Failure is Not an Option

Gene Kranz is accredited for coining the phrase"Failure is not an option" during the Apollo 13 Mission. Attorney General Eric Holder used that phrase last week as a definition to the efforts that his team will be putting forward to ensure that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) is tried and convicted through our civil due process.

This weekend, David Greggory of Meet The Press suggested in a discussion that this phrase implied that KSM would be tried and executed no matter what the Trial results would be.

When Flight control originally used the phrase, I am sure they had no idea what the final outcome would be as the ground teams scrambled to create a way to clean the remaining supply only using the limited equipment that was available in the orbiter. The Phrase "Failure is Not an Option" is only about the absolute commitment the team would consider when trying to save the lives of the men on Apollo 13.

Holder was not suggesting that KSM would not be provided a fair trial, but only that as his team works for that conviction, to fail would put to risk a greater population of US citizens. With so much at stake,.. I would hope the Attorney General will not consider failing.

Miss California - Beauty above all else

I do not claim any high moral ground. I try very hard not to make judgement and believe that everyone should be afforded a clear opportunity to make up for any mistake.

Donald Trump however seems to have provided another qualifying measure for redemption. Beauty - is now a qualifier for innocents. According to Donald, as long as you are beautiful, you are not obligated to follow rules and are not required to adhere to contracts or agreements. Equally as important, since I am not Beautiful, my views have no value and carries no weight what so ever.

Donald suggests that Carries statements about the existence of the photos are not lies. Carrie even suggested that she did not remember taking the "every" picture in her past. Donald then added that he had reviewed the pictures and had determined that the content was not inappropriate. While I may agree with him, these are not pictures I will be showing to my kids. And I also do not recall when Donald became the spokesman for moral content.

While Carrie was allowed to outline her defence. What she was unable to defend are the facts.
What are the facts?
Fact One: Carrie did knowingly and willingly enter into a (12 page) contract with the Miss California organization.
Fact Two: This contract did require full disclosure of the existence on any photographs or images containing nude / naked content.
Fact Three: These pictures do exist
Fact Four: Carrie inaccurately and with the intent to withhold information, denied any such pictures existed.
Fact Five: Once the 1st set of pictures were released, Carrie denied that any other pictures exist.
These are the facts.

There is a mitigating issue. We can all but agree, the only reason these pictures were released is based on Carries answer to Perez Hiltons question about same sex marriage.

These are all the issues. The line that I'm having difficulty drawing is; How does her looks alter these facts. According to Donald Trump, since I am not beautiful, I would be held accountable,.. provided anyone cared what a common looking person like me would have to say.

Ok one other fact; I have never watched a Miss USA, Miss America or any other pageant show before. So I will not make any impact if I tell you I will not watch it in the future. And I wont.

I will speak out against this pageants in strong terms. Donald Trump said that these pageants are relevant to today's society. I would argue they are not. They rise above the common rules that hold our society together. They do not reflect the common beliefs that America is based on. Honest, hard work can now be replaced with deception, vernacular double talk and empty promises,... as long as you are beautiful enough to be noticed

Torture – How does that work again?

Torture – How does that work again? 4/30/09
I have been frustrated lately about the limited discussions that have taken place regarding the torture issue. Not that there hasn’t been a lot over coverage. Every Op-Ed or News show has discussed it. The issues I have had, is that the editorials only outline one side of the issue, and no one has dedicated enough time to have a discussion that allows for open conversation.
David Gregory from “Meet the Press”, George Stephanopoulos “This Week”, or any of the cable news programs have all opened the discussion, and after 3 to 5 minutes of uncontrolled discussion, there does not seem to be any substantial discussion.
The Cliff May discussion on Jon Stewarts “The Dailey Show” was the single deepest discussion I have seen, and that is a comedy show.

We all understand the arguments. First we have to get the semantics correct. No one is supporting torture. The discussion is around several key definitions:
1) What is torture and what is not?
2) Who is protected under US Law and who is not
3) Who is authorized to establish where we draw lines.
Once we have some how agreed to these issues, we can then think about how we go about holding people accountable.

My Bias: Just so we all know where I am coming from: I believe that water boarding is torture. I believe that anyone who is incarcerated is subject to a standard of human rights. While I believe there can be a simple line drawn between the rights that are afforded to a US Citizen and those that are afforded to a foreigner, there can not be lines drawn on what “class of foreigner” is afforded different standards of human rights. I am not saying these are absolute or right,.. only that this is how I interpret the situation.

With that said, I will try not to use language that will inflame or try to goat a reaction.

What is Torture and what is not?
I heard a lot of conversation about what is torture. Is a slap to the head torture? Is sleep deprivation torture? Is over exposure to cold, torture? With each of these there is an obvious is not almost silly line of yes or no types of answers. For my definition, If I am sleep deprived for 4 days,.. Yes Torture. If I am left in a cold room for two days without cover and no idea if I am being monitored or not,.. Yes Torture. Strip me naked for any length of time,.. Yes Torture.
If I am unwilling to give you information, and you attempt to extract the information by placing me in a “Perceived“ situation where I am compelled to believe that my life, limb or well being is at risk, that is torture. I understand that many people will think this to be very liberal of me, and I will agree. But here is the point. If I rob a bank, or person or place, and I hold a gun, or if I say, suggest or imply that I have a gun, I am guilty of assault. It is law. Perception is reality.

Who is protected by US law and who isn’t?
I was intrigued by the discussion around the qualifiers that were used on detainees for the application of enhanced interrogation procedures. Have we exhausted all other alternatives? Is the detainee and Al-Qaeda operative? As I mentioned before, I have no issues identifying a person as a US Citizen and someone who is not. That makes sense to me. As US Citizens, we have a number of rights and freedoms that are not afforded to people of other countries. But no where do we suggest that other nations are less than human.
I do not need a US law for me to understand that I am expected to treat people humanly. I don’t consider it a US law, that all men are created equal. I don’t think that a right to an attorney is only for US Citizens. I can not believe that detainment without a hearing would be considered.

The push back is: “Well, they will get off” or “We do not have enough evidence to support the charges”. If you read that last sentence and still think that I am just an ideological liberal, we will never come to a compromise. But we still may be able to come to an understanding. If there is not enough supporting evidence that it can provide credability to any claim, then there should not be a claim. Please note, I did not refer to a jury of their peers. But if you do not have enough evidence to convince a competent and honorable judge that someone is guilty, how did you come to a conclusion of guilt.

Who is authorized to establish where we draw lines?
This final issue seems to be less troublesome than the other two issues. I would only suggest that what ever lines are considered to be the line is not a decision that is made in a vacuum. For US Citizens, that is easy. We have the legislative & executive branches for authorizing such rules of engagement. As for international, there would be a body of different governments that agree on common standards. If the acting President wants to edit or withdraw from an existing agreement,. I believe that Congress be required for authorization.

I will save the Accountability discussion for the next blog. But this has been one sided until now. Please let me know your opinions and objects.

GOP Can Survive

Even as the Republican Party faces it's darkest moments, it continues to engage in divisive misinformation as its only tool to combat the predominately popular President Obama. It appears that the Republicans are embracing opposition for oppositions sake.
That is not to say all Republicans have taken this position. However, if you are a Republican and you find yourself supporting President Obama, you also need to watch carefully how the RNC interprets your choices.

As with Arlen Specter, the Republicans were already planning to oust Senator Specter before he shifted to the Democrat side simply for supporting Obama. It should be clear that Republicans forced Specters hand. With the RNC backing a hard Right Conservative to compete in the Pennsylvania Republican Primary, it was a foregone conclusion: Specter could not win. If Specter was to keep his job, he, as with most Americans, made a change. Not a change to the far left. A change to the center.

We still do not see clear leadership within the GOP and that only dilutes any vision or direction. As Republicans continues to shift hard to the right at the same time as the country continues to shift to the center left, what will remain of the GOP for the 2010?.

This is not all doom and gloom. The democrats were is a similar position just 5 years ago. I believe the Republican Party will recover. It may take place in 2010, or it may take longer. But when it does recover, it will come back stronger for its efforts.

To survive, the GOP needs to be more inclusive. The southern, old, white Christian men can not carry the day. They need to tap into the growing Hispanic population. They will need to include other religions. They will learn to temper their opposition with less divisive rhetoric. If they want to bring on new members, they have to first make sure they do not insult them.

They will still be able to hang on to core beliefs. They will just sell it from a different point of view. The new Republican Party can no longer demonize any and all opposition. Republicans need to find a way to deliver their message in a manner that does not first assault everyone who does not already share a specific value or position. They need to position a value or idea so that people can be persuaded to join, not forced adhere. The “it’s my way or the highway” mentality will not survive the 2010 elections.

Once the message has been tempered, and the audience expanded, the GOP will be better positioned to address the issues that are truly core to their image: fiscal responsibility, self-reliance, smaller government, states rights, lower taxes, less regulation. While I may not share these ideals, these are the discussions worth having.