The Problem with Women Being in Combat...

A friend of mine was a MP in the US Army.  Was deployed to Iraq multiple times.  Came home with PTSD.  Did sweeps, went out on patrols.   Another friend was a corpsman in the Navy.  Same story.  They did what the majority of guys do over there.  Worry about insurgents, go out on patrols or with convoys, were fired upon by insurgents, carried overloaded packs that weighed up to 80 lbs., walked the streets and saw the poverty, the mistreatment of animals and women, and came home different people than when they went.  The difference between them and 70% of the US military members over there is that they represent 30% of the forces that are female.  That's right, female corpsmen (aka. medics) and military police (sometimes known as shore patrol for the sailors).  One of them recently shared a link for an article written, supposedly, by a female marine.  Now, I'll be frank, even when I was in we didn't have much respect for the WMs.  We called them WMs, for crying outloud.  I was a sailor.  Once a sailor, always a sailor.  Once a Marine, always a Marine.  Once a WM, always a whiny marine.  Oh, I mean Woman Marine.  The name alone cries dumb whiny bitch who doesn't belong in the military.  Now, let me make this clear.  I served with Marines that happened to be female who scared the begeebees out of me, and I by nature seem to intimidate a lot of people.  I knew a WM who served in Vietnam and when she was in her 40s kicked the crap out of 4 redneck girls that were twice her size, more than capable of jumping about any man let alone woman.  The Commandant of the Marine Corps would've been proud.  She was the epitome of Marine, not WM.  So I read this article, blog, commentary, and thought while the b*tch might have some valid points from HER point of view, she's one of "those" women.  I've already blogged about how women hold each other down, needle each other, whiny bullsh*t that I have little tolerance for.  If you can't help lift each other up, then sit down and shut up.  But military women, we're a different animal.  We don't like the games, but there are still a minority that do play them.  We get our asses handed to us because the reality is that although most men view you as equal, we are all too keen and overexposed to those men that whine that we can't perform and only acknowledge that we can if we do double what they can.  Eighty pound pack a problem?  Really?  We carry children from the backseat of a car to a bed, while juggling a purse that weighs an additional 5 to 20 pounds because of all the crap we have to carry for the husband, the children and of course ourselves.  An eighty pound kid is worse than a pack--lumpy awkward weight, aka. dead weight, in a sound sleep--that kicks you in just the right place as you struggle to unlock the door to the house.  But there are those men that wouldn't give us any credit unless it was 160 lbs. pack.  That's just the facts jack.  We'll never make some people happy, and we don't need some whiny b*tch marine who really didn't want to be there making statements to the contrary and feeding into their tiny views of the world and women.

First and foremost, this woman claimed, that she's proud of her service.  Yea, right.  She deployed.  There are a lot of the guys that have a hard time being proud of their service after a deployment.  So let's call a spade a spade.  She isn't really proud, and I will not refer to her as a Marine.  Sure she made it through boot camp and earned a globe and eagle.  That's technically a Marine, but since she thinks that women need to be more to be considered equal, then she should've done more to be considered equal.  By her own words, she's not truly a Marine.  She didn't outperform the male counterparts of her branch.  She didn't even try.  By her own words, a woman can't pull an 80 lbs pack all day.  Well, no honey, you can't, and because of her own limitations she would scar all women.  But "those" women really do tend to do this.  You're either like them, and they are of course the majority of women in their own little minds, or you're the odd duck butch dyke woman.  Neither of which are true.  Women that want to serve, truly choose to serve, are there because they want to be.  We've groomed women to not believe in ourselves over centuries and the first woman to show the world, yes the world, that we can achieve anything and more than a man, was Queen Elizabeth I.  She was a warrior, lead her troops, against a Spanish invasion.  A true leader who rode up to the front lines to the shores of England in spite of concern for her safety--she was her father's daughter after all.  Ironic, when we consider that Henry VIII was probably the most womanizing of all kings of Europe to date at the time.  She never married and considered herself married to England, her people.  She proved a woman could be a military leader, a fair and just leader, and brought England into the empire it would remain until the 1900s.  There were and still are naysayers to the abilities of women.  A shallow insignificant group that limit themselves and others.  If you're happy being a housewife, then this is great!  If you're not, then this is not so great.  There's nothing wrong with being a housewife, but it's a complete waste if a woman aspires to be more, has the intellect, talent, strength and desire to be achieve more.  What this woman is doing is simple.  She's projecting her own limitations onto others, and the last time I spoke with any Marine of the male persuasion this is simply not acceptable.  So why would this female think it would be of her?  The Marines embrace that team mentality more than any other branch of service, intricately linked by the bond of the Marine Corps, so I question whether this woman ever learned what it was to truly be a Marine.  The real problem she illustrates is THE major problem with women in combat.  The women that join even though they truly don't want to be there.  If you don't want to be in the military, then don't join.  But unlike the men that join that didn't want to be there, she has being a woman to blame instead of herself.  Take some responsibility.  The men have to.  If they hated it, they hated it--not every guy they served with.  She uses other women as the scapegoat for her own limitations, and unlike the men if they tried that sorry ass excuse, she can get people to side with her limited ideas because women are still not truly 100% equal with everyone.

The woman is obviously not very well informed either.  Women have been proven over and over to be better shooters, and particularly snipers, not by the USA by any means.  But by Russia, the Israelis, and other various factions.  The truth is that the original assassins, the Chinese version that the Japanese used to develop Ninjas, were women.  Chinese society allows for women to be referred to in the male nominative if they earn it.  Several hundred years ago, women earned that by being gifted assassins.  I'm always loathe of anyone that toots off certain "facts" but doesn't bother to do any research at all.  Moving on.

Body strength and weight really do not play a factor in today's warfare.  A M16 is not that complicated, heavy or difficult to shoot...ok, depending on how much of an idiot you are.  We all have seen in recent years that pretty much any idiot can figure out how to use a gun.  Carrying an 80 lbs. pack? Covered that.  You can get used to carrying any weight.  African women carry that much weight or more on their heads, balancing it in two baskets.  Also, in hand to hand combat, we know that various forms of martial arts are the most effective.  We don't train most of the men this either.  We also know that in a wrestling match the person with the lower center of gravity can generally gain the upper hand if properly trained in comparison to their opponent.  Interestingly, women have a lower center of gravity, we are better balanced, by nature.  We've been told for generations upon generations that we are weaker, but the reality is that we have more muscle strength in our abdomens allowing for more strength in our upper legs, better balancing, and all things in training equal, we can get the upper hand on even a man that is larger than us.  Plus, if you don't believe all that because it's simply above and beyond your own personal beliefs, there's the argument that trumps all.  Men have nuts.  Yes, no matter what, men have their Achille's heel right between their legs completely unprotected.  In hand to hand close contact, grab, twist, pull.  I don't care how much training that guy has; depending upon the force used, he'll be incapacitated or be in flight mode.  Again, this woman simply hasn't done her homework.  She's making excuses why she couldn't.  Whine, whine, whine.

OK, so most of this I have placed on her.  It's just a fact.  I joined the Navy.  I was originally planning on joining the Army as a Warrant Officer flying helicopters.  The next opportunity for shipping for training was several months away.  It was really only 9 months, but at 21, nine months sounded like FOREVER, whereas now, nine months seems like a blink of an eye.  I told the Army Officer recruiter that I would have to think on it and get back to him.  On my way out, a United States Marine in full dress blues, caught me and asked if I was planning on joining the military.  I was thinking about it.  Now let me give you a full visual, I was dressed to the nines because I worked at an upscale clothing store, sorority pin, high heels, perfect hair and makeup.  This Marine proceeds to put me in front of VCR, pushes play, asks me to push rewind when it finishes and come see him.  The video was of WM boot camp.  Seemed pretty normal at first, marching, cadence, then a little rough housing, some yelling, then mud---lots of crawling through mud, more rough housing, then finally closing up with a woman, at least I'm pretty sure the Marine Corps thought she was a woman, showing a bunch of female recruits how to put on their makeup "the Marine Corps" way.  Yes, the "Marine Corps" way.  I pushed the rewind button and got up to walk back into the main room.  The Marine recruiter jumped up, big grin ear to ear, "So what did you think?"

What did I think?  What did I think?!?!  "I think you have lost your mind Marine!  Do I look like someone who wants to crawl through mud and needs to be taught how to put on my makeup?"  A burst of laughter ensued from another Marine and two sailors, all in their dress blues uniforms.  Nope.  I knew I didn't want to be a Marine.  Did this woman join when she was 17 and had little to know idea what or who she was?  Who watches one of those videos and doesn't know that is or isn't for me?  There are three (4 if you count the Coast Guard) other branches to choose from.  I obviously based on that video decided that the Army was probably not for me either.  I can complain that the Navy video failed to show the fire fighting required in boot camp, but hey, I never had to fight an actual fire, by the grace of God, while I was in the Navy.  No harm, no foul.  I can imagine that if I hadn't seen that video and I had gotten into the Marine Corps and crawled through mud and had some dude looking woman teaching me how to put on my makeup....well, I might have been a little anti-being in the military.  Not for other women though--just for me.  I was in the Navy though, and I look back at it with very fond memories.  Every branch of service is different, although we all serve the same purpose.  Maybe this woman just didn't belong in the Marine Corps.  Maybe she just didn't belong in the military.  Regardless, maybe she should shut the hell up about what she didn't like because it was her issue with it, not all women's issue with it.

In a lot of her whine, she goes on and on about how the lack of unit cohesion and how women's problems, emotional, PMS, our periods cause all these issues.  Funny how it didn't cause most of us those issues.  She cites stuff she knows nothing about.  She wasn't a corpsmen or medic, so she's shooting in the dark about her own perceived excuses of why women shouldn't be in the field.  There's issues with men in the field also, and let's be realistic for those people who would agree with this whiner.  Women go hunting and camping all the time.  I'll admit it's not for me, but I know plenty of women that like that kind of stuff.  They go "roughing it" all the time and they love it.  I'm a pansy, or at least they tease me that I am.  I'm good with that.  I didn't join the Marine Corps because I'm a pansy too.  This woman didn't want to "rough it", makes up excuses why women shouldn't "rough it", and then toots them off as applicable to all women that want to serve.  It's bullsh*t.  As far as unit cohesion, she used the US Navy as an example.  Saying her unit had a woman get pregnant, blah, blah, blah, but then saying that the US Navy ships were a great example and how we had all those issues when women were added to the combat ships and units.  Now here's where I really take issue with this dumb b*tch.  The US Navy proved that this was a leadership or lack thereof of leadership that was the issue, not the women.  If the Old Man, the Skipper, the CO, the Commanding Officer put up with it, then the command was doomed.  It was rampant and caused all kinds of issues.  The Navy used to have a saying, probably still does, "What goes on deployment, stays on deployment."  Originally meant as the secrets, the missions, stayed quiet, but extended to those indiscretions that some sailors had.  The saying "a different girl in every port" came from sailors after all.  As women were integrated, well, the skippers, the Commanding Officers, that didn't make it very clear what was and wasn't acceptable had Love Boats.  In addition Commanding Officers that didn't make sure that they held their senior enlisted accountable had even more problems.  Anyone that has been military knows, the senior enlisted hold the keys to how the rest of the troops will behave.  If they look the other way, even if the Old Man says "no", then the junior enlisted can get out of hand pretty quick.  She cites our ships, our units and toots it all off as fact--never being a sailor herself, never being there because it was way before her time, and passing off scuttlebutt (rumors, gossip, bullsh*t) as fact.  Pure and simple.  I was there at the time this all happened.  I am a sailor.  I'll tell you straight up, the buck stops at the Old Man and his senior staff.  Period.  He tolerated it, his ship, his squadron, run amok.  He had a zero tolerance, his ship, his squadron, had unit cohesion and worked as well as any single sex unit.  Period.  Do I feel bad for her?  A little.  The Marine Corps only recently started calling female Marines, Marines.  The title until the last decade, 10 or more years later than the other branches, still gave their females a separate, degrading, throwback to wars gone by, name--WM.  Perhaps, the Marine Corps is having a hard time with the old sea dog Marines who long for the day that women just didn't serve in the Corps.  The Navy had those--20 years ago.  The submariners freaked out a little too when it was first announced.  But let's be honest, the submariners have done extremely well.  Probably because you have to be way smarter than the average bear and in comparison some Marines are still neanderthals.  It doesn't change the fact that the Navy has proven that women can be a very successful part of the team.  They can pull chocks around an aircraft carrier, launch after launch, that weigh more than a pack.  They can fight fires and save their fellow crewmen.  This woman simply doesn't know what she's talking about and I wouldn't want her in the Navy, let alone the Marine Corps.  She's a WM--whiner marine, and the military simply doesn't have enough space for them anymore.

We have an Army medic that was awarded the Silver Star.  A female Army medic.  Put herself in the line of fire.  Ran to a truck in her convoy from the one she was in after the truck was blown up.  Threw her own body over 3 wounded during transport to shield them from bullets.  An act of valor that she referred to as "just doing what she was trained to do".  When 60 Minutes did an expose on her, two of the 3 men came on.  One refused.  He wrote a scathing letter saying that women didn't belong in combat.  It was very, very likely that she saved his life.  Perhaps he was embittered from his injuries.  It's not uncommon for men to be upset when someone saved them and their lives are not going to be what they had pictured.  "Lt. Dan" from the movie, Forrest Gump, is a great example.  I've met both men and women that have served that wish they had died over there,  not because they were even wounded, but because they lost comrades, friends and those wounds are just as great and frustrating.  This woman would have you believe that the Army medic shouldn't have been there.  I'm sure, regardless of the letter, that there are members of 3 families that would disagree.  It's a fact that sometimes, regardless of training, male or female, we freeze up in combat--especially at the first exposure.  Another Army medic, male or female, may have froze, may have not run into the line of fire, and it's a fact that we don't talk about.  Valor knows no sex.  This woman has no idea what valor is or she believes that it is one of those things that is only for men.  It is not.  Valor is often shown by women in droves over men.  The Nazis commented that when shooting women and children, the women would often jump in front of the children in spite.  It was demoralizing to the Nazi men and the SS had to stop the practice.  The Army medic I speak of here, she may have been just doing what she was trained to do and a man could've just as well done it as she did, but in truth, we never know the valor inside of us until tested.  This woman has not had hers tested, and I daresay that I would not want to be beside her, or even in the same unit, if her metal was going to come under fire.  Not because she's a woman, but because she simply doesn't have the ability to believe in herself, let alone others.

The arguments against women in combat aren't unit cohesion, sex, the lack of physical ability or size (ask the last guy who jumped a guy friend of mine), the only argument against women in combat that is viable is the same argument against men in combat.  It's mentally harrowing.  It's a test of who you are, everything about you, everything that you're made of--good, bad, indifferent.  Everything.  Is there any reason to believe that a woman is less capable of passing that test?  I'd argue that the mass, very large majority, of the 30% of the military comprised by women, are there because they really want to be.  They want to take that test, for whatever reason.  Not the combat part of it, but the test of who they truly are.  They want to prove to themselves, prove that they can.  I'd argue that half of the men are there because they liked Call of Duty or some other war game.  The realities of war being so much more different than a flat screen television version.  The smell of gunfire, the screams, the sounds of various things around you, the cologne someone sprayed on that morning...No, I'd argue that the women joining the military in general--some whiners still join--are uniquely more qualified because they don't join just because, or because it's what the men in the family do, or for money for college, alone.  Those might be reasons also, but deep down somewhere they join to prove their worth to themselves.  This woman failed to prove her worth to herself and focused on every reason that she failed, that other women failed, and never once understood it's something that she, that they chose to do.  Failure was an option for her.  She never realized, in spite of what the military--particularly the Marine Corps try to instill, that failure is not an option.  She should take a long look in the mirror and realize that some of us not only learned that lesson, but took it to heart.  We tested our metal and we shine like bright freshly sharpened and polished sabers.  Unlike her, we are all but too well aware that the problem with women in combat are women like her.

You can read the dumb WM (whiny marine)'s post at:
 http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-problems-of-women-in-combat-from-a-female-combat-vet/

an epic failure in the making...

I often write about PTSD, because I, like so many others am one of its victims.  Many military now suffer from PTSD.  I do not want to downplay rape victims or witnesses to tragedy and their problems with PTSD.  They are just as likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies and other problems.  However, with recent announcements that those with PTSD and other disorders that might result in tragic gun shootings, I feel we need to speak to these issues and contemplate the slippery slide that Congresswoman Gifford is suggesting.  Americans for Responsible Solutions as of August 31, 2013 boasts fund raising efforts have brought in $6.5M for the gun control lobby.  They cite the power of the NRA and the massive funds they use to lobby Congress and other politicians as a need for this organization.  Perhaps.  I would argue that the far left has enough money coming in when they can push through Obamacare without a single right wing vote--but that's another blog.  Because of her husband's military status, they have some major military retirees on board.  It all sounds very legitimate.  So, let's think about it and what it could mean as far as what the Giffords want and the White House proposal for mental health registration.

From their website on background checks:  "Federal law requires that individuals seeking to buy a gun at a licensed dealer pass a background check to prevent criminals, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill, and other dangerous people from purchasing firearms. Since the NICS instant background check system was implemented in 1998, background checks have denied transfers to over 1.7 million prohibited purchasers."  This is true.  Criminals technically can buy weapons if they have had their rights restored by the court after completing their sentences and probation.  Domestic violence doesn't ever really prevent anyone from being able to buy a weapon or not.  Any idiot should realize that not all domestic violence gets reported.   The "seriously mentally ill"?  Well, the accepted point of view legally is someone under the care of a doctor, psychologist or counselor who deems them as a risk to do bodily harm to themselves or to others.  The "other dangerous people" is kind of open ended.  No one really defines that particular little group.  It's potentially a catch all.  They want to expand the law to all private sellers and gun shows.  So if you own a gun and you want to sell it, you would have to conduct background checks on anyone that you wanted to sell it to and maintain those records.  It's not cheap and it's not something the average person wants to have to do.  It's a "loophole" that the Giffords want closed.  Oddly enough though, only 0.7% of all guns used in crimes are bought at gun shows and 1% from private owners.  In fact, 79% of all guns used in crimes are received from family members or obtained from illegal sources.  I'd argue that it makes more sense to figure out how to close down the 40% that come from illegal sources and the 39% of family members providing the weapons.  Note also that of that 39% approximately 40% of that is also obtained "illegally".  So in reality, the percentage of weapons used in violent crimes obtained from illegal sources is over 56%.  Expanding the federal law to cover gun shows and private owner sales is silly--1.7% is nominal, a joke, a small band-aid on a gaping wound.  The illegal guns are the ones that we need to figure out how to catch--56%.

From their website on high capacity magazines:  "High capacity magazines are a deadly factor in gun violence. According to the Department of Justice, they are used in between 14 and 26 percent of gun crimes and between 31 and 41 percent of fatal police shootings. And the data has shown that limiting such magazines helps save lives. According to the Washington Post, during the previous ban on high capacity magazines (which has since expired), there was a 60 percent decline in share of recovered crime guns with high capacity magazines. After the ban expired in 2004, that share increased from the 2004 low – more than doubling by 2010."  It is true that high capacity magazines have higher risk factors.  They cite that the Glock used in the Gifford shooting had a magazine with 33 rounds.  The data they provide is one study conducted, and unfortunately or fortunately depending upon which side of the debate you sit on, there are equally compelling studies that state the opposite.  Would limiting the capacity of the rounds truly limit a shooter?  Someone that has trained at changing out the magazines on a range or in the field, truthfully, probably not.  Changing the magazine out from one to another isn't that complicated as most video games and zombie apocalypse movies show.  The size of the magazine probably isn't going to make a hill of beans difference in reality.  They say that it might, might, give a couple seconds for someone to shoot the assailant in a mass shooting.  The truth is that expert marksmen, our own police forces, cannot always hit their targets during a shootout.  The real life stresses make it difficult under fire to aim and shoot and hit the target.  We have a visual that it is simple to hit a moving target while bullets are coming at you from movies and television shows.  The truth is far more complicated.  (http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/)  So while people insist that it might give a couple extra seconds, that couple extra seconds is more like a second and the response in that second isn't going to be as massively helpful as one might think.  It will be highly dependent on if the officer is in the direct line or pseudo direct line of fire, their experience level, whether they have had previous shootout experience, and the magazine size for the criminal is not really going to come into play on how many rounds he gets off before the cop or other legally gun carrying citizen can maim or kill the assailant.

From their website on assault weapons:  "Machine guns have been strictly limited in America since 1934, but a federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004."  They also include that an assault weapon was used in the Sandy Hook shooting.  One of the mass shootings in recent years actually used an assault weapon.  It seems a little odd that we would jump all over that with such zealousness versus the handguns since almost all of the mass shootings in recent years have involve some version of handgun.  And, yes, machine guns have been strictly limited in the USA.  What's the difference and why do they not distinguish such on their website?  A machine gun is larger, not typically small enough for the average person to tote around.  Assault rifles are rifles capable of having magazines.  The magazines for assault rifles are not usually to the capacity of a machine gun and machine guns are typically higher caliber (bullet size basically).  Well, this all is very interesting, except they left out some details.  The federal ban on assault weapons went into effect in 1994.  Before 1994, there were no limits.  The original (at least for our generations) mass shooting that no one understood because it simply hadn't happened in our lifetimes was the Columbine High School shooting.  That was 1999.  The law didn't prevent anything; in fact, the tighter you grip your fist, the more that seeps out between your fingers.  Someone said to me the other night, an older gentleman in his late 60s, that drinking alcohol was more fun when it was illegal.  There's a bit of truth to that for a lot of people, although I'll have to admit that I'm not one of them so I don't actually "understand" the statement.  But I do understand that if you tell me I'm going to lose a right or privilege that I have right now, that I am probably not going to have a lot of respect of the law that took it away and possibly snub my middle finger at it and the people that passed the law in the first place.  The truth is every single one of these mass shooters wanted to be famous.  That's it.  They leave manifestos stating it and we, our media, are more than happy to oblige.  Start completely ignoring who they are.  The problem isn't that they can get the guns.  The problem is that they can get the fame that they crave.

From their website on gun trafficking:  "One percent of licensed firearm dealers account for 57 percent of guns recovered in crimes. Law enforcement can put such offenders out of business, but the police and prosecutors need the tools to do so."  Basically, I had to read this twice.  It's a bit of double talk sounding at first just because of the way it's worded.  Re-wording what they state:  Almost 60% of guns used in crimes are provided by a single percent of legal gun dealers.  Thing is that licensed firearm dealers actually only account for 8% of the guns used in violent crimes. So this statistic is missing information.  I'm not sure what it is missing.  It sounds heinous, but with all the other facts, this statistic doesn't add up.  Is it 57% of the 8% which actually would be 5%?  Or is it that 39% that are sold to family members who are legal, but giving it to known criminals in their families?  Is it a gang violence statistic?  Is it a statistic that is based on the illegally obtained 40%?  I mean look at the number I calculated from the actual statistics:  56%.  I'm thinking what they mean here is that 56-57% that are technically obtained illegally but sold legally by less than legitimate gun dealers.  I think if that is the statistic that they are representing here then I'm all for it.  Figure out how to get those less than legitimate organizations shutdown.

The White House plan pretty much mimics everything above, but it also includes mental health provisions.  One is directed towards schools for administrators and teachers to be "trained" in recognizing mental health issues and advise parents to seek mental health help for their children.  As a mother who's child's teacher wanted him on Ritalin and who had to have the doctor he was going to state in a written letter to the school that my child was a normal healthy boy that simply was finishing his work faster than other children (correctly) and that Ritalin would likely result in grades dropped because it was meant for less than 2% of the children that could not pay attention and get good grades.    The teacher and the principal were supposedly "trained" in my son's case and that particular school was investigated and had almost 40% of their student body on Ritalin on the word of the teachers and principal telling the parents to do so.  So, I bet the so-called training will be at best laughable.  What gives me the most pause is the 750,000 children that they estimate will be registered with mental health issues through this directive on the say so of so-called "trained" school administrators and teachers.  We have reached an age where kids out passed curfew are arrested, finger printed and sometimes even fines levied against the parents.  We find out once they are adults that those finger printings are permanent.  Nothing is expunged anymore at 18.  Now, the White House would have our children registered and tracked for mental health issues?  That could be a lifelong scar, much like we register sex offenders.  They already are tracking Gulf War veterans via the VA if we register with the VA.  How quickly do you think they could add all of us to the register with the convicted criminals so that we are not able to legally own a firearm?  I mean, just in case, after all.  The do-good mentality is that an ounce of prevention is worth a whole lot of cleaning up afterwards, but we are a country built on innocent until proven guilty--not the other way around.  We have started taking people's rights and bypassing the 5th Amendment by claiming they aren't rights but "privileges".  So owning a gun if you have PTSD could be a "privilege" you'd no longer be afforded because less than 1/2 a percent of us might commit suicide and less than 1/10th of a percent might commit a heinous crime (with or without a gun)...It's a slippery slope that even the Giffords haven't officially attached their names to.  Do you know another country that began in the 1920s changing rights to privileges?  Nazi Germany.  Within 10 short years, there were concentration camps for those without privileges.

I'm in a unique position.  I lost a good friend, like a baby brother, to PTSD.  He committed suicide.  It was months after before I knew it.  He had called me within days before he committed suicide, and I hadn't called him back.  I had told him if he ever needed to talk I'd be there, but you can never always be there for everyone.  I've taken calls from brothers and sisters now at all hours of the night because they might be at risk.  But even knowing the brothers and sisters that have been at risk, the couple of them that have gone, I don't ever want to see those that are simply having a rough time that find the strength to pull themselves out to be on some list that takes a right away because we've defined it as a privilege and deemed that certain people are not entitled to that privilege.  The idea that the magazine size has anything to do with it, that it is a particular weapon's fault (especially when it's not that particular style weapon used in 99% of the "crimes" they supposedly want to stop), or that we should tighten the grip on at risk minors by the say so of amateurs or on veterans that have honorably served this country is nauseating.  I'm not happy that I lost a little brother.  I'm not happy if I lose anyone.  However, I'm not willing to lose our rights for it.  It's the coward's way out.  We'll take the guns.  It sounds good but doesn't address the real problem.  The real problem is there are very real mental health issues that need to be addressed.  The real problem is some people would rather have their 10 minutes of fame no matter what the consequences.  The real problem is that we as a society would rather band-aid an issue than ask the question why, find the real root cause, and remedy the real issues.  The quick fixes won't work but we are so lazy we grasped on to whatever sounds good and then make up the numbers to make it happen.  Congratulations to the Giffords.  I double checked their statistics and that's exactly what they did.  Jump on board the easy train folks.  It's not going to change anything.

From the ashes, a mud stature or a phoenix?

Come on, we all have failed at one time or another.  There might have been extenuating circumstances or issues that were out of our control that kept us from succeeding but regardless of the circumstances, we all fail sometimes.  It's just a fact.  There is simply no way getting around it.  Michael Jordon once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life, and that is why I succeed."  Failure is not the worst of our problems.  Failure is what brings out the best in us, if we choose for it to do so.  That is the key though--the choices we make can make our failures the focus of who we are or our failures can drive us to brilliance.  Many people though today seem to think that failure is something to defend--tooth and nail--it is not our fault.  Our own actions, even when they are provoked, if they lead to failure need to be analyzed and understood.  We simply can't pretend our failures are successes because eventually we come to expect our failures to be rallied and touted as much as our successes.

Our current President is a fine example.  On "Face the Nation" this past weekend, Diane Feinstein, one of the most far left liberals in Congress, said that the healthcare website needs to come down until it can be fixed and do what it is supposed to be able to do.  It's frankly an embarrassment to have the President of the United States to be so obstinate and honestly arrogant that he and his White House team don't understand this.  They can blame the Republicans all they want.  It's not changing that the website is a failure, and pushing it to be released incomplete was a poor, very poor decision.  There are glaring problems with the security of the site and yet they still think people will risk entering their social security numbers and other personal medical details for quotes.  It's absurd.  President Obama seems to be the epitome of one of our biggest societal problems today.  The inability to admit failure.  

We have become so accustomed to "bragging" about mediocrity that we as a society have moved where failures are twisted into successes.  A failure is still a failure though.  We've taught a couple of generations that everyone should be the same and that anyone that is "successful" is to be shunned.  Winning isn't everything, but just because a kid can't play baseball doesn't mean that he won't be a great engineer.  We have spent so much time praising mediocre performances that we have forgotten how important it is to have someone that is good at what they do doing it.  Being a successful businessman was actually a detriment to Mitt Romney when he ran for President.  Being an amateur, who was not fully engaged in two state senate terms, who skipped many votes, and had only served a third of a national Senate term was viewed as more "promising", a new direction, and full of hope.  We want the mediocre to be the American Dream, but that simply wasn't and never should be the American Dream on the national scale.  People have watched movies about the American Dream--Henry Ford, Abraham Lincoln, Howard Hughes, FDR, JFK, Michael Jackson, Ronald Reagan--the list goes on and on.  An hour and an half to three hour movies about the successes of so many can hardly do justice for the difficulties and failures that any of these successful people had to endure over the years.  It's given the image that the American Dream is a simple thing and that anyone can achieve it.  It's true anyone can achieve it, but it's with hard work, genuine drive and the skills developed over time and experience.

We put pictures up of people that do mass killings faster than we will soldiers that have been honored with the Medal of Honor or the Silver or Bronze Stars.  We don't want heroes anymore.  We want the guy who in a 10 minute shooting spree killed more people than the last guy.  He's a coward, a mediocre piece of shit that wanted his 15 minutes of fame and we turn it into hours and hours.  To what end?  Some of the most "successful" Wall Street crooks are just as wealthy as ever.  We're angry because they lack the ability to overcome their own greed, but we watch as the people that defame them most ultimately are the exact same.  In spite of Reagan and O'Neill passing law that would mean that politicians are no longer able to use election donations for "personal expenses", they, Congress, created a loophole and exploit these "slush funds" as they always have.  We have a President who offered up $25,000 of his presidential paycheck to show that he and his family were willing to sacrifice what the rest of federal employees were, but forgot to mention that he's made in the millions per year with his books.  A penny to him that only sounded large because less than 5% of the people in this country could afford to just give away $25K.   We "brag" about mediocre people with mediocre goals, morals or ethics and we have the audacity to wonder what's wrong with our society.    

  

The gifted and talented in our society are ignored.  When's the last time a MIT graduate or professor was asked about the economy?  Instead we have people like Madonna making commentary on the world affairs and economics?  Just because Madonna knows how to package sex doesn't mean she knows anything about anything else.  Frankly, she's not even that good of a musician, singer or actress.  Yet, some people insist on using hers, or Bono's or even Oprah's advice to make their own decisions (I use the term "their own" loosely at this point) on politics, the economy and their sexuality--which has to be the most personal thing of them all.  Don't get me wrong.  I think Oprah might have some valid and interesting points and information, but the artists in school, the bohemians, were not always the brightest when it came to mathematics, history, political science or anything that required any structural thinking.  So it's extremely confusing that anyone would think Hollywood actors, rock band musicians, and people who've made their money peddling sex should be the ones that anyone listens to for advice on politics, world affairs, or business ventures.  It sends a confusing if not poor message to our children and future generations.

Is there a way to invoke more pride, more dignity, more ethics into our society?  I'm not sure.  Every generation has their own issues to overcome.  We have fundamentalists that would swing back the pendulum too far.  They say that they want to get back to basics, but there are few of them, let alone the rest of us, that can agree truly on what the basics are.  The only thing we all truly get is failure.  Failure, whether we pretend it's not failure or not, is still failure.  If we continue to toot failures off as successes, allow people like the President to ramble on about his successful healthcare program when all of us already know its just not working per his previous promises, we are sending the message over and over that it's OK to pretend that our failures are successes.  Failures are not successes.  Failure should be the one thing that drives future attempts and future success, not the pretend "success".  We can't take the ashes, adding water and mold a "success".  When the rain comes it's still mud.  Success is the phoenix that rises from the ashes of failure, not a mud mixture made to resemble "success" from the ashes.