I found this on Little Green Footballs yesterday afternoon and see it has made it’s way to Cdr Salamander’s blog, too.

A Polish woman, Irena Sendler, saved 2,500 Jewish children between 1940 and 1943, before she was arrested by the Nazis and then tortured. She never gave up the names of the children. 2500. Think about it: 2500 lives snatched from the jaws of certain death, by a woman, who was not Jewish, and knew full well of the penalty for such rescue work. 2500 people, many of who, by basic demographics, have had generations flow from them, which would have otherwise been truncated forever. She is still alive and was honored in Warsaw by a ceremony the 93 year old woman was unable to attend. The Boston Herald has a detailed story of this woman’s heroism:

WARSAW, Poland – Irena Sendler saved nearly 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazis, organizing a ring of 20 Poles to smuggle them out of the Warsaw Ghetto in baskets and ambulances.

The Nazis arrested her, but she didn’t talk under torture. After she survived the war, she expressed regret – for doing too little.

Lawmakers in Poland’s Senate disagreed Wednesday, unanimously passing a resolution honoring her and the Polish underground’s Council for Assisting Jews, of which her ring of mostly Roman Catholics was a part.

Poland’s goverment-in-exile set up the secret organization in 1942 to help save Jews from the Nazi-established ghettoes and labor camps.

Anyone caught helping Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland risked being summarily shot, along with family members. The resolution honored Sendler for organizing the ”rescue of the most defenseless victims of the Nazi ideology: the Jewish children.”
[…]

It seems to me, as I have seen others commenting around the blogosphere, that she is the very kind of person who deserves to be held up as a role model, and not these bored little rich girls we see splashed about the media.

I, for one, have faith that this woman will most certainly be greeted with “Well done, my good and faithful servant” when she leaves this life on Earth.

Go, read, and have a renewing of the mind with this story.

Back when Jack Army was still in the Army recruiting business, I asked him what was allowed to give to Recruiters. I know back in my dark ages, there was a $4.95 retail value limit on “gifts,” which was revised to be something more intelligent just before I retired in 96. I thought the troops at the local station might enjoy a pizza or something like that, but I wanted to make sure so they weren’t in an uncomfortable position, If I sent a few large pizzas to their door. Not worth losing a career/position over. He gave me permission to provide some info extracted from his two emails.

“Jack” is a busy man and currently in the later part of his deployment to Iraq, but he made time to answer up. I got an answer I think we all might be able to give the overworked recruiters with:

As for your question, what is acceptable for a recruiter to accept? Certainly an occasional pizza will be heartily received and small tokens like that are fine. I don’t believe there is a regulation prohibiting recruiters from receiving gifts from private citizens, most would be too humble to receive much more than pizza and a soda or something similar.

I would tell you that the one thing that you could give a recruiter that would mean more than anything is a solid lead. A name and phone number of some young man or woman that would benefit from what the Army has to offer… you would have Army coffee cups, pens, desk calendars and just about any other lickies and chewies USAREC throws out there coming out of your ears!

I don’t need another coffee cup, but I think the recruiters could appreciate just what he asked for: Solid leads. Put your networking hats on, and get back into service, being an advocate for military service and the recruiters. We know they have problems in some areas getting into schools and universities, so complimenting their work would be a big boost for them. Keep your ears to the tracks and listening for that opportunity in a conversation to guide someone their way….and, just if you have the urge, maybe stop by with some coffee or donuts or pizza for them and tell them they are doing a great job.

Now, news from Iraq from “Jack:”

It has been a fast and furious time since about August 2005. As you probably know, I’m currently in Iraq. Things are going really well in our area of operations. Our Iraqi Army counterparts are progressing well and things in this zone are relatively quiet compared to zones on our borders. There are great things happening every day but there is still so much work to be done.

Somehow I don’t get the same picture from the MSM….so, from real boots on the ground, a senior NCO says it’s better.

While I tend to paint a rosy picture of things here (I am an optimist!), there are challenges. Corruption has been a problem. For example, Iraqi Army Soldiers and Iraqi Police officers used to demand bribes to get through some of the checkpoints in our area. The Iraqi Army commander here had signs put up at the checkpoints with his phone number on them stating that bribes where illegal and call the number to report IA or IP who demanded them. Also, obviously, he ordered the practice to be stopped as well. After he put the first violator in jail for a few days and took away a few days’ pay, that practice pretty much went away. Now, the only folks that will get hassled at a checkpoint is those that are suspicious or violate the law. Things are getting better.

Sounds like someone sees it’s time for a change, and it’s great to hear that the Iraqi officer is taking the lead in solving a problem.

Update 3/9/2007: In this “news” is the subtle message that changes, meaning it will take a while to change attitudes, as the poulation ages/dies off. At MilBlogs, Soldier’s Dad makes this point, but uses the Russian model and the memory of WWII as the example. The human experience, it’s new and it’s old, more times and ways that we like to imagine….

So, the recruiters are in the fight, too. Help them out if you get the chance.

Crossposted at: Third World County
Tracked back at: Woman, Honor Thyself, High Desert Wanderer, Big Dogs Weblog, Right Voices, Samantha Burns, Cao’s Blog

Open Trackbacks! Post your stuff!

Sea story of the week:

I first heard of, not by name, but by association, GSGS(SW) John “JC” Weigman, USN in the summer of 1983. I was a student at Surface Warfare Officer Department Head course, nearing completion of the 6 month school. By now, I was in the Engineering Specialty portion of the curriculum, having been detailed to be the Engineer Officer on USS CONOLLY (DD-979). There were ten of us in the class, taught by LCDR Alex Watt, sitting in two rows of chairs, 5 abreast, all destined to be in charge of SPRUANCE Class destroyer engineering plants. It was the last day of this part of the school, and Alex had gathered the current status of our ships, so we’d have an idea where they were in the training/inspection/deployment cycle. He began the class with some “good news” for one of us (I can’t recall what it was or who it was for) and “bad news” for one of us. He announced one of the ships rated several GS (Gas Turbine Specialist) Chief Petty Officers, but there was only one aboard.

Alex worked his way across the front row and then got to me in the center of the back row. He began the status of my upcoming assignment by saying “It’s you.” Great. Never wanted to be a “snipe,” had asked to be anything but a snipe, but I got to be a snipe, and then I was going to be shorthanded…..There’s about 2-3 more sea stories in that last comment, but later….

I arrive aboard the ship in Puerto Mont, Chile, having flown from Norfolk via Miami. GSMC(SW) Weigman is my leading enlisted man in the department. He began his career as an EN (Engineman) and had plenty of stories to tell, in particular, he was involved in the evaluation of the SeaFox SEAL patrol craft, which made for some good conversation late at night on watch. He converted to the GS rate when there was the massive build up of DDs and FFGs was at it’s peak in the early 80s, which was a great career move.

Supporting JC were GSM1 Graham, GSE1 Denny Rohr, GSE2 Walter Hook, GSM2 Belcher, GSM2 Shipley, GSM2 Roberge, GSM2 Dewberry and more I can’t recall right now, but…he was in fact the only Chief I had in the “M” (Main Probulsion) Division, led by LT Al Curry.

JC was more than a match for the task. He was a sailor and not a snipe first. His goal was always to make sure the Ship was cared for and running well. If that meant playing second fiddle in the priorities for some “upper deck” stuff, he was on board, and he was sending help as needed. He also instilled this in those in the entire Engineering Department. On the other hand, if there was a tie to be broken, he’d make sure, in the “Goat Locker” or in talks with the CO (CDR Harry Maxiner) that the snipes would get the best deal.

One of the ways he was so successful, and the point of this sea story is: When someone told him something couldn’t be done, or it had to be done some way that didn’t make sense, he’d go and seek out the guidance and self-educate. I know he took both the PN (Personnelman) and YN (Yeoman) rate correspondence courses (required for advancement in those rates), and I believe he also sat down and worked his way through the DK (Disbursing Clerk) material as well. The entire point was to know as much of their jobs as they knew. On many occasions, he found out the people had told him something wrong, or contradictory to the way things were to be done. He wanted to know what was right, and if you wouldn’t tell him, he’d go to the book, your book, then come back and quote it to you.

He did this with everything he worked with. He was an incredibly capable amn, and even though I was short two more Chiefs in the Main Propulsion area, he outdid any ten other chiefs I worked with, except three, who were cut from the same cloth, and I ran into them years later.

One particular area, where he used this process of doing things right was with the “Critical Gauge” program. Aboard the ship were hundreds of gauges and sensing devices that required periodic calibration. There were established “METCAL” teams of civil servants and contractors, who would come to the ship and go through and validate the accuracy (or repair/replace) every one of them. JC read the instruction and it said the critical gauge list was designated by the Commanding Officer, and the shore based support teams would check against the list of meter cards (one record for each gauge/sensor) listed by the Ship’s Company. JC wnet about making sure that every gauge was covered. He listed gauges in the ASROC heating and cooling system, in the electronic chilled water piping system, etc, etc, etc. Hydraulic meters and gauges in the 5’/54 guns were also included.

When we returned from the UNITAS deployment, the METCAL team paid us a call. The looked at this foot high stack of the meter card printouts and told JC (who was in charge of the program) that they only did engineering related gauges. He stared them down and told them the heating and cooling systems for the ordnance magazines were just as critical as the vibration transducers on the gas turbine engines and….futhermore, this was the Commanding Officer’s designated list, per the instruction and they were going to check them all. He was right on both counts. They left and started calling around. Net result, they did most of the work we handed them, but not all of it.

The net result of one man, shorthanded and all, was this: The METCAL team and their handlers successfully maneuvered to get the instruction changed, so the Squadron Commander would designate the “critical gauges.” That wasn’t the answer. The METCAL people needed to see he had a very valid point, and they needed to plus up their teams to cover more work aboard the ships during their visits.

So, the moral of the story is: If you do your homework, and learn what the other guy is supposed to be doing, you get a lot of work done, but sometimes, others will find an end around to keep from doing the work.

JC also took on the existing lube oil analysis program and if I recall correctly, he got them to change to a better method of detecting contaminants in the samples sent out to the labs, which helped in early detection of problems, and therefore ssaved taxpayer dollars.

By the time I departed CONOLLY, JC had made Senior Chief Petty Officer, and all of the other people I listed above added another paygrade to their sleeves/collars.

As far as not wanting the job? Well, it was one of the most rewarding tours I had. I credit a lot of sailors who didn’t want me to screw up for making me look good in that job. They are subjects of future sea stories, for they all have lessons and tales of their own.

The political commentary and maneuvering these days shows something of the character of the Congress and the Democratic Party in particular that is, how shall I say this delicately? Well, I can’t. Blood lust. Pure and simple lust for the shedding of blood, specifically in the physical sense, while carrying it out in the figurative manner.

The “buzz word” of the times: “Slow Bleed” says Carl Levin (D-MI) and John Murtha (D-PA), supported by the Democrats of the House, and 17 Republicans, too. You know the ones, the ones running to the sound of the polls, as is the collective daily wisdom of the electorate, measured in quantities of about 1000 to guage, with scientific processes,
to sense the mood.

So, if the Democrats get their way through obfuscation, their slow bleed strategy, will, in their estimation, bleed the support of the voters from the President and the Republicans in general.

What will the “bleeding” look like? Well, not funding more equipment, not funding supplies, and not funding the transport of the replacement and reinforcement troops.

This, if accomplished, will most certainly lead to the withdrawal of the political will to continue the campaign in Iraq in the Global War on Terror. How So? Simple. The troops on the front line, deprived of more compatriots to show the enemy we mean business, short supply on basic combat items, such as ammo and other equipment.

What next? The extrapolated condition is our troops, faced with an already brutal and further emboldened enemy, witll begin to take casualties they should not. THEY.WILL.BLEED. Not figuratively, but literally.

Why? Simple? So Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Murtha and their acolytes will then be “given” positions of power, with the reward of the voters by placing a Democratic president in the White House, and securing a majority on the Senate.

Who provides the “life blood” of this path to power? The troops. The troops they support.

The same troops who weren’t supplied with armored HUMVEES, body armor and the many other things the Democrats screamed about. The troops who have changed lives by placing themselves in danger to protect the lives of Iraqis. The troops, who, despite the hypocritical posturing of the Democrats, continue to suit up and enter the streets of Baghdad to face a foe who is little more than the analog of a viral infection in civilization, but a nasty one in any case.

You know, they don’t have to spit on the troops anymore. In the 70s, most of “them” were young people and not in positions where they could control the expenditure of Federal dollars. No, I predict the “spitting” phenomena will be minimal, but this time, the troops could be bled white, like animals slaughtered, all in the name of the blood lust of politicians wanting power, unfettered by dialog with those across the aisle.

Trackbacked at: Third World County, The Pirate’s Cove

These are strange days, indeed. And interesting. Stand by for “stream of consciousness” transmission.

I’m a process guy. For as long as I can remember, I have enjoyed dismantling times to see what makes them go. In my adult years, that has taken the form of “how does it work and is there room for improvement?” more often than not. I despise those who can can only manage to lift themselves intellectually enough to identify a problem and go no further. far too many of those people, when we need problem solvers. Implied the same “problem solvers” will, because it has to be this way, get their hands, and maybe the rest of them quite “dirty” in the pursuit of making things better.

In looking at processes, I enjoy trying to find the core of the problem so that the “fix” might be done with the least amount of effort, while the effort in some cases will be enormous, going to cut the tap root directly is still superior to trying to kill a tree by plucking each of it’s leaves…

With those thoughts in mind, I get to the point of my current wondering:

What happened to the Republican Party? The title of this post conveys some of the problem, and thank God we have a number of our countrymen who still run to the sound of battle to offset the current trend at just about every level of government these days.

I think back to the President’s news conference and actions on November 8th, 2006. President Bush did not stand tall and face the changed balance of votes in the Congress with forthright consistency. I believe this was the day things went south. Well, actually the night of November 7th to be more precise, but the interviews and “conciliatory attitudes” couldn’t be showcased until the next morning. I am a supporter of the President, but wonder why he has stepped back from his upright stance he had from 9/12/2001 through the days before the 2006 election.

How does this factor in? The Republicans have fractured and jumped on the band wagon to try to exercise non-Constitutional control of the military operations of the country. It’s as though the team has lost its coach, and, seeing tough sledding ahead, they “separate” and believe running alone will up their chances of survival politically. Not a chance I’d postulate. That thought process doesn’t work well in the wilderness, nor when lost at sea. “we” as humans do better when we work together (which goes a lot further when trying to solve problems, too). This will be something I think history, and the electorate will not judge in a positive light when our days are looked back on.

I think the Republicans have lost their rudder and I just hope someone can step up to the plate to pull them back together.

Watching the Democrats since 11/8/2006, all I see is a more shrill “voice” to impose their way on the entire nation. They said they would bring a new conversation to Washington, and I’d have to agree, but it is in the form of demanding they have their way, not in bi-partisan open discussions to solve the problems of this nation. Frankly, there are big issues facing this country, and the majority party is frittering away valuable time by spending their waking hours merely trying to oppose the President.

That being said, for those on the opposing side of the political scale than I, it’s one thing to just stand up and vote your power in funding as a Constitutionally valid method to exercise “checks and balances” and quite another to waste time putting forth legislative work that will most certainly be turned down when reviewed in a court of law. You want a prime example of “waste, fraud and abuse?” The “slow bleed” strategy of the Democrats in the House is just that. For those who complain about $400 toilet seats in military aircraft projects, will you also put your elected Federal representatives on notice that they are mis-handling your tax dollars now, or will you give them a pass?

As many others have said, if Congress believes the will of the people is to get out of the Middle East and bring the troops home, that can be communicated loudly and clearly by just not giving money to the military.

“Revoting” how much authority the President was given is also a time wasting, cheap shot at halting the gears of the Nation. At least I have to acknowledge that John Edwards has the courage to say he voted one way and now has changed his mind. Hillary (the smartest women in the world, some would claim) just wants to pretend she was out-foxed. Think about that one: The “Shrub” who is the stupidest man/president ever according to many, out thought the smartest women in the world. If I were Hillary, I’d shut up now, before people realize a dumb man convinced her to do something she shouldn’t have…..

Lately I have heard accusations that the President didn’t plan adequately for this war. I agree, wholeheartedly. In retrospect, and in his favor, who could have predicted that after the deaths of 2996 people on our own soil, in a deliberate attack, that the response would have had to have included plans to counter a national and world press that would consciously not seek the truth, would accept as “news” fabricated stories, photographs and videos provided without fact checking from the enemy in caves and alleys of war torn towns, showing more Americans dying at the hands of a driven, brutal enemy, and then let the same culture demand they not be spoken of in terms to describe, at best their apathy and at worst their clearly stated blood lust and murderously conducted actions?

Who would have known to plan for those same things, pushed in the face of the world daily would be blamed on the man who was in a classroom of an elementary reading class, not having planned to, in cold blood, execute 2996 people on the same day? And, further, that that accepted meme would then cause a party out of power to use this as fodder to re-gain those positions where they could personally gain in political stature? Besides having to plan on how to combat an effort on an world-wide, internal to the nation and from without, war against us, by an enemy who would hide in plain sight, and chose to be stateless in order to confound the reaction to their attacks?

Just as the cry of concern that a fictional television show might influence someone to cross the line and commit crimes in and interrogation, the media is a powerful voice, and it’s not just “24” that may influence. Tipper Gore wanted music controlled, because of the influence. about 20 years ago, ads for smoking products were banned, as “the nation” agreed they were influential. As one talk show host said when wondering why only “24” was singled out: “If only ’24’ is influential, why are corporations spend $2.5M for 30 seconds of Super Bowl air time?” Because the media influences, plain and simple.

Quite honestly, I wonder at the depth of understanding of those in leadership who would trust the polls of the American public to guide their policy positions. For one, they were elected to be leaders, and not to just follow the crowd (which is why, duh!, we refer to them as leaders). Secondly, if they haven’t figured out we are kind of fickle in our positions, then they really have lost touch with the regular Americans and don’t comprehend the comings and goings of fashions, music, the “coolest” cellphone, the hottest movie, the “in” band/musician, do they?

So, to wrap up some random, yet connected thoughts on the state of the Union, it occurs to me that constancy, vision and dogged determination in the face of adversity has been the quality that has served this nation, in public and private affairs the best. Bickering over the “how” of the “how to get the job done/problem solved” is wasted energy and, with the issue of global warming being the impending death of Mother earth, I’d suggest the exhaled breath would serve us all better if it was used to form sounds of conversations about making the future safe for us now, and our heirs later, rather than used to call names and quibble over who had better grads in college/law school.

From here, I return to my regularly scheduled analysis of just what the heck is going on. I refuse to publish a timeline for my plan, just in case you are going to demand one.

Real solutions to the real problems can be submitted in the comments section below.

“Fairness” provided by comments section below.

Common sense and reality accepted.

Crossposted at: The Wide Awakes

Tracked back at: Third World County,

Two years ago, I spent a few days being a serial poster. I had originally done it at the “Junior Blog,” but found the time tonight to bring it all over into the database, update the links and now I’ll invite your attention to the series, “The Value of the Military Skill Set.”

If anyone has any inputs, sent them in. I did it as a sort of “cultural translator” from how “we” so often look at things and don’t seem able to sometimes make a good connection with those who haven’t served….

Here’s the index for your reading enjoyment:

Part I: Initiative, marketing, sales, project planning and program management skills
Part II: Auditing Skills
Part III: Operations 24/7/365
Part IV: “Point Papers”
Part V: Collateral Duties
Part VI: The “Git ‘er done!” Factor
Part VII: “Total Care”
Part VIII: Communications in the Workplace
Part IX: “Give a smart person with potential a chance”
Part X: Process Engineering, Continuous Improvement, Total Quality Management, Total Quality Leadership, or what ever you call it. The bottom line title: Making “it” better
Part XI: The Military’s Supply System
Part XII: “Red Blood or Red Ink”
Part XIII: Constructive Plagiarism

In order to establish the foundation for any discussion that may follow, and to frame future posts on this currently debated issue, I’m going to try and put the history of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) here. I began this discussion here, to address what will most likely become a major topic of discussion from now until the ’08 elections.

The Fairness Doctrine was put into place, not as law, but as “doctrine” to cover radio and TV broadcasting coverage. By my reading, (initial source document) it appears a driving force was the concern over the limited amount of “bandwidth” (using terms we use today about Internet use) that was available and therefore, with the granting of broadcast licenses, the possibility of an imbalance of coverage of issues of importance to the public.

The “fallout,” or if you prefer a less glowing term, that brings us to the debate in our time was the implementation, which, the FCC deemed was an obligation by the broadcasting entity “…to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues.” [1]” This was to be done by granting “equal time” to opposing viewpoints to meet this standard.

The “times:” President: Harry Truman – Democrat. FCC Commissioner: Frieda Barkin Hennock.

Who was Ms. Hennock? To begin, she was the first woman appointed to the position as Commissioner of the FCC. Her professional background prior to the taking this position was that of lawyer, and she had been involved in fund raising for political campaigns of Democrats, most notably, Franklin Roosevelt. Noted as her major accomplishment was the “set aside” of “non-commercial” station licenses and hence the genesis of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).

At the time, there were 16 TV channel allocations in the designated radio frequency spectrum, and there was interference causing problems. Technically, this was an issue to be addressed, to keep from having stations within the same locale “walk on” each other. Consider this part of the Media Museum’s history of Ms. Hennock:

In addition to the technical issues she faced as a commissioner, Hennock became convinced that television had the power to serve as an important educational tool. As the proposed table of television channel assignments was developed during the freeze, however, there were no reservations for educational stations. Hennock was determined that the opportunity to use television for educating the audience not be lost. She wrote a strong dissenting opinion and became an outspoken advocate for channel set-asides.

Comment: Educating the audience: Good thing. Hiding political indoctrination under a cloak and calling it “education:” Very bad thing and done by dictatorships for a long time now. [Editorial note: It’s about who defines “education”]. Consider this: The concept behind this doctrine was about …”issues of importance to their community…” per the Media Museum’s write up. Therefore, the power to “educate” is not about a course on how to re-shingle your roof or how tectonic plates work, but “issues.” The baseline was to ensure the fairness of “education” in the arena of political issues.

I gather from reading that Ms. Hennock’s major push was to set aside many licenses for education, and did a TV and radio campaign to garner public support. The commercial side of the industry held they did provide educational material, and therefore the set asides were not necessary. Another historical case of governmental control, versus the use of resources for the purpose of free and open competition, I’m sure. Not surprisingly, educators formed the Joint Committee on Education Television, which studied commercial broadcasts and, again, not surprisingly, found commercial media fell short of being educational.

Comment: The educational system of this era was the one that sent astronauts to the moon using slide rules made of bamboo. I don’t think we really needed a set aside for “education,” but “issues.” Certainly commercial owners would object to having the ethereal RF spectrum being used to replicate the school houses, while there was business to be done and money to be made (read: a new method in which to grow an economy).

In doing some reading in a short biographical post, I found this statement:

She advocated FCC preferential treatment for the weaker transmitters of UHF stations, opposed editorializing by broadcasters, and, convinced that television was “just too important a medium,” denounced multiple ownership of broadcast facilities.

Comment: Will those people who are demanding a return to the Fairness Doctrine, and who might make a push to codify it in Federal law be true to Ms. Hennock’s vision, or will they just use it as a rationale to break up corporations? Note that that FCC commissioner was against broadcasters editorializing. So….darn that precedent thing getting in the way…while you may “cut off” the conservative talk show hosts who seems so scary, then ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN broadcaster “journalists” (and I use the term lightly) will be similarly constrained. So much for reporting on “illegal” wars and “THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION!”…

Wrapping up the genesis of the person who initiated the Fairness Doctrine is this quote:

Hennock was not surprised when her term as FCC commissioner was not renewed. Many of the positions she had taken were unpopular with powerful broadcasters. She was an outspoken critic of the practices of commercial networks. She criticized violence in television programming and warned about the growth of monopolies in the broadcast industry. She wrote many dissenting opinions questioning FCC actions. But as her assistant Stanley Neustadt told oral historian Jim Robertson, when she took a position on an issue “she was ultimately–sometimes long after she left the Commission–ultimately shown to be right.” At the end of her term as FCC commissioner, Frieda B. Hennock returned to private life and private law practice.

Comment: Ms. Hennock seemed like and intelligent person, passionate about her ideas, yet the history says there was much discussion on her plan to limit the availability of commercial interests to use the airways, in the context of limiting licenses, a direct impact on money making. I’m not sure I’d have been surprised at that outcome. May not have liked it, but not surprised.

Summary: The Fairness Doctrine was a response to a limited amount of mass communications “channels.” Not a bad idea at the core, and considering the technical limitations of the electronic media at the time. As far as the concern about “the message,” it wasn’t about how the Government would manage to be fair using Government controlled broadcast outlets, it was about telling commercial business how to do business. The “fear” of evil messages only that Representative Hinchey (D-NY) was discussing on Laura Ingraham’s radio show is unfounded when he implies the radio media is like that of the fascist control of the German government in the ramp up to WWII, because our media is not a government entity. His comparison is truly apples to railroad tracks and is merely done to invoke more fear of something that isn’t the case. Certainly we’ve advanced technologically and there are, in fact, many, many educational channels that provide material for distance learning and the busy, two or single professional families who are burning the candle at both ends.

When you come back (more logically, when I post more): More history of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine of 1949 and “Equal Time.”

Cross posted at:
The Wide Awakes

Today’s political, military and geo-political landscapes are a muddy, quicksand like consistency it seems some days. Little clarity, lots of “suction” to keep the progress from occurring. From Hugh Hewitt’s radio show tonight, a moment of clarity, the words of a young man. His words, those of a freshly minted “butter bar” provide the answer to the title of the post, and also convey some wisdom his elders might be wise to take counsel of.

Sadly, these words, most likely would have been doomed to being read by a few hundred or so people in passing on Lt Mark Daly’s MySpace page, but as the result of his death in combat on 1/15/2007, his readership will increase dramatically. Here they are. Pause to consider Mark says things not popular, yet in a professional and forthright manner:

Why I Joined: This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam’s government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here. Much has changed in the last three years.

The criminal Ba’ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq’s neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this. Is this why I joined? Yes.

Much has been said about America’s intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as “oil” or “terrorism,” favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me). I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day “humanists” who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow “global citizens” to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses.

When asked why we shouldn’t confront the Ba’ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America’s intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment.

My fellow “humanists” and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America’s historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America’s initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America’s moral crusade. And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein.

One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are. So that is why I joined.

In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere. I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America’s commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children’s lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don’t forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don’t overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don’t cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include “Good Luck” Mark Daily

Mark saw something we have missed or maybe dismissed, in the current debate on the “surge” and defunding the war. He notes that action gets things done. He shut up (about his views held before), suited up and stepped up when it came time. I know there are many more like him. May those ones come home victorious and when peace is at hand in the Middle East.

Rest in peace, Soldier.

Tracked back at:
Chuch and State

“It is a small mind that tries to make the subjective an absolute.” – Me 1/19/2007

That being said, I’m entering the stream of consciousness mode, for this discussion will have legs. Some ground work is necessary, and I’ll openly admit, I have not done “due diligence” and located the actual documents from Congress from the late 40s that seem to be the foundation for the currently brewing discussion in our Nation.

My opening quote is to describe a philosophy I picked up from Wesley E. Jordan, Jr. He told us once to not present statements using subjective terms in our briefings, but to present the numbers (or facts) and “smart people will be able to figure it out.” There were two parts of that approach: The first was to allow the expertise and experience of others factor in (e.g. someone might see 67% this year as a vast improvement, because they knew it was 28% two years ago, but you weren’t around for that time frame), and you could also flow with the mood if the person you were briefing jumped up and said “THAT’S GREAT (HORRIBLE)!” Yes, a political dodge, but, at least you acknowledged that things can be more detailed than you are aware of and subjectivity reigns supreme in just about every venue of life. Get over it, it’s not fair….

So now we open a discussion in the public debate arena on “fairness,” but only in “media” and it’s being led by the Democratic Party. Great. First off, I’ll say the devil is in the details and I now prognosticate that the Democratic Party, if they “have their way” will, once more, fall into the deadly trap they walk into over and over and over (but I digress).

The trap? Precedent. Over 9 months of intensive academic work on a degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies, I walked away with this understanding: “It’s always (note the absolute tone) dangerous (not deadly, just dangerous, worthy of serious consideration and, I’d venture to say, a healthy appreciation for the risk management discipline in cases where physical safety is involved) to set a precedent.” That’s my line. Use it if you need to, but I swear by it, for I believe I have a comprehension of human behavior that is unassailable in this area. Why is it dangerous? Because, just as feminists have found out in the case of sexual harassment and divorce law: “Because you never know when you’ll have to live by it yourself.” (That’s the second part of my understanding of human frailties).

This brings me to the understanding that the efforts to apply “fairness” will necessarily provide lots of entertainment value in the field of unintended consequences. If the Democrats, in their efforts to moderate (being kind) or squelch (less polite terminology) or silence (maybe over the top word?) any critics by legislating “equal time,” let them see the possible firestorm of response that will bring their way. The current concern among conservative talk show hosts, notably Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved and Russ Limbaugh, is the effort is not to make things fair, but to silence them, meaning the conservative talk show hosts, which dominate the RF spectrum was call AM Radio.

If I was them, I’d push my listeners to do everything they could to get this put back into law, and then, let the games begin…..You have to remember, fairness is about a two way exchange, not one side taking over. Has Nancy Pelosi managed to consider that? Much more to be discussed there…

There are many aspects of the details here to debate. on the Laura Ingraham show the day before yesterday, Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) was on. He said this was a revival of the 1949 law, that came about as a result of the people seeing how the media in the nations of the Axis prior to WWII had a large effect on the initiation of the war, and the Fairness Doctrine was an effort to keep from having such narrowness being a major factor in our society. Noble concept, executed by humans (and, therein, lies the pragmatic realities, but…more later in that vein). Without doing my homework, but knowing some history of the world in the 1930-40s era, I’d venture to say that “media” (back them essentially AM Radio) in the nations of our enemies was, in fact, not commercial, privately held, entities, but departments controlled directly and completely by the governments of those countries. If anyone else knows something to the contrary, please leave it in the comments. This being the premise, then to apply a rule set to American “media,” in order to keep from having this happen here is, to be polite, a stretch of logic that boggles the mind. To be less polite, you’d have to be a complete idiot to believe that then, let alone now, that our government has that degree of control over “THE MEDIA!”

If you disagree with me, please send me the name of the person today who is the direct equivalent of this man pictured below:

Read the rest of this entry »

So get to clicking! The VA Mortgage Center is sponsoring a contest for the best Military Blogger…$3000 to the winner, and $250 to each of the next ten runner’s up.

From Fuzzilicious Thinking:

Yup. You can donate $3,000 to Valour-IT without giving up a cent.

As part of its marketing campaign, a new website is having people vote for their favorite milblogger. Any milblogger who finishes in the “Top 10” of voting will receive $250…. but the winner will receive $3,000!

FbL is pushing Black Five’s blog. Matt has already stated he will directly pass through all prize money to Valour-IT.

So…we can pile on Matt’s blog and propel him through the finish line at the top and for nothing but a little time to go HERE and click on Black Five.

Also, Neptunus Lex has also committed to send winnings to those who have helped us, too. Maybe we can leverage the total for Valour-IT into $3250!

Get on it!

Update: Sgt Hook sez he’ll use the money he wins to get to the 2007 MilBlogger’s Conference (MARK YOUR CALENDERS NOW! 5/5/2007 – DC AREA!), so I’m torn as to who to vote for. I’d love to meet Hook in real life…Matt, well, I shook his hand last year….so…go forth and help a worthy cause of your choice.

Trackbacked at:

Cao’s Blog