In 1982 I turned 18. The Viet Nam War was still fresh in everyone's mind, the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks had not yet happened, Grenada was not even in the planning stages yet. Patriotic fervor was far from running rampant among the youth of America, and like so many of my peer group I saw no value to military service. As I grew older my views matured, and by the time the first Gulf War rolled around I was ready to enlist. Not because I wanted to get shot at, or had any romantic notions that my single rifle would stand between Democracy and the Abyss, but simply because I had long since come to understand that some actions simply ought to be undertaken because they are the right thing to do. Two young children, and more importantly the mother of those children, can be very powerful persuaders against voluntary entry into military service. Especially during a time of war.
When the current conflict in Iraq came to a head, the various service branches were all in agreement on one thing - I was too old to be of any use. Opportunity lost. One son and one son-in-law in uniform were the only contributions I had left to make to an obligation I had been too immature to recognize at the time.
On June 22, the United States Army raised the age for enlistment to 42, once again cracking that door open. June 25 I discovered this. June 26 I was researching what would be needed to throw in my lot with the Army, and by June 30 I was at the door of my local recruiter.
Summer vacations can be so inconvenient at times. Between phone calls, email, and sheer persistence I did finally make contact with him, a phone call received on the morning of July 5. He was initially unaware of the details of the change in enlistment requirements, as that change had taken place while he was spending quality time with the family instead of with his employer. He promised to do a bit of research and get back to me. By the early part of that afternoon he called back.
Slamming that particular door forever. It seems that 42 actually means in Basic no later than one week prior to ones 42nd birthday. In many ways, it is far more disappointing to have squandered the legitimate chances given me as a younger man and then had this carrot dangled before me and snatched away than it would have been to get a chance to try and fail.
So the last feeble chance at holding on to youth is finally and formally laid to rest. But! Tomorrow keeps on coming. As long as we keep remembering that simple fact and continue to face the sunrise the opportunities and possibilities are endless.
For all of you who have had the maturity and wisdom to serve, in the past, at present, or during the years to come, thank you and stay well. For all the spouses, children, and parents who support that service and make it possible thank you as well. They could not do it without you in their corner.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Long Live the Sharon Doctrine
It must be nice to be the biggest bully in the neighborhood, especially if you have the comfort of an even bigger bully standing behind you to save your bacon should that prove necessary.
Ariel Sharon's policy of provoking aggression on the part of Palestinians, of setting impossible conditions and then holding the parties accountable when those conditions are not achieved, continue to thrive in the Israel of Ehud Olmert. The most recent example is the ongoing handling of the situation involving Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
After suggestions in recent weeks that there might be signs of a softening of the Hamas stance calling for the elimination of Israel, Olmert took the opportunity of Shalit's capture to make Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh personally responsible for Shalit's safe return and placing him under penalty of death. On Sunday they even went so far as to launch a missile attack against his office - even while negotiations for a peaceful return of the soldier appeared to be progressing. And completely ignoring the fact that it is believed those holding Shalit take their orders not from Haniyeh but instead from Syrian-based Khaled Mashaal.
News flash for Prime Minister Olmert: Killing people is not a proven method of convincing others not to reciprocate. Shalit is still alive, and it is more probable your actions threaten that state rather than enhance his chances of remaining so.
There is no question that Israeli civilians have suffered horribly from the actions of suicide bombers. It is unconscionable that the bombings continue. It is unacceptable that Palestinian gunmen invaded sovereign Israeli territory to capture Cpl. Shalit. But, both eyes for an eye and a whole room full of teeth for a tooth has not worked as a policy thus far. It is incumbent upon Israel as the exponentially more powerful party in this conflict to contain violence, and to not resort to murder in the guise of military response to provocation as a means of pretending to solve anything.
Perhaps the Israeli intent is to provoke the execution of Shalit so that they will be "justified" in executing an overwhelming military response that will, based on past history, take a heavy toll on unarmed civilian Palestinian women and children. Or perhaps Israel is reacting in anger instead of implementing a fully reasoned and considered policy. The first notion is despicable, the second frightening if being conducted by a military with the capacity of Israel's.
In either event, Israel does not need to fear the results of their actions. If too many of their neighbors become concerned and threaten a response, any help Israel may need will be immediately forthcoming from a United States who will justify any action to preserve its ally in the Middle East. The issue for American politicians is not one of right or wrong, but rather one of being all too aware the Cuban immigrants and American Jews are the linchpin for victory in too many important elections.
Ariel Sharon's policy of provoking aggression on the part of Palestinians, of setting impossible conditions and then holding the parties accountable when those conditions are not achieved, continue to thrive in the Israel of Ehud Olmert. The most recent example is the ongoing handling of the situation involving Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
After suggestions in recent weeks that there might be signs of a softening of the Hamas stance calling for the elimination of Israel, Olmert took the opportunity of Shalit's capture to make Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh personally responsible for Shalit's safe return and placing him under penalty of death. On Sunday they even went so far as to launch a missile attack against his office - even while negotiations for a peaceful return of the soldier appeared to be progressing. And completely ignoring the fact that it is believed those holding Shalit take their orders not from Haniyeh but instead from Syrian-based Khaled Mashaal.
News flash for Prime Minister Olmert: Killing people is not a proven method of convincing others not to reciprocate. Shalit is still alive, and it is more probable your actions threaten that state rather than enhance his chances of remaining so.
There is no question that Israeli civilians have suffered horribly from the actions of suicide bombers. It is unconscionable that the bombings continue. It is unacceptable that Palestinian gunmen invaded sovereign Israeli territory to capture Cpl. Shalit. But, both eyes for an eye and a whole room full of teeth for a tooth has not worked as a policy thus far. It is incumbent upon Israel as the exponentially more powerful party in this conflict to contain violence, and to not resort to murder in the guise of military response to provocation as a means of pretending to solve anything.
Perhaps the Israeli intent is to provoke the execution of Shalit so that they will be "justified" in executing an overwhelming military response that will, based on past history, take a heavy toll on unarmed civilian Palestinian women and children. Or perhaps Israel is reacting in anger instead of implementing a fully reasoned and considered policy. The first notion is despicable, the second frightening if being conducted by a military with the capacity of Israel's.
In either event, Israel does not need to fear the results of their actions. If too many of their neighbors become concerned and threaten a response, any help Israel may need will be immediately forthcoming from a United States who will justify any action to preserve its ally in the Middle East. The issue for American politicians is not one of right or wrong, but rather one of being all too aware the Cuban immigrants and American Jews are the linchpin for victory in too many important elections.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
A Visit to the WTC Site
I was recently in New York again, and unlike past trips I could no longer find excuses not to make the trek down to the site of the World Trade Center. It certainly wasn't too cold. There were no time considerations.
Perhaps most likely, I was ready to stop avoiding the experience.
The very first thing that struck me is how amazingly small the location is. Somehow, from watching things on television it seems that it should be so much bigger. Visiting many national landmarks in my travels, I've discovered this is more common than not.
The next thing that struck me was how clean, almost sterile, the fencing and sidewalks around the site is. It is somehow unexpected, and entirely appropriate. Totally expected, and far less appropriate, are the tourists in their t-shirts and flip-flops chattering with each other about the hole in the ground. Also sadly anticipated were the merchants with their tables full of shirts, hats, and other patriotic trinkets struggling to extract a buck from tragedy.
The site itself had almost a cathedral quality for me, though more in the sense of the cathedrals of Europe that are all to often overrun with tourists. Ignoring the sideshow, the importance of the place is impossible to miss.
Damage to surrounding buildings is still all too evident. On the south side, plywood walls have been erected. They are painted black, with the warning to "POST NO BILLS" painted upon them in stark white. Unlike most other flat surfaces throughout the city on which this notice is posted, at the WTC site the signs are for the most part obeyed.
In several locations, visitors have scrawled messages of hope and encouragement on the white paint. It is obvious that the paint on these walls is renewed regularly, and these messages will likely be obliterated fairly soon. Without meaning any disrespect to the authors or the sincerity of their impulse to write, in most cases the erasure of these missives will be no great loss.
One particularly poignant message caught my eye though, and I can hope that through some small miracle it will manage to survive.
Written in blue ballpoint pen from the top left to bottom right of the white letter "N" the message reads simply:
"Daddy I miss you."
Perhaps most likely, I was ready to stop avoiding the experience.
The very first thing that struck me is how amazingly small the location is. Somehow, from watching things on television it seems that it should be so much bigger. Visiting many national landmarks in my travels, I've discovered this is more common than not.
The next thing that struck me was how clean, almost sterile, the fencing and sidewalks around the site is. It is somehow unexpected, and entirely appropriate. Totally expected, and far less appropriate, are the tourists in their t-shirts and flip-flops chattering with each other about the hole in the ground. Also sadly anticipated were the merchants with their tables full of shirts, hats, and other patriotic trinkets struggling to extract a buck from tragedy.
The site itself had almost a cathedral quality for me, though more in the sense of the cathedrals of Europe that are all to often overrun with tourists. Ignoring the sideshow, the importance of the place is impossible to miss.
Damage to surrounding buildings is still all too evident. On the south side, plywood walls have been erected. They are painted black, with the warning to "POST NO BILLS" painted upon them in stark white. Unlike most other flat surfaces throughout the city on which this notice is posted, at the WTC site the signs are for the most part obeyed.
In several locations, visitors have scrawled messages of hope and encouragement on the white paint. It is obvious that the paint on these walls is renewed regularly, and these messages will likely be obliterated fairly soon. Without meaning any disrespect to the authors or the sincerity of their impulse to write, in most cases the erasure of these missives will be no great loss.
One particularly poignant message caught my eye though, and I can hope that through some small miracle it will manage to survive.
Written in blue ballpoint pen from the top left to bottom right of the white letter "N" the message reads simply:
"Daddy I miss you."
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
"Illegal Workers Face Hardship in Big Easy"
Where is the contact information for this pity party? I would dearly love to RSVP with my regrets.
So people illegally in this country are being underpaid and "made" to work in hazardous and illegal conditions by unscrupulous employers. There are two problems here. The problem of evil, opportunistic employers that the AP article focuses on. And the problem of people illegally in this country seeking employment at all, which the article dismisses as being of incidental importance at best.
Yes, any employer violating wage, labor and workplace safety laws ought to be cited and treated appropriately by enforcement of those existing laws. Hey, perhaps we could even begin enforcing those laws enacted as part of the 1986 amnesty that were supposed to make life so miserable for those employers who chose to employ undocumented labor. I understand that actually enforcing a law is far less popular than having some politician hold up a piece of paper and proclaiming how tough they are being on the problems of the day, but doing so might actually prove effective at alleviating those problems the legislation purports to address.
As for the plight of the poor, downtrodden, endlessly exploited illegal, undocumented alien workforce, I have a suggestion that just might mitigate a portion of their suffering. Get in line. Get a visa. Get legitimate employment that offers appropriate compensation and workplace safety without the threat of deportation that permits the exploitation in the first place. And when your visa expires, go home as is your obligation.
Once you are playing the game by the rules - all the rules, not just those you choose to exploit for your own convenience and personal advancement - I will be every bit as much on your side as I am on that of the kid born and raised in an Iowa cornfield. Until then, you will get no more sympathy from me than does the bank robber who snivels that the conditions of his chosen profession are too onerous to be conveniently endured.
So people illegally in this country are being underpaid and "made" to work in hazardous and illegal conditions by unscrupulous employers. There are two problems here. The problem of evil, opportunistic employers that the AP article focuses on. And the problem of people illegally in this country seeking employment at all, which the article dismisses as being of incidental importance at best.
Yes, any employer violating wage, labor and workplace safety laws ought to be cited and treated appropriately by enforcement of those existing laws. Hey, perhaps we could even begin enforcing those laws enacted as part of the 1986 amnesty that were supposed to make life so miserable for those employers who chose to employ undocumented labor. I understand that actually enforcing a law is far less popular than having some politician hold up a piece of paper and proclaiming how tough they are being on the problems of the day, but doing so might actually prove effective at alleviating those problems the legislation purports to address.
As for the plight of the poor, downtrodden, endlessly exploited illegal, undocumented alien workforce, I have a suggestion that just might mitigate a portion of their suffering. Get in line. Get a visa. Get legitimate employment that offers appropriate compensation and workplace safety without the threat of deportation that permits the exploitation in the first place. And when your visa expires, go home as is your obligation.
Once you are playing the game by the rules - all the rules, not just those you choose to exploit for your own convenience and personal advancement - I will be every bit as much on your side as I am on that of the kid born and raised in an Iowa cornfield. Until then, you will get no more sympathy from me than does the bank robber who snivels that the conditions of his chosen profession are too onerous to be conveniently endured.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Whatever Happened to Reporting the News?
The link associated with the title for this post is to a story on the website for NBC 4 in Columbus, Ohio. The headline screams "Teen Arrested For Allegedly Selling Self As Sex Slave"! (exclamation point added). Anyone bothering to read the story, or more accurately sucked in to doing so based on the headline, discovers this is nothing more than a run of the mill prostitution tale involving an entrepreneurial 16 year old girl getting a jump on the summer job market.
The story prompted the following email to the station. Not that it will change practices in Columbus, Ohio, or anywhere else, but wouldn't it be nice . . .?
The story prompted the following email to the station. Not that it will change practices in Columbus, Ohio, or anywhere else, but wouldn't it be nice . . .?
Is there any remote possibility that journalistic ethics will ever again rear its head in this country?
I read your story online entitled "Teen Arrested For Allegedly Selling Self As Sex Slave". What followed was a garden-variety prostitution tale. The fact that a 16 year old was the prostitute is slightly unusual, but in today's world hardly constitutes "news", unfortunately.
It is the extensive use of hyperbole and the agenda driven selective presentation of facts that have made the majority of media outlets in the United States unreliable sources of information at best. It would be refreshing to find a news source, somewhere, someday, that simply reported the facts regarding a story and left it up to the consumer to draw their own conclusions concerning the implications of those facts.
The Five W's - anyone remember them from journalism school? Or were they purged from the curriculum immediately after integrity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)