And now, I interrupt the levity.

On Memorial Day, we honor those who have “fallen” and “given their lives” and “paid the ultimate sacrifice” in battle. That is, the patriotic soldiers who were shot or blown up by the patriotic soldiers of other countries.

On this day, let me say this, and let me say it loud.

In America we have this idiotic notion that if we say that the Iraq war is a massive blunder, then the dead soldiers will have died in vain, and we can’t say that.

Not only can we say that, we must. THEY DIED IN VAIN. And you SHOULD get angry about that because THAT IS THE POINT. They died for no reason, for a lie. And they are continuing to die for no reason because too many people don’t get outraged at the lie, they get outraged at the guy saying it was a lie. You should get angry at the people who manufactured “evidence” in order to send the soldiers there. Get angry at how those same people failed to make any kind of realistic plans about how to wage this war. That they ignored countless warnings about the massive catastrophe they were embarking upon. And they continue to keep those soldiers there and hunger to send more because they can never never never take any responsibility for their actions.

And then they tell you that if you say anything about it, you are unpatriotic and hate America and are getting those soldiers killed. So you go along with it. You claim there are good solid reasons for those people to die. And that those deaths are noble and honorable and worthy.

They are not. They are wastes of those peoples’ lives. Lives that could have been better spent in other efforts. Lives that, while not valuable to the warmongers, were valuable to their friends and families and communities.

Stop confusing the soldiers with the war. Stop letting people who couldn’t be bothered to serve in the military themselves tell you about the noble sacrifices of soldiers. The architects of this war didn’t feel that service was worthy of them, yet they insist that you insist it is worthy for others. And because one reckless, ill-planned war is not enough, they now have their eyes on a second target.

In short, you, the war supporter, are sending off men and women to die for no good reason simply so you don’t have to admit you were wrong.

It’s okay to be wrong. It’s not okay to continue to make others die for it. We must stop this war and bring its perpetrators to justice. No one should be allowed to get away with sending people to die simply to feed their massive egos and foolish dreams.

If you truly want to honor those that have died in this war, you will do what you can to make sure no one else dies in it.

The other day our channel-surfboard stopped on some Discovery Channel show about how stuff is made, and for a few minutes we were educated in the manufacturing process of some long corrugated plastic tubes used, I think, for gardening or something.

What struck me was the utter lack of humans in the process. Machines and robots mixed the plastic compound, molded it into shape, rolled up the tubes, measured, cut, and secured it all. At one point a human did appear, who took the tube from one machine and put it on another, making me think that maybe one of the robots had the day off.

Now, I’m not going to say that robots shouldn’t be taking jobs from humans. I’m all for it. The more robots we can get doing repetitive, uninteresting tasks, the better. And double win if we can get robots to build each other, though always being careful to ensure their anti-evil computer chips are well-secured. We’ve all seen Spider-Man 2.

In a perfect world, this would be a great advancement. Hooray, we don’t have to do this mind-numbing bullshit anymore! But this is not a perfect world, this is America. And in America, a human’s sole purpose on Earth is to work for wages. So in America, when a robot takes away your tedious job, you suffer enough to want the tedious job back. That tedious job is how you get food, shelter, clothing, transportation, beer, comics, records, DVDs, books, kitchen utensils, furniture, toilet paper, and so forth. Oh, and health insurance, since we’ve decided that must be tied to a job.

“Labor-saving” became a huge buzzword in the 50s, especially around the house. The new breeds of ovens, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, and so forth promised housewives oodles more time away from housework. It didn’t happen. Today, we have more labor-saving devices than ever. Computers and automation have made formerly all-day tasks doable in seconds. And yet, people are busier than ever. Or at least “busier”. The person who lost their job to the robot now may have to work two jobs now to make up for the lost income. Or maybe, because there are more displaced workers than jobs, that person has no job at all.

This is insane. This is completely opposite of how it should be. A society like ours, up to our eyeballs in things that make our lives easier should have tons of free time in which to read, play, explore, learn, create, and just enjoy life. How have we allowed this kind of madness to be considered normal? Why do we put up with this? We’re sitting in a proverbial Eden, and yet still tilling the soil because someone is not letting us pick fruit off the trees. Who has done this? And why do we let them?

Lately, in a lot of different discussions on a lot of different topics, ranging from comics to homosexuality to religion, I’ve heard an argument over and over, which can be distilled down to this:

“Just sit down and be quiet and wait until the nice man lets you have your turn to speak.”

In other words, you should never shout to be heard. You should never interrupt anyone else. Don’t say anything distasteful…you don’t want to offend your audience when talking about, say, the inhumanity of torture. There’s no need for name-calling or sarcasm because that will just bias people against you. Don’t rock the boat, don’t make waves, don’t talk out of turn, and eventually you will have a chance to make your reasoned, non-emotional, quiet plea for what you want.

This seems to be a perfect prescription for success, if your goal is to not meddle with the status quo.

Wake up, folks. The nice man isn’t going to let you have a turn. There may not be enough time at the end of the presentation for your questions. He would love to stay and chat but he’s got somewhere to be that he’s already late for. Your call will not be answered.

Make noise.

…I got a raise. And a title change. I’m now the “Direct Marketing Technical Coordinator”, where “Coordinator” equals “Whozit”. Thanks John!

Included in the paperwork I signed notifying me of this is this part that I had to sign:

I have reviewed this salary change notification and discussed the contents with my manager. I acknowledge that it is company policy that all salary information is strictly confidential. My signature below means that I have been informed of my salary and review status, and that I will not discuss my compensation with any member of [the place I work] or with anyone outside of my immediate family.

I once read somewhere that sex, politics, and religion are not the three most taboo conversation subjects in America. People will happily talk about them. You want to get them to shut up, though, you ask them what their salary is. And now, not only would I be breaking the rules of society if I mentioned what I was getting now, but I’d be breaking the rules of my company. I could get fired for telling you guys what I’m paid.

Isn’t that weird? Seems like that’s my business, free for me to tell should I choose, no? And where there might not be any reason you in particular might want to know this, wouldn’t it be helpful for my co-workers and myself to share this information with each other? After all, if Jane is doing what I’m doing or more and making less, she should be able to address this with management. But she can’t, because we can’t share this information.

Has it occurred to you that secret salaries are probably not in the best interest of workers? Other folks have noticed this, as you can read here.

For me the most interesting part of that post are some of the comments. I’ve long been having a blog post percolating in my head about how perverse this country’s view of work and employment are, and some of these comments add fuel to it. The Company will provide. The Company knows what’s best. When you are but food for worms, The Company will endure.

And your salary is just a little secret between you and The Company.

While I was away, and not paying as close attention to the Internet as I usually do, a bit of a tempest in a tile bag erupted over at one of my usual haunts, BoardGameGeek. I didn’t actually witness all the events, and a lot of the stuff is gone now, but it was something that was brewing for some time and there’s enough fallout in evidence that I’m pretty sure I knew what went down.

I’ve been a member of several virtual communities in my time, from BBSes to the Something Awful forums to the Straight Dope forums to BGG. Any online watering hole of any import develops this particular brouhaha sooner or later, often several times over the course of its existence.

What happens is this: some user starts saying things that the person or persons who run the place don’t like. The “owner,” for want of a better word, usually first asks that people not say these things. When they persist, the owner will sometimes delete or edit messages to remove the material to which he objects. In extreme cases, users get banned. At any point the original user and often others will start complaining about censorship. The complaints will get louder and louder, with references to Nazi Germany, Political Correctness, and Stalinist Russia being thrown about.

Without exception, every time I have seen this happen, every single time, it’s all started for the same reason: someone wants to be an asshole. The outraged user being “suppressed” is always someone who wants to be free to be a complete asshole in the community. Your first clue is the whole “Political Correctness” thing. As soon as someone starts complaining about that, it’s almost always because someone is not letting them be racist, sexist, or just a jerk in general.

Sure enough, this particular little dramafest was sparked by people who felt that a site primarily about board games should be expanded to include insulting other users. Aldie, the guy who pretty much runs the show over there, felt otherwise. I don’t know if anyone got banned, but there’s one guy who is now parading around exclaiming how he’s going to destroy his account by “scratching the email and using a nonsense password”. This is his protest of the site’s crushing of free speech.

Now, I’m a card-carrying ACLU member. I firmly believe that freedom of speech means freedom to say even idiotic things. I understand that sometimes we have to defend even that which we find abhorrent, lest our freedoms become meaningless. I’ve also seen enough of these debates that I can recite by heart all the arguments about the semantics of the word “censorship,” how public a public forum is, blah blah blah ad nauseam. As much of a loony liberal I am, though, I have to say that I just can’t muster up any sympathy for assholes. And I’m not just using that word because I don’t like these folks, it’s because that’s exactly what’s going on. These are the guys who see themselves as straight-talking, free-thinking, politically incorrect, call-em-like-they-see-em, no beating around the bush assholes. They’ll be proud to be called an asshole. They might even pull out that old canard, “I may be an asshole, but at least I’m honest about it!” as though that somehow makes it better. And if you can’t take their in-your-face style, well that’s just your problem. You just need to “suck it up”, “grab a pair”, “quitcher bitchin”, “cowboy up”, and quit being so “PC”. Somehow you not wanting them to be an asshole makes you the jerk.

This bizarre outpouring of hostility over on BGG had been brewing in odd ways, as you can imagine on a site that mostly talks about boardgames. It seems to be stemming — as these things always do — from just a few people. A few people who want to hold everyone else hostage by hiding behind the first amendment, a few people who tell everyone else to quit whining but will be the first to squeal when their “rights” are being violated. I’ll happily put my liberal credentials aside to declare the place is better off without them.

Everyone has a right to free speech. Everyone also has a right to remain silent. Unfortunately too few people use that second one.

Flush with the success of the U.S. State Quarters series, the mint is looking to finally conquer the challenge that has so far defeated it: making a dollar coin people will use.

Presidents, Well Known or Not, Will Have Their Day on a Dollar

The United States Mint is unveiling four designs for one-dollar coins today, featuring likenesses of the first four presidents. They begin a series that is to last a decade and portray every deceased president.

The first coin, displaying George Washington on one side and the Statue of Liberty on the other, will go into circulation in mid-February, in time for Presidents’ Day. After that, coins with John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison will be issued at three-month intervals.

Here are the designs for the new coins:

What’s interesting is, just the other day, inspired by this video, I was lamenting that all our coins suck and I’d love to have some awesome chunky coins. Lo, here’s almost my wish!

You may recall that the last time our country tried this was the Sacagawea dollar. For some reason, people never took to this coin, and the mint is hoping to avoid a similar problem with the Presidollars:

The size, color and metal content of the $1 coins will be identical to those of the current Sacagawea dollars, but their luster should last longer because of a new anti-tarnishing compound that will be applied to blank coins between the time they are annealed, or softened by heating, and struck with the design.

So it looks like they solved that aesthetic problem of having the gold finish tarnish easy, making the coin unattractive. Let’s hope that also solves the problem of Americans, in general, not being crazy about dollar coins. (I used to be one of those who felt that a dollar coin was a solution to a problem we didn’t have, but I’ve been shown the light and would welcome some good solid coinage.)

They also solved the problem of not having a dead white guy be on the coin. Ms. Anthony and Ms. Gawea both failed to excite the public, so the mint’s back to what it does best…putting the same white guys on the money. You’ll never go poor at the U.S. Mint if you can draw a good Thomas Jefferson! You know, other countries don’t limit their money designs to just their past leaders. Wouldn’t it be nice if, instead of honoring the same people over and over, we threw some honor to other people who happened to be great Americans, if not Presidents?

You wanna give me a dollar coin I’d really look forward to having? Give me this one:

I have a dream that someday we’ll realize that there are people out there who deserve honor more than William Henry Harrison.

When one thinks of a “hero,” often a “superhero” such as Superman springs to mind. But is Superman truly heroic? How heroic is it to stand up to guys with guns knowing that their bullets can’t harm you? Heroism, it seems to me, involves some level of personal risk and awareness of the possibility of failure. A hero does what he believes needs to be done, even though it may endanger him and even though his attempt may fail. The hero puts aside his own safety and comfort to benefit others. Sometimes, only to benefit others.

Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith was the first soldier in the Iraq war to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor, awarded for his bravery and heroism under fire. The Medal had not been awarded since 1993. Sadly, he was awarded it posthumously, as he died in his actions.

What Paul Smith did on April 4, 2003, was climb aboard an armored vehicle and, manning a heavy machine gun, take it upon himself to cover the withdrawal of his men from a suddenly vulnerable position. Smith was fatally wounded by Iraqi fire, the only American to die in the engagement.

On November 10 of this year, another soldier was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

On April 14, 2004, in Iraq near the Syrian border, [Cpl. Jason L. Dunham] used his helmet and his body to smother an exploding Mills Bomb let loose by a raging insurgent whom Dunham and two other Marines tried to subdue.

The explosion dazed and wounded Lance Cpl. William Hampton and Pfc. Kelly Miller. The insurgent stood up after the blast and was immediately killed by Marine small-arms fire.

“By giving his own life, Cpl. Dunham saved the lives of two of his men and showed the world what it means to be a Marine,” said Bush.

Never mind what you may think about the Iraq war or the reasons those soldiers were over there in the first place. There’s no doubt that, at the crucial moment, they were thinking neither about defending American freedom nor being deceived about Iraq. They saw a threat to their comrades and they placed themselves in front of it, losing their lives in the process. How many of us would be able to do the same?

There’s a third person I would like to talk about here, by the name of Malachi Ritscher. Like those two soldiers, Malachi was not responsible for the Iraq war, but it was a part of his life. From all accounts, Sgt. Smith and Cpl. Dunham were soldiers who served in the Iraq War (referred to, by the way, as “the Long War” in the article I found on Cpl. Dunham) out of a sense of duty. Ritscher was a citizen who opposed the Iraq War out of conscience. The soldiers fought in the war, hoping their individual actions would bring about a greater good. Ritscher protested it with the same goal. In the “Long War” there are no doubt times when an individual soldier will look around at what’s going on around him and wonder if it’s all hopeless, if anything can be done to end the conflict. It’s possible that Dunham and Smith felt this way at times. Ritscher almost certainly felt that any actions to try and end the war might be futile.

The actions of Sgt. Smith and Cpl. Dunham are described as “above and beyond the call of duty”. Nobody ordered Smith to take over that machine gun, and it’s doubtful that any officer would give a command to Cpl. Dunham to throw himself onto a grenade. Likewise, the actions of Malachi Ritscher were prompted solely by himself. He saw something he felt needed to be done to save others, and he did it.

He set himself on fire and burned himself to death.

In December 2002, the city of Chicago dedicated a statue called “The Flame of the Millennium”– a seven-ton, stainless-steel, abstract rendering of a flame in high wind, standing over the Kennedy Expressway, just west of the downtown Loop. Last Friday, November 3, the statue appeared to be on fire. When authorities got there, they found a video camera, a canister of gasoline, a sign reading “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, and a human body so badly charred that it was impossible to determine its sex. Someone had self-immolated, near a highway off-ramp, amid rush-hour traffic….According to the statements left on his website, 52-year-old Malachi Ritscher had set himself on fire to protest the war in Iraq and the politics that allowed it to happen.

We don’t know if Sgt. Smith and Cpl. Dunham knew or even thought about their actions having fatal consequences. It’s difficult to imagine thinking you’re going to survive a grenade exploding under you. Malachi Ritscher knew for certain that he would die; that was his intention. And he would have every reason to doubt that his action would change anything. Yet he did it anyway. Like the soldiers, he gave the most precious possession he owned — his life — to try and save his comrades.

Do a Google news search for Malachi Ritscher and you’ll find very few stories. The Chicago Sun-Times mentioned it briefly here. Columnist Richard Roeper then decided that, “his last gesture on this planet was his saddest and his most futile” in this column. The Chicago Tribune apparently missed the entire story, as did any major newspaper further away than Milwaukee. His act has gone largely ignored.

Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith and Cpl. Jason L. Dunham have been rightfully honored for selfless acts of courage. In a sudden moment of crisis, they searched inside themselves and found the ability to sacrifice their lives for a greater cause. Malachi Ritscher found the same ability, though he was allowed more time to think about the results of his actions, and went ahead with them anyway.

You may think he was insane, or stupid, or cowardly, or traitorous. Some may say it’s an outrage to link his name to the Medal of Honor winners. But could you do what he did? Would you give your life to try and change a bad situation?

—

Sources:

Malachi Ritscher, 1954-2006

Iraq hero joins hallowed group

First Long War Marine to receive Medal of Honor

Suicide Note of Malachi Richter (sic)