Tag Archives: Vietnam War

Lazarus Orwell

Lazarus – Hebrew, “God will help.”

“Name Your Baby”, Lareina Rule

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”

Winston Smith in “1984”, George Orwell

In the 1994 midterm elections, the Republican Party achieved something they hadn’t in nearly four decades: they won the majority of seats in both houses of congress.  And they won big; a “Super Majority” that clearly showed an early rebuke of President Bill Clinton’s agenda.  Newt Gingrich, a veteran politician from Georgia, was elected House leader.  At the start of 1995, Connie Chung, then co-anchor of the CBS Evening News, interviewed Gingrich’s parents at their home.  Puffing on cigarettes and speaking barely above a stage whisper, Gingrich’s mother, Kathleen, noted her son didn’t particularly like Clinton or First Lady Hillary Clinton.  In fact, she said, he had an extreme disdain for Hillary and said he’d called her a “bitch”.

The national reaction was explosive.  Gingrich himself never confirmed whether or not he’d actually said that, but condemned for taking advantage of two people who weren’t “media savvy”.  How media savvy does someone need to be, replied Chung, to know they’re speaking with a nationally renowned journalist and have three cameras set up around them?

But Chung had unknowingly orchestrated her own demise.  CBS almost immediately terminated her.

In 2004, as then-President George W. Bush was in the midst of his reelection campaign, Dan Rather, another veteran journalist and anchor of the CBS Evening News (Chung’s former colleague), dived into Bush’s so-called military record.  After graduating from Harvard in 1968, Bush immediately joined the Texas National Guard.  The Vietnam War was raging, and young men were being drafted into military service.  Getting a position in a National Guard unit was highly coveted and difficult to obtain.  According to…well, himself…Bush completed his first stint in the Guard in 1972 and reenlisted, before moving to Alabama to assist in the presidential campaign of George Wallace.  He then joined the Alabama National Guard and supposedly got suspended for missing an annual physical exam.  But what happened after that is largely unknown.  Bush’s records mysteriously disappeared.

Dan Rather had gained fame in 1961, as he delivered live coverage of Hurricane Carla’s landfall in Texas.  He began anchoring the CBS Evening News in 1981.  The outrage over his questions into Bush’s military service was palpable.  The same political and social conservatives who screamed over Bill Clinton’s lack of military service were suddenly offended with Rather’s report.

At the start of 2005, CBS dismissed Rather.  For the second time in a decade, the news conglomerate had allowed themselves to be intimidated by a key political figure.

All of that nonsense came to light recently, as controversy fell atop Stephen Colbert, host of “The Late Show” on CBS.  A few months ago Colbert interviewed Texas politician James Talarico who is running for U.S. Senate.  However CBS didn’t broadcast the interview.  Apparently CBS hadn’t heard of this thing called the internet and something else called YouTube.  Its legal advisors claimed the interview was in violation of the Federal Communication Commission’s Fairness Doctrine – a creed that mandates broadcast networks devote equal time to views on national issues.  Generally the rule applied only to news programs; talk shows were exempt because they were considered entertainment venues.

Until now.

If either previous presidents Bill Clinton or Barack Obama got upset every time a public media figure mocked or even criticized them, they’d be incarcerated for life in mental health hospitals.  In contrast the administration of current President Donald Trump is obviously of fragile spirit.  Colbert has been a vocal critic of the president.

CBS canceled “The Late Show”, which had been broadcasting since 1993.  Last week was the final telecast.  They claimed low ratings, but I don’t believe that.  My followers know what a strong free speech advocate I am.  It’s not just the writer in me – it’s the human being in my soul; someone born and raised in a country that values the right to speak freely.

Politicians utilizing their power to coerce a media into compliance or silence is the essence of totalitarianism.  Other countries allow this to happen.  China or Russia sound familiar?

I’ve never been a fan of Colbert, but I’m still angry over his show’s cancellation.  It’s obvious what happened.  But what should we, as free people, do about it?  How much of this madness are we supposed to tolerate?

1 Comment

Filed under Essays

Draft Well

Recently President Trump signed an Executive Order that will impact military readiness in the U.S.  Beginning in December 2026 all able-bodied males in the country will be automatically registered for Selective Service (the military draft) upon turning 18.  The late former President Jimmy Carter reinstituted the Selective Service system in 1980, requiring all males born in the U.S. since 1960 to register for the draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday.  A number of lawsuits against the system in the following decades have failed to reverse the policy.

The penalties for failing to register are severe:

  • Fines up to $250,000 and/or 5 years in prison.
  • Ineligible for federal jobs and many state, local, and municipal positions.
  • Ineligible for federal student financial aid (FAFSA), including Pell Grants and federal student loans.
  • Non-citizens can be denied citizenship (naturalization).
  • Roughly 40 states and Washington, D.C., deny driver’s licenses or renewal for non-registration.
  • Ineligible for training under the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Yes…a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison…for failing to register to serve (unwillingly) in the military of a nation that still maintains an incredibly unequal justice system and wealth structure.  (Understand that Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman each murdered someone and got away with it.)

Again, this system only applies to men. 

Now Trump wants to make it more difficult to evade compulsory military service.  Well…he should know.  Like his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, he did just about everything he could to avoid compulsory military service more than a half century ago.

One of my best friends, Preston*, has two 20-something sons and voted for Trump during all three of his presidential runs.  As the 2024 elections approached, he expressed concern that a Kamala Harris presidency would result in military action in Ukraine; meaning Harris would enact the military draft, and his sons could be impacted.  I was concerned about that, too, but I was more concerned that Trump would get back into office and take military action against Iran; the same way Bush invaded Iraq under the false pretense of protecting the world from an Iraqi-based nuclear war.

I was right.

Trump got into office and – under the guise of safeguarding the globe against an Iranian-inspired nuclear Armageddon, as well as defending Israel – attacked the Middle Eastern county.  Now, Preston is even more worried.

So am I.

In August of 1990, Iraq unexpectedly invaded Kuwait.  Fearful they were the next targets, the Saudi royal family fled their palaces and asked the U.S. for help.  As that year came to an end, then-President George H.W. Bush sent troops into the Saudi desert.  Ultimately Iraqi forces surrendered without much of a fight, but about 300 U.S. service personnel died in battle.  Shortly before the conflict erupted, Saudi leadership – still safely ensconced abroad – demanded that our people in uniform remove emblems of the U.S. flag from their attire.  They somehow found it offensive.  Bush bowed to the Saudi sheiks and ordered the removals.

Pull our boys out, was the first response from most U.S. citizens, including me.  It was an outrage.  If it hadn’t been for American demand for oil, the Saudis would still be living in ornate tents in the desert, picking sand fleas out of their ass.  The Bush family’s loyalty to the Saudi regime became apparent in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, when the Bush Administration allowed several Saudi nationals to leave the U.S., while other travelers remained trapped at airports and hotels.

Shortly before the Persian Gulf War began, I visited my local gym and heard one young man ask another, “Ready to go?” in reference to the conflict.

I was 27 then and thought it was a real possibility knowing our political leaders’ penchant for war.  My father – who had been drafted into the U.S. Army and sent to Korea nearly four decades earlier – was also concerned.  He became especially incensed when the Saudi royal family demanded U.S. military personnel remove the American flag emblems from their uniforms; cursing the clan in both English and Spanish.

Throughout Bill Clinton’s presidency, his right-wing adversaries condemned his lack of military experience; labeling him with that dreaded “draft-dodger” moniker.  From 1968 to 1970, he was a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford where he openly protested the Vietnam War.  But a large number of American expatriates did.  When he returned to his native Arkansas, he placed his name back into the draft lottery (to maintain his “political viability”) and drew a high enough number not to be sent into the conflict.

As the 2000 presidential election arose, conservatives were eager to prop up only one man: then-Texas Governor George W. Bush.  The eldest son of the nation’s 41st President, George H.W. Bush, the younger Bush graduated from Harvard in 1968 – and found himself eligible for military conscription.  He immediately managed to secure a position in the Texas Air National Guard (at a time when such spots were sparse and difficult to obtain).  After his initial four year stint was over, he reenlisted and then somehow was able to switch to the Alabama National Guard; in part, he later said, to work on the presidential campaign of George Wallace.  That second hitch should have been completed in 1976.  But no real record exists of Bush completing his service.  And then – as things tend to occur – misfortune arrived and Bush’s military records mysteriously disintegrated in a warehouse fire.

Bush’s Vice President, Dick Cheney, also came under scrutiny for his lack of military service.  During the 2000 campaign, Cheney declared he had “other priorities” during the Vietnam fiasco; receiving a number of draft deferments – mostly educational and one because he was a new father.

The same band of right-wingers who excoriated Clinton for his lack of military service weren’t so quick to demand a full accounting from either Bush or Cheney.  Also, in 2000, then Sen. John McCain sought the GOP nomination.  Coming from a long line of U.S. Navy officers, McCain served in Vietnam and was a pilot shot down over Hanoi in 1968, captured by enemy forces and held hostage for five years.  But the Bush political machine had the audacity to question not only McCain’s military service (which was there for all to see) but also his patriotism.  The same flag and country crowd who had demonized Clinton suddenly had no qualms belittling a real American military hero.

Now we come to Trump.  Donald “bone spurs” Trump.

No one has a desire to do something unpleasant – like pay taxes or wait in line at the grocery store.  And certainly nobody wants to go to war.  War is not just ugly; it’s stupid and pointless.

One Saturday evening in the late 1970s, my parents hosted a few friends over for a casual gathering.  Among them was a longtime male friend who brought along a young woman we hadn’t met before.  She seemed pleasant enough.  At some point, during a discussion, the subject of the Vietnam War came up.  The U.S. had just fled Vietnam in an ignominious defeat a few years earlier.  All of the men in the group had served in the U.S. military.  A few of them, including my father, had been drafted.  The aforementioned young woman mentioned that a young man she had been dating about a decade earlier had failed to heed his conscription notice and – apparently feeling intensely patriotic – reported him to some authority.  She said he got drafted anyway.

I remember the brief quiet that settled over our cavernous den.

“Wow,” my father finally muttered.  “How brave of you.”

And the conversation ended.

Don’t ask someone to do something you’re not at least willing to try – which is one reason why men have no business demanding women get pregnant.

I’m genuinely worried about Preston’s sons, as well as for any other young man who may get swept up into this conflict-laden world.  But I’m concerned for the greater population.  Despite all the patriotic bravado, the 2003 Iraq War really was about gaining access to the region’s oil.

I see the same outcome with Iran.

*Name changed

3 Comments

Filed under Essays

Oh, Hell No!

“It’s way beyond ironic that a place called the Holy Land is the location of the fiercest, most deeply felt hatred in the world.”

George Carlin

The Middle East – once again – is in turmoil.  Then again, the sky is blue, so tell me something I DON’T know.  Early on October 7, Hamas terrorists unexpectedly decided to attack a music festival in southern Israel.  The calamity resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, in what Israeli officials dub “Israel’s 9/11”.  It was the latest salvo in the millennia old conflict between Arabs and Jews in the region.  And the perpetually high tensions are only intensifying.

Israel severed utility services to the Gaza Strip where over two million Palestinians are crammed into a tiny area in apartheid-like conditions.  Meanwhile, Hamas is holding several Jewish hostages.  It’s a nasty stalemate with no viable end.

As usual, though, the United States has gotten involved by showing unmitigated support for Israel.  But President Joe Biden has gone even further and ordered two Navy aircraft carrier groups into the eastern Mediterranean to assist Israel with intelligence and reconnaissance.  Now comes word that Biden may actually send U.S. ground troops into the region to provide further backing in the form of advice and medical assistance.  That’s how our involvement in Vietnam got started more than six decades ago.  And to that I say hell no!

U.S. military involvement in the Israeli – Hamas imbroglio will only result in more animosity towards the U.S. from the Arab world.  In case anyone forgot, our most recent entanglement in the Middle East resulted in the deaths of millions of people.  Coming out of the tragedy of 9/11, we had a cowboy president who was aching to run out and bomb places.  That conflict – the Iraq War – was launched purely to gain access to the country’s valuable natural resources.  It was blood for oil.

If the U.S. sends ground troops into Israel, it will just be lots of blood.  And it won’t stop the relentless animosity that plagues the region.  Something else will erupt between the warring sides in the future.  That particular part of the globe has been a super-volcano of human interaction and for one primary reason – religion.  The Middle East is the birth place of the world’s three largest theologies – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  In other words, it’s a crime scene.

Hamas is definitely a terrorist group – and a cowardly one at that.  They hide among the innocent civilians of the Palestinian populace; people they swear to support but who are also captives.  But Israel isn’t exactly innocent.  Like the United States, Israel was established primarily by White Europeans seeking religious freedom who displaced many of the indigenous residents.

Ironically, though, because that area is the cradle of Judaism and Islam, people of both faiths can genuinely claim it as their homeland.  Supposedly Israel has proposed a two-state solution for decades, which Palestinians have allegedly rejected.

I have to highlight that Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East.  They maintain the highest standard of living and the lowest infant mortality in the region.  I mean, Israeli women can drive and vote and don’t have to dress up like beekeepers when they leave home!

Regardless, I don’t know why level heads won’t prevail amidst the anxiety and honestly I really don’t care.  The hate between both groups is like space – it’s infinite and never-ending.  I truly wish, though, they would stop fighting and start talking.  But because the bitterness has simmered for centuries and because religion is at the crux of it all, I just don’t see that happening within our lifetime.

Either way I just don’t want the U.S. to get militarily involved.  That will solve nothing!  It never has.

7 Comments

Filed under Essays

“Napalm Girl” at 50

Phan Thị Kim Phúc probably didn’t think anything of the photographer who snapped a photo of her running stark naked down a dirt road.  She was in excruciating pain and – as a child – had no idea what was going on around her.  The photographer, Nick Ut, certainly had no idea of what he had captured on film.  But that one single image of people scampering down a road in Trang Bang, Vietnam on June 8, 1972, following a napalm attack, captured the true horror of war and the carnage it unleashes upon innocent civilians.

For most Americans in 1972, the Vietnam quagmire had become unbearable.  Gone was the glamor and nobility of war as instilled by World War II.  Often called the “living room” war, Vietnam brought home the reality of what happens when nations can’t agree on what’s right and decide to fight it out like wild dogs.  In some ways, things haven’t changed.

Amazingly Phúc survived the attack and now lives in Canada.  She no longer views herself as that “Napalm Girl”.  But that she did live through such an event is a true testament to the human spirit – something no chemical can destroy.

3 Comments

Filed under Classics

Hypocrisy in Action

I’ve often noted that conservatives can be incredible hypocrites.  For years they said no divorcee would be elected to the presidency.  Then they got Ronald Reagan, the nation’s first divorced Chief Executive, whose wife was the nation’s first divorced First Lady.  They dubbed Bill Clinton a draft dodger and condemned him for protesting against the Vietnam War while he was in college.  Then they elected George W. Bush who earned a comfortable spot in the Texas National Guard in 1968 and failed to complete his tenure.  They also elected Dick Cheney who claimed he had “other priorities” during the 1960s.

Conservative hypocrisy has reared its bigoted head once again – this time in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.  Republican Senators Ted Cruz, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Rick Scott and Tommy Tuberville submitted the correspondence to Garland complaining about what they perceive to be a double standard in punishment by the U.S. Department of Justice against the January 6 Capitol Hill rioters.  In contrast, they declare, many of the various protestors to the George Floyd killing who became violent haven’t met the same degree of discipline.

In part, the letter states:

“DOJ’s (U.S. Department of Justice) apparent unwillingness to punish these individuals who allegedly committed crimes during the spring and summer 2020 protests stands in stark contrast to the harsher treatment of the individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. To date, DOJ has charged 510 individuals stemming from Capitol breach.  DOJ maintains and updates a webpage that lists the defendants charged with crimes committed at the Capitol. This database includes information such as the defendant’s name, charge(s), case number, case documents, location of arrest, case status, and informs readers when the entry was last updated.  No such database exists for alleged perpetrators of crimes associated with the spring and summer 2020 protests.  It is unclear whether any defendants charged with crimes in connection with the Capitol breach have received deferred resolution agreements.”

Please.  Spare me the anxiety.

The five angry White male senators don’t seem to understand the difference in the two events.  While some of the Floyd protestors devolved into rioting and vandalism, the original intent was to demonstrate against police violence; a recurring dilemma in the U.S.  The intent of the Capitol Hill rioters, however, was to disrupt congressional business and kill someone – most notably Vice-President Mike Pence.

Conservatives have warned about threats to national security posed by Islamic vigilantes and illegal immigrants for as long as I can remember.  But, these weren’t the people who stormed Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, as Pence oversaw certification of the 2020 presidential election.  The rioters were mostly White people – many of them former military and/or law enforcement – from across the country who felt their dear leader, Donald Trump, had been cheated out of a second term by a corrupt electoral system.  I can almost hear Al Gore and Hillary Clinton laughing.

But I don’t recall bands of angry liberals storming Capitol Hill in January 2001, demanding Al Gore be lynched.  I also don’t remember seeing similar renegades bursting into Capitol Hill in January 2017, calling for Joe Biden’s head.  And it’s obvious to most of us with more than half a brain that the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections were fraudulent.  Yet conservatives denounced anyone voicing their disdain to those two events as whiners and sore losers.  We were justified, though, in protesting.  But we never got violent.  No one smashed windows, kicked in doors and hollered for blood to be spilled.  Neither Al Gore nor Hillary Clinton stood before angry supporters, urging for violent retribution against Congress.

It’s ironic, however, that Merrick Garland is in a leadership position.  Five years ago President Obama nominated him to replace Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Republicans – who held a majority in the Senate – refused to grant Garland the decency of a fair hearing.  Yet, they rushed through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett last year, following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Again – hypocrisy in action.

1 Comment

Filed under History

Sacred Burn

“You want to do what?”

I knew my father wouldn’t like the idea of me joining the military, but the look in his eyes shivered my soul.  That was easy for many people to do to me in the late 1980s, when I had little self-esteem and little self-respect.  I had hoped joining the U.S. Marine Corps could cure me of that.  Along with my alcoholic and same-sex tendencies.  Besides, life was not going well for me at the age of 24.  I had changed majors in college three years earlier and was nowhere near graduating.  Both my parents were upset that I’d decided to study filmmaking instead of computer science.  But, after 3 ½ years of pretending both to know what I was doing and enjoying it, I had cracked in the spring of 1985 and made the bold switch.  As high school-only graduates, my parents had imbued me – their only child – with grand ambitions.  Their ambitions.  Their dreams.  They thought my writing was just a hobby to pass the time.  They never realized I’d considered it seriously in my private cogitations.  But filmmaking?  I might as well have said I wanted to be a professional gambler.

Then came the military idea.  By 1988, I was truly at a loss of where I was going.   Still, my father insisted I finish college and earn a degree – any degree.  Especially one he and my mother found acceptable.  They had reluctantly come to accept my detour into film studies.

But the military?

After the debacle of Vietnam, the concept of military service fell out of favor with many young Americans.  It was fine if dad and granddad had done it.  But not the new generation.  Things had changed considerably by the 1980s.  It was not socially fashionable.  The thing to do was to get a good job – establish a career, rather – and make lots of money and live in a nice house with plenty of beautiful clothes and a new vehicle every year or two.  That’s what my parents had wanted when they began pushing me to study computer science as I neared high school graduation.  I felt I had no choice then.  And, even by 1988, I still felt I had no real choice.  I gave into my father’s wishes (demands) and decided to continue college.

Sadly, though, I dropped out and entered the corporate world in 1990 – always with the thought that I’d return to compete that higher education.  Which I did.  In 2008.

I loved my father, but I wished I’d actually rebelled against his insistence and joined the military anyway.  I feel now that my life would have gone much more smoothly overall.

All of that began coming back to me nearly 20 years ago, as the U.S. plunged itself into two new conflicts: Afghanistan and Iraq.  The scorn I once felt for the military had metamorphosed into respect and awe.

And it’s become even more apparent since the election (via Russia) of Donald Trump.  This week Trump has found himself embroiled in more controversy regarding the U.S. military.  Most of us remember that moment in 2015, when then-candidate Trump disparaged U.S. Senator John McCain by stating, “I like people who weren’t captured.”  It was a direct smack-down of McCain’s brutal tenure as a war prisoner during Vietnam.  Under normal political circumstances, that would have ended most political campaigns.  But Trump persevered and, despite that comment and the fact he garnered a medical deferment during the same period because of some mysterious bone spurs, he went on to win the Republican Party’s nomination and eventually the presidency.  Could the nation have picked a more disrespectful dumbass to be our leader?

Now come reports that Trump disparaged the U.S. war dead during a visit to France in November of 2018 to mark the end of World War I.  Allegedly, he denounced the long-dead servicemen as “losers” and “suckers”.  Of course, these are just accusations.  But, while some high-ranking officials have come forward to state they don’t recall Trump ever making those statements, others have declared our Commander-in-Chief did say those things.

And that’s the irony of this entire debate, isn’t it?  The President of the United States is the literal head of all branches of the U.S. military.  Any national leader holds that role.  Thus, for the President of the United States to denigrate war dead as “losers” and “suckers” just sort of undermines his credibility – presuming, of course, that he had any in the first place.

But Trump doesn’t.  He’s already been proven a draft dodger (something conservatives so easily lobbed at Bill Clinton nearly 30 years ago), a tax cheat, a womanizer (another conservative slam against Clinton) and a failed businessman.

It was obvious to me more than five years ago Trump wasn’t fit to be the leader of the proverbial free world.  His actions and his verbiage have proven that to many others since.  While it amazes me that so many go into orgasmic-like frenzies at the mere mention of his name, I find him beyond appalling.  He’s just downright disgusting.

Our people in uniform can’t legally criticize their Commander-in-Chief in a public setting, but I certainly have no problems with it.  Trump’s words fail to surprise me anymore.  It’s just more proof of his mental instability and blatant incompetence.  All of that is bad enough.  But blatant disrespect for the millions of Americans who have served in uniform – including my father, other relatives and friends – is one of the most despicable things anyone can do.  Whether or not they are President of the United States.

Image: Spreadsheet

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Wait? We have.

I looked at Tom* with what he later described as a scowl.  “Are you serious?” I asked.

“Um…yeah,” was his only reply.  He then looked embarrassed – almost as if he realized he’d just said the wrong thing.  Or, in this case, just pissed me off.

It was the fall of 2002, and we’d known each other for a few years and been roommates since May.  Things weren’t turning out as well as I’d hoped.  Pooling resources is supposed to help people get through tough time.  So far, the only thing that had turned out well was the new puppy he got in August, after the death of his last dog.

I like Tom – for the most part.  You never really know someone unless you either spend the night with or move in with them.  Tom and I had never spent the night.  I do have standards!  But Tom was smart and highly-educated; something of a wild man with few bounds.

He was a little like me: a native Texan of mixed ethnicity (in his case, German and Indian) who graduated high school in 1982 and attended the University of North Texas (although I didn’t arrive there until 1984).  But he was more conservative, and our political discussions on race and gender often went sideways with his right-wing logic.

This evening’s conversation was a perfect example.  I can’t remember what set it off, but I had mentioned that the modern civil rights movement “had to occur”; that it had to take place.  He refuted that claim; calmly stating that it had been completely unnecessary; that eventually society would “come around” and realize it was only fair to give all people a chance; that folks just “needed to wait”.

Thus, my…scowl.

“Wait?”  People had already waited – more than 400 years, from the arrival of the first Europeans to the 1950s, when Martin Luther Kind launched his quiet revolution.

People had waited through the American Revolution, the U.S. Civil War, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam.  People had waited through every major political and social event since the Salem Witch Trials for an equal place in American society.  People had waited through the name-calling, beatings, shootings, stabbings, lynchings and relocations.

People had waited.  Long enough.  And that’s why everything finally exploded in the 1960s.  I believe the catalyst was the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  Just a few years into the decade, the first U.S. president born in the 20th century was cut down by a delusional madman (or a cavalcade of them, depending on who you ask); thus squelching a promising future to an American that was moving irreversibly forward.  But the centennial of the Civil War – a conflict about one group of humans owning another group, not property – helped fuel the embers of dissatisfaction.  People had finally said, ‘I’ve had it.  This is it.  We’ve done everything possible to make ourselves valuable and worthy of a seat at that great American banquet table.’

And, in the midst of the mayhem, old White fools like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan stood around saying, ‘I don’t know why they’re so upset.  They live in a free country.’

Define free.

A high school English teacher once said all that happened in the 1960s was boiling in the 1950s.  The Korean War – the sadly “forgotten war” – was a blight in an otherwise great decade.  It was marked by the creation of the grandest economy at the time and included the seminal Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.

Tom didn’t know what to say to me after my rant.  It was more of a lecture.  I can get emotional with those sensitive issues, but I’d maintained my decorum – each of us standing there in boxer shorts chugging beers.  He was truly speechless – a rarity for him.  But alas… he had to concede I was right.  Or more, that he could see my point.

Wait…no longer.

*Name changed

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays