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.

To cry for....

Two items tonight, neither of which are earth-shattering or of deep insight.

First is a movie item. My wife and I were "without kids" on Friday and following a very nice date in Boston, we decided to continue it by grabbing a movie. Sort of a last minute thing and we really didn't consider deeply the various options available, but we had seen the previews for "Marley & Me" and it seemed enjoyable enough. Owen Wilson and Jennnifer Aniston -- how deep could such a flick really be?

So we entered the movie with relatively low expectations, merely looking for some mindless entertainment and enjoyment. And that's how the story certainly started. Without giving away anything to those who plan to go see the story, let me just say that it was NOT what we expected. It was good and it wasn't deep, but it was not mindless, I suppose. For those who have seen it (and I gather from the numbers reported, quite a few have), I wonder if they were able to keep their emotions in check.

Which brings me to my second point for today; mindless entertainment that is to cry for! Our darling daughter terribly spoiled our son by giving him Guitar Hero World Tour for his XBox 360. He has had the system for a while and became a fervent action hero in a couple of games, such as the Halo series and some car chasing games, as well as flight games. I've tried my hand at some of these games and while they were mildly entertaining, I could not get engrossed in them.

But this Guitar Hero thing is different. First of all, the soundtrack is great with a lot of rock tunes from the seventies and eighties. Then there is the idea that you are actually creating music as part of this game is very appealing and strangely addictive. I've found it hard to put the guitar down and the only good reason is the fatigue that builds up in my left wrist and fingers as a result of the extended play. Finally, there is the competitive element of not only beating each individual gig, but going head to head with my (much) better son in a game we both seem to enjoy.

So here is to (two) things to cry for ... Marley & Me and Guitar Hero. What a way to end 2008, a year that was to cry for too!

What is this I see......?

I found an interesting website here related to visual illusions. Muhsashum blogged about it and was selected as a blogger of note. I thought these three images were worth repeating....if you are seeing dots or waves, no worries -- it wasn't the eggnog.







Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!!