Few men in modern times deserve the fast track to canonization; the Blessed John Paul II (JPII), the immediate previous Pope is one of them. He himself admitted that over the course of an eventful life, he was often tempted by the largesse of evil, evil which came in the form of Nazism, communism, materialism, fame, and egoism. Never once did JPII pick evil-or even the perception of wrongdoing-over fidelity to the letter and spirit of the Truth. Fidelity to principles is tough in our world and fidelity to God tougher in a world where God often is caricatured as the co-pilot of one’s own selfish desires and evil doings. For often we forget that the voice of God tells us, if anything, to do the right thing rather than the convenient thing.

For eight decades, JPII invoked quietly the blessing of his Creator in doing the right thing, facing oppression and temptation, and forswearing the sin of violating the Second Commandment. In taking that path, he came close to the thinking of the first Republican President who counseled us in private and public life to ‘wonder not if God is on your side but rather if you are on His’. It is a lesson that most people, from the highest offices of the land to the lowest trailer trash have forgotten.

In so many ways, treachery is a crime of opportunity, be it personal or professional  or public levels. Those who can, are more likely than others to do so. Finally, a respected professional organization has established that the gender of the perpetrator does not matter.

Treachery regardless of gender and class

While it comes down, ultimately, to the personal integrity (remember, integrity is what you are when nobody is looking) of an individual, let us face the fact that we are humans: some work environments are simply too tempting for the person of average morals to hold up. Businessmen/women on extended trips,  male teachers in public elementary schools (where the female to male ratio is very high), females in municipal law enforcement (reverse of male teachers), any job during the night time hours, are all in a vulnerable position vis a vis their ethics. I have seen it first hand and grossly regretted assuming that someone’s gender, class, or family values will automatically inculcate them against becoming trailer trash when the opportunity arises. That much of the personal indiscretions of politicians happen during long sessions of legislatures is simply due to the fact that there are amongst us those abject cowards who, in the garb and badge of public service, cloaked in the shadows of darkness, will often put personal agendas above decency. We ignore such monsters at our peril.

In a very personal sense very recently, I was reminded why liberals, populists, and their labor union friends just don't get it. When Bill Clinton said 'I did not have sex with that woman Ms. Lewinsky', he was technically right; they did not have sexual intercourse. But the former President, like his ilk twenty years later, just don't understand that the issues was not one of sex but one of TRUST. President Clinton broke trust with those who had every moral claim to the last ounce of his trust which he gave up the minute he shared any intimacies with 'that woman'. They resort to the letter to claim innocence while mockingly shedding the spirit to pieces. The future of the country and its fiber depends on how many of the people are low class, trailer trash, two penny moral destitutes whose can get advance degrees, take oaths on the Bible, and yet remain the trailer park that lurks in their hearts when self interest comes calling.

It is a free country and anyone can run for President; even Donald Trump. That he suddenly finds an affinity for God and the Book is rather amusing. And concerning.

Trump invoking God

Bankers when stealing, Himmler when killing, girlfriends/boyfriends when cheating...all have sometimes claimed that God wanted them to do so. It is nauseating...and worthy of the contempt that it deserves. All that God wants us to do in our personal lives is contained in the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Anything else, is pure rationalization for self interest.

For Trump, the word of the Lord may start with being honest and upright in his personal life. The rest can take care of itself, thank you.

Today marks the 150^th anniversary of the first shots fired in the Civil War: on this day in 1861, South Carolina’s rebellious state forces fired on the American flag flying over the United States garrison at Fort Sumter. The non-PC version of the historical trigger to Fort Sumter is fairly straightforward: some people in South Carolina and other states simply couldn’t stand the fact that a seemingly unsophisticated country lawyer from an upstart political party had been elected President of the United States fair and square under our Constitution. As a retort, some such upset folks decided to take up arms against their legitimately elected national government. There is a word for that in the United States Constitution, a word that begins with the letter ‘t’.

Call me zealot when it comes to the flag and the Union but an American who takes up arms against the United States and deliberately fires on the Old Glory is a traitor, pure and simple. Whether his name is Jose Padilla, Yasser Hamdi, Robert E. Lee, or Jeb Stuart doesn’t matter.

No wonder I hate the term “War between the States” and dislike the morally equivalent moniker  “Civil War”. Truth be told, it was the war to put down open treason and armed rebellion against the United States. And the United States won; some people are still upset about that.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_rules_against_exonerated_inmates_quest_for_damages_against_da/

While the verdict is proper in law and unfortunate in fact, it missed a major point: the lack of an arms-length relationship between prosecution and crime labs. While theoretically separate entities in most jurisdictions, forensic outfits are largely physically housed within the premises of police or prosecution agencies, have chains of command that ultimately end at the district attorney or chief of police, and are often represented by various public employee unions. Such an incestuous relationship is repugnant to the perception-if not reality always-of fairplay in the criminal justice system. Given the fact that DNA evidence and advanced biochemical analysis is fast becoming a surefire tool to separate the guilty from the innocent, the independence of crime labs-both in matters of reality and perception-cannot be overemphasized. An ideal situation would demand that such labs and their personnel are entirely divorced from their inappropriate coziness with prosecutors and police, and placed under the supervision of a state’s judicial authorities. At the very least, the chain of command should go directly to the state versions of the FBI (the KBI in my state, for example), the employees shielded from the machinations of public employee unions, and the justice system protected from the inappropriate personal and professional relationships that can taint due process. That zealous prosecutors, shady policemen and unethical CSIs sleep together is their sordid business; that such conduct compromises the dispensation of American justice is ours.

My political science students often ask me if I have ever changed my mind on a moral issue, after carefully deliberating the comprehensive evidence. This week, for the first time, I will be answering in the affirmative.

As the President shies away from a judicial defense of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), I respectfully but resoundingly agree with him. The federal government has no business-and neither do the states-in prohibiting which consenting adult calls which relationship with another consenting adult a ‘marriage’.

Laws should reflect the deeply held and widely practiced values of a society, especially so in a representative democracy like ours. While in a theoretical and nostalgic sense we do indeed value a certain ideal of marriage,-an ideal that is on display at altars a thousand times a day as a man and woman pledge to love each other till death do us part-the reality is starkly different after the Hallmark cards about supposed soul mates, skanky bachelor parties, white taffeta gowns, and Tiffany’s bills have abated.

We are a McDonald’s society with its privileges of freedom and pitfalls of responsibility. Being able to instantly order a Big Mac customized to our taste, we expect the same of love and marriage: if McDonald’s cannot satisfy our taste of the time, Wendy’s or Burger King does (or so we think). Unlike our grandparents, we look at love and marriage as “till death do us part….or someone better comes along”. Don’t take my word for it or even the evidence of statistics that, at best, make us a society of ever conniving serial monogamists. Look around you and ask how many people you know are with the persons who pledged eternal fidelity to them. We practically invented the meaningless euphemisms of “irreconcilable differences” and “I love you but I am  not in love with you” to make us feel better about our McDonald’s approach to love and marriage.

That kind of ephemeral love is not something the law should be penalizing but nor is it something that deserves unique protection. If a homosexual American truly loves another homosexual American in the manner that their heterosexual counterparts normally do, I have no problem letting them call it marriage or whatever they prefer. What I no longer countenance is using the term ‘marriage’ to define a ceremony, an arbitrary rite of passage, or some status symbol craved by politicians and others of ill repute as some sort of refuge (exhibit A is Newt Gingrich). As Shakespeare well said “tis mad to make the ceremony greater than the god”.

Don’t get me wrong. I hold loyalty, love, and marriage in the same esteem as generations of my ancestors have held those bonds to be: indelible, broken only by another’s malfeasance, betrayal or death, and unbent to the vagaries of times, moods, pressures, and climes. But those values, in substance, are not the values of today and, thus, need not be given, by power of law, some special title that means nothing more than a license for caterers, jewelers, and lawyers to make tons of money. Heck, I say let the same caterers, jewelers, and lawyers make money whenever any two consenting adults decide to proclaim their feelings of love at a certain moment in time. That is the capitalist way of doing things.

If they want to call it love, let them; if they want to call it civil unions, let them; if they want to call it marriage, let them. As a society based on laws, let us get away from making a self-serving mockery of the principles that we no longer practice.

The DOMA law is no longer reflective of who were are and, thus, needs to go instead of becoming a lightning rod for more division, pettiness, and spending of taxpayer money. It needs to be retired from the statute books, as much as it pains ours egos to do so.

Indeed those public officials and private entities who have deeply held moral objections to officiating or facilitating same-sex marriages should be protected by law against discrimination. But by and far, let us get away from enshrining fables that we neither really believe nor actually practice.

The upheaval in Wisconsin leaves one disappointed simply because Gov. Walker seems to have settled on a course of action that is both mealy mouthed and extreme at the same time. By leaving exempting cops and firemen out of the collective bargaining reforms, he shirked a principled approach. Taking a cleaver to the very basis of collective bargaining-as opposed to its abuse-he comes across more as an authoritarian despot than a democratic reformer.

Collective bargaining abuses are nowhere more prominent and the costs-in terms of money, safety, and liberty-nowhere more acute than law enforcement. Cops who are incompetent or lazy or abusive or drunk with power give good cops a very bad name and, thus, threaten both public safety and civil liberties. Sadly, because of the outsized influence of police and corrections unions, very little can be done about such rogue elements that most prosecutors are too cowardly to prosecute anyway. Add to that the fact that, in stark contrast to the highly educated and thoroughly professionalized ranks in the federal agencies, most local and municipal police agencies recruit from the proverbial bottom of the barrel.

The way forward for responsible reform is a package that, for starters, excludes no sector of public employees. Such a package should put a higher threshold on union certification and dues collection while preserving the right to unionize of free will. Most important, the emphasis ought to be on the overtly generous-and taxpayer funded-benefits provisions of any public union contracts: legally capping such benefits to inflation or private sector benchmarks is the way to go.

That we had to come to the Peter King hearings on domestic radicalization of Muslim and Arab Americans is unfortunate, but necessary. I am no fan of Congressman King, whose flirtation with, and moral support of international terrorism is well known and documented. Without airing the issue of such potentially dangerous subversive activity, however, we cannot come to terms with what needs be fixed, albeit within the parameters of our values, ideals, and Bill of Rights.

I have known people with Muslim and Arab names whose love for America has cost them friends, families, fortunes, and futures. They have stoically but willingly paid this price for our freedom and security. We owe it to them to know what can be done culturally and socially to make certain prone communities inhospitable as percolators of radical thought. The fight against Islamism has cost many of us dearly; the only way to stop this fight is to squelch Islamic radicalism at its root for good.

Thus is the moral argument for the Homeland Security Committee hearings on Islamist radicalization.

International relations are often not that far off from the eccentricities of interpersonal ones: after all, human beings are involved in both. Code words abound in relations, interpersonal or international. Colonel Gaddafi's claim, termed 'delusional' by the State Dept., that 'my people love me' and 'they will die to save me' are just code words. Given that I have known Libyans in childhood and even spent a couple of years in the now famed city of Zawia as a child, I cannot but feel anguished by the suffering of those folks.

My people love me is the leaderspeak for they cannot wait to throw me out...just like a guy means I have a crush on another when he says It is not you, it is me (in fairness to guys, girls of the same type have their own version when someone 'better' or from the past comes along, I love you but do not feel a romantic connection). Unfortunately for the good, decent people of Libya, such convoluted nonsense is given credulity at least in some quarters. As I have said before, and seems Senators McCain and Lieberman agree, noble sounding coded platitudes of Gaddafi should be treated just as they ought to be: with the contempt and revulsion they deserve. He may have been a good decent man of a good decent pedigree when he took office in 1969, but today Colonel Gaddafi is nothing more than the epitome of dishonorable and delusional. Such men and women may be pitied, but should not be trusted. They will sell their people, their countries, and literally their mothers for a dime to feel high and mighty.

The story about uber-manly Mel Gibson is, sadly, one of several in a series of revelations about his erratic behavior.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/28/da-verge-charging-mel-gibson/

The greater point, however, is the fact that after all the decades of trying to address the problem, we still find it socially tolerated, if not accepted, that masculinity has an innate relationship with violence and abuse. We are not talking about violence on behalf of the vulnerable or to save a life or to defend one’s home.  Domestic violence is just about as unmanly and unmasculine as it can be: what kind of a man hits someone less powerful or helpless? Well it is the kind of a man who ain’t a man really. It starts with stuffed animals, progresses to smaller garden animals, then to pets, and finally to women and children.  The other day I saw a story about Arizona’s infamous Senator Pearce having some choice DV background in his history which didn’t particularly surprise me. The sad fact is that some men deal with stress by hurting others while others go the route of Casablanca’s perpetually drunk but honorable Rick (Humphrey Bogart). 

The mix can be seen from miles away, though the victims often don’t see it till it is too late to do any due diligence: good looks, little or token formal education, bravado, uniform or overalls, barely concealed trash talk. After forty years of trying, one has to wonder if it is a collective failure on our part as a society to have been unable to impart such knowledge to so many potential victims.

As we see the absolute insanity of the Democratic legislators in Indiana and Wisconsin, in the interest of St. Valentine’s day comity, I put forward a personal counterpoint. There are wise Democrats..far and few though it seems sometimes.  My friend LM, a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat , veteran of decades of Democratic campaigns, and former staffer to Democratic members of Congress is definitely one of them. Many a time I have benefited personally and professionally from heeding to her well meaning advice and considered opinion. A very compassionate person (with her own money and time rather than the public’s), an astute observer of human character, and ferocious protector of her friends, she has given counsel that I have ignored only to my utter regret and agony. Heck, even earlier this week I’d to call her, eat humble pie, and admit “umm…you were right about that.”

Don’t know how many of such Dems are out there, but they are.

When it comes to partisanship, I take second seat to none, which is what you’d expect from someone who has worked in a dozen GOP campaigns including several presidential ones. With the accusations of hyper-partisanship flying off the handles (just like tempers) from Wisconsin to Indiana to DC, it is important to remember that what unites as individuals believing in representative government and freedom is more durable than what separates us. Importantly, the individual comity across party lines are the leavening of the bread of national civility.

A very short while ago, I had some very unforeseen and tragic things happen in my personal life. Given my largely silent and stoic nature, it is not something I am about to put on Facebook or something similar, and thus planned to suffer on my own (everyone had his Cross to bear, I guess). Broken, confused, sleepless, without appetite, and at one of the lowest points in my adult life, two hands stretched out to me unasked. One was that of my younger brother, the other that of a Democratic ‘elder statesman’. We are here, our homes are here, our tables are here, our ears and our hearts are here for you. What can we do to mend you?

Why, I asked my Democrat friend? Because you’re my brother.

I am not sure why Facebook is suddenly turning a little anti-competitive.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/23/6116883-facebook-bans-creepy-relationship-status-tracking-app?GT1=43001

One doubts that FB is suddenly becoming cognizant of family values. A minor point, but it would appear to be an an anti-trust/competition issue if FB is itself developing the supposedly 'creepy' app. Or maybe it is considering merging-no pun intended-with Ashley Madison. The fact is that Facebook is the platform used by millions to whet their appetite for attention, some good (like the protesters in Egypt and Libya) and some not so good (like the ones looking for the grass is greener approach). To ban the 'creepy app' is simply silly and proves nothing else than FB's desire to appear ethical. I mean come on, let it go...people who are that way always have and always will find a way to cross the boundaries of ethical conduct; if an app makes it slightly less laborious to do so, so be it, as many studies show.

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/user-post-is-facebook-the-quot-other-quot-person-in-your-life-2456530/

There are decent people and there are those whose decency lasts as long as someone is looking; a Facebook application is not going to change the fundamental character of individual women and men.

The bluster by the son of Muammar Gaddafi that his father will fight ‘till the last man, last woman, and last bullet’ is just that, bluster. That kind of bravado is typical of dictators who are excited or on their last legs, and no different in the degree of factual accuracy than the woman who tells her paramour that she will die without him. With the right kind of incentive and inducements either of these ‘till death do us part’ wishes can be suitably ameliorated. Give Gaddafi a large enough gift (some villa in Switzerland with lifetime pension etc) and kick him to the curb. Like a vast majority of low class men and women whose favors can be purchased with money, gifts, promises of promotion, and status symbols, Colonel Gaddafi’s departure probably has a price on it too.

Better still, in his retirement, the good colonel should be set up with Facebook (and Twitter) to keep up with his former coworkers, convoluted romantic interests, and fellow revolutionaries. Maybe he can go off on a cruise with Fidel Castro in the Caribbean. Erratic talk, mindless search for validation, and dishonest hedonism are the hallmarks of people like Muammar Gaddafi; the gentle, decent people of Libya deserve better.

As if to underline how much out of reality he is, Col. Gaddafi accused his opponent derisively as 'dogs'. The irony is that dogs are the epitome of loyalty, decency, and honesty. It has been well said that 'feed a dog, shelter a dog, give him companionship and he will always be faithful...which is what the difference is between dog and human'. I can name a few individuals in my life who have been everything from selfish to faithless, but I have never known a dog to be anything but blindly loyal and non-judgmental. One wishes that more people were more like dogs...Libya and the rest of the world would be a much better place for sure.