The day I turned 18 years old, I went to the Post Office to register for the draft that was no longer in force. My father somehow knew where I had been. He asked, "Where were you?"
"Signing up," I said.
"You're a putz!" he responded.
Now you should know that calling me a putz was far from the worst I ever heard from my father, but his sense of disgust was evident, and I knew the intended effect, and I felt it just as fiercely as he expected.
"I would be a horrible soldier," I said. "But I couldn't live with myself if I were reduced to being a coward," I said. "So I did what I needed to do."
The year was 1979, and the Vietnam war was officially over. I had no reason to believe that my name would ever be called, but I also had no way to avoid the enormity of a personal decision. If the situation arose where I would need to serve my country, I would do so without reservation, but with a grave concern that they would throw me out in about thirty seconds. I had spent the better part of my 18 years up until that point being rebellious wherever I could. Following rules and directions, especially blindly, was anathema to my make-up and disposition.
So thirty years have passed. I think I may have been wrong. While I still believe I would have had trouble fulfilling the clear sense of loyalty that is a significant part of the soldier's sense of self, I now think I would have found a way to do my duty.
So who cares? In retrospect? The most recent post on this blog - from a young punk 22 year old - reinforced some of the most crucial values I hold. I went to the Post Office on my 18th birthday partly because of ego. I couldn't live with the notion of being seen as cowardly, even though I was. What I didn't tell my father was that I had another drive that influenced my decision to sign on. I was fully capable of serving my country in some capacity. I felt that my decision to do so was a way for me to symbolically say that I loved my family and my country. I thought that I owed the parade of martyrs in American military history a simple validation of their sacrifices. My signing up, even with the knowledge that I would not be called, was a way for me to say, " I have your back. I may lack the courage, and the honor, and the integrity that you have shown. But I do not lack appreciation, and respect, and awe for your sacrifice."
I thank Buddy boy for saying some good things. I honestly don't agree with all of them, but the important ones make me proud.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Thoughts From a 22 Year Old
Nice to know we have young men and women like this. An interesting take on things...,
Above all else, I love and care about my family. I want them to be protected from drugs, thieves, murderers, and anyone else who has the potential to hurt them. I expect that the majority of this country feels the same way. I am thankful to be an American, as the USA is one of the best at eradicating crime. Our country is not perfect, and of course bad things happen, there is corruption within the government, and people can get hurt. What makes this place special is the checks and balances that don't allow too much corruption to last long, therefore allowing the common man to live his life in relative peace and safety.
We, as a nation, expect the government to do everything in its power to bring criminals to justice. And not just the actual murderers and rapists, the drug dealers and thieves. We want the mobs brought down; the organizations that provide money, guns and drugs to the bad men on the street are just as dangerous, if not more so, than the people actually committing the crime.
So what I'm trying to say is that if someone endangers the lives of your loved ones, you trust your government to not only bring the criminal to justice, but find the root of the problem and eliminate that as well. If a man is able to kill thousands of innocent Americans in one stroke, isn't that enough to make you worry for the well-being of your family and friends? Shouldn't our government take all steps in its power to prevent that from happening again? Isn't that the duty of our country? Isn't that why we allow ourselves to be governed, so that our families and friends are protected from people with the power to do us harm?
When a terrorist group was given the power to murder thousands of innocent Americans, our President at the time took the actions that he was REQUIRED to take; he sent our nations police (our military) out to find that terrorist group and bring it to justice. But groups like that cannot survive by themselves; they need an organization to provide them with the necessary funding, weapons, and training facilities. Saddam's Iraq had been a hotbed of evil for as long as anyone can remember. He was the "mob" of international terrorism. Therefore, our military did what it could to wipe out this criminal organization. (If we could bring stability to a region and help those people at the same time, all the better. And if that stability protected our interests in oil - one of our nations biggest needs - also good.)
Now we are going into Afghanistan to further eradicate the cause of any possible future dangers to the citizens in our country.
I do not like war. I think everyone has a right to life. The things that happen during war are awful for anyone involved. But that is not to say it isn't necessary. When my family is threatened, I want to eliminate that threat. And since I believe my country is effective at keeping my family safe, I support its efforts, and will give my life to help its cause. I am very patriotic, but that stems from my love for my family, my friends, and my countrymen. America's military is full of people like that: patriotic people who know that in order to secure their fellow citizens' safety, they may have to do something they do not like.
I don't want to die. I don't want to kill. But above that, I CANNOT let harm befall my family.
This note was written with all of our fallen military men and women in mind, and to try to put in perspective WHY they chose to give their lives for you and me.
God bless, have a good Memorial Day, and Semper Fidelis.
Semper fi and check six!
Boom Daniel
301.247.1564
Saturday, May 29, 2010
White House had Clinton try to ease Sestak out of Pa. race - USATODAY.com
Transparency? of course....
White House had Clinton try to ease Sestak out of Pa. race
http://usat.me?38703588
To view the story, click the link or paste it into your browser.
To learn more about USA TODAY for iPhone and download, visit: http://usatoday.com/iphone/
Semper fi and check six!
Boom Daniel
Ausley Associates Inc
301.247.1564
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
McClintock Responds to Mexico's Calderon
(Thanks for the post, Cathy!)
The president of Mexico was invited here and spoke in front of Congress, basically scolding Americans for their immigration policy. This response is from Rep McClintock of California:
or, you could search on youtube.)
<http://www.youtube.com/user/McClintockCA04>
or, you could search on youtube.)
<http://www.youtube.com/user/McClintockCA04>
May 20, 2010 — Response to Mexican President Calderon
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
M. Speaker:
I rise to take strong exception to the speech of the President of Mexico while in this chamber today.
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
M. Speaker:
I rise to take strong exception to the speech of the President of Mexico while in this chamber today.
The Mexican government has made it very clear for many years that it holds American sovereignty in contempt and President Calderons behavior as a guest of the Congress confirms and underscores this attitude.
It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration policy, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its laws.
It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law.
Unlike Mexicos immigration law -- which is brutally exclusionary -- the purpose of Americas law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans.
Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation.
A century ago President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
That is how we have built one great nation from the people of all the nations of the world.
The largest group of immigrants now comes from Mexico. A recent RAND discovered that during most of the 20th Century, while our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked and made possible the swift attainment of the American dream for millions of immigrants seeking to escape conditions in Mexico.
That is the broader meaning of our nations motto, e pluribus unum from many people, one people, the American people.
But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of E Pluribus Unum. It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles.
In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. In order to do that, they must undermine our immigration laws.
It is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this chamber and actively seek to do so. And it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the White House and by many Democrats in this Congress.
Arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. All it has done is to enforce existing law that President Obama refuses to enforce. It is hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no drivers license, no passport, and who doesnt speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally.
And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws I reply that we dont need to reform them we need to enforce them. Just as every other government does. Just as Mexico does.
Above all, this is a debate of, by and for the American people. If President Calderon wishes to participate in that debate, I invite him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 LEGAL immigrants to our nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs, and become an American. And then he will have every right to participate in that debate.
Until then, I would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this Congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each others domestic debates.
Semper fi and check six!
It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration policy, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its laws.
It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law.
Unlike Mexicos immigration law -- which is brutally exclusionary -- the purpose of Americas law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans.
Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation.
A century ago President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
That is how we have built one great nation from the people of all the nations of the world.
The largest group of immigrants now comes from Mexico. A recent RAND discovered that during most of the 20th Century, while our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked and made possible the swift attainment of the American dream for millions of immigrants seeking to escape conditions in Mexico.
That is the broader meaning of our nations motto, e pluribus unum from many people, one people, the American people.
But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of E Pluribus Unum. It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles.
In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. In order to do that, they must undermine our immigration laws.
It is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this chamber and actively seek to do so. And it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the White House and by many Democrats in this Congress.
Arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. All it has done is to enforce existing law that President Obama refuses to enforce. It is hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no drivers license, no passport, and who doesnt speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally.
And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws I reply that we dont need to reform them we need to enforce them. Just as every other government does. Just as Mexico does.
Above all, this is a debate of, by and for the American people. If President Calderon wishes to participate in that debate, I invite him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 LEGAL immigrants to our nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs, and become an American. And then he will have every right to participate in that debate.
Until then, I would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this Congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each others domestic debates.
Semper fi and check six!
Boom
301.247.1564
A washingtonpost.com article from: BizBatt@gmail.com
E-mail
This page was sent to you by: BizBatt@gmail.com
Message from sender: This is an important read. The topic? the very fabric of our country.
The new culture war
By Arthur C. Brooks
America faces a new culture war. This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country's future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organiz...
 |
 |
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)