Who am I? From age 17 to 21, if drafted, I would have gone, from age 22 to 24, I would have fled to Canada or elsewhere, from age 25 to 27 I would have gone to prison, from age 28 to 34 I would have opposed the war but volunteered to serve, as I actually did. Who am I? I am an American. A thinking, reasoning, nerve-packed being that cherishes life, all life. The same as you. The same as our Presidential Candidates.
So why do we beat each other up over our choices in response to the Vietnam War or question the valor of those who played any role in it? Is it universally understood when war is justified? God humble those that find it easy and God help us when it is so. Yes, there is a time to kill or be killed but fear is difficult to bridle with half-truths, half measures and shifting convictions. And death should not be unleashed in ill-defined endeavors.
For this reason, I say anyone that fought in it, whether for a day or a decade, whether their tale has grown as long as the Vietnam Memorial is heart wrenching, should be saluted for their sacrifice. Anyone who protested it or went to prison resisting it, should be praised for their passion. And anyone who escaped it whether to Canada, to Cambridge, or to a safe spot in the National Guard, should be pardoned for their choice. And all who lost loved ones to it should be born upon our shoulders.
That is the real lesson of the Vietnam War. And here we are again facing war--this sifter of men, this phantom for our fear. Who will be cowards and who heroes? Who will bear our red badges of courage? Only those that would choose as you would choose? Or will our maturity embrace all, like all those that should have been embraced in questionable wars long past?
Loren M. Lambert, © September 22, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Monday, September 13, 2004
Live by the Assault Weapon, Die by the Assault Weapon
Who is more likely to storm my business or my child’s elementary school to pop off lethal shots of lead---my wacky neighbor, the local drug dealer or some segment of the government my wacky neighbor claims he must arm himself against? Answer: my wacky neighbor. And what makes it more likely that my wacky neighbor and other potentially off balance souls, including the local drug dealer, will actually get their twitching fingers on assault weapons? Answer: the Bush administration. While you may permit Uncle Bob or Senator Kerry his hunting gun, we don’t need a Nation awash in assault weapons. Please strengthen the assault weapons ban by voting appropriately.
Loren M. Lambert, © September 13, 2004
Loren M. Lambert, © September 13, 2004
Wednesday, September 8, 2004
God's Vote
My cousin and I are both long-time conservatives. We get together once in a while to discuss politics. Our discussions are pithy and to the point. He starts and ends it by stating: "I'm voting for President Bush because that's who I think the Prophet would vote for."
Gee, I ponder, aside from the fact that the prophet is as likely to open up a gambling hall in the Holy of Holies as he is to reveal this, how do you argue with such sound reasoning? Well, here it is, cousin.
D&C 101:77 states that, "the laws and constitution of the people, which [God has] suffered to be established, . . . should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh." That's right, cuz- all flesh, as in everyone on the face of the earth, not just you and me.
The current President and his administration do not believe this edict of God. They argued before the Supreme Court [and thankfully lost] that the constitution is not maintained, nor does it protect all flesh--only US citizens it declares worthy--everyone else can rot as long as the executive branch deems it necessary for national security. This notion and the message it sends has resulted in many horrendous errors in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
Therefore, dear cousin, while you may think you have a pretty important person directing your vote, I, after diligent and thoughtful study, believe I've got God directing mine.
Loren M. Lambert
© September 8, 2004
Gee, I ponder, aside from the fact that the prophet is as likely to open up a gambling hall in the Holy of Holies as he is to reveal this, how do you argue with such sound reasoning? Well, here it is, cousin.
D&C 101:77 states that, "the laws and constitution of the people, which [God has] suffered to be established, . . . should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh." That's right, cuz- all flesh, as in everyone on the face of the earth, not just you and me.
The current President and his administration do not believe this edict of God. They argued before the Supreme Court [and thankfully lost] that the constitution is not maintained, nor does it protect all flesh--only US citizens it declares worthy--everyone else can rot as long as the executive branch deems it necessary for national security. This notion and the message it sends has resulted in many horrendous errors in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
Therefore, dear cousin, while you may think you have a pretty important person directing your vote, I, after diligent and thoughtful study, believe I've got God directing mine.
Loren M. Lambert
© September 8, 2004
Tuesday, September 7, 2004
Ich bin ein Feloner
I recently heard that among the problems that Floridians are determined to fix with their new voting system, besides anchoring it in hurricane force winds, is preventing felons from voting. Apparently this is a big problem. Studies show that while only 30% of the general population regularly votes, if they could vote, 90% of the felons would--not! Floridians suspect that many felons voted in the last presidential election. Does that mean they voted for Bush? Hmmm. I would think they voted democratic. But who knows--maybe they cast all forty two of their illegal votes for Ralph Nader instead of Al Gore and the rest is history.
Unfortunately, felons are easy targets. There's not many politicians nor pundits stepping forward to champion their right to vote. And why should they? Who among us would sign a petition to allow such a right? But maybe we should. Think about it. If felons were allowed to vote, who would they vote for and how does one curry to the "felon voting block." "Vote for me because I'm the felon's friend," or "Vote blah-blah-blah because we're the party that's soft on crime." Wouldn't this at least let us know were the candidate or party stood on crime and punishment matters? And why shouldn't felons be allowed to vote based on this issue. Who is more knowledgeable about it?
But really, if felons could vote and the "felon vote" mattered, what would it say about our society? Look at any society gone wrong and you will find that the innocent have been "felonized" to prevent them from voting. Maybe we are doing that. Picture felons as the proverbial canary in the mine. If the vote of a felon can upset the political balance of a nation as great as ours it will mean that we too have felonized the innocent and sold our souls to the felons sitting in high offices. So, I say we should fear more the society that disenfranchises its felons than the felons who vote. Therefore, borrowing a phrase from Johh F. Kennedy, I say Ich bin ein Feloner and urge you all to fear more the indifference of the majority before you spend millions turning out the felon from the voting booth.
Loren M. Lambert, © September 7, 2004
Unfortunately, felons are easy targets. There's not many politicians nor pundits stepping forward to champion their right to vote. And why should they? Who among us would sign a petition to allow such a right? But maybe we should. Think about it. If felons were allowed to vote, who would they vote for and how does one curry to the "felon voting block." "Vote for me because I'm the felon's friend," or "Vote blah-blah-blah because we're the party that's soft on crime." Wouldn't this at least let us know were the candidate or party stood on crime and punishment matters? And why shouldn't felons be allowed to vote based on this issue. Who is more knowledgeable about it?
But really, if felons could vote and the "felon vote" mattered, what would it say about our society? Look at any society gone wrong and you will find that the innocent have been "felonized" to prevent them from voting. Maybe we are doing that. Picture felons as the proverbial canary in the mine. If the vote of a felon can upset the political balance of a nation as great as ours it will mean that we too have felonized the innocent and sold our souls to the felons sitting in high offices. So, I say we should fear more the society that disenfranchises its felons than the felons who vote. Therefore, borrowing a phrase from Johh F. Kennedy, I say Ich bin ein Feloner and urge you all to fear more the indifference of the majority before you spend millions turning out the felon from the voting booth.
Loren M. Lambert, © September 7, 2004
Friday, May 7, 2004
Goats And Universal Human Rights
The label "Unlawful Combatant" or any other label does not turn a human being into a goat. But that is what Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the Bush Administration believe. If you are not granted basic universal human rights, no matter your national origin, race, religion, etc. and no matter the circumstances of your apprehension and containment, you may as well be a goat.
As a goat, the US Government and US military are free to dress you up in the latest fashion in hooded prison garb, take you on an endless Caribbean vacation, milk you dry, strip you naked, parade you around, inspect your genitalia, and maybe even have a goat roast. And who would ever know? Without the right to due process, the right to an attorney, and the right to have Red Cross visits, you may as well be a nameless, cloned goat--even if you were an innocent Quaker goat caught up in the fog of warring goat herdsmen.
If the despicable excuses for US soldiers had been aware that the human beings they were torturing in Iraq were, at the very least, being regularly visited by their attorneys and the Redcross, their criminal tendencies may have been curbed. More incidents like this will come unless that Bush Administration reverses its myopic view on human rights. This is true because as human beings and not goats, no matter our religion, color or country, without checks on our power, our self righteous arrogance will not prevent us from being corrupted and becoming tyrannical goat herdsmen in charge of what we'll view as goats--only fit for slaughter.
Hence, the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners is not just a failure of these sorry, disgusting soldiers, it is a failure of leadership all the way up to the top. We have lost the moral high ground. We will not recover. I fear this incident will lead to more deaths than any other incident in this war. It is time for our leadership to leave. It is time to for us to leave.
Loren M. Lambert © May 7, 2004
As a goat, the US Government and US military are free to dress you up in the latest fashion in hooded prison garb, take you on an endless Caribbean vacation, milk you dry, strip you naked, parade you around, inspect your genitalia, and maybe even have a goat roast. And who would ever know? Without the right to due process, the right to an attorney, and the right to have Red Cross visits, you may as well be a nameless, cloned goat--even if you were an innocent Quaker goat caught up in the fog of warring goat herdsmen.
If the despicable excuses for US soldiers had been aware that the human beings they were torturing in Iraq were, at the very least, being regularly visited by their attorneys and the Redcross, their criminal tendencies may have been curbed. More incidents like this will come unless that Bush Administration reverses its myopic view on human rights. This is true because as human beings and not goats, no matter our religion, color or country, without checks on our power, our self righteous arrogance will not prevent us from being corrupted and becoming tyrannical goat herdsmen in charge of what we'll view as goats--only fit for slaughter.
Hence, the abuse of the Iraqi prisoners is not just a failure of these sorry, disgusting soldiers, it is a failure of leadership all the way up to the top. We have lost the moral high ground. We will not recover. I fear this incident will lead to more deaths than any other incident in this war. It is time for our leadership to leave. It is time to for us to leave.
Loren M. Lambert © May 7, 2004
Monday, March 15, 2004
Hammering Heads
Dallin Oaks, former state Supreme Court Justice, once warned a group of new attorneys that until they became grey with worry and oblivious to influence they would tend to wield their Bar memberships like toddlers given a hammer and told to go forth and pound nails. Along with many other professionals, that's what we’re doing to Melissa Ann Rowland, we're pounding nails with the skill and temperance of five year olds.
Every doctor, lawyer, police officer and social worker has seen them. The "Ms. Rowlands" who can't responsibly manage the tangles in their own hair let alone another human being. And we've all said it–this person should not be allowed to have children–but not out loud. It's violent, morally tyrannical and an anathema to even suggest that we should control the reproductive potential (not sexual freedom) of our citizens. So what do we do?
We wring our hands and facilitate in a pre-conception pre-partum stupor. Emasculated by our sense of misguided morality, we brush off, we coddle, we cite, we medicate, we feebly recommend, and then we send off the "Ms. Rowlands" of the world to some other jurisdiction or medical facility hoping that others will bear the burden and incur the expense of early intervention. But it never happens and we end up with dead, discarded, and neglected babies. Only then do we jump into action. When the consequences are irreversible, we whip out our hammers and in full hammering fury file murder and neglect charges, shuttle live but often battered children into foster care, and vilify all who had contact with the putative mother including the society-made dollar-conscious health care providers.
In the end, isn't this a more repugnant, violent act? Isn't it more vile to sit mindlessly before the birth canal waiting to select the appropriate hammer based upon the outcome? We should not. It is likely that Ms. Rowland did not have the mental acuity to understand the implications of her pregnancy nor to understand the implications or necessity of the recommended C-section. She is not a murderer in the classic sense that she ever formed the criminal intent to kill; she is the embodiment of our inability to make hard decisions early instead of later on when death, abuse and neglect raise their menacing heads ever in need of pounding. We need to put away our hammers, take a deep breath and make the difficult decisions, not in the birthing room, but before conception dictates the inevitable.
Loren M. Lambert March 15, 2004
Every doctor, lawyer, police officer and social worker has seen them. The "Ms. Rowlands" who can't responsibly manage the tangles in their own hair let alone another human being. And we've all said it–this person should not be allowed to have children–but not out loud. It's violent, morally tyrannical and an anathema to even suggest that we should control the reproductive potential (not sexual freedom) of our citizens. So what do we do?
We wring our hands and facilitate in a pre-conception pre-partum stupor. Emasculated by our sense of misguided morality, we brush off, we coddle, we cite, we medicate, we feebly recommend, and then we send off the "Ms. Rowlands" of the world to some other jurisdiction or medical facility hoping that others will bear the burden and incur the expense of early intervention. But it never happens and we end up with dead, discarded, and neglected babies. Only then do we jump into action. When the consequences are irreversible, we whip out our hammers and in full hammering fury file murder and neglect charges, shuttle live but often battered children into foster care, and vilify all who had contact with the putative mother including the society-made dollar-conscious health care providers.
In the end, isn't this a more repugnant, violent act? Isn't it more vile to sit mindlessly before the birth canal waiting to select the appropriate hammer based upon the outcome? We should not. It is likely that Ms. Rowland did not have the mental acuity to understand the implications of her pregnancy nor to understand the implications or necessity of the recommended C-section. She is not a murderer in the classic sense that she ever formed the criminal intent to kill; she is the embodiment of our inability to make hard decisions early instead of later on when death, abuse and neglect raise their menacing heads ever in need of pounding. We need to put away our hammers, take a deep breath and make the difficult decisions, not in the birthing room, but before conception dictates the inevitable.
Loren M. Lambert March 15, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)