I think the word "isolation" is most appropriately used.
Civilians do not understand the isolation that Veterans feel. How can they? What possible comparison can they make in their life to what its like to do even a peacetime hitch in the Army, let alone go to war. I have nine medals and ribbons for 6 years. Even explaining an ARCOM or an AAM is grating, or why I take so much pride in a piece of ribbon and brass. They can't understand how I laugh at the ASR out mandatory Gay Pride awareness ribbon. To them its just a bunch of pretty colors. To me it is quite literally blood sweat and tears. Nor can I easily explain what the CMB is, let alone how much that little badge means. Long after I am gone, I will still be apart of 225th Brigade Support Battalion's history, being one of the first in that unit to receive a combat badge of any kind. Long after I have gone to senility I will still have been recorded on the rolls, of 2-16 in the hellish time that was the Surge. With all that in mind, is it any wonder so many civilians just don't "get" me?Read the rest of the story about a soldier's departure from the Army and the feelings that come with that separation. Those feelings fade very little over the years.
Along with the rest of the country, I have been watching the unfolding events of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman tragedy. While I have more thoughts to share, I'm trying to stick to my relatively new rule of watching a while before making up my mind.
A couple items worth sharing include this note about Alan Dershowitz's criticism of the indictment affidavit of George Zimmerman.
The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”
Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."
Update - It may be that Mr. Dershowitz's comments were misinformed. I haven't had the time to look just yet. His comments are not the only ones I've heard/read along those lines, so the criticism may still be appropriate. Now returning to your regularly scheduled post....
Just One Minute goes on to point out that the prosecution displayed a depressing level of incompetence at the bail hearing. Fair warning, JOM was not depressed by the lack of competence on display. However, I think they make some valid points about the presence of exculpatory information that is readily known and yet being ignored by the prosecution.
I don't have a conclusion to offer based on the above. I do think it is useful information to be assimilated as we all follow the unfolding events.
Ok. This isn't really a marble run. But it is cool and has a great jazz tune. You too can count to twelve!
We now welcome The DiploMad to our blogroll.
The Diplomad is written by....ummm....DiploMad. He originally blogged during the early years of our Iraqi campaign in the War on Terror about internal State Department attitudes towards people of the region, the DoD, President GW Bush, and pretty much anyone that was not from the State Department. It was an interesting view behind the curtain.
Now he has returned. He has retired as a diplomat and can offer the perspective of his years of service on the events of our day.
I hope you enjoy The DiploMad.
From the PJ Lifestyle section of PJTV comes the 15 best skits from that classic comedy show, "In Living Color".
While the current driving force behind the desire to make corporations not the legal equivalent as a real person [is the concern over political contributions], there are other issues in play as well.
A person has a finite number of years of life to spend. So investing is based on a much shorter horizon. Companies can last for centuries and make investing decisions based on a completely different perspective.
As a result, fractions of a penny have more long term power for companies than for people.
Then we have the stilted political playing field where a company can massage the law to their advantage over time. A company isn't trying to feed a growing family, or save for a retirement. In contrast, people have other uses for the money they earn. Political campaign contributions are not high on the priority list of real people.
Another fiscal difference is the way debts are handled. If a company goes under, then the assets are sold and someone loses money. The people in charge of that failure are free to move on to another venture without any person fiscal repercussions. When a person goes under, they are hounded into bankruptcy and are thereafter victimized with usurious interest rates for decades.
Needless to say, I have some sympathy with the idea that when the "rights" of corporations (and other legal entities like labor unions, churches, veterans groups, etc.) are in conflict with those of real people, the real people should win. But I am not sure of the best way to solve the problem. One option is the "People's Rights Amendment":
Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.
Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
The Volokh Conspiracy suggests that this may not have all of the great benefits that its' supporters envision. I think they are right.
But that means that we still have a problem in need of a practical solution. One that places all legal entities in a secondary position when it comes to their "rights" relative to the rights of real, live, oxygen-breathing people.