First, my Comrade and brother that is running also is someone that I consider a friend, a brother, and a good man. I believe he has the best intentions for the post. So although I'm sure that most would love to read some mud-slinging, it's just not my way.
When I was asked to run for Junior Vice Commander, I knew the motivations of some of the people that asked me were not about the Post, whether I would do the job, or even whether they liked me or not. But the motivations of those individuals wasn't taken under consideration of why I agreed to run and have the job. Why I ran had nothing to do with wanting a title. I have one at work. It's not all accolades and roses. In fact, it generally is never accolades or roses. Titles might define how others see you, but it's what you have inside that counts. I spent a month tap dancing on my decision after initially asked. Why? Because any title is only as good as the work that is done behind it. Work. Yes, this might be shocking, but a title in a volunteer organization means "work". We're elected to do a job to the best of our ability, and I needed to decide whether I would be willing, do my duty and do the work. The job of Junior Vice is focused on Volunteerism and Community Service. It means showing up and representing the Post at District and State meetings. It means supporting the membership in achieving the most Community Service possible. After deliberation, I decided I could do the job. I played no politics. I'm not about hobnobbing and never will be. As I type this, it looks like we will finish number 1 in our District for Community Service. It gives me great pride in our Post and our Organization as a whole to know how much we do.
In November, several people asked me to run for Post Commander. Each had their reasoning. Those people can attest to the fact that I took no eager beaver jump at the idea. It took me 4 months to decide, because honestly, Post Commander isn't a title. It means considering a lot of things first. Representing us at State and District meetings didn't give me any pause, because I'm already attending those things. How would I get all the Post Line Officers to attend? We get credit for our Line Officers attending, and most of the time only the Commander, Judge, Surgeon and myself attend. Perhaps buying breakfast every time. We'll see. Minor consideration.
The major consideration this year: How do we get people coming back into our Post? We had a mass exodus in the last couple of years. I've listened to all the arguments, and after just sitting and listening to each group, we need to repair the splinters that have been created. Two and a half years ago when I joined, the Post was fun. I became more and more involved because I enjoyed the members of our Post. I made friends with some wonderful people, but I observed how the divide and conquer has hurt not just our Post, but our family. We keep new and old members alike, we have more volunteers, and can achieve more when more of us are participating. The cliques and the finger pointing and trying to divide further has become the focal point and we are disregarding our mission. The mission is first to our military and our veterans, to our families, and last but not least, to our communities. We can bicker over who we don't like, who we want to chase out of the post, who's doing what wrong, and point fingers all day long. It's not working. A member threw a private party last year and told Comrades that he did it to prove that if we could "get rid of all the people we don't like, we could have a good time". That attitude is choking our Post to death. We are not here for only the Nam vets, the Riders or exclusively for the new veterans walking in the door. We are family, Comrades, and we should be here for all of us regardless of race, religion, sex or age. We earned the right to be here, each of us, and the focus should be on us being here regardless of our differences so that we can better serve each other and our community.
We also all know how much work needs to be done. We've talked the entire time that I've been a member about the parking lot. It keeps dwindling. It's like many of the things that we talk about. Talk, talk, talk. But we talk it to death, and never solidify plans to bring these goals to fruition. We need to move passed this desire to talk something to death and begin with some real actions. Last year we could have used a change of pace, something slower, more easier going. It didn't happen. It was a very close race, but we ended up where we are now. We all know we are due a change, we all know that a real change will take a LOT of work, and we all know that work is going to take time, energy and commitment from our leadership.
As I stated earlier, when asked I had to give it a lot of thought. I believe in our organization, our mission and our Post. I believe last year we could've used a more laid back person for Post Commander, but this year, I don't believe that is the answer. Timing is sometimes everything. This year, we need to set goals, we need to start making strong actions to show all of our veterans, all of our Comrades, that we are here for them--both the old guard and the new young men and women coming home. We need focus, not just on the patio--the patio is easy--we need focus on all the work. Our leadership will need to get this done--not for one or two cliques--but for ALL of us. Not just the Comrades that have been here for years, but for the each and everyone of us that has earned the right to be part of this organization. This will be no small feat. As I said when I was nominated, we shoot for the stars and if we hit the moon, we pat ourselves on the back and call it a good day. We need to shoot for the stars this year, and that's why I agreed to run and made the commitment to those that asked me to, our Post and our organization. This year, I do believe I'm our strongest candidate to get us there.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
To Peyton or Tebow, that is the question
Peyton Manning will be signing with the Denver Broncos, leaving Tim Tebow's position as starting quarterback but a past dream for the Tebowing fool. Frankly, I did find it inspirational that this kid is so dedicated, tries to live a truly Christian life, and has a lot going for him as a quarterback--regardless of what the media says. But a Manning at Denver...well, hell, I haven't been even a remote fan of the Denver Broncos since they lost me $20 in Super Bowl XII to the Dallas Cowboys in a humiliating game ending 27-10. I hate the Cowboys. Still, people to this day can talk about 8 forced turnovers, how great that defense played and Tony Dorsett, because this was the game that started the damn Cowboys dynasty. Still makes my stomach turn. Twenty bucks!! That was the game that I learned never bet on a horse to win against a damn cowboy--even if the horse is favored over the damn cowboy. But I digress. Peyton Manning. Tim Teboy, I mean, Tebow.
Ok, let's talk about Manning for a minute. He's friggin' amazing (even though I like Eli better and Eli has 2 Super Bowl rings). The Manning boys are the only boys to really show off the talents and training of their father--another great quarterback, Archie Manning. Archie Manning was 1st round draft pick, the second 1st round draft pick, and 2 time Pro-Bowl-er. His stats aren't amazing. But there were people that argued that New Orleans, for a team that suffered from a weak offensive line--not for lack of trying but because of the sheer dollars that the Cowboys and other teams of the 70s could afford, that Archie Manning was in a sea of great quarterbacks that just never got the perfect chance. Ok. Whatever. Show me another former NFL quarterback with 2 sons who have led their teams to the Super Bowl and have a 3 combined rings between them. Peyton will undoubtedly be a big boost to the professionalism of the Denver Bronco team.
But, what happens to Tebow? Well, Tim is a Florida Gator afterall, and the Jacksonville Jaguars could use a little of the Tim Tebow comeback experience and whole hell of a lot of the Tebowing. Since inception in 1995, the Jaguars have made it to the AFC Championship Game a couple of times but have consistently fallen short of a Super Bowl appearance. Rumors have it that the Jags will likely make an offer. Ok. But all this makes me wonder, after little wonder Teboy's experience at Denver, what would make them dump little Timmy off?
Well, Timmy Tebow didn't meet the exacting standards of the current Denver Bronco regime--the bucktooth John Elway. Let's face it. For someone like John Elway, who always struck me as the cornfed idiot type that could barely spell his name but was lucky he was so great at throwing a pigskin, Tim Tebow must be a damn nightmare, a GD nightmare. Elway's always loved the spotlight--Tebow is pretty modest. Elway liked to showboat; Tebow does too--for God. Plus, John Elway's early career womanizing was notorious compared to a young man who makes no qualms about being a virgin still. Um, yea, Tim Tebow might have a hard time fitting in with anyone outside of a college arena. Hell, I'm a little surprised he didn't have a pretty hard time fitting in in the college arena. Of course, it wasn't plastered all over ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, FOX, and ESPN that he was a virgin when he was playing for Florida. A whole new ballgame to introduce (well, on a broader scope anyway) that commentary to the American public once he was playing for Broncos. Honestly, most women thought it was cute. Hell, I hang out with mostly guys and my girly girl self thought it was cute. Now, if I'm John Elway, though, trying to build a Denver Broncos dynasty...well, Tebowing is not cute. A lot of guys were getting annoyed by it. Honestly, as much as he was doing it, I was getting annoyed. And annoyed means unless the Denver Broncos are your team or playing your team, channel check. And channel check means less money for the Denver Broncos. Tebow could be costly on the days that we could watch the Rams play the Lions instead of the Tebowing. Frankly, if Tim Tebow had gotten the Broncos to the Super Bowl over the amazing Belichick and Brady team, well, all the Tebowing in the world by John Elway wouldn't have let him get rid of the little Jesus Christ Superstarter.
Of course, that's not what happened. Peyton Manning was let go of by the Colts. It was time for a change for Peyton. John Elway likely heard complaints from some team members about little Timmy Tebow--especially if they felt uncomfortable with him over-sharing his beliefs. One season, yea, they could respect him because he seemed to lead some amazing comebacks, but amazing comebacks are not the same as dominating wins. Football fans don't want to see close games. Oh, sure we do when it's a great pair of teams and we are sitting there with a bunch of friends with opposing jerserys on. But honestly, none of us want to see our team lose. Ever. And too many nail bitters still make us uncomfortable. Plus, Timmy Tebow, being a devout honest Christian--seriously, not joking--he's not in it to make millions. His in it for the love of a game, not selling jerseys with his name on the back. To my point of view, you have to respect him--even if you're John Elway, but you might not want him on your team. I know I don't want the Oakland Raiders putting in for him. But the Jags. Well, after the Wayne Weaver years and his stripper wife picking some of the most hideous whore-ish looking cheerleading outfits ever announced by any NFL team, perhaps the new owner, Shahid Khan, thinks their due a little Tebowing. I have to agree.
Ok, let's talk about Manning for a minute. He's friggin' amazing (even though I like Eli better and Eli has 2 Super Bowl rings). The Manning boys are the only boys to really show off the talents and training of their father--another great quarterback, Archie Manning. Archie Manning was 1st round draft pick, the second 1st round draft pick, and 2 time Pro-Bowl-er. His stats aren't amazing. But there were people that argued that New Orleans, for a team that suffered from a weak offensive line--not for lack of trying but because of the sheer dollars that the Cowboys and other teams of the 70s could afford, that Archie Manning was in a sea of great quarterbacks that just never got the perfect chance. Ok. Whatever. Show me another former NFL quarterback with 2 sons who have led their teams to the Super Bowl and have a 3 combined rings between them. Peyton will undoubtedly be a big boost to the professionalism of the Denver Bronco team.
But, what happens to Tebow? Well, Tim is a Florida Gator afterall, and the Jacksonville Jaguars could use a little of the Tim Tebow comeback experience and whole hell of a lot of the Tebowing. Since inception in 1995, the Jaguars have made it to the AFC Championship Game a couple of times but have consistently fallen short of a Super Bowl appearance. Rumors have it that the Jags will likely make an offer. Ok. But all this makes me wonder, after little wonder Teboy's experience at Denver, what would make them dump little Timmy off?
Well, Timmy Tebow didn't meet the exacting standards of the current Denver Bronco regime--the bucktooth John Elway. Let's face it. For someone like John Elway, who always struck me as the cornfed idiot type that could barely spell his name but was lucky he was so great at throwing a pigskin, Tim Tebow must be a damn nightmare, a GD nightmare. Elway's always loved the spotlight--Tebow is pretty modest. Elway liked to showboat; Tebow does too--for God. Plus, John Elway's early career womanizing was notorious compared to a young man who makes no qualms about being a virgin still. Um, yea, Tim Tebow might have a hard time fitting in with anyone outside of a college arena. Hell, I'm a little surprised he didn't have a pretty hard time fitting in in the college arena. Of course, it wasn't plastered all over ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, FOX, and ESPN that he was a virgin when he was playing for Florida. A whole new ballgame to introduce (well, on a broader scope anyway) that commentary to the American public once he was playing for Broncos. Honestly, most women thought it was cute. Hell, I hang out with mostly guys and my girly girl self thought it was cute. Now, if I'm John Elway, though, trying to build a Denver Broncos dynasty...well, Tebowing is not cute. A lot of guys were getting annoyed by it. Honestly, as much as he was doing it, I was getting annoyed. And annoyed means unless the Denver Broncos are your team or playing your team, channel check. And channel check means less money for the Denver Broncos. Tebow could be costly on the days that we could watch the Rams play the Lions instead of the Tebowing. Frankly, if Tim Tebow had gotten the Broncos to the Super Bowl over the amazing Belichick and Brady team, well, all the Tebowing in the world by John Elway wouldn't have let him get rid of the little Jesus Christ Superstarter.
Of course, that's not what happened. Peyton Manning was let go of by the Colts. It was time for a change for Peyton. John Elway likely heard complaints from some team members about little Timmy Tebow--especially if they felt uncomfortable with him over-sharing his beliefs. One season, yea, they could respect him because he seemed to lead some amazing comebacks, but amazing comebacks are not the same as dominating wins. Football fans don't want to see close games. Oh, sure we do when it's a great pair of teams and we are sitting there with a bunch of friends with opposing jerserys on. But honestly, none of us want to see our team lose. Ever. And too many nail bitters still make us uncomfortable. Plus, Timmy Tebow, being a devout honest Christian--seriously, not joking--he's not in it to make millions. His in it for the love of a game, not selling jerseys with his name on the back. To my point of view, you have to respect him--even if you're John Elway, but you might not want him on your team. I know I don't want the Oakland Raiders putting in for him. But the Jags. Well, after the Wayne Weaver years and his stripper wife picking some of the most hideous whore-ish looking cheerleading outfits ever announced by any NFL team, perhaps the new owner, Shahid Khan, thinks their due a little Tebowing. I have to agree.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Muppets or Not....
Ok, so one of Goldman Sachs VPs exits his position with a bang. A dissertation in the New York Times about Directors at Goldman Sachs referring to clients as "muppets" and spending more time trying to swindle their customers out of money than help the "muppets" make money. On the other hand, Mitt Romney said in a Fox News interview that he has confidence that the American public is not going to fall for the bullsh*t being slung by Gingrich or Santorum. He believes that the American public can see through an old school politician and a far right conservative nutjob and that Americans want someone who's earned their way, lived the American dream, and wants to give back. Wow, what a stark contrast those Directors and probably many of the employees at Goldman Sachs have of a public versus what a possibly future President thinks. Got me to thinking. (I know you're thinking "duh".) Are we "muppets"--confined to cliches, stereotypes, easily duped, basically just a bunch of sheep that will follow the first wolf to step in front of us? Or are we, the American public, something far greater than that--bright, articulate, hard-working, and still capable of living the American Dream as Mitt Romney has?
Well, the word "muppets" really probably is meant as an insult by those Goldman Sachs types, but I always liked The Muppets myself. Honestly, that show was extremely innovative for its time, and their creator, Jim Henson, is revered for his skill, talent and business sense. The Muppets made us laugh, at a time that in all honestly, we probably needed it. Kinda like we need someone like Jeff Dunham now. But yes, the Muppets were goofy, and we all see how Goldman Sachs meant it. They meant how stupid, how easily they could rip people off, how quickly they could live the American Dream off the backs of these, us, "muppets". Perhaps, we have lost a lot of common sense. In our urgency to make everyone equal, we've created an environment that exhaults and exudes mediocrisy. No one thought about that in the 1970s. If every child, every teenager, every college student, is the same and we cater to the slowest of the bunch, then we dragged down the brightest, the most talented, the gifted, the artistic, the scientific, the group that we expect to lead the country someday. It's a sad commentary, I know, to say that some people just can't cut the mustard. However, it's true. And, here's even a more devastating comment, so what? Not everyone can be Bill Gates, Charlize Theron, Mick Jagger, John D. Rockefeller, or Steve Jobs. Not every kid can grow up to be President, or even a Congressman or Senator. That's not to say that the slower kid, or the kid that hates school, doesn't have a place in society. God (yes, I believe in God, if you don't then substitute DNA) makes each of us unique, gives us certain talents, abilities, and that should be all fine and dandy. It shouldn't be about money. Here's a shocker for the *ssholes at Goldman Sachs--some people don't care about money. I don't. Yes, I like to have nicer things--what girl doesn't? But my definition of "nicer things" isn't the same as my cousins or some of my friends. I have a really good friend that's perfectly content in her doublewide on a lake. She never went to college. She's worked a plant floor her entire life, and not in a UAW plant where they make more money than the damn engineers do. She's never had a credit bill in her life; saved up for her first new car, and then made payments to herself for eventually her next new car. She put her son through a top university and medical school with no student loans. He's even offered to purchase her a nice little house or condo on the lake. (Isn't he a great kid?!?!) Her response, she's perfectly satisfied with her life and proud of what she has accomplished. I LOVE HER!! Don't we wish everyone could be that way? She's definately not a "muppet". She's living the American Dream, and yes, it's her version of the American Dream, but there's nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with that.
Mitt Romney has also lived the American Dream, probably closer to the stereotype that most of us see when we invoke the words "American Dream"--successful businessman, made a lot of money, has a nice family, a nice home, been a beloved Governor of his state, and all that coming from middle class America. He's looks to have the picture perfect life. (So far, he's proven to be "squeeky clean" too, otherwise, politics as usual Gingrich would have the tabloids involved by now.) He's not apologetic for his success. Why the h*ll should he be? He's worked hard to be where he's at now, he's not a braggert about it, but he's not ashamed of it like Gingrich and Santorum have insinuated he should be. Seriously, do we need another apologetic, ashamed President? Do we not think Obummer has been enough? But, is Mitt Romney right? Are we the exact opposite of what those Goldman Sachs idiots think? Are we a bright, articulate public, capable of seeing through bullsh*t and making intelligent, well thought out decisions? Mitt's hanging his hat on it.
I don't know if we are. I can think of dozens of people that are "muppets". We trust our Congressional leaders until they prove us wrong--or do we? In Jacksonville, Florida, there's a Congresswoman who makes maybe 3 to 10 votes a year while Congress is in session (they typically exceed 400+ per session). The newspapers, the television, even her opposition, always point out her horrible record in doing what the heck she's supposed to be doing. Her constituency has heard this over and over and over--over decades. She still gets re-elected every time. Why? Maybe people are "muppets". Who else would continue to vote for her when she obviously can't get the job done? PT Barnum said, and it's not exactly how he said it supposedly, "There's a sucker born every minute." If there's just one every minute, that's still 525,600 "muppets" being born every year. What happens if those "muppets" are in charge? Apparently Goldman Sachs does. Egos overbearing the real work. Greed running amok to the point it almost devastated a global economy. Housing markets so over-inflated that millions of people went immediately thousands of dollars upside down in their mortgages. I'd argue that those jerks running Goldman Sachs and allowing that mentality to run rampant in their firm not only corrupted their viability, but the viability of other Wall Street firms, other financial firms around the globe, and yes, even the financial stati of governments. Outrageous. Who's acting like the "muppet" now?!?!?!
We come across people every day that have never left the pettiness of high school behind. People get sued for fraud, kill innocent people in the name of a God that they've never met or over some stupid trinket, or act like they are better than someone else just because of money, position, who does their hair or which church they go to. Still, we have others than would give the shirt off their back, teach their children right from wrong, hold themselves accountable instead of playing victims, and genuinely try to do the right thing. Maybe some of us "muppets"...but not all of us.
Well, the word "muppets" really probably is meant as an insult by those Goldman Sachs types, but I always liked The Muppets myself. Honestly, that show was extremely innovative for its time, and their creator, Jim Henson, is revered for his skill, talent and business sense. The Muppets made us laugh, at a time that in all honestly, we probably needed it. Kinda like we need someone like Jeff Dunham now. But yes, the Muppets were goofy, and we all see how Goldman Sachs meant it. They meant how stupid, how easily they could rip people off, how quickly they could live the American Dream off the backs of these, us, "muppets". Perhaps, we have lost a lot of common sense. In our urgency to make everyone equal, we've created an environment that exhaults and exudes mediocrisy. No one thought about that in the 1970s. If every child, every teenager, every college student, is the same and we cater to the slowest of the bunch, then we dragged down the brightest, the most talented, the gifted, the artistic, the scientific, the group that we expect to lead the country someday. It's a sad commentary, I know, to say that some people just can't cut the mustard. However, it's true. And, here's even a more devastating comment, so what? Not everyone can be Bill Gates, Charlize Theron, Mick Jagger, John D. Rockefeller, or Steve Jobs. Not every kid can grow up to be President, or even a Congressman or Senator. That's not to say that the slower kid, or the kid that hates school, doesn't have a place in society. God (yes, I believe in God, if you don't then substitute DNA) makes each of us unique, gives us certain talents, abilities, and that should be all fine and dandy. It shouldn't be about money. Here's a shocker for the *ssholes at Goldman Sachs--some people don't care about money. I don't. Yes, I like to have nicer things--what girl doesn't? But my definition of "nicer things" isn't the same as my cousins or some of my friends. I have a really good friend that's perfectly content in her doublewide on a lake. She never went to college. She's worked a plant floor her entire life, and not in a UAW plant where they make more money than the damn engineers do. She's never had a credit bill in her life; saved up for her first new car, and then made payments to herself for eventually her next new car. She put her son through a top university and medical school with no student loans. He's even offered to purchase her a nice little house or condo on the lake. (Isn't he a great kid?!?!) Her response, she's perfectly satisfied with her life and proud of what she has accomplished. I LOVE HER!! Don't we wish everyone could be that way? She's definately not a "muppet". She's living the American Dream, and yes, it's her version of the American Dream, but there's nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with that.
Mitt Romney has also lived the American Dream, probably closer to the stereotype that most of us see when we invoke the words "American Dream"--successful businessman, made a lot of money, has a nice family, a nice home, been a beloved Governor of his state, and all that coming from middle class America. He's looks to have the picture perfect life. (So far, he's proven to be "squeeky clean" too, otherwise, politics as usual Gingrich would have the tabloids involved by now.) He's not apologetic for his success. Why the h*ll should he be? He's worked hard to be where he's at now, he's not a braggert about it, but he's not ashamed of it like Gingrich and Santorum have insinuated he should be. Seriously, do we need another apologetic, ashamed President? Do we not think Obummer has been enough? But, is Mitt Romney right? Are we the exact opposite of what those Goldman Sachs idiots think? Are we a bright, articulate public, capable of seeing through bullsh*t and making intelligent, well thought out decisions? Mitt's hanging his hat on it.
I don't know if we are. I can think of dozens of people that are "muppets". We trust our Congressional leaders until they prove us wrong--or do we? In Jacksonville, Florida, there's a Congresswoman who makes maybe 3 to 10 votes a year while Congress is in session (they typically exceed 400+ per session). The newspapers, the television, even her opposition, always point out her horrible record in doing what the heck she's supposed to be doing. Her constituency has heard this over and over and over--over decades. She still gets re-elected every time. Why? Maybe people are "muppets". Who else would continue to vote for her when she obviously can't get the job done? PT Barnum said, and it's not exactly how he said it supposedly, "There's a sucker born every minute." If there's just one every minute, that's still 525,600 "muppets" being born every year. What happens if those "muppets" are in charge? Apparently Goldman Sachs does. Egos overbearing the real work. Greed running amok to the point it almost devastated a global economy. Housing markets so over-inflated that millions of people went immediately thousands of dollars upside down in their mortgages. I'd argue that those jerks running Goldman Sachs and allowing that mentality to run rampant in their firm not only corrupted their viability, but the viability of other Wall Street firms, other financial firms around the globe, and yes, even the financial stati of governments. Outrageous. Who's acting like the "muppet" now?!?!?!
We come across people every day that have never left the pettiness of high school behind. People get sued for fraud, kill innocent people in the name of a God that they've never met or over some stupid trinket, or act like they are better than someone else just because of money, position, who does their hair or which church they go to. Still, we have others than would give the shirt off their back, teach their children right from wrong, hold themselves accountable instead of playing victims, and genuinely try to do the right thing. Maybe some of us "muppets"...but not all of us.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
US Army SSGT Slaughters Innocent Afghan Civilians
Yes, the title is outrageous, but I have your attention, don't I? Unfortunately, it's not just a title to gain your attention. Unfortunately, it's a real caption from a real newspaper article. Of course, you probably know this unless you live under a rock somewhere. I guarantee every single Afghan citizen knew it faster than any average news attentive American citizen did. Ok, so if you don't know, the basics: A US Army SSGT went off the reservation and shot and killed more than a dozen Afghan civilians, some as young as 2 years old. According to witnesses, he dragged them--some by their hair--and shot bullets into their mouths--execution style. I watched this morning as they rambled on about the investigation team sent to the location had been attacked by Taliban. Really. And, no sh*t. How would any of us feel about someone, particularly a military member, coming into our homes, dragging us out by our hair, and killing our loved ones execution style? What the hell causes something like this? We'd love to blame the Afghans, because we just don't want to believe that there might be a problem with our miltary. But the reality is while the military has become more lax on the rules--time out cards, a more friendly boot camp than the one that existed in the early 90s (let alone the ones of the 1980s and earlier)--to appease a civilian world. Perhaps it's that appeasal that is resulting in several tragedies, one after the other, of these otherwise fine young men.
The SSGT is from an Army base in Washington. Which really doesn't matter so much as the fact that the DC Sniper came from there, the Fort Hood shooter came from there, another soldier who assasinated a police officer came from there, and now this SSGT. What the hell is going on at that base? It screams that something is wrong at that particular base, but that may not be the case. It may be a group that is part of the sub-culture of the base. In the early 90s, homegrown "militias", like the Michigan Militia, did a lot of recruiting at military bases. Afterall, that's where the infamous Timothy McVey came from. However, Timothy McVey was part of an organization that helped plan and execute the Oklahoma City Bombing. I know he had only one accomplice--that he was caught with. It was a pretty rude awakening for some of those groups that Mr. McVey couldn't be buried with military honors because we don't honor a soldier who's actions are so distainful and disgraceful and against the laws that we are sworn to protect. Are we not telling these young men and women in uniform that we are sworn to protect and defend our Constitution, not go over there and trample the rights that we view as so dear because we're not on American soil? I suspect the answer is that they're probably getting some mixed messages, although only the Army could really take a look in the mirror and tell us for sure.
Another problem the US military has acknowledged on occasion is that they have gang problems. There's plenty of documentation of the Crips, Bloods, Neo-Nazi's, white supremacists, and other fringe elements in photos posted by military members on social networks. History Channel, CBS, NBC, CNN have all at some point shown some of these pictures depicting soldiers, sailors, marines, and/or airmen flashing gang symbols. The military has tried to squelch these issues, but many of these members now join after already being involved with a gang for the excellent military training. Their loyalties to the gangs are not broken with an 8 week stint of the newer, nicer boot camps. Most gangs still "jump" in members which is likened to a near death beating. Is that what would motivate SSGT? Probably not. But hell, I'm up on my soap box, and we need to think about these things.
We wanted our military to think before acting. We wanted them to learn to disobey unlawful orders. When I say we, I mean the media, people in Congress and others in our political cog, liberal civilans that never served that were mortified by the stresses that we placed on our young military members. Why yes, we do put a lot of responsibility and stress on our military members. No doubt. Are we training them for that stress anymore? Stress cards in boot camp? Seriously. I can still see my CC in boot camp. Stress card? He'd have ripped that thing up, spit on it after he threw it on the ground, and cycled me for the next 4 hours. Stress card, my *ss--geez, I can almost hear him say it. The truth is the military needs members to follow orders. Period. It's a cold hard fact that a mission depends on the unit working as a team, achieving a goal, and getting the hell out of there. There is individuality that comes into play--some people are natural leaders, some are talented in something that the team cannot survive without. Regardless, even snipers, in spite of the stereotype on television and in the media, are usually two man teams. The individual is supposed to make the team stronger, not the other way around. Honestly, the individual burying the team's ability to complete its mission as a whole from some selfish, self-promoting thing has generally been a civilian thing. It doesn't work for the military. Military members--regardless of branch--put their lives in the hands of their brothers and sisters in arms. There's not a lot of room for individual bulls*t. We find out from hands-on experience that the individuals are only as strong as the weakest link on the team--because we all have our baggage, and that a team working together has all of the strength of each individual or no strength if the team falls apart. We prove that the strength of the whole is more than the strength of the individual--at least we used to. It's that ability to work as in a team, as a team, drive a team, that a lot of civilian companies look for now--and the military used to give that training better than seminar, webinar or book--and hopefully still do.
But let's not be all nicey nice about it. Is the military letting down some military members? Recently I had a conversation with a friend of mine who did a couple of tours in Iraq. It's pretty obvious that he's suffering from some PTSD, survivor issues, and some other trauma. He told me he didn't go to the Army, medical or seek any treatment while he was in the Army, because it was a career killer. A friend of mine had a daughter that joined the Air Force. In her first year, the Air Force found out that she had been possibly suicidal as a teenager when her parents divorced. They started putting her through psychological evaluations and said that based on her previous behavior she couldn't stay in the Air Force. How did they find this out? She was honest with them when they asked her some preliminary questions for her duty assignment. If she had lied, she would've been in like Flynn. This all makes me wonder if this SSGT was having problems and not able to seek help. They said he had a brain injury. They said he passed psychological evaluations. Thirty eight years old, a couple years from retirement, a wife and two kids. The man probably couldn't risk his career to tell the Army he was having problems. If they drummed him out of the Army, it's very likely VA disability wouldn't have covered his bills. He could lose everything--only career he's known, family--his wife and kids, his home and livelihood. Is that the message some of these military members who have been through horribly traumatic moments have to carry as an extra burden on them in addition to the average military stresses that they carry, and the memories of buddies lost, being under gunfire, being scared, outraged, and human? Perhaps it's not boot camp that needs the stress cards, but the guys under fire day in day out. Boot camp is supposed to be where we learn to suck it up and get the job done--so under fire we still perform. Maybe the guys on the front lines need stress cards where the Army can't retaliate with a medical discharge.
Frankly, I'm still a bit upset to find out that the little white pills they made us pop before, during and following Desert Storm might increase certain psychological tendencies. Seriously. The pills were supposed to help with the stress of constant operations but have now been linked to certain issues in some veterans. Worse yet, they knew there was a percentage of the military members that took them that could suffer the consequences. The reports vary on percentages--2% to 10%. I've seen one that claims up to 20% could be affected with minor issues. Made me wonder when I read it--I had a buddy, Scott, was like a little brother to me. He'd always had some minor issues that weighed on his mind, but nothing too extreme. Just normal 20 somethinger angsts. I had gotten out, and he had done a third deployment. His wife left him on that deployment, took their two kids and moved back to whatever podunk town she had been raised in up in northern farm country. He begged her to come home. Not happening. A group of us met at a base watering hole, to reminisce, to shoot the breeze, to tell whale tales. Scotty had changed. He'd slumped, but worse than I would've thought. We'd gone to the desert together. He had been fine. But according to one of these reports, the pills can only mildly or not affect someone, and then at some point, an overdose and a resultant change. Scotty had always bounced back, although bruised. Now there was nothing but emotional wreckage. He rallied back after telling me what was going on, but it was different. Kinda like watching someone else have an out of body experience--the best way I can explain it. Right before the holidays that year, less than 9 months later, Scotty blew his brains out in a northern podunk farm town while on leave after dropping his children off from what would be the last days he would ever spend with them. I knew other people who were the suicidal types and they never killed themselves, but I'd have never described Scotty as suicidal. Something changed. The DC Sniper was supposedly a very nice, genuine guy that came back from Desert Storm distant, homicidal, and 180 degrees out from who he was. Perhaps. Perhaps, the natural tendency was buried deep inside of him to go off the reservation, and perhaps, those little white pills transformed him as I believe they did my friend.
Oh, I know. Civilians think the military would never do that. Still, the military thinks it's a numbers game. Risk versus reward--2% of the military suffering from dire consequences mentally versus 40 to 60% in over-stress situations having better coping skills. Hell, yes, they would do that. Funny though--World War 2 veterans never had those simulants and a lot suffered from shellshock (aka. PTSD) but we didn't hear about sh*tloads of them going off the reservation. We can argue that the media wasn't global then--maybe there were 4 off of one base that shot a police officer dead, shot up a military base, and 2 that went on a sniper rampage killing innocent people. With WW2 veterans--hell Korean, even Nam--the military would never volunteer the information. But the truth is--stuff like that would trickle out. There's plenty of memoirs that get out there--Band of Brothers, We Were Soldiers. I don't know of any story I've ever heard like that other than the Army unit in Vietnam that went plumb loco. One story...versus 4 from one base. Seems a bit out of sorts. Not saying that the Army is covering up years of things that happened from old wars long gone by--seems unlikely. Not saying that the US military has calculated risk versus reward in military operations--because of course they have! But I am saying the military has long used us as guinea pigs for new drugs and perhaps the FDA should start regulating what they can make us pop down our throats. I remember how they dispersed the little white pills. "Here, sign this." What's this? "Just sign it." Sign. "Here's your pill." Remember the movie "Jarhead" where the one marine gets smart alecky and starts to read the waiver? Yes, our military has done that and no doubt is still doing that.
Maybe, and here's a novel thought: Maybe instead of the civilians that have never served thinking they know what the military is all about, maybe they'll spend a little time listening to Senator McCain, spend a little time visiting veterans in VA hospitals, volunteer with your local VFW or American Legion and get to know who we veterans are. Maybe the SSGT did go off the reservation, maybe to maintain stabilility in the Middle East he'll be Court Martialed and executed--I'll be sorry for his family if this happens, maybe he was just a nutjob--which I definately don't believe, maybe his actions have put thousands of American soldiers, and civilians for that matter, in the region at higher risk than was already present, but maybe we, the military and our veterans, take a closer look at what has happened, what has been done, and whether those courses of action were the best to take. Maybe it's time that we recognize that PTSD should be treated while in the military--not after the service member is released and certainly not after a tragedy because the service member couldn't get help from the country, branch of service and the team that he or she was taught to depend on.
The SSGT is from an Army base in Washington. Which really doesn't matter so much as the fact that the DC Sniper came from there, the Fort Hood shooter came from there, another soldier who assasinated a police officer came from there, and now this SSGT. What the hell is going on at that base? It screams that something is wrong at that particular base, but that may not be the case. It may be a group that is part of the sub-culture of the base. In the early 90s, homegrown "militias", like the Michigan Militia, did a lot of recruiting at military bases. Afterall, that's where the infamous Timothy McVey came from. However, Timothy McVey was part of an organization that helped plan and execute the Oklahoma City Bombing. I know he had only one accomplice--that he was caught with. It was a pretty rude awakening for some of those groups that Mr. McVey couldn't be buried with military honors because we don't honor a soldier who's actions are so distainful and disgraceful and against the laws that we are sworn to protect. Are we not telling these young men and women in uniform that we are sworn to protect and defend our Constitution, not go over there and trample the rights that we view as so dear because we're not on American soil? I suspect the answer is that they're probably getting some mixed messages, although only the Army could really take a look in the mirror and tell us for sure.
Another problem the US military has acknowledged on occasion is that they have gang problems. There's plenty of documentation of the Crips, Bloods, Neo-Nazi's, white supremacists, and other fringe elements in photos posted by military members on social networks. History Channel, CBS, NBC, CNN have all at some point shown some of these pictures depicting soldiers, sailors, marines, and/or airmen flashing gang symbols. The military has tried to squelch these issues, but many of these members now join after already being involved with a gang for the excellent military training. Their loyalties to the gangs are not broken with an 8 week stint of the newer, nicer boot camps. Most gangs still "jump" in members which is likened to a near death beating. Is that what would motivate SSGT? Probably not. But hell, I'm up on my soap box, and we need to think about these things.
We wanted our military to think before acting. We wanted them to learn to disobey unlawful orders. When I say we, I mean the media, people in Congress and others in our political cog, liberal civilans that never served that were mortified by the stresses that we placed on our young military members. Why yes, we do put a lot of responsibility and stress on our military members. No doubt. Are we training them for that stress anymore? Stress cards in boot camp? Seriously. I can still see my CC in boot camp. Stress card? He'd have ripped that thing up, spit on it after he threw it on the ground, and cycled me for the next 4 hours. Stress card, my *ss--geez, I can almost hear him say it. The truth is the military needs members to follow orders. Period. It's a cold hard fact that a mission depends on the unit working as a team, achieving a goal, and getting the hell out of there. There is individuality that comes into play--some people are natural leaders, some are talented in something that the team cannot survive without. Regardless, even snipers, in spite of the stereotype on television and in the media, are usually two man teams. The individual is supposed to make the team stronger, not the other way around. Honestly, the individual burying the team's ability to complete its mission as a whole from some selfish, self-promoting thing has generally been a civilian thing. It doesn't work for the military. Military members--regardless of branch--put their lives in the hands of their brothers and sisters in arms. There's not a lot of room for individual bulls*t. We find out from hands-on experience that the individuals are only as strong as the weakest link on the team--because we all have our baggage, and that a team working together has all of the strength of each individual or no strength if the team falls apart. We prove that the strength of the whole is more than the strength of the individual--at least we used to. It's that ability to work as in a team, as a team, drive a team, that a lot of civilian companies look for now--and the military used to give that training better than seminar, webinar or book--and hopefully still do.
But let's not be all nicey nice about it. Is the military letting down some military members? Recently I had a conversation with a friend of mine who did a couple of tours in Iraq. It's pretty obvious that he's suffering from some PTSD, survivor issues, and some other trauma. He told me he didn't go to the Army, medical or seek any treatment while he was in the Army, because it was a career killer. A friend of mine had a daughter that joined the Air Force. In her first year, the Air Force found out that she had been possibly suicidal as a teenager when her parents divorced. They started putting her through psychological evaluations and said that based on her previous behavior she couldn't stay in the Air Force. How did they find this out? She was honest with them when they asked her some preliminary questions for her duty assignment. If she had lied, she would've been in like Flynn. This all makes me wonder if this SSGT was having problems and not able to seek help. They said he had a brain injury. They said he passed psychological evaluations. Thirty eight years old, a couple years from retirement, a wife and two kids. The man probably couldn't risk his career to tell the Army he was having problems. If they drummed him out of the Army, it's very likely VA disability wouldn't have covered his bills. He could lose everything--only career he's known, family--his wife and kids, his home and livelihood. Is that the message some of these military members who have been through horribly traumatic moments have to carry as an extra burden on them in addition to the average military stresses that they carry, and the memories of buddies lost, being under gunfire, being scared, outraged, and human? Perhaps it's not boot camp that needs the stress cards, but the guys under fire day in day out. Boot camp is supposed to be where we learn to suck it up and get the job done--so under fire we still perform. Maybe the guys on the front lines need stress cards where the Army can't retaliate with a medical discharge.
Frankly, I'm still a bit upset to find out that the little white pills they made us pop before, during and following Desert Storm might increase certain psychological tendencies. Seriously. The pills were supposed to help with the stress of constant operations but have now been linked to certain issues in some veterans. Worse yet, they knew there was a percentage of the military members that took them that could suffer the consequences. The reports vary on percentages--2% to 10%. I've seen one that claims up to 20% could be affected with minor issues. Made me wonder when I read it--I had a buddy, Scott, was like a little brother to me. He'd always had some minor issues that weighed on his mind, but nothing too extreme. Just normal 20 somethinger angsts. I had gotten out, and he had done a third deployment. His wife left him on that deployment, took their two kids and moved back to whatever podunk town she had been raised in up in northern farm country. He begged her to come home. Not happening. A group of us met at a base watering hole, to reminisce, to shoot the breeze, to tell whale tales. Scotty had changed. He'd slumped, but worse than I would've thought. We'd gone to the desert together. He had been fine. But according to one of these reports, the pills can only mildly or not affect someone, and then at some point, an overdose and a resultant change. Scotty had always bounced back, although bruised. Now there was nothing but emotional wreckage. He rallied back after telling me what was going on, but it was different. Kinda like watching someone else have an out of body experience--the best way I can explain it. Right before the holidays that year, less than 9 months later, Scotty blew his brains out in a northern podunk farm town while on leave after dropping his children off from what would be the last days he would ever spend with them. I knew other people who were the suicidal types and they never killed themselves, but I'd have never described Scotty as suicidal. Something changed. The DC Sniper was supposedly a very nice, genuine guy that came back from Desert Storm distant, homicidal, and 180 degrees out from who he was. Perhaps. Perhaps, the natural tendency was buried deep inside of him to go off the reservation, and perhaps, those little white pills transformed him as I believe they did my friend.
Oh, I know. Civilians think the military would never do that. Still, the military thinks it's a numbers game. Risk versus reward--2% of the military suffering from dire consequences mentally versus 40 to 60% in over-stress situations having better coping skills. Hell, yes, they would do that. Funny though--World War 2 veterans never had those simulants and a lot suffered from shellshock (aka. PTSD) but we didn't hear about sh*tloads of them going off the reservation. We can argue that the media wasn't global then--maybe there were 4 off of one base that shot a police officer dead, shot up a military base, and 2 that went on a sniper rampage killing innocent people. With WW2 veterans--hell Korean, even Nam--the military would never volunteer the information. But the truth is--stuff like that would trickle out. There's plenty of memoirs that get out there--Band of Brothers, We Were Soldiers. I don't know of any story I've ever heard like that other than the Army unit in Vietnam that went plumb loco. One story...versus 4 from one base. Seems a bit out of sorts. Not saying that the Army is covering up years of things that happened from old wars long gone by--seems unlikely. Not saying that the US military has calculated risk versus reward in military operations--because of course they have! But I am saying the military has long used us as guinea pigs for new drugs and perhaps the FDA should start regulating what they can make us pop down our throats. I remember how they dispersed the little white pills. "Here, sign this." What's this? "Just sign it." Sign. "Here's your pill." Remember the movie "Jarhead" where the one marine gets smart alecky and starts to read the waiver? Yes, our military has done that and no doubt is still doing that.
Maybe, and here's a novel thought: Maybe instead of the civilians that have never served thinking they know what the military is all about, maybe they'll spend a little time listening to Senator McCain, spend a little time visiting veterans in VA hospitals, volunteer with your local VFW or American Legion and get to know who we veterans are. Maybe the SSGT did go off the reservation, maybe to maintain stabilility in the Middle East he'll be Court Martialed and executed--I'll be sorry for his family if this happens, maybe he was just a nutjob--which I definately don't believe, maybe his actions have put thousands of American soldiers, and civilians for that matter, in the region at higher risk than was already present, but maybe we, the military and our veterans, take a closer look at what has happened, what has been done, and whether those courses of action were the best to take. Maybe it's time that we recognize that PTSD should be treated while in the military--not after the service member is released and certainly not after a tragedy because the service member couldn't get help from the country, branch of service and the team that he or she was taught to depend on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)