Congenial-speaks #52

The Semantics of Prepositions

Donovan sang about him. Everyone has given it some thought, what goads him along, what he is really fighting for. They may even ponder how he sleeps in his bed, what words whisper to his prayers after he has fought an unpopular war. “He's five-foot two, he's six feet-four.” All revere the universal soldier fighting for his country. He'll—or she'll—fight for Canada, France, or the USA. They'll fight for Iraq or Afghanistan. For 10 solid years the USA fought for South Vietnam, and before that France fought for them. As Americans increasingly saw Vietnam for what it was and some left for Canada, the Canadian soldier fought with the USA for South Vietnam. Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines fought with the USA for South Vietnam.

Two years into WWII, on December 8, 1941, Congress declared war on Japan in response to their attack on Hawaii the previous day. From 1898 to 1959 Hawaii was a US territory. Those brave, loyal, dedicate soldiers were, without hyperbole, “fighting for the USA.” They did give their lives for their country. On December 11 Hitler, with little consultation (sounds familiar) declared war on the US for what he saw as “a series of provocations by the US government when the US was officially neutral during WWII.” Those soldiers were, by extension from repelling the Japanese, fighting for the USA, dying for their country. They were also fighting and dying to stop Hitler and Mussolini from annexing most of Europe. They were fighting to halt a genocide of Jews and other ethnic groups. They were fighting with Russia, France, and Great Britain.

Wars are owned sometimes. The devotion to them is increased, loyalties more fierce. Obviously every minute man fighting at Lexington and Concord, at the siege of Boston, at Ticonderoga, straight up to Bunker (Breeds) Hill was fighting to have a country of their own. Every corpuscle of blood spilled, every musket loaded and cannon ball shot from 1775 to 1783 was for America, not the United States of America, not yet. Men fought for their country—either the 13 American colonies or Britain. Loyalist, or Tories in revolutionary terms, remained loyal to the crown. They were colnists, but not dissidents. Apparently they would have been happy to continue to, for instance, pay taxes to King George III. What was said for these people? They comprised about 80 percent of the colonists who went to Canada, the Bahamas, or back to Great Britain after the war. During the American Revolution wars with Native Americans continued. They were small battles or uprisings, skirmishes that were more or less contained. From 1777 to 1794 history notes the Cherokee-American (Chickamauga) War. I guess one might say the blood of former Englishman was spilled for their country, for its expansion, for MANIFEST DESTINY. The Cherokee were just fighting for their land. Consider this. If loyal Americans, determined to concieve a nation in liberty two and a half centuries ago, had not fought the natives the phrase “for his (or her) country” would not be worn on the sleeve of every recruiter, senator or Commander in Chief who casually watches soldiers go in harm's way. The words could not bear their hyperbolic residue as solemnly, so committed, so honorably.

Shots rang out, signaling men to fight for the USA, on April 12, 1861. Seven states, LA, FL, AL, GA, TX, MS, and SC were NOT fighting for or with the USA. The Confederate States of America was never recognized as a North American country. From that first battle at Fort Sumter, which they won, until they lost the Battle of Palmito Ranch May 13, 1865, those “rebel” soldiers fought for their unrecognized country. They fought for slavery, to be able to enslave Africans whose unpaid labor was vital to their states' economies. Their flag waves, free of wrinkles (along side a swastika), ironically because people fought for our country, 152 years later. The Union, the 25 states and territories, was fought for, in every sense of the words. In the four years of the Civil War 365,000 men died for their country, for our country. Had they not, America would be, well, a lot worse I'm sure. Over 600,000 gave their lives to settle the question of slavery. The Confederacy lost and, with it, slavery. The victory did set in motion the freedom for decades of marches, violent and non-violent protests that ultimately secured rights and legislation. Those small, arduously crafted victories, leading all the way back to the big one in 1865 (the defeat of the Confederacy and the 13^th Amendment), have lost much of their initial impact, if the laws remain at all, in the last nine months.

It is noble. It is honorable. It saves face and adds humility to a service man's loss. It is consoling to the grieving to know their loved one did not die in vain, to say banally “he died for his country.” In one sense it is true, not in a literal sense though. All those who chose to go to Vietnam, who went when the draft notice came, or their lottery number came up were serving their country, and whatever your politics or views on that war are, that is honorable and worthy of a lot more respect than what I've heard many of those guys initially got. They went when their government called them, when questioning presidents was just becoming popular and necessary. But to say they were fighting for the USA is really a false statement. They were, as was France before them, fighting for South Vietnam, they were fighting with the ARVN army. And, if you give credence to the domino theory, they were also fighting for Thailand, the next country in the line. In one case I heard a kid, barely 18, ran to enlist in the army in 1964. He hungered for a real taste of war. He got it after intentionally screwing up a relatively safe position he was sent to the front lines. He was killed in 1966. By 1968, after Tet and the bulk of America realized the quagmire Vietnam was, when they realized the lies and corruption and hopelessness this kid's sister fought her own dissonance. She knew the war was wrong, illegal and immoral, but did not want to dishonor her brother. She could not let him die in vain. In the end she found a way to honor her brother while making her objections to the war clear. To say any of the 58,220 military fatalities were for America, in the sense America was defending itself (as was the case December 7,1941) is wrong. It sounds good, it would have sounded better than what the current POTUS was finally UN-empathetically compelled to say to the grieving mother of a slain soldier in Niger, but it is technically not true.

Maybe it is just easier to say that. It is simpler to boil down the logistics, motives, outcomes, and ethical implications of war into one easy to recycle interchangeable phrase, “he died for his country, fighting for the USA.”

Congenial-speak #51

Return to the Lab

How did America ever get such a good reputation? Who ever implied that we could do no wrong, that this is the type of government to which everyone should aspire? It is an existential decision, a want, not a need. Their are other options; Socialism, Communism, anarchy, monarchy—all pale, to us, in comparison. Lately though, as the current administration appeases and appears to want to emulate Putin's tortured ruse of a democracy with 24 percent of Americans continuing to support it, when they actually seem to want that kind of oligarchy, I wonder about the blueprints. I wonder whether they need to be scrapped, or seriously tweaked (and, as luck would have it, we have the perfect man in the WH to tweak or grab things). I think it is time to examine the template for government, the 241-year-old “experiment” whipped up by mad scientists during that sweltering summer in Philadelphia. Are those 24 percent the renegades that finally broke away from the control group, the subjects against whom the premise of democracy was tested for its validity? I am left thinking that maybe, after 12 score and 1 year, in the turbulent wakes of constant abrogations, in the light of contemporary media fascinations, it failed. People cannot live together with only marginal differences, irregularities that don't test the very laws that said people had a voice in making. Turns out we are not the nation “conceived in liberty” Lincoln said we were during the greatest divide in history to precede this one. As evidenced by, most recently, the 2016 campaign we fall far short of any dedication or even complacent commitment to “the proposition that all men are created equal.” Not even close. Only privileged misogynist white men who convincingly bellow YOU'RE FIRED! and can grab women by the short hairs because of it.

I never fell for it. I was never a fan of over-compensatory flag waving, genuflecting, of actually crossing a stage to hug and kiss a red, quite and blue cloth. I feel it is basic respect, courtesy perhaps, to stand during a playing of our anthem, but hollow displays of patriotism by xenophobes only cheapen the whole idea. How could America, land that I loved (but am now seriously reconsidering), allow a bigoted angry man who has disgraced every race and group in America to become president. Where is the curator of this “experiment?” If it were some kind of nuclear experiment the reactor would be in meltdown mode, sirens would sound incessantly and technicians would be screaming “the humanity!” as though a firey zeppelin were plummeting to earth. There has to be some oversight committee, a coalition whose sole purpose is to step in when Frankenstein becomes unhinged, when Godzilla breaks his chains, climbs the Empire State and starts swatting at airplanes. I think this is an emergency, an anomaly, a “democratic arrest” situation. It is not a garden variety Republican, fathoms from an Eisenhower, a Reagan, even a Bush. It is not even a credible third party, definitely not anything that belongs anywhere near America, some kind of oligarchical mutation. It is the stuff of horrific science fiction—genre dystopia. I never fell for it, not as I was introduced to the half-truths (if even that) of government growing up with Vietnam, and certainly not now. I vote, go to my precinct caucus (or last time a step further), pay my federal tax, pay for schools and roads that, as a non-driver, I don't use. I see the whole picture, not just what I want or need to see, not just when my team is winning. I see and recognize the possible long-term worth of my opposing teams' wins, I take them for what they are worth. However I have never fallen victim to the pablum, the myth that America is number one, numero uno, hands down. Sure it is an admirable goal, worth entertaining, but I think it is foolish to boast about it. Now it is coming back to bite America in the ass, we look foolish. Merkel and May are either laughing, rolling their eyes, or feeling sad for Americans. Now, each day of this administration we are getting further from being the best. It's the opinion of at least—seventy-six percent of the country. The rest, frankly I don't know in what universe THIS is great, good, or even better. Like I say, success today is existential. Do the mantra. Echo TR, echo TR, walk softly and carry a big stick. America has developed more of a limp, as of late. One leg is a lot shorter than the other, and that metaphor could be as tortured as the “democracy” Putin offers his people.

In many ways America has pigeon-holed itself. The mad scientists from yesteryear created a set of rules, a template designed to test time. Through the ages the constitution has been amended with well-debated arguments having achieved a consensus in all 50 states. Only once was an amendment rescinded, was it accepted by enough of a consensus in all states to over-turn the amendment and foster one to again be tested by time. It never came close. The 18^th amendment (effective January 1920) prohibited the sale and transfer of alcohol. The 21^st amendment (effective December 1933) repealed the 18^th. Prohibition encompassed, facilitated and necessitated 13 years of bootlegging and speakeasys. It spawned a decade of getting around the law, subverting rulings enough of the populace made to make them a federal mandate! America's pastime isn't baseball, it's making laws and then finding ways around them, ways that don't always work, depending on what color your skin is. Here's a radical thought: Constitutions, manifestos, pre-ambles, grocery lists could become outdated. Take the second amendment to the constitution. Has anyone read the history behind this? I have. It has its roots in the English Bill of Rights passed in 1689. King James bestowed upon his Protestant subjects (no doubt the P in what WAS) the right to “have arms for their defense within the rule of law.” With that right the early English settlers, in what could only be destined to become America, set about making certain guidelines to properly, responsibly use that right, possibly to avoid a time when gun violence can be found in America on any given day. They used it for:

• enabling the people to organize a militia system
• participating in law enforcement
• deterring tyrannical government
• repelling invaders
• suppressing insurgencies (rumored to have included slave rebellions)
• facilitating the instinct to defend oneself

To me, contrary to the amendment as it is written (in the 1791 drafting), the last bullet point does imply individual gun ownership. All people want—or need—to see to placate their (I guess) insecurity, cod piece, ego, the incomplete clause “. . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” period. To appreciate the full meaning of the second amendment one must somehow, in an equitable fashion, mesh those words with “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” I was codified once. The bill passed by congress, written by scribe William Lambert, had more dependent clauses. The version written by Thomas Jefferson simply stated, in two clauses, the right and what it was for: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Semantics, minced words. TJ knew that people would be looking at the words for hundreds of years, twisting them to their wants or needs, wrapping the flag ever tighter around them and their guns until a simple way to assemble a militia to protect whatever state existed was contorted, perverted into a sanctimonious card to play. Notice arms is capitalized. Is this so it is not confused with anatomical arm? Then one could say to a gun-happy citizen, this only means feel free to run around in a tank-top. See, Jefferson thought of everything.

America was conceived in liberty once, in the later part of the 18^th century. It was, almost existentially conceived to be unequal, with many groups, ironically those who largely built it, being kept at bay, not equally reaping its rewards. Then, sometime in the 20^th century (60s) the giant woke up, Frankenstein became unhinged, and ever since the implicit paradigm shift has been ignored. Programs worked to alleviate the disparity, programs failed. One side tries to bring equality, the other invents ways to subvert them, twist words to their favor, or currently—well. . .the uneven playing field is at a 90º angle. A man is a man, far from infallible (although the current one in the WH would choke on those words). Many have tried to tame the beast called America, pulled the levers behind a curtain. Some have had great success, depending on whom you ask. All had foibles, even Obama. Although, unlike some, I know he would be the first to admit it. Men have tried, so why not try a woman. As some candidate said last year, “what do you have to lose?”

congenial-speak # 50

Last words to be Later

There will be time later to play politics. Time to wage a weak and empty war of words that go nowhere, pre-destined to go nowhere, while a veil of substantive thought a prayers go—somewhere. That is fine, it is necessary to grieve. It is not always a science, a five tiered plan of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Neither is politics. It is worth considering, however, when Sunday's shooting in Las Vegas is the 273^rd such casualty in the 275 calendar days of 2017 according to Newsweek. A Republican senator, when pressed yesterday for a political narrative, sidestepped. He danced around (like some projectiles were going toward him) and said “There will be time later to play politics.” Is this where kicking the can down the road happens? Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Oregon, Phoenix. . .a US congressman nearly killed. Same story, thoughts and prayers, maybe a moment of silence, vigils, maybe protests, some glib political placate debate, disingenuous discourse, and the NRA wins the day. The simple mom and pop club that began during reconstruction with the purpose of promoting firearms training is allowed to obstruct legislation that might have a shot at saving a life or two.

I can see Speaker Ryan still, lauding the applause in the House as he stated their unity after his colleague Steve Scalise was shot. I recall an airy, gun-powdered sentient voiced, thinly hinted at, that perhaps that tragedy was the straw that broke the camel, the pin that stuck in the chamber. That was less than four full months ago. How soon we forget. Was that a sufficient time to offer thoughts and prayers before doing something that may actually prevent a killing, not just balm the wounds after the fact, applause the responders, the bringing together of people? I agree that it is a beautiful thing, admirable, worth noting, commendable. But we see it, we did the humanity test and they passed with flying colors. We saw it after 9/11, we saw it in Boston, we saw it in Orlando, and we saw it Sunday. And no, that will not stay in Vegas.

It is time, I'd say, after 59 dead and 527 injured, to have a dialogue. Lobbies be damned. Is there not a point at which the preservation of American lives, of children, of families, of veterans, supersedes the contextually distorted right to own a gun, a simple gun as were available in the late 18^th century? So far people have mended fences—offenses. They've—well Republicans actually—allowed themselves to become amenable to grief on an almost monthly basis. They applaud how each assault tests our resolves as humans living in a lawful society. Is the current man in the WH the second to ballyhoo law and order? Why is it the ones who site law and order as a model for their campaign the ones who seem to achieve the least of it, or did I answer my question? I have yet to hear him call out gun violence, address the problem for what it is, admit that it's been out of hand for a long while. Last month in Chicago there were a total of 330 people shot and killed, or wounded, by guns, oh and I must add, and the people that wielded them. He did it with an uncharacteristic amount of fanfare. Obama's law preventing guns from being sold to mentally ill people was reversed by Trump. The ruling by Obama required added people listed as receiving social security checks for mental illness to a national background check database. It came in response to the 2013 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting that left 20 first graders and six adults dead. Had the ruling gone uncontested, had it not been repealed in favor of conciliatory thoughts and prayers, the well-practiced and alibied way of avoiding the issue, 75,000 names would now exist in the database. It's a tale as long as the NRA's conception itself: The cogs in gun wheel houses complain their 2^nd Amendment right is being infringed upon, gun control advocates praise rulings like Obama's for making it more difficult for someone to purchase a gun who is apt to use them with fatal intentions.

Las Vegas is apparently a invitational well-spring for gun shows. Shows? Exhibitions? Like Sinatra or any member collectively of the Rat Pack? What a racket, a scam, a subliminal assault and exploitation of the power of Vegas. Circus circus showcases beautiful women hanging in compromising positions (at least that's how I remember it from 1983). Buffets showcase food. Casinos showcase gambling and kino girls. I went to an MGM Grand show that featured the Way-past-his-prime conniptions of George Carlin. It boils down to a matter of personal opinion but, at the end of the day, the long convention table, what existentially constructive beauty does a gun show display. You can dress them up however you want, give them fancy names, wrap them tight in red,white and blue, but they a still instruments of death basically designed to kill people. How did Stephan Paddock get 10 suitcases of guns up to the 32^nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel, past security (I was stopped for one dulled ceremonial sword I had won at a bodybuilding competition)? Are people proud of their gun collections? Are they compelled to show them off, much as people who go with their rag-tops to car shows? Fine, if they are old, historically significant or rare guns they keep under lock and key so junior makes it through puberty, by all means, organize a gun show. You have been taken in, though, by the biggest fraud since—PT Barnum.

Congenial-speak #49

Bringing Coals to San Juan

Who knew part of America is an island surrounded by water, lots of water. There was the man who thinks he is a president explaining geographical logic and formations. Could it be that he thought out loud, that this was the most he thought about the logistics of getting food to Puerto Rico? Did we actually see the gold encrusted wheels try to take the rare bend toward being remotely presidential? If so, what would motivate him? They don't vote. If they did it probably wouldn't be for him. The golf club there is second-hand (Trump only lent his name to it in 2008), and couldn't be much of a concern to him. And, the lack of a response expected of one's president may be colored by—well—color. That and, I'm spit-balling, contemporaneously learning that Puerto Rico is a US territory.

How can that compare to the mentally easy and politically high stakes game of taking on the NFL? Reprimanding a handful of black athletes who choose to “take a knee” or link arms during the national anthem is less contentious than helping a desperate mayor of San Juan. By recognizing, or even admitting his ignorance of, Carmen Cruz Trump is not in his me zone. He risks the biggest fear of all; something not being about HIM, for HIM, or benefiting HIM in any way. He'd be a fat cat on a window ledge hanging by its claws with only 1 (at last count) political life left, and this cat is too fat and stupid to land on its feet. He blew any chance of any redemption by responding to his base in Texas and Florida in the wakes of Harvey and Irma. It wasn't a page from presidential compassion 101 but, for Trump, that's probably as good as it's going to get. Where's there a trace of altruism, evidence of true compassion, no monetary, political, or racial motives? He went to Houston expecting to see his core red red-meat eating voters back in 2020, #2 pencil in hand, ready to fill in HIS oval on the ballot.

Not even close. Not even in the arena to be an issue controvertible to a self-righteous ploy to wrap in a flag and press (as one would coal to diamonds) into votes. They kind of went down like dominoes. Black. . . white. . . you get the gist. The statement those players are making. Even if they have personally benefited from the American experience, they are using there place to stand up, or down, for the thousands for whom America has offered a less than positive experience, an America that evidently, in 2017, values their lives as little as it did in 1905. Trump get mad. He tweet at NFL owners. He say fire those players, “YOU'RE FIRED” he blasts, invoking his first Apprentice right. Another arrow in the core red-meat-seeking quiver. They are UN-American. They are disrespectful of veterans of foreign (and domestic) wars. Watch that pot/kettle thing. Does the name Khan ring a bell in Trump tower NY?

God is reprehensible. God is not in ally in any way, shape, or form. A natural disaster has no culpability until after the fact. Until the pallets of water and food are found to be inadequate from donors who have no where near the resources your alleged government has. All Trump can do is try to stay within his physical and mental capacity, play to his strengths, tackle the issues that are not life threatening—particularly his political one. So, as Mayor Cruz “does something she never thought I'd have to do” and takes a knee, begs for assistance, Trump just tweets. He spins toward HIMSELF. He has diluted Sarah H. Sanders and acting DHS muck Elaine Duke into playing ball his way; beginning with singing his praises.

Congenial-speak #48

In His Mirage

Roy Moore talked a lot about God and what he wants. He defeated Luther Strange in the Republican primary. That's his opinion. That's his right. In his house, in his church, but it stops hen he steps into the congress. His views of homosexuality don't even belong in this century. It has nothing to do with “political correctness,” which I admit once may have been a necessary learning tool but has long since worn out its welcome. Yes, PC words through the late 70s through roughly the early 90s were kind of like flash cards. They had a good run. No, my opposition to Moore, Palin, the man next-in-line to the WH has to do with the separation of church and state. The first in ten amendments to the constitution—known as the bill of rights—states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .” I think Moore made his intentions clear, his goal of having everyone respect and practice his established religion in 2003. Two years earlier he had been elected chief justice in the Alabama Supreme Court. He was removed in 2003 by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary for refusing to remove a monument of the ten commandments, the tablets that overtly celebrate the agreed upon way to live a Judea-christian life. In 2013 he got a second chance. It's all about redemption, forgiveness, apparently. Moore almost made it 3 years before blurring the lines again, brought his church into the state. In May of 2016 he was suspended for directing probate judges to enforce same-sex marriage laws, ignoring the federal law recognizing them.

Take a moment and look at what these politicians are using God for, at what they're relying on his word to sell to voters. And the politicians who advocate such marital fidelity themselves, who are they. I remember an article I read about Sarah Palin having an illegitimate child. She became a pro-life heroine when she “chose” not to abort her fetus diagnosed with downs syndrome. Unwed and pondering. Isn't life sacrosanct to these people. Why was abortion even on the table, an option, a last resort? Her daughter, Bristol, is not exactly an endorsement for marriage now, is she? As of 2015 she is on her second child as a single mother. I guess God can put the money where your mouth is, or should. Bristol commands 15 to 30,000 dollars to talk about the importance of abstinence.

Moore passes the fidelity/hypocrisy test. He was formerly a Democrat though, which suggests a life altering event pulled him that far to the right. But from Newt to Trump marital infidelity and third marriages are the things Republicans hope the media never sees. Pence is wildly anti-gay, and I feel bad for people of the LGBTQ community when Trump is impeached. Oh, you better believe it. Pence was a Democrat. He voted against Reagan in 1980. Trump was one, swearing up and down that going into Iraq was a foolish thing to do. (I must agree with him there.) A lot of changes, a lot of wanting to join the winning choir, a lot of wanting to preach to the choir with the best track record. If the God fits—wear it.

The Ken Burns documentary of the Vietnam War is almost done. I am tired watching it. So much deception, so many lies, so much minimizing the value of life for the contrary. It was war by the numbers. Last night the 1968 massacre in Mÿ Lai was prosecuted. The participants were brought to a military trial in 1970. Only Lieutenant William Calley, who consistently said he was merely following orders of a superior, was sentenced. Much of the country thought his life sentence was too severe, that these killings, in the final analysis, are covered under the dark mantle that obfuscates war as crimes. President Nixon ordered Calley released and put on house arrest. When I hear about the ruthless killing of babies, infants, I couldn't help drinking in the close-range hypocrisy. A higher ranking officer was circling above the scene in a helicopter and did nothing, said nothing to stop the slaughter. If any of these men had any idea of a career in politics, they burned their bridge to play the pro-life card that day.

Why is God saying so much, so much that seems to roll off the tongues that are forked? They follow the money and greed is at the nearest Trump tower. Just watch those shifty form-fitting eyes of Joel Osteen as he works toward a high five from Trump, corralling their gullible menagerie in the South, playing carpetbagger to hurricanes because, god knows, they are definitely not a manifestation of climate change. America's carnage. They shoot you on the street. Gee, I can't see why. You are handing guns out indiscriminately like Pez. The second amendment is safe, its theory is never going away. What's being buoyed is the NRA, its membership, their contributors, the lobbies, the PAC money—ah, the PAC money. See, god, anyone's god, wants you to buy plenty of guns, have children and almost never think of aborting them, deny anything is happening to the planet, hate anyone and anything that is counter-productive to his agenda, and generally sleep in perpetual paranoia with one eye open. We know that gun is in a shoe box under your bed, a fetus swims in restless circles in your sleeping wife's womb, and the sun is sure to come up hotter tomorrow.

Congenial-speak# 47

Protesting America from the Sidelines

When I first saw the clip of those Olympic winners in Mexico, fists in the air in 1968, I thought it was an anomaly. It was definitely incongruous to the spirit and purpose of the games. I agree it is hard to keep politics out of something that usually syncs up with the election cycle. Specifically in '68, when war, racial tension, economic despartiy commanded the year, the temptation to make an unexpected, perhaps inappropriately timed, unprecedented demonstration was great. The young fighter named Cassius Clay refused to fight in Vietnam in 1964. He was later stripped of his heavyweight title earned under the Muslim name Muhamed Ali. He was banned from boxing, as George Carlin said because he wouldn't kill people so the government said “we won't let you beat them up.” He sought conscientious objector, or CO, status. He was one of 170,000 who received such classification deferring them from service in Southeast Asia from 1960 to 1975. They were Jehovah wittiness, Mennonites, Quakers, and brethren. Yes Ali was a sports figure who eloquently articulated his cause publicly, but he was far from a random athlete on a podium raising a gloved fist like a sore thumb.

Standing during the Star Spangled Banner is just something I've done since I was a kid. I'm sure I did it at the one and only football game I saw at the Met Stadium when I was 10. I like the song, know the full story behind it, and feel it is the very least (maybe because I was never able to serve myself) I can do to express my respect and empathy for those who did serve our country. Yes, that's beginning with the War of 1812 (from which the song came) which was fought for America, without hyperbole. I think it is the idea of America, even if we find ourselves today as far from an ideal America as ever, that's on the table when that song is played. I like to feel proud once in a while. Not everything is political. Now, if a player did not agree with some policy in the NFL they might find a way to protest that. But could they jeopardize their career, their million$ salary? Would they do it? What do they risk not standing for the anthem? Trump might order them to get off their knees, and I think that is wrong. I think it is an odd, ultimately ineffective gesture that kind of mocks the first amendment right, but no one should be forced to do—or not do—anything, especially by an egocentric political opportunist like Trump. In fact, if I were on that unlevel playing field, I might not stand just to spite Trump, just (as if he needs anything) to make him angry.

So, maybe because I am on the left sidelines, I have mixed feelings about this. This is as dangerously close as I've ever come to agreeing with even the “in theory” part of a Trump view and I hate it. I can see where the athletes are coming from, I can see where Trump is coming from. But with him the reasons lack sincerity and at some point will benefit HIM. I hate to think America is dead to those protesters. Look at what it has done. All most people, on social media and the news, are discussing is if it's okay, whether it is acceptable way to protest. Is anyone talking race, the issue which the protest is supposed to address? Not that I see or hear. It amounts to shock value, kind of like when Abbie Hoffman was going to levitate the Pentagon. The demonstration there proceeding the levitation accomplished addressing opposition to Vietnam. I have to applaud Hoffman's theater though, his chutzpah and mischegas (wackiness). In his case, however, he was alone, he was not on a team on national TV on a stadium field, perhaps mocking what people have been taught to do since they were kids. To me it is on the very low end of political protests, not quite in the same league as enduring n----- hurled at you a million times or not getting up to give up a seat on a bus.

Congenial-speak #46

First Throes of Democracy

When LBJ—I mean RFK—was assassinated in 1968 the nation was a tinder-box. It was a cauldron of primordial soup that had spilled over many, many times. The reaction to Kennedy's candidacy and subsequent murder by a vengeful Palestinian was bifurcated. The New York senator was reluctant to challenge an incumbent president for the Democratic nomination that year—that is until he saw Minnesota senator Eugene McCarthy succeeding at it. For some in the DFL (Democratic Farmer-Labor) his sudden death (which occurred while he was celebrating a win) did not erase the fact that he had basically pirated McCarthy's success, surfed on a wave that was not his, plagiarized a lesser-known candidate's rhetoric. (Did someone do that more recently?)

Assassination is assassination. Kennedy's came two months after MLK's. The night of King's slaying on April 4, from a flat-bed truck in Indianapolis, Kennedy spoke of his own white brother's death. His words were credited as having prevented rioting in that city. They errupted in almost every other major city. Humphrey felt remorse. In June (Johnson had withdrawn from the race March 31) he thought the nomination was his. The vice president did not want it that way though, as the consequence of someones death. History marches on and the happy warrior got his nomination, his American dream.

I was too young to conceptualize much of anything 1968. The more I learn about the war and Johnson now, in 2017, the more it is oddly, disturbingly, out-of-contextually similar. At the end of 1967, in response to the bloody “border battles” in prelude to Tet, the war was barely getting the support of half the country. Johnson launched a PR campaign. It saw (until the Tet Offensive struck) of some success—kind of like how Trump's rallies feed his ego and his base's red meat diet until his next blunder. Johnson also commanded loyalty. Although he specified that it should “kiss his ass at high noon in Macy's window.” By the end of 1967 Defense Secretary Robert McNamara had admitted to himself that the was was going nowhere. He sent a memo to Johnson suggesting a bombing halt and turning the fighting over to the south Vietnamese. The president ignored it. Johnson thought the young protesters, the card burners, the dodgers, were Communists. It was a plot. I thought we were fighting the dreaded red menace. It doesn't make sense. If the protesters were truly Communists they would not be in the streets or going to Canada. They would be going to North Vietnam to promote Communism. They would be working for the other side. Johnson, by the end of his first full term, was paranoid and delusional. He was, in a more mature, presidential way, playing Thieu in a similar way that Trump is playing Un. The administration was cavalier. They put their needs before all the young men who had “gone to graveyards everywhere.” There were incidents of our bombs dropped on our ground troops. There were incidents of faulty M-16s costing lives. Most wars have, as in football, an objective of ground acquisition. We were the proxies in the war. We often did not know our enemy. No ground was won or lost and numbers (casualties) became the objective, kind of like a—CBO score. When I am told General Westmorland conveyed the casualty count of Viet Cong after each battle, suggesting he my have over-estimated it to make it look like we were winning, I look at the health care debate. I squarely look at McConnell and Ryan, how they play with number for their own gain, how, at the end of the day (or battle) all that matter is a win for their delusional boss. I get the distinct feeling that some presidents, senators and their most loyal and trusting “constituents” hide behind the flag. Old glory, in such cases, provides the curtain which hides the man to who no one should pay attention

During the “summer of love” Harvard professor Henry Kissinger is negotiating a deal. He is going to work for Nixon, he is paving a way for him to the White House. He is Putin, he is Bannon. Like Trump, Nixon preaches law and order. He fine tunes the paranoia, the scourge of the times that is Communism. It could have been Humphrey. The war might have actually ended early. It was fixed though by candidate Nixon, his Asian liaison, and running-mate Spiro Agnew. Thieu, had finally been brought to the table in Paris to talk peace, was thwarted, told to “hold on.” Nixon, as president, could secure him a better deal than Humphrey. The political grandstanding, the minimizing of the human factor involved, was so similar to today. Trump has sought, and usually gotten, political momentum from human calamities ranging from Assad's use of chemical weapons on his people to hurricanes affecting the lives of thousands. But the line between using heath care and the passage of a disastrous bill while millions of lives hang in the balance is the boldest.

Minnesota senator Al Franken was asked by Jimmy Kimmel whether he liked being a senator better than his days as a comedian. Al admitted that while comedy was more fun, he loves his job in the senate. There he is able to change peoples' lives for the better. I just don't think the most well-intentioned Republican does that. It is like they are afraid to go out of the lines, where colors might run. Democrats, I have always known, change lives for the better. If they have to go out of the lines to do it—which they usually do—they will, gladly, and in many cases altruistically. What a beautiful thing. To see that there are people in this country who deserve, who are entitled to, better. The Democrats, the “Communists” I wrote about in my book Ten Years and Change sought a better life for themselves and their children, for their childrens' children and for those asked rhetorically to fight an immoral and illegal war. I see the term communist as having taken a beating in those insipid years of the war. The people getting beaten in Chicago at August's end in '68 weren't Communists. They weren't “pinkos” or even bleeding heart liberals. To me they were just people trying to exist on this planet. They were trying to stop violence (ironically), to (hyperbolically) stop the extinction of the human race. The government was not listening to (by then) the majority. The institution which some random document claims is “by and for the people” was not listening to its constituents, its people without whose taxes and willingness (at the beginning) to fight a war, would, ironically, not exist.

Selling America like a used car

A lot of Republican administrations, and in Johnson's case Democratic, seem to love a scam, a four to eight year ponzi scheme. In Vietnam's case what eventually became the war started on a Democrat's (Truman's) watch. He aided the French, I guess in reciprocation for their help 179 years earlier, in fighting the Communists. In September of 1954 we entered SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) along with Australia, New Zealand, France, Great Britain, the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan. France and Britain refused to get involved. Its goal was to prevent the spread of Communism in that region. Eisenhower, a decorated general in WWII and Korea was the first Republican president involved. During his second term, 1955-60, there were between 750 and 1,500 advisors sent by the US to assist the new republic of Vietnam's president Diem in building an effective army. Sound familiar? As Ike left the White house to Kennedy he advised him to watch Communism, to keep a lid on Laos in particular. JFK, while dealing with issues such as the Cuban missile crisis and the erection of the Berlin Wall, had concern for America's standing in the world as a leading power. Hubris, honor, commitment. Ike had advised him to regard communism in Southeast Asia as a “required priority.” By the end of 1961, due to a predominance of the Viet Cong, Kennedy increased the number of military advisors from 1,100 to a total of 1,600 in the next two years. He also sent, in secrecy from the American people, special forces such as green berets trained in guerrilla warfare. The true extent of our involvement was not known, and young men went to war thinking they were doing something noble and relatively safe.

LBJ assumed the presidency at the end of November 1963. He maintained Kennedy's policy of advisors and special forces. In August of 1964 an attack occurred in the South China Sea's Gulf of Tonkin. Two North Vietnamese islands were hit by the US. An alleged attack on US forces by Hanoi was documented, justifying an air strike. On arch 8, 1965 Johnson, with the bogus authority granted him from the Gulf of Tonkin incident, committed the first ground troops in Vietnam with levels reaching 184,000. That spring he also began the air assault over North Vietnam code named operation rolling thunder. That offensive action lasted three years and seven months. By 1968 troop levels were 536,000. The US had suffered, since January of 1961, over 31,000 casualties. Over 200,000 US personnel had been wounded. Nixon protracted the war. With a pledge to end the war with honor, he began immediately in January 1969 “the bitter end to the war.” he sent troops to Cambodia in an effort to cut supply lines. He created the illusion of the war ending when, in July that year, 814 young men were the first of 25,000 troops to be withdrawn from Southeast Asia.

Code named hubris

As I look at those few pages of America's less proud history, all the myriad ways the tale's been spun to me, in my final analysis that war was from Kennedy to Nixon a scam. It was at the very least nine years of lies and cover ups, of hubris and face saving, of political gain at the financial, mortal, and emotional expense of the American people. Had it not been for Watergate, which led to Nixon's resignation, which led to Ford and a Democratically controlled House, I wager our involvement would have stayed. Nixon would never have accepted the Vietnam War ending as it did.

It should come as no surprise that Trump scammed his voters, those red capped,meated patriots willing to live the American dream if only they are happy. He played them like a fast—talking New York huckster, his milieu. They are eternal optimists, they're patient, they don't care, or they're not very bright. My money's on the latter.

Thank god for cynics like Thomas Jefferson who saw that government can easily grow corrupt, that all the power should not be at the federal level. For the current and last century, the federal government, depending what motivates the “man” in the Oval Office, has become accomplished at scamming, playing numbers games, minimizing life changing (ending) situations either for political gain or simplification. In an episode of MASH a gung ho soldier holds Hawkeye at gunpoint so his sergeant will be operated on first. Hawkeye tries reasoning with him. He say that to them the war is no some Geo-political conflict with the US and North Korea sticking their tongues out at each other. It is, more or less, today. With each rocket man or taunt of fury like the world's never seen, Trump is doing that gesture to Kim Jong Un. NUCLEAR annihilation is at stake and to Trump the world is a giant schoolyard! Who has any interests but their own in mind with education, health care, climate change, immigration. . .the fate of one, maybe several human populations? Who had in mind the interests of the young men who fought an illegal war? Who reduced their lives to a numbers race to feed into a mammoth computer in the pentagon basement? Usually everyone but the ruling party, whoever has the power to do something proactive.