Is it the Law or Common Sense?

Here's a question for you. Driving after drinking (drunk): smart or stupid? How about: Texting while driving; smart or stupid?

Too black or white you say? How about Driving without seat belts fastened: smart or stupid?

We make rules and regulations (laws really) to govern the way we intend people to operate motor vehicles in our midst, not only to protect us from harm, but to protect drivers and occupants from themselves. I know, some among us feel that such governmental intrusion is unwarranted and overreaching, something to be avoided at (almost) all costs. Who are we to tell motorcyclists to wear helmets? Why should I wear a seat belt - I am not hurting anyone!! For the record, I always wear my seat belt when in the front seat of any vehicle (as required by law and common sense).

As far as not hurting anyone, I caught the local news story today where a 24-year-old Lowell woman died overnight in an single vehicle crash on I-93. Michelle was unfortunately not wearing her seat belt and was ejected when her car tested the tensile strength of the abutting trees. She was someone's daughter, someone's friend, perhaps someone's love. She hurt not only herself, but all those who knew her, cared for her, and had high hopes for her. She didn't follow the rules or the Law and she will never have the chance to change her mind.

You do! If you don't believe that seat belts save lives, yours and your loved ones inside and outside the car, the Internet has many resources to show you otherwise. A sample can be found here:
MADD: www.madd.org/stats
NHTSA: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/outreach/safesobr/15qp/web/bukeymess.html
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control :www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/buckleup.htm

But who needs information, right? This is just Common Sense. So tell me, who lived through their crash in these tow photos? Yep, the firefighter did.


Merry Christmas - - be safe out there and enjoy the New Decade!! And let's rely on Common Sense -- that should be the Law!!

What does the Future look like?

Pranav Mistry: The thrilling potential of SixthSense technology Video on TED.com

More Aviation Humor

With a hat tip to my friend's post at Right-Side-of-Lowell, I thought I'd show another link to the website of a former Dutch Air Force colleague of mine, who has a publishing business with aviation humor on the side. His latest book "Going Up, Sir" brings together cartoons of over 20 (worldwide) cartoonists and looks very promising. He also provides the bios of the artists, as well as their websites. Well worth a look.!!!

Strenght of Character

I saw the new Clint Eastwood movie "Invictus" this weekend and it was very, very good. Even accounting for literary license and romanticism, Nelson Mandela is one impressive, compassionate, and courageous leader. I must admit that I have not done much to acquaint myself with his history, other that the things that were newsworthy with the abolition of Apartheid. I plan on correcting that deficiency!

The movie, featuring Morgan Friedman in a Oscar-worthy performance as Mr. Mandela, derives its title from a poem by the English poet William Ernest Henley, who lost his foot to tuberculosis and (according to Wikipedia) wrote this very powerful reflection on the human condition.

INVICTUS:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

All I can say is "wow". I know; inadequate and banal but heartfelt. I am not much for poetry, but the emotions in this work really connected with me at a visceral level. And it seems to perfectly apply to Mr. Mandela, who emerged from a 27-year imprisonment to go on and lead South Africa out of the darkness of Apartheid into Integration! Go see the movie.....

With thanks to Wikipedia!

Thanksgiving.....or is it?

Reflecting in advance of Thanksgiving, here is an interesting bit of information on the First Thanksgiving Proclamation. This historic proclamation was issued by George Washington during his first year as President. It sets aside Thursday, November 26 as "A Day of Publick Thanksgiving and Prayer."

The history of that day, of course, dates to the days of the Pilgrims. The Fourth World Documentation Project describes the historic meeting between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag to celebrate three days of thanksgiving. The gathering resulted in a peace and friendship agreement giving the Pilgrims the clearing in the forest where the old Patuxet village once stood to build their new town of Plymouth.

One man's thanksgiving can be another man's lament or is this the law of unintended consequences? With thanks to the Fourth World Documentation Project.

Thank You Veterans!

This week, we will observe Veterans Day, formerly known as Armistice Day. Veterans Day was originally set as a U.S. legal holiday to honor the end of World War I, which officially took place on November 11, 1918. In legislation that was passed in 1938, November 11 was "dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be hereafter celebrated and known as 'Armistice Day.'" As such, this new legal holiday honored World War I veterans.

In 1954, after having been through both World War II and the Korean War, the 83rd U.S. Congress -- at the urging of the veterans service organizations -- amended the Act of 1938 by striking out the word "Armistice" and inserting the word "Veterans." With the approval of this legislation on June 1, 1954, Nov. 11 became a day to honor American veterans of all wars.

My heartfelt "Thanks" to all veterans. Let's keep them and all those serving today in our thoughts and prayers!!

The Big Bad World.....

In the last week, I've read a number of opinions and articles reflecting on the role of the U.S in today's world and the future. Two pieces in particular resonated with me. One article (thank you John K!) dealt with the geo-political realities and the "Grand Strategy" of US administrations, Obama's in particular. George Friedman's piece on "Obama and the U.S Strategy of Buying Time" made me think about graduate school and the discussions we had on realism versus interdependence and the implications for empires, alliances, and world peace. The second article "The Modest Superpower" reflects on the roles of Europe and the US in light of the ongoing financial crisis and economic downturn.

The first article's main thrust is that the US tries (for good reason, according to the author) to stall for time before taking action. The second article concludes that Europe may be the next Superpower, at least economically, if not militarily. To me, these two articles complement each other and illustrate the advantages and dangers of the "wait and see" approach.

I am more inclined to side with the first article's approach, although that makes me sound like an isolationist perhaps, which I most assuredly do not see myself as. The second article, while I agree with the observations and implications, evokes a "where did we hear that before?" response in me. As I recall those graduate school days, it was Japan set to inevitably unseat the mighty American economic machine. But Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" put economic power and military might in perspective for me then, as it does now. Although he did forecast the fall of Pax Americana....

What did I conclude, you might ask? That it is a big bad world out there; that nothing is for certain; and that I am hopeful, dare I say optimistic, about the changes of the US. To paraphrase Samuel Clemens: "the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated."

Global Climate Change -- we are our own worst enemy

I’ve been quiet on the merits of global climate change for a while, but not because I changed my mind about the validity of that claim, nor about my belief that human activity plays a role in the warming trend. It seems to me that a global warming trend will significantly alter the geo-political reality and place enormous long term pressure on the ability of governments to effectively deal with the effects of resettlement, changing sea levels, and other global impacts. I have not bothered to engage or comment on the various nay-sayers that use cherry-picked data to “proof” their point, because, frankly, what does my opinion really account for or matter.

But it seems the Associated Press did take notice and wanted to get to the bottom of the global cooling trend claim. An AP Science Writer article on today’s MSNBC website details a “blind” analysis by independent statisticians and concludes that the data shows a continued global warming trend. Unfortunately, the article itself does fall in the same trap it accuses the nay-sayers of – in the end, the author cherry-picks scientists and data to make inflammatory predictions about near-term trends. In this case, the dim-witted author regurgitates a claim that next year’s El Nino will produce a record breaking 2010 so that “a cooling trend will never be talked about again.” He should have left well-enough alone!!!

The Joys of International Travel.....a cautionary tale

Earlier this summer, we packed up the whole family to attend my parents 50th wedding anniversary in the ol' country. Now I have had a passport (unlike a certain vice-presidential candidate) for most of my life as has my wife and our kids. We travel fairly regularly outside of the US and keep our passports current.

Before the trip, I was well aware of the expiration date on my passport, which was just about 3 months after we were planning to return back from the trip. You see where this is heading? I checked in with the airline the night before the trip and input all our passport information into the reservation system, printed the boarding passes and headed off to the airport about 3 hours prior to the departure time, ready to begin the domestic connection portion for the international (night) flight.

Well, not so fast. Upon having checked our luggage, the airline employee decided that I was NOT allowed to take the flight!

So there we were at the airport, bags checked, ready to go to a "must attend" event in 3 days (this being Thursday afternoon and the party being Sunday)and I am out of luck. Now what do I do?

First the good news. After learning where I needed to go to get something done with a valid passport that had more than 3 months of time remaining, the Boston State Department office was as helpful as they could have been. It took a lot of time waiting in lines, but the actual time to get a brand new passport and walk out of the door was less than 90 minutes from handing in the completed paperwork to passport in hand. I was very impressed.

Of course the bad news was that I missed the flight, but I was able to get a 24 hour delay and repeat the whole thing (boarding included) the next day and the party went off without further incident. But the lesson I had to learn the hard way should be a tale of caution for all international travelers.

The bottomline is that the expiration date on your passport is a bit like the "sell by" date on the milk....it may be good, it may not be. Apparently each country gets to set its own requirements for visiting passports and the time a passport needs to be valid after the expected trip return date varies widely (from 9 months to nothing).

So I now will forever heed the advice of the young lady who was the first State Department employee to hear my plea -- renew your passport when it is within a year of expiration. The State Department passport office does NOT work on weekends. Had this happened to me 26 hours later, I would have missed the one event my parents had been looking forward to for 25 years!

For more information about passports, the State Department's International Travel section maintains a "by country" listing of the requirements. General passport application procedures can be found here.

The State of Democracy and Public Interest

My friend and colleague at The Right Side of Lowell blogged (uncharacteristically brief) about the MA vote to allow the Governor to appoint an interim US Senator. Earlier he had asked about the lack of outrage in reference to the impending decision to change the law/rules. Frankly, at the time, I didn’t think the issue rose to the level where moral outrage was warranted or worth the energy. However, he indirectly does raise a point. Where does the slippery slope of democratic value deterioration start and when does the “public interest” become an afterthought in the drive of the political elite for self-preservation?

I ran across an article in one of the leading Dutch newspapers, het NRC Handelsblad, lamenting the lack of political will to define “public interest” and the resultant deterioration of democratic values. One particular phrase resonated with me. The author concludes that for a host of reasons, governing in the Netherlands is now “incident-driven” with “symptoms of ADHD.”

That made me wonder where we in America are on that spectrum? Are our democratic values secure or compromised? Is the tone of political discourse conducive to sound decision making , or are we sliding toward a system where the vocal minority overshadows the true public interest? Is the lack of political engagement by the silent majority a sign of apathy, complacency, or stupidity?

Can we have a reasonable, albeit ideologically diverse, dialog about the real issues facing our democracy, be they national security, health care, economic prosperity, or energy? I sure hope so….although I am afraid we are free-sliding on this side of the ocean as well.

SimTV: an I/ITSEC 2009 preview

SimTV

Shared via AddThis

We all need a shot of courage - North Andover, MA - North Andover Citizen

We all need a shot of courage - North Andover, MA - North Andover Citizen

Posted using ShareThis

Harvard's Gold Bars

A bit more about those elite schools up here in the North East. Today is the graduation for Class 2009 at Harvard, a school widely considered to have the most "gold" and prestige. One thing it does not have a lot of are Gold Bars; as in those of graduating second lieutenants.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the graduating class will include seven (7) newly commissioned officers for our nation's military; four Army and three Marines. As you may know, Harvard does not have an ROTC program and these cadets had to fulfill their military training at MIT. But of these seven brave and dedicated young people, I happen to know one. She is the daughter of a former classmate and squadron mate of mine; a fellow Dutch fighter pilot who now works for American Airlines and his wife, a former USAF nurse. Mark and I both met our future wives at pilot training, in the days when the US Air Force was smart enough to send its newly-minted gold bars serving in the medical corps to a training base in Texas filled with eager young pilots from the US and a handful of European countries. As joint spouse assignments a not the norm between countries, most of these unions either disbanded or resulted in one of the parties enjoying a short military career.

Mark and Karen's daughter was the first-born out of these international weddings and she is the first to graduate from college. We got her graduation announcements a couple of weeks ago in the mail and she is following in a proud tradition of service, being the first to begin her service in the US Army. Pretty neat! But first and foremost, our "thanks" for your commitment to our safety and security. Congratulations, stay safe, and be well!!

Supreme Backgrounds?

My friend and colleague posted on his blog about the lack of diversity in the background of our current Supreme Court justices. In response to his second question, what constitutes diversity, he points to a strong commonality of educational backgrounds and closes with a plea for some diversity in background (for Supremes) as we go forward.

I applaud his open-mindedness about the acceptability of the President's candidate for the Supreme Court and concur that the educational background of the sitting justices is more similar than dissimilar. But I would argue that educational background diversity is a red herring.

Being of the age where one’s children are active in the college selection process, it is clear to my why Supremes would have a similar educational background. Driven, smart, ambitious high-schoolers tend to apply, and get accepted, to the most prestigious (whatever that means in their mind, but the Princeton Review and others do a nice job of ranking the nation’s bastions of higher learning) universities they can. It takes a smart, driven, and ambitious person to rise to the top of their chosen profession. While we may not be personal fans of these character traits, it is undeniable that organizations reward these individuals with increasingly more complex and challenging assignments, leading to advancement and greater opportunities yet.

So that the cream of the crop rises to the top is no surprise to me. The diversity in educational outcomes is representative of the diversity of the student body that enrolls in these institutions. Students are critical thinkers, not brainwashed sponges that blindly absorb anything the institution throws their way. It can be argued that diversity of the student body in colleges is mostly lip-service, but I don’t believe that was The Right Side of Lowell’s point. I believe colleges, and the elite colleges in particular, very much try to create a vibrant and diverse student body, given their constraints on admission and minimum acceptable standards (a very high bar!!).

So I would argue that the true diversity comes from the accumulated experiences of a lifetime. I like President Obama’s tongue-in-cheek comments delivered during his commencement speech at ASU - -a body of work is never complete. Experiences gathered over a lifetime are important influences on decisions and points-of-view. But if psychologists are correct, a person’s character is formed at a very early age; Freud (I know, he was not a psychologist) put it a 5 years. The point I am making is that early childhood experiences are widely considered to be formative for a person’s path in life. I haven’t done the due diligence in comparing the early childhood environments of the current or future Supremes; my guess and sense is that these are not very similar at all. Other than that they were influenced in some form or fashion to exploit their abilities, escape their perceived confines, and be all they could be!

And that is what Americans are all about – so where is the diversity in that?

Las Vegas.....

As some may know, while we were getting a taste of the "empty nest" syndrome the last few weeks, my wife and I decided to take a quick trip up to Las Vegas during the April vacation week. Good thing we did not decide to make that a trip to Mexico (I do like Playa del Carmen). And my buddy Cliff (you know him from his blog) has bugged me for details and an updated post. I do admit to having lapsed in my responsibilities to the blogger sphere, but, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!

Sorry Cliff!

Alberto Gonzales' Arguments...

I was driving home tonight and listening to NPR, where I heard the commentator quote our former Attorney General as having stated "I see no criminal prosecution for me, nor for anyone that I am aware of, because [......] people acted in good faith." According to the commentator, the "good faith" argument was in response to potential criminal prosecution for his role in authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, such as water boarding.
The interview is listed here and the salient passage is at 19:15 and on. Whether or not you agree with the legality of water boarding or have an opinion on its necessity as an interrogation technique is not my point here. I find the legal argument that the former AG presents very interesting and possibly revolutionary. In essence, AG Gonzales claims that as long as you are truthful and do not act in your own self interest or for political interests, you are not criminally liable. And that is particularly true if you are acting “in the best interest of the United States, as [you] saw it.” So to take that argument to one conclusion, Robin Hood was never criminally liable. He acted in the interests of others, he did it in the best interest of the country as he saw those interests and he was not concealing the fact he was stealing money. Ergo, he was above the law as it was written at the time.
It probably was that type of reasoning that enabled the Bush administration to expand the power of the Executive Branch to levels not perceived possible, even by the Nixon administration. I don’t know if the quote from the movie “Nixon” is accurate, but it is telling: “if the President orders it, it is NOT illegal.” I thought, and I’m just spit-ballin here, that the laws as enacted by the legislature applied to everyone, subject to interpretation and adjudication by the judiciary…..I’m sure I read that somewhere…..History may judge the AG as a hero, but for now, it seems he acted like an outlaw. And Mr. AG, I just like to say: "we can handle the truth."

The Decline of Dutch Tolerance

My friend Cliff, who blogs here, sent me an email last night with a link to a blog that follows the Dutch political scene. On that blog, the case is made that Dutch civil liberties are a myth, as is the country’s tolerance. As evidence of these moral declines, Perry de Havilland cites the decision by a Dutch court that the prosecution of a Dutch politician accused of hate speech may proceed. Cliff inquired if the report was even close and he asked me, because he considers me his resident Dutch expert. So here’s my two cents worth.

I see two issues that should be addressed in answering the “is it close” question. First, is Wilders being prosecuted for hate speech, and second, is this evidence of the decline of legendary Dutch tolerance. Let me take the latter first, just to be different. As a longtime (former) Dutch citizen, I lived in the sheltered cocoon of self-delusion about the national identity of the Dutch. We considered ourselves cosmopolitan, interested in world affairs, independently critical of the actions of large Nation States, and above all, tolerant of all views. As I traveled throughout Europe, these views were reinforced and refined. But when I took up residence in the US, these views changed. I now think the Dutch were not so much tolerant as indifferent. The indifference is not malicious – it does not mean they do not care. It means they allow for others to do their “thing” as long as it does not interfere with their own “thing.” The Dutch are tolerant in the sense that they do not put personal morals in front as political aspirations. They do not, or at least they did not used to, “preach” about what they perceived as the right path forward being the only path. I’ve found that in the US personal freedom and the protected free speech has created endless opportunities, to include the opportunity to harden one’s opinion about others’ equally eloquently stated opinions. Tolerance of other opinions, especially in the political arena, seems to be going the way of the dodo. We defend everyone’s right to express their opinion, we just are adamant to discredit is as forcefully as we can, for the purpose of political and personal gain.

Is that tolerance? I think not. And it seems to me that the ‘we” in the latter part of the previous paragraph is not limited to the US – I think The Netherlands is losing some of their “indifference” toward others and copying (as they do everything else) the US example. So the “we” is becoming “universal.”

Back then to the first part of the question, is Wilders being prosecuted. The answer is yes. It is my understanding that he indeed can be prosecuted for hate speech. I read some of the comments to the posting as well and those illustrate to me the difficulty in establishing limits on free speech. It seems to me that everyone, the US included, struggles with someone's right of free speech when it bumps up against "hate mongering." These are both abstract concepts and the position of the separation line is not clear. A three-judge panel in Amsterdam ruled not that Wilders is guilty; they ruled that the State can prosecute him. He will have his day in court and Dutch civil liberties are no more threatened by this action than when a US judge orders that Guantanamo prisoners have a right to their day in court. We may not like what the outcome of the trails may be, but we cannot claim that the Dutch State has a rubber backbone, just because the judiciary approves the State’s attempt to test the limit on free speech. Free speech is not free….there are consequences and when free speech is no longer tolerant to the interests of others’ life and limb, it seems to me every society has the obligation to examine where free speech becomes hateful and harmful. A slippery slope, I agree, and one that Dutch “indifference” avoided for a long, long time.