Heroes

Another kid from Santa Rosa is coming home from the middle east in a box.

People call him a hero. Something bothers me about that. It makes me wince a little. Maybe it's the fact that they don't know anything about him, and tend to use that word "hero" in the same breath with words like "freedom" and "fighting terrorism," words our resident (I still have trouble including a "p" on the front of that word) has used over and over in a sanctimonious way to try to cover his lies about the war. In fact, whenever I hear that word "freedom" nowadays, I hear it spoken in W's simpering voice, and it becomes a simplistic, one-dimensional concept that has been drained of all of its original meaning. "Terrorism? That's people not like us." I think it has come to be mostly a synonym for "Islam."

Because in fact they are fighting a lot of things over there, but it doesn't seem like they're fighting terrorism, particularly, and I just don't see how they are defending freedom, by ANY stretch of the imagination.

Maybe it's the people I've known in my life who have chosen to go into the armed forces and police. Some of them really believe they are doing something noble, becoming peace-keepers and/or defending the concept of freedom. Others, well, they were bullies before and they remained bullies, in uniforms. They wanted to shoot guns and blow shit up, and maybe they even wanted to kill people. In regular society, that's not a hero. Somehow, you put a uniform on it and it's all cleaned-up and noble.

Or, they wanted a free education, someone to tell them what to do, some kind of structure in their lives, and really could be considered unwitting heroes when they found themselves one day sitting in a Hummer that happened to roll over an IED.

Heroism is more about the cause than the effect, isn't it? It's about your motives.

How much does an 18- to 22-year-old kid really understand about what it means to join the military and fight an old men's war? What do they really know about the principles on which this country was founded, that they are allegedly defending all those thousands of miles away?

But in a culture whose favorite pastimes include a game called "Guitar Hero," I guess I understand why people call these kids heroes.

I don't think you can automatically call a guy a hero just because he gets himself killed overseas. I think they deserve to get the benefit of the doubt to some extent--maybe this latest casualty WAS a hero--but I wouldn't automatically put them on a pedestal. And in any case, I wouldn't inflict the final indignity of putting Bush's vapid words in their mouths.

If one of these children had an uncommon understanding of world politics (or at least, say, a Harvard Business School edumacation), and no immediate financial need (oh, perhaps, was from a cushy Texas political family backed by Big Oil), and STILL left a promising future and gallons of alcohol and piles of cocaine, signed up and went overseas as a Private First Class...? Maybe THAT kid would be a hero.

Chill on the Anti-Warming

There seems to be a number of people (and I think that number is three, and they all post regularly [one might say obsessively] on the comment boards of the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat {pressdemo.com}) who are still and/or newly in denial about the global warming question.

They tend to cite one book--I've never seen anyone cite two--and tend to set it up against Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

They also tend to posit that the entire GW "thing" is a conspiracy by "libs" to "keep us from consuming," "prevent us from enjoying life," etc.

I admire these people for their ability to hold an idea against the overwhelming tide of scientific facts and opinion, but I have a few questions.

Is there more than one book that debunks this GW "thing"?

IF the whole thing is untrue, an evil plot by liberals, even if the world is COOLING, how does it follow that there is any wisdom in continuing to spew crap into the earth, air, and water of this planet? Conversely, Mr. Conservative, what would it hurt if we attempted to Conserve a little?

In other words, whether it's true or not, wouldn't it be better to act as if it were true than to act as if it weren't?

I'm just asking.

Citizen Manners

What is it that makes people think they are exempt from rules, laws, and ETHICS to which the rest of us are subject?

Why, at the park around the corner, with signs clearly posted at every entrance forbidding off-leash dogs, and with a dog park less than two miles away where dogs can run and play untethered with other dogs, does almost everyone but me walk their dog without a leash? This is a place I love and respect. It is not really a man-made park along the lines of a city park, so much as a careful intrusion into a sensitive wetland habitat, a place where humans are allowed to observe from the edge, if they're considerate and careful. I try to keep my silence while I walk Laika there, passing dog after loose unruly dog and owner after lazy, apathetic owner. I'm not the police here, not even a hall monitor set to rat on offenders, the better to smooch on the derriere of the nearest elected or appointed uniform. I don't even necessarily believe in blindly following all laws to the letter. But these regulations make SENSE here, especially in cumulative form. Maybe it would be okay if one person's dog ran free while they walked, in reasonable voice control. But one leads to ten leads to a hundred, and there's shit all over the trails, and loose animals that threaten my dog and who knows what wildlife creatures here.

I called a guy on it in the parking lot. His dog came directly up to us and completely ignored him while he called it. I pointed out the sign, thirty feet from his car, and tried to make it light, but the frustration of repeated offense boiled up a little, especially when HE got all pissed off at ME for calling him on it, and then when it was down to the F bomb with him after only three lines of dialog.

What is WRONG with people?