It's Just Not Fun Anymore

I'm about ready to hang up my hat with my local Marine Corps League detachment.  Earlier this year, we had a bitter and contested leadership election, and the root of the problem is that the old guard is used to having their way, whereas the current Commandant is trying to bring our detachment into the 21st century and attract younger membership.

Earlier this year, the old guard nominated a challenger to the current Commandant and lost at this year's election.  A couple of guys immediately stopped coming.  A couple of others just successfully pushed through changes to our bylaws, effectively making this our current Commandant's last term.  What they did was change the term limits in our bylaws, reducing the previous four-year limit to a two consecutive term limit.  I have to admit that it was clever.

At the same time, I have several problems with this.  First and foremost, they changed bylaws because they didn't like the outcome of a single election.  That's a huge case of overkill, kind of like an NFL fan pushing through a rule change because his team lost the Super Bowl.  Second, the previous term limit was four years total for an individual and the new term limit is two consecutive years.  For as long as I've been a member of this group, finding people to serve in leadership has been notoriously difficult.  By shortening the term limit, this problem is exacerbated.  Third, the role of Commandant in particular has a learning curve.  The first year is just learning the ropes, and speaking from experience, year three is where you really hit your stride.  This means the rule change will reduce the effectiveness of future leaders.  This, of course, is what the old guard wants.

We have become a microcosmic example of the exact problem that Veteran Service Organizations across the country are experiencing.  We are unable to attract and retain the younger generation of veterans.  This is precisely because the old guard veterans are completely out of touch with the needs and motivations of younger veterans.  We understand the problem and know that we need to change, and meet the younger veterans where they are.  When we do get younger folks, they show up with enthusiasm, but it's quickly crushed by the old guard.  The new guys have ideas about things we can do to bring in more young guys, but the old guys shoot down the ideas, because they're too expensive, or they tried it once before and it didn't work.

And the shit these guys are bitching about is stupid shit!!!  They're getting pissed off over things like place mats at a formal dinner.  They're getting pissed because they're used to their good ol' boys club internally selecting the local Marine of the Year, despite the fact that the nomination process requires submission by members at large.  They're behaving like stereotypical boomers.  They talk about wanting to grow, change, and attract younger members.  But when the rubber meets the road, they're not willing to change or sacrifice anything to achieve the outcome they say they want.  They say they want change, but they mean they want everyone else to change.

I'm proud of being a veteran, and I love serving the veteran community, but I've got to admit that I don't know how much more of this I can stand.  Where I used to look forward to the monthly meetings, and left feeling energized, I'm now feeling a pit in my stomach before the meetings and am consistently leaving with a strong case of the ick.  It's just not fun anymore.

Pride Month

As you're likely aware, June is Pride Month, which according to AI is "...a global observance dedicated to celebrating the LGBTQ+ community..."  I'd like to speak about this for a moment...

When I was a child, it was illegal to be gay, and homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.  While the legal and medical standards changed rapidly in the 1970s, it was still generally considered taboo to to be gay.  I absolutely remember fag and fem being among the worst insults one could hurl at a young male.  Homosexuality could get you thrown out of the military, which was a bit ironic, considering how homoerotic that hyper-masculine environment really was.  And I must admit that I was intolerant of homosexuality in my younger days.  At one point in my early twenties I proudly announced that I was only intolerant of two things -- bigots and faggots.  And yes, I was aware of the irony.  At that stage in my life, I thought I was pretty clever.

My perspective changed when I worked with a guy named Brian Smith.  Brian was one of those guys who neither flaunted nor hid his homosexuality.  I figured he was probably gay, but we never talked about it.  I got to know him as a person and, quite simply, I found his presence enjoyable.  He was fun to be around.  I discovered his homosexuality by seeing a small pin-back button in a drawer at his desk that had a rainbow and said "Sorry girls, I'm gay."  This was not snooping, because I needed to open his drawer for legitimate work, but that's not relevant to the story.  What's important was that I had a passing mundane epiphany.  I could either continue with my gay hating ways, or I could accept his sexuality and move on.  I chose the latter.  Essentially, what had happened was a realization that I could continue living with my prejudice and suddenly start hating a guy based on the fact that he was gay, or I could continue to accept him for who he was, while realizing that part of that identity happened to be that he was gay.  I chose the latter.

This was not a watershed moment in my life.  The entire internal conversation may have taken five seconds.  There was no big change in my personality.  I didn't suddenly transform into a vocal ally.  What happened was that I realized one of my life assumptions was incorrect -- the assumption that homosexuals were somehow deviant, depraved, or inferior -- and I accepted that my old mentality was incorrect as matter-of-factly as if I had discovered that I had the wrong answer on a homework assignment.  I corrected things and moved on.

I'd love to say that moment caused me to accept the transgender community, but that's not what happened.  I still wasn't ready to accept that gender identity may not coincide with biological gender.  And I'll admit that, to this day, I can't quite relate to the gay or transgender identity... except for lesbians.  I totally get why lesbians dig chicks, because I do too.  But the thing is, I've learned to realize that I don't need to understand or relate.  I just need to accept.  I don't need a detailed understanding of the science behind gravity to realize that an apple falling from a tree will always hit the ground.

From my perspective, this is what Pride Month is about.  It's about trying to remind people that, while homosexuality is outside of the mainstream, it's not a deviant behavior that warrants scorn, contempt and hatred from the straight community.  Simply being transgender does not warrant hate and violence.  Sexual preference and gender identity are simply one of countless things that make us all unique, such as biological gender, race, national origin, faith, hair color, and so forth.

I look forward to the day where we can appreciate one another for our character, not our characteristics, but I'm not confident this will happen during my lifetime.  Until that happens though, please know that I will quietly work to advocate for this outcome. 

... Better Than I Can Say It

I read a great critique on Trump MAGA folks today.  Okay, it's not a critique.  It's a brief heartfelt essay that explains why some are having such a difficult time with Trump supporters.  Mike McCready is the author.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with McCready, he founded Pearl Jam, Mad Season and Temple of the Dog.  These are all bands I really appreciate.  And once again, he's found words that have eluded me for years.

Here's his essay... 

Martha's 100th Birthday

I don't know if you heard about it, but the United States is set to celebrate its 250th birthday on July 4.  This, of course, is a milestone birthday that deserves respect, reflection and celebration.  Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that's going to happen, and once again I'm going to place the blame on us.  When I say "us," I mean all of us... the collective group known as Americans.

At the center of this debate, of course, is our illustrious leader, Donald Trump, a person who can't resist making everything all about him.  For example, he is advocating a new $250 bill that carries his image, in honor of the country's 250th birthday.  Despite the fact that we have laws preventing living people from appearing on our currency, because that's what monarchies and dictatorships do, our commander in chief somehow believes that he deserves more recognition than Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln and others who appear on our currency, by becoming the first living president to appear on currency.  This is a side note to illustrate my point...

My point is that we are celebrating our country's 250th birthday.  Part of this includes a planned "Geat American State Fair," scheduled to take place late June through mid-July.  While I personally think the idea of a fair is a bit quaint and out of date, I support the basic concept of a big birthday bash.  The problem is that Trump's mentality demands that everything be about him.

Unfortunately, this also divides our country.  Half of America will automatically reject anything associated with him, so half of the country is effectively left out of the birthday celebration.  Another 25% supports Trump but still feels that he should let this celebration be about America, so their opinions are dismissed as well.  Meanwhile, the remaining 25% gets to have a hootenanny... f**k the rest of the country!  I politely dissent.  While I am certainly part of the never Trump crowd, this specific post is about this specific issue... our country's 250th birthday celebration should be about the COUNTRY, and the PERSON should recognize this and play second fiddle for once in his life.

To use an analogy... Great-grandma Martha's 100th birthday is coming up, and she's married to her third husband, Bob who's obnoxiously gregarious.  He's planning a huge blowout party.  He will be the emcee.  He will cut the cake.  He will personally select the band and each song the band plays.  He's planning the meal.  He's sitting at the center of the head table, with her to his immediate right.  He will give the toast and be the only speaker.  He will talk about how smart she was to marry him, and trash talk her previous husbands and any offspring of those husbands.  He will dance poorly to YMCA.  You get the idea.

His family knows how this will play out.  Half of the family will refuse to go to Martha's party, because they hate Bob.  They want to go to the party, but they also know they'll be absolutely miserable if they attend.  They don't want to go through that, and they don't want to subject their family to that special kind of hell.  Another quarter of the family will suck it up and go, even though they don't really like Bob.  The final quarter will show up, hoot and holler at the toast, tell Bob he threw a great party, get falling down drunk, and completely forget to wish Martha happy birthday.

It doesn't have to be this way.  Bob could hire others to give Martha the birthday she wants, which is a celebration that the whole family would want to attend.  But that's not how Bob works.  Here ends the analogy. 

Why Politicians Sling Mud

Today's post is again inspired by Sunny, who wrote about her distaste for mudslinging earlier today.  I've had similar conversations with many, many friends over the years, and we all say that we hate it, yet somehow the overwhelming majority of today's political campaigns end up flinging poo at their opponents.  I think it's more appropriate to call it flinging poo, because our political discourse has become so dismal that our elected officials are behaving more like primates than people.

The thing is, slinging $h1+ works!  Polls and election results have consistently shown that saying bad things about your opponent yields better results than taking the high road and focusing on your own policy and platform.  This means it's our own damn fault, because at a macro level, we reward the exact behavior that we rebuke as individuals. Our brains seem to respond to trash talking at a subconscious level.

When I think back to my younger days, I recall the entire political arena being far more respectful.  While statistics demonstrate that elected officials did work across party lines more frequently than they do today, I have to admit that mudslinging has always existed. "Tricky Dick" was Richard Nixon's nickname.  John Kerry was "swiftboated."  Going back further in history, slinging $h1+ was rampant after the civil war, when there was national animosity, and yellow journalism was the rule, not the exception.

I believe that part of the appeal of Donald Trump is that he has turned smack talking into an art form.  Partisan supporters love that he's "owning the libs," and "calling out the deep state."  When he's caught in a lie about his opponents, Trump's supporters say that he's "speaking figuratively."

I also suspect that $h1+ slinging is a large part of why people stop participating in the election process.  They think crap, they're all a bunch of liars, why should I vote for any of them?!? Unfortunately, this would also mean that the people who respond to negative campaigning end up being the majority of voters, creating a vicious cycle.

What this all means is that mudslinging is nothing new, and the only way to make it stop is to quit feeding the beast.  Stop reading internet articles that talk about so-and-so owning his opponent.  Quit buying newspapers that focus on sensationalism.  End your support for politicians who attack the other guy's character instead of rationally disagreeing with platform issues.  We got where we are as a result of our own behavior.  Politicians are not guiding us, they are reflecting us.  They won't do better until we do better.

Two Minutes of Silence

Going into Memorial Day weekend, I had a random memory pop into my head.  Back in the before times, wife 1.0 and I attended an event for older daughter, I believe it was cheerleading or something like that.  Regardless, the event was on Memorial Day.

While waiting in line to purchase tickets to an event that highlighted newly acquired skills that I paid someone to teach my daughter, I wondered if the organizers were going to observe a moment of silence.

The ticket counter was a folding table, staffed by someone who looked like another parent.  I asked the person taking the tickets if there were plans to have two minutes of silence.  "Two minutes," she replied?  "That's a long time!"

What, I thought? You believe that two minutes of silence is too long to pay respect to people who answered their country's call and paid with their lives?  Wow!  "No it's not," I replied flatly.  I believe I was wearing a Marine Corps baseball hat, but I can't say for sure.  This was a long time ago.

Regardless, I must have made an impact, because I recall her saying "Let me see what I can do," as 1.0, younger daughter, and I strolled into the high school gym.  At the appointed time, the emcee strolled to the center of the gym and welcomed everyone to the event, and said "Before we begin, I ask that we observe two minutes of silence in remembrance of those who made the ultimate sacrifice."

The room went completely silent.  Hats came off. Some heads bowed.  Children were shushed.  Two minutes was a long time.  As it should be.

I am reasonably confident that I single-handedly got this accomplished.

This May Come Back to Haunt Him

I read a news story this morning that Thomas Massie has been defeated in the Kentucky Republican primaries.  For those of you who are unfamiliar, Massie is a Republican US House Representative from Kentucky, and he's been a bit of a thorn in Trump's side because Massie has the audacity to have opinions and votes that are not in lock step with our illustrious leader.  In response to Massie's effrontery, the president made it his personal mission to ensure that Massie was removed from office, and replaced with someone who will kiss the ring.  This may come back to haunt our wannabee king.  Allow me to explain why:

Elections are really a two part process... the primary elections and the general elections.  The political parties select their party candidate during the primaries.  In other words, a bunch of Republican (or Democrat, or whatever party, but in this specific case, it's Republican) candidates say "I want to be your next elected official for this political office."  Voters who are registered members of that party choose their one candidate during the primaries.  Realistically speaking, what tends to happen is that only the most die-hard partisan voters select their party candidate and the end result is that the most rabid partisan is selected as that party's candidate.  To rephrase, Republicans usually vote for the most conservative candidate in their primaries, and Democrats select the most liberal candidate.  The end result is that you have two hyper-partisan candidates running in the general election.

Here's why Trump's move could come back to haunt him... he just replaced Massie with a yes man... right at the time where the country is showing signs of Trump fatigue.  Realistically, Massie could have swayed a good chunk of independent voters in the general election by playing up his willingness to break from the party.  This tends to work well during election cycles where we're not voting for president, and it tends to work even better during the second term of a president.  As an incumbent, Massie held a statistical advantage for reelection, meaning that Trump would have likely ended up with a Republican representative who would vote accordingly most of the time.  Instead, Trump is gambling that his anointed candidate will win the election, despite the fact that both candidates are newcomers, and despite the fact that the country is experiencing Trump fatigue.

I'd like to say that I'm not a guru.  In fact, when it comes to elections, I'm more often wrong than right.  So take my words with a grain of salt.  But I am aware of statistical trends, and this seems like a gamble.  It's a bet I wouldn't take if I were POTUS.  Yep, this may come back to haunt POTUS.  But then again, he's the billionaire president, and I'm just a disgruntled never-Trump constituent.