nerdgirl

The number that I’m finding most important right now is 88%. That's the decline over a year (May 07-08) in US service member deaths due to IEDs in Iraq. The reasons: material (technology, e.g., MRAPs and surveillance) and non-material (counter-insurgency, e.g., employing 'Sons of Iraq' at $8 a day to be 'eyes & ears' ... & to not do less desirable things) solutions. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. This bill may address some issues that relate to the larger retention issues; one bill will not alone address the larger issue. If you're commenting on contractors, I concur. The typical salaries w/which I am familiar (i.e., retired O-5/O-6/GO, many w/PhDs or MDs, and civilian PhDs w/active clearances) are 2-5+x greater when one goes to work for a contractor. If one compares the 2008 officer pay rates to 2008 GS pay rate, uniformed service pay rates exceed GS pay rates. E.g., min/max O-2 $71k compared to GS-11, which is $48K/$63K, and min/max for O-6 is $117K/$140.5K, whereas min/max for GS-15 (the comparable GS level) is $95K/$124K. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Sen Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 152 bills in the Senate. Some were perfunctory, like [url http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:3:./temp/~bdHNmu::]S.RES.291: A resolution to congratulate the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship, which passed the Senate Unanimously. Others, like [url http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:8:./temp/~bdHNmu::]S.969: A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to preparation for an influenza pandemic, including an avian influenza pandemic, and for other purposes, S.1180: A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize various programs servicing the needs of homeless veterans for fiscal years 2007 through 2011, and for other purposes, S.1194: A bill to direct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to establish guidelines and procedures for tracking, controlling, and accounting for individual spent fuel rods and segments, S.1975: A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections, S.2045: A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil, S.2261: A bill to provide transparency and integrity in the earmark process, S.2446: A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes, S.3475: A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans, S.AMDT.390 to H.R.1268 To provide meal and telephone benefits for members of the Armed Forces who are recuperating from injuries incurred on active duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, S.AMDT.2965 to S.2349 To ban employment negotiations to become lobbyists by Members of Congress and required recusal for senior congressional staff while in office, S.AMDT.3144 to S.CON.RES.83 To provide a $40 million increase in FY 2007 for the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program and to improve job services for hard-to-place veterans, S.AMDT.3695 to H.R.4939 To improve financial transparency in hurricane recovery by requiring the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to make information about Federal contracts publicly available, S.AMDT.4224 to S.2766 To include assessments of Traumatic Brain Injury in the post-deployment health assessments of member of the Armed Forces returning from deployment in support of a contingency operation, and S.AMDT.5169 to S.3709 To clarify United States policy in order to deter nuclear testing by foreign governments are more substantive examples of legislation introduced. I'm not sure what is the average number of bills introduced by a junior Senator. Speculate Sen Obama's is average to well above average. Sen Obama has also teamed with Sen Lugar (R-IN) in advancing Cooperative Threat Reduction to reduce weapons vulnerability to non-state actors (terrorists), specifically antiaircraft missiles, stolen WMDs, and conventional weapons used in IEDs. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

For enlisted or officers? Both? In an absolute sense or w/r/t the competitive employment environment? The vast majority of non-federal positions, i.e., contractors and private industry, make more than either civilian or uniformed federal positions for similar skill sets. One doesn't pursue uniformed or civil service to become wealthy, unless you're planning on doing something less than legal. W/r/t compensation for uniformed services, the larger issues predate President Clinton's administration and will have national security implications extending beyond the next administration. West Point has a 40% attrition rate 5 years after graduation. In 2003, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) identified retention of officers as a critical issue for the future of the Navy (i.e., subject of CNO SSG). Is raising compensation the only or best way to address the predicted shortage of officers, putting aside for the moment other concerns regarding promotion rates and time in grade? I don’t think so … but as is demonstrated with the bonuses being paid to retain officers, it is one metaphorical tool in the toolbox. Bonuses should not be a long-term solution. While the recent bonuses for USA Captains have gotten attention, the monetary incentives to increase retention precede OIF & OEF, e.g., the USN and USMC Selected Reenlistment Bonus (SRB), USN Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay, USN Aviation Continuation Pay, USN Medical Officer Incentive Special Pay, and the USMC Aviation Retention Bonuses all date back to at least 1997. Increasing the number of young Americans selecting the military officer corps as a career field and the national security implications are a long term interest of mine. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's a fascinating map! Thanks for the link. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If that is your intent, perhaps you should direct your "knock it off" comments to the individuals making "creepy" and "nauseating" tacit endorsements of abuse?

What about beating or abusing a woman do you find "funny"? It's not witty. ...

Some good points. I concur stronly with Bill's sentiment that ANWR is unlikely to be a meaningful short term solution, nevermind waste of a potential mid-term strategic reserve for national security interests. (The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is for short-term emergencies.) As your last line alludes (or at least as I read it ), domestic offshore drilling is not going to be a longterm solution. As an energy policy proposal, it's somewhere between the panacea of gas tax holidays and Hubbert's fiddling. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

For the primary data addicts, a little context on what is being wiretapped, what kind of crimes, and how much it costs. According to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 2007 Wiretap Report to Congress, which was released in May: “A total of 2,208 intercepts authorized by federal and state courts were completed in 2007, an increase of 20 percent compared to the number terminated in 2006. The number of applications for orders by federal authorities fell less than 1 percent to 457. The number of applications reported by state prosecuting officials grew 27 percent to 1,751, with 24 states providing reports, 1 more than in 2006.” The report does not include data “involving sensitive and/or sealed matters.” Not all would be terrorism-related, either. The Report offers this caveat: “Statistics indicate that if all intercepts undertaken for federal investigations in 2007 were reported, the 2007 Wiretap Report would not reflect any decrease in the use of court-approved electronic surveillance by the agencies.” It has been speculated – & I agree it’s a very reasonable speculation – that given that Federal wiretaps reported are *below* the ten year average, it's likely that the actual number of wiretaps is higher. How much higher is subject to debate. Other figures: “Installed wiretaps were in operation an average of 44 days per wiretap in 2007, compared to 40 days in 2006.” Average cost $48,000 per wiretap, of ~$100M for 2007. Most common wiretap location, 94% (!), was a “portable device, carried by/on individual,” i.e., cell phone, blackberry, etc. There is no “terrorism” in the report’s Table 3 “Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted.” Two options: terrorism is part of the “other” category, which, at the federal and state level combined, accounted for only 30 wiretaps (1.4%) or terrorism-related wiretaps are part of the “sensitive and/or sealed matters” category. My speculation is a little of both. 81% of wiretaps were related to narcotics offenses (as the most serious crime for which the wiretap was sought). The next largest category is homicide and assault (6.0%) followed by racketeering (4.4%) and gambling (2.5%). Interesting (imo) observation regarding trend in arrest versus conviction rates: while # arrests through information obtained through wiretaps is approximately linear, the percentage of convictions has declined steadily from ~55% to just over 30% across the 10y period covered in the report (see attached graphic.) While some lag is not unexpected, as convictions sometimes take months or rarely years after an intercept, it’s still a real trend. (The issue isn’t that all arrests will not necessarily yield convictions but the steady declining trend of convictions/arrest rate.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes. There are databases and quantitative/semi-quantitative analysis of incidence of human rights violations. One excellent example, im-ever-ho, is the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS – a professional society) Making the Case: Investigating Large Scale Human Rights Violations Using Information Systems and Data Analysis. The is also a private company with which I am familiar, Benetech, that does such work as part of its business model. Benetech’s systematic data collection and analysis leveraging some high-tech ICT methods have had real world impacts: “We helped the UN Commission for Historical Clarification prove that genocide was committed against the indigenous population in Guatemala. We provided expert testimony before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia that Slobodan Miloševik's defense theories were inconsistent with the data in Kosovo. Our analysis demonstrated that the civil war in Perú was much bloodier than the elites in Lima ever imagined.” They’re also working data analysis related to human rights/mass violence in Colombia, Myanmar (nee Burma), Sierra Leone, and Timor-Leste (nee East Timor). In May, the PBS show Frontline featured a segment on Benetech’s involvement in digitizing the recovered records of police abused from the Guatemala National Police Archive project. From a techie-perspective it’s fascinating example of application of technology for a beneficial use for it was never originally imagined; from a human perspective, that such a technology would be needed is heart-breaking, but the individuals behind the effort – in the SF Bay area and in post-conflict communities – are inspirational at the same time. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The largest change originated with the fall of the Soviet Union, which is when the balance of power shifted from a bi-polar world to the US as sole dominant superpower – or ‘hyperpower.' That was when the perception toward America's role in the world changed. As far as measuring change in attitudes the Pew Global Attitudes Project has tried to do something akin to measuring that in their 47-nation survey, which found that international respect for America, China & Russia (what they call global powers) has declined over the last 5 years. Between 2002 & 2007, 26 countries opinion of America became less favorable, while only 5 became more favorable. Two remained approximately the same. Additionally, "Favorable ratings of America are lower in 26 of 33 countries for which trends are available." The Pew survey also notes that there are exceptions – opinion toward the US is largely favorable (very favorable in some cases) in African countries below North Africa. And then there are cases like Turkey – in which 83% of those surveyed like our way of doing business, but 81% dislike “American ideas about democracy.” Remember the worldwide support for the US immediately after the attacks of September 11th when France’s Le Monde proclaimed: “We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity?” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

And that is not what has been advocated. Good, effective interrogation is not the notional cartoonish scenario described above. See: US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation (large pdf file), which states in Chapter 1, under the heading “Prohibition Against Use of Force” “Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.” “The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.” Unilateral, non-ambiguous statement with further detailing what not to do, i.e., don't use torture because it's not effective. FM 34-52 also warns: “Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort.” That is, if you want to support the troops, don’t support a policy that allows torture. Simple. Plain-spoken. And see: US Army Field Manual 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations (warning large pdf file). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Didn't some people say exactly the same when the govt/courts gave same rights to black and women? Do you still agree with them? Ugh, no. And the issue you brought up has no correlation to the one being discussed. I agree that Brown v. Board of Education, et al. is not a good historical analogy, not because there was any lack of criticism associated with it, but because it was a unanimous SCOTUS decision, it's not dealing with the Laws of War, and it's not a habeus corpus decision. While you are likely to disagree, I suspect Brown v. Board of Education, et al. had a lot more impact on Americans and American society than Boumediene v. Bush. Justice Kennedy has asserted that there is no *clear* historical legal precedent. I’m not coming up with any specific historical ones either. Anyone? One that is cited in the recent SCOTUS decision is Johnson v. Eisentrager, which involved the conviction of a group of Germans accused of aiding the Japanese (after Germany has officially surrendered) in actions against the US (a war crime) by a US military tribunal physically convened in China. The German nationals challenged the military ruling. The SCOTUS held that US federal courts had no jurisdiction. A key difference in that case was that the Germans were charged and convicted of specific crimes, whereas the Guantanamo detainees have neither been charged with, nor convicted of, any crime, while they are being held on land entirely within U.S. control (even tho’ it’s OCONUS). Looking at it from the another perspective: a war-related SCOTUS ruling that technically was never overturned but is now regarded as a mistake (Pres Reagan apologized for the policy at question) is Korematsu v. United States, which upheld detention of Japanese Americans during WWII. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The three instances in which the CIA acknowledged using waterboarding (done before GEN Hayden's arrival) were ineffective and may have wasted time and resources. Information obtained through torture by thridparty states has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers, e.g., Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The harsh reality is that's a fictional construct of Jack Bauer-esque Hollywood. In the real world, such scenarios have been avoided using traditional non-torture-based methods. And information obtained through torture has been notoriously unreliable, like Sen McCain's confession to the North Vietnamese. If you really want to advocate for effective tools in the notional scenario suggest you look to what the US military and operational intelligence experts say: torture is ineffective as a means of interrogation and such a policy puts US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and US foreign nationals, such as defense and intelligence civilians deployed at greater risk (than they already are). VR/Marg p.s. the protest is the kind that is in your and in [thirdworld19]'s posts. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You are correct in your assertion: people in “high places” in Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, Egypt, Russia, Myanmar (nee Burma), Pakistan, Syria, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan don’t want to stop being able to torture at their discretion. Those are not the people in high places on which I or most Americans want the US to model our policy choices. As we went through in rigorous, cited detail the folks with operational experience, i.e., military, intelligence community, and civilian LEO including those with direct experience (i.e., the USMC Interrogators and the US Army HUMINT collectors); all the former Secretaries of State including GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret); Sen John McCain; the Intelligence Science Board; the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; multiple former CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) officers have been explicit on the non-effectiveness of torture in interrogation and opposition to it. The only examples supporting torture were John Yoo (Berkeley Law Prof), Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law prof), and the CIA spokesman prior to Gen Michael Hayden, USAF, taking over leadership of the CIA. (The other name you suggested as a proponent of torture, is actually opposed to it.) That’s more on topic and that’s certainly one way of looking at it and further indication of the need for something that is akin to a domestic American-style “truth & reconciliation” Commission or Vergangenheitsbewältigung, in order to get beyond that at least in the rear view mirror of history. Since you have stated your opinions repeatedly, notionally if the President directed the Executive Branch (the entire Executive Branch not just any one department) to begin a serious, open effort at “truth and reconciliation” – even tho’ you might personally disagree with that directive – and the head of your agency put you in change of it – in a notional scenario -- how would you propose it go about being established and conducted? Who would you want to see on such a commission? Where would you want it to be held? Who would you want to ensure testified for it to be ‘fair and balanced’? Should there be any limits placed on it? Full or restricted access for the media? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Hmmm ... an former boyfriend with the same 3 letters in front of his name as you're getting was also a Glenmorangie enthusiast ... now I'm going to be looking for a 3rd data point. Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This appears is the same piece quoted in another thread in which you also commented. The best line: There are so many red herrings out there they might as well construct an aquarium. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The linked testimont is also from almost a month ago (22 May). The commentary in the OP's quotation is w/r/t more recent Congressional activity. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm all for our freedom of verbal and written expression. I'm also all for censoring ourselves when we know our expression will be highly offensive to our fellow posters. There was nothing to be gained by this thread except to mock what a segment of our population hold very dear. This thread was not started to discuss the validity of Christianity but rather with malice. You make valid points in this reply & your others in this thread. Your effort -- not just in this thread but consistently -- to be respectful is appreciated & recognized. My comment was in response to your quote above: that it is not the particular religion that is most important but the secular, civil institutions; civil-based law system; and civil norms of free expression. While you may not agree with my assertion, do you see the difference? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Or perhaps, more importantly, imo, that we are not in a fundamentalist theocratic state with religious-based law system lacking a strong norm of committment to freedom of verbal & written expression .... ? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Senator Sam Nunn. Bonus question: How many times did he turn down the offer for SecDef before President GW Bush offered it to Donald Rumsfeld? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you have any particular examples in mind? The usual one that first came to the forefront of my squishy gray matter was pharmaceuticals. As long as a product has a substantial profit margin, companies seem to (1) change to accommodate &/or (2) try to finagle a way around the rules, e.g., making small changes in formulation to work around generic compositions. Things like vaccines that are needed for either public health reasons or national defense/military reasons – but don’t have the same profit as Viagra, Lipitor, etc – are the ones that pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to pursue, even when given tax dollars and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) are adjusted to accommodate them. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Leaving aside parts of your analysis w/which I disagree, I don't imagine that the perspective characterized by your comments would advocate doing nothing? Correct? So what kind of process would you advocate, particularly keeping in mind that group of fundamentally good, smart Americans, who will protest loudly – very loudly – and with great indignation? How do you propose doing something that is seen as having some legitimacy by them ... even if it's only in the rear view mirror of history? Or does that not matter? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

“After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.” --Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (ret), preface to Broken Laws, Broken Lives A private NGO (i.e., no government money) of medical doctors – Physicians for Humans Rights – reviewed medical evidence, including doing physical exams and diagnostic tests, as part of a report released to coincide with the Congressional hearings yesterday, Broken Laws, Broken Lives, in which they assert “we have medical evidence to confirm first-hand accounts of men who endured torture by US personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay. These men were never charged with any crime.” CNN story: “Report: Exams reveal abuse, torture of detainees.” Fox News story: “Medical Exams of 11 Former Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib Detainees Show Torture, Human Rights Group Says.” “Medical examinations of former terrorism suspects held by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders, according to a human rights group. “For the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far, Physicians for Human Rights had doctors and mental health professionals examine 11 former prisoners. “Seven were held in Abu Ghraib between late 2003 and summer of 2004, a period that coincides with the known abuse of prisoners at the hands of some of their American jailers. Four of the prisoners were held at Guantanamo beginning in 2002 for one to almost five years. All 11 were released without criminal charges. “Those examined alleged that they were tortured or abused, including sexually, and described being shocked with electrodes, beaten, shackled, stripped of their clothes, deprived of food and sleep, and spit and urinated on. “The U.S. military says an al-Qaida training manual instructs members, if captured, to assert they were tortured during interrogation. However, doctors and mental health professionals stated they could link the prisoners' claims of abuse while in U.S. detention to injuries documented by X-rays, medical exams and psychological tests. “The patients underwent intensive, two-day long exams following standards and methods used worldwide to document torture. ‘We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering,’ he [Dr. Allen Keller, one of the doctors who conducted the exams] said. Keller, who directs the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, said the treatment the detainees reported were ‘eerily familiar’ to stories from other torture survivors around the world.” Addressing up front a couple of the usual protests: yes, PHR investigates and is just as, if not more critical of other countries. So there is no “blame America” in the milieu … it’s actually pursuit of that notional concept of personal responsibility and American ideal of equal justice for all. SourceWatch lists the major supporters as “Argosy Foundation, Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation, Ford Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, JEHT Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, John Merck Fund, Oak Foundation USA, Inc., Open Society Institute (yes, that is the charitable fund established by the capitalist George Soros), Rockefeller Foundation, & Tides Foundation” PHR receives a 4-star rating (the highest rating) from Charity Navigator, “America's premier independent charity evaluator, works to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace by evaluating the financial health of over 5,300 of America's largest charities.” ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ Is MG Taguba’s advocacy of approaching it as war crimes useful? I don’t think so. Is it time to be thinking about a domestic American-style “truth & reconciliation” Commission or Vergangenheitsbewältigung? Until it’s dealt with effectively, it will be an impediment to advancing US foreign policy from a realist perspective. There are lots of additional normative arguments … but I resist arguing from normatives. Burying one’s metaphorical head in the sand is not helpful. I’m less interested in folks who are in concurrence with the report’s (& all the others like it) findings. There is some small percentage that will never acknowledge there’s anything wrong with torturing other humans (from across the planet). There is another portion who are fundamentally good, smart people, who nonetheless will protest loudly – very loudly – and with great indignation … some will have very heart-felt reasons for their protests … some will just be partisanly stubborn … and some will be like those who vehemently objected to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education SCOTUS ruling, etc., who now recognize the wisdom in that ruling. That’s the portion in which I am most interested. If the President directed the Executive Branch (the entire Executive Branch not just any one department) to begin a serious, open effort at “truth and reconciliation” – even tho’ you might personally disagree with that directive – how would you propose it go about being established and conducted? Who would you want to see on such a commission? Where would you want it to be held? Who would you want to ensure testified for it to be ‘fair and balanced’? Should there be any limits placed on it? Full or restricted access for the media? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying