What to do with Vets?

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that for the last reported year the unemployment rate for Post 9/11 Veterans has fluctuated between 10 and 12 percent, well above their non-vet counterparts.  Those lazy good for nothin Vets.

Because we don’t have mandatory service a free-rider system has developed where almost all of the U.S. population (99 percent) benefit from the sacrifices of the few (one percent).  This means that the budding capitalists that felt entitled not go to war, to stay home and make love to their partners, to play with their children, to develop careers and job skills, to go to college, to party with friends, or make millions of dollars day trading, instead of getting shot, blown-up, or isolated in a god forsaken firebase, got a free-ride from those one percent, that did take those risks on their behalf.  The one-percent-vets watched their friends killed and maimed and he or she killed for you…the free-rider.  The Vet will carry these physical and emotional scars for a lifetime; the free-rider has already forgotten the war. The ones that volunteered to serve are economic and social suckers, paying a terrible price for a population that could truly careless.

So where are all these Vets going to work?  The National Park and Forest Service are the easy answers; a Vet should be given a living-wage full or part-time job with these organizations just by showing up in the morning…any morning (don’t suggest they become cops or prison guards, those are the last occupations a Vet should have). If a Vet does not want to work in the outdoors then a Vet employment agency will find the Vet a job instantly.  How do we pay for this entitlement program?  Tax the 99 percent free-riders; a tax is their moral obligation for either being too cowardly or too self-interested to face the risk of going to war for their country.  Maybe also special-tax Congressional wages and pensions since Congress allowed these wars to continue for so long. Next, tax the defense industrial complex that made trillions of dollars on the back of the Vet, or offer companies a partial tax relief from a Vet-Tax if they hire a significant number of Vets for as long as the Vet wants the job.  These are just a few ideas; the creation of a Vet employment agency would actually be easy to do.

Lastly, these jobs have to be open to all GWOT Vets regardless of type of discharge or subsequent legal issues.  The Vet wasn’t broken or a felon before they went into the service, they couldn’t have gotten in if they were…and again, they paid a price 99 percent of the rest of the population refused to pay, the Vets' subsequent issues were exactly the problems the 99 percent were trying to avoid by not going to war.  So the 99 percent, that again were too cowardly or self-interested to go to war, should not judge those that did and are now suffering.

Of course the bigger issue here is that the overwhelming majority has been able to send the minuet minority to war going on 14 years now without public discussion or an acknowledgement of the ongoing debt owed by the many to the few.  This stratified free-rider program is unhealthy for a democracy; creating a bifurcated class of corporate/government versus warrior with the corporate/government class grossly profiting from the sacrifice of the warrior.  A democracy can only be healthy when all accept the same risk and suffer the same reward; until this happens a Vet should have living-wage employment for life…and the 99 percent free-riders should pay for it.     

Justice has many faces

 

 

A Senate panel in Washington, D.C. heard testimony yesterday from victims who suffered rape and abuse while serving in the United States Military. 

Former Army sergeant Rebekah Hayrilla was raped by a superior while deployed to Afghanistan and told the panel, “I chose not to do a report of any kind because I had no faith in my chain of command.”

Speaking for the victims and to the senior military leaders present for the testimony, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Senate Armed Services personnel subcommittee said, “The issue of sexual violence in the military is not new, and it has been allowed to go on in the shadows for far too long.”

Pentagon records indicate that 19,000 sexual assaults are reported each year, a marked increase since the military engaged in a decade of constant war with a minimal force.   Last year the Pentagon released a report showing a 30 percent increase in sexual offenses and domestic violence since 2006.  Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli told Congress, “After 10 years of war with an all-volunteer force, you’re going to have problems that no one could have forecasted before this began.”

Mental health providers will tell you that sexual assault has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with stress, a sense of powerlessness, self-esteem problems, experienced trauma and a host of other non-sexual mental health issues.

It is clear that the military has a problem; the 99 percent (including the Senate subcommittee members) should not be surprised when they demand that a miniscule minority of the population take on the burden of ten years of war.  The problems the military faces are two fold; first they are not supporting the victims of sexual violence, and secondly they are not providing the training and mental health support to soldiers, sailors, and airman to prevent the assaults in the first place.

The danger for the military and society as a whole is that the outrage and the rightly placed empathy for victims will result in a kneejerk reaction forcing the military to prosecute assault cases either in a civilian court or institute a civilian based incarceration model of criminal justice.  We have seen this kneejerk reaction before, the U.S. leads the world in percent of prison population and long harsh punitive sentencing.

The civilian leadership has always recognized the unique challenges and stress placed on the military.  For this reason the military was allowed to institute its own form of justice called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  This code allows the military to institute justice along a vast continuum of punishment possibilities.  The code allows a service member to be confined to base or to his barracks; it allows the military to garnish wages, it can require and enforce that the service member pay child support and restitution, it can require and enforce that a service member participate in mental health treatment.  The UCMJ can also send a service member to prison for life.

This system of justice allows the military to individually tailor justice to the offense, the victim, and the service member and attempts to find a balance of justice that serves all parties and circumstances.  Shocked civilians and subcommittee members that say this system is not doing enough to punish those that are defending the country should look at our own civilian justice system that routinely prosecutes and incarcerates minorities at a higher rate than whites, wrongly convicts thousands of citizens, and incarcerates hundreds of thousands of nonviolent offenders each year.

When I was a young reporter I covered a Court Martial at Fort Bragg, N.C., the defendant was accused of physically assaulting his 10-year-old son with a stick.  The prosecution had disturbing photos of the dark purple welts on the victims back and legs as well as a confession from the soldier.  The senior sergeant did not deny beating his son.  He was a black soldier and he said that this was the way his mother disciplined him growing up and that black children need firm discipline to keep them out of trouble.  I don’t know if this is true, but that is the way the defendant felt, that was his cultural bias.

Had this case been tried in a civilian court, the sergeant would have been convicted quickly of a F3 or F4 felony child assault and probably serve a decade in prison.  His family would have been instantly thrown into poverty, lost their base housing, and referred to health and human services and forgotten.  The sergeant, once he got out of prison, would have a felony record and have difficulties finding a job or a place to live.  He would also have the burden of restitution and accumulated child support; in short he would be buried in debt with no way out and no way to help his family.  You have to look long and hard to find justice in this outcome, everyone would lose.  The son would be more likely to drop out of school, live in poverty, and be involved with the criminal justice system himself.

However, I have to admit, seeing the evidence I wanted to throw the man in jail for years, the victim was innocent and the wounds were terrible.  The senior officers that sat on the Court Martial panel, a form of jury,   saw things a little more clearly.  They knew they had other options, besides prison, available that would allow them to punish the actions of the sergeant while supporting the victim.  The sergeant could be restricted to the company barracks and denied unsupervised visitation with his son, he could be required to work extra-duty and have his weekend privileges revoked, basically a 24/7 work gang.  The sergeant could be required to attend mental health treatment.  The family, on the other hand, would be allowed to stay in their base housing, because the soldier would still be in the military.  The soldier would still have an income to pay child support and victim’s treatment for his son and wife.   The son would be allowed to remain in the base school where there is a support system for children who routinely endure trauma associated with 10-years of war.

The officer’s ruling, they decided not to send the sergeant to prison, would mostly likely anger many civilians and the Senate subcommittee that do not understand all the avenues open to the military to ensure justice is served to all.  And that’s the danger of having 99 percent of the population clueless about the lives of the one percent who we place so much responsibility.

*Remember the Air Force Academy Cadets accused of sexual assault in Colorado Springs?  Had these college students been charged in a civilian court they would be serving life sentences under Colorado’s harsh Lifetime Supervision Act that has incarcerated thousands for over a decade.  

Finally, an Honest Assessment of Afghanistan

The ''accidental'' burning of Islamic religious material last week by U.S. service members in Afghanistan created the first honest look at our policy there since the war started.

Free from a general's optimistic bravado or State Department spin, this incident draws a sharp contrast between reality and the rhetoric of success informed by American entitlement and exceptionalism that dominates political thought and policy practice.

The incident shows that after 10 years of deep involvement in the Middle East we still don't trust or understand its people, politics, or religion; a trust and understanding critical to winning any insurgency.

Religious mistrust and fear permeates our domestic policy as well. The New York Times recently outed the city's police and the CIA for regularly spying on Islamic centers and youth camps in this country.

Our lack of understanding of Afghan religous practice points to a wider lack of basic human respect that we extend to our partners and enemies alike. (Remember U.S. Marines peeing on Taliban dead) A recent survey found the U.S. military and State Department are seen as arrogant disrespectful occupiers by their Afghan counterparts. One senior Afghan military officer told the BBC that the men who burned the religious items should be publicly hung.

The divide is deeper than this latest incident. Earlier this month Afghan officials demanded the U.S. turn over control of a Bagman prison after independent investigators found the U.S. guilty of regularly subjecting nearly 3,000 prisoners to torture, sexual humiliation, and indefinite incarceration without proof of wrongdoing.

Sayed Noorullah, one of the investigators, told The Associated Press, "If there is no evidence...they have the right to be free."

America has lost the war of occupation in Afghanistan; it was never ours to win in the first place. The first rule of counter-insurgency is that only the home team, the Afghan people, can decide who wins. This is the uncomfortable truth generals don't tell policy makers, and politicians don't admit to an indifferent populace. Every U.S. soldier and innocent civilian who dies now tragically is dying for election year political expediency, not for any hope of success or peace for the Afghan people.

The burning of religious material last week gives us a valuable assessment of how far we haven't come in 10 years of killing and will only serve to further the divide and fill more body bags with soldiers that could careless about out Afghanistan.

Related News

As war drags on, sex offense is on the rise for combat vets

Ten years of constant war has affected the less than 1 percent of U.S. citizens who are forced to carry the combat load for the rest of us - and the stress is coming out in unanticipated ways.

According to a recent Pentagon study, sex crimes are up 30 percent in the armed forces since 2006 while child abuse increased by 43 percent.

Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli said, "After ten years of war with an all-volunteer force, you're going to have problems that no one could have forecasted.''

With harsh sentencing and a prison mentality that has made the U.S. the world leader in incarceration it is likely that a population that has spent a decade at war will now spend a decade or more behind bars.

Pee for Democracy

TALLAHASSEE, FLA -- A controversial new law here is having surprising results. The state recently required applicants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to submit to a drug test. Test positive for drugs - no assistance for your needy family.

The biased and mean spirited nature of the law assumed that the poor struggled because they were drug addicts - unable to keep a job and using public assistance to support a drug habit.

However, initial results indicate the poor are more sober than the citizens and legislators that enacted the law. The figures show that only 2.5 percent of applicants tested positive for illegal drugs, while the Justice Department estimates over 6 percent of the U.S. population ages 12 and up are regularly using illegal drugs.

As a result of these figures, Carl Hiaasen journalist and best-selling novelist has offered to pay for all 160 members of the Florida State Legislature to be drug tested. Hiaasen called the idea, "a patriotic whiz-fest.''

A Nation of Gaps

This week the Occupy Wall Street gang gathered momentum as their ranks grew and demonstrations sprouted up around the country.

The "99 Percent," as they call themselves, are drawing attention to the growing inequality and the perceived unfairness in America's political, economic, and social systems. According to the activists there is a wealth gap, an education gap, an employment gap, a wage gap, a health care gap, a representation gap, an incarceration gap, and an opportunity gap...just to name a few.

All these gaps drew my attention to another story this week that didn't receive more than Page 7 ink.

This is the story of the "Under 1 Percent" gap. No, not the mega rich and powerful of Wall Street or Washington, but the less than 1 percent of the U.S. population that has taken on 100 percent of the fighting in our nation's longest war. This is the gap most directly exploited by both Wall Street and Washington, and most people just don't care.

According to a new Pew Research Center survey, 71% of the public says they don't understand the struggles of our war fighting service members, while service members themselves place the gap at 84%. Although acknowledging the tremendous gap between the serving and non-serving members of society, the non-serving majority do not see the sacrifice of the few, on their behalf, as unfair.

Maybe the biggest disconnect is that non-serving majority don't see the sacrifice as a benefit to them, and in the big picture it probably isn't. But if you ask a service member why they are going to risk their life in war, they will say they are doing it for the country. The Pew study concludes, "Most Americans acknowledge they know little about the realities of military service. And, in increasing numbers, they disapprove of or do not pay attention to the wars the military is currently fighting.''

When looking for winners in the sacrifice of 6,200 Under Percenter's lives and over $1 trillion in the 99 Percent's money, only Wall Street and Washington think the cost was worth the political and corporate benefit.

According to another Pew Center poll, 64% of non- serving Americans think Iraq wasn't worth the cost, 59% said Afghanistan wasn't worth it. Those thanklessly risking their lives under the 99 Percents amnesic indifference think little better of the war they are dying in. 50% think Afghanistan was a waste and 56% think Iraq was not worth it.

With gaps and fairness brought into the public spotlight by the 99 Percenters maybe they should also highlight the unemployment gap, increased incarceration gap, and mental health gap of America's Under 1 Percenters. And don't forget the violent death and maiming gap either.

Maybe it is time to close the gap, create fairness by implementing a draft. Make all citizens, 100 percent of the nation, responsible for its wars. If everyone was equally shouldering the burden; Wall Street traders, corporate CEO's, politicians, would we still be in Afghanistan, would we ever have been in Iraq? If everyone had the shared sacrifice would 71% of the public say they don't understand the problems faced by the military? Would employers and the judicial system be biased against veterans, would those that sacrificed their bodies and minds be abandon? The 99 percenters have a voice, Wall Street has the money, Washington has the power. Our Vets have each other and the scars they brought back home.

Meanwhile, while no one is watching but a president who wants reelection and a Congress and corporations who want to line their pockets with dividends and campaign contributions, the Under 1 Percenters are dying while the rest of us yawn.

The Sacking of Romo

On the evening of September 11, 2011, the l0-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, America watched football. The game featured the New York Jets (Irony included) battling the Dallas Cowboys (known as America’s team).

Pre-game theatrics included an American flag as big as the football field and a teary eyed fire department pipe and drum band playing Amazing Grace. Curious George, president during the attacks and former governor of Texas, flipped the coin

Dallas won the toss, someone asked if Halliburton had made the coin. Somewhere in the shadows Dick Cheney worked the strings if only his heart machine was the real thing.

On opposing sidelines stood twin brothers ready to battle; Rex (latin for king) Ryan, the head coach for the Jets and Buddy (Texan for redneck) Ryan, the defensive coordinator for the Cowboys. A country group whose name glorifies pre-civil war America sang the national fight song.

Who knows if the NFL or maybe NBC had the forethought to manufacture such irony and drama, my guess is it was intentional. What good is an emotional anniversary if not for economic exploitation.

Anniversaries, after all, help us take stock in where we were and how far we've come. The consensus l0-years after 9/11 is that everyone but AQ has lost and lost big.

Our economy (think money), what politicians, pundits and populace care most about, will never again support the weight of the permanently unemployable. A fact not entirely caused by our over reaction to 9/11, but certainly hastened by it. Now, more than ever, a small group of Uber Rich owns congress and the White House creating a fading facade of dysfunctional democracy out of touch and indifferent to the working class majority it once represented. The Home Depot illusion of the American Dream is gone. Long live Burger King.

Meanwhile our minuscule militaristic minority, less than 1 percent of the sane population, has been more than happy to fight our misguided wars of profit for the last decade. Collecting countries like Upper Deck trading cards; Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia - watch out Mexico, you're next in the gold foil pack. Never have such a clueless few killed so many for a population that cared so little.

When this gullible gaggle returns broken in mind and body they are mostly seen as a menace; weak and unworthy of the 99 percent that can never understand them. If the 99 percent can't exploit the steady pay check of the one percent, what good are they? Increasingly the one percent end up in the unemployment line, homeless shelter, rehab center, and prison. Lepers surrounded by chain link and razor wire. What will we do with all these crazies when the wars end? What will Wall Street do without blood to ink their balance sheets?

To use pop culture to define our times; I am a product of American substandard public education so what else would I user, there is a scene in the movie Gladiator where the senators (Roman senators were much like ours today - filthy rich, egotistical, and sex offenders...date raping their constituents without remorse. This is all according to Wikipedia of course so it could be totally wrong), anyway, in the scene in Gladiator a senator accuses the new Emperor of hosting violent bloody gladiator games in the Coliseum to distract the mob (read citizens) from hunger, poverty, and endless war. Sound familiar? I wonder if the Romans had a flag as big as ours? In the end Maximum, played by Russell Crow, slays the corrupt half-crazed Emperor and saves Rome. Today I'd put my unemployment check on the multi-nationals, Madison Avenue spin doctors and the Department of Homeland Security. Crow wouldn’t have a chance, DHS cameras and biometrics would vector SWAT teams in on him like the Praetorian Guard on crack. He would be executed by lethal injection after a trial by a military tribunal and his body placed in an unmarked grave. Long live spooky government agencies with no accountability.

On this l0-year anniversary of 9/11 the gods and emperors were rewarded for their efforts. Flags were waved, tears and blood were shed, and Cheney saw his shadow cast by the stadium lights signaling 10 more years of war.

History often repeats itself, and it did this night as well.

The Jets, like a decade ago, managed to bring down America’s team. Tony Romo, the cocky Cowboy quarterback, under constant pressure, let the bubble burst and lost a 14 point surplus in the forth quarter. The death blow was delivered by a last minute improbable 50-yard field goal by a disenfranchised kicker who the year before had played for the diminished Dallas dynasty.

Somehow DHS and TSA missed the insurgent kicker at the airport, better increase their budget and full body cavity checks.

The Dollars and Sense of Large Paramilitary Police Forces

Aurora Colorado learned something the federal government has known for years – it is difficult to maintain a standing army during a recession.

In 1993, voters of Aurora passed a measure requiring two police officers for every 1,000 residents. Currently there are roughly 320,000 residents of Aurora and 635 police officers.

The cost to train, outfit, and arm a paramilitary force of 635 is astronomical. The city budget comes up short approximately $6 million annually. The shortfall requires the city to cut funds from other services like public libraries and children’s programs.

Aurora is not the only city struggling to fund its army; it is a common theme around the country these days. Fortunately for the cops, they are protected by a powerful union and can't be downsized as easily as the federal army.

We've seen this play out across the country as teachers and other public employees are laid off or lose benefits, while the police unions threaten lawmakers and citizens with disenfranchised gun wielding cops and promises rampant crime. Denver has been particularly susceptible to this type of coercion as the city struggles to pay for an increasingly abusive police force. Police advocates demand the status quo even as crime rates drop dramatically and cities are bankrupt. 

The Founding Fathers were leery of a standing army, they believed it threatened both the peace of a nation and the liberty of its citizens. I wonder what they'd say about our standing city armies that drain the tax coffers and make threats to city officials?

 

Related News

$1 trillion drug war gets more cash from Obama as experts say – STOP!

Forty years after it started, and $1 trillion later, the U.S. and an international pannel of experts declared the war on drugs a total failure.

The question is, in the face of overwhelming evidence and calls from the international community to stop the waste and violence, will the Obama administration quit the failed policy? Answer - not likely.

I spent most of the '90s flying in and out of drug hot spots in unmarked Air America charter planes as a commander of a Special Forces Team fighting the war on drugs. Having your own private plane is fun, it is also expensive. Four-star resorts, five-star restaurants, safe houses, clothing allowances, and $250 a day per diem were also fun - and expensive. The job was a cross between Miami Vice, James Bond, and Clear and Present Danger. Big on budget, small on results.

The law enforcement agencies had it even better. During this time, and I don't think it has changed, the DEA, CIA, and FBI all controlled vast militaries of ships, men, and airplanes. Everything from jet fighters to ships of war, private mercenary armies accountable to no one to the finest soldiers the American tax dollar could buy. The average DEA agent working in these hot spots made over $130,000 and lived in a privately secured villa - lived like a drug lord.

Last year Gil Kerlikowske, U.S. drug policy czar, said of the war on drugs, "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful." Yet, this year, Obama increased the counter drug budget to record levels, funding over $15.1 billion with $10 billion going directly to law enforcement - remember the private planes and villas, no down sizing here. In response to the increased counter-drug budget Kerlikowske said, "Nothing happens over night, it will take time for spending to match the (White House) rhetoric."

Prior to becoming the drug czar Kerlikowske was the Seattle police chief and taught a few classes a year at Seattle University were I was an associate professor. No policy genius, what he is probably best known for in Seattle is having his pistol stolen out of his unlocked vehicle while he shopped in a downtown mall.

If Kerlikowske was not a great cop, he was, like most successful police chiefs, a great politician. He knows that large police budgets and happy police unions translate into successful elections for mayors and presidents alike, and job security for the czar. As Ed Quillen of the Denver Post wrote, "the drug war offers an excellent employment program for federal, state and local enforcement agents, undercover agents, customs agents, snitches, snoops, prosecutors, investigators, lab technicians, prison guards, parole supervisors and the like. They all eat at the public trough, directly or indirectly, and naturally want to keep their jobs. So you can count on them to support the war on drugs with a passion and, during slow times, to creak new threats to justify increasing their budgets.''

The annual drug war budget has increased 31 percent in adjusted dollars since former President Richard Nixon declared in June 1971 that "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse."

The Associated Press tracked how taxpayer's $1 trillion war budget was spent, their findings can be seen below in Funding a Culture War.

Unfortunately, $1 trillion is a lowball estimate for the war on drugs. The Justice Department figures the overburdened justice system, health care, and lost productivity costs the U.S. an additional $215 billion annually. Put that figure on top of the billions of hidden ''black'' funds in the CIA and Defense budgets and the cost of the drug war is most likely double.

This week the Global Commission on Drug Policy released its assessment of current drug policy and the results of the 40-year war on drugs. The commission was staffed by a distinguished group of international leaders that included former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz, former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Paul Volker, former President Cesar Gaviria of Colombia, and former President Ernesto Zedillo of Mexicao.

The commission concluded, "the global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies." 

Devastating consequences looks different depending on your perspective and geography. In Mexico devastating is over 40,000   deaths caused directly by drug violence and a complete disruption of the fabric of society. In Colombia it is tens of thousands murdered and the genesis of narco-guerrillas who use American drug money and weapons to fund campaigns of political terror. In the U.S. it is the incarceration of 37 million nonviolent drug offenders and a thinly veiled Jim Crow justice system - if you are black in the U.S. you are 10 times more likely to be incarcerated for a drug offense than a white drug offender with the same charge.

If you live in Colorado devastation has the face of 45-year old father of nine, Israel Mena, who was shot eight times in a botched no-knock SWAT paramilitary drug raid on Sept. 29, 1999. The SWAT team had the wrong house, the Mena children now have no father.

In response to the Global Commission's findings Kerlikowske commented that the White House does not have, "a culture war or drug war mentality." His words do not match the reality of record funding approved by Obama to escalate the war or that we have my Green Beret comrades now operating in Mexico. To accentuate the administrations commitment to the war on drugs, Secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton this week promised an additional $300 million to be spent this year in fighting the drug war in Central America.

Obama, Clinton, and Kerlikowske know the truth, like all politicians since Nixon - police prosecutors, federal agents, prison guards, and probation officers all VOTE and their unions give big campaign donations. The poor, minority populations, drug users, and felons DON'T VOTE and they don't have a lobby - no money, no voice.

Funding a Culture War

How did the government spend $1 Trillion?

• $20 billion fighting drug gangs in their home countries
• $33 billion in ''Just say No'' marketing to U.S. teens
• $49 billion in counter-drug border law enforcement
• $121 billion in the arrests of 37 million nonviolent drug offenders
• $450 billion in federal incarceration (state and county costs not included)*

*63 percent of all people incarcerated in Colorado are drug offenders

More Denver Cops Support the Status Quo of Police Brutality and Deception

It has been less than a week since Denver police officer Shane Boor lashed out publicly at the disciplinary sanctions implemented by Manager of Safety Charles Garcia against several Denver cops found guilty of brutalizing citizens and lying to cover their actions. Now Sgt. Ricki Stern of the Denver Street Crime Attack Team adds his voice to those who want to justify police violence and deception.

According to The Denver Post, Stern sent an e-mail to Garcia on May 7 after Garcia attended a police District 2 roll call. In the e-mail Stern wrote, "We have no use for people who sit in the comfort of their air conditioned box seats and watch those of us that get our faces bloodied in the arena and then pass judgment on us based (on) what they would have done."

Stern later writes, "what we do is real and the consequences for not doing what needs to be done in the heat of battle can and has been fatal."

Next, Stern seems to threaten Garcia when he writes, "I would recommend that you not come back to roll call because it will not change what we think of people that have chosen your profession.

We have an overriding sense of justice and we know who needs to be fired...we are not stupid, we know when it's raining and when we are being urinated on."

Sgt. John Bronson an executive board member of the Denver Police Protective Association agreed with Stern saying, "That is a legitimate e-mail, and that is pretty much the sentiment of everybody that listened to Garcia because he doesn't have the background of understanding police work."

One of the chief complaints of the officers seems to be that prior to his hiring as Manager of Safety, Garcia was a public defender representing victims of police brutality and the regular lies told by police officers to protect each other and while on the stand during trial. Garcia knows that police brutalize and police lie, that's what many of them do. They have been doing it so long; it probably does not even seem wrong anymore or counter to everything this country use to stand for. It is this entitled "overriding sense of justice" culture that Garcia is trying to change for the benefit and safety of the public.

Stern and Bronson seem to echo the same distortions voiced by Boor, that they are misunderstood gladiators in the arena or soldiers on the battlefield doing "what needs to be done in the heat of battle." In reality they are neither, they are mid-level public servants with when done correctly, mundane even boring jobs. The problem is their culture and egos can't   come to grips with this reality.

I wonder if they have considered that maybe if they didn't have a "Crime Attack Team" they wouldn't need a "Police Protective Association”?

Bye-bye Miss American Pie

I recently read a column from one of my favorite journalists, David Brooks of The New York Times. I find his views always well reasoned and exquisitely written, even if I don't always agree with his conclusions. The article entitled, “The goal: lose yourself,” was one of those times I didn't agree with Brooks' conclusion.

His article was based on observations drawn from recent commencement speeches given around the country to this year's college grads as they venture out into the world.

As a former associate professor I always enjoyed commencement; the energy of optimism, the idealism of yet unconquered souls.

This year I was particularly reflective because my oldest niece, a vibrant young woman, graduated from Boston University.

In his article Brooks questions the, ''litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominate note in American culture." He writes, "this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to."

Maybe my niece's generation knows something that Brooks' and my generation doesn't - that in the America of today with its intrusive dysfunctional government, all powerful heartless multinational corporations, and the unabashed marketing of greed and materialism there are few worthwhile serious things to be tied to. No institution that deserves their loyalty or commitment.

Brooks argues that, “graduates are also told to pursue happiness and joy. But, of course, when you read a biography of someone you admire, it's rarely the things that made them happy that compel your admiration," later he concludes, "It's excellence, not happiness, that we admire most."

Brooks observation of our culture's worship of excellence over happiness is right on target and incredibly sad. We have come to demand excellence over the destruction of self because excellence drives the stock market, increases the margin between the uber- rich and the rest of us growing poor, and lines the pockets of our government officials. Our demand for excellence and exceptionalism has led to a psychology of hate, aggression, violence, and fear - all driven by a corporate bottom line.

Let's take stock of the exceptional blessings we have passed on to this graduating class. We have been involved in two wars for over a decade and have joined a third unconstitutional war in oil rich Libya, yet less than one percent of the population has been asked to shoulder war's burden. Today more Americans are in prison, more than 2.5 million, than anytime in our history, a good time to have stock in Correctional Industries Inc., the business of suffering is booming. The land of the free has more prisoners per capita than any other nation in the world. Our fellow top five most incarcerating countries include Russia, Iran, and China - good company for an exceptional country. On top of these examples of excellence, throw our languishing educational system, lowest in the developed west.

With the legacy of greed, debt, corruption, war, suffering, and hate that we have passed on to my niece's generation maybe instead of pushing them to cold excellence for the benefit of corporate and government coffers, we should encourage compassion, love, and forgiveness for the benefit of human kind. If we are not ready for this change maybe it is time to recommend immigration to our talented youth. Maybe they can find peace and meaning in countries that value happiness over corporate greed or the extension of military power. We no longer seem to be the country of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The same week Brooks published his article four other headlines caught my attention. First, the House passed a $42.3 billion budget for homeland security. Next, the federal government cut $500 million from educational funding. Thirdly, it was estimated that the national prison budget will again exceed $60 billion this year.

The last headline was about five citizens, one an Iraq war vet, that were arrested for dancing at the Thomas Jefferson Memorial on Memorial Day. The five were dancing quietly without music. The war vet, Adam Kokesh, was dancing arm in arm with his girlfriend, Medea Benjamin in a chamber inscribed with the words, "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than these people are to be free."

When the five were arrested, handcuffed, and put on the floor, Kokesh asked, "Why can't I dance with my girlfriend?" I guess in Brooks' American culture of expressive individualism it is illegal for a vet who offered his life at the alter of freedom to dance for love and compassion in the chamber of liberty.

My advice to my niece and her fellow graduates...dance, just dance.

Justification for Denver Cops Acting Badly

Since Denver Manager of Safety, Charles Garcia, found four Sheriff's deputies innocent of any wrongdoing in the Marvin Booker killing the federal government, ACLU, and the media have been digging into the decade long rash of civil rights abuses by Denver law enforcement. Even the pro-law and order Denver Post said it was finally time to change police use of force policies.

This Sunday, however, the Post gave voice to another view, the point of view of the misunderstood victimized police officer.

Joseph D. Unser, a 16-year veteran with the Denver Police Department had his ego bruised and feelings hurt. However, Unser's justification of police violence helps point out the critical thinking errors and police cultural norms that led many like him to abuse their fellow citizens.

To recognize Unser's views as part of the problem rather than part of the solution, I have highlighted some of the officer's main arguments below.

Unser begins his article with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. about, "The ultimate measure of a man," and, "where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." It is odd that Unser would take the words of nonviolence, compassion, and tolerance and twist them to somehow justify the violent abuse of citizens. Taking the civil rights leader's words out of context to attempt to glorify those who have abused civil liberties not only shows a lack of understanding of the man, but also the movement he died for. Unfortunately quoting King has become a popular, if disturbing, trend amongst self-righteous law enforcement looking for social justice credibility inside of violence.

Like many in law enforcement, Unser has the distorted view that they are soldiers combating evil at every street corner.

Unser's article is dripping with militaristic terms, images of warfare, and Gunny Highway (Clint Eastwood's hyper-violent character in the movie Heartbreak Ridge) macho quotes.

This military identification is a particularly disturbing lens through which police view the world. A soldier in combat has few choices and has been given the authority to execute preemptive violence - that's what soldiers do. In Unser's words, "It is easy to sit back and not truly understand the world we operate in. We make split-second decisions, operating off of our perceptions," later he says, "Frequently, we are asked to quickly bring order to chaos. We see a world of violence, with total disregard for the value of life."

In Unser's own words the police perceive a world of frequent chaos, violence, and a disregard for human life. This is the same world all of us live in; do we see the world as such? Granted cops do experience on the job horrors, but those are rare, not frequent as Unser believes. Unser allows these rare events to color his perceptive lens and influence how he makes "split second decision." Given the fact that most initial perceptions are wrong in stressful situations, is it no wonder that Unser and his colleagues react with violence when they have such a skewed view of the world and their distorted need to bring instant "order to chaos." Would it not be better decision making, better policing, to take a step back, take a deep breath and maybe ask some questions before reaching for the taser, billy club, or pistol. Most chaos and difficult decisions become clearer with patience.

I know the argument here, "what happens if a violent criminal attacks a cop or innocent citizen - if the cop hesitates to figure out what's really happening, he or the citizen could get killed.'' This is the same type of "ticking time bomb" argument used to justify indiscriminate torture in the name of the War on Terror. The argument was wrong then and it is wrong in this case as well. Yes, it is possible that such an incident could occur, but in reality this scenario happens so infrequently that it is statistically insignificant...as in, just a little more likely than NEVER.

Unser says that 69 law enforcement officers were killed in the U.S. as of May 2011. He says, "there are husbands and wives not coming home, moms and dads not seeing their children grow, sons and daughters not there to celebrate the holidays." This loss of life is truly tragic. But what about Paul Childs, the l5-yearold developmentally disabled boy gunned down by Denver police, or Frank Lobato, the 64-year-old grandfather shot dead in his bed by Denver cops, or Marvin Booker the 56-year-old street preacher strangled to death by four Denver Sheriff's deputies, these free citizens did not strap on a gun, put on a uniform and go looking for trouble. They did not see a world of violence and chaos, but violence and chaos saw them through the angry distorted perceptive lenses of Unser's colleagues. If officers had taken the time to see these events clearly these three people would still be alive and no citizen or cop would have been put at risk.

In reality, every year hundreds more innocent citizens are murdered or brutalized by police than police are lost in the line of duty. In fact, it is far more dangerous to be a citizen in the presence of law enforcement than a cop immersed in their chaotic violent world. Didn't those hundreds of citizens wrongly killed by police also deserve holidays and families and high school graduations without being murdered by the state? Next Unser compares his colleagues' motivation to wear a badge to a citizen's motivation to become a soldier. To Unser the professions seem to be synonymous. "We answered your call to stand up and provide order and protect society's says Unser.

His words souls like he answered some add with Uncle Sam's picture saying "I Want You..." and Unser and his fellow brave cops stood up to protect the feeble flock and make the world right. But who is protecting the flock from Unser? The law enforcement officers I know, and I know many, joined for one simple reason - the power of the badge and the gun. They like carrying a gun, and do so always. They like being asked by pretty girls in bars if they've ever had to shoot someone.

They thrive on the power of being able to tell anyone - ANYONE - to "shut the fuck up" or risk going to jail, and how quickly they can take a verbal disagreement and make it end with the words - "stop resisting."   Most cops that see the world as Unser does became cops to get paid to legally bully people. You see it in their walk, with their chest puffed out over their belly, their arms slightly bent at the elbows and six inches from their hips, like their massive muscled air tats keep their arms from resting neutrally at their side. Oakley ballistic sunglasses always lats like the Terminator, they talk to you in short condescending commands with an undercurrent of contempt. They do this job not for some noble cause, because the way they do it there isn't any, they do the job because it is a paycheck that lets them act out their anger and power issues on a defenseless society. That's all.

One police officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of prosecution, told me how he and his partner once recognized a public defender who had successfully defended a man the officers had arrested. They spotted him during a civil demonstration in the city and waited for the man to get close enough to the crowd, then the officers maced him and threw him into the street. The cop told the story laughing about how the attorney looked in the dirty street with his eyes burned from the chemical spray. These are not actions of soldiers as Unser wants us to believe, these are not the actions of someone motivated by justice, compassion, or the desire to serve society. These are the actions of thugs with a badge.

Unser continues with his use of military bravado by channeling his inner Clint Eastwood from the war movie Heartbreak Ridge.

Unser quotes password's character Gunny Highway saying, "When they (training) don't work, we improvise, adapt and overcome."

This attitude would be great if we were asking Unser to take a hill or bomb a village maybe, but we are asking Unser and his colleagues to keep the peace, not escalate the violence.

Unfortunately, these days, our pseudo-paramilitary police are armed and armored like soldiers and they think of themselves as such. Tragically officers with multiple leather weapons have little incentive to "overcome" using a nonviolent solution; it is much easier to compel compliance through overwhelming violence.

In Unser's view there is no alternative to violence, he says, "We are asked to be assertive, which in turn requires us to utilize force....Unfortunately, we do make mistakes, due to the volatility of society. We can succumb to our tempers during highly stressful and emotional times.'' Through Unser's experienced perceptive lenses assertiveness can only result in the use of force and it is society's fault that he loses his temper resulting in violence. His views and blaming society for police anger and violence is greatly disturbing.

Unser believes that there are no alternatives to violence, yet our unarmed cousins in England seem to maintain the peace just fine without weapons and without escalating brutality. A recent article in the Economist points to the dramatic difference in wrongful deaths caused by law enforcement from the two countries.

The article also highlighted the great difference in gun related violence - sorry Second Amendment advocates (and NRA), but no guns does equal no gun violence. When British law enforcement were asked if they would like to carry a gun on duty the overwhelming response was "NO." The officers believed that guns would only escalate violence in the country and that armed officers would be less likely to develop a given situation and more likely to use violence in unwarranted situations. The English officers pointed to the hyper-violent U.S. police behavior and the high rate of violent death in the states to prove their point.

Unser is hurt, the profession he ties his identity to is being shown for what it really is and Unser is taking the criticism personally. He justifies brutality because a volatile society makes him do it and he is a soldier at war. He thinks that he has answered some glorious soldier's call to serve a public besieged by bogeymen when in reality he is getting paid a very good living to stroke his ego at the expense of taxpayer treasure and blood. In Unser's disturbing words we find the delusions that explain the problem - and should terrify a free society.

In related news:

More abuse in Denver County Jail

Days after four Sheriff's deputies working in the county jail were cleared of wrongdoing in the excessive use of force death of Marvin Booker, a 56-year-old street preacher killed while retrieving his shoes, another deputy in the jail faces assault charges for slapping a woman.

On March 25 Felicity Tierney, 41, was arrested on drunken driving charges and taken to the Denver County Jail. Sheriff's Deputy Anne Kelly, 51, an eight-year veteran of the department is accused of assaulting Tierney for being uncooperative. Further details of the assault have not been released.

Wednesday Kelly was charged with a Class 1 misdemeanor for third-degree assault and a lesser misdemeanor for harassment. If convicted Kelly could receive up to 18 months in jail and a fine up to $5,000. She was placed on administrative leave with pay pending the outcome of an investigation.

 Man charged for giving the bird to a Colorado State Trooper

Shane Boor, 35, flipped off a state trooper who had just pulled a motorist over for a traffics violation in Jefferson County on the morning of April 19. According to The Denver Post, Boor said he just wanted to express his disapproval of the trooper and those in his profession.

The ACLU has agreed to represent Boor in the misdemeanor harassment charge saying, "Our client engaged in peaceful, silent symbolic expression that is protected by the First Amendment. The protection of the Constitution is not limited to speech that is acceptable in polite society."

Boor told The Post that when the trooper asked him why he flipped him off Boor said, because you're thieves and you harass people." Boor then asked the trooper, "if he thought using two squad cars and an airplane to track down someone who insulted you in traffic was a good use of taxpayer dollars?'' Boor's arraignment is June 13, he faces up to six months in jail if convicted.

Killing Because We Can, Doesn't Make it Right

I was not planning to comment on the recent assassination of Osama bin Laden, too much has been said already, and too little is known about what his death will mean for the future. I had successfully resisted the temptation until I read an editorial that ran in the Washington Post entitled, Targeting Muammar Gaddafi.

The editorial attempted to justify the reported killing of three of Gaddafi's grandchildren by linking the policy goal of regime change in Libya with the killing of bin Laden. The Post states, “For the record, we think targeting Gaddafi and his sons...is as legitimate as striking al-Qaida.''

Here is the moral leap I was not willing to take with the Washington Post - the strikes against Gaddafi are similar to the drone attacks we employ in Pakistan. We follow a target, usually through high altitude surveillance to a safe house, we watch the safe house to determine who is in it, or might be in it, and then someone detached from the situation determines that trying to kill the target we think is there is worth killing the innocent people we know are there.

Have we become a people who value the death of a powerless madman over the lives of innocent children?

I know what's coming, please don't be so callous and ignorant inhuman to make the “human shield” argument - as someone who has done these types of missions, I can tell you, we have long learned how to defeat these measures. Lobbing bombs into homes where children are likely to live is lazy, murderous, and vile.

The one detail from the bin Laden raid that I pray is true is that one of the SEAL assaulters picked up two children during the firelight and carried them to safety. That single act is courageous heroic, compassionate, honorable, just - even, I dare say, American. Killing Gaddafi's family by remote control is cowardice and wrong and there was a time when we knew the difference. I had hoped The Washington Post knew the difference.

Palin Channels Her Inner India

In reporting foreign policy I try to stick to the facts and away from the wing-nut fringe of both parties. I have mostly been successful at doing this because, well, wing-nut righties and lefties tend to stick with their own and don't venture far from the delusional kingdom.

That changed this week when Sarah Palin traveled to India to bolster her foreign policy street-cred for an anticipated ill-fated 2012 presidential run.
According to the Associated Press, Palin addressed a group of ''well-heeled'' New Delhi business leaders Saturday with a speech entitled, "My Vision of America." (Editor's note - I had an 8th grade civics paper by the same title ... I'm pretty sure it is not the same content)
In her speech Palin called for India and the U.S. to unite against China saying, "We're going to need each other, especially as these other regions rise." She also implied, in typical Momma Bear logic that China was preparing for global conflict, "What's with the military buildup? China’s military growth can't just be for defensive purposes.''
I guess it has escaped Palin's calculus that the U.S. spends more on purely ''defensive'' military spending than most of the world combined.
Palin continued her distorted vision of America by telling the supportive audience that, "Free people in a free country don't wage war on another country." Again it seems to have escaped Palin that the free people of America have waged almost constant war for a quarter of a century beginning with the invasion of the island of Grenada in 1983 to the continuing 10-year struggle in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The same week Palin was saying, “I want peace on Earth,” the U.S. was conducting Predator strikes in Pakistan – a sovereign country we are not at war with. In retaliation, sovereign Pakistan pulled terrorism talks with the United States. The most recent strike killed 47 civilians according to Pakistani officials. A U.S. military spokesman, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the deaths were insurgents or "at least sympathizers.'' I wonder if in Palin's vision free peace loving Americans bomb civilian sympathizers? Unfortunately, in typical Palin fashion, journalist are not part of her vision of America and were barred from the speech, so we may never know what Palin really thinks, or if she thinks at all.
The problem with wing-nuts, righties or lefties, is that once they get off the reservation they are loose cannons with lit fuses you never know when or how they will go off. The people and nations they engage might see them for what they are - is Palin a politician these days or a reality TV star...is there a difference, or the world might take her antagonistic words to explain Americans often confessed militaristic foreign policy. Diplomacy is the language of subtlety and nuance, not the growls of a delusional grizzly - much can be lost in translation.
After visioning India, Palin departed to deliver her words of wisdom to Israel - Mideast peace may never be the same.

"No Known Cure" Could Be No More

House Bill 1138, legislation written to help regulate and revamp the state's controversial sex offender management program, passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.

Republicans have the majority in the House and used that extra seat to push the bill through to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats have the majority, for further debate.

Last year a similar bill sponsored by the Democrats was vetoed in the eleventh hour by then Governor Bill Ridder. The Governor objected to last minute changes made to the bill after it had unanimously passed full votes in both the House and Senate.

This year promises to offer the same drama, with Democrats and prison reform advocates saying the bill doesn't go far enough, while Republicans and private treatment providers, who have a financial stake in the bill, will say it goes too far. At the heart of the controversy is what to do with the divisive words, "there is no known cure for sex offenders.'' No known cure is the foundation of the Lifetime Supervision Act. For some these words have justified the lifetime incarceration of hundreds of nonviolent offenders, for others it means intensive supervision and registration in the community.

Depending on ones perspective these words can mean very different things:

• CDOC Therapeutic Community: There is no known cure because it is not a disease like the flu that can be cured. · Prison Reform Advocates: The words are unnecessary - we don't recognize in legislation a cure for alcohol abuse, drug abuse, robbery, or murder why should we for crimes that vary so much from one to another?


• Greig Veeder - Outspoken private treatment provider: "More importantly it means 'fix' - and that is what the citizens and victims care about and what is impossible to do because there is no end point to the management needs of adult sex offenders. The lack of cure underscores that there is no final fix or solution." (In recent years Veeder has advocated for an all-inclusive sex offender camp, run by him, where he can exact the "final solution" to the state’s sex offender management problem. So far that idea has not gained traction with the legislature.)


• Parole Board: The board does not comment on public policy, but their views are evident by their actions - only 0.78 percent were released in the first 10 years of the Lifetime Act, and only after serving over 100 percent of their sentence. Just 5 percent were released in 2010. To the board no known cure means lifetime incarceration regardless of the judge's sentence.

The real push back to the change in legislative wording may be more financial than philosophical or a real concern for public safety. According to Veeder, "The professionals (therapists, polygraphist, parole officers, parole board, and law enforcement) gain revenue streams and receive professional opportunities (benefits) from citizens via the court." Veeder goes on to warn that if no known cure goes away there could be no justification for the cash cow Lifetime Supervision Act that spawned the sex offender containment industry, "without the no known cure language in statute there is less or no justification for the lifetime supervision legislation."

The current version of HB 1138 replaces no know cure with, “there is currently no way to ensure that adult sex offenders with the propensity to commit sexual offenses will not reoffend.'' This vague language is sure to charge the debate as the bill moves further along the legislative process.

No one knows how this new wording might influence the implementation of the Lifetime Supervision Act in the future. Maybe the parole board will start releasing inmates who have served 100 percent of their sentences. Maybe the period in Colorado history that advocated lifetime imprisonment for nonviolent offenders is over. Maybe the year after year anguish of the indeterminate sentence will end, maybe one day it will be seen for what it is - inhumane.

Or maybe not. Colorado does seem to like its prison industry, and nothing has made it grow or required so much taxpayer funding than no known cure and the Lifetime Act. Maybe this is the state's legacy, only time and legislation will tell.

Editor's note: Parenthetical information inserted by writer.

"Don't Ask," Just Draft

The repeal of the 17-year-old ban on gays serving openly in the military seems to be destined to die on the molting wings of a lame duck Congress. Despite overwhelming support for the repeal by service members, the public, and the courts, homophobic lawmakers influenced by fringe elements in their caucus refuse to end an abusive policy of discrimination.

As gridlock shutters the prospect of repeal, I propose a simple liberty affirming, equality mandating measure that would settle the issue for good: “Draft Baby, Draft!”

With only one percent of the nation serving in the military isn't it time for the other 99 percent to get involved? Not by simply shaking a service member's hand and thanking them for their service, or giving them a "great deal" at the used car lot, but really get involved. Close your business or leave your cubical you 99 per centers - say goodbye to your family and loved ones, grab a gun and stand shoulder to shoulder with a one per center and kill another human being for your country.

How many rich Republicans or Princeton Democrats would be willing to strap on a gun and fight an endless war in the Middle East - none. How many would enact legislation to force their sons or daughters to do the same - none.

At the real prospect of a draft, lawmakers would be tripping over themselves to welcome anyone into the military who would take the place on the draft role of one of America's hetero-heros who are too busy to be bothered with defending their country. Maybe Congress could even legislate a rainbow substitutions clause in the draft - a gay swap-meet where cowardly heterosexual citizens who got drafted could exchange their ticket with brave homosexual citizens willing to volunteer to risk his or her life for a country that considers them unworthy of equality.

Mixed messages and hypocrisy run deep in America. The bipartisan Dream Act allows a path to full citizenship for illegal immigrants who are willing to attend college or volunteer for military service. First, the two acts are not the same. One is a self-serving privilege - college. The other is a selfless act of citizenship - military service. To say that an illegal immigrant can get full U.S. citizenship with the right to marry, the right to cover a spouse on their insurance, and whatever else it means these days to be a citizen in this country, simply by putting on a uniform … while a taxpaying legal homosexual citizen is not afforded the same opportunity is the cruelest form of hypocrisy.

Another mixed message comes from the military itself. A1l branches of the service teach and expect their soldiers to live the values of honesty and truth. Some would say these values are critical to the soldiers' ability to perform the difficult tasks they are expected to perform everyday. Yet homosexual soldiers are expected to lie and misrepresent themselves to a depth heterosexual soldiers are not.

For those that want to judge others unfit to serve I say “Draft Baby, Draft!” Let a self-righteous 99 per center grab a rifle and stand with a soldier and catch bullets for their country - let that soldier judge the 99’s fitness for citizenship. When the first round cracks overhead, believe me, they won't give a damn about sexual proclivity - and neither should anyone else. Until the entire nation is willing to go to war, no one who volunteers and is physically able should be denied the opportunity to do something the others will not.

China's Convenient Crazy Neighbor

North Korea shelled a small South Korean fishing village in the Yellow Sea for 50 minutes on Tuesday resulting in four deaths and at least 19 civilians wounded, damages from the barrage are still being assessed but are estimated to be in the millions.

State media claimed the attack was provoked by military exercises conducted in the area.

The Washington Post reported that South Korea returned artillery fire in response to the attack, fueling concerns of a continued escalation in the violence. Meanwhile, South Korean civilians living on the islands boarding the North were encouraged to evacuate to the mainland in anticipation of further hostility.

If you, like millions of Americans, missed this story on the national network news it was probably because it was tucked neatly between holiday traveler concern over enhanced TSA pat-downs the "Don't touch my junk'' crises, and the details of impending nuptials of young British royalty. Americans seem to be viewing the unprovoked killing of innocent South Koreans as an isolated incident not connected to any larger more frightening regional policy. A policy not by crazy like-a-fox North Korea, but by their rich and powerful benefactors to the north - China.

To understand the chess piece like moves of North Korea and China in context of a regional power struggle you have to understand the context of the region and its importance to the United States. Few Americans could put their finger on the Yellow Sea, let alone identify the pivotal countries that surround it. But it is impossible to understand the moves without knowing what the board looks like.

The Korea's (North and South) sit between the Yellow Sea and the Sea of Japan. To the north and west is the behemoth emerging world power China. This year China overtook Japan as the second largest economy in the world.
To the east Japan rests as a declining economic power with a dangerously aging population. According to November's Economist magazine, the Japanese median age is 44, and by 2050 40 percent of Japanese will be over 65 and the total population will have declined by 38 million.
In the south, and running into the East China Sea are the disputed Senkaku Islands (claimed by both China and Japan), the island of Okinawa where the U.S. has a controversial strategic military base, and finally we come to Taiwan.

Taiwan, technically Chinese territory, is allowed to function semi-autonomously from the mainland and is a constant source of diplomatic and military posturing between the U.S. and China. China wants more direct control over their island and its important manufacturing and financial markets - currently Taiwan runs a $13.2 billion trade surplus and has experienced a 5.9 increase in market value in the last year. The U.S. plans to maintain the status quo by selling Taiwan advanced military weapons to discourage an anticipated Chinese invasion.

The next aspect of the game to understand is how history plays a role in the actions unfolding. Both Korea and China hold angry grudges over Japan for war crimes committed prior to and during WW II. This concept may seem odd to Americans who have a hard time remembering last week, but to the ancient proud civilizations of the region this history is living and ever present.

In more recent history there is the economic and territorial expansion of China supported by the overt aggression of their crazy neighbor President Kim Jong-Il of North Korea. China's expansion can be seen in the region by its threats against Taiwan, a growing military budget, and claims to Japan's southern islands.

In September, the Japanese Coast Guard arrested the crew of a Chinese trawler fishing in Japanese waters around the Senkaku Islands. In retaliation, China withheld shipments of rare earth, materials Japan needs to produce its high-tech exports. China told Japan they could ensure future supplies of rare earth by relocating their factories to mainland China - something Japanese companies are doing with increasing frequency, and given their aging population, a trend likely to increase.

Meanwhile China's use of North Korean aggression is less nuanced and more of a blunt force instrument. North Korea continues to build and test a rogue nuclear program and launch cruise missile test flights over Japan - just to make sure there was no doubt to their threat. Earlier this year North Korea sunk a South Korean warship in open waters, and now North Korea fires artillery at a fishing village on Yeonpyeong Island.

What we are experiencing on the Korean peninsula is not a cautionary tale of declining American influence in the region - it is an epilogue to American world dominance. While we were chasing a handful of terrorists around Afghanistan and starting a purposeless war with Iraq incurring trillions of dollars in debt, the Chinese, with the help of North Korea, were keeping their eye on the prize - emerging Asian markets and power. When we look at the region as a whole and connect the dots of recent North Korean and Chinese actions it is clear we have been checkmated.

Are we willing to go to war in Korea over the sinking of a ship? What about the bombing of an island? North Korea is already the most sanctioned nation in the world, if we can't stop them from exploding a nuclear bomb how are we going to stop their conventional threats against their neighbors? Are we going to risk a trade or shooting war with China over islands in the Yellow and East China Seas when China is our largest debt holder and controls most of the world's rare earth - materials needed to run our high-tech society and military?

Imagine you are the President of the United States sometime in the not too distant future. Tensions have risen over recent arms sales to Taiwan of advanced anti-ship missiles. When the arms sales were announced, China suspended shipments of rare earth choking the high-tech industries of Japan and the United States. As a Chinese invasion force leaves the mainland for the shores of Taiwan, North Korea moves troops into the DMZ while its navy threatens islands of South Korea and Japan, and U.S. satellites indicate North Korean missiles are preparing to launch. You think Kim Jong-Il might just be crazy enough to start a war...look at the other crazy things he has done, he shelled an island just for fun. The threat is credible enough to make you pause.

“It is decision time Mr. President,” your National Security Adviser prods. Do you risk nuclear war with North Korea to keep China out of Taiwan? North Korea has nothing to lose, do you trade Tokyo and Seoul for Pyongyang just to keep Taiwan semi- autonomous? What price will you pay for geriatric Japan?

Don't think too hard Mr. President, it is already too late - CHECKMATE. Game to the People's Republic and their crazy neighbor.