On Afghanistan

Just thought I'd write up a response to something I saw on Facebook today.

In an opinion piece that has been re-posted by a friend of mine, author Cree Hardegree talks about the current situation in Afghanistan. She writes:

"Why is everyone acting like we handed control of the country over to the Afghans just yesterday? They've had SEVEN (expletive) YEARS. This is cultural. They don't WANT to leave. They want us to stay there forever to fight their battles for them while they use the 45-year-old specter of a rooftop in Saigon to force us to strain and drain our resources until we’re (expletive) bankrupt" (1)

I will agree with Ms. Hardegree on one thing; many Afghanis don't want to leave that country. After all, Afghanistan is their home. Would the author want to leave somewhere she loved, and was likely born and raised in? In a similar situation, I think she might oppose such an idea.

However, I think Hardegree's argument that Afghanis "want us to stay there forever" is illogical at best.  Certainly, there are some people who "just want to watch the world burn", but I would guess that most civilized humans prefer peace and order to death and destruction.  Being that Afghanistan has been in the latter condition for many years, why would most Afghanis ever want the status quo to continue indefinitely? That doesn't exactly sound like (for lack of a better term) a "good deal".  

The piece continues,

"Leaving a country always poses a huge risk.  That's why we leave behind equipment and supplies — 'moving day' is too dangerous.  There was very little we could have done differently in Saigon.  There is nothing we can do now except postpone this exact same scene to a future date.  The lessons we thought we learned last time and the lessons we need to learn this time are not lessons about withdrawal.  The lessons we need to learn are about how to avoid going in the first place.  Sometimes we just need to keep our (bleeps) on the ground"

I don't know if Ms. Hardegree realizes this or not, but our military's policy is not to leave anything on the battlefield that an enemy could possibly use.  For example, during the evacuation of Saigon, American helicopters were ditched in the waters off of Vietnam.  This is because it was feared that our Viet Cong enemies might capture the equipment, and use it for their own purposes (see Note 1) (2).  

In any event, I have digressed; let me return to the issue at hand.  

Perhaps the author is correct that, in the case of Saigon, "there was very little we could have done differently".  By that point, American and South Vietnamese forces had been largely overrun; Communist tanks were rolling into the city, and approaching the seat of power.  The only thing that was left to do was play "White Christmas" (the signal for the evacuation to begin), and get Americans out of harm's way (3).  

This fact notwithstanding, I don't agree that in the current situation, there is nothing else we can do but "postpone (the) exact same scene".  History often repeats, but we are not doomed to reprise the same events and the same outcomes.  If indeed we have made mistakes and gaffes during wartime, let us learn from such errors, rather than duplicate our past blunders.  In this way, we may better ourselves, and ensure that the tragedies of Saigon and Kabul never happen again.  

A Thoughtful Retort

 Posting this as a retort to an article posted by a friend of mine.  

"Q: What did the Confederacy stand for?

A: Rather than interpreting, let's go directly to the words of the Confederacy's Vice President, Alexander Stephens. In his "Cornerstone Speech" on March 21, 1861, he stated "The Constitution... rested upon the equality of races. This was an error. Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Mostly true. The Civil War was fought mostly over the question of slavery. Southern states regarded the owning of slaves as a "right", while the Union sought to free slaves. When Union forces attacked Fort Sumter, it was on.

"Q: But people keep saying heritage, not hate! They think the purpose of the flags and monuments are to honor confederate soldiers, right?

"A: The vast majority of confederate flags flying over government buildings in the south were first put up in the 1960's during the Civil Rights Movement. So for the first hundred years after the Civil War ended, while relatives of those who fought in it were still alive, the confederate flag wasn't much of a symbol at all. But when Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Lewis were marching on Washington to get the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) passed, leaders in the south felt compelled to fly confederate flags and put up monuments to honor people who had no living family members and had fought in a war that ended a century ago. Their purpose in doing this was to exhibit their displeasure with black people fighting for basic human rights that were guaranteed to them in the 14th and 15th Amendments but being withheld by racist policies and practices."

That was in the South in the 1960s. Over fifty-five some years later, many things have changed, including the attitudes of some toward differing races. You seem to be saying that there is an all-encompassing anti-black stereotype. To claim that is stereotyping in itself. Not all whites are racist, not all blacks are thugs, and not all Native Americans own casinos.

"Q: But if we take down confederate statues and monuments, how will we teach about and remember the past?

A: Monuments and statues pose little educational relevance, whereas museums, the rightful place for Confederate paraphernalia, can provide more educational opportunities for citizens to learn about our country's history. The Civil War is important to learn about, and will always loom large in social studies curriculum. Removing monuments from public places and putting them in museums also allows us to avoid celebrating and honoring people who believed that tens of millions of black Americans should be legal property."

If we're going to take down "monuments and statues" of this nature, then let's also get rid of any memorials to people such as George Floyd. After all, such monuments "pose little educational relevance". Do we have a deal?

"Q: But what if the Confederate flag symbol means something different to me?

A: Individuals aren't able to change the meaning of symbols that have been defined by history. When I hang a Bucs flag outside my house, to me, the Bucs might represent the best team in the NFL, but to the outside world, they represent an awful NFL team, since they haven't won a playoff game in 18 years. I can't change that meaning for everyone who drives by my house because it has been established for the whole world to see. If a Confederate flag stands for generic rebellion or southern pride to you, your personal interpretation forfeits any meaning once you display it publicly, as its meaning takes on the meaning it earned when a failed regime killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in an attempt to destroy America and keep black people enslaved forever."

First off, this is "apples and oranges", as the Bucs just won the Super Bowl last year. Anyways, I digress.

You may be right, to some extent. If I fly a Chinese flag, that means I'm a Communist. If I fly a "pride" flag, that must mean I'm OK with same-sex marriage and pedophilia. And if I fly an American flag, it means I'm a card-carrying member of the GOP. That makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Regardless, this is more about free speech rights; everyone has the right to say what they wish, and hold whatever beliefs that they do (as long as doing so doesn't endanger anyone else). This includes the right to be...pardon my French...an asshole, as long as that works for the person that's being such.

(For example, I think it's stupid that you smoke weed....but do I bug you about it? Nope. Whatever floats your boat)

"Q: But my uncle posted a meme that said the Civil War/Confederacy was about state's rights and not slavery?

A: 'A state's right to what?' - John Green"

I'll take "Random Comments That Mean Nothing" for five hundred, Alex.

"Q: Everyone is offended about everything these days. Should we take everything down that offends anyone?

A: The Confederacy literally existed to go against the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the idea that black people are human beings that deserve to live freely. If that doesn't upset or offend you, you are un-American."

Meanwhile, our "elected president" goes "against the Constitution" every single day. The very fact that he occupies the White House right now flies in the face of the Constitution, and the idea of free and fair elections from "we the people". Yet I don't hear too many complaints about that from the likes of you. "It is what it is", right?

Also, if we're going to eliminate anything even remotely offensive, then let's take down the Pride flag that flies at Fairfield's Town Hall....because to me, that flag is "offensive". Let's quit allowing cursing on TV, too. And let's stop allowing anything associated with World Wrestling Entertainment to be broadcast (after all, this is a company that, in the past, has told viewers to "suck it").

Give me a break. There will always be something that is "offensive"; that's just the way life is. There's an easy way to deal with that. If you're upset by something that someone says, quit listening to them, and/or walk away from them. If you're "offended" by something that you see or hear on TV, switch to another channel....or just turn the damn thing off. Just don't destroy something that doesn't offend me simply because you happen to be upset by it. Live and let live.

"Q: Taking these down goes against the First Amendment and freedom of speech, right?

A: No. Anyone can do whatever they want on their private property, on their social media, etc. Taking these down in public, or having private corporations like NASCAR ban them on their properties, has literally nothing to do with the Bill of Rights."

Assuming this is correct, please show me where the First Amendment makes any distinction between ideas expressed on public property and speech that is expressed on private property. I don't think that it does so; but then again, I may have missed that part of history class.

Anyways, banning the display of Confederate flags does indeed go against the First Amendment. It infringes on the right of free speech, which is one of the rights guaranteed by the Amendment. Whether this speech is public or private makes no difference; a US Congressman has as much of a right to free speech as an ordinary citizen does. In that respect, this has everything to do with the Bill of Rights.

"Q: How can people claim to be patriotic while supporting a flag that stood for a group of insurgent failures who tried to permanently destroy America and killed 300,000 Americans in the process?

A: No clue."

Likewise, I have "no clue" how people can support the Democratic Party, and still claim to be in their right minds. It happens, though.

"Q: So if I made a confederate flag my profile picture, or put a confederate bumper sticker on my car, what am I declaring to my friends, family, and the world?

A: That you support the Confederacy. To recap, the Confederacy stands for: slavery, white supremacy, treason, failure, and a desire to permanently destroy Selective history as it supports white supremacy."

Nope nope nope. Flying a Confederate flag no more means that I support these things than wearing pink means that I am a woman. You're assigning this a meaning that does not exist (see above re: "What if...it means something different to me?").

Anyways, that's how I see it.

Addendum to "Twenty Rights"

 It has come to my attention that, as of 11:15 Eastern Time this morning, the Capitol Building in Hartford has been re-opened to the public (1).  At the time that I wrote "Twenty Rights", this fact was unbeknownst to me.  Let the record show this as a correction of sorts.  

Twenty Rights

 Via the "Declaration of Rights", Constitution of the State of Connecticut (1).    

    1.  All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.

        Status: In Place

    2.  All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times an undeniable and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such manner as they may think expedient.

        Status: VIOLATED (as of this writing, the Capitol Building in Hartford is not open to the public) (2)

    3.  The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in the state; provided, that the right hereby declared and established, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

        Status: In Place

    4.  Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

        Status: VIOLATED (see "Ridicule Law", Connecticut General Statutes Title 53 Chapter 939, Section 53-37) (3)

    5.  No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.  

        Status: VIOLATED (see above)

    6.  In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court.

         Status: In Place

    7.  The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or things, shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

        Status: VIOLATED (police have been known to plant "evidence", as well as enter homes without having a warrant or consent to do so) (4, 5)

    8.   In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted by the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his behalf; to be released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption great; and in all prosecutions by indictment or information, to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury. No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall excessive bail be required nor excessive fines imposed. No person shall be held to answer for any crime, punishable by death or life imprisonment, unless on a presentment or an indictment of a grand jury, except in the armed forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger. 

        Status: VIOLATED (see explanations of Amendments 6-8 to the US Constitution, "The Bill of Rights In Connecticut") (6)

    9.  No person shall be arrested, detained or punished, except in cases clearly warranted by law.

        Status: In Place

    10.  All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.  

        Status: VIOLATED (as of this writing, many courts are not open to the public) (2)

    11.  The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor.

        Status: VIOLATED (see "Kelo v. City Of New London") (7)

    12.  The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; nor in any case, but by the legislature.

        Status: In Place

    13.  No person shall be attainted of treason or felony, by the legislature.  

        Status: In Place

    14.  The citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.

        Status: Semi-violated (see restrictions on large gatherings, Capitol Building being closed to the public) (2, 7)

    15.  Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

          Status: VIOLATED ("right to bear arms"? Are you kidding me? Limits on types of guns, amount/type of ammunition used.  Mandatory gun registration; gun confiscation for those non-compliant) (8)

    16.  The military shall, in all cases, and at all times, be in strict subordination to the civil power.  

        Status: In Place

    17.   No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.  

        Status: In Place

    18.  No hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors, shall ever be granted, or conferred in this state.

        Status: In Place

    19.  The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate.

        Status: VIOLATED (see explanation of Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution, "The Bill of Rights In Connecticut") (6)

    20.  No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin.

        Status: In Place

Just For Kicks (Re: "Racism, Speech, And The Law")

As it says.

  

Breaking News

Today's news comes to us courtesy of the world of amateur sports.  

On Wednesday (according to reports), officials at USA Track and Field ruled that "transgender" hurdler Cece Telfer is ineligible for the US Olympic Trials in that sport (1).  This story has piqued my curiosity; as such, I hereby address the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC).  

The national team ineligibility of this athlete notwithstanding, it seems that if Telfer was enrolled at a Connecticut high school, (she?) would be allowed to participate in associated competitions (2).  I must question why this is so.  Being that Telfer is ineligible for the national Olympic team, what makes the athlete eligible regarding sports in Connecticut?

All concerns about "equal opportunit(ies)" aside, it appears that CAS/CIAC is endorsing a double standard (see Note 1).  They defend themselves by saying that it is "unjust" to prohibit athletes such as Telfer from competition.  However, as has been shown in the organization's behavior in the case of Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, CIAC cares not for "fairness"; they only care about their own agenda (2, 3).    

Sadly, female high school athletes in Connecticut have not had any viable chance at success for over a year.  It appears that it will be a while before justice is (possibly) done in this case (see Note 2).  

Now, a final personal note to CIAC and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  As the saying goes, "justice delayed is justice denied".  It behooves both parties to keep this in mind (see Note 4).  

The Bill of Rights In Connecticut

First Amendment: 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (1)

State's Response:

    "There's no such thing as free speech; there is only approved speech.  And you better not utter any kind of insult; otherwise, you could be going to jail"

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53, Chapter 939, Section 53-37:

 "Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor" (2)

Second Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

State's Response:

    "We'll tell you what guns you can have, as well as the amount and type of ammunition that you can have.  If you don't register your gun with the state, you have two options; make the gun 'permanently inoperable', or remove it from the state.  That's not infringement of rights, that's 'reasonable gun legislation' (3)

"And yes, we will confiscate your guns if you don't comply" (4)

"Also, in case of attack, don't call the police; they can't do much of anything anyway" (5)

Third Amendment:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law"

Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

State's Response:

    "Warrant? We don't need no stinkin' warrant!" (6, 7)

Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

State's Response:

    "We can take your property at any time that we want to.  And what do you mean, 'just compensation?" (8)

Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense"

State's Response:

    "Agreed, but criminal investigations notwithstanding, one can 'run out the clock' on a civil matter" (9)

Seventh Amendment:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law"

State's Response:

    "We don't have to give you a trial by jury, even if you demand one.  They are granted at the general discretion of the presiding judge"

Eighth Amendment:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

State's Response (during the COVID pandemic):

    "You organized an event where people weren't wearing masks, or that exceeded size limits? Five hundred dollars, please! Ha ha ha!" (10, 11)

Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

State's Response:

    "What other rights do you think you have?"

Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

State's Response:

    "See response to Ninth Amendment.  Other than the rights that we approve of you having, you have no rights".