A Veterans Day Message

To every man and woman who has worn the uniform with honor in combat, thank you. On this Veteran's Day, we rightfully honor your service and your sacrifice. And we should remember, not just today and on Memorial Day but every day, those who paid the ultimate sacrifice and those who came home wounded and with physical and mental scars that in too many cases will never fully heal.

Some people of conscience may struggle with supporting our military when they disagree with the missions assigned to it by our civilian leaders. The decision to send our troops in harms way should not be made lightly, and a healthy debate on such decisions is something I strongly support. Reasonable people may differ on the wisdom of most every military conflict not only in the last hundred years but from the first time that our cave dwelling ancestors picked up sticks and stones with which to force their will on others whom they did not like, whose property they coveted or who simply opposed their will. If we wish to point fingers at those who commit our forces to unwise wars, those fingers should be pointed at Washington D.C., not at out military whose job is not to question why but simply to do and die.

Idealized notions to the contrary by those who dwell in ivory towers, as I do, freedom is neither free nor the birthright of humanity in the state of nature. Freedom is bought and paid for every day by those willing to put on a uniform and fight--not with words but with ordinance--to gain and maintain it as directed by their civilian commanders. It is paid for in blood and sacrifice by those willing to fight for it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, who wage a perpetual battle to win the hearts and minds of the foolhardy by any means necessary.

For those like me who have lived under dictatorships, freedom is not an abstraction or something to be taken lightly. Words did not prevent the Nazi flag from flying over all of Europe. Our armed forces, and those of our allies, whose sacrifice is no less noteworthy, did. The swastika does not fly over the capitol, nor does the imperial flag of Japan. Russian is not our official language, and it is only our armed forces that may prevent Mandarin or Korean from becoming the official language in the future, or Sharia  Law from replacing the U.S. Constitution. If history teaches us anything, it surely teaches us that.

Gratitude for honorable service should not be tied to one's political philosophy or party affiliation. Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Independents, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and members of every other faith have all bled alongside Atheists for our freedom. This Veterans Day, I hope you will join in a collective well-earned thanks for their service and sacrifice. And as the Holidays approach, regardless of faith or lack thereof, if it is within your means, please make a gift to a worthy, vetted charitable organization that looks after our veterans and their families. Think of it as a holiday gift for dear friends who are worthy of our support. Or, if you prefer, think of it as a self-imposed honor tax. And if you can't find a few dollars in these tough economic times to share with those most worthy of our support, please at least share your gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform when you see them at a bus station, airport, coffee shop or on the street. Look them in the eye, offer your hand and say "Thank you for your service." Do this especially for those who wear their uniforms from times gone by on Veterans Day standing a little taller in proud remembrance of their service and personal sacrifice. It is the least we can do for those who have been and remain the guardians of our freedom.

Fed up with endless coverage of terrorists and their deeds. Enough!

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon terror bombings, I've stopped watching the news altogether. I've tired of changing the channel every time the bombers' photos are plastered on the screen followed by the graphic video of their dastardly deeds--precisely as intended. I no longer bother to simply change the channel every time the faces appear on screen or the video is replayed accompanied attempts to explain, excuse or simply replay the painful scenes for the benefit of a voyeuristic public. I'll return to watching the evening news when sanity returns, if it ever does.

I can't stand the media's penchant for glorifying terrorists and other common criminals by endlessly plastering their photos on TV/newspapers/magazines/online, thus effectively feeding the egos and encouraging further heinous acts from every loser and evil moron all over the planet who wants to push an agenda or take the express lane to hell in a blaze of infamy. Do we need to see those still incredibly painful images from 9/11 any time someone utters the word "terror" on television? Do we need to see the stock footage of the 9/11 murderers along with those images as commentators remind us of their dastardly acts? Do we need to see the face of the surviving Boston terror suspect and hear his mother rail against the FBI over and over again?

I know that bad news sells newspapers and gathers eyeballs for news programs. But give me a break. Every pimply faced loser with delusions of adequacy can find instant celebrity by going to the mall and blowing up people--whether out of some misguided belief system or just for fun. (Here's a clue, Sherlock: God does not tell people to kill women with long hair speaking through a dog and does not want you to go out and murder the innocent of any faith/color/sex/sexual orientation. The devil does. Get that through your thick, troglodyte's skull. There is no devil you say? Perhaps you're right, but look in the mirror for a rough approximation. If you had an I.Q. above that of salt, of course, you'd know that.)

The media needs to tone down the coverage. The Roman idea of pacifying the masses by offering bread and
circus (the arena) is not something we want to emulate, but have. (Welfare and the gore-on-demand round the clock coverage of CNN/FOX/MSNBC. Everybody happy as the empire fall around us and the barbarians storm the gates? We don't even have Hadrian's wall to offer even the appearance of safety.

A modest proposal for denying terrorists the publicity they seek

In a society where the most dysfunctional behavior and/or sheer nastiness can get people (or entire families) reality shows and "celebrity status," if the channel is changed to avoid the constant images of terrorists and suspected terrorists and their evil deeds, it is likely to be to look for a better angle--a close-up of the blood and gore, preferably in HD and slow-motion. The media panders to the lowest common denominator and, in turn, helps to bring the bar of what passes for news reporting ever lower. There is no sense of propriety, of editorial restraint, or of simple common decency evident in news reporting of tragedies.

Satiating the voyeuristic taste of the viewing public is not a journalist's reason for being. Nor is desensitizing the masses from the horrific acts of misguided, demented, or evil people. Showing a burning building is news. Showing people throwing themselves from the rooftop in act of desperation driven by the simple desire to avoid burning to death is unnecessary and cruel. Following the bodies down with a camera until they hit the ground and the aftereffects in glorious 3D would be inexcusable (but such video would be shown were it available with an appropriate disclaimer that viewer discretion is advised). Continually showing the faces of the men responsible for the act for more than a decade at the drop of a hat is free advertising for terror groups, promotes terrorism, and is criminal behavior masquerading as news and hiding behind the 1st Amendment protection.

I have a suggestion for dealing with terrorists and other crazies on the media loosely borrowed from an old science fiction short story whose name and author I simply cannot remember at the moment (please feel free to chime in if you do).

Rather than show us the faces of terrorists and endless footage of the carnage they wreak on the innocent repeatedly, endlessly, ad nauseam, ad infinitum, providing them and their "causes" with free publicity that money can't buy and encouraging an endless stream of like-minded wingnuts to blaze their own trails to hell for the amusement of a voyeuristic public, I'd like to propose a caricature be developed that places terrorists in an appropriate context--say, a skinny, mangy, rabid dog foaming at the mouth. Whenever an act of terror is perpetrated, place ONLY this image on the screen along with whatever description of the act and brief video clip is relevant. Any time thereafter when a terror suspect or convicted/dead terrorist is named, put their name under the mangy, rabid dog as a stand-in for their picture. Use as many mangy, rabid dogs as needed to represent any number of these morons. We can even differentiate domestic and foreign terrorists by using, say, a mangy, rabid dog for a domestic terrorist and a mangy rabid jackal for a foreign terrorist (or hyena, or some other unattractive lesser animal--I'm nothing if not flexible).

I might even watch an entire newscast again if these standards were adopted without an aching thumb from changing channels on my remote any time a glorified punk is shown on TV again, again, again and yet AGAIN.

Do you want a government you can believe in again? Look beyond the party label!

We have long been a house divided by our party affiliations. For too many voters, the (D), (R) and, to a lesser extent, the (I) after a candidate's name is often the deciding factor in the decision making that takes place in the privacy of the voting booth. We vote not for the most qualified, competent, or honest candidate, but rather for the candidate that sports our approved party label. And we re-elect candidates we know to be inept, self-serving, misguided and even corrupt time and again because "they are one of us." And then we shake our heads and bemoan the fact that that only 40 percent of Americans think the President is doing a good job (true of both D and R presidents in recent memory) and a whopping 14 percent of Americans think Congress is just swell. 

To make matters worse, after voting-in the latest disappointment, rather than holding the person to account and vowing to be more careful when next we vote, we make excuses for their bad behavior/incompetence/corruptness/general cluelessness/lack of leadership (need I go on?) and blame the "other side," the "enemy," you know, the guy or gal who sports a letter other than our candidate's after their name.  Or we blame the media  (or at least that segment we dislike for not genuflecting on cue in the general direction of "our party."

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves far more than the incompetent/self-serving/corrupt/clueless ninnies we keep (repeatedly) electing to high office all over this land. We participate in political campaigns that seem like outtakes from Fellini and Monty Python Films intended to amuse, disturb and ultimately motivate a country of lemmings into doing what they do naturally: march behind their appropriate (R) or (D) banner-carrying leader over the nearest chasm.

So what's the answer? It's simple, really. We need to stop identifying with a party that pushes a particular brand of quasi-extremism (the Democratic left wing vs. the Republican right-wing) and look at candidates as individuals. We need to hold everyone--including those we support who carry the "right" letter after their name--to account for what they say and do rather than giving them a pass based on their political affiliation. And we need to stop rewarding politicians and their handlers for engaging in the politics of personal attacks and also for failing to answer the questions asked of them. We deserve better than that.

I am a life-long Republican. My politics on most issues are right-of-center. My best friend is a life-long Democrat whose politics on most issues are left of center. He was a delegate for the People's Party when we were in college together, and I was--am--a Reagan republican. Our friendship runs far deeper than politics, political philosophies or such silly things as party affiliations. We both care deeply about politics and are strong advocates for our very different points of view. But in the hundreds upon hundreds of hours that we have spent discussing politics from the start of our unique friendship in high school to this day, there has never been a single time when we could not reach a mutually agreeable decision on fixing the very real problems of the world (on paper, at least) through compromise. Name a controversial issue and we have almost certainly touched on it through the years, debated it at length and reached a mutually satisfactory compromise on what ought to be done to resolve it. Every time. From our teens through our early fifties. On every issue from abortion to the welfare state to socialized medicine and beyond. Why the hell can't our politicians do that?

So what's our secret beyond our obvious willingness to compromise? Simple: mutual trust, mutual respect, an unwavering belief in each other's integrity, and the fundamental understanding that we both want the same things: a better, more just, more equitable society. Our approaches are different, our political philosophies likewise, but our ends are the same. And neither of us is arrogant enough to think we have all the right answers.  If Ken were to run for any office, I would be proud to vote for him and would probably go around handing out leaflets on his behalf. I know he would do the same for me. It is not friendship that would motivate me to support him, but the knowledge that he would do his level best to bring about goals we both believe in--and that he would be open to alternate means of reaching those goals, even if they go against party dogma. I trust him implicitly. He wants the same things I do and is willing to compromise to achieve them. When did that quality become a liability in a politician or in a human being?

In a word, I would support my liberal democratic best friend because he has the only letter that matters after his name: an I for Integrity. Unlike experience, intelligence, and even competence which can be borrowed, bought or rented by the hour in the form of advisers, employees, aides, and consultants, integrity is the rarest, most precious asset any politician can possess and the only one that cannot be bought or borrowed. As long as we continue to accept the politics of polarization and vote for unqualified, untrustworthy, unproven or unknown candidates based on their party affiliation, we will continue to have a government that perpetually and predictably disappoints and dismays us. In short, we will continue to have precisely the kind of government we deserve.