Thursday, January 31, 2013

North Korea and Iran on paths to destruction

North Korean troops on parade equipped with rocket propelled grenades. /Image via nytimes.com


Nuclear war clouds are forming over North Korea and Iran.

Both countries are at the heart of dangerous scenarios of immovable object vs. overwhelming force. Pyongyang and Tehran are firmly committed to their nuclear weapons programs as cornerstones of their foreign and domestic policies. But The United States, South Korea and Japan are reaching the breaking point on their tolerance of North Korea's pursuit of a fully equipped nuclear arsenal. And Israel views an Iranian nuclear bomb as a clear and present threat to its existence.

With the warning signs of warfare on a grand scale so clear, it's helpful to recall wisdom about war from two of its greatest students, Italian political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli and Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu. Here are some relevant offerings from Sun's "The Art of War" (written around 500 BC) and Machiavelli's "The Prince" (1505):

Sun Tzu: "The Art of War"


“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

“There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.”

“Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people, people who know the conditions of the enemy.”

Niccolo Machiavelli: "The Prince"


"A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art. ...

"But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former; and above all do as an illustrious man did, who took as an exemplar one who had been praised and famous before him, and whose achievements and deeds he always kept in his mind, as it is said Alexander the Great imitated Achilles, Caesar Alexander, Scipio Cyrus. ... A wise prince ought to observe some such rules, and never in peaceful times stand idle, but increase his resources with industry in such a way that they may be available to him in adversity, so that if fortune chances it may find him prepared to resist her blows."

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

JFK, where have you been all these years?

Secretary of State John F. Kerry served in the Navy during the Vietnam War and was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984. /Image via pbs.org


After nailing several oratorical notes today in his farewell address to the Senate, John F. Kerry is off to a promising start as U.S. secretary of state.

I always voted for Kerry when I lived in Massachusetts but always wished he spoke out more passionately about his beliefs and stands on the issues. While the Massachusetts Democrat is far from the first exiting senator to prod lawmakers into acting more effectively in the national interest, Kerry's scolding of his colleagues today amounted to an indictment of Washington's leadership at home and abroad.

It was particularly heartening to see America's top diplomat tell hard truths to an audience that could give him a hard time down the road. Pandering is definitely in the U.S. secretary of state's job description, but so is standing up for the core democratic values that have been a beacon of hope and inspiration around the world for more than two centuries.

The text of Kerry's speech below was edited to remove his introductory remarks (look for video of the speech with this blog post within 24 hours):


Many times now in 29 years, I’ve been at my desk here on the floor, starting way over there, number 99, listening as colleagues bid the Senate farewell. Sometimes a farewell speech signals a complete departure from public life, sometimes a new journey altogether. Sometimes a forced departure. Sometimes a leap for freedom. I’m grateful that at this moment, thanks to my colleagues, serendipity and the trust of our President, while I’m closing a chapter, it’s not the final one. But I assure you, amid the excitement and the possibility, I do feel a wistfulness about leaving the United States Senate. And that’s because, despite the obvious frustrations of recent days and years, a frustration we all share — this place remains one of the most extraordinary institutions of any kind on the face of the earth.
On occasion we’ve all heard a Senator take their leave condemning the Senate for being broken, or for having become an impossible setting in which to do the peoples’ business.
Of course, many have later confessed just how much they missed and appreciated the Senate’s unique character after they’d bid it farewell.
I want to be very clear about my feelings: I do not believe the Senate is broken — certainly not as an institution. There is nothing wrong with the Senate that can’t be fixed by what’s right about the Senate – the predominant and weighty notion that 100 American citizens, chosen by their neighbors to serve from states as different as Massachusetts and Montana, can always choose to put parochial or personal interests aside and find the national interest.
I believe it is the honor of a lifetime, an extraordinary privilege to have represented the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the United States Senate for more than 28 years, just like each of you feel about your state. What a remarkable gift it has been to carry the banner of Senator from Massachusetts, a banner passed from the sons of the American Revolution like Daniel Webster to the sons of immigrants like Paul Tsongas, and to know that a state where the abolitionists crusaded at Faneuil Hall and the suffragettes marched in Quincy Market could send to Washington sons like Ted Kennedy and Ed Brooke who fought to expand civil rights – and now a woman, Elizabeth Warren, who proved that in Massachusetts the glass ceiling has finally been forever shattered.
And what a remarkable gift Massachusetts has given me to come here and learn so much about the rest of our country. I’ve had the privilege of learning what really makes our nation tick. What a gift to have been the nominee of my party, to have come within a whisper of winning the Presidency against a wartime incumbent, but more importantly, to have experienced the magic of our nation in such personal ways.
To experience the gift of traveling along the banks of the mighty Mississippi, through Iowa and South Dakota and along the rivers where Lewis and Clark marked and measured the dream of our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who foresaw an America that would advance into the West. To experience a journey that took me to Alabama where I stood silently in the very pulpit from which Dr. King preached his dream of an America united and dipped my fingers into the fountain in Birmingham, where water flows over the names of those murdered trying to vote, or just registering to vote; to see the water trickle over the words of Dr. King’s prayer that justice might “roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” I drove across the Hoover Dam and wondered as I did at what America can accomplish when we want to; driving across the Golden Gate Bridge at dawn and reminded that it was built at the height of the Great Depression when so many feared our best days were behind us. What I’ve seen and heard and learned in traveling across our country as a Senator from Massachusetts has prepared me more for my travels to other countries as a Secretary of State than any travel to any foreign capital.
I already know I will miss the best reward of carrying the title Senator, and that’s when you open a letter from someone who has traveled every route and exhausted every option, and who ultimately turned to you as the last resort and they finally got the help they needed. There is nothing that beats a letter that says, “I tried everything and no one would listen but you got it done!” Or, sometimes when you’re walking a street in a community at home and someone thanks you for a personal response they never expected to receive. That’s when public service has more meaning than the war of words our constituents dodge on the cable news.
Standing here at this desk that once belonged to President Kennedy and to Ted Kennedy, I can’t help but be reminded that even the nation’s greatest leaders — and all the rest of us — are merely temporary workers. I am reminded that this chamber is a living museum, a lasting memorial to the miracle of the American experiment.
No one has captured this phenomenon more eloquently or comprehensively as Robert Caro did in his masterpiece about the Senate, called Master of the Senate. I’m sure many in this room have read it. In that book, before we learn of the levers that Lyndon Johnson pulled to push our nation toward civil rights, Caro described the special powers that the Founders gave the Senate — and only the Senate. “Powers,” Caro writes, “designed to make the Congress independent of the President and to restrain and act as a check on his authority: power to approve his appointments, even the appointments he made within his own Administration, even appointments to his own Cabinet.” This body has now exercised that power on my behalf, and I will always be grateful.
Another master of the Senate, Massachusetts’ Daniel Webster, delivered 183 years ago this week what has often been praised as the greatest speech in Senate history. He stood at the desk that now belongs to the senior Senator from New Hampshire and argued forcefully in favor of the very idea that makes us the United States: that we’re all in this together, that we each have a stake in the successes and failures of our countrymen, that what happens in Ohio matters to those in South Carolina, or in Massachusetts or to Montanans. “Union and Liberty,” Webster shouted. “Now and forever, one and inseparable!”
As Caro retells it, “those words, spoken among the desks, in the Senate” left those in the gallery in tears and cast a model for how those of us in this chamber must consider the constituents of our colleagues, as well as our own.
But the truth is that none of us ran for office because of a great debate held centuries ago. None of us moved here because of the moving words of a Senator long since departed. We honor this history, but we’re here because of the legacy that we can and want to leave. It is up to us--to my colleagues here today and those to come after us, it is up to us to keep the Senate great. I fully believe we will meet that obligation — if, as the President told the nation and the world last week, we seize this moment together.
Yes — Congress and public life face their difficulties these days, but not because the structure that our Founding Fathers gave us is inherently flawed. For sure, there are moments of great frustration — for the American people and for everybody in this place. But I don’t believe they are the fault of the institution itself. It’s not the rules that confound us per se. It’s the choices people make about those rules. The rules we work by now are essentially the same ones that were here when I joined the Senate and found things to move much more easily than they do today.
They are essentially the same rules under which Daniel Webster and Lyndon Johnson operated, and they did great things. They are almost the same rules Mike Mansfield, Everett Dirksen, Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch used to pass great pieces of legislation. They are the same rules under which the Senate Democrats and President George H.W. Bush passed an agreement including tax increases to at last begin to tackle the deficit. I would remind everyone here, as I take my leave from the Senate, when President George H.W. Bush returned from agreeing to a deficit reduction deal at Andrews Air Force Base, he wrote in his diary that he might well have sealed his fate as a one term President. He did what he thought was right for the country and laid the groundwork for our ability to three times balance the budget at the end of the 1990s. That’s courage and the Senate and the Congress and the country need more of it.
Frankly, the problems we live through today come from individual choices made by Senators themselves — not the rules. When an individual Senator — or a colluding caucus — determine that the comity essential to an institution like the Senate is a barrier to individual ambition or party ambition, the country loses. Those are the moments in which the Senate fulfills, not its responsibility to the people, but its reputation as a sanctuary of gridlock.
I ask colleagues to remember the words of Ben Franklin as that long Philadelphia summer yielded our remarkable Constitution. Late at night, after their work was complete, Dr. Franklin was walking down the steps of Constitution Hall, of Independence Hall, and a woman called out to him and she said: “Well, Doctor, what have we got-- a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin answered: “A republic — if you can keep it.” Sustaining a functioning republic is work and it’s more than ever, I believe, our challenge today.
I’m hardly the first and will not be the last to call on Congress to remember why we’re here, to prioritize our shared interests above the short-term, to bridge the breadth of the partisan divide and reach across the aisle and take the long view.
Many have stood here, delivering farewell speeches and lamented what became of the Washington where President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill could cultivate an affiliation stronger than party, or a Congress that saw true friendships between Senators like Kennedy and Hatch, Inouye and Stevens, Obama and Coburn — the odd couples as they have been dubbed.
I can’t tell you why, but I think it’s possible this moment may see a turn in the spirit of the Senate. There are new whispers of desire for progress, rumors of new coalitions, and sense of possibility whether it is on energy or immigration. I am deeply impressed by a new generation of Senators who seem to have come here determined not to give in to the cynicism but to get the people’s business done. I am confident that when today’s freshmen take their turns in leaving the Senate, they will be able to tell of new Senators added to that inestimable list of odd couples. And with any luck, by then it will not be odd.
So I leave here convinced that we can keep our republic strong. When President Kennedy observed that “Our problems are manmade; therefore they can be solved by man,” he was talking about a much more literal kind of nuclear option than the euphemism we use today to discuss Senate rules. But his vision is just as important for us to recognize in our time, whether we are talking about the ability of Senators to debate and vote, or about any of the issues on which they do so. It is still true today, as he said 50 years ago, that “reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe he said they can do it again.” I believe that too.
So what effort do we need to put our reason and spirit into? I believe there are three challenges that have conspired to bring about a dangerous but reversible erosion in the quality of our democracy: the decline of comity, the deluge of money and the disregard for facts.
First, I have witnessed what we all have: a loss of simple comity, the respect that we owe one another and the sense of common cause that brings all of us here. The Senate as a body can change its rules to make it more efficient, sure. But only Senators, one by one, in their own hearts, can change their approach to legislating, which Henry Clay correctly defined as the art of consensus.
I came to the Senate in 1985 as a member of a hopeful and hard-charging class of freshmen. Paul Simon, Tom Harkin, Al Gore, Phil Gramm, Jay Rockefeller and I all have at least three things in common: we were all sworn in as Senators on the same day, we each explored running or ran for the White House, and none of us made it there. The last remaining member of that class, Senator Mitch McConnell, has now again been elevated by his peers as the Republican Leader.
I see a lot of a very similar aspiration to what we felt when I came here in 1985, and today’s freshmen and sophomores. Many came to the Senate running on the premise that it’s broken beyond repair. I encourage each and every one of them to reject this premise in order to restore the promise of the Senate. The Senate cannot break unless we let it. After all, the value of this institution, like any instrument of power, is in how we use it.
But we cannot ignore the fact that today, treaties that would have years ago passed 100-0 don’t pass at all. People who want to vote for something that they believe in actually don’t do so, for fear of retribution. That is a reflection on all of us. As I prepare to represent our nation in capitals around the world, I’m conscious that my credibility as a diplomat – and ours as a country – is determined to a great degree by what happens in our own capital city. The antidote to that, and it is pushed by rival countries is to demonstrate that we can get our economic house in order. We can be no stronger abroad than we are at home.
The unwillingness of some to yield to national interest is damaging to America’s prospects in the world. We are quick to talk about the global economy and about global competition, but it’s our own procrastination and outright avoidance of obvious choices that threatens our own future. Other nations are both quick and glad to fill the vacuum that’s brought about by our inaction.
If the Senate favors inaction over courage and gimmicks over common ground, the risk is not that we will fail to move forward. It is that we will fall behind, we will stay behind and we will surrender our promise to those who are more than willing to turn our squandered opportunity into their advantage. The world keeps turning; the Senate cannot afford to forever stand still.
Just as failing to deal with our deficit and our debt puts our long-term interests at risk, so does taking America to the brink of default. Our self-inflicted wounds reduce our leverage and influence in the world. And by failing to act, Congress is making it harder to actually advance America’s interests, and making it harder for American business to compete and for American workers to succeed. If America is to continue to lead the free world, this must end.
Now we’ve all bemoaned the lack of comity in the Senate, but you who remain here will have the power to restore it. The choice to work respectfully with one another is about as simple as it gets.
One suggestion perhaps while I’m honored by the presence of so many colleagues here now, Republicans, Democrats, I have to say we would all look forward to more days when United States Senate desks are full with Senators debating and deliberating, learning, listening, and leading. We would all be stronger if this Chamber is once again crowded because it is the world’s greatest deliberative body, the home of debate and deliberation, and not only when it becomes a departure lounge.
There is another challenge we must address — and it is the corrupting force of the vast sums of money necessary to run for office. The unending chase for money, I believe, threatens to steal our democracy itself. I’ve used the word corrupting — and I mean by it not the corruption of individuals, but a corruption of a system itself that all of us are forced to participate in against our will. The alliance of money and the interests it represents, the access it affords those who have it at the expense of those who don’t, the agenda it changes or sets by virtue of its power, is steadily silencing the voice of the vast majority of Americans who have a much harder time competing, or who can’t compete at all.
The insidious intention of that money is to set the agenda, change the agenda, block the agenda, define the agenda of Washington. How else could we possibly have a US tax code of some 76,000 pages? Ask yourself, how many Americans have their own page, their own tax break, their own special deal?
We should not resign ourselves Mr. President to a distorted system that corrodes our democracy. This is what contributes to the justified anger of the American people. They know it. They know we know it. And yet nothing happens. The truth requires that we call the corrosion of money in politics what it is: it is a form of corruption and it muzzles more Americans than it empowers, and it is an imbalance that the world has taught us can only sow the seeds of unrest.
Like the question of comity in the Senate, the influence of money in our politics also influences our credibility around the world. And so too does the difficulty, the unacceptable and extraordinary difficulty, we have in 2013 in operating the machinery of our own democracy here at home. How extraordinary and how diminishing that more than 40 years after the Voting Rights Act, so many of our fellow citizens still have great difficulty when they show up on election day to cast their vote and have their voice heard. That too is an issue that matters to all of us — because for a country that can and should extol the virtues of democracy around the world, our job is made more difficult when through long lines and overt voter suppression, and efforts to suppress people’s ability to exercise the right that we extol, so many struggle still to exercise that right here at home.
The last of these three obstacles that we have the ability, if not yet the will, to overcome is the unbelievable disregard for facts and science in the conduct of our affairs. It, like the first two, degrades our credibility abroad as well as at home.
My friends, the persistent shouting match of the perpetual campaign, one that takes place in parallel universes thanks to our polarized, self-selecting media, makes it harder and harder to build consensus among people. The people don’t know what to believe. So in many ways it encourages an oversimplification of problems that too often retreat to slogans, not ideas for real solutions.
America, I regret to say, is increasingly defaulting rather than choosing — and so we fail to keep pace with other nations in the renewal of our infrastructure, in the improvement of our schools, in the choice of our energy sources, in the care and nurturing of our children, in the fulfillment of our God-given responsibility to protect life here on earth. That too must change or our experiment is at risk.
To remain a great nation, we must do the business of our country. That begins by putting our economic house in order. And it begins by working from the same set of facts.
Though I believe we can’t solve any of these problems unless you really solve all of them, I note these three challenges because I believe the Senate is going to be locked into stalemate or our politics are going to be irreversibly poisoned unless we break out. I do so hopefully, as someone who respects and loves this institution and loves this country and wants to see us move forward.
Some things we know are moving forward. In the same time that comity has decreased and the influence has money has increased, I have seen the Senate change for the better. These halls used to be filled with the voices of men and men only. Decisions affecting more than half the population were made by people representing the other half. When I walked into the Old Senate Chamber to take my first ceremonial oath 28 years ago, I was joined by my two teenage daughters. It struck me that I had twice as many daughters as there were women in the Senate. Today, with the service of 20 women, including Massachusetts’ new junior Senator, this is a stronger, smarter place; more representative of our belief that out of many, we are one; more capable of fulfilling the vision carried from Washington to Webster to our current President that we are a stronger nation when our leadership reflects our population.
We have made huge strides in turning the page on gay rights. In 1993, I testified before Strom Thurman’s Armed Services Committee pushing to lift the ban on gays serving in the military and I ran into a world of misperceptions. I thought I was on a Saturday Night Live skit. Today at last, that policy is gone forever and we are a country that honors the commitment of all willing to fight and die for our country. We’ve gone from the Senate that passed DOMA over my objections to one that just welcomed its first openly gay Senator. There are good changes that have taken place for our Senate and our country. But we have more work to do. This place needs more women, more people of color, more diversity of background and experience.
But it is still a remarkable place. I’m reminded of the letters Harry Truman used to write home to his wife, Bess, as he sat in the back row of the chamber. Late one night, after one of the great debates of the New Deal era, he wrote, “I hear my colleagues, and I pinch myself and ask, ‘How did I get here?’” Several months later, he wrote Bess once more: “Again it is late at night and I am sitting here listening to the debate, I look across the aisle at my colleagues and I listen and listen, and I hear my colleagues and I ask myself, How did they get here?”
Well, I have no doubt that colleagues have asked that question about me or any one of us. Its been back and forth. But, 29 years after I came here, I have learnt something about how you solve that.
I learned that the Senate runs on relationships. I know that some of my more recent colleagues, sent here in tumultuous election cycles, hear that and think it’s code for checking their beliefs at the door, and “going Washington.” It’s not — and I’d add, don’t kid yourself: no one got here on a platform of pledging to join an exclusive club and forget where they came from.
When I say that relationships matter, I don’t mean back-slapping, glad-handing, hail-fellow well-met, go-along-to-get-along relationships. I mean real relationships.
And today’s hard charging colleagues who came to Washington to shake things up, I’d remind them: so did I, so did Tom Harkin, and the others I mentioned. If I told you that a 40-year-old newly minted Senator John Kerry was going to tell you that relationships matter most, I would have looked at you like you had three heads. I cut my teeth in grassroots activism. I didn’t come up through the political ranks. I burst onto the scene as an activist and when you’re an activist, all that singularly matters to the exclusion of almost all else are the issues. Where are you on an issue. Right or wrong and that’s the ballgame. Wrong, that’s not the ballgame.
That’s not what makes a good Senator. That’s not what makes the Senate work.
My late colleague of 25 years, Ted Kennedy, taught me that. I saw him late nights on the Senate floor sitting with his colleagues. Talking. Listening. He wanted to know about your state. He wanted to know about your family. He wanted to know why you came here. He had a unique ability to know not just what he needed from you, on a vote or a piece of legislation, but to know what you needed on a personal level, as a friend, as a colleague, as a partner. My old friend now Vice President, Joe Biden, had a saying in his family: “if you have to ask, it’s too late.” With Teddy, you never had to ask, he already knew - and he was there. He was there on a foggy morning on Nantucket when my father passed away, when Teddy just materialized almost out of nowhere, and there he was there at my front door. He didn’t call ahead. He didn’t ask. He just came to mark the passage. He came to listen. He was there. It was an instinct for people and an impulse to help. He taught that to so many of during that period time somewhere along the line, he passed it on not just to me, but to others in my class of Senators who came here in 1984. I will never forget in 2007, on the day when I announced I wouldn’t be running again for President, a tough day, another passage, when I got a call that Tom Harkin wanted to come see me. My staff surmised that he was probably coming to ask for money for the Iowa Democratic Party. They were wrong. It was a visit where Tom came just to share a few words that were very simple but which meant the world to me. A colleague visiting just to say he was proud that I was our party’s nominee in 2004 and that he looked forward to working with me more in this institution. Let me tell you, those are the conversations that make the difference, that you never forget, and that is the Senate at its best, the place where relationships matter most.
And it matters. Because Teddy and Tom Harkin and so many others here understood instinctively that if 100 Senators really knew each other, and our leader has worked very hard to try to find a way to make this happen, then you can find ways to work together.
And, to my surprise, I learned it and lived it in my time here in ways I never could’ve predicted, alongside people I never thought I’d count among my proudest friends.
John McCain last week introduced me at my confirmation hearing. John and I met here in the Senate coming from very different positions and perspectives. We both loved the Navy. I still do to this day, but I had different feelings from John about a war. For both of us, Vietnam was a demarcation point in our lives the way it was for so many of our generation.
But here in the Senate, late one night on a CODEL — for people listening who don’t know, it’s a trip of Senators, Congressmen going somewhere in the world — we were going to Kuwait after the first Gulf War, John and I found ourselves on a C-130 sitting opposite each other. Neither one of us could sleep, so we talked. We talked late into the night about our lives and our war.
Shortly thereafter, George Mitchell and Bob Dole threw us together on a select committee to investigate the fate of Americans still missing from the war in which we’d fought. It was a tough time and an emotional issue in an era where Rambo was a box office smash and Newsweek magazine cover printed provocative photos which asked whether Americans were still alive over there.
Into that cacophonous cauldron, John McCain and I were thrown together. Some were suspicious of both of us. But together we found common ground. I will never forget standing with John in the very cell in the Hanoi Hilton in which he spent a number of years of his life, just the two of us, alone in the cell listening to him talk about that experience. I will always be grateful for his partnership in helping to make real peace with Vietnam by establishing the most significant process in the history of our country, or of any country, for the accounting for missing and dead in any war, and afterwards then working to lift the embargo and ultimately normalizing relations with an old enemy. John had every reason to hate but he didn’t. Instead, we were able to heal deep wounds and end a war that divided an awful lot of people for much too long. And that is a common experience and only the relationships forged in the Senate could have made that happen.
John has this great expression, “a fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed.” He loves to debate, he loves to battle. And so do I. But I’ll tell you having fought besides him and fought against him, I can tell you it’s a heck of a lot better and more fun to have John fighting alongside you.
And we still have differences. There’s been a lot of newsprint has been used up covering some of them. But we both care about the Senate as an institution, and we both care about our country’s leadership in the world, even when we see it differently. And we both know that at some point, America’s got to come together.
We’ve shared this common experience and we’ve seen a lot together. We both were able to travel the country as the presidential nominee for our party and both returned to the Senate to carry on in a different way. Few people know what all that feels like. But just being by his side in Hanoi made it impossible not to be overwhelmed by his sense of patriotism, and his devotion to country. But it meant something else: if you can stand on the kind of common ground we found at the Hanoi Hilton, finding common ground on issues isn’t hard at all. I will always thank John McCain for that lesson. One of the magical things about the Senate is this amazing mix of people and how they can come together to make something happen.
I have learned and been impressed by the experiences of every single one of my colleagues and I honestly marvel at each state’s special character in the people they send here. I have learned from all: from the fiery, street-smart social worker from Maryland; from a down-to-earth, no-nonsense farmer from Montana; from a principled, conservative doctor from Oklahoma; from an amazingly tenacious advocate for women and the environment who blazed a trail from Brooklyn to Rancho Mirage and the United States Senate, who teams with a former Mayor of San Francisco who took office after the assassination of Harvey Milk and is committed to stand against violence and for equality; from a cantankerous, maverick patriot and former prisoner of war from Arizona; from a songwriting, original compassionate conservative from Utah; from a fervent, gravel-voiced people’s champion from Ohio; from a soft-spoken, loyal Medal of Honor winner from Hawaii who used to sit right here, from a college professor turned proud prairie populist and Senate Pied Piper taken from all us far too soon and far too quickly. From every member of the Senate, there are characteristics, passions, quirks and beliefs that bring this place alive and unite to make it the most extraordinary legislative body on earth.
That’s what I love about the Senate.
I love that instead of fighting against each other, Bill Frist, the former Republican Leader, and I were able to join forces to fight HIV and AIDS around the globe, and to convince an unlikely conservative named Jesse Helms to support and pass a bill unanimously that has saved millions of lives on our planet. That’s what makes this place so special.
Instead of ignoring a freshman Senator, Chairman Claiborne Pell allowed me to pass my very first amendment to change our policy on the Philippines, and so I found myself with Dick Lugar paired as Senate election observers who helped expose the voter fraud of the Marcos regime, ending a dictatorship and giving a nation of more than 90 million people the opportunity to know democracy again. That’s what the Senate can do, and that’s what I love about it.
Instead of focusing on our different accents and opposite ideologies, Jesse Helms and I found that our concern for illegal drugs was greater than any political differences between us, and so Jesse made it possible for an investigation to proceed and for the Senate to expose the linkages between the Contras in Nicaragua and the flow of drugs to American cities. That’s what the Senate can do.
Mr. President, the Senate can still work if we learn from and listen to each other — two responsibilities that are, like Webster said about liberty and union, “one and inseparable.”
And so as I offer my final words on the Senate floor, I remember that I came of age in a Senate where freshman Senators didn’t speak all that often.
Senators no longer hold their tongues through whole sessions of Congress, and they shouldn’t. Their voices are just as valuable, and their votes count just as much as the most tenured member of this body. But being heard by others does not exempt them from listening to others.
I came to the National Mall in 1971 with fellow veterans who wanted only to talk to our leaders about the war. President Nixon tried to kick us off the Mall. We knocked on door after door on Capitol Hill, but too often couldn’t get an audience with our representatives. A precious few, including Ted Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey, came to where we were camped out and heard what we had to say. And I saw first-hand that our political process works only when leaders are willing to listen — to each other, but also to everyone else.
That is how I first came to the Senate — not with my vote, but with my voice — and that is why the end of my tenure here is in many ways a bookend.
Forty-two years ago, I testified before Senator Fulbright’s Foreign Relations Committee about the realities of war in Vietnam.
It wasn’t until last week that I would sit before that Committee again, this time testifying in my own confirmation hearing. It completed a circle, which I could never have imagined drawing, but one our Founders surely did: That a citizen voicing his opinion about a matter of personal and national consequence could one day use that voice as a Senator, as the Chairman of that same Committee before which he had once testified a private citizen, and then as the President’s nominee for Secretary of State — that is a fitting representation of what we mean when we talk about a government “of the people, for the people and by the people.”
In the decades between then and now, this is what I’ve learned above all else: The privilege of being here is in being able to listen to your constituents. It is the people and their voices – much more than the marble buildings and the inimitable institutions they house – that determine whether or not our democracy works.
In my first appearance before the United States Senate, at the Fulbright Hearings, I began by saying, “I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of one thousand, which is a small representation of a much larger group.”
I feel much the same way today, as I leave. We are still symbols, representatives of the people who have given us the honor to speak and advocate and vote in their name. And that, as the Bible says, is a “charge to keep.”
One day the 99 other Senators who continue on for now and soon to be a 100 again in a few days, will also leave in their own turn — some by their own choosing and some of the people’s. Our time here is not meant to last forever.
If we use the time posture politically in Washington, we weaken our position across the world. If democracy deadlocks here, we raise doubts about democracy everywhere. If we do not in our deeds prove our own ideals, we undermine our security and the sacred mission as the best hope of earth.
But, if we do our jobs right, if we treat our colleagues with respect and build the relationships required to form consensus — and find the courage to follow through on our promises of compromise — the work we do here will long endure.
So let us in the Senate and the House be bigger than our own districts, our own states. Let us in spirit and purpose be as big as the United States of America. Let us stand for our beliefs, but above all let us believe in our common history, our common destiny, and our common obligation to love and lead this exceptional nation.
They say politics stops at the water’s edge. That is obviously not always true, but if we care for our country, politics has its limits at home and abroad. As I leave here, I do so knowing that forever the Senate will be in my soul — and that our country is my cause — and yours.
I thank you all for your friendship and the privilege of serving with you.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Mali teaching lesson in African security challenges

French soldiers in armored vehicles operate near Sevare, Mali, on Jan. 23. France intervened in the impoverished North African nation this month to turn back an extremist Islamic movement that had been seizing territory in the country for more than a year. /AP photo


The international community can't afford to ignore Africa.

In an opinion piece for the Concord Monitor this week, Africa security and terrorism expert Kurt Shillinger makes a powerful case for global leaders such as the United States and France to actively help African countries develop their nascent democracies and combat extremist groups. In particular, Shillinger sounds the alarm about the spread of Islamic extremist movements from East Africa into the Sahel and across North Africa.

The Sahel, a barren band of territory between the vast deserts and arid expanses of North Africa and the grasslands that stretch across the southern half of the continent, is one of the harshest environments on Earth. Most soldiers from African nations lack the training and equipment to operate in the Sahel, making it fertile soil for any insurgency to grow.

With fighting raging in Mali for more than a year, last summer's deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and this month's hostage crisis at an Algerian petroleum plant, it's clear that North Africa is becoming one of the hotter battle fronts in the struggle against terrorism and Islamic extremism.


In a view from the Ahmed Baba Institute's conservation lab, a ramp slopes down to the underground exhibition room and archive space, where the Timbuktu, Mali, libary's 20,000-manuscript collection is stored. Islamic extremists retreating from Timbuktu last week set fire to the library, reportedly destroying thousands of the ancient texts. The library holds one of the largest collections of early Islamic scholarship in the world. /Image via archrecord.construction.com


The rugged Sahel region of Africa stretches about 3,000 miles from Senegal in the West to Eritrea in the East. /Image via energeopolitics.com

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Like Bullwork of Democracy on Facebook

Flying together in the Marine One helicopter in October 2012, President Barack Obama and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie assess Hurricane Sandy damage. /White House photo

Follow Bullwork of Democracy on Facebook, featuring blog updates, the complete archive of Bullwork photographs and Bullwork Truth Teller reports.


At the beginning of 2012, more than 1.7 million people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo were internally displaced persons, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. About 72,000 of those refugees were living in "spontaneous camps" where they received UNHCR assistance. /Truls Brekke photo via Global Knowledge

Friday, January 25, 2013

Chambliss' parting shots heap shame on Congress

U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has announced he will retire in 2014 after serving 20 years in Congress. /Image via rollcall.com


Two-term U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss seems like the kind of lawmaker most American voters say they want: A politician willing to put partisanship and even principle aside for the greater good of the country.

In 2011 as part of the "Gang of Six," Chambliss showed a willingness to compromise on his conservative principles to help broker a bipartisan deal on the U.S. government's debt ceiling, with the plan calling for spending cuts and tax code reform. Tea Party activists and other leaders in Georgia's Republican Party base have criticized him ever since, and he was certain to face a stiff primary election challenge from the right in 2014.

In Friday's announcement about his plan to retire, Chambliss took some well-aimed parting shots at Congress:

“I have no doubt that had I decided to be a candidate, I would have won re-election. In these difficult political times, I am fortunate to have actually broadened my support around the state and the nation due to the stances I have taken.

“Instead, this is about frustration, both at a lack of leadership from the White House and at the dearth of meaningful action from Congress, especially on issues that are the foundation of our nation’s economic health. The debt-ceiling debacle of 2011 and the recent fiscal-cliff vote showed Congress at its worst and, sadly, I don’t see the legislative gridlock and partisan posturing improving anytime soon. For our nation to be strong, for our country to prosper, we cannot continue to play politics with the American economy.”

Chambliss sounds a lot like former U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who wrote a March 2012 opinion piece in The Washington Post explaining her reasons for retiring from politics:

"I have spoken on the floor of the Senate for years about the dysfunction and political polarization in the institution. Simply put, the Senate is not living up to what the Founding Fathers envisioned. ...

"The Senate of today routinely jettisons regular order, as evidenced by the body’s failure to pass a budget for more than 1,000 days; serially legislates by political brinkmanship, as demonstrated by the debt-ceiling debacle of August (2011) that should have been addressed the previous January; and habitually eschews full debate and an open amendment process in favor of competing, up-or-down, take-it-or-leave-it proposals. ...

"One difficulty in making the Senate work the way it was intended is that America’s electorate is increasingly divided into red and blue states, with lawmakers representing just one color or the other. Before the 1994 election, 34 senators came from states that voted for a presidential nominee of the opposing party. That number has dropped to just 25 senators in 2012. The result is that there is no practical incentive for 75 percent of the senators to work across party lines.

"The great challenge is to create a system that gives our elected officials reasons to look past their differences and find common ground if their initial party positions fail to garner sufficient support. In a politically diverse nation, only by finding that common ground can we achieve results for the common good. That is not happening today and, frankly, I do not see it happening in the near future."

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Bullwork Report: Gun control reality check



This week's Bullwork Report focuses on many of the harsh realities of gun violence in America, including the difficulty of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the consequences of having 310 millions guns in private hands.

The answer to this week's Bullwork Know It Hall of Fall Challenge will post before midnight on Twitter @cccheney.

North Korea vows nuclear test 'targeted' at U.S.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un speaks in Pyongyang in this image released by North Korea's state-run KCNA news agency on Dec. 22. /Image via Reuters


The international community has come to expect scary threats from North Korea, particularly when the country's totalitarian regime is criticized or sanctioned. But Pyongyang's reaction to this week's U.N. Security Council resolution, which tightens sanctions over the insular nation's nuclear weapon and missile programs, is extreme even by North Korean standards.

While there's plenty of customary bluster to be found in statements reported today by North Korea's state-run news media, there's also a stunning admission. For decades, Pyongyang has claimed that its nuclear program is geared to develop energy plants to generate electricity, which is in short supply or nonexistent across the entire country. North Korea abandoned that ruse today.

In announcing plans to conduct the country's third test of a nuclear bomb, the North Korean National Defense Commission said, "We are not disguising the fact that the various satellites and long-range rockets that we will fire and the high-level nuclear test we will carry out are targeted at the United States."

In other words, the North Korean regime has admitted its determination to build intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads capable of hitting the United States.

Since the suspension of the Korean War nearly 60 years ago, the North Korean government has used the spectre of a U.S.-led invasion as a prime tool to control and subjugate its citizenry. The international community's standard response to this constant source of diplomatic aggravation has amounted to containment, keeping Pyongyang in a tight little box and hoping for some path to North Korean regime change or reunification with South Korea.

The game is changing. And probably sooner rather than later, the containment playbook isn't going to work anymore.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Ominous turn on path to nuclear-armed North Korea

North Korea tests a ballistic missile in December 2012. The three-stage rocket could be capable of delivering a warhead to Alaska or the West Coast of the United States. /Image via AP


The path to a nuclear-armed North Korea took another turn this week, with the U.N. tightening sanctions and threatening "to take significant action in the event of a further launch or nuclear test," and North Korea in turn threatening new nuclear tests.

North Korean saber-rattling at any provocation should be expected, as should Pyongyang's continued drive to develop ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads. The most significant action of this latest showdown between North Korea and the international community is China agreeing to sign Tuesday's U.N. resolution. What, if anything, China will do if North Korea builds nuclear missiles is hard to predict. But in this round of the diplomatic sparring match over North Korea's nuclear capabilities, the Chinese have strengthened the hand of countries that are trying to block its longtime ally's top military ambition.

This global security flashpoint is getting hotter and hotter.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Guns in America by the numbers

A Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle similar to this model was used in the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The Bushmaster is a direct descendent of the fully automatic M-16 rifle used for decades by the U.S. military.


Truth is often the first casualty in political warfare and there are plenty of untruths being spewed into the debate over gun control in the United States. The statistics listed below were picked selectively from U.S. Justice Department reports to shine light on many of the key factors and considerations related to gun violence in America:

- There are about 310 million firearms in private hands, including 114 million handguns. There were about 200 million guns in private hands in 1994.

- From 1999 to 2003, an average of 11,345 Americans were shot to death in homicides.

- Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075.

- About 68 percent of the 16,929 murders in 2007 were committed with firearms.

- In 2008, 303,880 victims of violent crimes stated they faced an offender with a firearm.

- Incidents involving a firearm represented 7 percent of the 5.1 million rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, and aggravated and simple assaults committed in 2008.

- According to a 1997 survey of prison inmates, 80 percent of the convicts who had possessed a gun at the time of their arrest obtained the weapon from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.

- Of the 55 law enforcement officers killed in 2005, 50 were shot to death, and 45 of those cop killers were armed with handguns.

- An estimated 57,500 nonfatal gunshot wounds from assaults were treated in hospital emergency departments from June 1992 through May 1993. Over half of those victims were black males.

- From the inception of the Brady Act in 1994 to the end of 1999, about 536,000 of the more than 22.2 million individual applications to purchase or pawn firearms were rejected based on federal, state or local laws. The Brady Act is named for Jim Brady, a former White House press secretary who survived a gunshot wound to the head inflicted during an assassination attempt on President Reagan.

- In 1999, of the 123,000 gun purchase rejections made by state and local agencies, 73 percent were rejected because of a felony conviction or indictment. Domestic violence convictions or restraining orders accounted for 11 percent of the rejections.

- In 2011, about 45 percent of Americans over age 18 had guns in their homes.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Bullwork Report premiere: Train-wreck training



Bullwork Report program notes:

- It can take a while for YouTube to process new videos, so the Bullwork Report production schedule is a work in progress. But we're still shooting for webcasting regularly on Wednesday nights.

- More magic is being added to the "Magic Wall."

- The answer to the inaugural Bullwork Know It Hall of Fame Challenge will be tweeted @cccheney before midnight on Monday, Jan. 21.

- And Jen still thinks I'm crazy.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Bullwork Report video feature premieres tonight

 

The Bullwork Report, a weekly webcast linked to the bullworkofdemocracy blog, is set to launch later tonight. Every week on the Bullwork Report, you will find the biggest stories in the world that get relatively little media attention. And these stories are being told in a way to be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible.

How the Bullwork Report works


With the exception of tonight's premiere, 10-minute Bullwork Reports will post to YouTube and the bullworkofdemocracy blog every Wednesday night. If there are technical difficulties, posting will be moved to Thursday night.
The Bullwork Report is presented in one, unedited, cut.

Bullwork Report webcasts are either going to dig deeper into a bullworkofdemocracy blog post or present stories researched and crafted specifically for the webcast.

Each Bullwork Report will conclude with a reading of the Angerometer, which counts each time I say "bullshit."
And each Bullwork Report will end with the Bullwork Know it Hall of Fame Challenge. If you can tweet the source of the Bullwork Report’s signoff quote to @cccheney, you’ll be among the charter members of the Bullwork Know it Hall of Fame to have their twitter account names memorialized on the bullworkofdemocracy blog this spring. The answer to the challenges will be tweeted @cccheney about 24 hours after every webcast.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

War on Terrorism entering dangerous phase



Worried yet? I'm thinking back to the Iraq War's prelude, when Middle East experts in the U.S. State Department warned that an assault on Baghdad would have an effect in the Muslim world akin to pounding your fist into a hornet nest.

The Taliban-like Islamist movement battling for control of Mali that prompted French intervention this week is one of many radical armed groups fighting insurgencies or conducting terrorist campaigns across North Africa, the Middle East and the heart of South Asia. In addition to the longtime flashpoint in Israel, at least a dozen other countries in this sprawling territory are reeling with violence that ranges from simmering to boiling over: Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen.

It's getting hard to imagine successful strategies to end the bleeding any time soon, nevermind look forward to the end of Islamic fundamentalists seeking to create nation-states governed under Sharia law. Eleven years after the United States launched its War on Terrorism in response to 9/11, radical Islamic groups and national movements continue to pose a grave threat to peace around the globe.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Soft drink giant Coca-Cola swallows bitter pill



More than one third of Americans are obese, and sugary drinks are one of the top sources of calories in the Ameican diet.

Much like the cigarette industry denied for years that its product causes cancer, the soft drink industry has denied for years that sugary drinks are a significant contributor to U.S. obesity rates. It's long overdue and took considerable pressure, but Coca-Cola's launch of anti-obesity ads this week is apparently the soft drink industry's first step toward being honest with the American public.


 

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

NRA's opening salvo on gun control blasts Obama



The NRA's first ad campaign since since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School clearly shows any attempt to pass new gun control laws in Congress is going to face unyielding political resistance. The ad started running Jan. 16, hours before President Obama's unveiling of the White House's plan to curb gun violence.

It's rare for political ads to target the president's children. It's also a rare crowd of students that attends Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C., where Sasha and Malia Obama take classes. The first children's classmates include the kids of other top government officials, diplomats and wealthy business leaders. Sadly, it's common worldwide for private schools with the kind of clientele found at Sidwell Friends to be armed and secured facilities.

The NRA's claim that President Obama cares more about his children than those of ordinary Americans is clearly a manipulation of the facts aimed at flaming emotions rather than seeking ways to staunch gun violence. If you winced during the 2012 presidential election's open silly season in political advertising, you better brace yourself for the assault on reason and productive dialogue that is being unleashed over gun control.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Blurting Thomas breaks silence over Yale trash talk



Clarence Thomas, one of the most uncompromising jurists to ever serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, has broken his silence marathon ... sort of.

It took a bit of trash talk about Yale Law School graduates from fellow arch-conservative Antonin Scalia to squeeze four words out of the taciturn Thomas, who had not spoken a word during oral arguments before the high court in seven years.

His blurted sentence fragment on Jan. 14 is anti-climatic, to say the least: "Well, he did not ..."

The newest parlor game in Washington must be finishing Thomas' comeback line.

"Well, he did not ...

"... wallow drunk in the gutter outside Harvard Law School like you, Tony."

"Well, he did not ...

"... support Al Gore in the 2000 election case like your Harvard buddies."

"Well, he did not ...

"... kiss up to the president on Obamacare like Roberts did."

Go ahead and play at home. It's fun!

Monday, January 14, 2013

Newtown: Obama launches gunfight month after Sandy Hook massacre

Children are led from Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., after a gunman killed 20 first-graders. /Image via AP 

Exactly one month after 20 first-graders were shot to death in Newtown, Conn., President Obama foreshadowed his strategy and objectives in the battle ahead over new laws to curb gun violence.

Whether you like Obama or not, he has the admirable quality of generally doing what he says he's going to do. Soon after the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the nation's chief executive said Vice President Joe Biden was going to lead an effort to review federal guns laws and find more ways to prevent mass shootings.

At a press conference Monday, Jan. 14, Obama said he would be unveiling the fruit of Biden's labor by the end of the week. While careful not to reveal too many details, the president once again called for a "meaningful ban" on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips.

In a sign that the national outrage sparked in Newtown continues to burn, a Pew Research Center poll conducted last week found growing support for several gun control measures. There was overwhelming support for new measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and to strengthen background checks. About 55 percent of those polled favored bans on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition clips.

The first big political struggle of 2013 is heating up.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Gang rape nightmare continues in India

 
Less than a month after a fatal gang rape and beating on a New Delhi bus, a 29-year-old woman taking a bus home to her village in Punjab says she was gang raped by seven men. The police in the northern Indian province have arrested seven suspects, including the bus driver and conductor.

In a similar national reaction to last month's gang rape of a medical student in New Delhi, the Punjab gang rape has sparked protests across India. But the back-to-back incidents demonstrate that far too many Indian men believe they can commit sexual assaults with impunity.

Murder in the Street: A Memoir

Bullwork journalist Chris Cheney interviews former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank in 1996. /MetroWest Daily News image


EDITOR'S NOTE: This memoir recounts a recent U.S. murder trial. The names of people and places have been changed in the interest of respecting the U.S. justice system and the privacy of the innocent. All other descriptions in this account are a fair attempt to reflect the truth about a harsh reality. 


If you take your responsibilities as a U.S. citizen the least bit seriously, serving on a murder trial jury is an experience you will never forget.

The Anystate judiciary had my number, which was called every three years like clockwork. With a little luck and by strategically placing myself at the end of every line that potential jurors stood in, I had managed to be seated in a jury only twice over a span of two decades.

In the first case, I was fresh out of college and had been living in Anystate for a couple of years. A teacher was accused of operating under the influence, second offense. Let's just say for now that the jury could have been accused of incompetence.

The second time I was seated on a jury came two weeks before Christmas in Innercity Superior Court. A teenager had admitted stabbing another teen to death in the street minutes after midnight on New Year's Eve. The now 17-year-old defendant was 15 when he plunged a beat up steak knife into the neck and heart of the 18-year-old stabbing victim. The jury would be asked to decide whether the killing was justified under the law or a crime ranging from involuntary manslaughter to first-degree murder.

Not wanting to sit through a lengthy trial over the holidays any more than anyone else in the building, I thought being a journalist would help keep me off the jury. I couldn't have been more wrong.

I was among nearly 100 potential jurors led into a courtroom that needed a good scraping and new coat of paint. Jury selection began with a brief synopsis of the case to help potential jurors determine whether they had conflicts of interest such as knowing any of the key figures linked to the trial. But on this day, Christmas loomed larger than any conflicts of interest. Many of the potential jurors had travel plans and the judge was dismissing a steady stream of them.

I had a vague recollection of news reports on the killing, and that trump card was in my hand as I approached the judge, two prosecutors and two defense attorneys in the "sidebar" area next to His Honor's stained-wood perch.

Judge, speaking in a hushed tone: "Do you know anyone involved in this case or have any other potential conflict of interest?"

CC: "No."

Judge: "Have you ever heard about this case or do you have any potential bias against anyone involved in this case?"

CC: "I work at a newspaper, and I'm pretty sure I read a story about the case but I don't remember many details."

Judge, leaning forward and whispering: "Can you help us out? This is an important case and we're struggling to seat a jury so close to the holidays."

Memorable moment No. 1: Despite losing much of my youthful idealism many years ago, I'm susceptible to calls to civic duty.

It took a day and a half to seat 15 jurors, only 12 of whom would deliberate the case. As jurors had been selected, we were led one-by-one to the slightly confined jury room down the hall. (Note to potential murder trial jurors: you will spend a lot of time in the jury room with very little to do, and it can become a problem.) Soon after the 15th member of the jury joined us around the big, rectangular, wooden table that dominated the room, a pair of court officers lined us up in the hallway then led us into the courtroom.

With the exception of the judge, they were all there as we took our assigned seats in the jury box. "The Kid" stood at least 6-feet tall behind a table near the center of the room, with the defense attorneys by his side. The prosecutor, clad in a conservative dark blue dress, and the young man from the DA's office who would run around the courtroom with exhibits of evidence smiled at us from behind their centrally located table. The courtroom's gallery, which stretched across the back of the room and under the windows along the wall opposite the jury box, was filled with police officers, witnesses, and loved ones of the defendant and the deceased.

Bailiff: "All rise for the Honorable Justice Stephen Cosgrove!"

After the black-robed judge entered the room and sat down, we were all told to be seated. It was about 2 in the afternoon and the judge said we would be going home early after he gave us some advisories and instructions. He didn't expect the jury would have to be sequestered in a hotel. We weren't allowed to speak about the case to anyone outside the courthouse. We were not allowed to discuss the case with other jurors until deliberations began. He hoped the trial would be over before Christmas but it could last into early January.

Visiting the scene of the crime


There are some mean streets in Innercity, so I was surprised that the court bailiffs who accompanied the jury to the crime scene on the first full day of the trial were armed with only white wooden staffs out of the 1700s. I was even more surprised when our bus ride from the courthouse to the neighborhood of worn triple-deckers where the stabbing had occurred took only five minutes.

The lead defense attorney was the first one out of the bus on that sunny, brisk December day, and he promptly stepped in a pile of dog crap on the sidewalk. Counsel was right out of central casting: a square-jawed, telegenic face and dressed in sharp overcoat, silk scarf and a wide-brimmed hat.

The judge, next out of the bus, noted the defense attorney's sticky predicament and told jurors hopping onto the sidewalk to "watch out for the dog excrement."

We were in front of the brown triple-decker where The Kid had stormed out of his family's sparsely furnished apartment and charged across the small, scruffy park next to the house for his teenage date with infamy. Once all the jurors had assembled on the sidewalk and attorney James Fellows had scraped the sole of his Italian shoe clean, counsel positioned himself with the park to his back and The Kid's house on his left.

Fellows lifted up his black-leather-gloved left hand and pointed down the street: "Look down to the end of the block, where the stop sign is. You'll see there's a little bar down there on the right."

It could have been any street in Innercity. The sidewalk we were standing on ran all the way to the intersection Fellows had pointed out, with two houses next to The Kid's, then a couple of vacant lots followed by more triple-deckers to the end of the street. The opposite side of the street had the bar, a Laundromat, a couple of houses then a small wooded area sprinkled with tires and old appliances that came up to where our bus was parked.

Judge: "Now please step down here a few feet in front of the park."

Led by the bailiffs and their white staffs, we shuffled in the opposite direction of where our attention had first been directed, and stopped at the center of the waist-high chain-link fence that enclosed all sides of the park next to The Kid's house.

Prosecutor Jennifer Kane, protected from the cold in her black overcoat but with inch-high-heeled shoes that couldn't have kept her toes warm: "Before we go into the park, note the distance from this entryway opening in the fence to the other side of the park and Langdon Street."

It was about 120 feet to Langdon, which had a sidewalk running along the park's chain-link fence and three triple-deckers facing into the park from the other side of the street.

As the jury and the court officers walked into the park, we were told to look at key features: the pair of two-foot-high concrete benches that lined the park's single strip of asphalt sidewalk, which gently winded from The Kid's street to Langdon Street; the two lamp posts in the park, only one of which was in working order; and the open gap in the fence along Langdon Street that served as the entryway to that side of the park.

The bailiffs stepped through the Langdon Street entryway. One bailiff turned to the right and stationed himself in front of the triple-decker on that end of the park; another bailiff took a left and stationed himself in front of the triple-decker on that end of the park; and the third bailiff ascended the first step of the triple-decker in the middle, the last steps 18-year-old Anthony Perez ever descended.

The prosecutor pointed out a Langdon Street manhole cover in front of the middle house. It could have been any chunk of cracked blacktop in Innercity.

Kane, pointing first to the manhole then to a nearby section of the sidewalk that edged the park: "This is where Anthony Perez was found stabbed and a bloody knife was found 10 feet away on the sidewalk."

The prosecution’s narrative


The day the prosecution began presenting its case was most remarkable for what happened just outside the courtroom doors.

Jennifer Kane was only about 30 minutes into entering several photographs and maps into evidence when shouting could be heard behind the main gallery area and set of double oak doors that opened directly across the courtroom from where the judge sat. Two of the four bailiffs in the courtroom rushed through those doors, and Kane paused, waiting for a cue from the judge.

The jurors were never told about the fisticuffs in the hallway between partisans in The Kid's murder trial. But the judge sequestered us to the jury room from that point forward whenever we were in the courthouse, so we had a pretty good idea of what had happened. I'm not sure about the other jurors, but I took the incident as a reminder of the mess I was in, the potential for violence among the people who were gathering in the courtroom gallery every day, and the high stakes for justice playing out before our eyes.

The prosecutor's theory explaining Anthony Perez's killing was fairly simple.

According to Kane:

- On New Year's Eve day, The Kid got into a fight in front of his triple-decker around 6 p.m., when his 13-year-old sister claimed a teen boy had followed her down the street from the Laundromat talking shit.

- Defeated, The Kid went back into his family's apartment to salve his wounded pride with liquor.

- Around 11 p.m., his sister went to a party at the middle triple-decker across the park.

- When she came back to the family's apartment soon after midnight complaining about being tossed from the party, The Kid grabbed the steak knife the family used to work the lock on the apartment's front door and ran across the park.

- On Langdon Street, The Kid confronted Anthony Perez, who was related to the people who had hosted the party, in the crowd that had poured onto the street after midnight.

- One combatant had brought a knife to a fist fight and soon a mortally wounded Perez was in a pool of blood on Langdon Street's frigid asphalt.

The prosecution began presenting its case with a parade of gruesome exhibits, starting with a coroner's line drawing of the upper half of Perez's body showing all nine locations where the 18-year-old had been stabbed. One of Kane's justifications for a first-degree murder conviction was that the killing had been committed with "extreme cruelty."

Compared to what the defense had in store, the prosecution's stable of witnesses was small but hard-hitting.

The witness stand was attached to the judge's perch and only about 6 or 7 feet away from the nearest juror. A technician from the state crime lab was first in the dock and explained the knife wounds, noting which among them were defensive, survivable, fatal. Perez had at least two defensive wounds on his arms; either the stab wound to the neck or the one to the heart probably would have killed him within minutes, the crime lab tech said.

Other than calling one of Perez's relatives who had hosted the New Year's Eve party, the rest of Kane's witnesses were police officers and detectives. One of the sergeants who testified had been at the front desk in the police station when The Kid turned himself in a couple weeks after the stabbing. The sergeant said the teen bellied up to the counter then pointed to a poster on the wall and said, "I'm the one you're looking for."

Defense presents ghetto opera


Doubt was defense attorney James Fellows' best hope.

As one of the jurors would soon point out just minutes into deliberations, his client was "guilty of something" in Anthony Perez's killing. Fellows knew the prosecution was seeking a first-degree murder conviction. If found guilty, The Kid would begin and end his adulthood in prison.

Although the jury wouldn't hear or see anything substantive from The Kid until the day it rendered a verdict, the defense called about 20 witnesses to the stand, including several of the defendant's family members and friends as well as a forensic psychologist the court had commissioned to evaluate the teen killer. Fellows' presentation to the jury wasn't anything like the one the prosecution had made. He would not try to convince jurors to believe a particular narrative describing the events leading up to Perez's killing. He would try to convince the jury that the fatal stabbing was nothing more than another shocking act of a ghetto opera booked for a never-ending run on the streets of Innercity.

Fellows sowed the seeds of doubt wherever he thought they would take hold.

He introduced into evidence photos of two knives that police found in the park after the stabbing.

He called a witness who claimed someone had pulled up in an SUV or mini-van then then brandished a small-caliber handgun as the rowdy New Year's Eve party crowd filled the section of Langdon Street near the park minutes before The Kid and Perez started exchanging blows.

Over Jennifer Kane's strenuous objections, the dashing defense attorney entered an earlier teenage homicide into the mix. About a year before Perez took his last breath, The Kid's sister was hanging out in a vacant home with friends and frenemies when someone pulled a small-caliber handgun. Within seconds, one of the teens was on the floor with a bullet in his head.

When Fellows called The Kid's sister, Shameka, to the witness stand, she was asked to describe the shooting and what she had told investigators. Shameka swore she wasn't a snitch but admitted talking with the police. She said the shooting victim's friends, including Anthony Perez, had targeted her for retaliation over working with the detectives. Shameka described a fight that broke out over the shooting when she was at a pal's house, as well as gunshots fired at her home that prompted the family to move to the brown triple-decker the jury had visited on the first day of the trial.

Fellows also called the teen who fought with The Kid about six hours before Perez was stabbed.

Fellows: "You followed Shameka down from the Laundromat that night. What did you say to her?"

Sammy, slouching low in the witness stand so all you could see was his face: "It was New Year's Eve, and me and a couple buddies were walking down the street to a party. She started it."

Fellows: "Started what?"

Sammy: "She pushed by me when we were down by the Laundromat, then gave me this look, like it was my fault."

Fellows: "Did you and Shameka talk as you walked down the street?"

Sammy: "Yeah, she said some stuff. I said some stuff. Then we got down in front of her house and she started yelling up to the second floor for her big brother to come out."

Fellows: "Then what happened?"

Sammy: "The Kid came out, got in my face, and I punched him in the head. He went down but there were a bunch of people on the sidewalk, so I took off into the bushes across the street before I could get jumped."

For several days, Fellows called witness after witness to establish what everyone in the courtroom already knew: Innercity isn't where any parent would choose to raise their kids.

Fellows wrapped up his presentation with witnesses and testimony about his client's shattered psyche and horrific childhood.

The Kid's mother described a boy who was an alcoholic by the time he was 13. His father, an African immigrant, had beaten The Kid and other family members so many times that his mother finally had him deported. She said her son had struggled in school for years and had to be placed in a facility for troubled youths after he finished elementary school.

The forensic psychologist who testified for the defense, Dr. Allen Kimble, ran through the litany of The Kid's developmental, social, and psychological defects. Dr. Kimble confirmed The Kid was an alcoholic, said the defendant probably suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder linked to the beatings at the hands of his father, documented the teen's trouble in school, and explained that many psychologists would consider the teen's 79 I.Q. rating as close to the cutoff point for mental retardation.

Kane's cross examination of Dr. Kimble focused on how much the forensic psychologist was being paid for his work with The Kid.

Whether it hit a nerve with Fellows because he was working the case pro bono, or whether the defense attorney just saw an opportunity to score points with the jury, Fellows kept Dr. Kimble on the stand after Kane's questioning.

Walking slowly and deliberately toward the jury box, Fellows asked the shrink how much he was customarily paid for his services. As Dr. Kimble answered, counsel tried to establish eye contact with every juror, then turned abruptly toward his witness and nearly shouted: "Dr. Kimble, are you a whore?"

The trial was in its ninth day, Christmas and New Year's had come and gone, each court session had been intense and tinged with danger.

As the well-chosen word seemingly echoed in the courtroom, everyone present, with the exception of the judge and the prosecutor, bellowed with laughter or barely contained their smirking faces. For the first time since the trial began, the people seated in the gallery shared an emotion other than hatred or anger, with some literally falling out of their chairs.

Jennifer Kane shot to her feet in an instant.

Kane: "Your Honor! I must..."

Judge Cosgrove, his crimson face contrasting brilliantly with his black robe: "Objection sustained. The jury will disregard the defense attorney's last comment. And Mr. Fellows, you will refrain from using foul language in my courtroom."

Reaching the verdict


Among the marching orders from Judge Cosgrove was a directive, from Day 1 of the trial, that none of the 15 people picked to hear the case could talk about it until a dozen of them were deliberating in the jury room. It was a problem on Day 1, and we had only spent about a half hour in the jury room following the bus ride to The Kid's street.


It shouldn't have surprised anyone. We were packed on top of each other like sardines in our confined, rectangular retreat.


I had chatty Thomas sitting next to me the first time we spent more than an hour locked up on Day 2 of the trial, and two of the five women on the panel loved to talk. I had memorized a little speech, and it didn't take long for my cue to deliver it.


Annie: "I don't know how I feel about the defense lawyer. He seems kinda slick to me."


CC: "I know it's going to be hard on us, squeezed into this little space, but we really shouldn't talk about anything related to the trial."


Richard: "The judge was clear about it."


Susan: "This has the makings of the worst Christmas ever."


CC: "I bet there isn't a single one of us who walked into the courthouse yesterday and thought they were going to walk into this mess two weeks before Christmas."


It was a huge relief that the opening line unleashed the first outburst of laughter of the trial. Nathan, a transplant from Iowa seated in one of the corner chairs, flashed a particularly broad grin from under his bushy moustache.


CC: "I'm not a lawyer, but I'm an editor at the Southland News and have been a journalist for a dozen years. We're in a tough situation, one of the toughest I've ever been in, and it's going to be important for us to pay attention and follow all the rules. I've covered murders as a reporter and editor, and I served on another jury 20 years ago. We have to be careful."


The speech generated a solid majority of affirmatively nodding heads, a flurry of allowable discussion about The Kid's trial ranging from learning about legal procedures to advice on parking, and a lot of questions about my first jury.


The next day, I brought in two bags filled with Christmas decorations, playing cards, a chess set, checkers and a Monopoly game. We were a pretty tight-knit and well-behaved jury from then on.

The deliberations

Selecting the 12 jurors who would deliberate on The Kid's case was like Bingo, except the stakes were infinitely higher. Judge Cosgrove's clerk stood at his ornate but worn desk in the center of the courtroom, spinning a small drum with 15 numbers inside it.


For a range of reasons, most of us wanted to be chosen. Some wanted to see the process through to the end. Others had said it would be torture to sit with the other alternates in a separate jury room waiting for a verdict.


I wanted to help decide The Kid's fate mainly because the experience of serving on my first jury two decades prior had haunted me. I was determined. This time, there would be no jurors knitting when they should have been thinking, and there would be no playing loose with the judge's instructions. Even if it had been a just outcome, the jail time meted out to the teacher in the OUI case had weighed heavily on my conscience. I didn't want to bear the burden of a miscarriage of justice in a murder trial.


Only about 10 people could fit around the big oak table in the center of the jury room, so the other five who heard the case had to sit in the more-or-less comfortable handful of chairs in the back corners of our assigned quarters. In addition to the long delays while the judge and lawyers haggled over points of evidence and law out of sight of the jury, none of us were particularly eager to venture out into the courthouse, so we were grateful to have our own bathroom behind a door next to the doorless closet where our winter coats hung.


The jury wielded three main tools.


We had an old, loaf-sized cassette tape recorder with the judge's jury orders, which gave detailed definitions and nuanced considerations for the varieties of homicide: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, second-degree murder and first-degree murder.


We had a card-table-sized aerial photo that showed The Kid's street, the park and Langdon Street.


And we had a pad of butcher paper that shared the one easel in the room with the aerial photo.


There were three factions in the jury.


The law-and-order group, which included Nathan's deep voice and slight drawl, was convinced The Kid had acted either with extreme cruelty or with malice and aforethought, the definitions of first-degree murder. Nathan's most memorable comment of the deliberations was 100 percent Midwestern wisdom: "You just can't have people goin' round killin' people."


I was in the faction that would be torn between voluntary manslaughter and second-degree murder. A couple of us dug in our heels on calling the killing extremely cruel. The Kid and Anthony Perez had exchanged blows until the older teen fell to the cracked blacktop next to the manhole cover. The Kid threw the blood-stained knife toward the park and it landed on the sidewalk. Then the blood-stained 15-year-old bolted for the park and didn't surface again until he surrendered himself in the police station. Our faction knew a truth about a street fight in Innercity: You kept swinging until the other guy went down.


The best description for the rest of the jury was undecided. A couple of these jurors were hard to read because they would say little in the deliberations, although everybody got their two cents in before the end of the two-and-a-half day exercise. A couple just wanted to be convinced they were making the right decision. Richard, a sharp professional who played a game of chess with me during one of the longer breaks, wanted to walk through every step of the process so he could understand it the best he could before making his decision.


One of Judge Cosgrove's key instructions mandated that if the jury found The Kid guilty of homicide, the panel had to unanimously agree upon the highest level of the crime, which is why we started our deliberations focusing on first-degree murder.


Before we did anything, we listened to the judge's instructions again on the old cassette recorder.


At the end, James, a construction manager who was one of my factionmates, pressed a thick index finger down on the stop button, which engaged with a loud "Click."


Within seconds, James was out of his chair, writing the homicide charges on a sheet of butcher paper, stating flatly as he worked, "It's pretty clear The Kid is guilty of something."


James had been a take-charge member of the jury from the early days of the trial. The actual foreman made sure he stayed engaged enough to play his role, but James was the unofficial ringleader and taskmaster.


We determined quickly that there would be no unanimity on extreme cruelty playing a role in the crime. Figuring out whether we could agree The Kid had killed with malice and aforethought, the other first-degree murder definition on our plate, took about nine hours.


Malice has to be directed at someone.


I was among several jurors who had a hard time believing that a drunk, 15-year-old, mentally challenged, physically abused boy approached the crowd outside the middle triple-decker on Langdon Street and targeted Anthony Perez with malice in his heart.


And grabbing a beat-up steak knife as he rushed out the door rather than a better knife from the kitchen showed poor planning on The Kid's part.


We didn't even bother holding a vote on first-degree murder.


It took a few hours, and the undecideds who needed to be convinced were the hardest to convince, but the law-and-order faction pressed hard for second-degree murder. They knew a truth about swinging a knife on the streets of Innercity: During his fight with Anthony Perez, The Kid knew the other teen was probably going to die.


James: "So we think we can vote on second-degree murder?"


Scott, the foreman: "I think we're close enough to try."


James: "So, those in favor of finding The Kid guilty of second-degree murder, hold up your hands."


Not all at once, but we all reached for the dusty ceiling.


We still had to face The Kid one last time and render our verdict, but it felt like a lightning fast conclusion to what had turned out to be a three-week trial.

The verdict

We lined up in the hallway outside the jury room like we always did getting ready to go back to the courtroom, then marched the zig-zagging route through the courthouse we had followed since the fight that had interrupted Jennifer Kane on the second day of the trial.


I was ninth in line and always sat in the front row of the jury box. As we entered the courtroom, everyone was standing, eyes fixed on the jury's entrance door, and it was a standing-room only crowd. Once everyone was seated, the judge asked Scott whether the jury had reached a verdict.


Scott: "We have Your Honor."


Judge Cosgrove: "Please hand the decision document to the court clerk."


The clerk collected the sheet of paper we had all signed and returned to his desk.


Court clerk: "The jury finds the defendant guilty of second-degree murder."


I had tried not to look at The Kid for the entire trial, but at this moment I wanted to catch at least a glimpse of his reaction.

I'm proud of the courage and dedication of my fellow jurors and all the court officers. But I will never forget my fleeting, searing glance at the ear-to-ear grin on The Kid's face.