Pure of heart.

******I will do my best not to make generalized statements in the following********

Bruce Jenner, whom I remember as an Olympian rather than a "Kardashian"; had his interview in which he "came out" as Transgendered, air this past Friday. Now, I don't really care what Bruce does, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else so, that's my opinion about that issue. However, I was rather surprised when, during the interview he stated that his political leanings were more conservative than liberal. That statement, rather than the gender identification garnered the hate responses on social media. 

I have friends who are "liberal" and other who are "conservative". I consider myself well versed in political affairs and hold no grudge against anyone who has a position which doesn't agree with my own. That is, after all; our right as Americans.  However, I do feel a need to speak up when views are expressed which are hateful or degrading.

I thought the Democratic mantra was one of inclusion and caring for all. After all, they tout themselves as the protector of everyone and everything. It seems, from social media posts that the liberals will "have your back" only as far as your politics agree with theirs. 

On my Facebook page, I found the comments of one, usually level headed Democrat, to be down right offensive! Trust me. I'm a Sailor. It's really hard to offend me. I guess it wasn't what this person was saying but the fact that he had shown himself to be such a huge hypocrite.  However, if he saw the same hypocrisy in a Republican, you can be sure that a snide and sarcastic comment would be quick to spring forth.

Another comment that stuck out in my memory was found on "Instagram". This protector of the people's rights stated that he had all the sympathy in the world for Mr. Jenner until he revealed that he was a conservative. 

People who voice opinions of intolerance for opposing ideas in the name of liberalism don't even realize what they are doing. By refusing to even listen to other points of view, they limit ideas and intellectual growth. In fact, they are standing to destroy the very thing that they propose to protect. 

Rather than be shocked that Bruce has conservative political leanings, I am more saddened by the fact that at 65 years old, he is only now able to take the steps necessary for his own happiness. In all the comments I read, no one made that observation. Imagine how miserable this person must have felt for so many years, living a lie; all in the name of "not wanting to disappoint anyone."

Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, Libertarian, Green or whatever label you place on yourself politically, some thought before you speak or write might be useful. Hateful comments or statements in the name of a political position only contributes to the strife which seems pervasive in this country. Everyone is looking for a reason to hate or dislike anyone whom they perceive as in some way different. 

What do you value? What are YOUR values? They are yours alone. If you are going to broadcast them, you should attempt to live up to them.

If I were to meet Bruce, I'd say "Good for you. I hope you find the happiness you seek." I wouldn't mention his politics. They are not relevant to the conversation.

By the way, I have friends whom I disagree with regularly. We discuss our opinions and learn from each other. There is no intolerance involved. Imagine that.

As always. 

The Case of Robert Bowdrie "Bowe" Bergdahl

This member of the United States Army has been formally charged with violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Art. 86: Desertion. In addition to the charge of violation of UCMJ Art. 99: Misbehavior before the Enemy.

In order to fully understand the gravity of these charges, one must understand the UCMJ without the media hype that is present when the talking heads report the news. First, let's look at the two relevant articles of the law.

UCMJ Article 86: Desertion.

“(a) Any member of the armed forces who—

• (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

• (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service;  

I have quoted only the relevant portions of the code. It should be noted that Desertion, in this case does not carry the death penalty since as a matter of law, The United States was not in a state of war at the time of the alleged offense.

UCMJ Article 99: Misbehavior before the enemy.

“Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—

(1) runs away;

(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;

(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;

(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;

(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;

(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;

(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;

(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or

(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”

I don't know how many sections of this article Bergdahl will be charged with in the specifications of his Courts-Martial however, it would seem from news reports that he could be charged with most of them.

There will be a formal Article 32 hearing this summer at Fort Hood, TX. This proceeding is similar to a preliminary hearing in the civilian world. The specific charges and specifications will be read out and made public. Certainly, Bergdahl is in a world of trouble.

Now, those are the facts as we know them and the law which applies, so far. It's time for my opinion. There is absolutely no reason to go UA (Unauthorized Absence) or desert in the modern U. S. Military. No one conscripted any member of the force. The Navy and Marine Corps does not send out "Press Gangs" to force (press) unwitting drunks into service. Since 1973, that's 42 years folks; the United States Military has been fully all volunteer.

Prior to actually taking the oath of enlistment, everyone is fully briefed on the facts of life in the military. Namely, that you may be asked to enter combat and fight an armed enemy who is indeed trying to end your life. You still have a chance to back out.

All during training, the idea of fighting is reenforced. In the case of Bergdahl, we were already embroiled in the conflict in Afghanistan and he knew or should have known that there was an excellent chance that he would be sent there in some sort of combat role.

He told his squad/platoon mates that he was going to desert. He actively looked for the enemy. Although he may have started as a prisoner until he gained the trust of his captors, he intended to remain with them and there is photographic evidence of this.  In this regard, he has a large hill to climb to disprove the government's evidence based only on what has been made public. I'm sure the government has more that we have not seen.

Finally and most damning. 6 American servicemen gave their lives to find Bergdahl! His brothers in arms gave their lives in an attempt to save him. They performed their duty with honor and distinction. Nothing will ever bring them back.

The government of the United States traded high ranking terrorists to secure the return of a person who at best, disgraced his uniform. At worst he is a deserter and escapes the firing squad only due to a technicality in the law.

Some have said that Bergdahl has suffered enough. I disagree.  He has not suffered nearly enough to compensate the families of those who lost their lives searching for him. He has not suffered enough to compensate his Unit and the United States Army for the loss of faith he has caused them to suffer. He has not suffered enough to compensate the people of the United States who placed a sacred trust in him when he took the oath of enlistment. He was trusted to safeguard all of us!

He has the gall to wear the uniform of a Sergeant in the U. S. Army. Even wearing a Private's uniform, he is a disgrace.

I will watch the case with interest as it unfolds. I do not hold out much hope that he will receive more than a slap on the hand as long as the current political climate prevails in Washington, DC.

Take a moment to remember all of our men and women who serve in uniform, in harm's way today. They honor each of us with their truly honorable service.

As always...  

*Please note that in this article I did not use Bergdahl's awarded rank. To call him a Sergeant wold insult everyone who has ever held the rank of NCO/Petty Officer in the U. S. Military.

We didn't go to war for your entertainment.

Recently, a friend of mine saw the movie "American Sniper". She complained after seeing this Clint Eastwood epic that it left her depressed. This observation created a firestorm of comment from her "friends" about the "rightness" or "wrongness" of THIS war.

The thread of the conversation continued in the vein that the movie was not entertaining at all and that the "fault" of the war was that of President George W. Bush. Apparently,  he started this war, so it's his fault. There was also blame place at the feet of the current President which caused more firestorm.

This reminds me of those folks during the Second Wold War who referred to the conflict as "Mr. Roosevelt's" war. I will not go into the historical record nor debate the policies of an Administration, long out of power. As I will not debate who's war the conflict in Iraq/Afghanistan is/was.

The responsibility for the conflict, at this point is not the relevant issue. Actually, that is for history to judge. This war and any military conflict was not embarked upon for the entertainment of the people. In this case, by entertainment; I am speaking of the elitist,  sudo-intelligent, think tank sort of discussion you would find in the wealthier households in any large city cocktail party. (Pinkies up, please.)

You see, the problem is simple. These intellectual snobs think that by discussing who is responsible for a world problem (as long as it's not the party they belong to) they are somehow aiding in it's solution. In fact, they not only detract from any real solutions, they have no real world answers.

These "Think tank liberals" fail to understand one central issue about war and armed conflict. It is NOT they or the politicians who bear the burden of war. Sure, they will see the casualties returning home in the flag draped caskets. Honor guards salute as flags wave and politicians look somber. They will say "Isn't that a nice tribute?" or "Oh, that's such a shame." But, it's all talk. In real terms they do nothing to help.

Oh, certainly, they will thank a member of the Armed Forces for their service. But, it's done mostly out of political correctness. On September 10, 2001 no one said "Thank you for your service." to military personnel as a matter of routine.

I personally did not see and do not plan on seeing "American Sniper." I've seen friends perish in the service. I've seen the destruction of war. I do understand that the movie is graphic. Good. And if it depresses people, even better. War should be depressing. It should be depicted as terrifying. It is that! I know to many mothers who lived on pins and needles for 6 or 9 or 12 months while their child was deployed to the combat zone.

All during my Naval career, my mother told me that she was worried every day I was deployed. Try living in fear of the telephone ringing. Live in fear of the unexpected knock at the door. I know countless families who have had that experience. Ask them if war is depressing. Trust me, they don't care who started the war. They are well familiar with who had to fight it. Most continue to fight it from their homes today.

War, to the Soldier, Sailor, Airmen or Marine who must fight it is not geopolitical theory. Leave that to the college professors. Talk is cheap. The brave men and women who march, fly or sail into harm's way do not need to discuss the ramifications of war on the social structure of a society. They live it and are transformed by it. Unfortunately, to many never recover.

I'm not only talking about the wounds we can see. If a person is killed, it is easy to see the result. We have all seen the ceremony. If a person is maimed, we can see that too. But, there are THOUSANDS who return with TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) which is a wound you don't see but you can take my word for it, the service member feels every day along with his family.

We've all heard the term PTSD, POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER. This illness has symptoms which can be as mild as slight difficulty sleeping to suicide! Everything in between is what our Veterans must contend with.

So, no. I will not go see this movie because of my own reasons. I would leave the theater in tears. I just wish that those who want to blame anyone for the war and feel they are so helpful to our society because of their indignation would realize who pays the toll for their conversation.

Always remember the words of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. "Above all others, it is the Soldier who prays for PEACE. For he must bear the burden and pay the price for war."

It's not an entertainment. It's real and it has consequences in the real world. I'm glad the movie depressed my friend. It should have.

Hopefully, my next blog will be more upbeat.

As always...

It takes more than Faith.

"The Navy Chaplain Corps comprises more than 800 Navy Chaplains from more than 100 different faith groups, including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and many others. Each Chaplain is also a Navy Officer – meaning each holds an important leadership role.

Chaplains offer everything from faith leadership to personal advice to much-needed solace. All while living up to the guiding principles of the Chaplain Mission:

• Providing religious ministry and support to those of your own faith
• Facilitating the religious requirements of those from all faiths
• Caring for all service members and their families, including those subscribing to no specific faith
• Advising the command in ensuring the free exercise of religion"

(From Navy.com)

Recently, there was a news item which asked opinion as to wether a U.S. Navy Chaplain who was being processed for discharge after 19 years of service should in fact be separated from the service. 

I read with interest, this story. Many Navy Chaplains are friends of mine. Anyone who knows me will tell you that if I see a Navy Chaplain, I will stop an say hello. During my time in the Navy and since retirement, the Chaplain was always a friendly face and a source of advice and comfort. So, any story of a Chaplain being forced to leave the Navy peeks my interest.

I will get into the story in a moment and my opinion will become clear. But first, a little background about Chaplains. If you have read the above excerpt from Navy.com, you will see that no place does it say that Chaplains are to recruit members to their Faith.  Further, it specifically states that the Chaplain is to care for ALL service members of all Faiths and of NO faith. In other words, don't try to sell your beliefs or moral judgements onto those you are there to help. You are there for EVERYONE.

Now, on to the Chaplain in question. It seems that he had a problem with some of the Navy's policies regarding women and homosexuals. (Just the description of his problem was hard for me to type)

He didn't like women because they would get pregnant and pregnancy without the benefit of marriage is against HIS faith. He would counsel young, unmarried women that they were bad people and that they would be punished by the Lord for engaging in pre-marital intercourse. Worse, their child was an abomination, a bastard. I thought these attitudes went away sometime in the last 50 years. Certainly, I do not understand how remarks along these lines could be considered counseling and for the betterment of the service member, Command or military community at large.

Next we move on to the issue of this Chaplain's stand on gay rights. Very simply, he believed that it was appropriate to inform service members who identified as homosexual that they and their life style were an abomination, forbidden by the written word of the Bible. He went on to counsel what the proper use of the human sexual organs were, in his (and presumably the Lord's) view.

Upon hearing the complaints of members of this Chaplains command, an investigation ensued. The results of which recommended that the officer in question be separated from the service. 

The news article which reported all of this asked readers to comment as to wether they agreed with the Chaplain or the Command. My comment was simple. 2 words: Discharge Him!

Here is my reasoning.

1. The Chaplain in question stated that he was just acting in accordance with his Faith. There is a problem with this defense. All Chaplains serve in the Military with the permission of their home Church. This permission is in the form of a written authorization to the Military Department in which they wish to serve. So, the Chaplain, if he feels that he can no longer carry out his duties in accord with the teachings of his Church; all he need do is request that his Church revoke his permission to serve in the Navy. He would be processed for discharge.

2. Chaplains, as noted from the Navy's own web page, are required to serve all hands, regardless of faith. The counselor's faith has not one thing to do with how he is expected to counsel service members in the secular world. If he can not make the switch from the spiritual to the secular world when dealing with his charges, he can not perform his duties and he should request discharge.

3. Finally. In the story comments, many people applauded this particular Chaplain for standing on his Faith. Somehow, they saw him as a David standing on the plain, facing a Goliath. His slingshot in hand, as the weapon to protect HIS FAITH from the non-believers. I beg to disagree in the strongest possible terms! Military Chaplains are required to minister to their "flocks" in accordance with directives and instructions from higher authority. That is higher EARTHLY authority. In this case, the Chaplain knew what the Department of the Navy policy was and he chose to ignore it in favor of a policy of his own making. That is a dereliction of duty and a violation of trust. He violated the oath he took when he was commissioned. He violated the trust the Navy placed in him. Worse, he violated the trust of those people who sought him out for help.  

Faith had nothing to do with this issue. The Chaplain in question was in it for himself. The Navy determined that he was "Intolerant". That is putting it mildly. If anyone else had acted in this way, there would have been no question as to the disposition of their service.

The questions this officer raised are just plain silly. Pre-marital sex has been around since the institution of marriage. Homosexuality has been around longer than that. Who cares?

You have to do what is right for you. I've said this time and time again. We need to get out of each other's bedrooms and embrace the things that we all have in common. I have friends who are gay, straight and as crooked as they come. I honestly do not care what they do in their private life. Live and let live.

Oh, to the Chaplain, if you think people are going to stop having sex because they are not married, you might need more than a discharge. You may need to become a solitary monk.

I hope I've made my position clear. This story had been bothering me since I first read it last week. Thaks for putting up with me.

As always...

The Fall of America...

It is said that the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire was the continued dilution of the Roman culture by the so called "Barbarians"; those peoples from the conquered lands.

It started with language and moved on to permeate all areas of the culture until, with a loss of identity, the Empire fell.

We can draw many parallels to this phenomenon today. I'd like to start with the use of language.

The primary language spoken in the United States of America is English. Now, I grant you; the British people may argue that we speak a dialect of English and should call our language "American." I can go along with this label.

There are usually three forms of a language spoken. Formal, conversational and casual. Formal English would be that which you see in the written word. Grammar and spelling are checked and every effort is made to ensure the final product is as close to accepted formal language as possible. This would also be true for the spoken word in formal circumstances (formal social gatherings, lectures, interviews etc.).

Conversational language is that form of the language which is used in (surprise!) conversation. It is less formal than the above and minor slips in grammar are acceptable. Further, the use of local "idiom" is acceptable in conversational language.

Finally, we come to the least structured and often times, the most confusing form of language. Casual.  Casual language is that speech that you might use at a family gathering or the breakfast table with just one or 2 people present. Those people would usually be close friends or family members where the slide into less strict grammar is forgiven. The use of casual language is very tricky. When I was growing up, I could use casual english with my older brother but never in the presence of my parents or my sister. Many times I was admonished that "You are not attending private school to speak public school english!" Casual language is often used in industrial situations and in situations where brevity is required.

All this being said, I do not want to give anyone the impression that completely made up words and grammar is ever acceptable. If you will continue with me, I would like to give a few examples.

The great offender to my ear is the word "DISRESPECT". The word; until a few years ago was a noun. It means to act or show a lack of respect. It is NOT a verb. Well, of course; in the name of mediocrity, it appears in the dictionary as a verb (informal). I'm sorry. You will never hear me say that I was disrespected. "Someone spoke in a disrespectful manner. " "He was disrespectful to my sister." That's how we speak in all but the street. When did the language of the street become acceptable? I have heard "talking heads" on National News programs use the word disrespect as a verb. Do these people not have editors?

CONVERSATE: This is not a word, people. If you hear someone say they are "conversating" with their friend, run for the hills! The correct usage would be: "They are having a conversation with a friend." You can converse and therefore are carrying on a conversation. But, NEVER conversate. I enjoy watching Judge Judy Sheindlin. When someone comes in her court room and uses that word, she corrects them and tells them that CONVERSATE is NOT a word.

The proper response to "Thank You" is "You're Welcome." not "No prob." or a grunt. While we are on the subject of manners, may I also mention that it is not acceptable to use profanity in the presence of you mother or any other woman.  I know of no culture where profanity and gutter language is acceptable in the presence of women. Most of my friends are women and I can assure you that I do not routinely use unacceptable language when dealing with them.

Some will say that I am letting my conservative side show. Well, maybe I am but, I am not talking about "Family Values" in the way politicians do. I am saying that it takes an entire family to raise children. I am saying that it is not the responsibility of just the schools to keep kids out of trouble and ensure that they grow to be productive members of society. Parents must lead their children.

One of the police shooters in New York City had a father who did an interview with the news. This father blamed "the streets" and the United States Marine Corps for the issues his son had and thus, the shooting. Pardon me Sir. Look in the mirror. The responsibility rests squarely on your shoulders and those of your son.

Fewer children would fall to the "streets" if their parents had ensured that they were busy and belonged to a real family while they grew up. Gang members routinely say that they joined the gang to gain a sense of belonging and "family." If more parents raised their children and ensured that they were busy with productive pursuits like Scouting maybe there would be less need to feel like belong to a family and more of actually belonging to their family.

I realize that my solutions seem simplistic and perhaps they are but, it's my blog and I can sound off if I want to.  Let's reinstate the draft, just  for Recruit training. Everyone gets to go to Paris Island for 12 week or how ever long it takes to graduate. I promise that everyone will feel like they are part of a family after that training and part of something much bigger then themselves.

I could have written about more grammar errors but, my fingers were rebelling and I was getting a headache. My old English teacher was spinning in his grave as I typed.

Two Police Officers Killed in NYC....

Saturday December 20, 2014 National Public Radio reported the following:

Two New York police officers were ambushed and fatally shot while sitting in their patrol car in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood Saturday. The suspected gunman has died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

In a press conference, New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton said the officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, were killed with "no warning, no provocation."...

While "Social Media" was abuzz with this terrifying news and support began to pour out for the families of the slain officers, "Rev." Al Sharpton released a statement decrying the linking of this senseless act to the recent unrest in New York City and Ferguson, MO. He stated that he is "outraged" that anyone would try and link this incident to those. In his statement, there was no message of sympathy for the families of the slain police officers. There was no call to action. The outrage was not that two officers who were doing nothing but sitting in their patrol vehicle were gunned down without warning or provocation of any kind. The good "Reverend" made a political statement.

What is going on in our Country? Has the world turned on it's side? I feel like we have gone back in time 50 years to a time where a person's skin color defines them and their role in society. I don't like this at all.

I have friends of all colors, faiths, orientations, genders. You name it, I've probably got a friend who is in that group. You see, we are not supposed to label people. I thought we were supposed to take people as individuals and receive them as they come to us. 

I was moved to write this piece today because I have a friend who comes from an immigrant family (as I do), who was so upset by the events of last evening that she posted that she wanted to take her husband and children and go back to the Dominican Republic! Her family came here for security and opportunity and now she feels that she would be safer in the "DR"? 

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to be free..."

I guess that's just a pie in the sky idea now. Have we degraded to a point that we must wear body armor at all times and walk about in the cities heavily armed? Is that freedom? I think not.

Realizing that the shooter of our two brave Police Officers killed himself after his dastardly act, it may take some time before the investigation into his life and motivations is complete. Hopefully, at that time we will learn what motivated this person to act as he did. We may never know.

But, knowledge of the killer's motivation will not bring the Officers back from the dead. It will not bring them home to their families, wives, children. That knowledge will never bring them home to their Mothers and Fathers. 

You see, the New York City Police Department were not the only ones to lose two selfless Officers yesterday.  The City, State and in fact the entire Country lost two examples of what makes this Country great. 

Selfless service is what these two officers were performing when they died. They died needlessly at the hands of a crazed person.

For New York City Police Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos: End of Tour: 12/20/2014. Your sacrifice will never be forgotten.


As always...

Who wins after the riot?

This is a scene from Ferguson, MO. The Grand Jury has spoken and in a decision which surprised no one, voted to not indict Officer Wilson of Murder!

The eye witness testimony was contradictory at best. It was proven that at least two of the witnesses at the scene lied to police. Finally, the autopsy of Mr. Brown left little doubt as to the facts of the case.

Do we need to look at the facts of the case again? I think not. The social implications of this incident are clear but it seem that the people of Ferguson seem to miss the point. Yes, the death of an 18 year old is sad. To his family, it is a personal tragedy. In a larger sense, any death of a young person is a tragedy.

But, Let's look at what we know. We now know that the police officer was responding to a call. We also know that the young man attacked the police officer. Should officer Wilson have let himself be killed? I don't think he signed up for that.

Mothers always believe that their children are Angels from God. That is the way life is. Mr. Brown's mother has, in her grief been shouting from the rooftops that her son was innocent of any crime and was gunned down without cause. I can understand that. She is a mother.

What I don't understand is outsiders coming in to town as the carpetbaggers of old and bringing the people up to a frenzy. I don't understand when the President of the United States allows his Attorney General to go to Ferguson and convict officer Wilson with his words before the investigation is completed.

Now, the Grand Jury has spoken. STATE charges will not be brought. But, the Justice Department is looking into the possibility of bringing Federal charges against officer Wilson. Would this have happened if the roles were reversed? Would any of this happened if the roles were reversed?

I do not believe we would be talking about this incident at all if  the skin color of the "players" were reversed. I hate even writing that. I do not judge people by the color of their skin. I do not like using skin color as a descriptor. But, maybe I am not sophisticated enough for the nuance of today's society. I'm just a simple sailor.

In the past few months, there has been a lot of talk about Dr. King. Dr. King is rolling over in his grave as he sees that we, as a society have not evolved one bit since the 1950s and '60s. This senseless rioting and looting. The wanton destruction hurts no one except the residents of the communities in which it takes place.

The grand jury decision was easy to predict and so was the reaction of the people in poor communities who are being manipulated by opportunistic publicity seekers with their own agendas. Certainly, these outside forces do not in any way have the welfare of the good people of Ferguson, MO at the heart of their motivation.

I remember the 1967 riots in Newark, New Jersey. It was a horrible sight. The city of Newark is still trying to recover from that hot summer. How long will it take for the Country to recover from this event?

One thing is proven. Racism is alive and well in America and it's not just for Minorities any more.

A sad state of affairs.

As always...