T.S. Eliot and a Christmas wish

And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. 

-- T. S. Eliot

About 15 years ago I discovered an exceptional documentary called, The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara.

Directed by Errol Morris, The Fog of War walks the viewer through most of the 20th century as told by former U.S. Secretary of Defense and World Bank President, Robert S. McNamara.  Mr. McNamara reflects on his life's lessons and uses the Eliot quote above, at a particularly moving stage of the film.  McNamara's heartfelt and detailed ruminations, the film clips, the music by Phillip Glass and still photos all work together to vividly and memorably capture the American experience.

The Fog of War was an Academy Award Winner for best documentary feature in 2003 and I'll recommend the film for the rest of my days.  In the meantime, Merry Christmas.

*image above wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Thomas_Stearns_Eliot_by_Lady_Ottoline_Morrell

A local hero to recall on Memorial Day

Somehow I missed this local news article about two years ago on the 72nd anniversary of D-Day.  The details of a D-Day jump with the 82nd Airborne Division (and subsequent trip back to Normandy 72 years later) is told in this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article by Meg Jones.   Yesterday, I met the gentleman who was the subject of that piece, Mr. Ralph Ticcioni of New Berlin, Wisconsin. (Disclosure: Ralph is Uncle to one of my brothers-in-law).  

French Legion of Honour recipient, Ralph Ticcioni
John Maddente photo

As I listened to the 95 year old veteran speak about his experience, I marveled at his deep humility.  As a paratrooper that fateful day, Ralph along with thousands of his comrades were dropped behind enemy lines.  Unlike his comrades, he landed smack onto a farm rooftop in Cherbourg, France whereupon he had to cut himself loose from his own parachute which was entangled on a weather vane.  Some history readers and viewers of the movie, Saving Private Ryan will recall that Cherbourg was a location of importance during the invasion.  Speaking of the movie, Ralph told me that when he viewed the first twenty minutes of the film; he thought he was watching an actual news reel of the event.  (Many D-Day veterans have expressed a similar reaction to that segment).   

Ralph could easily recall the gear he carried that day, including the amount of ammunition and all the weapons he was issued which included a sidearm (.45 caliber semiautomatic pistol), several hand grenades and a Thompson sub-machine gun (which was swapped for an M1 Carbine rifle after paratroopers reunited with American supply units).  

So pleased to have met this man yesterday.  To all like him, living or not, God bless and thank you for defending freedom!

Hello Earth to Google! Anyone there?

A small, almost unnoticeable news brief on the page B4 of The Wall Street Journal today, contained a disturbing AP report. Apparently, the Pentagon had to intercede in order to thwart Google from proceeding with its plans to have "Google Earth teams" make detailed, panoramic maps of U.S. military bases.

I suspect that authorized military personnel know how to get around on those bases very well without using Google Earth.

To Google, I say: Your earth technology is magnificent, but don't you think that you might be compromising national security by plastering that content out on the Internet? (Sorry Google, I feel strongly about these things; but please don't shut down my blog).  

Sad irony

I heard from an American Muslim troubled by my September 20, 2007 column, "National security vs. civil liberty in America" My reply to him follows...

"I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to respond.

Before I address the points you make below, I should like to make clear that I fully recognize that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (American and otherwise) are peaceful, decent, people of faith. Radical Islam represents only a small fraction of the one billion-plus Muslims in the world. Unfortunately that small fraction still equates to a large number of people that we must monitor and defend ourselves from, in order to preserve our freedoms.

As for the incident that took place at the Minneapolis airport in 2006, it is obvious that you are troubled by my use of the word “suspicious.” If the 6 clerics involved were simply and quietly praying as you maintain, the flurry of events that made their presence so newsworthy, would not have developed. After all, thousands of Muslims travel through American airports every day without the same type of fallout. Your benign characterization of their actions during the whole ordeal does not at all comport with statements from eye witnesses, the gate agent, or excerpts that I read from the police report.

Whether one chooses to describe the activities of the clerics as suspicious or merely provocative, misses the point.

In this day and age, after what we have all been through, greater sensitivity on the part of the clerics would have been highly advisable. People are understandably on edge, particularly in airports. By saying that, I do not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that anyone should refrain from public prayer and again, I do not share your view that all that occurred that day was harmless prayer misunderstood by ignorant Americans. I am fully aware of and greatly respect your practice of praying five times a day. I am also a person of faith and most Americans are not as woefully ignorant of Islam, as you believe.

After this whole sad episode, the clerics elected to sue not only the airline, but also the passengers that shared their concerns with authorities. Therefore, in the future, some who would be inclined to alert authorities to potential danger, will have to weigh the possibility of being incorrect and then becoming the recipient of a fresh lawsuit. I find that conundrum more than a little troubling.

Should you receive this message in time, I’d invite you to watch a local television program called 4th Street Forum, tomorrow afternoon @ 3PM, on Channel 36. The topic of my last column (that you take issue with) is explored during a panel discussion and I was privileged to participate. Within hours of taping that program, I learned that bombs exploded in Pakistan killing 134 people. The latest reports indicate that it was more death coming from the evil hand of al Qaida.

The timing of that tragedy and the taping of the aforementioned TV program was sad irony for me, but I draw no comparison between decent people like you and people who celebrate the murder of Western children, so please do not paint me with such a broad brush. I argue to preserve freedoms not just for myself, but for people like you as well.

That is why I sometimes get discouraged by reactions like yours. Yet I become encouraged when I read and hear other American Muslims like Muqtedar Khan who fully recognize where to place their energy and advocacy. If you are not familiar with Dr. Khan’s work, you may wish to read one essay in particular called “Memo To Mr. Bin Laden: Go to Hell! It can be found at http://www.ijtihad.org/BinladenII.htm

All of this notwithstanding, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. I wish you well.

- John J. Maddente"

National security vs. civil liberty in America

Published: Sept. 20, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

It is a solemn anniversary each year, the kind where you hold your breath hoping that you won't hear a news report about a terrorist bombing or some other horrific act. I'm talking, of course, about Sept. 11, a date that will remain seared into our consciousnesses for the rest of our lives.

Understandably, the date also has devolved into a ritualistic debate regarding the competing ideals of national security and civil liberties. Here's my take.

Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society. The ability to express myself through this column is an obvious example. However, civil liberties should not in and of themselves supersede national security. And some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll to making my blood boil.

Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, enacted in 1996, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation.

I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that law have been documented in the past 11 years? Consider the entire domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls you have made or books you have checked out from the library?

Of course not, and I don't want to hamper its efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Vice President Dick Cheney can pore over my phone logs whenever he pleases. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.

So frisk me! If it makes us all safer, it's worth it. Blame terrorists and their supporters for the circumstances that gave rise to these extraordinary precautions; don't blame policy-makers trying to keep us safe.

A related concept in the civil liberties controversy is the notion of racial profiling. The idea that added scrutiny is given to some purely on the basis of ethnicity is not new, and, in practice, it arguably can be quite troubling.

During World War II, for example, many Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans underwent humiliating treatment in this country to ensure that they possessed no loyalties to the Emperor or to the Führer.

That's a sad chapter for us, but it's not at all what I am advocating. There are no internment camps today for Muslim-Americans. No reasonable person would support such measures.

On the other hand, our country was not attacked by radical fundamentalist Norwegians. I doubt you'll find many Nordic sleeper cells operating around the world. So if I am acting suspiciously in an airport like the six Muslim men in the Minneapolis airport last fall, the fact that I am drawing comparatively more attention than some platinum blond named Sven makes sense to me.

Letter writer Patrick Collentine put it thus in the Sept. 16 Journal Sentinel:
"Since there have been countless attacks thwarted and none executed in six years, I think it is obvious we are more safe today because of the USA Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, aggressive interrogation and holding suspected detainees until we are sure they pose no threat to America."

He added, "There has been one case in six years that the Justice Department has prosecuted for the infringement on civil liberties. I'll take that trade-off any day."

So will I.

Don't read more into war opposition than what's there

Published: March 20, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

"Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser . . . the very thought of losing is hateful to an American."

So goes the famous quote from Gen. George S. Patton's 1944 D-Day address to his troops. That quote was later popularized in a 1970 masterpiece of a movie called "Patton." And Patton's words have relevance today when pondering President Bush's low approval ratings.

It is not the president's decision to go to war in Iraq that sunk his popularity. For many, it's the perceived lack of results stemming from the war, which began four years ago today. That means it isn't the inherent "morality" of the war that troubles many Bush critics; it's the practical yield from it, or lack thereof.

In pure theory, why wouldn't a plan to establish a democratic beachhead in a portion of the world fraught with violence and instability and depose an evil despot like Saddam Hussein, who had slaughtered his own country's citizens, strike millions of reasonable people as a worthy undertaking? Answer: It did.

The late President Nixon, who was arguably one of our most able presidents on foreign policy, put it saliently in his later books. Basically, Nixon asked questions like, "If America does not lead in the world, who will?"

After World War II, the United States successfully "exported democracy" to post-Imperial Japan. And by any measure, the U.S., Japan and the rest of the civilized world are better off for having done so.

But the notion of success in the Middle East is murkier. There is no tangible cliff to scale like there was at Omaha Beach. After the U.S. liberated Nazi-occupied Europe, implementation of the Marshall Plan wasn't paralyzed by legions of suicide bombers trying to derail new regimes or by sectarian fanatics trying to kill one another in the same country.

The frustration is understandable. With more than 3,200 American lives lost (including 70 Wisconsinites) and billions of dollars of our nation's treasure spent, it's difficult not to grieve or grow angry because we can't see an end to the whole depressing morass.

Even the president's staunchest supporters have grown increasingly restive. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll revealed that a full 73% of Americans are following the 2008 presidential race closely. That is either an astonishing level of interest for an election so far away or a clear reflection of popular restlessness.

Yet today's collective opposition to the war in Iraq does not come in one size or shape. Americans who have grown impatient with this war do not all want to join arms, sing John Lennon songs and pretend to act as one for a whole number of unrelated "causes."

Many calling for a troop withdrawal today would look contemptuously at fellow critics who are calling for the exact same thing. Contrary to an old Arab bromide, in the U.S., the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. U.S. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) would never share a stage with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, nor should he.

In a perfect life, we could airlift all peaceable, decent citizens of the Middle East, clothe them, feed them, give them better shelter than they could have possibly imagined and then proceed to bulldoze everyone and everything else in that part of the world. But since life is so imperfect, a 50-year, Korea-type occupation is possible and probably necessary.

We may all uniformly lament that prospect, but don't confuse common sentiment for a single voice concerning America's role in foreign affairs. Had we rid the Middle East of bomb-toting fanatics, Bush's popularity would have soared. Americans love a winner.

Views on domestic surveillance

Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in a truly free society.  On the other hand, civil liberties should not automatically supersede national security concerns without the application of rigorous and transparent reasoning by parties operating in the collective interests of the people. By using the term "civil liberties" in this post, I am writing primarily about the right to privacy guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

National security only trumps the right to privacy when the party imposing security measures (e.g. the U.S. Government) is truly functioning in the interest of the people it is imposing such measures upon, to protect them from those who would do them harm (e.g. Terrorists).  That is the circumstance we are faced with today.  Some of the current clamor on domestic surveillance ignores the greater risks and evils we face.

For example, with enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996 (better known as HIPAA), the government reserved the right to review your medical records without court approval, if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation. I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that legislation have been documented in the last five years?  Ten years?  In many cases, I think our right to privacy -- concerning one's health records and profile were dramatically strengthened by HIPAA, as opposed to invading our privacy on health matters. 

Now consider the loudest domestic surveillance concerns we hear today and ask yourself if you think the CIA or NSA cares about phone calls you have made, or books you have checked out?  I prefer to believe that only those people trying to harm freedom-loving good citizens like us, should be the ones worrying.  At least that's the way I feel today, but governments can and do change into despotic forces so we should always look over their shoulder(s) too.  This is not a static issue.

Dick Cheney, Wikipedia

In sum, I appreciate the slippery slope argument against domestic surveillance, but at this point, I am more worried about hampering efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans.  Dick Cheney can check my phone logs (as long as someone I trust can check his).

Remember that speech Pat Buchanan made in 1992?

Published: Nov. 20, 2004, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

More than 12 years ago, Patrick J. Buchanan spoke these prophetic words during his speech at the Republican National Convention in Houston:

“My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.”

Immediately afterward, Buchanan was roundly denounced as a polemicist and even scorned by members of his own party. Some called it a hate speech; others groused about the political fallout and later blamed him for George H. W. Bush’s failure to win re-election in 1992. Whether or not you agree with his politics, Buchanan had the foresight and fortitude to call attention to philosophical warfare that was real then and remains so today.

Since Nov. 2, analysts all over the airwaves and in print are still scrambling to understand the so-called moral values phenomena that proved so pivotal in our recent election. Debate has centered on the phraseology used during exit polls and which voters actually espoused which values in their voting patterns. It is instructive, however, to go back to that summer evening in August 1992, and recall what Buchanan said about America’s moral values, and compare that to what happened at the polls this autumn:

“We stand with President Bush for right-to-life and for voluntary prayer in the public schools.”

Abortion and religious expression have not taken a back seat at the American kitchen table of debate, not even close. Neither has the topic of how American power is projected throughout the world. Although he opposed the invasion of Iraq, few people can turn a phrase on the subject of using America’s military might as effectively as Buchanan did that August evening in 1992:

“It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity - with but a single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham Lincoln preserved the union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.

And it is time my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight from their anchor booths and sky boxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves - for leading America to victory in the Cold War.”

I felt that the 2004 presidential candidates’ differing views on national security and the war on terror were among the most important factors in this election.  Everyone wants peace and freedom, but I often place it first on my punch list as a voter because without it, little else matters. Sen. John Kerry’s opposition to the 1990 Gulf War, his on-again, off-again support for the Iraq war, his disgraceful Senate Committee testimony as a Vietnam veteran and his disturbing “global test” to see a foreign show of hands before taking action scared me. But back to that Aug. 17, 1992, Buchanan speech:

“We stand with (the president) against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women. “

More recently, on Nov. 2, 2004, voters in the 11 states containing a referendum on the issue of gay marriage agreed with Buchanan. Whether those votes constituted an actual plebiscite on the morality of gay marriage is less clear than the fact that 11 states uniformly rejected the concept, while Democrats remained oddly divided on the subject. Buchanan also made this observation in 1992:

“And we stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.”

In the old days, when conservatives would complain about overt sexuality in TV movies and programs, the standard liberal retort was, “If you don’t like it, just change the channel.” It worked, too, because if you argued with them, they’d cry censorship and take the debate to a new and wholly unrelated dimension. Now sexual images are so ubiquitous in advertisements that you can’t simply turn the channel or flip the page. These days, even the Super Bowl halftime show has become hazardous viewing for children.

Yet as the dust begins to settle from the harsh 2004 campaign, I am thinking as much about how we treated one another as the convictions we expressed during combat. How we debate our values is a value unto itself. This election season reminded me of how hard it could be to have civil disagreements with any measure of civility. Fortunately, personal attacks, racial or sexual slurs and cheap shots designed to maim the spirit did not win this election.

Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, it was harder to remember that value as easily as it is to write about it now. But Old Pugnacious Pat saw it coming all along.