thoughts from a brokenSoldier

     I want to take a minute to sit down and try my best to thank each and every one of you that have shown such support for the story that I’m trying to get out into the public purview.  My appeal to Dr. PZ Myers at Pharyngula was a pure shot in the dark when it first came to mind, but PZ - quite true to form - took up the request promptly and quite laudably, IMHO, and it swelled much further - and much faster - than I could have ever imagined.  I have been receiving offers of assistance since the minute he posted that thread, and I assure you that I treasure every single bit of that support.  From the journalists who have offered their skills and connections, to the individuals who have offered to write letters on my behalf and that of my fellow veterans, and to those kind souls that have offered their moral support, I have been genuinely moved by the display of pure humanism shown by every one of you that has contacted me. 

     My hope is that this effort will bring to light the problems faced by so many veterans worse off than myself, and if even a few of the numerous measures that have been offered to me thus far manage to succeed, I’m positive that it will surpass my greatest expectations.  I have no idea how to express my thanks in a manner befitting such an outpouring of benevolence, so I will simply, and quite humbly, say thank you to you all from the bottom of my heart.  As a veteran, as a citizen, and as a fellow human, I am immeasurably indebted to all of you.

     Since the moment PZ’s thread was posted on my behalf, I have seen only a very few manifestations of the more antagonsitic side of our shared nature.  These scant occurrences, however, have been utterly and completely drowned out by the unbounded exhibitions of kind-heartedness and altruism, and that has given me a great deal of satisfaction and comfort.  I’ll wrap this one up, but I’ll leave you with a quote - one of my absolute favorites - that perfectly reflects my sentiments towards this situation and the response it has elicited:

 

No distance of place or lapse of time can lessen the friendship of those who are thoroughly persuaded of each other’s worth.  

                                                                                                           - Robert Southey, English Poet Laureate (1813 - 1843)

     I was looking through some sites for the purpose of finding information on religion and insightful quotations about it when I came across this one that contained a quote from Albert Einstein that set the imaginative part of my brain ablaze:

"Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficient personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind."

     - Albert Einstein, In Science and Religion, (1941) 

(Bold mine for emphasis)

     This started within me a train of thought that led me to wonder about the nature of our species, specifically concerning our tendencies in handling those that we perceive to be outside or beneath our sphere of being.  When Einstein uttered the phrase "undeveloped minds," he was obviously referring to the minds of those humans not yet comparable - in our xenophobic and self-centered sense of the terms advancement and civilization - to those of the more advanced, civilized humans of the world.  But it isn’t hard to see that religion, in its inherent conceptual simplicity, would likely be the first offering - besides aggression - we extend to any species that comes along in their evolutionary process to the point of reaching the levels in both intellectual complexity and social interaction that set our kind on the path to the sort of civilization we enjoy today.  This journey, for all we know due to our limited ability to interact with species not our own, could very well have already begun.

     The question, should such a thing come to pass, then becomes one of collective introspection.  How will we handle any other species that emerge on this planet with the kind of intellectual, communicative, and social complexity and interaction on which we have had a monopoly for so long?  Will we become moral and kind stewards for these conscious beings of such emergent intelligence and communicative development, or will we become domineering masters of these creatures?  The question is one that will be central to our own image of ourselves as a species.  Many a science fiction work has been penned that populates its plot with alien races deemed to be evil because they treat others in this controlling, disdainful manner, while portraying humans as a moral force in the universe.  Unfortunately, if our track record with those races we have previously viewed as inferior is any indication, such portrayal is - at best - wishful thinking, indeed.

     If we take the former course and treat these new beings with respect and care, then we could possibly reap untold benefits in numerous endeavors, because we’d have a species of beings that would possibly stand with us and support us in such things as exploration of space and advancement of global freedom (depending, of course, on the inherent nature of whatever species it will be). But if we take the latter, we assure ourselves of one of two outcomes, both of which are interminably bleak.  Either we will have to deal with innumerable conflicts and fights to keep such creatures in their "place," or we face the very dark prospect of extinguishing the only other species on our planet to ever rise above their environment to take control of their own collective destiny.  As an individual human, I am not prepared to saddle myself with such a deplorable action, but sadly I do not have the amount of confidence in our species as a whole to harbor such moral inhibitions.  And that, in and of itself, is a less than promising indication - for I am sure my sentiments are not singular to me - that we are more likely to take the more sinister and self-serving path of the two.

     My best guess is that we will hold true to the nature we have shown so faithfully thus far;  there will be a contingent of us that demands respect and consideration for such beings, while the great majority of our species will be averse to the concept of including anyone or anything else as equals in our little corner of the universe.  So what about it?  What do you think we - as a species - will eventually do should this circumstance come to pass?  I’m wondering if there are any of you out there that hold a positive view of our species in this respect, concerning the injustices we have visited upon those less fortunate in the process of development than those that have come to dominate this world.  Maybe, just maybe, humanity will surprise us, should this ever come to pass.  For the sake of our descendants, I certainly hope so.

     I’ll leave you with a paraphrase (I can’t remember the exact words) of the final line from the book Next by Michael Crichton that frames this entire question.  At the end of the work, a man is walking with a chimpanzee that has been transgenically bred, and can talk and understand verbal interaction almost as well as a small child.  He is walking along, holding the hand of this remarkable creature, when another man comes up to him and utters a question that chilled me to the core in terms of my optimism on this very subject.  

     Showing the worst parts of our nature and tendencies, he asked the man with the chimpanzee, in all seriousness, if he could "get one of those" so he could use "it" to work his farm.  If we continue in these solipsist - and frankly, arrogant - ways, then we are doomed to repeat our history of conflict and disregard for all those that are not considered to be "us."  If not, we have a very real chance of being the species that began the explosion of life that might one day spread across this corner of space to prosper and endure.  To me, the former is unacceptable, and the latter is simply irresistibly enticing.

     I was reading through some articles tonight, and I saw this piece from the New York Times about a recent fundraiser held for John McCain in the Hamptons.  Now I know it’s late, so I read through this thing twice to make sure I wasn’t somehow getting it wrong, but I thought - and then confirmed - that I saw McCain pull off the trifecta of intellectual dishonesty.  For all of you keeping score at home, I’ll lay out its components.  First, you base an argument on a premise that completely denies a basic fact.  Next, accuse someone else of denying a supposed basic fact in their criticism of your denial.  Lastly - and pay attention because this one is important - make sure you then commit the exact same transgression by denying another basic fact again in the exact same speech.  In a discussion concerning Iraq, McCain said:

"Senator Obama opposed the surge, and said it wouldn’t work, and continued to say it wouldn’t work and refuses to acknowledge today."

     McCain’s repeated claims that the surge "worked" are a complete dismissal of the fact that the surge’s primary purpose was not the reduction of violence for its own sake, but rather to achieve the overall goal of allowing the Iraqi Congress to make progress during the surge (which was both a military and political initiative), with the evaluation criteria set forth in 18 benchmarks that would determine success.  While the military’s task in this was to reduce the violence in order to allow political progress, the overarching national goal was to spur the Iraqi government into action in order to set the stage for the creation of the conditions in which our troops can come home.  So while the military has been able to do its job to this point, the Bush administration has definitely not held up its end of the bargain.  And if that is any indication of the government’s potential for future success in its endeavors in the pursuit of restoring Iraq, I’d say the best way we can support our troops is to get them the hell out of there so the administration can’t keep leaving them hanging while they continue to screw up their own plans.  While the government stumbles its way around in Iraq, the soldiers on the ground get stuck in the middle, with both no way out and no discernable way forward, and are forced to do what they can to make the best out of their untenable situation.  But the basic failure of the surge to accomplish the goals specifically outlined for it is simply not the issue according to McCain, who continues to deceptively portray the whole deal as a success based on the fact that one out of the two stated goals of the plan has been successful to this point.  I’m reminded of the line in Mars Attacks from Jack Nicholson’s character as the President after Congress was eliminated by Martian ray guns:

"I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of 3 branches of the government working for them, and that ain’t bad."

     But this has been an argurment coming from McCain for a while, and is not all that shocking in and of itself.  What really got me was what came towards the end of the article, when McCain said the following concerning the current polls and how he plans to win over the voters in the general election this fall:

"I think they are really going to wait until the conventions and then the last couple of months. We have to do everything right, just as we did in the primaries. We’ve got to do everything exactly right."

(Bold mine for emphasis)

     Wait a minute - did I somehow miss the fact that I was abducted and taken to an alternate existence during the primary season?  Because in the world I was in at the time, McCain’s campaign just about tanked in July 2007, when he had to fire his campaign manager Terry Nelson.  I mean sure, it’s impressive that he was able to turn everything around and win the nomination, but when a campaign runs aground as bad as his did in early July of last year, it makes his current claim that they "did everything right" look utterly ridiculous, and due to the abundance of evidence to the contrary - none more important than the very fact that McCain was obviously there when all of this took place - it looks like a very deliberate deception designed to mislead those who might not have paid close attention to the primaries.

     Seriously, do we really need a President who is so bad at upper-level organizational management that he has twice had to clean out his own campaign staff prior to even making it to his party’s convention?  If he can’t assemble a staff that can function long enough to simply get him through the nomination process (much less the general election), then what chance does he have of assembling a functional cabinet - which is much larger and more complex than that of a campaign staff - that can competently and successfully run a national government for four years with any sort of continuity, especially when he fails to acknowledge the mistakes he has made?  Hmm, what is it that sounds familiar about a politician who is utterly convinced that he is right - despite the available evidence proving otherwise - and is not swayed by public opinion when it runs contrary to his own, coupled with an inability to admit his mistakes and a willingess to lie in order to gloss over the truth?  Do we really want to live through the past eight years again?  Aside from that, can this nation truly afford to do so?

     Personally, I think this country is long overdue for a Chief Executive that has a track record far better than John McCain’s in the area of higher-echelon management and sound judgement in the selection of his advisors.  We want better, we need better, and above all, we deserve better.

   I just saw The Dark Knight last night, and even though I expected it to be good, it surpassed even my expectations.  This was just an excellent movie.  I originally thought that this movie might just fall victim to the sequel syndrome that has characterized a great deal of movie series, especially among the superhero genre, but within twenty minutes I knew that this was definitely not going to come to pass.  Too often, studios succumb to the temptation of making a quick buck off the original movie’s success, and the reason those franchises so often fail in that endeavor is that they tend to center the story solely around the abilities and idiosyncracies of the title characters and villains (i.e. Terminator, The Hulk - the Ang Lee version, and the original Batman movies), instead of around the story that character inhabits, which is much deeper and much more interesting.  This is emphasized by Christian Bale’s comments in response to a critic’s suggestion that Ledger could upstage him in this movie, in which he said that he in no way disagreed with that evaluation, solely due to Ledger’s own stellar portrayal - and not the circumstance of his untimely death.  I hope this trend of superhero movies focused more on the franchise’s storyline as opposed to their namesake characters continues (it seems promising, considering the this year’s pprevious superhero blockbusters Ironman and The Hulk succeeded for the same reasons), because it makes for a far more compelling and faithful reflection of the reason behind the success of the works that originally made these characters so entertaining and popular in our culture in the first place.  Ledger’s excellence in this role is elevated even more due to the fact that he was playing a role previously played by no less than a Hollywood legend;, in a movie that was also critically acclaimed, and he absolutely nailed it, in every imaginable sense of the word.  Echoing this assertion, Moviefone recently published a list (link below) of the 25 greatest movie villains of all time, in which Ledger’s Joker comes in at #5, while Nicholson’s Joker didn’t earn a spot on the list. 

http://www.moviefone.com/insidemovies/2008/07/10/best-movie-villain/ 

   And one of the main reasons it was so good was the unreal degree of success that Heath Ledger showed in his portrayal of the iconic villain.  While Nicholson’s portrayal of the infamous criminal was great in its own right, what elevated this performance even further than the original was the fact that Ledger’s Joker so effectively relates to the world we live in today.  Nicholson’s Joker was an excellent performance that stuck faithfully to the lighthearted style of Batman story that showed the Joker as a malignant trickster with a penchant for comedy along with his criminality.  Ledger’s Joker, on the other hand, embodied the type of fundamentally dangerous criminal that is not motivated out of the common material cravings of average criminals, but rather the desire to see society as we know it implode upon itself out of an unadulterated hate for it, motivated by mistreatment by that society, or simply an evil desire "to see the world burn."

   Such criminals are not swayed by our traditional means of pursuit, which makes them extremely hard to combat.  Trying to foist this particular breed of evil is both difficult and dangerous, because your options in doing so are very limited, and the most effective ones involve stooping to their level of immorality and chaotic prescriptions.  And in doing so, we may accomplish our short-term goal of apprehending them, but in the long run they have won the victory of causing civilized society to abandon just enough of its objectively moral and ethical principle to ppush it down the path towards destroying itself from within.  I know pop culture parallels to geopolitical trends are many times silly, but I think in this case a comparison is quite valid.  The Joker of Heath Ledger and his motivations are eerily similar to the motivations of the type of terrorist that threatens our current global society.  While there are some distinct differences, such as in the case of Muslim terrorists and their belief that their actions are divinely inspired, even these individuals share the realization that the most effective way to destroy a way of life is to get it to do so itself.  Thus, Ledger’s performance not only succeeded because of its excellence onscreen, but also because he managed to relate his character - without artistically compromising it - to a form of evil that we can observe pervading our world today. And as I interpreted it, the movie itself was a commentary on the choice we have in today’s society - we can choose to succumb to the desire for security in the face of destruction by relinquishing our rights in exchange for security, or we can follow the advice of Benjamin Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

   And the suggestions that Ledger’s death was in part a result of his immersion into such a dark character are as irresponsible and speculative as they are inaccurate.  The people that would definitely know such things - his fellow cast and crew members -  have affirmed that he was in no way a victim of the sort of method acting that requires constantly remaining in such a dark character, a style so marvelously utilized by Daniel Day Lewis in movies such as Gangs of New York and The Ballad of Jack and Rose. (In the latter case, Lewis repeatedly resisted the suggestions from his wife - who directed the film - that he play the title role of Jack, because it was a role in which his character had implicit, if not occasionally explicit, sexual overtones with his character’s own daughter, and his style of immersion would possibly lead to him having very real emotional difficulties in transitioning out of the role.)  Instead, Christian Bale plainly stated a sentiment echoed by most of Ledger’s fellow cast members that when the cameras were rolling, he was as in-character as one could get, but once scenes were cut he was his usual joking, "laid-back" self, in no way tormented by the demands of playing such a disturbed psychopathic character.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/27/christian-bale-opens-up-a_n_103701.html

"He was incredibly intense in his performance but incredibly mellow and laid-back." 

   In the end, Ledger’s performance, in my humble opinion, is the very definition of Oscar-worthy, and that claim has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is no longer with us.  While his death was tragic, and definitely did - due to the nature of our humanity - have an effect on the publicity during the run-up to its release, from an artistic standpoint it is utterly saddening to realize that there will be no other opportunities to see what his prolific talent and impressively broad theatric range could do with other roles in the future.  As an unabashed humanist, I am truly sad that the world lost a great human being, father, and enjoyable person.  And as a avid fan of artistic talent and performance, I am likewise utterly saddened by the fact that we will never again get the chance to see such a talented performer do what he so enjoyed and devoted his life to doing.  In saying goodbye to Heath Ledger, I feel sorrow for the loved ones he so prematurely left behind, but I also take solace in the fact that in his final performance, he got to show us how positively gifted he really was.

Heath, you were a true master of your craft, and you will be sorely and sincerely missed now that you are gone. But, at least in the mind of this soldier, you’ll be just as earnestly and dearly remembered for what you showed us all before you left.

   As a citizen, I’m hoping this year’s Presidential election is going to change - at least a little bit - this country’s political environment.  Because as a veteran, I’m sick and tired of the way our nation talks at problems rather than actually doing something to resolve them.

   I can’t count how many times, especially during election years, that I have gotten utterly fed up with politicians and their declarations that they "support the troops."  This goes double for the ones that say such things on one hand, while turning around with the other and shoving the troops and veterans right under the bus when it comes to tangible benefits.  And I really hate it when such a candidate tries to prance around and act as if he’s held in reverential regard by the organizations that represent me as a veteran, spouting that he has won every major award and received the highest voting grades from each of those organizations.  In saying this, John McCain is directly lying to those voters he is trying oh-so-hard to court.

   But he isn’t the only one - just the most prominent.  To me, if you’re trying to attain the highest office in our nation, and you are doing so while running on your distinguished record of service to both the nation and to its veterans, you will be held to the highest level of scrutiny by its citizens.  But the veterans he so falsely claims to support will most definitely hold him to a higher standard than the citizens, due to the common experience he shares with us.  And when he claims to hold every major award, and claims he has received perfect voting evaluations, from veterans’ organizations, he fails miserably in our eyes.  First, it is not true, as can be seen in the links below.  Second, for a veteran to lie about his support to his fellow soldiers like that is inexcusable.

http://www.iava.org/full-ratings-list

http://dav.capwiz.com/bio/id/192

   The fact that he would lie about those he is sworn to represent is purely typical these days in Washingon, and the disingenuity has spread out of the wing tips of politicians and into the combat boots of our military.  There was a time in the Army when, as a leader, if you failed to do your job correctly and it resulted in a soldier not getting what he or she needed or deserved, you would be fired.  If you didn’t know the answer to a question, you were expected to get it quickly, or else.  This was all because whether or not you had a damn thing to do with something that went wrong, if it went wrong in your house, it was your responsibility.  Those days, I am sad to say, are gone.

   Case in point - I was medically retired on January 28, 2008 due to injuries received in combat.  Since I had originally been a National Guardsman, they put me in a program called Community Based Health Care Option (CBHCO), where I lived at home and reported to a command cell in Orlando, FL (I lived in Panama City, FL).  The reason I got into this program was for the sole fact that I did not live within 60 miles of a Military Treatment Facility, and also because I was restricted - due to my injuries - from driving any more than 45 minutes at a time.  I thought that once I made it home, I wouldn’t have to worry.  I thought that once I made it out of Iraq, I wouldn’t have to sweat over my health, even in its degraded state.  That’s what I thought, but I was wrong.  In bullet point style, here are a few of the things my government has done for me to ensure that this veteran is taken care of:

     - September 2005:  Injured in IED attack in Iraq, seen by medic from another unit who diagnoses me with a concussion (did not specify severity), and misses the fact that my eardrum is ruptured in two places.

     - October 2005: Sent to Air Force hospital in Iraq for evaluation (after an entire month); subsequently sent to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany with a diagnosis of severe (grade 3) concussion with Post-Concussion syndrome.

     - November 2005: Head neurologist at LRMC states that my Post-Concussion syndrome isn’t too serious; He orders me to return to duty in Iraq;  Two weeks later I lose consciousness in my Troop HQ; Medically evacuated to LRMC, again.  This time the very same neurologist says my Post-Concussion syndrome is "apparently more serious than we originally thought."

     - December 2005 - Arrive stateside at Fort Gordon, GA. 

   Fast forward to February, and I found myself living back at home in Panama City Beach, FL under the CBHCO program’s supervision.  (Mind you, I am a head injury patient that is on medications such as Percocet, Soma, Cymbalta, Xanax, etc…)  CBHCO requires that every soldier work, so I was driving to a National Guard unit every day, 20 miles one-way, to sit at a desk and answer phones.  That is, when I wasn’t laying in a dark room trying to fight off a three-day migraine.  Calling in sick was not an option, and the one time I worked out a deal with the Guard unit to stay home - they were at their Annual Training, and did not see a reason for me to come in - my case manager at CBHCO filed a reprimand on me and made me sign away my leave time to make up for the time I was not at the work site.  I was even told that she wanted to proceed with an Article 15 on me for insubordination.  (While on the couch with one of the post-trauma headaches that I get every couple of weeks, she insisted on asking the same question over and over, and I made the mistake of not putting the word Ma’am after answering her the last time.)  What follows is a list of the bullshit I have had to put up with between the time I was assigned to CBHCO and the day I was finally retire. (Although, I am only on temporary retirememt - they can call me back in for reevaluation every 12 months - for up to five years - to try to cut my rate below the 30% threshold for permanent medical retirement.)

     - Every six months, CBHCO had to cut new orders for me - the standard procedure for medical hold soldiers - and required that I drive to the nearest ID facility to update my own file. Apparently this policy ignores the fact that every soldier under CBHCO is placed there mainly due to their injuries and their distance from a military facility.  When I couldn’t make it, no exceptions were made - my medical coverage simply lapsed.  On at least five occasions, I had to pay for the entire cost of my medicine, and I still have bills from uncovered visits to my doctor.

     - While going through the Physician’s Evaluation Board (PEB) - the process during which a panel of Army doctors determines what the soldier’s disability rating will be - I was having trouble fighting their claims.  They originally awarded me 10%, even thoguh I was being rated for five different conditions (most soldiers only have one or two on their PEB evaluation).  Even though I had been diagnosed with PTSD at the Tampa VA hospital, the Army saw fit to designate it as an unspecified Anxiety disorder that did not preclude service, which automatically gave it a 0% rating.  During this fight, I was told by my liason to the PEB (PEBLO) that she was "not there to hold my hand" in dealing with the PEB. (This was in response to my request that she be present on a conference call with the PEB to discuss the initial rating, which she denied.  Apparently her supervisor changed her decision though, because the next day she was on the phone, though she offered nothing in the way of assistance.)

   When I was finally retired, it was with a temporary rating of 50%, all of which was from their rating of my - now medically unacceptable - anxiety disorder.  My post-trauma headaches received a 0% rating, because the Army has published an instruction to its physicians that such headaches - to be considered ‘prostrating,’ which is what the rating schedule requires - must mean that the soldier stops immediately and seeks emergency medical attention.  Nevermind that in the event of a truly prostrating migraine, it is near impossible for a soldier living alone - as I was - to get to the ER, especially when the nearest one is a 25 mile drive from my house.  So, when my headaches were rated, they were at 0% due to the fact that I hadn’t been to the emergency room for them. (Which was in itself a lie, because I had been to the ER, but they chose to characterize that as a result of something other than my headaches - I was reporting dizziness and my headache, so naturally, the headaches weren’t the main cause in the eyes of the Army, so that didn’t count.)

   I’m omitting a great deal, but I’ll jump ahead to where I stand now.  I was retired almost seven months ago, but only received my first retirement check in June, because the retirement services office at Fort Stewart mishandled my packet.  And when the checks did start to come in, they were taking taxes out - which is definitely not supposed to happen for retirees that were wounded in combat.  Once that was fixed, I finally found a doctor that I like in my new area (I was forced to move back into my parents’ house due to the lack of any income from January to June), and upon going to the pharmacy to fill the prescriptions she gave me, I found that ALL of my medical coverage had expired, including my prescription coverage.  This was because DEERS (the military ID department that handles personnel records) never got any paperwork stating that I was retired, so the only medical coverage I got was the six-month transitional coverage that every soldier gets upon separation.  That ran out this month, and I am shit out of luck. 

  So here I sit, as a disabled vet with no medical coverage, no prescription coverage, and debt coming out of my ears because I was left for half of a year without any income at all.  Taking care of the troops, indeed.  My point in all of this is that when a politician says he supports the troops, I will no longer believe him - regardless of party - until I see me and my fellow vets get some decent treatment.  I don’t care about perfect voting records for vets, I don’t care how much time the politician spent in the uniform - until we actually get treated with care and respect, until we actually see some results, their words are empty.

   To those politicians:  We are being mistreated in your house, on your watch.  I don’t give a damn about what you say you support - the government’s record of action does not bear out your claims.  You may personally support us, but until you can exert enough influence to make the policies of this nation reflect your convictions, your words are simply rhetoric.  And nothing pisses me off more than being patted on the head with praise while at the same time being swept under the rug by the very same government that claims to support me.

For McCain A Candidate’s Military Pedigree Hasn’t Always Mattered

This is more completely unnerving inconsistency from McCain.  In recent news there has been much made over General Wesley Clark’s very prescient remarks that being shot down in a fighter plane does not in any way prepare one for the chief executive position in our government.  On cue, the McCain campaign came roaring back with offense and indignance (with a straight face, no less) over General Clark’s comment, demanding that those around him denounce his remarks.

This points to a ridiculous recent trend of our political discourse in this nation.  Rather than addressing the substance of someone’s comments, it seems that the expedient way to deal with embarrassing news now is to instead sieze upon the vague, and sometimes non-existent, perceived insult in the comment and then immediately demand that others "denounce" the remarks.  (This is exactly the sort of political bullshit that overshadowed the testimony of General Petraeus on Iraq due to an advertisement in a newspaper, ensuring that half of the elected officials in the room ignored the task at hand and chose instead to play a childish game of ’scorn by association’ with MoveOn’s pun.)

Anyway, I digress.  As for the above article, it is definitely worth reading, but I’ll risk an excerpt, if only because I believe this specific part of it sums up our little septuagenarian candidate quite nicely:

     More pointedly, McCain himself has downplayed the role that military backgrounds play in election seasons. In February 2003, the Arizona Republican said "Absolutely not," when asked whether "military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief."

"Harry Truman was in the artillery in World War I, which was magnificent," he continued. "Ronald Reagan did most of his active duty in the studio lots in California. It might be a nice thing, but I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary."

A year later, McCain cast his ballot for George W. Bush, a national guard member, over fellow Vietnam veteran John Kerry.

 

How is it that McCain makes this oh-so-predictable swing back towards the base of his party in an obvious attempt to show he’s a "true conservative," along the way contradicting one after another of his previous stances that made him a so-called "maverick" in his party, and doesn’t get called to the carpet as a panderer?  It’s because in his party, all you have to do to make something true is to simply say it.

Case in point, Senator Linsey Graham:

On Tuesday, the campaign hosted a conference call with reporters during which chief surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham said that McCain was "the best-qualified person to be commander-in-chief" since a previous military-political figure: Dwight Eisenhower.

"He has walked in the shoes of those in uniform. He understands their language. He has grown up in a military family," said the South Carolina Republican, "and quite frankly his military service is extraordinary."

Let’s handle this bullet-point style, shall we?

- "Best qualified person to be Commander-in-Chief" since Dwight Eisenhower

     First of all, this one is ridiculous, and shows either an astronomical level of arrogance and dishonesty, or an equally shameful ignorance of our nation’s military history.  Eisenhower and McCain were both in the military, and they were both officers.  The relevant similarities end there.  Eisenhower held the rank of General of the Army, or as it is more commonly known, a five-star general.  This is a position charged with coordinating the operations of a multinational, joint-service military force in a time of war ONLY.  (Y’know, the whole Supreme Allied Commander thing.)  The original position was created in the late 1800’s with General Sheridan, but ceased to exist upon his death.  Our current incarnation of the five-star rank was created in 1944 for the express purpose of giving our American army a leader with rank equivalent to that of the British Field Marshal (and it also provides for equal positions within the Navy and Air Force) and other equivalent foreign military ranks. 

     We have only had five of these particular individuals since, and Eisenhower was one of them.  But hey, maybe McCain’s experience as a fighter pilot on the ground actually does equate to Eisenhower’s own experiences of directing a World War.  And maybe his peacetime command of a fighter squadron helps that margin a little, too.  But the thing is, it just doesn’t.

- "He walked in the shoes of those in uniform."

     Actually, no he didn’t.  He walked in the shoes of a privileged officer candidate while at the Naval Academy, and despite finishing very close to rock-bottom in his class (894 out of 899), still got a prestigious assignment to the VA-65 Fighting Tigers squadron.  Either this was due to some innate leadership quality they saw in a below average midshipman, or it was simply because his father and grandfather were both well-known and well-respected admirals.  I’m going with the latter.

     He went from one extreme, the life of a privileged officer, to the other - a prisoner of war.  While he endured a whole hell of a lot in captivity, he hardly knows what it is like to be a boots-on-the-ground soldier, and his recent vote against HR 2082 - which had a provision that would have banned the CIA from waterboarding detainees - simply shows that to be painfully true.

- "He understand their language."

     He may understand it, but just like the ideologues at the helm of his party, he only listens when it benefits him.  When he’s trying to look soldierly and like a "Commander-in-Chief", he acts as though he’s a forlorn brethren to all those in uniform.  When he’s playing politics, he opposes the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act.  I would say he voted against it, but he dodged that bullet by not showing up for either of the votes on the bill.  (Just for a point of reference, the only other senator to fail to show up for the second vote was Ted Kennedy, and he was recovering from brain surgery.)  So I’ll concede that he might understand the language of service members - but his actions say he just doesn’t care what they’re saying.

- "He’s grown up in a military family, and quite frankly his military service is extraordinary."

     Again, the first part may be right, but the second half of this comment is comical.  While he did grow up in a military family, it was most certainly not your average military upbringing that most military families can relate to.  He had a silver spoon in his mouth from the day he joined, and he used it to overcome sub-par achievement repeatedly.  From his near-bottom finish at Annapolis, to his multiple losses of Navy aircraft (the exact number is four, excluding the combat loss - each one is explained in detail here), he consistently displayed a skill set that was below the average.  Yet his sycophants claim that the fact that he was a POW somehow elevates his competency to a level commensurate with one of the greatest wartime generals this country ever produced. 

 

In all this, you’ve seen the tired tactic of "if you say it enough, people will believe it."  You guys can keep saying that his experience in the military qualifies him for the office of President.  You can say it all you want, and some people may believe it.  For those of us who prefer a little hard data with our assumptions, though, you might not want to hold your breath.