This will be brief and unbiased, I promise! Coming out of our local super store this last weekend I saw something that at first brought a smile to my face, and then left a stink in my nostrils that could rival the ambient olfactory characteristics of a hundred year old landfill. Located immediately outside of the exits was a table with two or three volunteers who were seeking signatures for their petition “on education.”
Now, being that both of my parents are educators—my Stepfather was an elementary school principle for Mesa County Valley School District #51 here in Western Colorado and now teaches the occasional class at Mesa State College; my Mother was an elementary school teacher for the same district—I immediately took an interest in their cause. Sure I had things to do, but I always have time for a little politicking.
However, also as a result of having been raised by two professional educators, I know the tricky nature of education related legislature all too well. Often during election years you will see education referendums appear in pairs on the ballot. They are generally diametrically opposed to each other and often pit parents against teachers when it comes to their respective patrons. It can be an ostracizing sort of thing when your parents are among the minority who support a state-run administration whilst the majority of the local population are vehemently opposed to it.
Anyhow, these days my political opinions are much different than those of my parents. I don’t know if it should naturally be expected by parents for their children to wind up on the far end of the political scale from themselves by default or what, but if that is the case then I do not look forward to anything beyond middle school with my two children! Already their strong wills could pierce an iron-clad shield like a needle through latex, let the World be warned once they actually have profound thoughts to prop up with such will power. I hope that they never become my political enemies!
Moving on though. I decided rather quickly that if I were going to sign their petition I had better know as much about it as I could. I wouldn’t want to put my name on a document that might assist the wrong party in their pursuit of politically biased legislature, that’s for sure. What ensued was a conversation that even Alfred Hitchcock couldn’t have dreamed up. I asked the volunteer some questions and almost immediately she became verbally hostile towards me.
“I’m a Colorado voter. I have a question—who sponsors this petition?”
“It’s through legislature.”
“Wait. What?”
“It’s through legislature, for law.”
Well it’s not as if I thought you were going to pass a law through the public library, now is it? (This I thought to myself, though in retrospect I wish I had said it to her.)
“Okay, but which party?”
“Oh, I don’t know. Just sign it, it’s for education.”
“Well, both of my parents are educators, but I’d like to know more about it first. I might come back after I look into it. How long will you be here?”
“Just today. Look, you might as well just sign it then if your parents are teachers.”
“No, I need to do some research first.”
“Fine, whatever.”
And then she slammed herself back down into her folding lawn chair with a scowl on her face that could turn Medusa herself to stone. Had she really gotten mad at me because I wanted more information than that damn buzzword she kept throwing at me—education? Education of what, ducks? Come on people, you’re asking me to put pen to paper in hopes of creating binding law without my first having knowledge of what that law might mean? This is pure insanity! And if you’re peddling a petition on people while claiming not to know what party you represent in the process, you might as well just call it what it is: political trickery. Either that or a really bad attempt at performing a Jedi mind trick.
You will sign this petition. It doesn’t matter who sponsors the bill.
My point here is that if you are going to be out looking for signatures for a petition that you hope to create a law with you had better be able to tell people what they are signing. Getting angry and rude with people who actually care enough to ask those sorts of questions will only harm your cause. Trust me, I no longer care which party her petition came from because the dishonest nature with which she went about seeking my signature made me not want to be a part of it at all. Dishonest politicking is bad, but openly dishonest politicking is just plain unintelligent.
People! Please stop making a mockery of our Democratic system! It’s great to see people participating in the process, but not when they are trying to make fools out of the lesser informed voters of their communities. Please do not be part of anything that would welcome the disinformation or misinformation of the voting community, nor the refusal to inform them.
For those who sign petitions without knowing what they sign, be warned that the associated pitfalls are equally as disgusting as with the previously mentioned condition and would (should) bring a similitude of shame upon you as well.
This nation has gone and abandoned all reason. It’s true, I saw the final blow to our case for sanity delivered last night by the major American news networks. Even networks that aren’t mired in some kind of deal with the Devil, as is Fox News, attempted to pervert reality last night to such a degree that I was forced to hunker down in a lead-lined closet with an old WWII army surplus bazooka. The freaks and the geeks were wandering free on the air waves with their tales of insanity, and I wanted no part in it!
Since when is it unacceptable for a sitting Senator to visit a foreign nation? When did it become a bad thing for a Senator to do—showing an actual interest in the issues that he was elected to legislate for? What kind of moron could conceive of the notion that Senator Obama would deserve some kind of reprimand for visiting Afghanistan and Iraq when our armed services have been mired in each for nearly a decade now? The very idea is ludicrous.
Rather than going on a rant, I’m just going to put up a few videos that I believe will tell their own story. Note: with the exception of the 2nd video, these are not the videos that angered me but a fair response to them. The first is from NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams and is a British press conference held by Obama after meeting with PM Gordon Brown. I feel that Obama does an excellent job of explaining and defending his trip, though I also feel that it is ridiculous that he would even have to do so.
This second video is an attack ad that recently came out of the McCain campaign. Approved by McCain, the ad actually attempts to link the high gas prices that Americans have been suffering of late to the Senator from Illinois. I’ve been reading blogs all morning about this and all indications are that this ad has very swiftly accomplished one thing: the conversion of many would-be McCain voters to rock solid Obama voters. The very idea promulgated by the following video is laughable!
Finally, this last video comes from MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, though Mr. “O” isn’t in this video. This clip is in response to the above McCain ad. Once again MSNBC has given an accurate and timely analysis of the insanity begin promulgated by the Republican party and their media henchmen at Fox News.
what a strange and gruesome way
for your loved ones to say
that they’ve loved you all these days,
but to put you in the ground!
“he thought we loved him quite a lot,
but now in the ground he’ll rot,
he’ll finally have some friends, the sot,
amongst the worms and grubs and bugs.”
and it isn’t really clear,
the message we should hear,
when our dearest friends adhere
to the tradition of cremation.
“with her we spent our days
for she shared our saintly ways
only in death do we betray,
through fiery cineration!”
well not for me, hear me now,
i’ll shout it out quite loud
I will not be amongst that crowd,
It’s into space for my remains.
sling shot my cadaver
‘round the icy rings of saturn
in a tube of glassy matter,
and into the deep abyss.
better to be eaten by a hungry star
than to fill the tank of a future car,
to go forth and travel far,
than to be locked into this pattern.
mankind has been on earth,
for a time with certain gerth,
and the ends have not been worth
the endless strife that’s been endured.
i wish not to remain
where my atoms won’t abstain
from taking part in cyclic pain,
becoming just another kind of evil.
Okay, this has been bugging me for a couple of days now. To change things up for our kids my wife and I decided to borrow some Disney movies from family, one of which was the Greek themed Hercules. In this movie there is a brief reference to the infamous Trojan Horse, where one of the movie’s characters points out that the city of Troy had bet on the wrong horse.
When I heard this my ears perked up and I thought for a second that I had found an error. Now before I expound on this, let me point out that while I am no expert I have studied Greek mythology in a classroom environment before, as well as having read at least one book on the topic in my free time. I know, one book an expert does not make—good thing I’m not claiming to be an expert.
Anyway, in order to reveal my point in the proper context let’s take a very quick look at some fairly standard modern manufacturing and distribution practices. When one person or company or country produces something wholly original, they—or those who consume it—will often name it after the creator. Swiss cheese is a good example. I would imagine that today it is likely produced in most nations, and yet the “Swiss” remains part of its name.
That name, Swiss cheese, would make no sense if that particular kind of cheese had originated from, I don’t know, say Yugoslavia. Wouldn’t that cheese then be called Yugoslavian cheese? There are other examples as well that do not directly involve cheese: French bread, German beer, Texas Toast, Canadian Bacon, and so on. Are you starting to get the picture?
Now, if an item is produced in and by Country A, but then winds up being bought and consumed by Country B, we do not tend to change the name of it to reflect its new home. If you export German beer to India, it does not suddenly and magically become Indian beer. If a Christian gives his bible to a Taoist, it does not become a Taoist bible. See where I’m going with this?
When I heard that reference to the Trojan War in Disney’s Hercules regarding the Trojans having bet on the wrong horse, I became confused. Without thinking back to my preexisting knowledge of the subject, I decided that it had to be a false statement. The Trojan Horse simply should not be called the Trojan Horse. The opposite would have been true only if it had been produced by, you guessed it, the Trojans! But it wasn’t built in the city of Troy, nor was it built by the Trojans, it was built by the Achaeans outside of Troy’s walls. In fact it was built in utter secrecy, so the Trojans weren’t even aware of its existence until it was too late. So, why isn’t it called an Achaean horse?
When we gift something to a friend, family member, or even to an enemy, we do not suddenly change the name of the present to reflect its new owner. If I design a sculpture of a fire hydrant and decide to call it the “JMK Thirst Quencher,” then that is the name that it will bear indefinitely. If I were to gift that sculpture to someone—let’s say Hunter S. Thompson because I know his initials like I know U.S.A.—it wouldn’t suddenly become the “HST Thirst Quencher.”
So why, when the Achaeans build a horse and give it to the Trojans, does history decide to call it a Trojan Horse? The Trojans had nothing to do with the horse save for making the mistake of bringing it inside of their city gates. Perhaps this could be called a Trojan mistake, but convention dictates that the horse remain Achaean.
There you have it. I’ve toppled a story of mythological proportions using nothing more than sound reason. Now the historians of the world can laud me as a corrector—indeed, as the harbinger of truth. I’m sure that all of my readers are already doing so, right? If you disagree with my point of view, it’s no big deal. I do have a nice, large wooden horse here that I’d like to give you though. We can even name it after you if you wish!
Let me start by saying that I respect John McCain very much for having endured his imprisonment by the forces of his enemy, the Viet Cong. Being a POW, in my mind, is likely one of the single worst experiences that a human being can endure. The injuries that he received in captivity, both physical and mental, will be with him for life.
During this political season we have already seen candidates err in terms of accurately retelling the stories of their past. Often they are stories that somehow seem relevant to their status as being, or not being, qualified for the office of President of the United States of America. Hilary Clinton making her infamous “sniper” blunder is a good example. She had intended to display her courage and resolve, but went too far in fabricating the image.
When it comes to McCain I’ve had a sort of love/hate attachment to him. Let it here be said that I will likely never vote for a Republican candidate. I am member of neither party, but of the two the party represented by an elephant seems to be the most conniving and, at times, seems to be so copiously encrusted with little jewels of hypocrisy that I just wouldn’t be able to take myself seriously anymore were I to cast a vote for the American political right.
But one who lives in reality must be prepared for many possible outcomes. Even though I have been in favor of Obama for many months now I have tried always to take the time to measure the Republican candidates because one possible outcome of this election, insane as it might seem after the last eight years, is that yet another Republican President will reign from D.C. God forbid!
Now for my point. I have recently been seeing a slew of ads—approved by McCain—which point to a particular event during his captivity in Vietnam. His refusal to sign a document that denounced the United States Government is presented as the reason for his being a hero of the Vietnam War. Personally, I consider the man to be a hero based on the fact that he survived the ordeal at all. But to say that John McCain is a hero for refusing to sign a document in exchange for early release from captivity is like calling D.B. Cooper a hero for testing parachute dynamics in a commercial air emergency.
I’ll tell you why, but to do so we will have to look at a document that works in tandem with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but applies specifically to behavior during periods of combat. It is the U.S. Military Code of Conduct.
“All men and women in the armed forces have the duty at all times and under all circumstances to oppose the enemies of the United States and support its national interests. In training or in combat, alone or with others, while evading capture or enduring captivity, this duty belongs to each American defending our nation regardless of circumstances.”
— United States Military Code of Conduct, Article I, Item B.
And…
“The Geneva Convention recognizes that a POW may have the duty to attempt escape. In fact, the Geneva Convention prohibits a captor nation from executing a POW simply for attempting escape. Under the authority of the senior official (often called the senior ranking officer, or SRO), a POW must be prepared to escape whenever the opportunity presents itself. In a POW compound, the senior POW must consider the welfare of those remaining behind after an escape. However, as a matter of conscious determination, a POW must plan to escape, try to escape and assist others to escape.”
— United States Military Code of Conduct, Article III, Item C.
One point of view would be that by not accepting early release John McCain was failing in his duty to escape captivity. Returning to a fighting unit would be strengthening the U.S. Armed forces involved in the conflict, not weakening them. Even if the document he signed required of him to cease his combative role in the war, what legitimate tribunal in the world is going to convict a member of the U.S. military for legal misrepresentation to his enemy during a time of declared war and in a state of captivity?
If an actual escape were not possible, it would have been incumbent upon Senator McCain to accept such an agreement. By refusing early release he was exercising his pride and patriotism, sure—being incredibly brave, no doubt. But bravery is not tantamount to heroism. He missed an opportunity to return to the fight without elevating the risk to his life in the process. This is elementary in principle, really it is.
But there are other sections of the United States Military Code of Conduct that might be construed as counter to this thought. The concept of parole is carefully scrutinized in the CoC. Some relevant items follow.
“e. Such enemies have attempted to lure American POWs into accepting special favors or privileges in exchange for statements, acts or information. Unless it is essential to the life or welfare of that person or another prisoner of war or to the success of efforts to resist or escape, a POW must neither seek nor accept special favors or privileges.
“f. One such privilege is called parole. Parole is a promise by a prisoner of war to a captor to fulfill certain conditions such as agreeing not to escape nor to fight again once released—in return for such favors as relief from physical bondage, improved food and living conditions or repatriation ahead of the sick, injured or longer–held prisoners. An American POW will never sign nor otherwise accept parole.”
— United States Military Code of Conduct, Article III, Items E and F.
But the way I read this states that the only exception to his requirement to accept that agreement would have been if there were sick, injured, or longer held prisoners who might have been able to do so first. I do not know if there were sick or injured present at the time of McCain’s offer, but I would hope that if there were he would have at the very least attempted to negotiate for a similar deal to be offered to those in need first. Flat out refusing it though was arrogant, and altogether counterproductive to the missions of his armed services and contrary to his duties as stated in the UCMJ and the USM CoC.
Again, I am not trying to belittle John McCain’s experience. I wasn’t there and I believe that it was probably more horrible than I could ever imagine. But this is something they teach you about and help you to plan for in the military, as evidenced by the existence of a CoC at all. It would seem to me that he failed to adhere to that training and preparation. That’s my opinion, and probably the opinion of many veterans. I’ve recently seen YouTube footage of some Veterans who aren’t particularly impressed by McCain’s POW experience so I know at least that I’m not alone.
So, in closing, I suppose my point is that despite the fact that McCain has always been my favorite Republican in this race, he can still never be my pick for President. I literally get shivers down my spine when I hear people declaring that they’re going to vote Republican, again. Wow. Commitment can be admirable, but it can also be ludicrous. Here I think we are seeing an example of the latter.
Please use your heads in November people. Do you really want more of the last 8 years? I, for one, certainly do not. As always, thank you for your time.
