Why Censure could redress the political divide while Impeachment-Trial will enflame it

 The following is a Dailykos article posted Tuesday 2/3/21 - and writer cut off from responding to comments. 

There is not a person reading this who does not deplore Donald J. Trump, and wants to see him pay for the harm he has done to our country.   This being a given,  the question is whether his being subjected to Impeachment (the term commonly includes the second part, which is the trial by the Senate) would be the most productive way of diminishing the residue of internecine hatred that he has generated. 

Trump is no longer the President who by executive order can control much of  the levers of power in this country.   He had candidly discussed his followers being armed and willing to defend his America against their common enemies. He had boldly encouraged such actions, calling for insurrection against the Governor of Michigan and others, leading to her almost being kidnapped and executed.  He did the calculation that while he had full support of maybe only 40% of the public, they owned the armor piercing machine guns, with the will to use them.

The general support among Democrats to impeach citizen Trump raises the question of whether it will be the optimal approach to dissipate the unconditional fealty of his acolytes , especially since the Chief Justice who is charged with presiding over presidential impeachments has refused to do so. 

This segment of the following law review article advances the interpretation that refusal of Chief Justice Roberts to preside negates the constitutional legitimacy of this trial:

PP 106

However, Chief Justice Rehnquist identified the Chief Justice's role in presidential impeachments to be an "explicit constitutional constraint. . . on the impeachment power., 87 To the extent that this conception of the duty to preside is accurate, the Chief Justice's part in impeachment proceedings cannot be a complete nullity.I1. CONVENTIONAL IDEAS ABOUT THE DUTY

--------—

The following is an alternative approach that is gaining traction, from the Washington Post last week:

 ------

The prospect of likely acquittal for Donald Trump at his Senate trial has some Democrats contemplating an off-ramp that would condemn the former president but stop short of impeachment and a ban from future office.

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Wednesday that he has been exploring drafting a bipartisan censure of Trump that would short-circuit a potentially lengthy trial that could impede progress on other Democratic priorities. “It could be an alternative,” he told reporters, saying he wanted the Senate to focus on responding to the coronavirus pandemic and confirming President Biden’s Cabinet.

“To do a trial knowing you’ll get 55  votes (12 less than needed) at the max seems to me to be not the right prioritization of our time.”

 Kaine’s focus on an alternative, which has been brewing since the House voted to impeach Trump over his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, came a day after the vast majority of Republican senators signaled doubts about the constitutional basis for trying an ex-president on impeachment charges. (confirmed by the preceding Law Review Article)

---—

One does not have to have sympathy for Trump, but overarching seething contempt is a luxury that dare not be indulged.  The hatred targeted at those  who invaded the Capitol is a human reaction having nothing to do with partisan politics.   Their rage was unrestrained by normal human compassion.  In a flash, Trump's subservient loyal Vice President who dared to flout his orders, was transformed into a despised enemy.

This ransacking was an orgy of hatred, which we now know is continuing after he is no longer President,  Those of his party who had condemned him for his promoting the insurrection are now genuflecting to their leader,  begging to be forgiven for their brief loss of deference

The thrust of the argument for convicting Trump is that he was sponsoring terror.  In a legal setting such as the impeachment trial, assumption of innocence is a barrier to conviction, while a censure has no such impediment.  The fear of being killed or maimed by the rabid vicious mob who invaded the Capitol is so vivid, so genuine -- that it cannot be dismissed by anyone, even the most subservient of Trumps followers.     

While it is unrealistic for these Senate Republicans to vote for impeachment,  it is possible  that there could be a contagion of humanity that would get every one of them to vote to censure  the person who promoted this catastrophe. 

This would close the reign of Donald. J. Trump who besmirched the office he held, and just possibly would ensure that this condemnation would ring through ages to come. 

Liberal discussion groups- comparison with Dailykos -- Personal Observations

The Dailykos essays are called "diaries" actually an appropriate word, except the personal thoughts associated with the"diaries"are shared with readers, sometimes a handful to many hundreds.  Since actual names aren't used, the worst that can happen is you will get ridiculed, or if you were writing the wrong thing at the wrong time--  Kabamm-  you're banned for life. 

At least DailyKos is explicit on it's being a website to advance the Democratic Party, while most of the media, almost all except CSpan, which is not a profit making entity, do attempt, to various degrees, to support the values of their audience. Such bias is promoted by the profit motive, the more a medium caters to the bias of a defined audience, the greater the advertising revenue.  

 I describe my opposition to this when this new format  was posted by the owner.  I realized that this would narrow the range of discourse that would limit opposition to the Democratic Party, thus more likely to lead to banishment from the web site.  It turned out to be prescient, as this is what occurred. 

Here are  three Dailykos Diaries that I append, to get the flavor of the target market of users that I'm aiming for. 

There was a change in structure, from Version 3 to V-4.0 at Dailykos exactly ten  years ago.  

I append a few of my Dailykos diaries that show the range of tone.   This one that garnered hundreds of recommends by knowledgeable people. By clarifying exact dialog among the parties, it explicated what many knew, that Bush breached our treaty with the U.N. by invading Iraq without the unanimous approval of the security council.  Not Just a Lie, a "Big Lie"

And this one, a bit of politics, but also of irony that the praise of Nancy Reagan showed the contrast with one who really earned her praise.  How a visit to the Reagan Museum led to rumination on Eleanor Roosevelt 

What I really missed sharing moments such as this, having nothing to do with partisan politics. 

Aunt Lena, As She Is Leaving Us

Dailykos had subgroups, one major one being promoting humanism, or other terms for atheism.  I had started one where the assumption of this identity provided a sense of belonging common goals that I would hope to find on this site. 

Marshaling the unique talents of Bill Gates

5/14/2020 -

 

Following is a draft of proposed NYTimes OpEd written by Al Rodbell, in the voice of Noam Chomsky

The extent of polarization of our national politics is illustrated by something that could not happen to me, but did yesterday to the person who convinced me to write this OpEd for this newspaper. Al.R is my intellectual doppelganger, whose childhood did not provide the stimulation I was graced with that led to a life of academic achievements and political activism. Those who came of age before the turn of the century know of me, while those born later rarely do.  We wrote this OpEd together, coming to a shared conclusion from very different lives.  He describe this passing conversation that could only happen to one whose politics is not widely known.

"Walking home yesterday, I greeted a neighbor who is a clinical psychologist, and asked her whether she is busy now with couples who are together day and night without previous socializing.  She hesitated, interpreting my words as indicating that I was opposed to such regulations, and then concluded that I must be one among the angry, perhaps to the point of rage at those politicians who would deny my God given freedoms,  She was a bit ambiguous, but made the point that she sees no problem, and people are "doing O.K."  Without a single word of partisan politics, I was identified as a Trump supporter -- verifying the breadth of our toxic partisanship".

As of this moment in time, civility across the political divide is still possible.  Whether it will still be so when the campaign between the two political parties begins in earnest is doubtful. Al contacted me out of the blue about five years ago, having been frustrated by a refusal of this newspaper to print a retraction of a distortion of an appeals court decision - only a small element of the article. I replied with my own frustration that this paper over the years did the same to me- which was the beginning of our.connection. 

 

He  wrote the following to verify we are on a common tract:  It is self evident that the divisiveness between what is the TrumpRepublican party and the Democratic party is at an unsustainable level which will escalate with the campaign between the two putative candidates.  No matter who is elected, the results will be a presidential party that builds on vilification of the opposition.  A two party election will inevitably continue to exacerbate raw hatred of the other; exemplified by Pelosi ripping up the text of a vindictive presidential speech in the midst of an impeachment trial with no possibility of removal. 

 Bill Gates has been thrust into the limelight by the current pandemic, which he not only predicted but made an extraordinary effort to alert chief executives of countries throughout the world.  The allocation of his billions through the Bill and Milinda Gates Foundation are a mix of advanced scientific research to slow climate change to expanding latrines that prevent disease in the most impoverished countries of the world. 

 This recent article, "Bill Gates Has Regrets" in The Wall Street Journal lauding him showed in the comments, that the mostly Republican readers overwhelmingly admire him.  As of this moment, his being able to be nominated on the Libertarian ticket is still possible, This would be a variation of a third party run  Michael Bloomberg considered in 2016.  He wanted to be President with at least part of the incentive being fame, power and glory a normal component of ambition.. There is no evidence that Bill Gates,having earned such admiration as a private citizen, would desire, or even accept the Presidency.   

 

 All of the stability, the redundancy and depth of authority of the party system would be negated in a hypothetical Gates administration. The complex party apparatus from vice president to the cabinet to partisan think tanks and connections to state and local governments would be gone.  This would normally be enough to reject even one as admirable and talented as Gates transforming our party system.  But it has already been transformed, so the choice could be between the autocrat who is now in power and one who is truly trying to save the world. 

 One option that would preserve the existing party system, but also transform it, would be that Biden ask Gates to accept the Vice Presidency nomination.  He would be given the authority equivalent to Richard Cheney under the Bush administration, which was a full realization of the autonomy of the position.  He would be the antithesis of the Mike Pence who has no independent portfolio other than revering his President.  Joe Biden chose to promise that he would appoint a women with a strong hint it will be a person of color. This promise may have won the nomination for him, but it enshrines the simplistic and damaging elevation of identity politics over the reality that it is the individual, rather than his or her identity that should be evaluated in all aspects of public life. 

 We are at a pivotal time in history, where advances in technology, specifically artificial intelligence is reaching new levels of replacement of what had been human functions.  Simultaneously, the ubiquity of these systems have transformed how populations are influenced, along with vulnerabilities to corruption of even the most sensitive of networks.  Bill Gates' background as an innovator in this field would make his contributions as Vice President even more productive. 

 

With armed men now occupying state capital buildings and others threatening police who are enforcing social distancing regulations, we already have the beginning of armed insurrection  promoted by the President of the United States.  The upcoming election is the moment to take a stand, one that will only be effective if the opposition to autocracy is not a political party in disarray, but includes one individual who transcends this toxic partisanship.

Nothing could be more urgent than this.

White house correspondents dinner - A critical analysis

May 2, 2016

There have been hundreds of articles about the recent 2016 event, in a way Barack Obama's initial farewell speech to the world. The articles about his words and those of his selected comedian Larry Willmore, were evaluated on the laughs and that most important element for media success, edginess.  Before embarking on this essay, I did a search for other "critical theoretical" evaluations of this event. There was this one by Frank Rich of the N.Y. Times of the 2007 dinner, mostly focusing on how it breached the distance required between Press and Government needed to do incisive probing reporting.   And this broader criticism from The Christian Science Monitor of the same year.

This is a difficult essay to write, as we all are awash in a sea of entertainment. Since the panorama of emergent events is so complex, so multi-determinant, so out of the control of individuals -- we may as well turn the march of events into laughter, and show that we are all good sports who can enjoy a joke.  Mass movements are the products less of individuals reaching their own conclusions than of contagion.  This is the nature of panicked crowds being suffocated or lynch mobs doing their deeds with boisterous abandon.  It is why political pundits talk about a campaigns momentum, people wanting to be part of a crowd, even when it's invisible.

Obama's legacy should not be that "he killed" metaphorically with his jokes, since part of the responsibilities of the Commander-in-Chief, is real killing.  Larry Willmore, alluded to this:

"But I have to say, it’s great, it looks like you’re really enjoying your last year of the presidency.Saw you hanging out with NBA players like Steph Curry, Golden State Warriors. That was cool. That was cool, yeah. You know it kinda makes sense, too, because both of you like raining down bombs on people from long distances, right? What? Am I wrong?" 

The President smiled, displaying a hint of an impulse to respond, but the image that remained was the broad smile.  He was trapped in the spirit of the evening; this man who has been given the awesome authority to reign down death, something he sees as a responsibility in the face of a lethal enemy. He could not break the mood of the elite having a grand old time, and nothing like considering the reality of the business end of this sanitized method of killing was going to be allowed to break the mood. 

A friend I was discussing this with pointed out that there is a more outrageous example of the excesses of this annual event.  This one was President George W. Bush being the main character in a mordant parody of perhaps the worse "error" of judgement in recent history, the claim of certainty of existence of WMD in Iraq.

It was a 30 second video riff shown in his 2004 speech pretending he is searching the oval office, saying for each area he looked, "no it's not under here" as the audience laughed hysterically.  This video intersperses his mock search with  brief segments of the atrocities that we committed in Abu Ghraib, shown here to illustrate how easily his "comic" routine would be used to foment hatred against this country, generalization to be against the entire non-Muslim world. We all are still paying dearly for this riff  that spread around the world

A President of the United States may be blessed with a natural sense of humor, but never should be put into a position where comedic sensibilities override the awesome responsibility of the office.  If a President is to play to an audience, it is to the people of the United States as the leader of this country and the entire world.

What did get some serious press wasn't Obama's smile at being reminded of his use of lethal drones, but these final words of Larry Willmore:

Thank you for being a good sport, Mr. President, but all jokes aside, let me just say how much it means for me to be here tonight. I’ve always joked that I voted for the president because he’s black. And people say, “Well, do you agree with his policies?” And I always said, “I agree with the policy that he’s black.” I said, “As long as he keeps being black, I’m good.” They’d say, “What about Iraq?” “Is he still black?” But behind that joke is a humble appreciation for the historical implications for what your presidency means.

When I was a kid, I lived in a country where people couldn’t accept a black quarterback. Now think about that. A black man was thought by his mere color not good enough to lead a football team — and now, to live in your time, Mr. President, when a black man can lead the entire free world. Words alone do me no justice. So, Mr. President, if i’m going to keep it 100:

Yo, Barry, you did it, my nigga,  You did it.

This video describes a question to the Presidential press secretary about Wilmore's use of this word, and how the President felt about it, which was fine.  It's telling that the subject of making a joke of his use of lethal drones didn't raise an eyebrow, just as Bush's riff on the non-existent WMD that triggered violent death and destruction with no end in sight. .  What got the country's attention was, as described in the press, "the use of the N-word" (see addendum)  Mass slaughter of innocents is no big deal if it's presented in good fun, but use of an epithet for a race is a genuine sin, complete with proscription against reproducing the actual word, just as Muslims feel about a depiction of their prophet.  

The word is so satanic that it overshadowed what Willmore was really expressing, which was a very personal statement, that I understand as this:  "When we were children, being black meant we couldn't even head a football team, and you have demolished all of this.  Those days the echo of "nigger" was heard by the mob of hooded bigots about to slaughter one of us.  Now a hateful word for us is forbidden, yet I say it boldly in the new meaning that you have made possible, as a sign of  great affection and appreciation for what you have done for our people.  And for me, this transcends anything else.  So I express  it in a way that has a different meaning, ......."My nigger, my friend, you did it."


Other elements, such as Obama's ridicule of "The Donald" went unquestioned, as if it were the same as his previous taunts at earlier dinners of this man challenging his natural born citizenship.  His cartoon image of him flashing on the big screen ignored that he is now the presumptive candidate for one of our two parties that define our national democracy.  While the elite crowd in attendance of both parties generally revile him, to ignore that an overwhelming majority of primary voters, and potentially a majority of citizens may want him to be president, at the very least, makes his being fodder for juvenile jokes less than appropriate.  Obama is still the President, and as such must defend the process, which includes anyone running to gain the presidency by the will of the people.

Before recording of the White House were ended after Watergate, we can sometimes listen to a President with his pals talking freely, joking about them cheap Jews and dumb colored people and bombing the shit out of the bad guys -- all over a glass or two of whisky.  It was a release from every word that they said being evaluated by interests all over the world, with one wrong phrase costing political capital, and maybe a career.

At a certain level of prominence, there are things that are only to be said in private, since anything that is said by a President becomes public news all over the word in minutes.  When the talent to entertain prevails over actual governance, and the somberness of the office, we trivialize such decisions.  Yet they affect real people, men women and children whose existence will be shaped by this person who is now being an entertainer, who is in the limelight, ironically, because of this authority and the trust that the electorate bestows upon him, whether deserved or not. 

We revere Abraham Lincoln because we believe he agonized over the decisions that he made.  When the decision was thrust upon him of war or dissolution of the States, he chose a brutal war based on a vision of a better future, bringing widespread suffering that is beyond our imagination.  How different would his place in history be if he had a dinner, a celebrity roast, to attend rather than a play at Fords Theater.  Would he have laughed at the owners of the Plantations running for their lives, or the liberated slaves who never were going to get their promised forty acres and a mule.  Would that have gotten laughs and garnered praise for his being edgy?  As the writers of our Constitution knew, A President in many ways, as both head of government and head of state, has some elements of a monarch for his term of office.  When even for a single night once a year, the respect for the office is subordinated to garnering laughs, something vital is jeopardized.

It's just not worth it.
-------------------------
Addendum:
 Here's Larry Willmore's talking about this last line on his T.V. Program.  He sort of conveyed the sentiment that I concluded above, but since he did not bleep the N word, as every other video had, he pointed out that the word he used was not nigger, which is an insult, but nigga, which is a different "conjugation." and a sign of affection.  If interesting in this subject in more depth, read this essay,

------------------------
Additions After Donald Trump took office,  From N.Y.Times article

In 2011, Mr. Trump, then a civilian and a guest at the dinner, sat stone-faced as he was mocked relentlessly by President Obama and Seth Meyers for having promoted the false theory that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States.

Mr. Obama said of Mr. Trump at the time: “Now he can get to focusing on the issues that matter. Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened at Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?”

Mr. Trump lashed out the next morning, in an interview with The Times, saying Mr. Meyers had “no talent” and acknowledging his discomfort — “I am not looking to laugh along with my enemies” — while also speaking at length about possibly running for the presidency.

         




     

Fuel for conspiritory Jew haters in Merrik Garland as Justice

This was a letter sent to two eminent historians 

I'm in the middle of reading "The Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives and Antisemitism" and appreciate your telling a story of events in the rare mode of historiography, since consciousness -- from elites to the masses ---is focused on the present, the current elections, values and social stresses that underlie them.  In the Western world, and this country in particular, antisemitism seems an artifact of past times, and the mere raising of the subject outside of academic circles is suspect.  

This is expressed in this article in N.Y. Jewish Week,

“It is a remarkable testament to America that a fourth Jew can be nominated to the court and that his religion is not an impediment,” said Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Committee.

If confirmed, Garland would fill the seat held by Antonin Scalia, who died last month.

Stern said he believes it unlikely that Garland’s religion will “generate substantial opposition from those who would say there are too many Jews on the court. Nobody is threatening violence against the Jews, as happened in Europe when they thought the Jews were too powerful. … It’s unprecedented in the long history of the diaspora that you have an institution as powerful as the Supreme Court and that there could be four members who are Jewish when Jews constitute less than 2 percent of the population.”

This articles is saying, "We have arrived, and this disproportionate representation on the high court is cause for celebration.

Let's jump forward an unknown period, and assume that there has been a series of Supreme Court decisions that, from the conservative perspective, has fostered the murder of millions of unborn babies and impeded the teaching of Gods holy message.  And, it can be pointed out that these cultural changes have been made by a cabal of five un-elected Justices, of whom 80% are, ethnically at the least, of the Jewish religion.

Those, such as the writer of the above article, choose not to visualize that Jew hatred, something that has existed in various forms for millennia, could surface again.  There are hundreds of jurists with credentials comparable to Merrick Garland who could be nominated for this position with similar juresprudential and partisan values.  Many with a Protestant background, a majority of American citizens with not a single Justice on the Supreme Court, as Antonin Scalia pointed out in the Obergefell decision 

While I do not believe that President Obama gave this much thought, and just worked the political calculus of this nomination, it behooves others to look at the possible adverse consequences.  When someone attempts to discern the reality of "Judeo-Bolshevism" whether it be more accurately a canard or a phenomenon, the first pass is the proportion of Jews in the revolutionary leadership.  For those who want to revive Jew hatred, they need go no further.   That revolution evolved from complex evolving historical causes, while the Supreme Court is structured, lending itself to citing of anomalies of religious-ethnic representation and influence.

I am sending this to two scholars who have explored this area in great depth. I see this as a time-bomb, that while unlikely ever to explode, there being no valid reason for it to ever exist.  While it is unlikely that Mr. Garland will be confirmed by the Senate,  it would be preferable if his withdrawal were made without any reference to the issue that I raise.  There are more anodyne explanations that would suffice.

I do not have the ability to do more than share this with you two individuals, with your status in the intellectual and Jewish community providing a path to ultimate access to Mr. Garland.  Historians, by exploring the past have a unique insight into what can be the shape of the future.  And few adverse outcomes are so easy to prevent as this nomination.

Regards

AR

Since writing this Sonia Sottomeyer answered a question after a speech including this: "I, for one, do think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school,"

Same Sex Marriage- An Atheist's Analysis

March 2013

Introduction

This article was first written about the Supreme Court overrule of DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, that advanced a broad movement,  Gay Rights or The Gay Agenda, This was voided by the Supreme Court in 2013, succeeded two years later in the Obergefell decision that deemed limits on same sex marriage as unconstitutional.  The thrust of this now expanded essay, is to step back from the fray, to look at the dynamics of achieving this in an explanatory context  that transcends the zeitgeist, which by definition is impossible - well usually so.  Zeitgeist means those truisms of any society that are so ingrained as to be beyond discussion, either consigned to extreme partisanship or to ideologies that have become "verboten."  As an example,  a brief half century ago, distribution of a graphic description of a sex act was a felony, now it is the criticism of such an act that could be a hate crime. 

My analysis is that of "Non Overlapping Magisteria" The late biologist Stephen J. Gould's essay that attempted to separate the warring parties of the culture war, Religion and Science.  His conceptualization is valuable, as it provides the spirit of this essay, looking at how broad, social-value systems may not provide for resolution but only, at best, a truce with a neutral zone of separation. I am presenting the consequences of how this truce can be broken, and the consequences thereof to a society-  be it a country or a civilization.  

 "An Atheist's Analysis" is central to this essay as I will demonstrate, during the long war, those opposed to the ultimate ends of the Gay rights movement were able to define all opposition as emanating from a different magistra

This is written on the eve of oral argument on two cases that will affect the acceptance of same sex marriage in the United States.   The term that describes the issue, unlike others, does have the neutral term "same sex marriage."  Yet this may not be the most meaningful element of what is being decided in the next few months at the Supreme Court.  The more important issue may be this decision's effect on, as it has been affected by, societies view of--and here the terms have been politicized--Homosexual or Gay.

For purposes of this essay use of current popular terms of gay or straight falls short.  These words are laden with values, the speaker's group identity and implications that may or may not reflect reality. Gay as a common term for male and female homosexuality ignores how sexes differ, technically same sex dyadic interaction,  among all species. Yes, we humans are like our primate cousins in this aspect. The biological inequalities of the sexes can not be legislated away by legalizing "marriage equality."

Before I get into the substance of this essay, a word should be said about the depth of this politicization, that while tracking the left- right divide of the U.S. is considerably more than that.  We underestimate the need for affiliation-in all its guises- as the most powerful force in human affairs, as we focus on rationality, legality or implied cost-benefit analyses. History refutes this as the dominant force in human events, as this issue is a classic manifestation of this mass mentality effect.  This is known by many names such as, "bandwagon" or "social contagion" which expresses our need for belonging, and the other side of the same coin, our primal fear of ostracism leading to isolation.

Assuming the preceding paragraph's validity, this essay has an infinitesimally small potential readership, as it would be worse than useless for those who have a strong opinion on this controversy. My goal is to cast an objective light on those communal beliefs that are the glue of this needed affiliation.  And to make it worse, if I am successful, it will demonstrate that those who revile fundamentalist religious groups for their opposition to homosexual marriage, are equally culpable of the same irrationality.  And to add icing to the cake, I will argue that it is the liberals who have become more mean spirited in their advocacy than those on the other side.

While we look for those who have delved into relevant areas of scholarship or professions such as psychologists or psychiatrists for understanding of variations of behavior this is not available on this subject.  The word "political correctness" has been trivialized, meaning that the actual harm to explication of social events done by such soft censorship of views that the words represent has spread to these groups.  I have explored this in depth in the area of memory loss of aging and its redefinition into a disease, along with the reluctance of members of the UCSD faculty to deal with certain issues at a conference I attended.  (links to be provided)

If there's a political mob, my own affiliation group would be called,  "atheists of America."  The softer term for this is "agnostic" or better yet the now archaic word, "freethinker."   I'll use the term "we" for this loose association since there a dozen national groups around this central concept that usually is defined by fighting religion, the dominant one in this country being Christianity, from infringing on government affairs.  There are specific targets that keep all of us busy, such as preventing Christian symbols on public space or the intrusion of God stuff in affairs of state.  My own narrow specialty is returning to the constitutionally mandated  secular Presidential Oath of Office, that is targeted enough to get universal support from all atheist activists.

Several months ago, the umbrella group of all of these national atheist groups selected a new controversial  Executive Director, Edwina Rogers.  What made her choice interesting is her background as a Republican lobbyist, which flew in the face of the general overlap between liberalism and atheism in this country.  This was from an interview where she responded to this question:

Now, the others, which, I think is much, you know it’s easier. On the gender issues, with regard to marriage, if you take religion out, I haven’t, personally, run across anyone who happens to be a nontheist who has some kind of valid argument against ah, homosexuals getting married, for example. But, I’m going to save that, because it might be possible. I just haven’t seen it myself, personally.

This itself is interesting, as she had supported a party in her previous career that was strongly opposed to same sex marriage, yet said she never considered the basis for this support of her erstwhile colleagues to be valid. (This, and the foregoing is not a personal criticism, but an example of a universal dynamic of subordination of individual views to the group's) 

I had several conversations with her by email and phone, and when this came up she seemed eager to find out if I had such an non-religious argument, which I did provide to her.  She certainly could have rejected it, concluded that my presentation does not prevail over other arguments, but she can no longer claim that the elements of my thesis are "invalid."  In fact, when I brought this up to her, her response was that The Secular Coalition, as an umbrella group, follows the wishes of its constituent organizations which unanimously supported same sex marriage.

The current justification of this organization is not as Rogers had stated that there is "no" non religious argument against this change, but something different that is actually antithetical to the atheist ethos.  Atheism is not rejection of religion as such, but is denial of a unified belief that is not based on verifiable reality.  Support for same sex marriage has now adopted the mass influence techniques that characterizes the most oppressive religions,  including the distortion and demonization of the opposition-those outside of the fold.

This was included in an email from the group today in anticipation of the Supreme Court Case: The main motivating factor behind denying this basic human right is religion. that went on to reference this Gallup poll (pp3) that I tracked down with the following results:

ADULTS WHO OPPOSE SAME SEX MARRIAGE; ± 6 PCT PTS
2012 Nov 26-29
Religion/Bible says it is wrong  47%
The remaining six reasons for opposition, with rounding errors, totaling 59% were not based on religion at all.

This illustrates the mechanism of the bandwagon effect where exaggeration builds momentum, the message being if you don't join in the crowd you will be ostracized --with varying degrees of explicitness in the tacit accusation of hateful gay bashing that is "the only reason for having this position."  I have gathered the arguments on individual and cultural issues of homosexuality in other places, and will not attempt to include them in this essay. The hostility of the so called humanists who seem not to have much human compassion for those who don't share their views on this same sex marriage is rather stunning.

This culmination of the gay rights movement is an amazing phenomenon, one that arose from oppression to what is a variation of human behavior that certainly needed to be radically eliminated.  In doing so perhaps it was necessary to use all the tools of mass influence that were available and to simplify the issue into one between good and evil to provide a clear break from those days of shame and oppression of homosexuals-even if it meant damaging the very language that we use to explore and understand our world.  But in doing so, I see great collateral damage to the ongoing enlightenment project.

The study of cultural anthropology and of history is founded on the exploration of causation, and of what was gained by a given action or social custom. This kind of in depth understanding has been the province of higher education that was fought for by those who defied their zeitgeist and often paid a dear price.  It is based on the free expression of knowledge, irrespective of current social movements.

Edwina Rogers' never hearing about any non-theist argument against same sex marriage is understood by the distortion by the very organization that she now has authority over.  When she was a conservative a few years ago she was against gay marriage, but now she is part of a different affiliation group, and as such she oversees the false depiction of those who do not share her new cultural values. As this principle is adopted by both sides, there is only a rare voice that is not affected by these pressure.

While adoption of same sex marriage may be "the arc of history bending towards justice" it is a social dynamic that has no inherent direction.  The same type of mass enthusiasm that is growing for this movement was evident during the run up to our Civil War, but by both those who wanted to end slavery and those who wanted to preserve it.  Mass movements have no conscience, and certainly no idea of justice.

The rational argument against same sex marriage does exist, and it is not a manifestation of animus towards gays. As a matter of fact it can be based on a concern for those with characteristics that have in previous times resulted in the isolation of being different. This is a complex argument that can only be made to those with an open mind who are not benighted by a movement based on certainty of ones own belief with protective anger against those who challenge it.  In this respect, the mindset of fundamentalist religions is shared by the "marriage equality movement,  that this atheist most certainly and vocally opposes.
------------------------

AlRodbell.com for more on this and other subjects.

A comedic riff that gets to the deeper unexamined issue of same sex marriage.

Notes:  subjects to be included

George Weinberg Psychologist on political use of the word "phobia"
Robert Spitizer psychiatrist -  Homosexual can on occasion be reversed - and his apology
Include "Marriage Equality Among Primates
Article on Law firms shying away from SS marriage case in N.Y. Times








 
 

Vase v. Rock - Can one win by losing

This is being written to help me make this decision

I just finished reading the Wikipedia article on Fair Use of copyrighted material.  It's probably some five thousand words or more, yet every sentence is needed to define what this means in principle and in law. If we include the links to other Wikipedia articles and ancillary references it could be a years study, but would be worthwhile.  It represents the history of the written word and how it is used to convey not only information but the ideas that have marked Enlightenment's prevailing over primitive superstition. 

Now, imagine if the demand had been, "put it all in one paragraph with bullet points."  It could be done, but oh what would be lost!  Yet this is the world that we are living in, where few want to engage in a lifelong endeavor to understand this thing called humanity.  And those institutions dedicated to scholarly study must do so with a wink, an understanding that the goal is to mete out markers of erudition that provide certification of a mastery of knowledge that transcends that of the masses.  These certifications in the form of degrees have special value among those who have lost the capacity to independently evaluate such knowledge.

It's an interesting challenge to put one's self on a ballot for an office like Mayor of a city, as it evokes responses from the public that are usually never stated.   People tend to defend that which they do, especially when challenged.  They won't let the antagonist define the weapons of the duel and will want to get off the first shot, to put an end to a challenge that could shake the coherence of the infrastructure of one's existence.  Politicians, defined as those who master the public's needs, both on surface and deep levels, to win enough votes to gain political power, either understand this or put themselves under the direction of those that do.  Personal self actualization is not the motivation for them, rather, succeeding in a career that requires mass support is the primary imperative.  So, Candidate Barack Obama eventually put on that Flag lapel pin, and when challenged about his not properly reciting the pledge of allegiance at a public forum responded, "certainly I do, do you want to do it again now?"  

His prize was certainly worthwhile, and he has the internal confidence to take every insult to his being with equanimity, something shared by those Presidents for whom the office was not soul destroying, such as LBJ and Nixon.  Those lucky ones like Franklin Roosevelt, although reviled by many, could respond to any calumny by raising his regal chin in laughter as he did in this classic riff, "you can insult me, even my dear wife Eleanor, but I will not abide the opposition attacking Fala, my little Scotch Terrier."    

I now have my required nomination signatures and even tentative approval for a highly regulated three word  ballot description, "Political Website Publisher."  With this achieved, I'm taking pause, thinking whether this candidacy will be other than the public exposure of what my life has not been, what I have not achieved, those private places that for most people are full by my age, but for me happen to be empty.  Wow, that's a lot of vulnerability, and for what? 

The "what" is the question of the moment.  Will the press attention to my positions by the few weeklies struggling for survival even reach this community, much less beyond?  Will my attempts to explain complexity, such as the bizarre referendum that defined this Mayor position being not at all what people think in spite of their vote reflecting a belief that they understood it be seen as an insult.  The first person whom I explained the actual meaning, took this as arrogance, irrespective of my being correct in my clarification of the effect of the referendum.  For him to have gone back and reviewed this law and my explanation would have meant losing the intellectual duel that he avoided by "sticking to his guns."  I learned something, but in the process lost a casual, but valued, friendship.

There are so many reasons not to subject myself to this that I want to write about the reason that I may do it in spite of these personal costs.  I have in mind the enthusiasm, the vicarious pleasure in the eyes of Len when he signed my petition.  This man, who was among those Marines who stormed the shores of Iwo Jima,  relived his personal agony of those horrible hours when we talked about invading Iraq at the Y in 2003, "Oh no, nothing is worse than war."  I will be speaking for him, continuing that chain of the hundreds of lives never lived,  horrors that he shared of that era only available first hand for a few more years as he now approaches his mid nineties, still full of the joy of life that he had come so close to losing.

Will anyone doubt his patriotism as they can so easily mine?  Would Len agree with me, when I tell him how for me, the universal coerced recital of our Pledge of Allegiance shapes the character of our country, one that made it too easy to be led into that invasion that we both deplored, that destabilized the middle east and could be a curse on a new century.  Would Len understand that this is why I can't bring myself to recite those words that proclaim national perfection, a justification to impose those obscene words,"shock and awe" on the innocent people of Baghdad because we are Americans.

"Whether the rock hits the vase or the vase hits the rock, it's very bad for the vase," as spoken by Sancho to Don Quixoti, has personal meaning to me.  I am willing to be that vase but not to be dashed against a rock so solid, so intrenched, so immovable, that I will not even make a dent.  The polity of this city of Encinitas is that rock,  an enclave walled against the pain of poverty and violence that is the fate of most of humanity.  The closest we get to it are those buses full of refugees from the chaos of central America that shuttle back and forth on a nearby highway.  We don't talk about them, and rather focus on how we can expend resources for public art, as a way of congratulating ourselves on our municipal sponsored high culture.

And so it was a cause for celebration when a handful of enthusiasts won over that single deciding vote to purchase a plot of land just off the ocean called Pacific View to be held in trust for the city, rather than be allowed to go to developers- greedy, shallow, destroyers of all sensibilities-- for their own profit.  Those that pointed out, as I did, the serious challenges of owning such a land were consigned to the enemy camp, guilty of trying to sabotage this movement to save this "legacy property."  Feedback from the public, evaluation of potential usages along with other alternative locations, consideration of postponement of unmet needs this would cause, were not allowed to be discussed.  And certainly, the possibility of this city using some of the ten million dollars purchase price to help those children who are escaping violence in Central America was kept far from the city's agenda.    

There is another reason to "run this campaign" which is why those words are in quotes.  The passage of a series of Supreme Court decisions, culminating with "Citizens United" has allowed those with great wealth, using communication image delivery systems undreamed of by our founders, the way to turn the very concept of democracy into something unrecognizable.  The great daily newspapers are dying, which included some that delivered not only the news, but multifaceted historic context; with this loss is the expectations of the readers, the voters, who digested this in deciding on those who were vying for electoral office.  The dumbing down of America has been a long process which has reached that invisible threshold where having the requisite informed electorate may no longer exist.  I savor a single line from a long running television program. When two buddies of Homer Simpson were discussing local elections and the difficulty of deciding who to vote for, Lennie turned to Carl and shared the solution:  "It's easy -- as you drive along the streets you keep count, and vote for the one with the most signs" 

I'm about to either become a small time public figure or pull back into my hole.  As I think about being that empty vase who takes on the rock of the established social order I ask: will this a farce, a tragedy or an engaging drama that brings the public into the play.  Could it possibly be both interesting and accessible to the audience and maybe even reach outside this little city.  Is there even the remotest chance of replacing the "Lenny and Carl" system with something that demands so much more from the voters, the citizens of this country.  Or will it simply be doomed by "too many words" --  a fate that at least will protect this vase from being smashed,  as it will never have made contact with the rock of our culture. 

I guess that's not such a bad outcome, and I will have the satisfaction of knowing  that I tried.

Pledge of Allegiance personal issues

June 2014

I just returned from lunch at a local senior center, where I joined three friends in an enthusiastic rendition of "God Bless America"  including one who is in a barbershop quartet group that had rejected me previously.  So, afterwards I said, "Pretty much on tune, right."  He pointed out one missed note, but said if I could keep up this musical level he could get me accepted.   I love singing that song, standing with friends for whom it was part of our earliest memories, happy proud memories of being in this God blessed country of America. 

While enjoying singing this song, the words a prayer to God, and then even saying, "amen" to the spoken prayer at the table offered in the name of Jesus Christ;  I still do not, will not, can not, recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States.  To explain this requires telling a story, my own,

We all know the words, and it seems like we always did.

I guess I said them on my first day in kindergarten, which just happened to be the same month of our winning World War II. All I knew was that there was jubilation, that everyone was celebrating, and my mother who had spent most of her time telling me to behave, not to make so much noise, handed me a pot and a big spoon, and told me that I could march around the block with some other people and bang as loudly as I pleased. I knew this was a big day.

Living in Washington D.C., I was at the center of the celebration, with planes flying over the parades of soldiers and tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue and President Truman on the radio saying important things. My dad told me that I would soon be able to get something that was so neat I could hardly believe it, a cap gun that made such a loud noise that Roger up the block could hear it right from our yard. Since there were no toy guns being made during the war, we had to improvise, which we did using our index finger. It worked great; and even without the little percussive cap or gun, the words, "Bang bang, you're dead" if your finger was pointed at the other kid was universally accepted as a hit, requiring a dramatic two hands to the chest and a fall to the ground.

But we were all the good guys, and even if we were killed, all it took were the words, "I'm a new man." and we could get up to hide and chase each other until night started to fall or our mothers called us for dinner. ​​​Only much later did I learn that other kids, some as closely related as second cousins about my age who had been born in Eastern Europe had faced a very different fate during these years.

As the years of childhood slowly passed this Pledge started to actually have meaning. "One Nation" I understood meant America, my country represented by the flag; and that we were all good people because of those things at the end of the pledge, "liberty and justice for all." I also came to realize that my family was different from our neighbors, being Jewish, and that some people were angry at me because of this. My dad would never explain why. Finally, out of his frustration with my questions, one day I saw that he was going to explain the reason to me. But all he could say, out of deep pain, was, "we will always be cursed, they'll call us damned Jews... and that is just the way it is and always will be." He had no more to say. I thought, "but why, what did we do, why do they hate us, what should I do?"

His eighth grade education, quitting to enlist in the army at fifteen during the first world war, never prepared him to explore such questions. I learned not to ask him, or my mother, or my Rabbi about these things ever again. In school we started each day with the Lords prayer and the Pledge, and at Christmas sang praises to the "king of Israel" even if by that time I understood that the new country Israel didn't have king, and if it did, it wouldn't be the little boy Jesus who was born in a manger; but what did I care. I was eight years old, and I didn't worry about such things.

And then there was something called the "government" that was all around us and where so many of my friends' parents worked. No one could explain what it meant, but I knew it had something to do with the Capitol dome that I could see in the distance where I played ball and it was big, important, and to me something mystical. In some ways my entire life has been a quest to answer the questions of that child, to explore the meaning of the words I learned to utter at school, to find out what was happening in the world when I was growing up; and be what my father always said to me when I sat next to him in his taxi cab. I always told him that I wanted to grow up to be just like him, and he responded-- not to the child asking the question, but with a rare seriousness, to the man whom I would become--, "No, I want you to be better than me."

In 1954, when I was in the ninth grade, although it seemed earlier, our teacher told us that the Pledge of Allegiance had been changed, that there were two new words added, "under God." Most Americans now alive don't remember when those words were not there, so it seems like a part of the seamless cadence of words that you were never asked to think much about. And as a Jew, I certainly then believed in God, so there was no big issue for me. In fact, I don't remember anyone making an issue about it, at school or in the news. But these two words have become quite important, as people who didn't believe in God felt left out, and some, a very few, actually one man, Michael Newdow, decided to try to do something about it.

He got as far as the Supreme Court in his quest to remove the words "Under God" claiming it alienated him from his daughter since it was promoting such a believe while he was an atheist.  He lost, but it was an opportunity for every member of the Senate to stand on the Capital Steps, the more than ten percent who statistically are atheists included, to recite the pledge shouting out the words "Under God" -- loud enough for all the voters at home to hear them clearly. 

The addition of those words, "under God" changed what had been a patriotic rite, with all that that means for better and for worse, into something more potent, more dangerous, a sacrament that combines nationalism with religious faith, fulfilling a great writer's warning, "if fascism ever comes to America it will be wrapped in an American Flag and carrying a cross."

The candidates for presidential nomination (2012) are following Sinclair Lewis' words as if it were their script, each wielding the phrase, "one nation under God" as a threat of exclusion, a warning to anyone who would dare to challenge their view of what America has become.  This is so powerful that an early version of Barack Obama's campaign website included the description of his sponsoring  a bill in the Senate to require the leading of the Pledge in all public secondary schools, not emphasizing the fact that this was for the state of Illinois. 

Mitt Romney went further, the full story described in this link,  While the inclusion of "Under God" was accepted as a way to differentiate our country from our geo-political enemy atheistic communism, it has remained in place even though now our enemies are those with a more fundamentalist faith in God than we that includes accepting his biblical Sharia Law to control all aspects of life, including provisions that we now find reprehensible.   Yet Romney, who is the titular leader of almost half of the voters in our country, demolished the legal argument that reciting these words were mere "ceremonial deism" not to be taken literally.   The New York Times article states:  "But at a Saturday afternoon rally here, Mr. Romney did not just recite the Pledge of Allegiance; he metaphorically wrapped his stump speech in it, using each line of the pledge to attack President Obama."

 “The promises that were made in that pledge are promises I plan on keeping if I am president, and I’ve kept them so far in my life,” Mr. Romney said, standing among old airplanes in a hangar at the Military Aviation Museum here. “That pledge says ‘under God.’ I will not take ‘God’ out of the name of our platform. ”

The reporter summarized it as follows:

"He speaks of the "promises that were made in that pledge" as if it were a solemn personal obligation that binds each American who says the words, emphasizing "Under God."  Thus the elementary school children who are cajoled under fear of social ostracism to recite words, the meaning of which they could not comprehend, are bound to their oath of fealty to God.

There are many people who share my sentiments, so why would I choose to make this a public issue, when it's so much easier to just stand quietly when the pledge is being recited, or only mouth the words "under God" if saying this bothers me, and just go along with my life. That's what my dad would have done, and that's what every elected official does, Republican, Democrat, Jew, Evangelical or atheist. But that's exactly the point; that's why I have to make it clear that I am not going to recite this pledge, and to give my reasons. I realize that this may inspire rage among a few, but would advise anyone who wants to act on this impulse that this is a personal message, having nothing to do with any of my friends or family, who may or may not share these views.

This public statement has become necessary for a mundane reason, that I am currently a member of my city's Traffic Commission, which means that I must attend a public meeting where they begin each session with the Pledge.   In the past I have just stood out of respect, and when once asked by the then mayor to lead it, politely declined, with a senior member of the council immediately taking over. No one was forcing me to say anything.

The paradoxical nature of our Pledge of Allegiance is illustrated by the past director of Planning of the City of Encintas who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness. While this religion now maintains a low profile; during WWII, when threatened by a people deluded into believing they could dominate the world by military power, thousands of Witnesses chose to die in Nazi concentration camps rather than accede to the edicts of hyper nationalistic ritual. They could have lived if they only extended their arm and proclaimed, "Heil Hittler." Neither this city executive, nor any of his co-religionists, any longer defend these foundational principles; rather they avoid such situations. While once those of his faith sacrificed their lives to oppose the evil of hyper nationalism, now none will risk his job.

At that time Jehovah Witnesses in this country were challenging laws that compelled recitation of the Pledge in schools. The highest court in a landmark decision in their favor closed with,

"But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

These ringing words articulated by Justice Robert Jackson during the darkest days of WWII, were a statement of the essential quality of this country.  It is this that makes us exceptional, rather than our overwhelming military power. It was why we fought against a regime where its leader had abolished due process, and those of his countrymen who had resisted such national grandiosity had all been eliminated expeditiously. We have come a long way since those days seven decades ago, when such ideals inspired a nation, individually and collectively, to risk all to protect these founding principles. We have allowed the most sacred of these principles, freedom of expression, to be diminished without a shot being fired by a foreign enemy.

Many who recite the Pledge of Allegiance do it with the same simple pleasure that I get out of singing God Bless America with my friends at a social setting -- the difference for me being that there we all attend, or join in song, only if we choose to.  Those words quoted above by Justice Robert Jackson, are not self enforcing.  They require individuals, whether courageous or misfits to actually take the heat of whatever reaction is elicited by others, to affirm the principle that he articulated.  When the last person has refused to act on his words, they will be gone, even if they still exist in dusty old law books,  or pop up when googled on the internet.

To me, this would be a national tragedy. 

viral email Obama Military Purge

This is a distorted viral email that I refute at this link 

The purging of those who would be in the way when Obama claims

Victory

 ! !

This brings to almost 200 the list of Generals purged by Obama in 5 years.  200, let that sink in.

 Subject: latest 9 purge

  The latest "9" who wouldn't go along with O's planned take-over of the U.S. (Really look like a bunch of "criminals," don't they?)

Courtesy of George Mell.  This is a purge, and there can be no mistake about it.  To those of  you who have already seen this I apologize, but urge any who have not to send on for commentary.  

 This strange chain of firings from the Military is so bizarre and so unheard of that even Dianne Sawyer of ABC news reached out to cover it when the 9th, yes 9th, Military Commanding Officer was relieved of duty in less than a year.  This doesn’t include the long list last year, this is just the nine individuals this year alone.

General Carter Hamm, United States Army-Served as head of the United States African Command.  Was in charge of the US African command during the fateful night of September 11, 2012 when the lives of four American citizens was taken in the Embassy in Benghazi.  Hamm was extremely critical  of our Commander and Chief and stated he lied about not having reinforcements in the area on that night. Hamm “resigned and retired” on April of 2013.

Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette/United States Navy-Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three.  His most recent activity served as Deputy Commander of the US Naval Forces, US Central Command.  He was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea the night of September 11, 2012.  He testified before the hearing committee and said that there may not have been time to get the flight crews there but left the door open on if told when the events took place  that he could have had the aircraft launched upon cross-examination by Rep. Tray Gowdey.  Recently fired from the Administrative post and relieved of Duty by the Obama Administration for “utterance of a racial slur”.

Major General Ralph Baker, United States Army- Major General Baker served as the Commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar, Djibouti, Africa.  Was also involved in some aspect with the incident September 11, 2012, being under the African Command.  Had said he believed attack helicopters could have made it in time.  Relieved of command and fired for groping a civilian (no assault charges or sexual misconduct charges filed with JAG)

Brigadier General Bryan Roberts, United States Army-General Roberts took command of Fort Jackson in 2011.  Was considered a rising star in his field.  He served in Iraq during his service as the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, and was the Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, KY.  Relieved of Duty and Fired for Adultery.  While this is still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice, it has rarely been used since President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions.

Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant, United States Marine Corps-Director of Strategic Planning and Policy of  for the United States Pacific Command and Commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan.  Highly decorated soldier with two Naval and Marine Commendations and two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals.  He also has an Air Medal with a gold star.  He served honorably and distinctively.  He had asked about supplies to his command.  He was one of two commanding officers suddenly relieved of command and fired from the military for failure of proper force protection.

Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus, United States Marine Corps- Regional Commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force (a forward or frontal division) in Afghanistan.  Also Highly decorated with a Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merritt w/Valor, and three Meritorious Service Commendations.  Major General C.M.M.Gurganus had questioned the use of Afghanistan patrols along side American patrols after two officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was lead into an ambush on the front lines.  Was the other commander relieved of duty for failure of proper force protection.

Lieutenant General David Holmes Huntoon Jr, United States Army-Served as the 58th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY.   He had graduated from the same academy in 1973 and had served in Senior Planning and Education Services through the majority of his career.  He was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship” according to The Department of Defense.   Nothing was released to the nature of the improper relationship. Nothing was even mentioned if an actual investigation even took place.

Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, United States Navy-Deputy Commander of the United States Strategic Command. Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10, where every single one of the 18 Nuclear Submarines with Nuclear Trident Missiles of those three groups were in his command.  This commander earned six Legions of Merit, Two Meritorious Service Medals, two Joint Service Commendation Medals, and several other medals, ribbons and decorations in his illustrious career.  He was removed from service and fired from the military for the charge of using counterfeit poker chips (not making that up).

Last on the list, Major General Michael Carry, United States Air Force-Commander 20th Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) at three operational wings and served in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. He was Fired October 11, 2013, for “Personal Misbehavior” is what was told to ABC News.  He and Giardina were both the two top Commanders over the United States Nuclear Arsenal before their dismissal within 48 hours of each other.

As ABC News reports, this is an extremely alarming rate and one of the biggest and fastest purges of military personnel ever recorded.  It apparently is such a shock at the rate even for a long time veteran of reporting the news as Dianne Sawyer, because at one point she gets heated saying two Commanders of the Nuclear Command.

You don’t put people who are not very intelligent and without a squeaky clean record over that area of the Military.  It is enough to make the hardest and staunchest of supporters as the ABC news crew to pause and ask themselves, “what step is he planning?”

"In GOD we TRUST"