Letter #84 to Friends and Familiares: the Proof may be in the Putin...

It is time to listen our country’s leadership and to inform our respective Representatives and Senators of what we – each one of us – really believe to be the appropriate course of action with respect to Syria.  My opinion is plain and remains unchanged, variously categorizing me as smart, stupid or simply self-involved.  http://nedmcdletters.blogspot.mx/2013/08/letter-83-thoughts-on-syria-case-for.html That is not the purpose of this note to my loved ones. 

The best note of skepticism I have come across is that of one politician whom I trust, though his politics differ sharply from mine. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/syria-war-questions_b_3870763.html  The arguments in favor are being presented capably by Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Defense Hagel. http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?id=10737441229  My interest lies not in those two but in General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This letter, too, is about Syria. But not about Syria herself. Rather, I want to discuss just why Russia is acting the way she is.  For days, I have scratched my head in puzzlement as to why Russia is being almost provocative in the face of terrible depredations, evidently attributable to the régime she supports categorically.  This afternoon, when I was composing my weekly letter to my compañeros in the engineering research center where I serve, I was thinking about a question several colleagues had posed to me as "their" norteamericano.

That question was why the U.S. government is not listening at all to the government of Vladimir Putin.  Admittedly, there is far more interest around me in why the National Security Agency is monitoring the various communications of Presidents Peña-Nieto and Rousseff, respectively.  (My response being because it is easier to spy than ‘google’, a dumb joke that wrests the requisite chuckles).  Nevertheless, as I tied together the Syria debate with technology transfer in Mexico (?¿?¿?), President Putin’s view came into focus.

A basic question – a serious question – about the Syria discourse remains unaddressed.  Specifically, the reasons I have heard about why President Putin is acting like a jerk are unconvincing.

1. Vladimir likes to “poke America in the eye”.  This argument seems weak and does not get any stronger with the re-telling ad nauseam.  It is hard to believe that a man who has survived the rough-and-tumble politics of the U.S.S.R. and of Russia would allow his personal feelings to affect his judgement and behavior when the stakes are so high.  Poking in the eye is reserved for things like Mr Snowden but to risk a regional war or worse? No, I don’t think so.
2. Russia needs a Mediterranean port for her navy to maintain her status as a world power.  This thinking, at least as far as the port is concerned, makes more sense.  Yet why did President Putin not offer a deal: “Hello, Joe, we will support your meddling in Syria if you guarantee that we retain the right to our base in beautiful downtown Tartous?
3. Back in the U.S.S.R.  This sentiment tends to link onto the previous idea of naval access to the Mediterranean.  It argues that President Putin rues, misses and aims to restore the lost status of a super-power.  Nevertheless, setting out the great-power swap would play better into this fantasy as co-equals negotiating the fate of another bastard-child of the Sykes-Picot affair.
4. Economics.  This argues that dueling pipelines through Turkey versus the Caucusus is driving this pariah status assumed by Russia.  Honestly, I know too little to address that question.  This trade-off could well be true but I wonder if it would rise to the level of great power confrontation.  Additionally, given the harrowing destruction of the one-time jewel of the region, it may be a very long while before any business runs through Syria, except for illegal arms, of course.

So, unconvinced by any of these reasons for the great bear’s growling obstinacy, I pondered – indulging myself in a fruitless exercise – about what I would be thinking if I were President Putin.  That I cannot do.  The cultures of Russia and the United States are so different as to make direct empathy impossible. The intricate nature of Russian politics and President Putin’s role in it make empathy sheer speculation; frankly, I would trust more my chances at playing darts without my coke-bottle glasses.

So, I went to a second line of thought. In looking at the Syrian dilemma, I asked myself, “Now, hot-shot, why do you think President Putin would be so stubborn in his support for an unseemly régime that likely has used poison gas on its people, especially as refugees swell in number and dwell in suffering?”  Then a thought crossed my mind.  It was one of those moments I flashed back in time, thirty-three years ago, when I was a senior in college.

It was Clark Mollenhoff’s class in journalism and contemporary political issues in the winter semester at Washington and Lee in early 1980.  It had been snowing one of those damp Blue Ridge snows that made Lexington, Virginia almost celestial in its small-town splendor.  But it made getting to class a soft-shoe in Hell.  So, I was late, already well on my way to getting the only hook ever administered by Mr Mollenhoff, a retired, if not retiring, investigative reporter for the Des Moines Register. 

Mr Mollenhoff was a kind man, not least for his grading students on a pass-fail basis: A = PASS; B = fail.  Yet I found a way to a precedent-setting ‘C’.  Leave it to me to prove myself so exceptional as to prove the Mollenhoff grading rule.  That day, the contemporary political theme was the then-recent invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S.S.R. along with the U.S. response to it (i.e., wheat embargo, Olympics boycott, etc.).  Back then, the widely discussed reasons for that invasion revolved around a desire for Soviet a deep-water port.

 

That seemed nutty to me, even then.  The idea of invading a land-locked country to wrest docking rights in Pakistan strained my wretched little mind into a migraine.  So far-fetched.  There were other things flitting through my mind that day: recent taking of hostages in Iran; the attack and take-over of the Mecca mosque by extremists; and, other reports of rising Islamic extremism.  The U.S.S.R. had a large population of Muslims. 

 

So, in class that day, I said that the U.S.S.R. attacked Afghanistan to send a message to its large, apparently restive Muslim minority: “Hey, if we are willing to take this flak in the United Nations and around the world by publicly invading this bozo country next door, imagine what we will do to you who are out of the public eye.  Sooo, quiet down…”  That idea was laughed out of the room because, well, I was well on my way to a hanging hook and the idea, admittedly, seemed outlandish.

Since then, I have found out that senior Soviet foreign policy leaders (supposedly in released Kremlin papers or interviews; I do not know which one, if either) have stated that the reason I had cited was one of, of course, several reasons, the simultaneity of which prompted the follow-trhough of an already-planned invasion.  The point I am making is that the Russians today, sans les Stans, have reason to be anxious with what happens in Syria.  So why would President of Russia be one petty Putin?

• The Russian sphere of influence most definitely still extends strongly to the south via the Commonwealth of Independent States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States).
• There are some twenty million Muslims living in today’s Russia and up to another eighty million in Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, largely living under secular authoritarianism.
• Russia has already lived through a civil war and a bloody insurgency in Chechnya and, perhaps, Dagestan.

Where would al Qaeda go next once it were to triumph in Syria?  With possibly the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world? You make the call.  Before doing so, please also ponder the more general question of what motivates nations in the anarchy of international relations.  My guess would be fear and the prospect of aggrandizement. Perhaps we have an inkling of what President Putin’s answer might be: a desire to keep that navy base and a fear of Islamaoists, armed with convenient instruments of mass murder headed his way. 

Since some of the toughest jihadists around come from Chechnya, where might these people look for their next indulgence in blood-drunk blood-sport of stamping out takfiris and combatting the heresy of secular governments, especially one under the possible thrall of those awful orthodox Christians?  So, President Assad’s remaining in power may not be the worst-case scenario in the Russian mind; instead, the great Russian bear may want to defend her cubs far away from home.

Letter #83: Thoughts on Syria; a case for muscular humanitarianism

The West may be lurching toward armed intervention into Syria.  The stakes are higher than most Americans (e.g., me) can appreciate.  Policymakers live by a combination of historical analogies and, often, the ‘persistence’ method (i.e., repeating the same action as the last intervention).  The arguments have long been aired on this conflict.  The Administration of President Obama, rightfully cautious after the protracted conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan, however, has hesitated too long.  With the added reticence expressed by the British Parliament, at least for now, the way forward seems difficult for the United States. 

1. If we act alone will we find ourselves in a rabbit hole of the colonial powers' making (i.e., the Sykes-Picot Agreement) of a century ago?
2. If we wait for the rest of the West to catch up, will the situation and misery become that much more unmanageable?

Disclaimer

These are serious questions elevated in the few hours since I wrote this first draft.  The situation is fluid, fraught with hazards for America. Nevertheless, decency has its demands and the Syrian civil war is at a cross-roads.  What I outline and propose in this letter must bear in mind my limited knowledge; my bias; and the 'serenity' prayer of Reinhold Niebuhr (http://skdesigns.com/internet/articles/prose/niebuhr/serenity_prayer/). 

That prayer is as famous as it is helpful.

God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, 

(I.e., we cannot control people's sympathy or enmity toward us or make al-Qaeda play fair.)

Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the

(I.e., we can alleviate suffering, educate children and help others re-build.)

Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other.

(I.e., we should be open to change at every blind step of the way forward.)

Buster’s last stand

More than half a year ago I wrote a letter home arguing against an invasion of Syria (http://nedmcdletters.blogspot.mx/2012/12/letter-72-why-invading-syria-is-bad-idea.html). Though I am better informed now, I still believe that an invasion would be all wrong for the following reasons.

1. The death toll, especially if these actions actually prolonged the killing, would be beyond the threshold of what civilized men and women, especially the millions trapped in or near Syria, could countenance.
2. Syria is a flashpoint for regional conflict since it is the cultural center of the Levant and Middle East and yet could be the precursor to a much larger Arab-Persian conflict. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/Levant_Ethnicity_lg-smaller1-zoom.jpg)
3. Logistically, the country would be hard to conquer and harder to occupy.
4. The United States can not afford another expensive conflict for anything but existential threats; this is not one.
5. The geopolitical challenges of the current-day Levant are of Franco-British making from a century ago.
6. U.S. actions in leading the eventual killing of Colonel Gadhafi in Libya go a long way toward explaining President Assad’s behavior now; Assad figures he has nothing to lose since he will likely end up dead no matter how nice he plays.

This ever larger conflict, while dissipating Israel’s enemies for now, may eventually be resolved by scape-goating the Jewish people and state, turning the fury of more than two hundred million people against the only viable, if flawed, but tiny democracy. Israël can still be an example of popular governance to aid people in that part of the world toward liberty.

The context

Before going into any thoughts on what I think will occur and what I think we should do, I would like to review certain antecedents that ought to inform whatever response we take.

1. The most fitting battle-space analogy might be a combination of World War I and the Balkans in the 1990s.  The ethnic groups are interspersed with a lack of secular granularity sufficient to aim missiles at the bad guys on the ground, subjectively targeted.  That fact translates into the current, brutal reality of street-by-street fighting with a lot of artillery and available chemical weapons, much like the trench warfare of 1917. (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/07/20137188552345899.html)
2. A more immediate threat is the spill-over of the conflict.  The mainly Kurdish National Coordination Committee, centered in the northeast, has called for negotiations and may be a moderate voice.  Jordan and Lebanon are at their breaking points with refugees; Turkey feels the strain.
3. The Assad régime, being drawn from one minority has protected other minorities from persecution.  Conflict tends to harden and de-sensitize people.  After two years of truly awful bloodshed, radical Sunni Arabs and, perhaps, their Shi´ite opponents from the outside, have reportedly started persecuting Christians, Jews (if any), Druze, Alawites, Kurds. Wahhabis and their Salafists are particularly menacing since they see Shi´ites as apostates (apparently a deadly sin in Islam), collaborators and, otherwise, easy to bully bloodily.
4. The no-fly zones worked in Iraq.  Karl Rove is wrong in saying that no-fly zones will get us stuck in Syria as they did in Iraq.  What kept us stuck in Iraq was an unwillingness in the mid-to-late 1990s to deal firmly with Saddam Hussein who – like the Assad régime, the religious dictators of Iran and President Milosevich in Serbia – was never materially affected by the sanctions though his people suffered mightily for a decade.
5. Until petroleum became the desert king, Syria (including Lebanon) had been the focal point of U.S. attention in the larger region.  For the better part of two centuries, until the 1950s, various missionary groups set out for the Holy Land, setting up clinics, schools and hospitals.  These activities built up a reservoir of goodwill that has dissipated in the last fifty years.  Nevertheless, the ties remain deep.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power,_Faith_and_Fantasy).
6. Tens of thousands of officers and soldiers of the Syrian Army have deserted and are in refugee camps in adjacent countries, principally Jordan and Lebanon, or hiding with their clans inside the country.  These men are disciplined and can be ideal for a new police force to help maintain order after the fighting stops.
7. Not every Alawite has been living like a King.  At the face of things, one would find this statement stupid.  Truth is that I spent a great deal of time in Iraq stating to Shi´ites in Iraq that every Sunni had not been rich under Saddam Hussein; that many had suffered just as they had.  Such blanket perceptions are serviceable only to those who are bent on sectarian genocide.
8. The United States succeeded in Iraq, not only on the battle-field.  Through the surge of just U.S. troops that represented 0.1% of the Iraqi population, the U.S. prevented a sectarian genocide and empowered the moderates on both sides of the Sunni / Shi´a divide.  The saddening state of affairs now in Iraq has more to do with the current government’s power-grab and corruption opening up an opportunity for blood-drunk terrorists to do what they want to do: kill and maim in the name of G-d and the pursuit of mammon.
9. The United States has planted the seeds of long-term success in Afghanistan, much as she did in Viêt Nam.  That victory will take at least two generations to manifest in Afghanistan.  The key point is that the opportunity to change has been secured for the rising generation and its children.
10. The Afghanistan surge was a political exercise.  The lack of imagination of the surge displayed an insensitivity to topographical and cultural differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, relieving two commanding officers in a year doomed the surge, guaranteeing that drone-flown assassinations would become the preferred method of counter-insurgency.  In short, the surge was an expensive and bloody agitprop as a means for the U.S. to appear to give the war 'a good college try' before leaving.
11. Community policing does work.  Since many insurgencies cover for crime-waves, top-down police-training – a worthwhile method for improving or setting standards of professionalism across a country – fails to harness the participation of the townies who know the people and activities of their areas.  That knowledge (i.e., field intelligence and situational awareness) is vitally necessary to stop the hard-to-detect activities of guerrillas, terrorists and less pretentious gangsters.
12. The disregard of Congress in policing actions has enabled presidential adventurism, often guided by political considerations.  Often these undeliberated initiatives have degenerated into quagmires, leading to national trauma in terms of lost treasure and personnel. (http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/boehner-seeks-answers-president-obama-syria)

What we should do

The antecedents and elements taken from my earlier essay, of December 2012, that argued against invasion basically point the way toward what I would like to see.  In previous discussions on Facebook and in counter-insurgency circles, I have stated just about everything that I state below, especially with respect to the very limited deployment of U.S. Special Forces (S.F.). Before that re-hash, I would like to focus upon two elements that have changed in recent days: no-fly zones and peaceful exile for the Assad family. 

That is to say: the efficacy of no-fly zones, if focussed carefully, in creating ink-blots of peace and the rule of law make that option compelling.  With respect to the Assad family, conditions may be ripe for negotiating toward a cease-fire, followed by reconstruction should the cease-fire hold.  The repeated use (of some fourteen instances) of chemical weapons, assuming the régime is primarily responsible, clearly represents a change in kind of warfare beyond the limits of long-standing international law.  But this viciousness may signal that the leadership is falling and desperate. 

As the map shows, such no-fly zones would not be large and could provide the air-cover for the new Syrian police force, basically those deserting soldiers trained by U.S. Special Forces (SOF), to re-enter those enclaves of Druze, Christians, Aramaic Chaldeans, Kurds and Armenians contiguous with Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.  Later, should outside peace-keepers be deployed and manage to maintain peace in the rest of the country, this core police force could train other community police units, thus expanding the inkblots to counter a crime-wave, not an insurgency. 

Again, if the Assad régime is responsible for recent attacks of chemical weapons, as seems probable though yet to be confirmed, the dictator is likely to be desperate and may be open to exile because he is losing. It is worth a try.  Such an attempt at providing safe-passage and initiating a cease-fire will not take long to resolve one way or the other.  Such a determination will take less time than preparations for military action likely will.  Hence, checking out the possibility of a peaceful exit can be executed concurrently with military mobilization.  There would be conditions for that safe passage:

1. admission of guilt of a crime against humanity, if President Assad or a member of his government deployed those chemical weapons;
2. formation by President Assad an interim council to guide the country toward a new régime;
3. establishment by President Assad of something similar to the Truth and Reconciliation Council employed by South Africa when a minority régime surrendered power to a majority;
4. deployment of what remains of the Syrian Army to secure the stockpiles of chemical weapons; as well as, 
5. presidential order of the police to protect minority populations.

The rest of the scenario remains largely unchanged from previous comments made in other virtual venues (with details added from recent shifts in information and perspective):

• due presidential consultation with, and approval by Congress, per the Constitution, prior to military action;
  
• such congressional authorization to be, preferably, a declaration of war or, at least, an authorization to use military force;
• such declaration of war or authorization to be effective against the régime, not the Syrian people, only after a roll-call vote on prime-time television;
• transparent reporting and timing of deployments required by, or conducted under, any congressional authorization to be tightly aligned with the Wars Powers Resolution of 1973; 
• no-fly zones in the areas noted and enforced by N.A.T.O. air forces; 
• protection of the Alawite strongholds and, perhaps Lebanon, by the British and French navies (now, possibly in doubt, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783); 
• American S.F. deployments to the refugee communities in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and, if possible, Iraq to partner with forces from those host-countries to assure the delivery of humanitarian supplies; 
• S.F. partnerships with Jordanian, Turkish and Lebanese forces to police said refugee areas to try to push back on extremist intimidation of any form; 
• S.F. partnerships to train a new police, trained from the soldiers of the Syrian Army who have defected, for post-war Syria with forward deployment into areas protected under no-fly zones; 
• safe-passage, if negotiable and upon the conditions cited above, for the Assad family and those officials not involved in crimes against humanity into West with the aid of witness protection programs and a $10 million, thirty year annuity for the Assad family and $1 million, ten year annuities for the other civilian or military leaders and their families, with all illicit treasure in the national treasury and foreign banks (i.e., billions of dollars) repatriated to a Syrian reconstruction fund described immediately below; 
• freeze all assets of Syria in international financial institutions to be placed under the trusteeship of the International Red Crescent and Red Cross further to be administered by the U.N. aid mission in Syria for future development;
• American S.F. only, together with trained New Syrian police, to escort in peace-keeping troops from Muslim countries outside of the ‘Islamic belt’ (i.e., Middle East, North Africa, Turkey, the Caucasus and east through to Pakistan; that is, troops deployed from nations like Indonesia, Senegal and Malaysia, if they are willing); 
• American S.F.  to leave immediately upon settlement of peace-keepers (or escorting said peace-keepers out if the threat environment be too pronounced) if the number of the latter is adequate to secure and remove the chemical weapons;
• American S.F.  to remove chemical weapons if the peace-keeping force not adequate to the task;
• no further entry into Syria by S.F. contemplated and possible only with a second "prime-time" declaration by Congress; as well as,
• said peace-keepers to assure safe passage in of relief workers from credible non-governmental organizations, including Médecins sans Frontières, Mercy Corps, the International Red Crescent, the Grameen Foundation, etc. to accelerate reconstruction.

What I am afraid of happening
Blow up a few runways; fling a few drones; talk tough; and, bask in the balm of bombs with the pyro-theatrics of 24 / 7 television reporting. 

Letters to Friends and Familiares #82: the sine qua non of indispensable sinecures

THE INVISIBLE LINE BETWEEN RISK AVERSION AND PERVERSION.

Sure, this topic may sound obtuse, esoteric and otherwise irrelevant to tech transfer.  Yet, not is it as the wise ugly guy in “Star Wars” says.  We in the tech transfer program face the challege of trying to change the way people think and the way institutions act.  The Mexican government is quite clear in its message: get going, guys and gals.  Win or lose – take a shot at the big time (Article #51 of the C.yT. law).

Truth is that CONACYT has been around for 40+ years and the I.P.N. for over half a century.  While the Republic fails to meet lofty goals of economic commitments of 1% of the G.D.P. to RD&I – duly legislated and ritually ignored – Mexico has built her knowledge base over time.  The rub is this progress has been a cost center and not an idea generator.

Now it is time to mobilize – to monetize – this inert intellectual capital; a vast pool of basic research basically doing nothing.  Now this comment by me, while dour and amply reflective of my curmudgeonly ways, really is not a criticism of Mexico or my great and gifted colleagues in CIDESI.  This thought merely reflects the difficulty of changing.  Hey! Have you ever tried to get anyone to quit smoking?

Well, keep on truckin’.  The challenge that we volunteers uniformly face is that we confront cultures of ingrained risk aversion.  Think of it: Mexican techie types get rewarded incrementally for decades.  Dust off some research from last year; jazz it up a bit; publish it; get your S.N.I. points; and, you are done for this year: kids’ schooling, house and car payments covered yet again.  Take the bonus and run, baby.

Overcoming habit is difficult enough.  Now let’s factor in the ever-present human ego.  A scientist or engineer has spent a decade or two building up a personal dominion of knowledge for which (s)he enjoys significant recognition and prestige.  This status has been earned through time and toil; in the eyes of its possessor, it is not to be squandered recklessly.

If a volunteer can not sympathize with the professional dilemma weighing down on his or her counterpart, and many do not, perhaps that individual ought to return to the world of machines rather than machinations.  For commercializing unexploited technology is all about machinations from everyday tasks getting completed to strategies playing out for a new firm entering or generating a new-fangled market.

Such maneuvers encompass arguing for price points, reaching consensus on product valuations and strategies, deciphering market opportunities or intelligence, as well as negotiating financing agreements (the big-daddy of them all); not the province of data dinks.  So these daunting challenges, plus a rewarding comfort-zone (until now, at least), almost guarantee risk aversion. 

No one wants to fritter away his or her scholarship through failed product developments and launches.  One public failure and hello, square-1, and re-building than long-acquired now squandered reputation (at least in the mind of the inventor).  Some people simply can not imagine growing beyond failure, so deep runs this false sense of shame.  And to make prospects really sobering, only one in every 200-300 revolutionary ideas turn over sustained turnover during a five year horizon.

Simply said, there is too much to lose and too many ways to lose it.  So, what to do?  El presidente Peña-Nieto is trying out electoral shock therapy, converting his discernible plurality into a broad national mandate for Mexico to take her place on the international stage, right here and right now.  So, he is serious about getting CONACYT out of neutral and Mexico into overdrive by:

1. cutting funding control of CONACYT by 15-20%;
2. pushing hard for new Centros to extend the knowledge-base into aerospace, biotechnology and automobiles;
3. aligning different power blocks into a new Science and Innovation ministry;
4. partially privatizing PEMEX and CONACYT to receive and lever the best in cutting-edge knowledge; as well as,
5. employing other measures I can not quite recall with my agèd brain.

So now the dilemma has just increased for the average, risk-averse ‘Investigador(a)’.  Thus overt risk aversion goes covert with risk perversion.  These latter behaviors are designed primarily to temporize through active inactivity, fast-motion self-promotion or powerpoint optimism.  This is not a uniquely Mexican phenomenon.  It is typical corporate politics, especially in restructuring institutions.

There are three forms of risk perversion initially to which I would alert my fellow volunteers:

• always cooking, always hungry;
• abnegation through collaboration ; and,
• selling high-flying air-rights (not gender-specific).

The first form of risk perversion is a trick I have discussed several times in various venues.  The idea?  Always have one prototype ready and a better one at-the-ready.  As time progresses, the ‘inventor’ (more like a science fiction writer), shifts the focus from the current prototype to the next, even more commercially profitable idea.  One shines like a star without ever having really to twinkle.

The second manifestation of risk perversion is to become a partnership patsy, while extolling trendy notions of teamwork.  These are the ‘team players’ absorbed with partnerships and other projects that transfer or develop too little or no technology. Sadly, they degenerate into scientific serfs for sale to the biggest-name lowest-bidder.  They love Shakespeare and live out ‘Much Ado about Nothing’.

The last example (of many) is a technique imported from good old America.  This risk perversion is essentially a Houdini act, not of beating impossible constraints but dancing from one extravagant claim to the next, a stutter-step ahead of inevitable complaints.  A favorite recent example is claiming experience in sales strategy based on digitalizing call-reports.  These intellectual blow-hards then use their false claims to discredit reasonable ideas of others, lest they be discovered, called out and fired.

These are merely three of many examples, some of which you all have already encountered.  What cheap perfume is not passing your smell test?  Heed those suspicions.  The ruse most often distracts others away from a dubious present toward a salubrious future to re-arrange the empty inning of baseball into NO ERRORS, NO HITS, NO RUNS therefore NOBODY LEFT. 

The moral of this cautionary tale is that moving minds may be harder than moving mountains, with or without a mustard-seed.  Patience and compassion toward human limitations sweeten the crock-pot.

Adiós, over and out.

P.S. Wupps.  The end of this essay is rather uncharitable and unconstructive.  So, I want to direct a few comments to the younger volunteers since anyone my age has learned to deal with these inter-personal gimmicks or has the emotional intelligence of a jack-hammer.  In this brief follow-up, allow me to invoke the traditional R.C. teachings on sins; not because I am religious but because these teachings can shed light on matters of human nature.

The first ruse of the ‘turkey solution’ is much like a venial sin of commission.  Often it arises from failing to pay attention to the task at hand.  Being an entrepreneur – and settling in to big-time risk-taking – is intoxicating.  The daily drudge-work of bringing that dream into the realm of possibility is difficult enough.  Taking that possibility toward plausibility is painstaking.  Adapting the plausibility into practicality entails phone-calls, meetings, memos galore.  All that occurs before going to market.

What to do? Try gently to keep the counter-part on task, stating that this current and less sexy invention may establish his or her name in the market so (s)he can go to Tahiti on the next product under development now.  If your counterpart continues this waltz with a third turkey in the oven, admire his optimism and find something else to do; take your time, however, with the disengagement in the event that (s)he may come around.

The second pitfall is more like a sin of omission.  This problem is perhaps the easiest of the three examples (among several) to address.  The counterpart may understand the necessity of mobilizing capital but may lack the knowledge and experience to negotiate the effective transfer to your Centro of needed knowledge or technology.  This business is a tricky one that frequently eludes volunteer (i.e., me) and counterparts (i.e., everyone else) alike. 

There are several volunteers, usually of the “and wiser” type, who can impart valuable advice; I am not one as all of these topics were new to me almost three years ago.  That advice may help out in aligning activities (e.g., setting up inside or external partnerships) with strategy (i.e., trading less expensive expertise for valuable knowledge).  These conversations are delicate since the counterpart may well be omitting contract terms, etc. rather than consciously avoiding his or her next right step.

The third problem is a biggie, much like a mortal sin after, usually, accumulated commissions of venial sins.  The key variable to consider is the age of the counterpart.  Under thirty, the person may well be merely insecure but, over thirty, that person may have a thoroughly compromised sense of inter-personal ethics.  One must rely on intuition here to discern whether ever-present insecurity has hardened into a full-blown defect of character.  If the latter, head for another department.

In the end, these and other strategies reflect either possible responses tothe foibles typically encountered among people or fragmenting fears of failure.  Fear is difficult to overcome through outside counsel; that conquest must come from within.  Time takes time and the two year stint is often way too short to realize the change.  But planting seeds through humility and integrity is always right on schedule…

Letter-81: Windsor and D.O.M.A.

NOTE in 2016: I switched my political preference to sanction the term "marriage" for same-gender couples when religious freedom laws emerged after this decision. The vote against the term marriage had been contingent upon same-gender couples availing themselves of very right accorded to 'traditional' married couples. When it became obvious that such justice would not proceed for 'civil unions', justice required that the term "marriage" be applied, with its full cultural approbation, to same-gender couples. 

The Supreme Court acts as a Council of Elders for the Republic in which we live.  That does not imply infallibility but should command our respect.  The Supreme Court for over two centuries has successfully asserted a role of clarifying what the law says under the Constitution.  In controversial decisions, some see the Court as over-reaching while others believe it is protecting the rights of citizens and States as enumerated and implied under the Constitution. 

Either way, what the Supreme Court does is judicial review to provide checks on the powers of other branches of government and of aggressive or belligerent majorities.  And, on this day of all days, we ought to be properly grateful to the nine men and women who serve not us alone but those yet to come.  The Decision of U.S. versus Edith Windsor (“Windsor”), which overturned the key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (“D.O.M.A.”) conforms to this tradition of deferential goodwill.

Truthfully, I voted against same-sex marriages in a Maryland referendum in 2012.  That proposition only passed 53-47% in one of the bluest of blue states; gay marriage is not a ‘gimme’ nor is it a gimmick.  These unions are here to stay.  I would still vote against that proposition, notwithstanding Windsor, were it held again today. Yet declaring D.O.M.A. to be unconstitutional was “meet and right so to do” by the Supreme Court. 

The Court’s opinion – written by Justice Kennedy on behalf of himself as well as Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer – made a compelling, pithy point that, “D.O.M.A. seeks to injure the very class New York [law] seeks to protect….”  Further, the split decision (five votes to four) found a common ground in favor of two constructions of the Constitution and precedents consistent with the national charter.

First, the D.O.M.A. law went far beyond a simple definition of marriage to disenfranchise a group of couples from economic rights and political sanctions afforded to other couples in a manner outside of the scope and against the spirit of the Constitution.  Second, committed relationships are the proper province of state laws. Contrary to the assertions of this decision being an example of judicial over-reach, Windsor corrected flagrant legislative over-reach and economic discrimination.

Under this decision, states still have latitude to legislate or regulate marriages.  Yet Justice Kennedy stayed in the everyday real-world by stating, “….until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage.”  The argument against expanding traditional definitions of marriage to include gay unions is actually one that is well thought out.

Though I still agree with the essence of those arguments, its disturbing application under D.O.M.A. spelled the law’s demise.  Basically the conservative view, outside of the bullies bloviating across the air-waves, is simple.  First, with few exceptions, across millennia and societies, marriage had meant monogamy between a man and woman, principally for the creation and socialization of children.  Without the secure transmission of values, civilizations falter.

And we see evidence of that verity, however unfashionable, to this day.  The statistics are unmistakable: children of broken families and single parent households, especially boys, tend to run into more behavioral and adjustment problems as adolescents and adults.  This may likely apply to children growing up under same-sex couples.  The rub here is that wealthier families with intact extended family networks often compensate for any real or perceived deficiency of a non-traditional family unit.

In a nutshell, that is the argument: tradition and statistics (at least as the latter apply to the more economically stressed and isolated).  Now, anecdotally, same-sex couples seem largely to be affluent and often nurtured by loving extended families that are well educated.  That is great.  For me, I would like to see a meeting of minds of the more civil arguments between both sides.  Marriage remains a heterosexual monogamous union while civil unions are available to committed same-sex couples.

That would mean, at least on the national level, absolutely no discrimination of one status over the other, with equal protection under the law and equal access to the advantages of being American citizens.  While conservatives may object to a mere semantics game suggested here, I would submit that this compromise balances respect for the tradition of matrimony – still a sacrament in many people’s eyes – with fraternal acceptance of all manner of goodwill and righteous citizenship.

There still remain a couple of house-keeping points brought to the fore by the dissent of Justice Scalia.  First, should the Supreme Court have ruled on this case at all, since it basically upheld the findings of lower courts?  Yes, it should have, as Justice Kennedy wrote, “relevant prudential factors that counsel against hearing this case are subject to ‘countervailing considerations [that] may outweigh the concerns underlying the usual reluctance to exert judicial power.’”

While the decision stated that the lack of ‘precedential’ guidance for ninety-four district courts and over a thousand laws mandated this exertion of judicial power, I would go beyond that to the underlying purpose of the Constitution itself: to secure the blessing of liberty for the citizenry.  Since the Constitution is a user’s manual for republican government based on natural law, its aim is to limit national powers as those specifically delegated to the government by the governed (i.e.,  in our case, states and people).

Those enumerated powers belong to the government for two reasons: scope and protection of natural rights.  Scope is easy to identify.  There can only be one foreign policy of the United States, at least at a time.  Most of the other enumerated powers focus on matters truly national or international in nature.  The protection of natural rights is a little trickier.  Often, such rights – always open to differing interpretations – are best left to the states.

On the other hand, there are rights that transcend the states and transcend people.  They are the natural rights endowed by the Creator as expressed through His nature manifested on Earth.  For the less religious among us, I suggest re-phrasing this idea as a neo-platonist notion that there are certain practices, norms, behaviors, etc. that consistently emerge across time and space.  This persistence of overt behaviors implies an absolute upon which specific conventions and norms are modelled, if imperfectly.

The beauty of our Constitution is that it really is a how-to book of the natural law captured in short-hand within the Declaration of Independence.  These inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (i.e., property) are what the Constitution is designed to protect within a larger scheme of social and national interaction.  When state-level or popular practices abridge these inalienable rights, without merit in the eyes of a reasonable and disinterested fellow citizen, the issue is no longer one for the states.

That explains why – despite brilliant compromises and articulate Supreme Court opinions – slavery never went away until it was abolished without exception or mercy.  That is why the dilemma of pro-life versus pro-choice keeps nagging at us even after the Supreme Court tried to resolve it by reserving such judgments to the states and protecting an implied right of privacy.  In this vein, D.O.M.A. did not resolve this question of equality for same sex couples; it abridged the rights of gay Americans. At the least, the right to equal economic benefits.

The other implication of Justice Scalia’s erudite and articulate dissent with which I disagree was best put forward by my F.B. friend and, virtual oracle, Dr William Monie Bauer.  Bill and I agree on what Justice Scalia implied – making these cases piecemeal.  We differ on their effect on the larger society.  If the Court had dismissed the hearing without definitive precedent, every instance of discrimination against same-sex couples would have to go through a separate suit.

Dr Bauer is right that the judicial cholesterol would clog the system and the government, finally forcing much-needed reforms of the court system ridding it of its most burdensome dysfunctions.  Yet, piecemeal trials would permit people to slow the progress toward eliminating abridgements of natural law in service of a more perfect union.  My inarticulate argumentation ought not render inscrutable a fairly straight-forward perversion of justice.

Take the 1954 ‘Brown versus Board of Education’ decision, for example.  If Topeka had simply let those black children into the white school before the Supreme Court had rendered a decision, then (under Justice Scalia’s reasoning), the case would have had not standing and been dismissed.  What an ingenious way for white supremacists to pursue apartheid: every time a case came close to decision, let a few black kids into the white school.

The at-most dozen or so black children thus admitted every year to foil a governing precedent would be so small compared to the white majority that, in areas of overt racial oppression, those children would probably be out of there soon and, if not, would have so little influence that “99.9% separate would be inherently unequal.”  In fact, segregation would still be in place today under the precedent of the ‘Plessy vs Ferguson’ decision of 1896. 

The decision to gut D.O.M.A. is a welcome application of judicial and national power to eradicate a systemic injustice.  As for my own feelings about gay unions; that is irrelevant.  Heterosexuality is my preference, but it ought not be my presumption.  I would suggest to those fond of citing Sodom and Gomorrah, as examples of the unnatural state and consequences of homosexuality, that they have overlooked one very important aspect of the larger story that prefigures the compassion later exemplified in other faiths. 

Abraham taught God all about compassion (and, for those who see homosexuality as something sinfully deviant, forgiveness) by haggling Him down to finding one good man in the city limits to get that desert dumpster off the hook.  Frankly, I am not one to buy into the forgiveness argument for I see nothing to forgive.  The incidence of homosexuality rises with levels of sentience among beings.  Additionally, findings suggest that sexual preference is either innate or manifested early in life.

Letter-80: class without class

The first letter about Private Manning intended to place his ordeal and trial into the wider context of an age in American politics obscured by an apparent sacrifice of morality to short-term gains and future résumés.  Yet, new reports breaking every day make ‘keen’ perceptions obsolete overnight.  Truth be told, some of the things stated in my first letter are already out of date or just plain wrong.  For example, this column by George Will in the Washington Post, which came to my attention through my enlightening, if virtual, friendship with Dr William Monie Bauer on FaceBook, shows how quickly things change as information surfaces as it inevitably will. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-lois-lerner-the-scowling-face-of-the-state/2013/06/12/e644307c-d2d5-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html 

Before Mr Will’s analysis empirically placed Lois Lerner at the center of political malfeasance in the past, we all knew that the culture of the I.R.S. had rotted from the inside out.  Previously, I had privately theorized, and still surmise, that much of the problem might have lain in the question of who assigned the bonuses to senior officials.  If bonuses are doled out by political appointees, the incentive to ‘manage-up’ would be very strong, for many irresistible.  Mr Will’s column, however, quickly removed any lingering doubts about the advisability of an independent council. 

Within this wider context of the collapse of principle, my argument in favor of Bradley Manning’s innocence – no, in favor his vindication – rests on three premises:

• the test of time;
• the test of justice; and,
• the test of truth.

Private Manning passes these three ‘tests’ quite easily.  While Private Manning has faults, to be sure, he drew on something very decent within his character that flouted everyday flaws with which we humans must live and deal. 

The test of time.  It has been three years since these leaks occurred and there has been little, if any, discernible fall-out against U.S. national interests.  Some people have suffered for writing stupid things in e-mails – a bane of mine, as my sister and as my mentor in banking can amply attest.  Others have been embarrassed for things that were classified to suppress public exposure of unfortunate actions, including the killing of a Reuter’s reporter and his crew in Sadr City in 2007.  But the U.S. faces no existential threats or enduring direct challenges to its stature. 

Credibility of the national purpose of American beneficence is under some scrutiny but that is all.  If betrayal of the nuclear secrets to the erstwhile U.S.S.R. or missile technology to Red China – or even the truly odious treason of Aldrich Ames – did not sink or even swerve the U.S. from its interests, these disclosures through Wiki-Leaks almost certainly will not.  In fact, they are healthy since they are getting the ‘collective head’ of our citizenry back into the ‘game’ of democratic accountability.

The test of justice.  This test has two parts.  One military, related to Bradley Manning’s oath to protect the Constitution and the United States of America, as well as another, related to the events being disclosed.  In this case, I will address the second part first.  Was Bradley Manning bringing to light an unjust policy of his government?  I would argue he was, at least in the case of Afghanistan and of Iraq before the 2008 surge.  Why were these policies fundamentally unjust when the intentions were manifestly just or, at least, popularly endorsed as such at their outsets? 

Because a long enough period of time had elapsed to clarify that an unchanging continuation of the just intention would predictably produce human suffering and death.  In essence, humanitarian fallout of a failing policy trumped the continued application of its just premises.  That is to say: bloody consequences reasonably foreseen blighted the initial intent.  Consequently, Bradley Manning brought to light a fundamentally unjust policy.  (As an aside, I believe that President Bush’s decision to surge was the second great moral decision he made on Iraq; that will have to wait to another discussion.)

Now for the second part.  The Nuremburg trials may have reached too far by sentencing Axis military commanders to death for their decisions in the field, on the seas or in the air.  Nevertheless, one clear message emerged from hanging complicit military leaders, in addition to others who waged a stark genocide against two peoples: simply following orders is not an excuse.  If he did not raise moral objections internally, perhaps then Corporal Manning should have before routing this information to the public.  Such an option was likely impractical, if not impossible; such a protest may have only precluded Bradley Manning’s future access to that information to release it.

The test of truth.  Were these truthfully state secrets that Bradley Manning divulged? No. The classification system has been thoroughly compromised from within.  As I learned several times in information security classes, classified information has to be approved as classified by a few specifically designated personnel who tend to be outside of the groups generating the documents.  The thresholds for what constitute secret information (or higher) are very high.  Yet people not authorized to classify information do it all the time. 

That creates a situation of inevitable intellectual conflicts or confusions of interests, if not outright cognitive corruption.  It is very easy for one to view the interest of his mission (or unit or armed service) as integral the national interest and then, over time, for that same person to accede to the temptation of conflating her personal interest with those of the mission and unit, previously equated with the national interest.  My particular rationale – right here, right now – for such an equation and conflation of interests would sound like the following (I believe). 

Heck, I only want to protect my country and look out for my brothers-in-arms or fellow public servants.  Jeez, if I make a mistake, the consequences may hurt my compatriots, my branch of the national service and, thus, the country’s policy or mission.  Now come on, people, these stack up to hurting America’s position in the world or, at least, in this part of the world – that is to say: the national interest. Look it: I only want what’s best for my country and the Fredonian people…Frankly, I find this line of reasoning to be pretty convincing as I munch on a burrito in México.  Honestly, I have seen drug-abusing alcoholics spew this non-sense when their blurred judgments were endangering host-country counterparts. 

Now, imagine if I were wearing the uniform of my country or were a foreign service officer but twenty or thirty years younger – not munching on burritos anytime I want to but facing bunches of bullets at any time or burning the candle at both ends to get the job done, neither necessarily of my choosing.  You bet that line of reasoning would seduce me, and quickly.  All that said, I would be feckless – perhaps negligent – if I failed to acknowledge that little things indeed need to be classified.  These are the times and places of military operations, whether they concern village stability or kinetic missions.  Yet these can be safely de-classified after the fact, as Private Manning negotiated carefully with Wiki-Leaks.

Conclusion.  So why was Corporal Manning publicly disparaged, demoted and dehumanized?  Why is Private Manning being tried for charges not too far shy of treason? As far as I can see, because he did not ask permission to do what he felt was right.  Count me as one who agrees with this young man.  Count me as one who envies his courage; I would not have done the same – no matter how neurotic the reasons – at his age.  In closing, I remain convinced that, as this showcase trial (thank you, Graham Nash) grinds on, a timely irony will compel the attention of Americans of many walks of life and vocations: that the prosecution (i.e., the U.S. Army as the face of the U.S. government) – and not the defendant – is on trial here.

Forum '79: Private Manning, everybody's mirror

NOTE WAY AFTER THE FACT (12th June 2017): this letter was written at the nadir of the Obama Admin.'s credibility, at least in my eyes. In retrospect, I over-reacted. Most of the 'grave matters' at hand were resolved justly. As these situations unfolded, I believe the President acted in a way that documented the high content of his character on the NSA-programs and on (now) Chelsea Manning. In fact, President Obama did the right and noble deed by commuting Ms Manning's sentence after seven years so she can lead a full life as she is only thirty now. Bravò to President Obama for his innate sense of justice.


This month, with its news stories, has been overwhelming. So many runs, hits and errors are spinning the scoreboard so silly that President Obama does not have the time to call down to the bull-pen to get a ‘quicker-picker-upper’ warming up. Now is an easy time to judge the President, especially for a fellow like me who came of age during Watergate and the depressing fall of South Viet Nam. So, for baby boomers, we have to remember what Watergate was like.

Yes, many of these behaviors, exhibited repeatedly by this Administration and even by the President, get me thinking, “That is like ‘xyz’ that occurred under President Nixon.” Yet, we have to wait until the full body of information is revealed before conclusions will make sense. It is all too easy to fall prey to the seductive cynicism of imputing the worst. Since there are, as yet, too few dots to connect, I can take those dangling in front of me and make them stick figures or Jackson Pollack.

The currently incomplete information may seem like a political Rorschach test with my interpretation saying far more about me than about the President, at least at this time. Nevertheless, the current array of scandals – or near-scandals taken that way – is troubling. Though I have spent much of my free time watching the hearings around these events, this essay is not intended to review each event. 

We all have our opinions, most quite well informed. Honest and concerned citizens can, do and will differ on each event. The one scandal that I see that could rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under the Constitution, as elaborated in the Federalist Papers, would be the tragedy of Benghazi. My personal odyssey of the migration of my feeling to that belief is neither interesting to you nor within the scope of this essay. 

In any case, I should say that my concern about Benghazi has nothing to do with the manipulated narrative of the “talking points”. As a member of party that invented the ‘spin’ doctor, I have no room to judge. The truly ominous dimension, created by an ambiguous time-line and a lack of its clarification by spokesmen of the Administration, involves the President’s conduct, attentiveness and decisions during the hours of the murder of a gifted diplomat and other high-value U.S. public servants.

These and other questions will be answered. Time and hearings will wrest out into the public discourse the transparency thus far lacking from this Administration. The big difference I have in perspective between now and forty years ago is that I have lived through calumny aimed at me behind my back where I have faced the dilemma of belying nasty things said (and lending credence to the discussion) or moving on and hoping the manure melts away.  

That everyday bane can embitter people and make them defensive, resorting to actions they might not otherwise take. Imagine this happening every day? Imagine this happening every day in an atmosphere of relative isolation yet never being alone in the company of yes-minions? Imagine this happening every day and knowing that, no matter what you say, it will be twisted by some self-interested commentator to make you look sleazy, kind of rotten at the core? I know one thing: I could never hack it. 

As sensational as these news events are, the one big story to me is the trial of Bradley Manning. In short, it is the moral dilemma of our time. President Obama may remain under siege, may be impeached and removed from office or, hopefully, will be vindicated. Representative Issa may be a snake oil salesman with French cuffs, though I do not see it in the hearings. Anti-intellectual con-men like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity may continue to impede my long awaited and cherished conservative renaissance. 

Those babbling bauble-heads of the beltway will sort these things out over time. The issue of Bradley Manning is one that is not Presidential, not military, not legal. It is moral: it squarely rests on each of us as members of a democratic citizenry. My sympathy for Private Manning started the day he was identified as the mother-lode of Wiki-Leaks, when I read in the New York Times a portrait of then Corporal Manning as a deranged homosexual.  That immediately reminded me of President ‘Dick’ Nixon (before he names you) and the smear campaign of Daniel Ellsberg.

As a thoughtless early teen, l took Dr Ellsberg to be some sort of nutty egg-head who was a pussy and went to a psychiatrist. Only later, did I realize that Dr Ellsberg risked a generation in prison to expose a monstrous network of lies that made my America a monster in Viêt Nam, Cambodia and Laos; he kept me out of Hell and I am grateful, becuse I would have served in Viêt Nam.  So, likewise, the good Corporal was caricatured in a manner that is technically against the law.

True to form, I have watched now-Private Manning, far from perfect, act responsibly in the sense that he has never tried to cop a plea or tried to make an excuse but has stood up and stated flatly what he did and why he did it. If nothing else, I now know that a young man’s sexual preference is independent of his manliness and moral courage. We have also come to learn that Private Manning negotiated carefully with Wiki-Leaks to avoid endangering people. 

My next letter, out in the next day or two, will go into the specifics of my defense of Private Manning. That may be tedious and so I would like to keep the more general discussion apart from that more specific, though separating the two runs the risk of killing both Siamese twins; each comes from the same essence and each challenges us as a people with the same daunting moral choices around what to do about information in an information-sensitive (and saturated) but insecure age.

In concluding these thoughts, I would like to touch briefly on Messrs Assange and Snowden. Basically, I see their cases as almost tautological (i.e., of course they are innocent) in view the moral manliness already displayed by Private Manning. Julian Assange is a journalist and Wiki-Leaks is a mass-media outlet dedicated to transparency. This view of Mr Assange and Wiki-Leaks is a value-call; I see this type of transparency as the sure foundation of accountability, the life-blood of representative – not to mention Madisonian – democracy.

The allegations against Mr Assange in Sweden are serious, though I suspect they are bogus. All interests can be served if the Sweden authorities bring the accusers, if they consent, to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and confront Mr Assange with evidence underlying the charges. If there is enough evidence to warrant a full trial, either:

• re-flag sufficient space in the Ecuadorian Embassy under Swedish sovereignty to conduct a trial and, if convicted, extradite Mr Assange to Ecuador or Sweden, at his choice, for sentencing; or,
• simply extradite Mr Assange to Ecuador for trial with the permission of Swedish authorities to participate in the prosecution.

My gut says that any charges will disappear behind excuses like the evidence is not as clear as previously thought, those making the accusations fear that Mr Assange will be acquitted and seek revenge, etc. 

Edward Snowden is as evident in his innocence, with respect to the Espionage or any other ‘Act’ for two reasons. It is not certain that he disclosed anything that has not been in the public domain. Arguably, studying these meta-data is, as a friend of mine astutely observes, a use information generated by a public utility (i.e., cell phones), if privately owned. There ought not be a presumption of privacy with information already in the public domain. That cuts both ways; it is hard to cry treason for someone revealing the private use of information in the public domain. 

More importantly, Mr Snowden has done Private Manning an enormous favor by being (or appearing on a first look), well, ‘normal’. Yes, we are already hearing about how Mr Snowden inflated his salary (though it is, I suspect, likely reconciled by overtime and bonus income). We will, undoubtedly, hear a lot more about Mr Snowden in an effort to slime his singular courage. It will not stick as easily as it did with then Corporal Manning who was alone in the glare of all the news that is fit to print...

In essence, Mr Snowden takes the poison out of the baseless slur that Private Manning is some deranged, attention-seeking, troubled, magically thinking, neurotic, etc. homosexual desperately seeking meaning. Mr Snowden’s relatively uncomplicated life, thus far (before the smear gears begin spinning), points to Bradley Manning’s heroism and underlines our duty to rise above this scandal in which we are all guilty by eating up this hypocritical baloney from the first slice.