Last night driving home I got another speeding ticket. This is my third. All three have been in Minnesota, on the same stretch of I-94. The other two I had gotten on the way to work. This one was on the way home. I clocked in officially at 72, but he wrote it down as a "citation" at 65. I think that means I pay the fee but he said it would not go on my record, so I hope it doesn't effect my insurance.
I was reminded of an article I read on how to improve your chances of getting out of a speeding ticket. There are a few things you are supposed to do, and not do:
· Turn your engine off
· Have your window rolled down before the cop gets to your car.
· Have your hands visible and resting on the steering wheel.
· Do not be reaching into the glove box or your wallet searching for your license or insurance. There will be time to get those later.
The idea is make the cop relaxed. From a cops perspective, they have no idea who you are when they pull you over. You could be a gun toting lunatic for all they know. You put them at ease, and maybe they will return the favor. Maybe. I am not sure if it worked tonight - he gave me a break but I am not sure how much that was because I followed those steps.
I could not help but remember the first time I got a ticket, back in 2001. I was on my way to work on a Friday. I remember because it was my turn to bring in donuts for the department. It was a tradition in the department for us to have donuts and bagels every Friday. It was a nice way to end the week, and this week it was my duty to bring in the donuts (bring in the donuts… sounds like a bad line from an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie. "Bring in the donuts you bastard! Or else I will put holes in all of you!!" Alas, I digress).
Anyway, the other part of the tradition is have the donuts and bagels there by 8am. I am not a morning person. I was running late, not that this is the reason I was speeding. I speed every morning. And evening. And every time I am behind the wheel of a car. I was speeding in known cop-infested roadways. I was doing about 75 in a 55. I was due for a ticket. I had never had a ticket before, despite years of speeding, so I knew I was due to get one. It is just like the Wildebeest crossing the Serengeti. One of the herd gets taken out while the others survive. Eventually, the odds will catch up with you. We all have it coming.
This being Minnesota, the cop was real nice. Rather than be a hard ass, he asked me in a very friendly Minnesota accent, "so, is their a reason you were doing 75 in a 55?" Note, saying your rushing to get donuts for the department by 8am is not an excuse that will work.
Anyway, after checking my record and he says he can't believe I don't have any tickets, considering how long I have been driving. It was at this moment I thought I was going to get out of a ticket.
But no. I was doing 20 miles over the speed limit and he had to write a ticket. He only wrote it for 65. I thought he was going to let me go and that would be the end of the story, but no, I was wrong. This is where the story gets interesting.
He asked me about my out of state license plates. I still had NC plates on my car. I knew that I only had a few months to change my plates, but I was too lazy to actually do it. He asks me how long have I lived in Minnesota. I said a few months, which I knew was a stupid thing to say the moment I said it. You see, I had changed my drivers license over 9 months ago. I got called for Jury Duty in NC. Changing my residence was only my way to get out of it. I was motivated to change my drivers license but I wasn't nearly as motivated to change my license plates.
When he asked me how long I had lived in Minnesota, he was holding my license. All he had to do was look at the issue date and he could see through my lies. But he doesn't look. We instead have the following conversation:
Cop: "Did you know the State of Minnesota only gives you 60 days to change your plates?"
Me: "No, I am not aware of this (although my friends Jeff and Marni have reminded me of this every day for the last 10 months)."
Cop: "You see after 60 days the state of Minnesota considers it an attempt to set up false residency or avoid taxation."
Me: "uh hun, uh hun"
Cop: "Well the problem is after 60 days, the state considers it a criminal misdemeanor."
Me: "uh hun, uh hun, what?"
Cop: "You see that is a fine and jail time."
Me: (thinking) "what are you talking about"
Cop: "And you don't look like the type of guy who should be going to jail."
What they heck does that little comment mean?!?! Did he think I was going to be somebody's b!tch candy in prison? I did my best to suppress my bitterness and rage at being falsely outed as prison currency. So long as I was not sent to a maximum security facility, I felt confident that if I was sent to prison, I would be able to survive and corner the cigarette trade. I suppressed my desire to prove him wrong and bit my tongue, rather than say something that would get me thrown into jail.
I like to file this incident under "this crap only happens to me." Only in Minnesota can you be simultaneously be complimented and insulted in the same breath. And have to pay a fine.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
State Quarters - the first 13
This is an old story I eMailed back in Jan 2002. It was fun to write and it got a few laughs, so I thought I would add it to the blog.
---------------------------------
It has been a while since I have had a good rant about anything lately, but I feel the time has come to vent. While the attention of the world monetary system has been focused on the introduction of Euro coins and bills, we in the US are also undergoing a tragedy in our coinage as well. I am speaking of the State Quarters.
Since 1999, our beloved and ever-useful quarter has undergone a startling, and dare I add, ignominious change. I finally received the Rhode Island quarter the other day, the last of the original thirteen colonies. I feel it is my duty to review these quarters - the good, the bad, and the ugly - in the hopes that something can be done with the remaining states. The first 13, as they are the oldest states in the union, should have the most historical material to draw upon for their designs. The majority of the other states will have even less history to pull from, so I fear the trend of lame designs will get worse, unless something is done. How excited, honestly, will you be when you get your first quarter from, say, Nebraska? I urge, nay, I beg you, to send this on to others so that by some small chance, it will get to someone who can do something about the design of their state quarter before it gets too late.
First off, let me say that I was not a fan of this program to begin with. The US has traditionally been loath to change the design or format of their coins. The bald eagle, which has graced the tails side of our quarter has remained, fixed on its perch since 1792. While it has undergone some cosmetic changes, it has remained there, except in 1976 for the bicentennial celebration, but it returned the next year. What the eagle did to deserve being bumped in favor a group of poorly designed state travel ads must have been quite horrific. I was also not sure why 1999 was chosen as the starting date. True, that was the 200th anniversary of George Washington's death, but traditionally, you memorialize positive people (or events) on the date of their birth (or start). E.G. We celebrate Washington, Abraham Lincoln's, and (in most states) Martin Luther King's birthday. Conversely, we remember unpleasant events by their termination, e.g. V-Day as the end of WWII.
The US Mint web site says the purpose of the 50 State Quarter program is to "celebrate … the 50 states with a design honoring its unique history, traditions, and symbols". As that is a bit wide open to interpretation, let me explain the rules I used to judging what makes a good quarter vs. most of the entries. Picture: The picture should be easy to identify, clearly designed, with good detail. It should not be crammed onto the quarter, and be balanced on the frame.
Subject Matter: Ideally the design on the quarter should represent something of historical significance regarding the state. People, places, objects of historical significance should be included. Any item already appearing on your state's license plate should not be considered.
Memorable: Do you remember the design of the quarter and does it speak positively about the US.
Now some of you will say this is not the time to criticize America. I say bullocks! I feel I must criticize because I love this damn country too much not to care! With that, here are my reviews, in order of admission to the Union.
Delaware: B
When the Delaware quarter came out, I thought it was a poor offering; however, compared to others, its stature has slowly grown to the upper ranks. The good thing about the quarter is it portrays an important, yet often overlooked figure in the Revolutionary War, Caesar Rodney, a man who held almost every
position of importance within the state of Delaware. Also considering how few historical events or figures have come from Delaware, this was a good choice. The picture itself is kinda lame and unimpressive (like the rest of the state).
Pennsylvania: C-
I think it goes without saying that a picture of the state probably takes the least effort in designing. How lame. On top of this, it is a jumbled mess of images: some chick in the middle, the state motto on the side, and what the heck is that thing on the left side of the quarter, anyway? Couldn't they put out a little thought, and say, put the Liberty Bell on the back?
New Jersey: B+
New Jersey gets high marks for two reasons. First, the subject matter - Washington crossing the Delaware River. A historic event in the Revolutionary War which surprised the British troops. Second, the Jersey quarter provides ample grifting opportunities by putting Washington's face on both the head and tail side of the quarter (okay - call it! "tails." damn - lost again!). NJ looses points, however, because the picture is a bit cramped and lacking detail.
Georgia: C
Like Pennsylvania, Georgia lamed out and put a picture of their state on the back, dressed up by branches, a big peach, and the state motto. While this looks better than Pennsylvania's, the problem with Georgia's quarter is the state motto: Wisdom, Justice, Moderation. Humm . . . lets remove "Justice" and focus on the other two, "Wisdom" and "Moderation". To paraphrase Lloyd Bentson in the 1988 VP debate, "I know Georgians. Georgian's are friends of mine. This sir, does not describe Georgians."
Connecticut: A-
Connecticut's quarter covers most all the bases for a good state quarter. While under British Rule, a representative of King James II demanded the Connecticut Charter, which was deemed inappropriate. During a heated debate, the lights were blown out, and the Charter was spirited away, and hid inside the white oak tree. The only knock against it is the picture is a bit big in the frame; the tree could use a bit of pruning, but besides that, well done.
Massachusetts: D+
A poorly designed AAA brochure would look better than this cacophony of images. What the hell is going on in this quarter anyway? You have an unidentified minuteman on one side, the (lame) state motto on the other, and the ever-unimpressive picture of your state in the background. With all the historical events and figures the state has produced, this is the best they could come up with? How about the battle of the Old North bridge in Concord, where the first shots of the revolution took place? Even a picture of Teddy Kennedy at Chapaquidic would have been better than this.
Maryland: D-
Possibly the worst quarter designed yet. The only thing keeping it from getting an "F" is the picture is very well done. The problem is what the picture and image represent. "The Old Line State" refers to the fact that Maryland held the line during the Civil War. It was part of the Union, but it was a slave holding state during most of the war. Its resistance to emancipation was quite embarrassing to the rest of the Union. Maryland urged Lincoln to make peace with the Confederacy at the start of the war, and they attacked Union troops crossing Maryland on their way to defending Washington, DC. They wanted Compensated Emancipation, trying to get a cash-strapped Union to pay slaveholders for granting slaves their freedom. And this is what they choose to symbolize their state to the rest of the America on their quarter? Even South Carolina was smart enough not to put a picture of Ft. Sumter on their quarter. The only thing that would be worse is if Missouri put a picture of Dred Scott on theirs.
New Hampshire: D
"Old Man of the Mountain" is particularly lame for many reasons. First, it already appears on the states License Plates. Second, the image says nothing about the people of history of the state. It is a random geological formation of rocks which somebody thought looked like an old man. When erosion hits that mountain, the people of NH are going to be SOL. It must make all the real-living people who have contributed to NH's history feel very proud to have been beaten by such a worthy and deserving rock. (UPDATE: In May 2003, the Old Man collapsed. Read all about it: http://www.boston.com/news/daily/03/nh_old_man.htm)
Virginia: A
Well done on all counts. Great picture, capturing a historically important event in our country's history, the settlement at Jamestown. Other states could take a lesson from Virginia, and possibly borrow their quarter designer, too.
South Carolina: D
Like Massachusetts, but worse. A poorly blended group of images that just muddle the back of the quarter. I can not say enough bad things about this design. In fact the only good thing which can be said is it does not have a picture of Ft. Sumter where the Civil War began (see Maryland).
New York: A-
I know what you are saying - I am breaking my own rule about pictures of the state on quarters, but in this case, I am willing to make an exception. NY had the problem of so many NYC focused images that it would ignore the rest of the state. They had little choice, less they risk alienating a large portion of the state's population. Unlike the other picture-of-the-state quarters, this one is not too busy or cluttered. They did a good job with the Statue of Liberty juxtaposed against the state, with the "Gateway to Freedom" on the side. Well done.
North Carolina: C-
Not only did they copy what is already on their license plate, but the Wright Brothers were not even from North Carolina. They were from Ohio. So on top of recycling an already used image, they had to borrow outsiders, too. The picture is okay - a bit too big for the frame - but okay. Something new would have been better, like the origin of the motto "the Tar Heel State" of even a pack of smokes would have been good.
Rhode Island: D
I keep looking at the quarter expecting some great revelation to come forward, yet none does. An extremely lame entry, which is probably helped by the poor artwork. Had the image looked better, and we could actually identify what it is, the quarter probably would have gotten a lower rating. As best as I can make out, it is a boat on water, heading towards a bridge. This image hardly qualifies it as a unique identifier among our 50 states. The boat, as best as I can make out, looks like an America's Cup sailing vessel. If so, the state deserves an even lower rating, as it was in Newport, RI, in 1983 where the US lost the America's Cup for the first time in it's 100+ years, setting of a battle of lawsuits, changed boat designs, and endless controversy, which reduced the Cup race to a meaningless filler for ESPN.
There, I have said my peace; if you have any complaints, send 'em to me. Spread the word and let's hope this nightmare to our monetary system ends. I will wait, and hope for better, the next time I get change.
---------------------------------
It has been a while since I have had a good rant about anything lately, but I feel the time has come to vent. While the attention of the world monetary system has been focused on the introduction of Euro coins and bills, we in the US are also undergoing a tragedy in our coinage as well. I am speaking of the State Quarters.
Since 1999, our beloved and ever-useful quarter has undergone a startling, and dare I add, ignominious change. I finally received the Rhode Island quarter the other day, the last of the original thirteen colonies. I feel it is my duty to review these quarters - the good, the bad, and the ugly - in the hopes that something can be done with the remaining states. The first 13, as they are the oldest states in the union, should have the most historical material to draw upon for their designs. The majority of the other states will have even less history to pull from, so I fear the trend of lame designs will get worse, unless something is done. How excited, honestly, will you be when you get your first quarter from, say, Nebraska? I urge, nay, I beg you, to send this on to others so that by some small chance, it will get to someone who can do something about the design of their state quarter before it gets too late.
First off, let me say that I was not a fan of this program to begin with. The US has traditionally been loath to change the design or format of their coins. The bald eagle, which has graced the tails side of our quarter has remained, fixed on its perch since 1792. While it has undergone some cosmetic changes, it has remained there, except in 1976 for the bicentennial celebration, but it returned the next year. What the eagle did to deserve being bumped in favor a group of poorly designed state travel ads must have been quite horrific. I was also not sure why 1999 was chosen as the starting date. True, that was the 200th anniversary of George Washington's death, but traditionally, you memorialize positive people (or events) on the date of their birth (or start). E.G. We celebrate Washington, Abraham Lincoln's, and (in most states) Martin Luther King's birthday. Conversely, we remember unpleasant events by their termination, e.g. V-Day as the end of WWII.
The US Mint web site says the purpose of the 50 State Quarter program is to "celebrate … the 50 states with a design honoring its unique history, traditions, and symbols". As that is a bit wide open to interpretation, let me explain the rules I used to judging what makes a good quarter vs. most of the entries. Picture: The picture should be easy to identify, clearly designed, with good detail. It should not be crammed onto the quarter, and be balanced on the frame.
Subject Matter: Ideally the design on the quarter should represent something of historical significance regarding the state. People, places, objects of historical significance should be included. Any item already appearing on your state's license plate should not be considered.
Memorable: Do you remember the design of the quarter and does it speak positively about the US.
Now some of you will say this is not the time to criticize America. I say bullocks! I feel I must criticize because I love this damn country too much not to care! With that, here are my reviews, in order of admission to the Union.
Delaware: B
When the Delaware quarter came out, I thought it was a poor offering; however, compared to others, its stature has slowly grown to the upper ranks. The good thing about the quarter is it portrays an important, yet often overlooked figure in the Revolutionary War, Caesar Rodney, a man who held almost every
position of importance within the state of Delaware. Also considering how few historical events or figures have come from Delaware, this was a good choice. The picture itself is kinda lame and unimpressive (like the rest of the state).
Pennsylvania: C-
I think it goes without saying that a picture of the state probably takes the least effort in designing. How lame. On top of this, it is a jumbled mess of images: some chick in the middle, the state motto on the side, and what the heck is that thing on the left side of the quarter, anyway? Couldn't they put out a little thought, and say, put the Liberty Bell on the back?
New Jersey: B+
New Jersey gets high marks for two reasons. First, the subject matter - Washington crossing the Delaware River. A historic event in the Revolutionary War which surprised the British troops. Second, the Jersey quarter provides ample grifting opportunities by putting Washington's face on both the head and tail side of the quarter (okay - call it! "tails." damn - lost again!). NJ looses points, however, because the picture is a bit cramped and lacking detail.
Georgia: C
Like Pennsylvania, Georgia lamed out and put a picture of their state on the back, dressed up by branches, a big peach, and the state motto. While this looks better than Pennsylvania's, the problem with Georgia's quarter is the state motto: Wisdom, Justice, Moderation. Humm . . . lets remove "Justice" and focus on the other two, "Wisdom" and "Moderation". To paraphrase Lloyd Bentson in the 1988 VP debate, "I know Georgians. Georgian's are friends of mine. This sir, does not describe Georgians."
Connecticut: A-
Connecticut's quarter covers most all the bases for a good state quarter. While under British Rule, a representative of King James II demanded the Connecticut Charter, which was deemed inappropriate. During a heated debate, the lights were blown out, and the Charter was spirited away, and hid inside the white oak tree. The only knock against it is the picture is a bit big in the frame; the tree could use a bit of pruning, but besides that, well done.
Massachusetts: D+
A poorly designed AAA brochure would look better than this cacophony of images. What the hell is going on in this quarter anyway? You have an unidentified minuteman on one side, the (lame) state motto on the other, and the ever-unimpressive picture of your state in the background. With all the historical events and figures the state has produced, this is the best they could come up with? How about the battle of the Old North bridge in Concord, where the first shots of the revolution took place? Even a picture of Teddy Kennedy at Chapaquidic would have been better than this.
Maryland: D-
Possibly the worst quarter designed yet. The only thing keeping it from getting an "F" is the picture is very well done. The problem is what the picture and image represent. "The Old Line State" refers to the fact that Maryland held the line during the Civil War. It was part of the Union, but it was a slave holding state during most of the war. Its resistance to emancipation was quite embarrassing to the rest of the Union. Maryland urged Lincoln to make peace with the Confederacy at the start of the war, and they attacked Union troops crossing Maryland on their way to defending Washington, DC. They wanted Compensated Emancipation, trying to get a cash-strapped Union to pay slaveholders for granting slaves their freedom. And this is what they choose to symbolize their state to the rest of the America on their quarter? Even South Carolina was smart enough not to put a picture of Ft. Sumter on their quarter. The only thing that would be worse is if Missouri put a picture of Dred Scott on theirs.
New Hampshire: D
"Old Man of the Mountain" is particularly lame for many reasons. First, it already appears on the states License Plates. Second, the image says nothing about the people of history of the state. It is a random geological formation of rocks which somebody thought looked like an old man. When erosion hits that mountain, the people of NH are going to be SOL. It must make all the real-living people who have contributed to NH's history feel very proud to have been beaten by such a worthy and deserving rock. (UPDATE: In May 2003, the Old Man collapsed. Read all about it: http://www.boston.com/news/daily/03/nh_old_man.htm)
Virginia: A
Well done on all counts. Great picture, capturing a historically important event in our country's history, the settlement at Jamestown. Other states could take a lesson from Virginia, and possibly borrow their quarter designer, too.
South Carolina: D
Like Massachusetts, but worse. A poorly blended group of images that just muddle the back of the quarter. I can not say enough bad things about this design. In fact the only good thing which can be said is it does not have a picture of Ft. Sumter where the Civil War began (see Maryland).
New York: A-
I know what you are saying - I am breaking my own rule about pictures of the state on quarters, but in this case, I am willing to make an exception. NY had the problem of so many NYC focused images that it would ignore the rest of the state. They had little choice, less they risk alienating a large portion of the state's population. Unlike the other picture-of-the-state quarters, this one is not too busy or cluttered. They did a good job with the Statue of Liberty juxtaposed against the state, with the "Gateway to Freedom" on the side. Well done.
North Carolina: C-
Not only did they copy what is already on their license plate, but the Wright Brothers were not even from North Carolina. They were from Ohio. So on top of recycling an already used image, they had to borrow outsiders, too. The picture is okay - a bit too big for the frame - but okay. Something new would have been better, like the origin of the motto "the Tar Heel State" of even a pack of smokes would have been good.
Rhode Island: D
I keep looking at the quarter expecting some great revelation to come forward, yet none does. An extremely lame entry, which is probably helped by the poor artwork. Had the image looked better, and we could actually identify what it is, the quarter probably would have gotten a lower rating. As best as I can make out, it is a boat on water, heading towards a bridge. This image hardly qualifies it as a unique identifier among our 50 states. The boat, as best as I can make out, looks like an America's Cup sailing vessel. If so, the state deserves an even lower rating, as it was in Newport, RI, in 1983 where the US lost the America's Cup for the first time in it's 100+ years, setting of a battle of lawsuits, changed boat designs, and endless controversy, which reduced the Cup race to a meaningless filler for ESPN.
There, I have said my peace; if you have any complaints, send 'em to me. Spread the word and let's hope this nightmare to our monetary system ends. I will wait, and hope for better, the next time I get change.
Our duty to our fellow Americans
It was due to Jeff Gassman that I started this blog. He created one earlier this year (please check out his blog, The Right Eye, in the links area). It was one Thursday night of drinking at Psycho Suzie's Motor Lounge, one of the finest establishments in Minneapolis (think the Brady Bunch Hawaii episodes coming to life in Minnesota) where I posed to him a hypothetical situation which I thought would be suitable for his blog. However, he did not take up the challenge, so here goes my attempt.
It was earlier this summer as the conflict between Israel and Hizbolla. As with most conflicts, innocent civilians die. Our discussion did not center on who was right and wrong, but rather what is the role of Governments in this conflict. Not the Israeli or Lebanese Governments, but the US Government and what was its responsibility to protect US citizens overseas.
This is the question: suppose the conflict was not in Israel, or Lebanon, or Iraq. What if the conflict occurs somewhere we thought was safe - say France. What if a well organized, underground movement of Anti-Americanism was brewing in France's ghettos. Think of last years riots magnified to the level of the Rwandan genocide of the mid-90's. The target is everything and everybody American. The attack gets launched without warning and with the intention of killing everyone American. President Chirac is powerless to stop the riots and Americans are being slaughtered on the street. Say this happens during the summer when there are massive amounts of tourists in France. What is our responsibility to our fellow citizens to protect them?
The obvious answer is we as Americans should do whatever we can to help our fellow man (assuming of course that the French are incapable of stopping the killing). We should work with French to coordinate any troop deployment and evacuation US citizens. But consider two events from our not to recent past: Iran 1979 and Iraq today.
In Iran in the late 70s, an anti-American movement was taking place, which we were largely caught off guard as to how serious it was or the impact it would have. Iran under the Shah had been an ally (of sorts) for the US, although some of the events leading to deposing the Shah had caused the US to consider sanctions, including cutting off arms shipments. After the US Hostages were taken, President Carter attempted only one rescue attempt (although he was highly criticized for only this one feeble attempt). In Iraq today, Americans civilians are in danger in areas throughout the country, especially in populated areas. It is difficult to judge this situation honestly as it is still active; however, very few commentators feel that Donald Rumsfeld has sent in enough troops to protect US civilians working in Iraq, much less stop sectarian violence.
So what is the difference between these situations and the hypothetical genocide in France? It seems the civilians must follow the policy of caveat emptor when traveling. Iran had shown signs of instability, but no one expected them to take over the embassy. Perhaps if they had killed - or threatened to kill - more civilians our response would have been stronger. Or is the situation in France different because there are tourists, as opposed to government employees? It seems like the US government would feel a stronger responsibility (and liability) to insure that any civilians the employ are protected. Would it be the shocking nature of the event which would cause us to act? Certainly the horrors of 9/11 brought out the best of Americans. Would we have the opportunity to show such compassion for our fellow man if the situation was so far overseas?
It was earlier this summer as the conflict between Israel and Hizbolla. As with most conflicts, innocent civilians die. Our discussion did not center on who was right and wrong, but rather what is the role of Governments in this conflict. Not the Israeli or Lebanese Governments, but the US Government and what was its responsibility to protect US citizens overseas.
This is the question: suppose the conflict was not in Israel, or Lebanon, or Iraq. What if the conflict occurs somewhere we thought was safe - say France. What if a well organized, underground movement of Anti-Americanism was brewing in France's ghettos. Think of last years riots magnified to the level of the Rwandan genocide of the mid-90's. The target is everything and everybody American. The attack gets launched without warning and with the intention of killing everyone American. President Chirac is powerless to stop the riots and Americans are being slaughtered on the street. Say this happens during the summer when there are massive amounts of tourists in France. What is our responsibility to our fellow citizens to protect them?
The obvious answer is we as Americans should do whatever we can to help our fellow man (assuming of course that the French are incapable of stopping the killing). We should work with French to coordinate any troop deployment and evacuation US citizens. But consider two events from our not to recent past: Iran 1979 and Iraq today.
In Iran in the late 70s, an anti-American movement was taking place, which we were largely caught off guard as to how serious it was or the impact it would have. Iran under the Shah had been an ally (of sorts) for the US, although some of the events leading to deposing the Shah had caused the US to consider sanctions, including cutting off arms shipments. After the US Hostages were taken, President Carter attempted only one rescue attempt (although he was highly criticized for only this one feeble attempt). In Iraq today, Americans civilians are in danger in areas throughout the country, especially in populated areas. It is difficult to judge this situation honestly as it is still active; however, very few commentators feel that Donald Rumsfeld has sent in enough troops to protect US civilians working in Iraq, much less stop sectarian violence.
So what is the difference between these situations and the hypothetical genocide in France? It seems the civilians must follow the policy of caveat emptor when traveling. Iran had shown signs of instability, but no one expected them to take over the embassy. Perhaps if they had killed - or threatened to kill - more civilians our response would have been stronger. Or is the situation in France different because there are tourists, as opposed to government employees? It seems like the US government would feel a stronger responsibility (and liability) to insure that any civilians the employ are protected. Would it be the shocking nature of the event which would cause us to act? Certainly the horrors of 9/11 brought out the best of Americans. Would we have the opportunity to show such compassion for our fellow man if the situation was so far overseas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)