will come across. For the community to continue to allow insurance companies to exclude families with children that have autism is to keep them from receiving the full benefit of the community. This violation of the pact between the individual and the community needs to be corrected.

This should not be fought out in the courts. It will be time consuming and cost even more money that could be used for the benefit of the families that are in need. It will take many years to work through a solution. In the mean time, the community will prevent many more children from receiving the care and treatment they need.

The state legislature needs to mandate that insurance companies provide the coverage that these children need – now.

-----

Freedom of speech

Three young men are being sent to prison and a long time White House reporter is being forced to resign. In both cases, freedom of speech is an issue (as far as the Responsible Community is concerned – see author’s note at the end) but only one was wrong.


What is the difference?

Three men were sentenced to various combinations of jail, drug rehab program and community service by Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Shalina D. Kumar for burning a cross near the home of a African American family. The incident happen last August in Independence Township. All three pleaded guilty or no contest to the various crimes they were accused of committing. Judge Kumar said in court during the sentencing, “I think you should be ashamed and embarrassed for yourselves.” The judge in this case made a good decision and her sentencing statement expressed what should be the feelings and concerns of the entire community.

On a national stage, Helen Thomas, the long time White House reporter, resigned under pressure from her position with the Hearst organization after nearly 50 years because she said that the, “Jews should get out of Palestine.” She said it at a Jewish heritage month celebration after being asked her opinion by a rabbi. It does seem to be a reckless place to make such a statement. But, she must have felt safe to make the statement or she wasn’t thinking at all. Since she did resign, which the word “resign” is often a code word for being asked to leave, she saved a lot of trouble for everyone involved. But, she did have the right to make the statement and the community should be supporting her right to make any statement when it is not part of her reporting responsibilities.

The three men were wrong. It went well beyond a simple expression of an opinion. Everyone has the right to say what is on their mind, even if, as in this case, it is a discussing expression of racism. But, they crossed the line of merely expressing an opinion when they took action and burnt the cross near the family’s home. Action they claimed was not meant to express a racial opinion. But, there are few things that are more clearly racial than a burning cross in this culture with its history of bigotry. The action changed the expression of an opinion to an intimidating act. No one should face any intimidating act without a harsh, justified response from the community.

As for Helen Thomas, her statements were insensitive, expressed grave misunderstanding of the situation in the Middle East and clearly stated a perverse view of reality. If she had continued on as a White House reporter, every reader should be keenly aware of her position on the trouble in that troubled land. But, her opinion was merely an expression with no action suggested. In this country, based on the freedoms we enjoy, the community should support her right to express herself.

On a side note, the reaction to the comments Thomas made outside of her professional duties may place a damper on others expressing their opinions in similar situations. This means the community will know less about the background opinions of others that are reporting the news. An open environment is much better than the alternative.

As a community, we must support freedom of speech everywhere. But, we must insure that those that are the target of speech aren’t intimidated nor come to any harm.

[Author’s note: It is obvious that the opinions expressed on the Responsible Community blog are not of a legal nature. They are more of a common sense, practical approach to community that works at sharing the responsibility between the individual and the community.]

-----

Buying American part two

In the last blog post for Responsible Community, the personal decision to buy American was discussed. Here we take a look at the same decision from the view point of official U.S. policy.


In the fine print it states that if you include American made products as a high percent of your total investment you will be able to bid on a project. The project is part of the stimulus package created by congress. It is for, of all things, waste water management, heavy industry items that are at the core of American manufacturing.

Meet Mr. Pokorsky owner of Aquarius Technologies Inc. located in Port Washington, Wisconsin. His company makes equipment for waste water treatment. His equipment is all manufactured in America with some suppliers located in other parts of North America. With $6 billion of the stimulus package earmarked for just what he makes, this was to be a boom for Pokorsky.

Except Canada heard about the Buy American prevision of the package. Some of Pokorsky's suppliers and many of his clients in the great country to the north didn’t like the possibility of being excluded from the contracts. As an example, the town of Halton Hills west of Toronto decided to do something about that. The town of 50,000 people is amending their procurement policies to make sure American made products don’t get used. As Mayor Rick Bonnette says, "We won't be taking any products from any country that is discriminating against us."

In response to the movement in Canada to amend procurement policies Pokorsky said, "If that sticks, well, there goes 25% of my business.  To me, Ontario may as well be Indiana."
Many people are examining the Great Depression because of the current economic climate. It is argued that the depression was made even worse because of another way of supporting American made products. The U.S. government at the start of the down turn attempted to protect American jobs by placing a tariff on foreign goods. France, England and Germany responded with their own tariffs on our products. Trade dropped dramatically and made the economy all over the world worse.

As a selling point in the unofficial market place, being made in America can be seen as a benefit to the buyer, if the buyer is American. But, if you are Canadian, Mexican or another country making decisions based on the content of the material, maybe that wouldn’t be such a great benefit.

As a community, if we want to make policy decisions based on maintaining and growing American jobs we need to avoid building the castle of protectionism. The official policy theory of buying American to protect American jobs is a great sound bite in an election. But, the way official policy works out in practice is occasionally just the opposite.

Protectionism as a community policy is a great idea… that doesn’t work.