The Eleventh

I hate Veteran's Day.

Next to Pumpkin Spice Latte day at Starbucks, it's my least favorite day of the year -- especially in the age of social media.

As usual, I feel the need to remind everyone that I don't speak for all veterans nor do I hate veterans or America, so save the hate mail for another day.

The original holiday, Armistice Day, was meant to commemorate the ending of the First World War in1918. The idea was to remind people of the destruction and devastation that can result when cooler heads don't prevail, when we lose touch with our humanity.

World War I was based upon petulant desires for power and glory, to assert dominance upon the most influential and globally powerful continent at the time. Europe lost nearly an entire generation of young men over monarchical chess and the death of Franz Ferdinand.

The pride and hubris of the few ruling elite killed millions.

November 11 was meant to celebrate peace and warn against diplomatic failures.

In 1954, Congress changed the name of Armistice Day to Veterans Day to honor the men and women who served during the bloodiest wars of the 20th Century.

In the subsequent decades, it was simply a day to be at home with loved ones and remember those who served, which happened to be a relatively large portion of the population.

After 9/11, Veteran's Day took a new form, became something more than just a day to remember those who serve or have served. Now it has become more than just a day, more than just a tribute to those who've worn the uniform for their country. It's become a pseudo religious observance with those who disagree with veterans becoming heretics. Veterans have become something more than just citizens who chose to serve, they've become infallible messiahs. Veterans Service Organizations have become Pharisees condemning those who give anything less than their full-throated support.

I hate it.

Maybe I just hate attention or maybe I just dislike the pomp and ceremony. Maybe I've just become too cynical from serving with arrogant, entitled members of society. Maybe I'm tired from being told I should feel disrespected by the actions of others. Maybe I'm just tired of being thanked for my service when I'm trying to go about my business and be left the fuck alone.

I know I'm tired of veterans taking advantage of this new-found social status; a social status that has largely become based upon pity. It's based upon people feeling guilty or sad for vets who can't find a job or don't get paid enough to support their family.  It's based upon a deceptive statistic of 22 veterans committing suicide every day.

I'm tired of the idea that veterans are something more than sovereign citizens.

In his book, Tribe, Sebastian Junger talks about the feeling of separation from civilian society or the lack of community and camaraderie. There's a lack of people who understand what vets have been through, the things they've experienced. There's a certain disconnect, veterans don't feel like a normal member of society.

Elevating them to a status above civilians, isn't helping.

The suicide rate among veterans is largely attributed to this idea that veterans feel isolated, that they feel disparate from the rest of society. During the last few years of World War II and the years following its end, the suicide rate among veterans and active military was nearly half what it is today. Does that mean WWII vets were twice as appreciated or felt twice as connected to civilians?

I understand why veterans have been elevated; in the pendulum of societal norms, it's more or less an overcorrection for the Vietnam War. Service members have gone from "baby killers" to "heroes."

I get it, but heroes is a little strong.

There are some who are true heroes, those who saved the lives of countless team members and sacrificed themselves so their brothers and sisters in arms could continue the mission. But not all veterans are heroes just like heroes are not all veterans.

Veterans are actually one of the most diverse groups of people, nearly every demographic being represented in proportional numbers to the American population at large. With that diversity comes some bad eggs as was evidenced by the shooting in Texas last week.

In short, veterans are just people.

Their elevation doesn't help anyone, least of all vets.

If you want to thank a vet for their service, truly thank them, contribute to the political process, engage leaders to make meaningful changes for the whole. There's very little veterans truly need to be happy. We don't nee more programs or more money. Fix what's broken in the VA, fix the political discourse, fix child healthcare. Care for people and make this a country worth sacrificing for.

Don't feel sorry for vets, don't elevate vets into an elite class.

Treat them like the citizens they are.

Treat them like people.

Keep your feet moving

Zoom Out

First things first: today is November 5th, Guy Fawkes Day in England. Many of you may be saying the first line to the poem creatively named, The Fifth of November. But many still believe the tale as told by Hugo Weaving in V for Vendetta. The story he told was of an anarchist plotting to overthrow a dictatorial government by blowing up Parliament but was caught before he could ignite the gun powder barrels stored in the basement. Though parts of his story are correct there are a few things wrong.

First, Guy Fawkes was a provincial Englishman, part of a French-allied Catholic group and the exact opposite of an anarchist. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was an assassination attempt on James I so the Catholics could install a Catholic head of state. The consequential holiday is a result of Britain's victory over the oppression and tyranny of the Catholic church and their foreign entities, namely the Pope and the French.

In England, November 5th is remembered as Guy Fawkes day and bonfires were lit to symbolize the thwarted plot to blow up Parliament. In the colonies shortly before the American Revolution, it was known as Pope's Day and the Pope was hanged and burned in effigy as a celebration of victory over the tyranny of Catholicism.

So Anarchists, I understand your motives and political intentions, just make sure you have the story straight and your celebrating victory over Guy Fawkes, not Guy Fawkes himself.

Anyway…

As we've grown accustomed to since January 20, a lot happened in the news this week with several ongoing controversies and "scandals." This week felt as though we started sprinting a marathon and just never let off, just continually accelerated until Saturday.

Monday, two of the President's campaign managers were indicted for several crimes unrelated yet eerily close to the Trump campaign; Tuesday saw a madman in NYC bowl over people in his truck; Wednesday was met with a new tax reform plan introduced by the Republicans on Capitol Hill along with Chief of Staff John Kelly in hot water--again; Thursday was spent blasting the DNC and Hilary for "rigging" the 2016 Primary election; and Friday Bowe Bergdahl received to no prison time at his sentencing hearing and the military/veteran section of the internet lost their collective minds.

Is anyone else just exhausted?

I feel like I need a vacation to Vietnam or India just to get away from the news for a bit. Alas, the President is in Asia this week so I couldn't avoid the news if I wanted.

The Russia scandal has doubled since Monday with Conservative media outlets demanding the Clinton Campaign be investigated for the Uranium One and the Steele Dossier-- both of which have been litigated on cable news before.

To understand where the President gets the information for his Twitter storms and to understand where Conservative voters are coming from, I watch one Fox News show almost everyday.

Often, I can't watch the entire show. To say FNC has a hypocritical bias is to understate the problem in American "journalism." Lucky for you, I won't get into the biases, real or perceived.

There is an important element of the FNC political coverage that contributes to the overall narrative prevalent across all media outlets and the President's Twitter feed.

For the past three weeks, Hannity has been obsessed with the Uranium One deal, the Steele Dossier, and, of course, football players kneeling during the national anthem. Now he's been obsessed with other things, and I could spend several hours showing how hypocritical his coverage is with other stories, however, these stories have been influential enough to warrant a Congressional investigation by the House Intelligence Committee.

After watching the coverage on Fox, CNN, and in the traditional outlets (e.g. the New York Times, Washington Post, etc.), I realized something no one is really talking about but, in reality, we all should be talking about: Presidential candidates.

Sure there's been some talk about the DNC and Donna Brazille's Op-Ed, essentially a few contracts that made staffing decisions before Hilary was the true nominee for the party.

That’s not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the lesser-of-two-evils situations we seem to find ourselves in, election after election, candidate after candidate.

I've had many conversations with my dad about how the lesser of two evils is slowly killing the political system in the US. You know what the greatest evil is? I asked him on more than one occasion, the lesser of the two.

He would always reply, well there's only two people with a realistic chance to win, so you have to vote for one.

I hate it when he's right.

This past election cycle is probably the clearest example of why we need better candidates during the primaries. We don't want to end up with the lesser of two evils, we want the best person for the job. Why don't we demand better candidates, why won't we choose the better of two great candidates rather than the not-as-terrible of the mediocre/bad candidates?

During one of the four or five Republican primary debates, the now-President was asked which leg of the nuclear triad he most supported and which one needed the most development. From his answer it was clear he had no idea what the nuclear triad is nor did he understand its strategic importance to national security.

Why didn't one of the other candidates simply ask him? Why didn't one of them say, Donald I yield you twenty seconds of my time to define what the nuclear triad is. Why didn't we use intelligence and curiosity about policy, some sort of knowledge about the issues facing our country, as part of the elimination process? Why is it that Trump getting a "sick burn" on Rubio/Carson/Christie/ Cruz was the story in the media and not the fact that he couldn't answer a question about one of the most fucking important national security policies?

Because the fight is more interesting than the answer.

I would bring up a DNC primary debate, but let's be honest, no one remembers and no one cares. It was Hilary and the Democrats almost from day 1. Yes Bernie showed a little bit of promise in the early, more liberal states-- go figure-- but petered out. Most of the scandals and disqualifying attributes about Hilary came out during the General. The absolute last place you want scandals or controversies coming out.

The only thing that could have made it worse for Hilary during the General is if the FBI decided to re-open an investigation about her a week before the election… yeah I went there.

In terms of the DNC, none of the events after the convention really matter. It was prior to the convention that we really need to change. It wasn't the electoral college that handed the Democrats the loss in 2016, it was the Primaries.

The fact that Bernie Sanders-- who may very well be the love child of a benevolent Lenin and a young Einstein-- was arguably the most popular candidate on Facebook, says something about where Democratic politics have gone.

What really screwed the DNC was acceptance. They accepted that Hilary would be the nominee in 2016, they accepted that Bernie was just a paranoid Socialist with crazy ideas when he complained about an unfair process. They accepted a subpar candidate because of her perceived popularity and the truly ridiculous idea that Trump could win a Primary race, let alone the General.

Granted a lot of this is on us as a society. We ridicule the opposing side's ideas, debase the candidate of the opposite party, scoff at education and intellect, and belittle reasonable solutions to complex and nuanced problems.

We let politicians push us around with simplistic answers to questions a PhD candidate would have trouble answering.

We accept one line slogans and sound bites over a well-constructed, well-researched policy ideas.

We blame the acts of terrorists on immigration.

We blame the acts of a madman on guns.

We blame regulation for layoffs in the coal/auto/tech industry

We blame rich people for the plight of the poor.

We blame poor people for the national debt and deficit.

We blame Senators for their inability to get anything done and we blame the House for doing too much.

We blame former President's for a terrible economy and take credit for a soaring stock market.

We've lost the ability to understand that a difference of opinion doesn't mean a difference of principle.

We've forgotten that wanting to own guns isn't a mental disorder and wanting to put regulations on who gets those guns isn't a war on guns or gun owners.

We've forgotten how to tell the difference between a person who has a different idea from a person who will destroy America.

We've forgotten the world is a lot more complicated than a four word phrase or a three word slogan; a hashtag on a hat won't make anything great.

In short, we've accepted the idea that the lesser of two evils is and should be the norm when it comes to elections. Until 2016, most of us haven't had a difficult choice in the General election. In fact, the last time anyone had a difficult choice based on merit and not scandal or disagreement was 1960.

So Democrats, it wasn't the electoral college or James Comey that lost the election for you, it was the fact you accepted anything less than someone who truly represents who you are. Republicans, you may have won the West Wing, Senate, and House, but really look at the White House and ask yourself if you trust those employees, would you buy a car from Trump Jr. or a house from Jared Kushner.

My larger point in all this: we need to take a step back from the daily activities of the White House, the constant blame shifting back and forth, and really consider how we elect people, how we talk about the people we're thinking about electing, and the definition qualified.

Hilary, on paper, was one of the most qualified candidates we've had since Bush '41-- yes I can hear Dems rolling their eyes from here. She was a Senator from New York, ran the State Department, founded and ran the Clinton Foundation, and put Barack Obama through a very tough Primary in 2008.

Here's the problem: she isn't from New York originally, she was fairly incompetent at State, her foundation is riddled with scandal, and Obama was going to get nominated no matter how rough the Primary was. In terms of credibility, she failed the test.

But it was her turn.

Republicans, I point you to the Republican Primary debate question about the nuclear triad. Disqualified.

This isn't new.

We've consistently had the lesser of two evils since 1996.

It's time we demanded more from our candidates, demanded more from the Primary process, demanded more from each other in terms of political debate and the positions we hold.

It's time we demand more.

I remember talking to my XO as Primary season was starting to wind down and the General was about to start. Our relationship was one of professional ribbing-- with him calling me a dirty Oregon hippy and me calling him a nerdy Fox News contributor. Often we’d discuss the primary candidates of both parties and how none of them seemed to really inspire much confidence in their leadership abilities.

Unfortunately, he told me during one of these discussions, my grandmother was right: in a democracy, people get the government they deserve.

We deserve better.

Keep your feet moving

The Untouchables

Before you read the rest of this, let me just say, I in no way, shape or form, claim to speak for all veterans. The views below are my own opinions and should not and cannot be taken to represent veterans as a whole. As always, I attempt to interject a little perspective and nuance into an increasingly simplistic and vitriolic civil discourse.

I recently started using Twitter more than I have in the past. It's not that I have anything really against Twitter but I feared -- and have been vindicated in that fear several times -- there would be too much information and too little humanity. Alas, much of the political news stems from one Tweet or another, so there I am, trying to write 140 characters about one subject or another.

First let me say, 140 characters essentially only lends itself to sarcasm and cynicism; only allows for humor and the quick jab rather than an actual statement illustrating nuance, complexity, and intelligence. It's perfect to test campaign slogans, ten-word stump statements, and snappy comebacks to your uncle at Thanksgiving. But rarely does it lend itself to the complexity and respect of civil debate. What I'm trying to say is Twitter is best described as the petty, inarticulate fights you used to have with your siblings except your mom isn't there to break it up or threaten to turn the car around-- said car just continues towards a cliff.

Moving on.

Twitter can be a useful tool if used correctly to articulate a simple message used for movements such as the #metoo movement, women's movements, posturing from both political parties, and, of course, our current President. Some Tweets can provide much needed context or help change someone's perspective or offer a different perspective from your own.

Some of these perspectives, however, are given more credibility than others. In fact some are regarded as irrefutable. There are certain Twitter accounts that, if attacked, can muster an army of keyboard warriors the world has never seen.

A lot of these accounts are veterans.

In the aftermath of the phone call heard round Congress and Cable News (the Gold Star Family), Chief of Staff John Kelly addressed the press and spoke about the noble 1%. The 1% to which Kelly referred is the current size of the military services, around 1.3 Million-- actually .4% but 1% is just easier to say.

What's troubling about Kelly's press conference is not his praise of those in the military and those who have served. Instead it was the way he elevated them above those who haven't served, those who didn't wear the uniform. He seems to believe service members are endowed with some sort of super natural power, as if joining the military takes some super human sense of duty and patriotism; that every person who has ever served in the military is a morally superior person for simply having served.

These ideas are indicative of a troubling trend in American society, the creation of a infallible military class; the untouchables.

The military and veterans are aggrandized and given near-mythological status in society; veterans are thanked for their service by random strangers (which I personally hate); the statements of a former four-star general shouldn't be questioned; kneeling during the national anthem is now a scandal because it offends veterans; disagreeing with a veteran automatically makes you a snowflake, socialist, libtard who hates America. 

It's gotten to the point that several of the Veterans Service Organizations in DC-- essentially  veteran lobbying groups-- have become the biggest bullies on the Hill. They know they can ask Congress for more money or more support with little or no objection, what representative is going to vote against supporting veterans.

Even in terms of the law, veterans are often less accountable, they get a pass for wrongdoings among society. The veteran who shot up the Naval Yard several years ago is not seen as a madman, he's a troubled veteran with PTSD. Of course, legally he wouldn't have been acquitted --I would hope-- but in the general opinion of society, it would have been understandable. It's not his fault, he's the product of two wars and a lack of support from the VA and the government that sent him. What is an 80%-treatable disorder has become an excuse for the actions.

I have served with some of the greatest men and women this country has to offer. Men and women anyone would be honored to know and befriend.

I have also served with some of the worst.

At the end of the day, veterans are just people. We have the same flaws and imperfections as everyone else, have the same basic needs and desires, and are just as diverse as the population of the country we served.

Service alone doesn't speak to the character of the person. How they served, how they continue to live their lives, how they treat people in and out of uniform, the accountability they keep of themselves; that speaks to their character.

Keep your feet moving

Just... Stop

As has been the case since January 20, this week was filled with controversy, misdirection, and Twitter wars-- and that was just the NFL.

This week has been somewhat of a struggle to really figure out where I stand on certain matters. It's those grey-area controversies, or at least they are for me.

Let me back up a little bit.

On Monday, the President and Senate Majority Leader held a press conference in the Rose Garden. Once statements between the two leaders were complete, members of the press started asking the pair questions. The questions were more or less routine: the budget, repeal and replace, the President's Tweets.

Near the conclusion of the press conference, a reporter asked why there hadn't been a statement about the soldiers killed in Niger from the White House.

Here's where everything started falling apart for the week… on Monday morning.

The President's answer was a combination of blame, distraction, and bragging. You can read his entire transcript here (word search Niger to get to the one question asked).  For those of you not clicking on the link (most of you), I'll summarize: he wrote letters to the Soldiers' families, Presidents Obama and Bush didn't call, at some point he'd be calling, he usually calls and writes letters.

It is entirely possible the President misunderstood the question which was, why haven't we heard anything from you so far about the Soldiers that were killed in Niger? At no point did the reporter ask about letters to the families or phone calls nor did he ask about his predecessors. The question was about Niger in general, something everyone is still asking about, and the intent, I believe, was to find out more about operations in Niger. But the President answered what could have been a dismissible question, with a sound bite.

Thus, chaos ensued.

Instead of talking about the Senate budget proposal (which passed on Friday), the executive order signed ending the Cost Sharing Reduction payments (which will raise insurance premiums), or the various policy debates we should be having as a country, we heard about Gold Star Families and the calls/ letters they did or did not receive.

Tuesday and Wednesday came with more Russia allegations, Tweets about Comey, and, of course, news about the President's call to a soldier's widow.

What is now a familiar story to all of us, Congresswoman Fredica Wilson was listening to the call that is now the subject of more controversy, more vitriol, and more useless debate.

The President has been called hypocritical and insensitive to Gold Star Families while the Congresswoman has endured claims of instability and selfishness. Those adjectives are obviously paraphrased and watered down.

Of course, veterans are weighing in on the subject, none more prominent than Chief of Staff John Kelly. As usual, those veterans on TV are either claiming to or appear to be speaking for all veterans. But that's another topic entirely.

What's being lost on almost everyone, however, is the widow and the parents of the fallen soldier, around whom the controversy is based.

There is literally no one who feels the pain more acutely than the widow and parents of Sergeant La David Johnson.

The debate isn't centered around how she feels, it's not about ensuring she gets the support she deserves, or Defense policy in Niger.

It's about a President we all knew is kind of an asshole and a Congresswoman we all knew is kind of nuts.

Alas, reporters, doing their job as they see it, are asking the family questions about how they feel about the President or the fight he's having with their Congresswoman, a close friend of the family.

I've known soldiers who have died in service to the country, I've known families who have lost their sons and daughters, I've known men and women who've lost their spouses. There's nothing anyone can say or do to really provide solace.

As Lincoln said, [it is] weak and fruitless … any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming.

So in the interest of his widow, his parents, and the memory of Sergeant Johnson himself, lets move on. There is nothing to be gained from arguing over who said what or who is being more disrespectful. All of us, by watching the debate with rapt attention like a reality TV show, are being disrespectful.

Please. Just…stop.

Keep your feet moving