Below is the column I wrote for my Law School's paper, The Forum for its September issue. I might actually break off a blog from here and actually make a dedicated blog to vets issues since I only get 600 words per column and I'm sure I'll have more than 600 words worth of things to raise.
So, here it is:
Episode one of "The SITREP"
What happens when the cameras stop and the lights fade?
The cessation of US military operations in Iraq, on August 31 brought to a close a seven year ordeal, for the United States, Iraq, and their citizens. Over 4400 US armed services personnel died in combat operations. According to Iraq Body Count (www.iraqbodycount.org) roughly 97,000-106,000 Iraqi civilians died since the commencement of “Shock and Awe” in 2003.
After the politicians give their sound bytes, network anchors sign off, and pundits exchange heated and empty words, a post-war reality will set in. Military cuts. They came after the end of the major military campaigns of the 20th century. They will come again renewed in a reality of a weak American economy and the need to reallocate money to other sectors of society.
Service members will be released, to comply with new manning requirements in each military branch. It is not that they are unfit. Instead, it is the reality of personnel cuts. The highest performers are retained and the rest sent home with a severance check and a thank you for a job well done. Those facing separation will attend week-long class to prepare these individuals with the pending transition to civilian life. They will receive training on resume writing and interview skills, but the lingering question is whether it is sufficient.
Because there are service members who have only a high school diploma or GED but no further civilian education, whether or not they are able to relate their military skills to the civilian sector is essential. Most of their professional skills are limited to their military specialty or rating.
Disabled veterans, suffering from PTSD or physical disabilities have a stake in the social awareness of veterans in the post OIF/OEF world. Disability benefits do provide compensation to veterans with disabilities: but the higher the benefit, the greater the disability. Although eligible for money, they still have to pay for their health care and other living expenses. Not every veteran lives within driving distance to a VA Hospital. If the disability is severe enough, the veteran is unable to get to the hospital without assistance.
Without sufficient support at home, many of veterans may end up as their post-Vietnam brethren, either struggling with substance abuse problems or amongst the ranks of the homeless. The VA estimates 107,000 veterans are homeless at any night (www.nchv.org/background.cfm). Around 1/5th of the homeless in the United States are veterans. Shameful statistics considering many of these individuals gave loyal service to their nation.
Without the reminder of war to maintain interest in veterans, reservists and the active duty personnel, will the sensitivity and concern for this group continue? When the cameras stop and the lights fade will the current priority for veterans and their families recede to the social backburner?
What can be done to support veterans and to keep the issues that affect them squarely in the public’s eye as OIF/OEF fade into the pages of history?
Next month, “Lest We Forget, Part I” a look into the issues facing disabled veterans.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Dr. Martin Luther King would probably not be so thrilled about Glenn Beck using his legacy.
In the wake of Glenn Beck assuming the Dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr upon the very steps where Dr. King stood looking out upon a great gathering to share a his hope for the future of American race relations, one question stood out in my mind. While Dr. King would continue to be hopeful for the United States, his eyes would reveal an ugliness that would cause him great consternation.
The roiling national controversy sparked by the Cordoba House. Also known as the "Ground Zero Mosque." I refuse to call it the "Ground Zero Mosque" in that it is neither where the World Trade Center Towers once stood, nor is it only a mosque.
From New York to Indiana to California, a renewed vitriol is directed at Muslims and their faith. Protests abound, raising false claims about the Islamic faith and Muslims themselves. A group is singled out soley based on their religious belief and their desire to practice their own religion. A group of American citizens no less. American citizens who are afforded the protection and rights of the laws of the United States, to include the United States Constitution.
I do not write to demonize the protests. Despite logic and facts based either in myth, fanciful ideas, misinformation, or simple ignorance; those protesting do have the right to protest. Despite how foolish, racist, and plain mean they present themselves to the world. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church has its place to spread its inflammatory rhetoric at military funerals (I have my own personal opinion on that, involving keelhauling the lot of them), just as these misguided people have their right to protest.
What terrifies me, having given six years of service is that those rights protected by the Constitution, specifically by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment could be simply pushed aside to calm the angry masses. Elimination of civil rights without any due process, nothing to recognize that these American citizens have constitutional rights. It should cause great discomfort to any person that one group singled out because of one racial or ethnic or religious trait to name a few can have their rights stripped away.
Where does Dr. King fit in all of this? Seeing the unmasked hatred pointed towards Muslims based on their religious beliefs would cause him great pain. It would be another example of how his "Dream" has not yet been met. It would also cause him to probably confront Glenn Beck and find out why Beck has only worked to stir the flames of nativist-jingoist hatred and not defeat those very mindsets.
The roiling national controversy sparked by the Cordoba House. Also known as the "Ground Zero Mosque." I refuse to call it the "Ground Zero Mosque" in that it is neither where the World Trade Center Towers once stood, nor is it only a mosque.
From New York to Indiana to California, a renewed vitriol is directed at Muslims and their faith. Protests abound, raising false claims about the Islamic faith and Muslims themselves. A group is singled out soley based on their religious belief and their desire to practice their own religion. A group of American citizens no less. American citizens who are afforded the protection and rights of the laws of the United States, to include the United States Constitution.
I do not write to demonize the protests. Despite logic and facts based either in myth, fanciful ideas, misinformation, or simple ignorance; those protesting do have the right to protest. Despite how foolish, racist, and plain mean they present themselves to the world. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church has its place to spread its inflammatory rhetoric at military funerals (I have my own personal opinion on that, involving keelhauling the lot of them), just as these misguided people have their right to protest.
What terrifies me, having given six years of service is that those rights protected by the Constitution, specifically by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment could be simply pushed aside to calm the angry masses. Elimination of civil rights without any due process, nothing to recognize that these American citizens have constitutional rights. It should cause great discomfort to any person that one group singled out because of one racial or ethnic or religious trait to name a few can have their rights stripped away.
Where does Dr. King fit in all of this? Seeing the unmasked hatred pointed towards Muslims based on their religious beliefs would cause him great pain. It would be another example of how his "Dream" has not yet been met. It would also cause him to probably confront Glenn Beck and find out why Beck has only worked to stir the flames of nativist-jingoist hatred and not defeat those very mindsets.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Doubts about there being any winners in a sexual molestation case...
Sitting in court today, and while I cannot give the details at all of what went on inside, I thought the following (which I recorded in my Moleskine notepad):
I feel terrible for the victim just knowing the type of emotional and psychological trauma they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives. Even though justice may be served in the eyes of some people and in the eyes of the law, no one is a winner at all in a case like this.
The next thought that came to my mind (that I didn't write down):
Even though justice may be served as well, what about the offender? Yes, that individual may serve time in jail, but would that solve the problem at all? Hard time in jail without any treatment to try to figure out why that person has that impulse to molest children? Doesn't that just seem to only plug the gap in the dyke with a temporary measure?
But, I am one of "those people" who also thinks that the United States should eliminate the death penalty. It seems a bit ridiculous that we, as in the US government, are quick to criticize other nations for their violations of human rights, but there is little to no unease about putting American citizens to death. Yes, I'm well aware that juries find these people guilty of murder, but overall it just seems that we haven't left the dark ages of Europe by clinging to capital punishment. And even worse, innocent people have been put to death.
In the end, what does capital punishment solve? Another person dies. It doesn't bring back those who were murdered. There is no magical equation that brings the murdered person(s) back to life once the killer is put to death. It only just proves that we, the United States have not joined a good part of the modern world.
I am leaving out the whole argument as to the deeper social problem that seems to be ignored in the misguided and primitive blood curdling cries for vengeance. Because that's good Christian morals there for you.
What would that Jesus character a lot of these conservatives who support capital punishment love so much say about visiting justice on a murderer?
What does this have to do with my somber thoughts from court today? Well, in that I think the cries for retribution for a heinous crime drown out the need to rehabilitate the offender. Yes, the crime is horrible, I'll be the first to admit that; and its probably worse than murder. But, just tossing someone in prison for a couple of years or the rest of their lives solves nothing. Just another number to our growing prison population (fact, the United States while making up around 5% of the world's population makes up nearly 25% of the incarcerated population of the world...yeah, so how do we have moral standing to criticize China about their human rights violations?). Shouldn't we be interested enough in trying to rehabilitate a person?
Or are we still just a bunch of "savages" that just want our pound of flesh in retribution?
Simply stated: On what moral ground does the United States have in enforcing human rights on other nations when we still kill our own citizens?
I feel terrible for the victim just knowing the type of emotional and psychological trauma they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives. Even though justice may be served in the eyes of some people and in the eyes of the law, no one is a winner at all in a case like this.
The next thought that came to my mind (that I didn't write down):
Even though justice may be served as well, what about the offender? Yes, that individual may serve time in jail, but would that solve the problem at all? Hard time in jail without any treatment to try to figure out why that person has that impulse to molest children? Doesn't that just seem to only plug the gap in the dyke with a temporary measure?
But, I am one of "those people" who also thinks that the United States should eliminate the death penalty. It seems a bit ridiculous that we, as in the US government, are quick to criticize other nations for their violations of human rights, but there is little to no unease about putting American citizens to death. Yes, I'm well aware that juries find these people guilty of murder, but overall it just seems that we haven't left the dark ages of Europe by clinging to capital punishment. And even worse, innocent people have been put to death.
In the end, what does capital punishment solve? Another person dies. It doesn't bring back those who were murdered. There is no magical equation that brings the murdered person(s) back to life once the killer is put to death. It only just proves that we, the United States have not joined a good part of the modern world.
I am leaving out the whole argument as to the deeper social problem that seems to be ignored in the misguided and primitive blood curdling cries for vengeance. Because that's good Christian morals there for you.
What would that Jesus character a lot of these conservatives who support capital punishment love so much say about visiting justice on a murderer?
What does this have to do with my somber thoughts from court today? Well, in that I think the cries for retribution for a heinous crime drown out the need to rehabilitate the offender. Yes, the crime is horrible, I'll be the first to admit that; and its probably worse than murder. But, just tossing someone in prison for a couple of years or the rest of their lives solves nothing. Just another number to our growing prison population (fact, the United States while making up around 5% of the world's population makes up nearly 25% of the incarcerated population of the world...yeah, so how do we have moral standing to criticize China about their human rights violations?). Shouldn't we be interested enough in trying to rehabilitate a person?
Or are we still just a bunch of "savages" that just want our pound of flesh in retribution?
Simply stated: On what moral ground does the United States have in enforcing human rights on other nations when we still kill our own citizens?
Saturday, July 24, 2010
A true committment to Equal Justice?
After a few days of sitting in on a sexual misconduct case (well, to be more specific, sexual molestation of a child), one idea lodged itself in my mind while sitting on the tram: Do I really have a commitment to my idea of providing equal access to justice and I like to think I do?
It only sits with me because a legal career is two years and a Bar examination away right now. What do I do if placed in the situation where I have to defend a person who is accused of sexual assault or one accused of child molestation. Not to mention rape, murder, etc. Its a big thing I think some law students need to think about besides gunning for a job at a top firm (uh, not one of my goals.), because not everyone is going to get that job at the top firm in Chicago, New York, LA, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong, etc, etc.
I know its been running around in my head right now. Lawyers are to advocate for their clients, but as was brought up in my Civ Pro class last semester: is there a line where you can't advocate for your client? As in...the client tells you in not so many words they did x offense.
Maybe I think too much, seeing that I tend to believe that I'm not as "high speed," "Low drag" as many of the other law students at my humble little non Tier 1 school, (more ranting on that...its like the BCS, except with more at stake in the long run. Well, the BCS is bullshit too, and I might as well bash it in the future. Go fuck yourself Nebraska. We don't want you in the goddamn Big Ten. Fuck tournaments, fuck TV money....Universities are there to educate people, not to pay some mouth breathing, greedy, asshole coach who is as interesting as the dog shit I almost stepped in running in West Brunswick yesterday millions of dollars. Hey Unis, you do realize kids leave school with 40-100k in debt with an interest rate around 7-4% and a zero fucking job market...and to even be competitive, you have to drop a 100k to get a graduate degree with the same interest rates in loans. What is wrong with this goddamn picture? Lets not even go into how the NCAA is a house of exploitation, where we demonize some kid because he got $10k under the table while the school, the BCS and the NCAA is racking in millions upon millions of dollars. Ok, rant done.) but what really sticks in my mind is that an idea of equal justice should be on the mind of anyone entering the legal field.
Lets not fool ourselves, the United States for all of its great perks, there is an ugly underside that no one wants to accept. The Katrina disaster in New Orleans should have made that clear to everyone. The news that children go to school without eating at all because their family cannot provide meals; and the reason why for me is immaterial. If the parents have a drug addiction, that's a sign that there's somewhere else our society has failed to care for its citizens; but in a country so wealthy, as many bombastic Americans like to claim, what is wrong with providing free breakfast and lunch to young children in school.
This is where I wish I had bookmarked the page of the study that illustrated data that young children need to have sufficient nutrition in order to learn; specifically protein, which the brain requires. And a quick science lecture there: the basic reason why homo sapiens sapiens was able to be a "thinking" organism was that we included a lot of protein in our diet which permitted the brain to operate at its high capacity. Though, not as much as my laptop.
Still.
And equal justice fits in here somehow. Dealing with social inequality is important. From the many speakers I've heard and the random articles I come upon, providing equal justice to everyone is important. Simply, why should someone who is poor not have access to the same legal mechanisms that the richest can easily afford?
That said, I find it interesting that the media is quick to paint in a negative picture a person who murders a person, robs a store...and somehow focuses on fact that the non offenders are not white (hrm, isn't that just another indication of social inequality in this country at some level?)...but when GinormoBanks that participated in the near collapse of the conservative movement's beloved capitalist market in 2008, there's not demands for hard prison time. No loud screams for punitive justice. I'm sure as soon as the BP machine starts rolling, the rhetoric against them may level out.
But back to equal justice. (Wow, I am a crappy law student, I can't even keep the focus on my blog. Well, it is a blog.) It's something that needs to be considered. And while the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is reinterpreted in different fashions based on the current political climate or the methods used by SCOTUS Justices to interpret the constitution (I'm sorry, that originalist stance is ridiculous. Even Chief Justice John Marshall in an 1803 decision, Marbury v. Madison said that interpretation of the Constitution should not be based soley on an originalist theory), we are still afforded an opportunity to be heard in court. And I don't think your ability to defend yourself or seek justice should be determined soley on your social and economic status.
So even staring mindlessly out of the 55 Tram, thinking of a hypothetical client charged with sexual molestation of a child, I still think that hypothetical client deserves my utmost effort to advocate for them.
It only sits with me because a legal career is two years and a Bar examination away right now. What do I do if placed in the situation where I have to defend a person who is accused of sexual assault or one accused of child molestation. Not to mention rape, murder, etc. Its a big thing I think some law students need to think about besides gunning for a job at a top firm (uh, not one of my goals.), because not everyone is going to get that job at the top firm in Chicago, New York, LA, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong, etc, etc.
I know its been running around in my head right now. Lawyers are to advocate for their clients, but as was brought up in my Civ Pro class last semester: is there a line where you can't advocate for your client? As in...the client tells you in not so many words they did x offense.
Maybe I think too much, seeing that I tend to believe that I'm not as "high speed," "Low drag" as many of the other law students at my humble little non Tier 1 school, (more ranting on that...its like the BCS, except with more at stake in the long run. Well, the BCS is bullshit too, and I might as well bash it in the future. Go fuck yourself Nebraska. We don't want you in the goddamn Big Ten. Fuck tournaments, fuck TV money....Universities are there to educate people, not to pay some mouth breathing, greedy, asshole coach who is as interesting as the dog shit I almost stepped in running in West Brunswick yesterday millions of dollars. Hey Unis, you do realize kids leave school with 40-100k in debt with an interest rate around 7-4% and a zero fucking job market...and to even be competitive, you have to drop a 100k to get a graduate degree with the same interest rates in loans. What is wrong with this goddamn picture? Lets not even go into how the NCAA is a house of exploitation, where we demonize some kid because he got $10k under the table while the school, the BCS and the NCAA is racking in millions upon millions of dollars. Ok, rant done.) but what really sticks in my mind is that an idea of equal justice should be on the mind of anyone entering the legal field.
Lets not fool ourselves, the United States for all of its great perks, there is an ugly underside that no one wants to accept. The Katrina disaster in New Orleans should have made that clear to everyone. The news that children go to school without eating at all because their family cannot provide meals; and the reason why for me is immaterial. If the parents have a drug addiction, that's a sign that there's somewhere else our society has failed to care for its citizens; but in a country so wealthy, as many bombastic Americans like to claim, what is wrong with providing free breakfast and lunch to young children in school.
This is where I wish I had bookmarked the page of the study that illustrated data that young children need to have sufficient nutrition in order to learn; specifically protein, which the brain requires. And a quick science lecture there: the basic reason why homo sapiens sapiens was able to be a "thinking" organism was that we included a lot of protein in our diet which permitted the brain to operate at its high capacity. Though, not as much as my laptop.
Still.
And equal justice fits in here somehow. Dealing with social inequality is important. From the many speakers I've heard and the random articles I come upon, providing equal justice to everyone is important. Simply, why should someone who is poor not have access to the same legal mechanisms that the richest can easily afford?
That said, I find it interesting that the media is quick to paint in a negative picture a person who murders a person, robs a store...and somehow focuses on fact that the non offenders are not white (hrm, isn't that just another indication of social inequality in this country at some level?)...but when GinormoBanks that participated in the near collapse of the conservative movement's beloved capitalist market in 2008, there's not demands for hard prison time. No loud screams for punitive justice. I'm sure as soon as the BP machine starts rolling, the rhetoric against them may level out.
But back to equal justice. (Wow, I am a crappy law student, I can't even keep the focus on my blog. Well, it is a blog.) It's something that needs to be considered. And while the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is reinterpreted in different fashions based on the current political climate or the methods used by SCOTUS Justices to interpret the constitution (I'm sorry, that originalist stance is ridiculous. Even Chief Justice John Marshall in an 1803 decision, Marbury v. Madison said that interpretation of the Constitution should not be based soley on an originalist theory), we are still afforded an opportunity to be heard in court. And I don't think your ability to defend yourself or seek justice should be determined soley on your social and economic status.
So even staring mindlessly out of the 55 Tram, thinking of a hypothetical client charged with sexual molestation of a child, I still think that hypothetical client deserves my utmost effort to advocate for them.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Not really sure what was so great about this idea.
Three weeks since my last final and I'm still questioning whether I want to continue on with this law school farce. I can't say I get disillusioned, that's for people who have foolish ideals of the world; instead I think its more of a general distaste, disgust that grows at the back of my throat hearing students bitch about this professor or that professor or simply listening to the empty comments bantered about.
I highly doubt that the background noise at an Ivy League, Top 10 school would be any better. Actually, I'd probably be even more disgusted.
Probably explains why I enjoy drill weekends or generally just paddling out on my standup paddle board for hours without anyone around. Well, except for the really cool guys hauling around in their speed boats, going 15-20 kts within 2 nm of the shoreline of the National Lakeshore in Indiana. Those guys think they are cool, but in the words of George Carlin: "You're not cool, you're chili...and chili's never been cool."
Actually, I was moments from preventing myself from my general biting my tongue in class when this cluebird wasted 20 minutes of our last class asking about what will be on the exam--screwing everyone else out of 20 minutes of the last topic. What really set me off was that there was supposed to be a review session right after that class. Hm. Hint, hint, that is the time to ask those questions instead of wasting my time. It's been a month since that moment of jackassery, I still think I should have stood up and told him in not so many words: "Shut the fuck up. We've heard your goddamn whining all fucking semester and I'm fucking sick of it. Shut your fucking pie hole. Shut the fuck up."
I was so sick of law school that I chose not to spend my time working on a case comment for the law review competition. Personally, I just think its ridiculous to determine whether someone is good enough for that position soley on one personal project which no one had any experience doing. Maybe I guess that I was too ingrained on the OJT and practicing and practicing before getting grilled on a board--and even then, you really didn't learn the job until you actually executed it on your own.
Eh, I have these moments from time to time, and when I really think about it, I get pretty pissed off. Maybe its the whiny complaints I hear, or just the general immaturity that just sets me off. Not that I'm all the wiser or august--but at least I know not to insult a professor by telling them that I don't think they worked to get to their position. But of course, these kids are so much smarter than me. I'm just some knuckledragging vet. What do I know?
I highly doubt that the background noise at an Ivy League, Top 10 school would be any better. Actually, I'd probably be even more disgusted.
Probably explains why I enjoy drill weekends or generally just paddling out on my standup paddle board for hours without anyone around. Well, except for the really cool guys hauling around in their speed boats, going 15-20 kts within 2 nm of the shoreline of the National Lakeshore in Indiana. Those guys think they are cool, but in the words of George Carlin: "You're not cool, you're chili...and chili's never been cool."
Actually, I was moments from preventing myself from my general biting my tongue in class when this cluebird wasted 20 minutes of our last class asking about what will be on the exam--screwing everyone else out of 20 minutes of the last topic. What really set me off was that there was supposed to be a review session right after that class. Hm. Hint, hint, that is the time to ask those questions instead of wasting my time. It's been a month since that moment of jackassery, I still think I should have stood up and told him in not so many words: "Shut the fuck up. We've heard your goddamn whining all fucking semester and I'm fucking sick of it. Shut your fucking pie hole. Shut the fuck up."
I was so sick of law school that I chose not to spend my time working on a case comment for the law review competition. Personally, I just think its ridiculous to determine whether someone is good enough for that position soley on one personal project which no one had any experience doing. Maybe I guess that I was too ingrained on the OJT and practicing and practicing before getting grilled on a board--and even then, you really didn't learn the job until you actually executed it on your own.
Eh, I have these moments from time to time, and when I really think about it, I get pretty pissed off. Maybe its the whiny complaints I hear, or just the general immaturity that just sets me off. Not that I'm all the wiser or august--but at least I know not to insult a professor by telling them that I don't think they worked to get to their position. But of course, these kids are so much smarter than me. I'm just some knuckledragging vet. What do I know?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
