Comments on Obama inaugural address

A post by Professor Nacos on her blog last month, Lebanon Election Outcome and Obama’s Public Diplomacy, reminded me of my responses to Professor Nacos' January post about President Obama's inauguration, The Promise of America's and Obama's Patchwork Heritage.

My comments sandwich a response by Professor Nacos:

The issue at stake is perception, not reality. Obama expressed the same message as Bush. If anything, Obama's expressions of Christianity, American primacy, and leadership with American ideals in his inaugural address were *more* aggressive than Bush, in effect out-Bushing Bush. There was quite a bit of 'either with us or against us' sentiment in it, just not as plainly spoken as his predecessor.

The Bush administration made a dedicated effort to make clear that the War on Terror is not a war on Islam. While the enemy has used an unambiguous radical religious construct to sell their war since before 9/11, and (continue to) commit atrocities and sabotage our peace-building efforts since 9/11, President Bush responded by promoting Islam as a peaceful religion that can co-exist with Western modernity. However, President Bush was an uncharismatic public spokesman in the face of media and self-serving politicians who undermined our war and peace-building missions.

In reality, the ideology underpinning our War on Terror has not been religious, but progressive liberalism, where Bush was the inheritor of Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy (although one can argue that, while secular, the roots of progressive liberalism are Christian). Unless President Obama has been extremely duplicitious, he will continue Bush's progressive liberalism, which means the reality of how we conduct the war won't change. Nor will it calm our enemies and other leaders tangibly threatened by American primacy and the newest 'Washington agenda'. This is, after all, a competition with real stakes.

Potentially, perception will change due to the transfer of power from the uncharismatic Bush to the charismatic Obama. But will the media help Obama in the same places they undermined Bush? That remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether Obama, with or without media help, can make a difference in the regions where we are competing for the war and peace.

Maybe, if we Americans are truly deterministic agents, then in the bottom-line, it matters less what they think of the war; it only matters what we think of it. In that case, President Obama's value will not be changing the war itself or how it's perceived by our competitors, but changing how we collectively think of it.

Posted by: Eric January 24, 2009 at 09:44 AM

Ah, Eric. You and I must have listened to different speeches on inauguration day.
The "war on terrorism" a la ex-president Bush is over. One cannot fight a war against non-state actors, indeed, such a declaration alone elevates terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda to a level they do not deserve.
As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has repeatedly stated, military might will not defeat terrorism--what is needed is a mix of hard and soft power. Secretary of State Clinton called that recently smart power.

Posted by: Brigitte January 24, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Again, a perception problem. Those who believe the War on Terror is over with the change of administration have failed to grasp its continual evolution since 9/11. What Gates, Clinton and many others (including Bush) have said is perfectly compatible with Bush's, and now Obama's, evolving War on Terror.

We only have to read the on-going discussions about 4th or 5th generation warfare, based on events, to understand the notion of "war" as applied to the War on Terror is very different than the traditional state-vs-state (or 3rd generation) definition we grew up with. The traditional understanding of war doesn't fit the War on Terror, and therefore, has been a stumbling block for people who've persistently misunderstood this war.

The War on Terror is and has been full-spectrum, while peace-building is and has been a cornerstone of the war ... at the same time, war is and has been a cornerstone of the peace-building. I agree the war/peace should involve many more agencies than the military, but the military's dominant role has been less due to policy preference than reality. The State Department, for example, which is based upon government-2-government negotiation and nation-state dominance, has been ill-suited for the current war. (That said, the War on Terror has proven fluid in that regard, eg, State presence in Iraq, under Ambassador Crocker, has been restored to prominence concurrently with the increasing stability and reach of the Iraqi government. Using what we learned in Iraq, we can hope for similar progress by State with the Karzai government in Afghanistan.) As we've discussed before, until traditional soft power agencies are able to operate in failed state or even stateless non-permissive environments and adjust their capabilities to it, then by default, our military will be the main applied soft power *and* hard power agency. We shouldn't prefer a full-spectrum role for the military, and the military certainly does not, but that's been dictated by reality, not a dogmatic choice by the former President. Our alternative? We witnessed our alternative in Somalia and Rwanda.

The evolving War on Terror is anything but over, but perhaps, it has become unrecognizable to proponents of traditional war. If the war requires renaming for more people to understand its full-spectrum nature and the realities of the agencies involved, then maybe we should rename the War on Terror. I just don't know there is a better descriptive term for it. Until we invent a better term, I still prefer "war" just for the level of commitment implied by the term.

As far as Obama's inaugural address, the beauty of it is that it offered something for most everyone. And yes, in places, it out-Bushed Bush. Re-read Obama's speech then go back and re-read Bush's speeches. Then consider how much of the content is effectively the same. Consider these examples:

"Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."
-- Did critics once accuse Bush of a simplistic bipolar framing and lack of nuance in the War on Terror?

"But in the words of Scripture ... This is the source of our confidence -- the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny."
-- !!! - as a non-religious American, I understand presidents routinely cite Christianity, notwithstanding ahistorical accusations of Bush, but Obama struck an eyebrow-raising fundamentalist, even evangelical, tone that I don't recall in the presidents of my lifetime.

"In reaffirming the greatness of our nation ... the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things ... This is the journey we continue today. ... Those ideals still light the world"
-- Invocation of the vigorous, even expansionist, progressive liberalism that underpinned our westward expansion, post-Civil War Reconstruction, entry in the world wars (v Fascism), Cold War compare/contrast (v Communism), the pre-Bush accusation of the US as a meddling ideologue hyperpower, and the current War on Terror. Obama fairly well dispelled any doubt that he, even more than Bush, is a liberal idealist.

"... to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more."

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken -- you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

I can go on, Professor, but when I verge on quoting half or more of a speech, I may as well just refer you to the speech itself. Am I saying Obama is merely the logical continuation of Bush? In important ways, it appears that way so far; in other important ways, no, and I hope for the best in those areas, too. I agree with Obama that we do need to assess, innovate and re-invent ourselves so we can evolve for the 21st century, and not just rely on 20th century conventions. Under Bush, it appeared that the only significant areas of evolution were the military, our war/peace strategy, and possibly intelligence-gathering. It's up to Obama to build upon what Bush did right in those areas and be wary of the reactionaries who've opposed those changes, while also setting in motion changes in the important areas that Bush neglected to address.

I stand by what I said. The themes of Christianity, American primacy, and world leadership with American ideals in Obama's inaugural address out-Bushed Bush. I actually found it difficult to pull out a concise 'with us or against us' quote, because it was the basic premise of the foreign policy section of Obama's address. (It's a misperception that Bush preferred unilateralism, and we have hardly 'gone it alone' in any case; he was just unwilling to abandon the mission for want of sufficient multilateral consensus; even universal consensus, as we've learned to our frustration in Afghanistan, does not equate to sufficient multilateral commitment and investment.)

Obama's inaugural address was unreservedly liberal-hawkish. What stood out the most in the speech was that Obama was hardly circumspect about an aggressive transformative interventionist international role for America, what was called neo-conservative or liberal imperialism when pursued by the last administration. It appears President Obama, even more than his predecessor, desires that we change the world in our ideal image of ourselves. That's okay I guess, as long as folks, both the changers here and the changees abroad who were unwilling to change for ex-President Bush, are now willing to make the same change for a better American spokesman, the "patchwork" President Obama.

Posted by: Eric January 24, 2009 at 02:25 PM

Eric

Awesome wedding entrance

Admirable stuff. The bride and groom, Jill and Kevin, with their wedding party, made the day their own with plenty of youthful spirit, style and soul. Fun. Their timing is exquisite. Message: these guys are free of insecurity and sure of themselves. The sheer confidence of their wedding makes me confident in them. The fact that this was a Minnesotan wedding explains a lot. The Minnesotans I served with in the Army were quirky and sarcastic, proudly independent, grounded, solid folk.

The hand-held camera operator deserves much credit. Given that the wedding party only had the concept and a 1.5 hour rehearsal as preparation, with the rest improvised, tells me the camera operator captured the wedding procession so well less with planning and skill than with instant decisions based on artistic intuition. Great placement of the camera and touch by the camera operator, and smart decisions following and framing the action and when to leave the on-going action to cut back to the entrance.

11APR10 add: Today Show interview and recreation, and a funny spoof by what appear to be professional actors.

Eric

Mr. Potter vindicated

Finance is not my area. Not even close.

However, the financial crisis has forced a hard second look by many people at the Christmas staple, 1946 film It's A Wonderful Life.

As it turns out, Mr. Potter was right. In the standard reading of the film, generous George Bailey is the good guy and fiscally conservative Mr. Potter is the bad guy. Bailey accepts the risk to lend money to his neighbors regardless of their ability to repay their loans, which indeed fuels growth in Bedford Falls and a higher standard of living for the townspeople. But when Uncle Billy loses the Bailey Savings & Loans reserve a deposit, a run is made on the S&L and it is discovered by the townspeople that too much of the S has been invested into the L and the S&L is insolvent.

In principle, how different were George Bailey's business practices from a Ponzi scheme? After all, like Bernie Madoff, Bailey moved the money entrusted to him by his clients rather than secure it.

Some commentators making the comparison uphold the local and personal nature of the Bailey S&L and blame today's crisis on the unethical practices of large faceless corporate lending organizations. Except for scale, I fail to see the difference. Yes, the corporations took on greater risk by packaging risky loans as assets, rather than simply holding onto the undisguised risk like George Bailey, and the real-life crisis was caused by a downturn in the real estate market rather than the carelessness of Uncle Billy, but it seems to me the root cause shared in the fictional and real-life financial meltdowns is risky lending practices that exceeded the reserve amount needed to back the risk. After all, for all his sense of personal responsibility to his neighbors and his face-to-face accountability with them, George Bailey's only salvation was a bailout, too.

In real life, the bailout has been from the government and financed by astronomical national debt. In the movie, George Bailey is bailed out by a fantastic karmic intervention in which his lifetime of selfless generosity is repaid by wealthy friends. Does that mean the Bailey S&L resumed its risky lending or did Bailey reevaluate his business model and bring it more in line with Mr. Potter's bank? If the movie's conclusion is to be accepted at face value, George Bailey's faith in his neighbors is an effective substitute for Mr. Potter's unsympathetic but sound business model.

I know: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, ours is the land of opportunity, Christian charity, and growth necessitates an acceptance of risk. But faith, whether in karma or the perpetually higher value of real estate, is less reliable in real life than in the movies. Without rejecting the better nature of George Bailey entirely, I think we need to revise our view of "warped, frustrated, old" Mr. Potter and open ourselves to what he has to teach us about good financial sense.

Eric

Gates v Crowley: race, class, and justifiable anger

On one side is a leading Harvard professor who justifies his anger on the basis of being challenged in his own home and historical racial injustice. On the other side is an impeccable police officer who justifies his anger on the basis of a Harvard professor's arrogant sense of privilege and an elite personage wielding his powerful connections to act above the law. The best take I've seen so far on the controversial incident with Harvard professor Henry Gates and Cambridge police sergeant James Crowley is at libertarian blog QandO. EXCERPT (referring to both men):

My tantrum was quite effective and confirmed to me that “justifiable anger” is a powerful, and intoxicating, thing. It is the “castle doctrine” of emotional responses which places blame for any incident squarely on the shoulders of the instigator, leaving you with unquestioned moral authority. However, like any intoxicant, it also tempts overuse and abuse.

In my job, I deal exclusively with victims and witnesses of crimes. Yet it's not uncommon for the people I speak with to complain about police conduct, even when they weren't arrested and no charges were pressed against them. Police have a tremendously difficult job, harder than the DA's office in that some sorting by the police takes place before a case reaches its 1st ADA. The police's job is to restore order, make judgements, and form the narrative of the incident they pass on to us. Officers normally arrive upon untamed scenes that potentially can be anything. Some police procedures, therefore, seem harsh and unfair even when they're necessary and reasonable.

The compelling characters of Crowley and Gates give the story much meat for the media, but it's hard to find indisputable fault for either man in this incident. On the other hand, I do think the initial reactions by President Obama, Massachusetts Governor Patrick, and Cambridge Mayor Simmons siding with Prof Gates and condemning SGT Crowley were irresponsible, unbecoming of their executive offices, and unfairly damaging to SGT Crowley and the Cambridge police department, and may cause wider negative repercussions to race relations in our country. Governing executives need not reflexively side with police officers during a police-related controversy, but the three chief executives should have publicly responded up front with cautious measure, rather than hasty judgement, and the benefit of the doubt for a law enforcement officer who works within their area of responsibility. As President Obama now tries to clean up his mistake by playing peacemaker, how is SGT Crowley supposed to trust his president (or his mayor and governor for that matter) to be impartial, when Obama has already made his prejudice clear?

Eric

Hard to take

NY Times: Captive G.I. on Video by Taliban

Lede: The American soldier who disappeared June 30 in eastern Afghanistan, and was later confirmed to have been captured, appears on a video posted Saturday to a Web site by the Taliban, two United States defense officials said.

The Code of Conduct:

I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Stay strong, soldier.

UPDATE: The captured soldier is PFC Bowe Bergdahl. More details here. The available details of his capure are hazy. Was he on a patrol? That would be odd, because accountability normally would be tight on a patrol and a soldier shouldn't just go missing - but of course, easier said than done in the fog of war and shit happens. If he left the base by his own decision, did he leave the base by himself or with Afghanis? Why did he leave the base? What did he take with him? Op order, radio codes, maps, weapons?

Eric

Thoughts of the day

I watched The Hurt Locker. I thought it was a good character-centered drama based on EOD in OIF. I had no complaints about the portrayal of soldiers and that's uncommon praise. One can't get more front-line than EOD in Iraq; if soldiers go to the enemy in general and combat troops go to the "sound of the guns", then EOD in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter) go to the head of the pack as the troops who put hands on IEDs. A few places in the movie felt authentic enough that I hoped the scenes of EOD at work are different enough from actual SOP so the enemy can't use the movie to train. The movie highlighted how frightening, pressure-filled, complicated, and morally and emotionally wrenching service is on the front-lines in Iraq. There were two scenes that didn't make sense: the absence of air support in the sniper scene and the 3-man EOD team running into a neighborhood and splitting up.

TV favorite: Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Remember Me. Shout-outs to more favorite TV: NG's Seconds From Disaster (a show about the fascinating topic of event cascade) and Air Emergency, and AP's Monsters Inside Me.

AAARI is showing the 2009 edition of its Sunset Cinema series. This year, the first movie was 2003 film Better Luck Tomorrow. I've looked forward to watching it for a while as a famous slickly made film about the Gen-X Asian-American experience - the West coast version of our experience, anyway. The movie certainly featured an impressive cast of Gen-X Asian-American actors and a middle-class Asian-American setting, but it didn't strike me as a profound expression of our point of view. Rather, I thought the Gen-X Asian-American part served interchangeably as a setting for a cynical, amoral story in the category of 1998 film, Very Bad Things. In other words, the identity group of the characters wasn't integral; another identity easily could have been subsituted for the characters and setting without a substantive loss to the story. Still, it's good to see my generation of Asian-Americans represented on screen and prominent in pop culture.

On activism. Yesterday's AAARI showing, Ikiru by Japanese master filmmaker Akira Kurosawa, told the story of a bureaucrat with terminal cancer who redeems his busily unproductive life by fighting against the status quo to engineer an act of real creation before he dies. The movie touched my activist side and what I hope to gain from law school. The heart of activism is a worthy cause and the will to fight against an entrenched status quo and the people, including those on one's own side, who perpetuate the status quo. But in the movie, the town's women who were given the run-around by the city government supplied the cause and came with the will; the cause and the will weren't enough by themselves to make a difference. The park was built because Watanable adopted the cause, gained the will, and supplied the necessary position and know-how to break through the status quo and impose his will. In short, I can have a cause and the will, but I must gain the necessary skill-set and position in order to impose my will and make a difference.

Aside from activism, Iriku's depiction of Watanabe with his ex-subordinate Toyo Odagiri captured the men's wish for vibrant, unaffected, young, healthy female companionship - she who brings light to the darkness. It restirred the years-old recurring thoughts: Emily ... Judy ... Kulski ... Hernandez ... Traci ... Barrera. Sure, I wasted almost all the time of that precious period of my life, but it's not as though I didn't try at all within my window of opportunity. The thing is, all I got back was negative feedback when I did try, and the harder I tried, the worse the feedback. Given (superficially) who she married, though, would it have been different if I hadn't given her a copy of the log - which is to say, how far off target was I, really?

An educational TV show about effective hard-core activists is AP's Whale Wars, which follows the Sea Sheperds in the Antarctic Ocean as they confront the Japanese whaling fleet. I don't appreciate the show because I have any strong opinion about whaling or environmentalists. Instead, the show offers insight into organizing principles, sustainable operations, the different types of people needed at different levels of the organization, the skills needed, the leadership needed, the learning nature, the organization, tools, core competencies, and the publicity apparatus needed, etc., to elevate an activist cause to a difference-making level against a dedicated opposition while not crossing important lines.

The 1st episode of Fox's new show Glee was really, really good. Since I can't watch the show this fall, I'll need to record the episodes or, hopefully, they'll be on-line. Lea Michele (playing Rachel Berry) is a terrific musical theater talent. Her voice and expression rival Lea Salonga, and her acting ability surpasses Lea Salonga. Cory Monteith (playing Finn Hudson) actually seems to be the least talented singer of the glee club, even though he's portrayed as a prodigious natural talent. Also interesting is the glee club improving dramatically in the short time the students ran the club while their coach Will Shuester (played by Matthew Morrison) nearly resigned his teaching post; the club was mediocre while he was coaching it. I like the theme that state of being is fluid and dynamic; loss of leadership and mismanagement caused McKinley High School's glee club to fall from national champ to being disbanded and, now, the high school's new glee club is being built from less than nothing into a force.

Mariah Carey at her best, singing Hero in 1993. Beautiful.

RIP Michael Jackson. In my opinion, I'll Be There and Ben are Michael Jackson at his singing best, though his brilliant dancing and showmanship came later in his solo career.

RIP Walter Cronkite. He retired in 1981, before I paid attention to the TV news. I grew up watching his successor on the CBS Evening News, Dan Rather. I'm sure Cronkite in most respects was as great an anchorman as he's portrayed. But, I doubt he will ever be held accountable for his terrible misreading of the Tet Offensive and subsequent critical contribution to American and South Vietnamese defeat in the Vietnam War, which has served as the model for our enemies since then.

I've been obsessing a bit over the question: Is Cole, a side character in Bravo's NYC Prep, a Stuyvesant student? I'm surprised that I haven't been able to find the answer on-line. He's always described as "public school" without mention of which high school he attends. 10/2/11 update: Cole is Cole Garson and he attended Hunter HS.

Eric

Aren't we supposed to be killing Al Qaeda?

Ditto on this reaction at Small Wars Journal to the current political ploys in DC targeting the CIA and former VP Dick Cheney. The gist is that at the center of the controversy is a 9/11-generated program, which may or may not have moved beyond the conceptual stage, that was focused on sending hit teams into Afghanistan and Pakistan to hunt al Qaeda.

My reaction is, wait, this program is the dirty secret supposedly hidden by the CIA and VP Cheney? To me, this program should have been operational, and if it required an extra veil of secrecy (and deniability for our nation's leaders), then so be it. The far more worrisome revelation is that this program - hidden or not - apparently was not made operational after 9/11 and we have not had hit teams scouring the region for bad guys. Coincidentally, in a recent 60 Minutes piece, SpecOps commander "Dalton Fury", whose team was tasked with tracking down Bin Laden immediately after 9/11, described how two of his mission plans that may have worked to block bin Laden's escape into Pakistan were rejected from higher up for unknown reasons. Instead, more cumbersome and time-consuming battleplans were employed.

Are we serious about exterminating al Qaeda or are we not?

19JUNE09 UPDATE: A little more information about the CIA plan is discussed here. Above, I parenthetically side-mentioned "deniability for our nation's leaders" as a reason for the program's secrecy. The article mentions that "A second former official with extensive knowledge of the CIA effort said it was seen as crucial that the units reside fully within the CIA so the U.S. government would be able to deny involvement if a team were exposed." Again, the rationale for not reporting the plan to Congress, if that is what happened, fits the popular understanding of the black ops that the CIA is supposed to be doing in the War on Terror. Just what the hell are the Congressmen who are calling for an investigation up to?

19JUNE09 UPDATE2: More confusion. Apparently, President Bush's finding for the CIA to kill or capture terrorists was openly discussed by the NY Times in 2002. EXCERPT:

The administration must notify Congressional leaders of any covert action finding signed by the president. In the case of the presidential finding authorizing the use of lethal force against members of Al Qaeda, Congressional leaders have been notified as required, the officials said. [Later] ... the covert operations are known only to a small circle of executive branch and Congressional officials.

So, if the presidential finding is not the point of dispute, I'm guessing the calls for investigation are based on what Congress was told or not told about programs meant to carry out the presidential finding. Assuming designated Congressional officials are required to be briefed on all clandestine ops (really, all?), they did not receive regular detailed updates about this program, and the program was not operational while perhaps programs with similar objectives (eg, UAV missile strikes) were operational and briefed to Congress, did this particular program reach the level of maturity where the CIA was required to brief the designated Congressional officials on the planning and research for a non-operation? This issue is different from the programs that were operational, eg, waterboarding of high-level terrorists, and briefed to the designated Congressional leaders. There likely is gray area and room for interpretation involved. I just wish these matters would be resolved without displaying the dispute and our secrets to the world.

Eric

Thoughts of the day

Happy Independence Day! Our nation is 233 years old today.

The New York City fireworks display will be on the Hudson River this year and should be viewable from my home. The show will begin at 9:20 pm.

Hard to believe how fast the time goes . . . 10 years ago today, I watched my most meaningful Independence Day fireworks display surrounded by fellow new cadets during Beast Barracks at West Point.

Gotta check this movie out: The Hurt Locker. I wonder what Luke thinks of it?

NYC Prep is Bravo's newest reality-based soap opera. It's the diegesis of 1999 movie Cruel Intentions come to life with over-indulged, narcissistic, hedonistic, jaded NYC youth. The show caught my attention because one of its leads, Taylor, is a Stuyvesant High School student. The high school-aged stars are obnoxious as portrayed, but I don't find that to be abnormal. Teenagers - even ones who grow up to be admirable and respectable adults - are often obnoxious and normally self-absorbed. They are that way because teenagers are in a metamorphising phase, physiologically and socially. As a 30-something, I would encourage teens not to be any more inhibited in their teen years than reasonably necessary. Be daring - explore, try, and learn. As adults, it's our role to enforce standards and rules when teens challenge them, but we should do so with the understanding that their behavior is part of a critical learning curve for them. The world portrayed in the show, although set in my hometown, is alien to me. When I was at Stuy, we didn't refer to ourselves as "public school" and I at least wasn't aware of New York City prep schools. There was us - Stuy kids - and then there was everyone else. We didn't view any high school in the city as above us; we were elitist and thought of Stuyvesant as a school of valedictorians (e.g., see the movie Frontrunners). I'm willing to make the allowance that Stuy kids who interact more with prep school kids may think in terms of public versus prep school, but I still find the "public school" versus "prep school" references odd coming from Taylor.

My big news. I'm starting law school in the fall. I was accepted to Rutgers Newark, Seton Hall, and New York Law School and waitlisted at CUNY Law. I'll (most likely) begin my studies part-time while continuing to work full-time, but the priority is school and the clock is ticking on how much longer I'll stay in my current job. By the time I start my classes, I will have given two years to this job, a reasonable amount. It's been interesting work, I've been proud to do it, and I think I've done my job well. But it was never meant to be a career. Why law school? I need to specialize and focus on a trade wherein I can develop subject matter expertise, and the law is a suitable profession. I still believe in the importance of creation, with the doing, innovation, and activism, and I understand the law profession is often viewed as antithetical to that - the elevation of rhetoric over real production. But I also believe that creation requires policy and legal coding to make it secure and sustainable over the long term, and falling short of that mark turns creation into wasted effort. Therefore, I hope to become a practical combination of lawyer and activist. To develop my marketability as an SME, I may also try to add another degree along the way. At present, JAG and criminal prosecution interest me the most as career fields, but I'll keep an open mind entering law school as to my eventual specialty. First things first: the 1st year of law school is absolutely critical and I'm not a good student, so I'll need to focus fully on what's in front of me, be smart, and work hard. I'm getting another chance to discipline my mind and make something worthwhile of myself. I'm excited and very nervous.

I recently rewatched Simpsons season 2 episode The Way We Was, the story of how Marge and Homer met. Add it to the formative cultural influences from my youth that shaped my romantic idealism. Homer's reaction to Marge (on youtube) after he watched Marge and Artie Ziff dancing as Prom Queen and King reminds me of my reaction to Traci's rejection:

[Homer sobbing.]
Marge: Homer?
Homer: What?
Marge: Why are you doing this? Why can’t you accept that I’m here with someone else?
Homer: Because I’m sure we were meant to be together. Usually when I have a thought there’s a lotta other thoughts in there—something says yes, something says no—but this time there’s only yes! How can the only thing I’ve ever been sure about in my life be wrong?
Marge: I don’t know . . . but it is!

In fiction, Homer's faith in his future with Marge was vindicated. In real life, my belief in Traci's and my future together wasn't.

The Steel Helmet is a 1951-made Korean war movie. Having served in the ROK and inherited the mission from the GIs who fought the Korean War, I have a soft spot for movies about the Korean War (except MASH, which wasn't really about the Korean War). The movie makes the important point that while the injustices suffered by American minorities - as represented by a WW2-veteran black medic and a nissei 442nd RCT veteran - are real, it's more important to approach American history as a progressive evolution and confront our nation's competitors in the wider world by standing together and sacrificing in common cause as members of the same tribe. The movie also reminds of the sacrifices demanded of WW2 combat veterans, still traumatized by the last war, who were brought back to fight in a possibly more brutal campaign a few short years later.

Eric

Center for a New American Security

Know it. Forward and serious thinking, contemporary experience, fresh and agile, influential.

Eric