I read the Weddings/Celebrations in the Style section of the NY Times every week. I think it is probably some of the best stuff of The Times. And, I always wonder how they choose the couples they highlight who are getting married. When I opened the page one week, I was blown away. There was a guy in uniform. I had seen military depicted before in the section but usually they were West Point graduates. However, this was different: A Specialist 4 (Corporal)Ranger (Rangers are the most elite single unit in the military. Their training is extreme. At the end of training, they are awarded a Ranger Tab, the most highly prized designation in the Army).
I almost fell over when I began to read--if not a marriage made in heaven, close. Marriages always start out with such promise. And, military marriages are very special. Sacrifices of unusual nature will be the order of the day for this young couple.
What impressed me, however, among many things, is the soldier Ranger's approach to his life. And, equally as much as how he came to be in the military is part of the thing that brought him to the day of his wedding. Older than most soldiers of his rank, 37, a Princeton graduate who after 9-11 and in his own words, "lots of soul searching" joined up. "I'd always wanted to do national service of some kind," the Army Ranger said.
Here is an example of what we are missing out on by not instituting some sort of universal service, community service, AllServe. If we gave youngsters a chance, a slight nudge, they would do it. Granted, this Ranger is a stand out by anybody's standards but still, there are more like him out there I know. If we had the political and moral will as a nation, we would be providing a chance for them to serve.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
WHO IS SACRIFICING?
Recently, on a trip back to my hometown, I had occasion to talk to lots of folks about Iraq. Most simply give the "nobody is home" look. Not because they're not interested but mainly out of not knowing what to say. And, those who have been such ardent supporters of the present regime, simply are nonplussed.
I don't know what to say myself. Honestly, I get so incredibly frustrated. We live in a country of such enormous inequities. On the one hand, Iraq has not really forced changes in anybody's life. The only ones affected are the soldiers serving and their families.
In our country, narcissism runs rampant. It is nothing to watch a newscast with some scant news about Iraq and then go to commercials which show such blatant narcissism that it is sickening. For instance, there's collagen treatments, luxury home sales, Farrari automobiles that don't have to advertise their 200,000 pricetags because there's a line out the door. And, this doesn't even smack at the realization of the actual money that a Wall street scion gets, i. e., Mario Gabelli, something like 435 million. And, this in a land where as MLK said, "if America is to remain a first class nation, it cannot have second class citizens." Well, guess what? Third and fourth class citizens. The inequities in our culture are staggering and the greatest example are our brave and sacrificing soldiers and families. God bless them.
I don't know what to say myself. Honestly, I get so incredibly frustrated. We live in a country of such enormous inequities. On the one hand, Iraq has not really forced changes in anybody's life. The only ones affected are the soldiers serving and their families.
In our country, narcissism runs rampant. It is nothing to watch a newscast with some scant news about Iraq and then go to commercials which show such blatant narcissism that it is sickening. For instance, there's collagen treatments, luxury home sales, Farrari automobiles that don't have to advertise their 200,000 pricetags because there's a line out the door. And, this doesn't even smack at the realization of the actual money that a Wall street scion gets, i. e., Mario Gabelli, something like 435 million. And, this in a land where as MLK said, "if America is to remain a first class nation, it cannot have second class citizens." Well, guess what? Third and fourth class citizens. The inequities in our culture are staggering and the greatest example are our brave and sacrificing soldiers and families. God bless them.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
GAYS AND THE MILITARY
Wow, will this never go away. I don't think so. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recently got himself in trouble by talking about the immorality of gays. In some ways, not to put words in his mouth, but he might have been OK, at least in terms of his comments, had he had kept away from the morality comment. Had he said being gay is not compatible with some aspects of military life, he might have escaped, at least sounded better. For this reason: Marines, hardcore infantry, macho type soldiers are homophobic, let's face it. The idea that at least philosophically they are not male chauvinists, beer swilling, gung ho, kill, kill, kill is an anathema to them. And being "gay" with all the stereotypical views of who a gay is will not hack it. Regardless of one's view, it is simply the way it is. And, who are these soldiers with all these homophobic views. They are the guys who are out there dying in Iraq. They are the "front line" troops. They are macho to the max. These are the ones probably that the good General Pace, Marine extraordinaire, is talking about.
Is this right, good, etc. Not the most appropriate question to ask? The better question, "is being gay in the military compatible with military life?" Yes, in many instances it is. The idea that in this day and time, we are discharging scores of qualified soldiers even though we have the "don't ask, don't tell" policy--from what I read, the equivalent of at least half a division (division is usually with support troops, twenty thousand men and women. This is ridiculous. Many are skilled technicians, many we've spent a great deal of money training them, i. e., language school. Statistics reveal that many are medical types, to include some doctors. This is an issue that is not going away and cannot be solved.
General Pace is right and wrong. "Outed" gay Marines are not going to fare well. It is reality. What I equate it to in some degree is women in the military. Introducing one woman into a classroom of Marines studying and the dynamics are changed. It is not the woman's fault. It is nobody's fault, simply the human element of men and women. Is this going to change? No. And, the reason we can't force it or push it is that the homophobic Marines are at war and they're dying. Kind of puts social issues on the back burner. In a perfect world, not a problem but guess what!
Is this right, good, etc. Not the most appropriate question to ask? The better question, "is being gay in the military compatible with military life?" Yes, in many instances it is. The idea that in this day and time, we are discharging scores of qualified soldiers even though we have the "don't ask, don't tell" policy--from what I read, the equivalent of at least half a division (division is usually with support troops, twenty thousand men and women. This is ridiculous. Many are skilled technicians, many we've spent a great deal of money training them, i. e., language school. Statistics reveal that many are medical types, to include some doctors. This is an issue that is not going away and cannot be solved.
General Pace is right and wrong. "Outed" gay Marines are not going to fare well. It is reality. What I equate it to in some degree is women in the military. Introducing one woman into a classroom of Marines studying and the dynamics are changed. It is not the woman's fault. It is nobody's fault, simply the human element of men and women. Is this going to change? No. And, the reason we can't force it or push it is that the homophobic Marines are at war and they're dying. Kind of puts social issues on the back burner. In a perfect world, not a problem but guess what!
Friday, March 16, 2007
PARTYING AND GETTING LAID
Recently at a book signing for the memoir, Gun Totin' Chaplain, I got a chance to test out the idea of National Service. The small independent bookstore owner hatched the idea that we'd give away a certain number of books to draw in a crowd. If the idea of the book was to get the message out: National Service--what a great chance to do it in what was possibly an unfriendly college environment. It was successful, the sun was out and students were everywhere. We took it outside and I began to buttonhole students.
I talked to at least a couple of dozen about National Service, now these are Berkeley students--so funny in a sense--here I am a Vietnam vet, the book is about Vietnam and during Vietnam, Berkeley or as we use to say, Berzerkerly, was the epicenter of the anti Vietnam war protest. These kids weren't even born during Vietnam.
The conversations went something like: "What is your thought about National Service, meaning where you'd have to give a year or say 18 months to some sort of Service to your country or a nonprofit organization. It could be the military but wouldn't have to be, could be Teach America or Peace Corp or literally anything like that or you could design your own. A couple of the students gave me the "nobody is home look." By in large, in this brief encounter, the vast majority of the students said, "I'd think about it." For Berkeley, believe me, this is ground breaking. One kid cracked me up! "What are college students interested in?" Answer. "Well, I think having a good time." Then, he grew more thoughtful, "I think my fraternity brothers are mostly interested in partying and getting laid." We laughed.
Upon reflection, the idea of National Service came out looking pretty good in an environment that could be construed traditionally as pretty hostile. I am encouraged more than discouraged when I talk to kids about National Service. For those who oppose the idea and yet could help with it, i. e., Congress, I think they don't give American youngsters enough credit. What I've discovered over the last twelve years or so is that kids want to serve and would with a slight nudge.
I talked to at least a couple of dozen about National Service, now these are Berkeley students--so funny in a sense--here I am a Vietnam vet, the book is about Vietnam and during Vietnam, Berkeley or as we use to say, Berzerkerly, was the epicenter of the anti Vietnam war protest. These kids weren't even born during Vietnam.
The conversations went something like: "What is your thought about National Service, meaning where you'd have to give a year or say 18 months to some sort of Service to your country or a nonprofit organization. It could be the military but wouldn't have to be, could be Teach America or Peace Corp or literally anything like that or you could design your own. A couple of the students gave me the "nobody is home look." By in large, in this brief encounter, the vast majority of the students said, "I'd think about it." For Berkeley, believe me, this is ground breaking. One kid cracked me up! "What are college students interested in?" Answer. "Well, I think having a good time." Then, he grew more thoughtful, "I think my fraternity brothers are mostly interested in partying and getting laid." We laughed.
Upon reflection, the idea of National Service came out looking pretty good in an environment that could be construed traditionally as pretty hostile. I am encouraged more than discouraged when I talk to kids about National Service. For those who oppose the idea and yet could help with it, i. e., Congress, I think they don't give American youngsters enough credit. What I've discovered over the last twelve years or so is that kids want to serve and would with a slight nudge.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
What About The Draft
CADENCE
Martin Sheen directs his son Charlie in a military war of wills. It is a story about a rebellious white recruit befriended by African American prisoners in a West German Army stockade. Lawrence Fishburne is the cell block boss.
This is a movie that works on all kinds of levels. First of all, Vietnam is just heating up. It is 1965. Charlie Sheen is a youngster, emotionally lost, struggling to somehow put things right in his life and with his Dad who dies before he can. Somehow, the Army is all part of the plan. After the death of his Dad, he spirals down even further, goes back to Germany and gets worst. He's thrown into the stockade (jail) for 90 days. He's stubborn, unyielding and the jailhouse boss, Martin Sheen, is determined to break him. In the course of his attempts at breaking this upstart young soldier, Martin, a senior non commissioned officer, comes emotionally apart.
This is the "draft" Army. The movie doesn't deal with issues like, what am I doing here, how did I make this choice, it just was. In this draft Army, there's all kinds, sharing the collective experience.
On another level, it's a movie about race relations. The military has always been way above society in general in living with each other. And, the draft military had all the racial issues but was beginning to confront institutional racism. Cadence is a good example. Here is Charlie, the lost, stubborn young soldier who just wants to get by, live and let live. He faces the challenges, wins over the black charges with whom he lives and in the course of events, the implication is that he found himself. A good movie to watch with Iraq in mind. At least three parachutes
Martin Sheen directs his son Charlie in a military war of wills. It is a story about a rebellious white recruit befriended by African American prisoners in a West German Army stockade. Lawrence Fishburne is the cell block boss.
This is a movie that works on all kinds of levels. First of all, Vietnam is just heating up. It is 1965. Charlie Sheen is a youngster, emotionally lost, struggling to somehow put things right in his life and with his Dad who dies before he can. Somehow, the Army is all part of the plan. After the death of his Dad, he spirals down even further, goes back to Germany and gets worst. He's thrown into the stockade (jail) for 90 days. He's stubborn, unyielding and the jailhouse boss, Martin Sheen, is determined to break him. In the course of his attempts at breaking this upstart young soldier, Martin, a senior non commissioned officer, comes emotionally apart.
This is the "draft" Army. The movie doesn't deal with issues like, what am I doing here, how did I make this choice, it just was. In this draft Army, there's all kinds, sharing the collective experience.
On another level, it's a movie about race relations. The military has always been way above society in general in living with each other. And, the draft military had all the racial issues but was beginning to confront institutional racism. Cadence is a good example. Here is Charlie, the lost, stubborn young soldier who just wants to get by, live and let live. He faces the challenges, wins over the black charges with whom he lives and in the course of events, the implication is that he found himself. A good movie to watch with Iraq in mind. At least three parachutes
Monday, January 01, 2007
UNIVERSAL SERVICE COULD BE JOHN EDWARDS TICKET
OPEN LETTER TO JOHN EDWARDS
Dear Mr. Edwards, as a fellow North Carolinian, I applaud your entry into the Presidential sweepstakes. I am often amazed why anyone would be in politics unless it is a "calling" and I think yours is. Unfortunately, for many, it morphs into a career and politics as usual. I hope and pray that your commitment is different.
My basic purpose for writing, doubting you will ever see this but you might, based on a recent Newsweek article. Your desire for the voters to see the real you. "Untucked." I like it. And, the idea of putting your campaign on "youtube" is right on--very creative from my point of view and I sent the link to dozens. I think that the transparency is truly the only way for a democracy and what you're doing is part of it. You have my support, I assure you.
My feeling is that you are saying some good things. I saw you in New Orleans. Right on. However, many are going to say those same sorts of things and what you need is something to get you out ahead of the crowd. Here's your issue in my opinion: UNIVERSAL SERVICE. Congressman Rangel has proposed a draft but it simply won't fly. Too much opposition even if I think it is a good idea. Unfortunately, in my estimation, those who are in opposition to the draft or may even oppose Universal Service, are in NC parlance, "cutting off their nose to spite their face." What "peace" groups or even others in opposition don't get is that If we had a draft/Universal Service, a President would think twice before he sent us to war.
However, all that aside, Universal Service would be good for the country. For the last 12 years or so, I have been promoting the idea that we need Universal Service-- something unifying and what better to do it than requiring those 18-26 to give 18 months to 2 years in service to this great country. My basic theme has been simply that it is immoral to ask such an infinitesimally small number of Americans to fight our wars. Columnist Ben Stein says it this way, "In the old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest. No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They 've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. They don't want to fight for a system that made them rich or a way of life that made them princes of finance."
I would add, and not original with me, "the kids who are in the military today are those whose economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families." According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. " (The median American income is $43,300.) It is not that the Volunteer Army is not working. We have a military that is as good as we've ever had. Simply, they are not representative of our country and this is not right nor good for us.
The difficulty, in my opinion, with selling the draft is simply too much opposition to the military, war, etc. Few can argue with universal service. From various reports, we've got lots of activism: students are getting involved in Teach America and there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, your comments in New Orleans, who came? Many students showed up to help.
Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage of a Universal Service. Having a choice is the selling point. I have a blog called AllServe and constantly get comments about what a great idea this is.
What would a Universal Service do for America's kids? Lots of things, something like a common interest and experience, something that is nonexistent in our culture. Universal service would make a difference in changing our fractured America--a youth culture built around service. What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. If they didn't want to choose from a list, let them define their own. American kids are smart and creative, we might be surprised at what they come up with and how willing they are to serve.
This is an issue that is begging for someone like yourself to take up--it is the JFK "ask not what your country can do for you" theme. Universal Service could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is an organization I've read about: Teach America. I only know what I've read. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmouth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.
Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is as I've said only one of the options. Universal Service will work.
There's probably some opposition to Universal Service or anything related but what the hell: us North Carolianians know a cause when we see it. Universal Service will fly and I think you are just the one to make it happen.
Dear Mr. Edwards, as a fellow North Carolinian, I applaud your entry into the Presidential sweepstakes. I am often amazed why anyone would be in politics unless it is a "calling" and I think yours is. Unfortunately, for many, it morphs into a career and politics as usual. I hope and pray that your commitment is different.
My basic purpose for writing, doubting you will ever see this but you might, based on a recent Newsweek article. Your desire for the voters to see the real you. "Untucked." I like it. And, the idea of putting your campaign on "youtube" is right on--very creative from my point of view and I sent the link to dozens. I think that the transparency is truly the only way for a democracy and what you're doing is part of it. You have my support, I assure you.
My feeling is that you are saying some good things. I saw you in New Orleans. Right on. However, many are going to say those same sorts of things and what you need is something to get you out ahead of the crowd. Here's your issue in my opinion: UNIVERSAL SERVICE. Congressman Rangel has proposed a draft but it simply won't fly. Too much opposition even if I think it is a good idea. Unfortunately, in my estimation, those who are in opposition to the draft or may even oppose Universal Service, are in NC parlance, "cutting off their nose to spite their face." What "peace" groups or even others in opposition don't get is that If we had a draft/Universal Service, a President would think twice before he sent us to war.
However, all that aside, Universal Service would be good for the country. For the last 12 years or so, I have been promoting the idea that we need Universal Service-- something unifying and what better to do it than requiring those 18-26 to give 18 months to 2 years in service to this great country. My basic theme has been simply that it is immoral to ask such an infinitesimally small number of Americans to fight our wars. Columnist Ben Stein says it this way, "In the old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest. No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They 've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. They don't want to fight for a system that made them rich or a way of life that made them princes of finance."
I would add, and not original with me, "the kids who are in the military today are those whose economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families." According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. " (The median American income is $43,300.) It is not that the Volunteer Army is not working. We have a military that is as good as we've ever had. Simply, they are not representative of our country and this is not right nor good for us.
The difficulty, in my opinion, with selling the draft is simply too much opposition to the military, war, etc. Few can argue with universal service. From various reports, we've got lots of activism: students are getting involved in Teach America and there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, your comments in New Orleans, who came? Many students showed up to help.
Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage of a Universal Service. Having a choice is the selling point. I have a blog called AllServe and constantly get comments about what a great idea this is.
What would a Universal Service do for America's kids? Lots of things, something like a common interest and experience, something that is nonexistent in our culture. Universal service would make a difference in changing our fractured America--a youth culture built around service. What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. If they didn't want to choose from a list, let them define their own. American kids are smart and creative, we might be surprised at what they come up with and how willing they are to serve.
This is an issue that is begging for someone like yourself to take up--it is the JFK "ask not what your country can do for you" theme. Universal Service could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is an organization I've read about: Teach America. I only know what I've read. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmouth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.
Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is as I've said only one of the options. Universal Service will work.
There's probably some opposition to Universal Service or anything related but what the hell: us North Carolianians know a cause when we see it. Universal Service will fly and I think you are just the one to make it happen.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
DOONESBURY
Wouldn't you love to get inside the head of Garry Trudeau? Honestly, I always smile, especially when he fillets the obvious. He's had two cartoon strips recently that jangled my chimes. One was some Vietnam vet sitting in a VA group probably. He tells his story: night sweats, can't hang onto relationships, scared of the dark (these are all my problems). The leader of the group goes around the room and says to this one guy, OK, what do you want to talk about today. He says, "I just want to say I'm thankful that I am not like him"--meaning the Vietnam vet. I guess you would have had to be there but to a vet, it is funny, really funny. As my Dad use to say, might as well laugh as cry.
The other cartoon panel had to do with Iraq; the General says "the military might be broken." The interviewer, Trudeau's character, says something like, "well, maybe we ought to think about the draft?" Then a resounding NO, like Bremer said when he was screwing up Iraq, "don't mention Vietnam to me." NO, no, the characters says, look at what the draft did to our generation. Then he says, "who is here that served back in the day? (The draft). No one and then, we are assuming the prez says, "well, you guys were lucky. I was stuck in the National Guard for five years. A voice says, "four." And then the last panel, "Oh, thank you Dick. At least I didn't have "other priorities." Dick, we assume says,
I had to think about the next war. So we would get it right. That's why we're winning. You have to smile.
The other cartoon panel had to do with Iraq; the General says "the military might be broken." The interviewer, Trudeau's character, says something like, "well, maybe we ought to think about the draft?" Then a resounding NO, like Bremer said when he was screwing up Iraq, "don't mention Vietnam to me." NO, no, the characters says, look at what the draft did to our generation. Then he says, "who is here that served back in the day? (The draft). No one and then, we are assuming the prez says, "well, you guys were lucky. I was stuck in the National Guard for five years. A voice says, "four." And then the last panel, "Oh, thank you Dick. At least I didn't have "other priorities." Dick, we assume says,
I had to think about the next war. So we would get it right. That's why we're winning. You have to smile.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
SMART MEN CAN BE WRONG
Even the most harsh critic of the neocons: Chaney, Pearl, Wofowich, Rumsfelt would not say these men are dumb. But, obviously, based on history and fact, they were wrong. Deposing Saddam didnot bring even a relative peace to Iraq nor the Middle East. We pursued a failed policy and all but the zealots agree that we are in a mess. So, it is surely possible to be smart but dumb and wrong at the same time.
One of my semi heroes and, it pains me to say this, as us Southerners have a view, "do not speak ill of the dead"-- Milton Friedman, already mentioned at another time but based on an article in Newsweek, warrants additional comments. It is his philosophy about the Volunteer Army that is wrong. Nothing personal, Milt. He said, "a military draft is undesirable and unnecessary. We should man our armed forces with volunteers." What is often left out of Milt's saying about the draft, however, is an "add on", "a military draft is undesirable and unnecessary. We can and should man our armed forces with volunteers as the United States has traditionally done except in major wars." ARE WE IN A MAJOR WAR? Yes, the war on terrorism.
I would love to have talked to Mr. Friedman because I agree with Newsweek, he is definitely one of the most influential men of the last hundred years. Often, I am not so sure that someone like Friedman, God bless his soul, is wrong, rather he is not right. Or, maybe we need to approach the same issue in light of new data or in our case, a new time, i. e., the war on terrorism.
What about our Volunteer Army. 2 questions? Is it successful and is it a good Army. Absolutely, it is successful in terms of fielding a military and a good one. On the surface, the present military is probably as good as any we have ever had. The first question, is it successful? From that point, it is a matter of perspective. The Volunteer Army simply is not representative of our American free society and this is what makes the Volunteer Army morally indefensible.
A very relative factor is always left out of the equation and it is somewhat definitional: when I say the Voluteer Army, I mean, all the "forces." However, much of the volunteer military has always been voluntary: the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, and all of the elite forces such as Green Berets, Navy Seals--an entire Division, the 82d Airborne Division has always from its inception been voluntary.
Milt railed against the draft from a position of his time that really didn't make sense but also, because of the inequity of the draft. Who can interpret this Friedman statement: "the draft is wasteful because determent of students, fathers and married men jams colleges, raises the birth rate and fuels divorce courts." What in the hell does he mean? And, I love this one, "universal national service would compound the evil--regimenting all youth to camouflage the regimentation of some."
To give Mr. Friedman his due, I think one big point is that the draft was inequitable because it was not administered fairly. Where I think he is off the mark is that Universal Service simply provides an opportunity to serve. The fact that it is compulsory is simply an update on the times. Youth, if forced to serve, no exceptions, will do it and when it is over, my prediction is they will say, "I did it, I gave back and I'm the better for it." Friedman didn't like the draft, universal service, price controls, minimum wage standards. He's consistent.
Well, in life, I think there have to be some controls and restrictions. To me, youth serving their country is not so much a control as a freedom to serve.
One of my semi heroes and, it pains me to say this, as us Southerners have a view, "do not speak ill of the dead"-- Milton Friedman, already mentioned at another time but based on an article in Newsweek, warrants additional comments. It is his philosophy about the Volunteer Army that is wrong. Nothing personal, Milt. He said, "a military draft is undesirable and unnecessary. We should man our armed forces with volunteers." What is often left out of Milt's saying about the draft, however, is an "add on", "a military draft is undesirable and unnecessary. We can and should man our armed forces with volunteers as the United States has traditionally done except in major wars." ARE WE IN A MAJOR WAR? Yes, the war on terrorism.
I would love to have talked to Mr. Friedman because I agree with Newsweek, he is definitely one of the most influential men of the last hundred years. Often, I am not so sure that someone like Friedman, God bless his soul, is wrong, rather he is not right. Or, maybe we need to approach the same issue in light of new data or in our case, a new time, i. e., the war on terrorism.
What about our Volunteer Army. 2 questions? Is it successful and is it a good Army. Absolutely, it is successful in terms of fielding a military and a good one. On the surface, the present military is probably as good as any we have ever had. The first question, is it successful? From that point, it is a matter of perspective. The Volunteer Army simply is not representative of our American free society and this is what makes the Volunteer Army morally indefensible.
A very relative factor is always left out of the equation and it is somewhat definitional: when I say the Voluteer Army, I mean, all the "forces." However, much of the volunteer military has always been voluntary: the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force, and all of the elite forces such as Green Berets, Navy Seals--an entire Division, the 82d Airborne Division has always from its inception been voluntary.
Milt railed against the draft from a position of his time that really didn't make sense but also, because of the inequity of the draft. Who can interpret this Friedman statement: "the draft is wasteful because determent of students, fathers and married men jams colleges, raises the birth rate and fuels divorce courts." What in the hell does he mean? And, I love this one, "universal national service would compound the evil--regimenting all youth to camouflage the regimentation of some."
To give Mr. Friedman his due, I think one big point is that the draft was inequitable because it was not administered fairly. Where I think he is off the mark is that Universal Service simply provides an opportunity to serve. The fact that it is compulsory is simply an update on the times. Youth, if forced to serve, no exceptions, will do it and when it is over, my prediction is they will say, "I did it, I gave back and I'm the better for it." Friedman didn't like the draft, universal service, price controls, minimum wage standards. He's consistent.
Well, in life, I think there have to be some controls and restrictions. To me, youth serving their country is not so much a control as a freedom to serve.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Military Draft or Universal Service
Congressman Rangel, I applaud your commitment to reviving the draft and certainly agree with it. However, I don't think it will fly. For the last 12 years or so, I have been promoting the idea that we need Universal Service. We need something unifying and what better to do it than requiring those 18-26 to give 18 months to 2 years in service to this great country. As you can imagine from your own experiences, mostly I have been a voice "crying in the wilderness."
My basic theme has been simply that it is immoral to ask such an infinitesimally small number of Americans to fight our wars. Columnist Ben Stein put the perfect idea on it, "In the old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest. No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They 've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. They don't want to fight for a system that made them rich or a way of life that made them princes of finance."
I would add, and not original with me, "the kids who are in the military today are those whose economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families."
According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. " (The median American income is $43,300.)
The difficulty, in my opinion, with selling the draft is simply too much opposition to the military, war, etc. Few can argue with universal service. From various reports, we've got lots of activism: students are getting involved in Teach America and there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, many students went to help in Katrina.
Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage of a Universal Service. Having a choice is the selling point. I started a blog called AllServe and constantly get comments about what a great idea this is.
What would a Universal Service do for America's kids? Lots of things, something like a common interest and experience, something that is nonexistent in our culture. Universal service would make a difference in changing our fractured America--a youth culture built around service. What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. If they didn't want to choose from a list, let them define their own. American kids are smart and creative, we might be surprised at what they come up with and how willing they are to serve.
Universal Service could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is an organization I've read about: Teach America. I only know what I've read. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmouth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.
Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is only one of the options. Universal Service will work.
Congressman Rangel, I applaud your efforts now as I did when you offered the bill on the draft once before. We missed our greatest opportunity for our kids after 9-11. Now, as I see it, we have another chance. With our "changed" Congress, Universal Service will fly and I hope and pray it will and think you are just the one to make it happen.
My basic theme has been simply that it is immoral to ask such an infinitesimally small number of Americans to fight our wars. Columnist Ben Stein put the perfect idea on it, "In the old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest. No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They 've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. They don't want to fight for a system that made them rich or a way of life that made them princes of finance."
I would add, and not original with me, "the kids who are in the military today are those whose economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families."
According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. " (The median American income is $43,300.)
The difficulty, in my opinion, with selling the draft is simply too much opposition to the military, war, etc. Few can argue with universal service. From various reports, we've got lots of activism: students are getting involved in Teach America and there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, many students went to help in Katrina.
Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage of a Universal Service. Having a choice is the selling point. I started a blog called AllServe and constantly get comments about what a great idea this is.
What would a Universal Service do for America's kids? Lots of things, something like a common interest and experience, something that is nonexistent in our culture. Universal service would make a difference in changing our fractured America--a youth culture built around service. What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. If they didn't want to choose from a list, let them define their own. American kids are smart and creative, we might be surprised at what they come up with and how willing they are to serve.
Universal Service could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is an organization I've read about: Teach America. I only know what I've read. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmouth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.
Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is only one of the options. Universal Service will work.
Congressman Rangel, I applaud your efforts now as I did when you offered the bill on the draft once before. We missed our greatest opportunity for our kids after 9-11. Now, as I see it, we have another chance. With our "changed" Congress, Universal Service will fly and I hope and pray it will and think you are just the one to make it happen.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
JUST NOT PROVEN OUT
Milton Friedman just died. Who is he? Wake up and smell the roses, he was a famous economist and bigtime promoter of free trade. But, his big claim to fame is that he was the first to suggest to Richard Nixon that we have an All Volunteer Army. Mainly his reasons were that if it were voluntary, those who chose it would stay longer. They would be better trained and have more esprit. Well, Milt, Dicky took your suggestion and the voluntary army has been successful only in numbers. There is no evidence that it is better trained or has higher esprit or that people stay longer.
The present day military is as good as probably any we have ever fielded. However, there's no real way to measure the Voluntary Army. What we have discovered and it doesn't take a Harvard scholar to know this, based on present leadership, the military is woefully undermanned with much of the expert knowledge and experience residing in the active military, leaving the Reserves and National Guard woefully inadequate for its fighting role. Granted the Guard and Reserves have done a good job catching up but when the history of the Iraqi war is written, I think that most of the issues of lack of experience and training will be at the feet of the Reserves and Guard. Think about it, by in large, the Guard and Reserve soldiers join up to play army, show up once a month, deal with a six pack or two, escape the wives/husbands. Suddenly, a war shows up and because we have reduced the size of the military to scandalous levels, we must deploy the Guard and Reserves. What did we expect? That being said, the Guard and the Reserves are to be commended for doing their duty and coming around.
So, Milt, although your idea was good, it overall has been a dismal failure, especially in terms of representing our democracy. We have chosen to let a small portion of Americans fight our wars and this just ain't right. SHAME ON US.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
WHERE ARE THE PRIVILEGED
Do you ever read Ben Stein? The reason Ben's done TV and now writes fairly regularly for the NY Times. A patriotic and always "supporting the troops" sort of guy. His latest article deals with how things have changed in what the military means to people. In the old days, it was something that everybody did: regardless of position in life: rich or poor. Of course, it was WW II but in this latest article he laments what has happened.
The old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest." No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They don't fight for the system that made them rich or won't fight for the way of life that made them princes of finance. So says Ben and I agree.
Ben says that Israel possibly should try on this theory: the reason that Hisbollah has bested Israel is that Israel has gotten soft. Israel, the shining light of military might beaten to a standoff by a very motivated and better led thousand or so fighters.
Ben says and I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. "These people (hezbollah) see it as a privilege to fight and die for their beliefs, even if we think they're insane. And, the rest of them line up to blow themselves up for their vision of heaven. And all the while we are saying "let the other poor sap to it..I've got to make money."
This sounds like a tangent but it dovetails with The Unexcused Absence of the Upper Classes from Military Service. Stein is relentless, "how can we fight this fight with the brightest and best educated rushing off and working night and day to make money. How can we fight this fight with the upper class absent. If Israel cannot muster the will to fight in a big way, then the fat, faraway, USA will never be able to do it."
He was talking about how much we're in a bind, what about Iraq?Everybody hates us, etc.; then he said the ones that enable us to live such a good life in America are those who fight for us, whether we agree or not. And, this is what worries him most of all, we keep going about our stuff, collecting our goodies without any realization that it could end, that there are those like soldiers who make all the sacrifices.
He's right, we're in a war with people who are evangelized to kill us. I mean, nobody seems to want to admit that the Middle East is a strange, timeless place where nothing has changed for thousands of years. Hatreds that have existed for generations are not going away. These people can't be reasoned with. We will never understand it.
All that said, there are, as someone recently reminded me, as I was railing against our mismanagement of Iraq--there is some encouragement in the world: what? Europe is getting involved in Lebanon in keeping the peace. Finding a nugget here and there is a good thing.
The old days, the rich, the famous, they all put it aside to fight. Now who fights for us: "Southerners, Hispanics from New Mexico, rural men and women from upstate NY. Small town boys and girls from the Midwest." No children of the powers on Wall Street go off and fight? They don't fight for the system that made them rich or won't fight for the way of life that made them princes of finance. So says Ben and I agree.
Ben says that Israel possibly should try on this theory: the reason that Hisbollah has bested Israel is that Israel has gotten soft. Israel, the shining light of military might beaten to a standoff by a very motivated and better led thousand or so fighters.
Ben says and I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth. "These people (hezbollah) see it as a privilege to fight and die for their beliefs, even if we think they're insane. And, the rest of them line up to blow themselves up for their vision of heaven. And all the while we are saying "let the other poor sap to it..I've got to make money."
This sounds like a tangent but it dovetails with The Unexcused Absence of the Upper Classes from Military Service. Stein is relentless, "how can we fight this fight with the brightest and best educated rushing off and working night and day to make money. How can we fight this fight with the upper class absent. If Israel cannot muster the will to fight in a big way, then the fat, faraway, USA will never be able to do it."
He was talking about how much we're in a bind, what about Iraq?Everybody hates us, etc.; then he said the ones that enable us to live such a good life in America are those who fight for us, whether we agree or not. And, this is what worries him most of all, we keep going about our stuff, collecting our goodies without any realization that it could end, that there are those like soldiers who make all the sacrifices.
He's right, we're in a war with people who are evangelized to kill us. I mean, nobody seems to want to admit that the Middle East is a strange, timeless place where nothing has changed for thousands of years. Hatreds that have existed for generations are not going away. These people can't be reasoned with. We will never understand it.
All that said, there are, as someone recently reminded me, as I was railing against our mismanagement of Iraq--there is some encouragement in the world: what? Europe is getting involved in Lebanon in keeping the peace. Finding a nugget here and there is a good thing.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
DON'T BOTHER US
The third anniversary of the war in Iraq came and went without much fanfare. Not the old Vietnam style protests whether they did any good or not. And, the few that were held didn't get much attention and few young people showed up or had any interest it seems. Why? Simply, kids, like most adults don't have any vested interest in the war. It really is not affecting them. Life goes on and for youngsters, there's no draft, they don't have to think in those terms so why get excited--you have a war, you have someone else doing the fighting. What is the big deal!
In some ways, it is not that activism has gone the way of nothing. From various reports, students are getting involved in Teach America, there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, many students went to help in Katrina. Maybe it's just the idea of an abstract war going on somewhere else, not really affecting anybody other than those fighting or their families--the political spin of the government surely can't be discounted.
DEPRIVING YOUNGSTERS OF A CHANCE TO SERVE
Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it.In a bitterly divided country involved in a very divisive war that rational people see no end too, the vast majority agree our troops should not be held accountable for the politics that led to Iraq becoming IRAQNAM.
And, for most of us Vietnam vets who think about it, our great legacy is the fact that most Americans who care and not all do, realize that soldiers who fought in Vietnam were blamed for a very sorry war--even for the lies on what we were doing in Vietnam and the mismanagement of battle plans we could not salvage. And, it is true that for most, we're determined not to make that mistake again. This time around, most of us salute our soldiers.
That being said, the vast majority of Americans are still willing for other people's kids to fight their wars. Three long years ago, when the invasion of Iraq was widely supported as an extension of the war on terror, the prospect of a military draft was occasional mentioned but more with rancor than anything else. Simply stated, across party lines, especially among the affluent classes, the draft was a word uttered in disdain if at all--noway, do we want our sons and daughters to serve the nation's military. Nothing has changed.
POLITICS
The politics of the draft reflected the vast majority of Americans thoughts. The volunteer Army was touted as all sufficient. Let's face it, all those hawks who supported the war and still do, don't have any "skin" in the game--doesn't affect them or their families? I'm not much of a Michael Moore fan as he's taken his antigovernment to an absurd level, not to mention making a sack full of money from his movies. But, there is a priceless scene in Fahrenheit 9-11, when he approaches Congressman wanting them to give the paperwork to their sons and daughters on joining the military. Got to love it. Congressional hypocrisy at its height: sending other Moms and Dad's kids off to war.
WHO ARE THESE KIDS WHO FIGHT FOR AMERICANS
They are, by in large, from America's working class. Why do they join up? Let's subscribe to them the best of motives, patriotism. And, it is relatively true. When the parents or wives or friends are interviewed at their funerals, it sounds so much better to talk about their patriotism. In reality, however, they are kids where economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families. According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. (The median American income is $43,300.)
There is a sense of denial in the people I talk too who are willing to admit that we've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. It isn't so much classic denial as they simply don't want to fess up. Occasionally, I'll have some of my buddies say, "well, they volunteered." True and we have to affirm kids for this but it does not alter the fact of who they are--many relate their service to 9-11 and duty, honor, country--who can kick that: however, it does mean that the wealthier surely didn't get overwhelmed with patriotism.
WHERE ARE THE VIETNAM VETS
Vietnam vets are rare these days in government but there are a few. Vice President Dick Cheney has said he had "other priorities" during the war in Vietnam. And President Bush ... think missing meetings of the Air Guard. At some point, there may be some shame but it is not evident. I understand Cheney, the guy shot a buddy hunting, no telling what he might have done in Vietnam but what about men like Sen. John Kerry, John McCain, Chuck Hegel and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vietnam veterans who have seen young men die in combat. Don't they "get it," this fighting a war on the backs of working class Americans. They know better and AllServe was a factor in Vietnam, even if it was somewhat a pretext. At least all were duty bound because of the draft. It is unjust and immoral for a small segment of Americans to fight such a war in Iraq. There is no other argument in my mind that has credibility.
In some ways, it is not that activism has gone the way of nothing. From various reports, students are getting involved in Teach America, there's been a resurgence in the Peace Corp. And, many students went to help in Katrina. Maybe it's just the idea of an abstract war going on somewhere else, not really affecting anybody other than those fighting or their families--the political spin of the government surely can't be discounted.
DEPRIVING YOUNGSTERS OF A CHANCE TO SERVE
Without a draft or any sort of Universal Service, kids by in large don't have any incentive to serve. I talk to parents of kids who are draft eligible with great regularity and simply unless there is an unusual circumstances, they don't think about it.In a bitterly divided country involved in a very divisive war that rational people see no end too, the vast majority agree our troops should not be held accountable for the politics that led to Iraq becoming IRAQNAM.
And, for most of us Vietnam vets who think about it, our great legacy is the fact that most Americans who care and not all do, realize that soldiers who fought in Vietnam were blamed for a very sorry war--even for the lies on what we were doing in Vietnam and the mismanagement of battle plans we could not salvage. And, it is true that for most, we're determined not to make that mistake again. This time around, most of us salute our soldiers.
That being said, the vast majority of Americans are still willing for other people's kids to fight their wars. Three long years ago, when the invasion of Iraq was widely supported as an extension of the war on terror, the prospect of a military draft was occasional mentioned but more with rancor than anything else. Simply stated, across party lines, especially among the affluent classes, the draft was a word uttered in disdain if at all--noway, do we want our sons and daughters to serve the nation's military. Nothing has changed.
POLITICS
The politics of the draft reflected the vast majority of Americans thoughts. The volunteer Army was touted as all sufficient. Let's face it, all those hawks who supported the war and still do, don't have any "skin" in the game--doesn't affect them or their families? I'm not much of a Michael Moore fan as he's taken his antigovernment to an absurd level, not to mention making a sack full of money from his movies. But, there is a priceless scene in Fahrenheit 9-11, when he approaches Congressman wanting them to give the paperwork to their sons and daughters on joining the military. Got to love it. Congressional hypocrisy at its height: sending other Moms and Dad's kids off to war.
WHO ARE THESE KIDS WHO FIGHT FOR AMERICANS
They are, by in large, from America's working class. Why do they join up? Let's subscribe to them the best of motives, patriotism. And, it is relatively true. When the parents or wives or friends are interviewed at their funerals, it sounds so much better to talk about their patriotism. In reality, however, they are kids where economic prospects are less than stellar. They are high-school graduates who're not going to college because of costs, many young parents who need a regular paycheck and health care for their families. According to DOD statistics, soldiers come from households earning between $32,000 and $33,500. (The median American income is $43,300.)
There is a sense of denial in the people I talk too who are willing to admit that we've left the burden of defending an affluent nation to those who enjoy less of its affluence. It isn't so much classic denial as they simply don't want to fess up. Occasionally, I'll have some of my buddies say, "well, they volunteered." True and we have to affirm kids for this but it does not alter the fact of who they are--many relate their service to 9-11 and duty, honor, country--who can kick that: however, it does mean that the wealthier surely didn't get overwhelmed with patriotism.
WHERE ARE THE VIETNAM VETS
Vietnam vets are rare these days in government but there are a few. Vice President Dick Cheney has said he had "other priorities" during the war in Vietnam. And President Bush ... think missing meetings of the Air Guard. At some point, there may be some shame but it is not evident. I understand Cheney, the guy shot a buddy hunting, no telling what he might have done in Vietnam but what about men like Sen. John Kerry, John McCain, Chuck Hegel and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vietnam veterans who have seen young men die in combat. Don't they "get it," this fighting a war on the backs of working class Americans. They know better and AllServe was a factor in Vietnam, even if it was somewhat a pretext. At least all were duty bound because of the draft. It is unjust and immoral for a small segment of Americans to fight such a war in Iraq. There is no other argument in my mind that has credibility.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
HOW ABOUT A TOUR IN THE MARINES
I first read this in a newspaper column: teenagers concerned over their rights--roughly meaning that teenagers and parents are locked into a battle over teenager rights. What rights are those? According to the article, the teenagers get to choose whatever those rights might be.
What is this? Well, for one thing a cultural issue where by in large, kids from affluent homes need to "get a life." They are spending way too much time on the internet, text messageing their friends and cogitating their navels. And, parents are allowing it to happen. Who are the parents here?
Kids in control? Give me a break! Of course, when parents cede control to teenagers, they are going to take it. The flip side of the coin is that when kids don't have to face responsibilities, old fashioned things like a job for instance, what can we expect. Or, what about this for a radical emphasis: facing the military draft or even joining the military upon graduation, or at least some sort of Universal Service like the Peace Corps or Americorp. Their angst might just be a good thing, as opposed to how to get over on their parents and where is the next big party! JUST SOME THOUGHTS...
What is this? Well, for one thing a cultural issue where by in large, kids from affluent homes need to "get a life." They are spending way too much time on the internet, text messageing their friends and cogitating their navels. And, parents are allowing it to happen. Who are the parents here?
Kids in control? Give me a break! Of course, when parents cede control to teenagers, they are going to take it. The flip side of the coin is that when kids don't have to face responsibilities, old fashioned things like a job for instance, what can we expect. Or, what about this for a radical emphasis: facing the military draft or even joining the military upon graduation, or at least some sort of Universal Service like the Peace Corps or Americorp. Their angst might just be a good thing, as opposed to how to get over on their parents and where is the next big party! JUST SOME THOUGHTS...
Sunday, January 29, 2006
DEATH OR THE ARMY
I am constantly reading where some mother is communicating with her son in college, whether he has the right socks or maybe is eating properly; and, of course, the usual tenor of the article is that if there's any negative, must be the Mom's fault. On a related but more serious vein is a recent article I read with a title of "When we let them down, kids get high"--bored kids doing drugs. The article is written by a therapist who basically is lifting the responsibilty of taking drugs from the kids to being our fault--we're not listening to them. They are bored with life with a mantra that life sucks and consequently a way to make it not suck is to do drugs. OK!
According to the story, many of these kids know how to score Oxycontin, a pain medication derived from opium, along with the designer drug, methamphetamines with the ease of opening a coke can. Her statement, "It's happening here at beautiful Lake Tahoe, where people come to enjoy a nice vacation, where people drive SUVs the size of tanks and people are unwilling to face the reality that the local ski areas would probably have very few employees at all if they tested for drugs and enforced a clean and sober policy at work." Wow! What ever happened to kids doing homework, having an afterschool job, playing sports, hanging out with girl friends or boyfriends. And, more important where are the parents? Are they scared of their kids--no confrontation less they alienate! Give me a break.
I have a solution for the therapist who feels so strongly the plight of the teenagers she's counseling. What about the Army or Marines. What about kids knowing that at some point, bored or not, they are going to have to face the military draft or best case, some alternative. Why not? What do we think is going to happen to these kids who at eleven know how to get drugs and get high. They are going to be a burden at some point on society. Even with baby boomers today, many are facing health problems from their "summers of love' and these kids are going to be so much worse even if they make it.
If we at least get these kids in the military they might have a chance. There should be an AllServe and we need a system where those drugged out will do best in the militry where there is a possibility that they can get straighten out. Sound far fetched. Well, not any more than doing nothing.
According to the story, many of these kids know how to score Oxycontin, a pain medication derived from opium, along with the designer drug, methamphetamines with the ease of opening a coke can. Her statement, "It's happening here at beautiful Lake Tahoe, where people come to enjoy a nice vacation, where people drive SUVs the size of tanks and people are unwilling to face the reality that the local ski areas would probably have very few employees at all if they tested for drugs and enforced a clean and sober policy at work." Wow! What ever happened to kids doing homework, having an afterschool job, playing sports, hanging out with girl friends or boyfriends. And, more important where are the parents? Are they scared of their kids--no confrontation less they alienate! Give me a break.
I have a solution for the therapist who feels so strongly the plight of the teenagers she's counseling. What about the Army or Marines. What about kids knowing that at some point, bored or not, they are going to have to face the military draft or best case, some alternative. Why not? What do we think is going to happen to these kids who at eleven know how to get drugs and get high. They are going to be a burden at some point on society. Even with baby boomers today, many are facing health problems from their "summers of love' and these kids are going to be so much worse even if they make it.
If we at least get these kids in the military they might have a chance. There should be an AllServe and we need a system where those drugged out will do best in the militry where there is a possibility that they can get straighten out. Sound far fetched. Well, not any more than doing nothing.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE SOROS
AN OPEN LETTER TO George Soros
I have followed your contributions for a better American over the last several years. Thank you. You have stated that you want to make a difference in changing our fractured America. I see only one way--a youth culture built around service.
ARE WE A FRACTURED SOCIETY
For some time, I too have been concerned about our fractured culture. Recently, Readers Digest had an article about whether we are truly a "fractured America." It said "not as much as we think" but unfortunately, we let the left and right wings drive us according to the article. To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure. I would like to think that most of us congregate in the middle but have my doubts.
The last presidential election is credited to the right wing fundamentalists of the Republican party for tipping the scales. However, they were only able to do this because a large contingency of who Democrats were counting on--the young people, simply didn't vote. To me, there's a great lesson in this. We have to have something other than politics to unite us. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely polarized country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE WILL SELL
What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. When I first began my campaign ten years ago, it was just about the military draft. I could count on one hand those who mildly agreed, especially those with children. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage. Having a choice is the selling point. AllServe needs to be promoted, a formal organization created, and a build up of support in the country. Once this happens, the Congress will follow.
There are so many positives to this approach. First of all, it could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is Teach America. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmarth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.
Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is only one of the options. Universal Service will work.
To be able to make something like this successful, we know that it is about marketing as much as anything. Consequently, a blitz of goals and an organized campaign over a five or ten year period is the secret. What think?
I have followed your contributions for a better American over the last several years. Thank you. You have stated that you want to make a difference in changing our fractured America. I see only one way--a youth culture built around service.
ARE WE A FRACTURED SOCIETY
For some time, I too have been concerned about our fractured culture. Recently, Readers Digest had an article about whether we are truly a "fractured America." It said "not as much as we think" but unfortunately, we let the left and right wings drive us according to the article. To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure. I would like to think that most of us congregate in the middle but have my doubts.
The last presidential election is credited to the right wing fundamentalists of the Republican party for tipping the scales. However, they were only able to do this because a large contingency of who Democrats were counting on--the young people, simply didn't vote. To me, there's a great lesson in this. We have to have something other than politics to unite us. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely polarized country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE WILL SELL
What I am discovering is that many Americans will go for Universal Service if youth is given an option. When I first began my campaign ten years ago, it was just about the military draft. I could count on one hand those who mildly agreed, especially those with children. Thinking has changed and more and more parents of eligible kids see the advantage. Having a choice is the selling point. AllServe needs to be promoted, a formal organization created, and a build up of support in the country. Once this happens, the Congress will follow.
There are so many positives to this approach. First of all, it could be phased in over ten years and promoted among our youngsters now. A success story and the way AllServe could work is Teach America. They are getting top graduates who could be in medical school or Wharton business or wherever--yet choose to do something meaningful before they start their careers. Teach America sends graduates into poor rural and urban schools for two years. For many, it has become a next step after graduation. These kids want to contribute to improving society while keeping their options open. At Yale for instance, Teach America, drew applications from 12% of the graduates, 11% at Dartmarth, and 8% at Harvard. All told a record 17,350 applied in one year.
Are our present kids a post 9-11 generation ready to opt more aggressively for public service? I think so. Many of those volunteering for Teach America don't know what they want to do. The thought is that not knowing what to do, why not take some time to do something meaningful for a couple of years and think about the future. The military is only one of the options. Universal Service will work.
To be able to make something like this successful, we know that it is about marketing as much as anything. Consequently, a blitz of goals and an organized campaign over a five or ten year period is the secret. What think?
Sunday, October 02, 2005
ARMY RECRUITING IN THE TOILET
Why? Many reasons: a war, economy good, resistance to the military by parents and zealots growing. Congress at leasts wants the Army to expand by 50,000 more while the military can hardly maintain the status quo. Where are they going to get these fifty thousand? In other words, the Army is in a hurt. Afghanistan and Iraq are long term commitments and there seems to be no let up in either war. The Generals give these rosy pictures but who believes them anymore. Not anybody I know. So, what to do!
In a perfect world, we would not need an Army but unless horses start to fly and the Democrats and the Republicans lay down together in the Biblical concept of Lions and Sheep, forget it. There's a real lesson for us here. I've been pushing the idea of AllServe for years and feel mostly like a voice crying in the wilderness. However, I am beginning to see a crack in the intransigent views. Congress, gutless as they are, will not even consider a draft. And, when the draft issue was raised, it was merely symbolic. However, all of this is missing the boat, big time. If we had an AllServe approach to Universal service, the draft, for instance, would be only one small aspect of the total picture. We would be limited only by our own imagination. We could have teachers corps, peace Corp, domestic service, minic many of the programs that the States or Cities already have in place. Military service would only be a small portion of it.
This idea doesn't even sound radical, merely practical. Would young Americans join the military in great numbers? Sure. We've already seen the evidence in crisis: in fact, many of our volunteer Army now were recruited after 9-11. The most famous recruit, of course, is the now deceased, killed in battle, Pat Tillman. A million dollar NFL contract would not deter him. And, despite many obstacles, it was his choice. Even though now, there is a question on how he died, this does not take away from his sacrifices. And, it would not deter many other Americans. All the AllServe would do for many is nudge them toward what they want to do anyway. There would be no deferments.
This idea is exceedingly more feasible than initiating a military draft which may become a possibility. And, we are at the point where we can give no credence to those like Rumsfelt or the Generals who run the recruiting program. They have failed and all their pronouncements are not going to make it any different. Our present military is woefully undersized for the commitments we have undertaken. We are incredibly lucky that we have not had to deal with a truly major conflict.
What if by some stretch of the imagination, we had to take on a major power like China with its unlimited manpower. They could easily overwhelm us, creating unthinkable options like nuclear. Without getting into strategy, an AllServe needs merely to think in terms of numbers. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely divisive country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE IS THE ANSWER
In a perfect world, we would not need an Army but unless horses start to fly and the Democrats and the Republicans lay down together in the Biblical concept of Lions and Sheep, forget it. There's a real lesson for us here. I've been pushing the idea of AllServe for years and feel mostly like a voice crying in the wilderness. However, I am beginning to see a crack in the intransigent views. Congress, gutless as they are, will not even consider a draft. And, when the draft issue was raised, it was merely symbolic. However, all of this is missing the boat, big time. If we had an AllServe approach to Universal service, the draft, for instance, would be only one small aspect of the total picture. We would be limited only by our own imagination. We could have teachers corps, peace Corp, domestic service, minic many of the programs that the States or Cities already have in place. Military service would only be a small portion of it.
This idea doesn't even sound radical, merely practical. Would young Americans join the military in great numbers? Sure. We've already seen the evidence in crisis: in fact, many of our volunteer Army now were recruited after 9-11. The most famous recruit, of course, is the now deceased, killed in battle, Pat Tillman. A million dollar NFL contract would not deter him. And, despite many obstacles, it was his choice. Even though now, there is a question on how he died, this does not take away from his sacrifices. And, it would not deter many other Americans. All the AllServe would do for many is nudge them toward what they want to do anyway. There would be no deferments.
This idea is exceedingly more feasible than initiating a military draft which may become a possibility. And, we are at the point where we can give no credence to those like Rumsfelt or the Generals who run the recruiting program. They have failed and all their pronouncements are not going to make it any different. Our present military is woefully undersized for the commitments we have undertaken. We are incredibly lucky that we have not had to deal with a truly major conflict.
What if by some stretch of the imagination, we had to take on a major power like China with its unlimited manpower. They could easily overwhelm us, creating unthinkable options like nuclear. Without getting into strategy, an AllServe needs merely to think in terms of numbers. The benefits to an AllServe Universal Service are legion. One, above all, however, is the unifying factor. In our extremely divisive country, we need something to unify us. What better than youth, 18-26, with a common experience. An AllServe would provide such an experience.
Friday, September 30, 2005
NOBODY WENT TO VIETNAM WHO DIDN'T WANT TOO
THE SIXTIES
I watched this program about the Sixties the other night on public TV. It had been on before but I saw it totally through for the first time. Very interesting. I was in Vietnam during the pivotal time, according to the show. And, like all documentaries, it tells the story from a particular perspective. The perspective being that the entire country was into the summer of love, San Francico and Berkeley being the place to be--the student movement, the black panthers, etc.. And, of course for the discerning person that was not true. The events that they think were turning points, I don't see at all and was mostly in their imagination. Someone said that "a person's perception is their reality" and so true. The documentarian of the program, The Sixties, has a perception and for him and the writers, it is their reality. But, for many of us, so entirely different.
One of those interviewed on the draft said something like, "anybody with intelligence, sophistication and didn't want to go to Vietnam, could get out of it. Relatively true and was one of the things wrong with the draft.
And, some of the facts in the program were wrong. An event in 67, before I went to Vietnam, I was with the 503d Military Police Battalion. We went to Washington for the March on the Pentagon. The 503d was shown in lots of pictures and the documentary called them the 82d Airborne. Not. The 82d was not even there. Now, does that make any difference? No. But, I think what it means is simply that TV, movies, etc. have a story to tell and sometimes the facts, even very relevant ones, get lost in the process.
The facts are that Vietnam was a sorry war. The draft was incredibly inequitable and consequently there was no sense of shared sacrifice. The Sixties were an important time in reflection but the perception of the TV documentary did not fit the rest of the country. But, surely cannot be minimized either in terms of the events and the significance even if not universal. As far as the "draft" is concern, what we are shown that we do not want a draft in the Sixties context. The draft to be successful must be only one avenue for an AllServe approach to service. For that fact alone, thanks for the good documentary.
I watched this program about the Sixties the other night on public TV. It had been on before but I saw it totally through for the first time. Very interesting. I was in Vietnam during the pivotal time, according to the show. And, like all documentaries, it tells the story from a particular perspective. The perspective being that the entire country was into the summer of love, San Francico and Berkeley being the place to be--the student movement, the black panthers, etc.. And, of course for the discerning person that was not true. The events that they think were turning points, I don't see at all and was mostly in their imagination. Someone said that "a person's perception is their reality" and so true. The documentarian of the program, The Sixties, has a perception and for him and the writers, it is their reality. But, for many of us, so entirely different.
One of those interviewed on the draft said something like, "anybody with intelligence, sophistication and didn't want to go to Vietnam, could get out of it. Relatively true and was one of the things wrong with the draft.
And, some of the facts in the program were wrong. An event in 67, before I went to Vietnam, I was with the 503d Military Police Battalion. We went to Washington for the March on the Pentagon. The 503d was shown in lots of pictures and the documentary called them the 82d Airborne. Not. The 82d was not even there. Now, does that make any difference? No. But, I think what it means is simply that TV, movies, etc. have a story to tell and sometimes the facts, even very relevant ones, get lost in the process.
The facts are that Vietnam was a sorry war. The draft was incredibly inequitable and consequently there was no sense of shared sacrifice. The Sixties were an important time in reflection but the perception of the TV documentary did not fit the rest of the country. But, surely cannot be minimized either in terms of the events and the significance even if not universal. As far as the "draft" is concern, what we are shown that we do not want a draft in the Sixties context. The draft to be successful must be only one avenue for an AllServe approach to service. For that fact alone, thanks for the good documentary.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
THE POWER OF GRIEF
One of my Vietnam buddies told me once that when his brother was killed in Vietnam, his Mom went into the house and did not come out for seven years. Amazing but I am not surprised. Grief is a powerful force and affects all of us in different ways. For some, we move right on or appear too. For others, we never move on. The Mother of Pat Tillman is having trouble. I've been following her story and understand. She is after truth. How was he killed? Why was she lied too? What is the Army trying to conceal? The questions are endless and when her answers come, will they satisfied her?
I doubt it. Pat Tillman's loss is huge. Every loss in war is huge but his strikes a blow most unusual. An American success story: NFL star football player with a gigantic financial future. Enlists in the military after the attack on the World Trade Center. Becomes an elite Army Ranger. Is killed at war by friendly fire.
FRIENDLY FIRE HAPPENS ALL THE TIME
It happens all the time in war. I was amazed in Vietnam that we did not have more of it. Everybody had a weapon or several. We did not have the sophisticated communication systems we have now. And, for Vietnam or presently at war, under the best of circumstances, friendly fire happens!
I am not about to speak for the military or to justify any approach they have taken and surely understand Pat Tillman's mother's grief. Her grief appears to be vastly different than the grief of now celebrity protestor, Cindy Sheehan, who also lost a son. Whereas Pat Tillman's Mom shuns the limelight, Ms. Sheehan seeks it. Her motives to me are somewhat suspect as she appears to have morphed into a sound bite. Ms. Sheehan's picture smiling while being arrested appears to indicate that she definitely has moved on in her grief. Not so for Pat Tillman's Mom.
There will be no final answers is all that I can assure Pat Tillman's Mom, even when the Army has laid itself bare, if it ever does. As sad as it is, at the base level, we have to accept that Pat Tillman made a choice to "join up." And, unfortunately, the decision casts him forever facing the possibilities that at war anything and everything can and does happen. Even horrible mistakes! What makes the loss of life so hard to take, Tillman's life or any life in war, is the finality of it. And, these sacrifices aren't shared sacrifices, as only a miniscule number of our democracy owns the sacrifice. It is the peril of a Volunteer Army and it is simply a travesty.
I doubt it. Pat Tillman's loss is huge. Every loss in war is huge but his strikes a blow most unusual. An American success story: NFL star football player with a gigantic financial future. Enlists in the military after the attack on the World Trade Center. Becomes an elite Army Ranger. Is killed at war by friendly fire.
FRIENDLY FIRE HAPPENS ALL THE TIME
It happens all the time in war. I was amazed in Vietnam that we did not have more of it. Everybody had a weapon or several. We did not have the sophisticated communication systems we have now. And, for Vietnam or presently at war, under the best of circumstances, friendly fire happens!
I am not about to speak for the military or to justify any approach they have taken and surely understand Pat Tillman's mother's grief. Her grief appears to be vastly different than the grief of now celebrity protestor, Cindy Sheehan, who also lost a son. Whereas Pat Tillman's Mom shuns the limelight, Ms. Sheehan seeks it. Her motives to me are somewhat suspect as she appears to have morphed into a sound bite. Ms. Sheehan's picture smiling while being arrested appears to indicate that she definitely has moved on in her grief. Not so for Pat Tillman's Mom.
There will be no final answers is all that I can assure Pat Tillman's Mom, even when the Army has laid itself bare, if it ever does. As sad as it is, at the base level, we have to accept that Pat Tillman made a choice to "join up." And, unfortunately, the decision casts him forever facing the possibilities that at war anything and everything can and does happen. Even horrible mistakes! What makes the loss of life so hard to take, Tillman's life or any life in war, is the finality of it. And, these sacrifices aren't shared sacrifices, as only a miniscule number of our democracy owns the sacrifice. It is the peril of a Volunteer Army and it is simply a travesty.
Didn't Do The Math On English
Monday, Lynndie England was found guilty of Iraqi prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. She was sentenced to 3 years in prison. Please! Give me a break! Is there something wrong with this picture? You take a National Guard type who is as emotionally sophisticated as a tree, put her in a position to screw up, along with others without training and supervision; and, when she messes up, you zap her. Talk about making the military look bad-The black eye is on the military at the highest levels.
One of the reasons that the military is usually so effective is the chain of command. In this case, the first question that should be asked is where was the chain of command? Private England had a squad leader, a platoon sergeant, a first sergeant, a platoon leader, a company commander, a battalion commander, and on up the chain. Where were these people? I can tell you. They were asleep at the wheel. In one sense, she is hardly responsible. In another sense, she is not smart enough to be responsible! And, to convict her and send her to prison is a gross injustice and it ought to make military people ashamed. The entire chain of command is at fault and yet they are unscathed.
Further still, England should never have been in Iraq. The National Guard should not have been in Iraq but that aside, a youngster like England is there because the volunteer is not working. We do not have enough forces to be in a war like Iraq which is going to go on endlessly. Therefore, we have to use the National Guard which traditionally has always been available for Governors. It is indeed a sorry situation when we have to use youngsters like England and all those involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Untrained, unsophisticated, unsupervised and we send her to prison. Sad and scandalous.
One of the reasons that the military is usually so effective is the chain of command. In this case, the first question that should be asked is where was the chain of command? Private England had a squad leader, a platoon sergeant, a first sergeant, a platoon leader, a company commander, a battalion commander, and on up the chain. Where were these people? I can tell you. They were asleep at the wheel. In one sense, she is hardly responsible. In another sense, she is not smart enough to be responsible! And, to convict her and send her to prison is a gross injustice and it ought to make military people ashamed. The entire chain of command is at fault and yet they are unscathed.
Further still, England should never have been in Iraq. The National Guard should not have been in Iraq but that aside, a youngster like England is there because the volunteer is not working. We do not have enough forces to be in a war like Iraq which is going to go on endlessly. Therefore, we have to use the National Guard which traditionally has always been available for Governors. It is indeed a sorry situation when we have to use youngsters like England and all those involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Untrained, unsophisticated, unsupervised and we send her to prison. Sad and scandalous.
Friday, September 23, 2005
MILITARY RECRUITING AT SCHOOLS UNDER FIRE
With Katrina and now hurricane Rita, somehow much of this loses its urgency but talking about things military shouldn't. We still have soldiers at war and soldiers who are dying. The count is nudging on toward 2000. I see this as a more than difficult time in the entire scenario. Right now, things domestic are on people's minds: the news clips have to do with hurricanes and things right here at home--Americans at all levels are suffering. And, to the average man on the street, fighting a war in Iraq, for whatever reasons the President and his die-hard supporters come up with, it does not resonate as it did before the Hurricanes!
TROOPS ON THE FOREFRONT
With Katrina, it did seem to suddenly take a different turn when the troops showed up. One guy said, "I thought my country had abandoned me and then I saw the 82d Airborne." Now, that is an indorsement and rightly so. American soldiers like the 82d are the best trained in the world and could have alleviated much suffering in the first 72 hours of Katrina.
However, with all the Fauntleroy of supporting the troops, it is a sham; I want to say "what sort of show are people putting on?" Support the troops while at the same time headlines like "schools opt out" What this means is that schools are opting out of recruiters being allowed to talk to students. Does this speak volumes or what! NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). One mother said, "I don't want the military recruiters contacting her teenage daughters but she wants the teens to hear about college scholarships and job opportunities from other organizations." NIMBY! What she is all shook up about is the federal law, No Child Left Behind Act which requires that military recruiters have the same access to student information as educational recruiters. Schools that do not let the recruiters have at the students risk access to federal funds.
TOO GOOD FOR THE MIILITARY
After Vietnam, vets got no sympathy mainly because the prevailing attitude was that if we weren't so stupid, we could have avoided Vietnam like most everybody else. What is the attitude now? Iraqnam? Maybe or maybe those hollow concepts of "support the troops" are really a mask for "my kids are too good for the military." I don't know and doubt anybody would admit it if they felt that way. And, until we have some sort of equitable AllServe, those troops who show up in New Orleans or Houston or wherever will come from a small segment of our culture. It ain't fair.
With Katrina and now hurricane Rita, somehow much of this loses its urgency but talking about things military shouldn't. We still have soldiers at war and soldiers who are dying. The count is nudging on toward 2000. I see this as a more than difficult time in the entire scenario. Right now, things domestic are on people's minds: the news clips have to do with hurricanes and things right here at home--Americans at all levels are suffering. And, to the average man on the street, fighting a war in Iraq, for whatever reasons the President and his die-hard supporters come up with, it does not resonate as it did before the Hurricanes!
TROOPS ON THE FOREFRONT
With Katrina, it did seem to suddenly take a different turn when the troops showed up. One guy said, "I thought my country had abandoned me and then I saw the 82d Airborne." Now, that is an indorsement and rightly so. American soldiers like the 82d are the best trained in the world and could have alleviated much suffering in the first 72 hours of Katrina.
However, with all the Fauntleroy of supporting the troops, it is a sham; I want to say "what sort of show are people putting on?" Support the troops while at the same time headlines like "schools opt out" What this means is that schools are opting out of recruiters being allowed to talk to students. Does this speak volumes or what! NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). One mother said, "I don't want the military recruiters contacting her teenage daughters but she wants the teens to hear about college scholarships and job opportunities from other organizations." NIMBY! What she is all shook up about is the federal law, No Child Left Behind Act which requires that military recruiters have the same access to student information as educational recruiters. Schools that do not let the recruiters have at the students risk access to federal funds.
TOO GOOD FOR THE MIILITARY
After Vietnam, vets got no sympathy mainly because the prevailing attitude was that if we weren't so stupid, we could have avoided Vietnam like most everybody else. What is the attitude now? Iraqnam? Maybe or maybe those hollow concepts of "support the troops" are really a mask for "my kids are too good for the military." I don't know and doubt anybody would admit it if they felt that way. And, until we have some sort of equitable AllServe, those troops who show up in New Orleans or Houston or wherever will come from a small segment of our culture. It ain't fair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
