The Past Just Isn't

"The past is never where you left it," is from the book, Remembering the Good Times by one of my favorite authors, Richard Peck.

That is so apropro to what Tea Partiers are constantly refraining about wanting to take their county back. Back to what? is my retort to the reverberating radio and TV airwaves that carry the TP mantra. The good old days, is a frequent rejoinder. Back to when times were simpler, the national debt was not so mammoth, the government wasn't so invasive.

Back to a time that no longer exists and most likely never really did, is what I believe.

Those good old days are generally associated with the wishers' and TPers' childhoods. That's what they want to get back to, their childhood. A time of few worries, being able to play in the woods, ride bikes to the corner store, not have parents regimening every minute of every day. Unknown or note remembered is the manual labor and privations involved in daily life of those good old days, parents agonizing over how they were going to make ends meet or what bill or bills they were going to let slide hoping they could somehow catch up the next month, boys being drafted out of high school, sexually active girls sweating bullets when their periods were late or being shipped off to grandma's or an aunt in a distant city or state before they began to "show."

That romanticized fantasy past came to mind last week when one of my husband's friend from the early years of his military career send him an email of a rant he had received from a fellow Air Force buddy of those early days.

So here's the rant:

The really sad part of this is that most of the decisions are being made by politicians who believe the military exists as a vehicle to advance their own career. One more display of the determination to emasculate America by destroying things that have made us the best example in history of the right way to do things. Not a perfect example for sure, but far and away the best the world has ever seen so far.
What happened to our Air Force/Marines/Army/Navy............. (or Military)?
We used to go to the Officers Club or NCO Club Stag Bar on Friday afternoons to drink, smoke a cigar, and swap lies with our comrades. Drinking became frowned on. Smoking caused cancer and could "harm you." Stag bars became seen as 'sexist'. Gradually, our men quit patronizing their clubs because what happened in the club became fodder for a performance report. It was the same thing at the Airman's Club and the NCO and/or Top 3 clubs. Now we don't have separate clubs for the ranks. 
Instead we have something called All Ranks Clubs or community clubs. They're open to men and women of all ranks....from airman basic to general officer. No one is there. Gee, I wonder why!?!?
The latest brilliant thought out of Washington is that the operators ("pilots?") flying remote aircraft in combat areas from their plush desk at duty stations in Nevada or Arizona should draw the same combat pay as those real world pilots actually on board a plane in a hostile environment. More politically correct logic? 
They say that remote vehicle operators are subject to the same stress levels as the combat pilot actually flying in combat. ----- REALLY...you're bull-shitting me, right !!!??? 
Now that I've primed you a little, read on.
There are many who will agree with these sentiments, but they apply to more than just fighter pilots. Unfortunately, the ones with the guts to speak up or push for what they believe in are beaten down by the "system." 
Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in the following text --- supposedly, Secretary Gates had a force beating the bushes to learn who wrote the following:
Where have all the fighter pilots gone? 
It is rumored that our current Secretary of Defense recently asked the question, "Where are all the dynamic leaders of the past?" I can only assume, if that is true, that he was referring to Robin Olds, Jimmy Doolittle, Halsey, Patton, Ike, Boyington, Nimitz, etc.? 
Well, I've got the answer: 
They were fired before they made Major! 
Our nation doesn't want those kinds of leaders anymore. Squadron commanders don't run squadrons and wing commanders don't run wings. They are managed by higher ranking dildos with other esoteric goals in mind. 
Can you imagine someone today looking for a LEADER to execute that Doolittle Raid and suggesting that it be given to a dare-devil boozer - with these attributes: 
*he had the respect of his men, 
*an awesome ability to fly, 
*and the organizational skills to put it all together? 
If someone told me there was a chance in hell of selecting this man today, one who has risen through the ranks to Lt. Col., I would tell them they were either a liar or dumber than shit. 
I find it ironic that the Air Force put Brigadier General Robin Olds on the cover of the company rag last month. 
While it made me extremely proud to see his face, he wouldn't make it across any base in America (or overseas) without ten folks telling him to zip up his flight suit, get rid of the cigar, and shave his mustache off. 
I have a feeling that his response would be predictable and for that crime he would probably get a trip home and an Article 15. We have lost the war on rugged individualism and that, unfortunately, is what fighter pilots want to follow; not because they have to but because they respect leaders of that ilk. We've all run across that leader that made us proud to follow him because you wanted to be like him and make a difference. The individual who you would drag your testicles through glass for rather than disappoint him. 
We better wake the hell up! We're asking our young men and women to go to really shitty places; some with unbearable climates, never have a drink, have little or no contact with the opposite sex, and adhere to ridiculous regs that require you to tuck your shirt into your PT uniform on the way to the porta-shitter at night, in a blinding dust storm, because it's a uniform. 
These people we're sending to combat are some of the brightest I've met but they are looking for a little sanity, which they will only find on the outside if we don't get a friggin' clue. You can't continue asking people to live for months or years at a time acting like nuns and priests, Hell, even they get to have a beer. To make matters worse, the 'brief case' people have integrated women with men on ships....even submarines. Go figure. And this is supposed to be a war machine. 
Who are we afraid of offending? The guys that already hate us enough to strap C-4 to their own bodies and walk into a crowd of us? Think about it. The ACLU? The Gay-Lesbian folks? Our leadership has failed us. 
I'm extremely proud of our young men and women who continue to serve. I'm also very in tune with what they are considering for the future and I've got news for whoever sits in the White House, Congress, and our so-called military leaders. Much talent has and will continue to hemorrhage from our services, because wanna-be warriors are tired of fighting on two fronts - - one with our enemies, another against our lack of common sense. 
Take it or leave it....that's just the way it is, no if's and's or but's. Somebody has to change the direction. The most damage has been done recently by those in charge who have never donned a military uniform and have no clue what the UCMJ is, what prerequisites are needed to lead others in harm's way, and don't realize that the military is neither a social club or democracy, and was never intended to be. 
We've allowed it to happen. God forgive us.

 Here's my husband's reply to his friend:

The disconnect between the civilian bosses and those in uniform or retired has always existed. But we and our comrades today soldier on through good and bad decisions, civilian or military. However I think this guy is reliving the fantasies of days gone by. In my mind there is no way to compare one's personal military experience with another's experience, particularly from the comfort of an arm chair or a bar stool.

 

Human nature says that our lives/experiences are always better/tougher than someone else's especially if they are younger than we. Personally I think the big military change is in the draft era vs. the all-volunteer force. My guess is that if we had been drafting to send our military to Iraq and Afghanistan we wouldn't have had the wars drag on or we would have seen Viet Nam-type anti-war protests.

 

The political leaders have seriously abused the military in recent years in my opinion. As long as men and women have the courage to put on the uniform and potentially put their lives on the line, they are as brave and honorable as any one who has ever served. Criticism and comparison by another generation no matter how prominent their heroes is BS in my view.

 

Times change, our country changes, the world changes and how our military is used changes. Our Air Force hasn't done real combat since Viet Nam. The ground soldiers are really taking the hits. A wrong step and you're blown to bits. I'm for a strong military to but we need to get a better grasp on what enough power is.

 

Whether Presidents need military experience is nonsense to me. We both have seen dummies in and out of uniform. The quality of the person is what counts for me. Reagan did a good job in neutralizing the Soviet Bloc, Obama has effectively taken on Al Queda leadership. Neither had a lick of military time.

 

My hope is that whoever leads will be as careful about sending someone else's son/daughter to harm's way as they would sending their own. A good idea would be that any politician who wanted to vote for or start a war should be required to ante up a family member for combat before they get a say in the process.

 

The old-timer who wrote the rant above, it seems to me, needs to get out of the past, because it's not where he left it or it never was the way he thinks it was.

America, a Randian nation?

This blog post was prompted by a piece on today's National Public Radio's Morning Edition, which an NPR website headline writer dubbed "On Capitol Hill, Rand's 'Atlas' Can't Be Shrugged Off."

Ayn Rand, a mid-20th Century writer whose me-ism philosophy was informed by the political and social upheavel of her native Russia's Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent fallout, has become The Way for a plethora of today's Republican leadership. We should all have the right to keep all of our money and not to have to give any of it to that evil bottomless maw they call the government. (Nevermind, that the loudest of those Republican critics, such as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc., ARE the government and, thanks to getting elected to Congress, will be very nicely taken care of for the rest of their lives by the very government they love so much to hate.)

Rand and her ilk, whether called libertarians, anarchists or something else, are the real moochers. (Moochers is what Rand called Americans who benefit from living in--and paying taxes to have--a vibrant society, even though Rand herself applied for and collected Social Security and used Medicare for her healthcare.)

Randians want all the benefits that come with living in a society--public roads, breathable air, drinkable water, safe food and drug supplies, an energy grid, etc.--but don't think they should have to pay for them.

The very regulations they eschew (see Illinois deadbeat dad and GOP Rep. Joe Walsh's rant) are as necessary for Americans' safety and well being as a strong military is for national security.

The most frightening aspect of Randism these days is that so many are falling under its fatal spell. We can view the U.S. of the future by looking at today's Greece, where Greeks won't pay taxes, and Somalia, which has no central government.

Although Rand's hypocrisy is stunning (read her novella "Anthem"), she was at least honest about being an atheist. Her politician acolytes of today claim to be Christians, yet there is nothing in the philosophy Rand espoused that in any way resembles what Jesus taught.

NPR's headline writer is, in fact, dead wrong. Rand and her "Atlas" CAN and should be shrugged off--or at least be seen for what they are: Architects of the demise of democracy.

I'm way too conservative to think that that is a good idea.

Norquist Appropriates (R)s' Fealty

I keep hearing and reading about a pledge a private citizen named Grover Norquist who has no official position in government at any level forcing  Republicans elected to Congress to sign a pledge to not raise any taxes of any kind or anything that smells like a tax without an equal amount being cut in some other area.

My question is what are these elected officials doing commiting fealty to an individual who has no constitutional or legal authority over them when they have taken an oath to their constituents to represent them and act in their best interest?

Last Protection Standing

The headline reads "Clean Air Under Siege" and the article lists all kinds of ways Congress has and still are making sure air pollution continues unabated in the U.S. -- and, of course, the rest of the world given that air doesn't respect national borders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/opinion/06sun1.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

The first thing that came to my mind, though, is that all the poor children and grandchildren these pols bleat about being saddled with the country's national debt won't even be able to afford gas masks needed to breathe, thanks to these same pols' efforts to ensure that the air will be so foul said children and grandchildren won't be able to breathe it.

I'm way too conservative about the health, safety and lives of this nation's children and grandchildren to think the current Congress's liberal policies that will continue and even escalate the fouling of air, water and the overall environment are a good idea. They certainly aren't in the best interests of The People -- the real, honest-to-god breathing, eating, voting people. Not the incorporated SCOTUS-created paper variety.

Fathoming Firearms Rationale

So this is where we're at with gun safety/possession/use mentality in this country:

Some govt. officials, such as GA Rep. Paul Broun (another of those healing-arts professionals cum lawmaker), defend the country's gun obsession so "Americans can take up arms against a tyrannical gov't."

(1) Cong. Broun IS the gov't. So he's saying people should be able to take up firearms against him?

(2) He and others of his mind set back members of Congress arming themselves with guns while on the floor of the House of Reps. and Senate. Why? So they can shoot back at Americans who take up arms against a tyrannical gov't? Or perhaps at their "esteemed colleagues" with whom they disagree?

(3) Broun is, no doubt, a "Support Our Troops" cheerleader. But "Our Troops" is the U.S. military that will protect the "tyrannical government" Broun thinks Americans should arm themselves against.

So, while others try to fathom the thinking of the Tucson shooter, I'm trying to fathom the thinking of people like Rep. Broun.

But maybe I'm just too truly conservative to be able to understand such a liberal attitude about gun use in this country.