Thanks for your service

This is an edited update of a blog piece from last week. It’s edited to include a link to an article provided by a friend of mine, Chris Counts, in response to my original. (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/please-don’t-thank-me-for-my-service/ar-BBhPFEn) If you don’t want to read the whole piece (it’s not that long and worthwhile, IMO), it essentially confirms my original misgivings, at least for some vets. In addition, this updated version will be (re)posted on Facebook as a stand-alone article, and not, like the last time, as part of the “Comments” section to my original Facebook question/post. This typeface and style will denote the additions to the regular piece.

In part due to smarmy radio and television talking heads and politicians making a show of their patriotism by constantly thanking all past and present military for their service, I came to question whether “Thanks for your service” was always appropriate and well received. It seemed, to me, to have become sort of a pro forma statement, so I posted the following question on Facebook:

I have a question for my formers who are, or were, in the military. I had occasion to briefly interact with the son of a friend (also a former) who is currently serving. Because of my friendship with his mom, I've known him for a while and we've met before (didn't need to be introduced). After a brief conversation, we were saying our good-byes and I thanked him for his service. While sincere, that expression has seemed to become such a catch-phrase used so often that it sounds almost meaninglessly automatic, and, therefore, discounted. What is your reaction to being thanked in this way? Or am I overthinking again?

It would appear that, as is my wont, I was, indeed, overthinking – again.

What became clear was not only that is that statement well-received, the gratitude expressed is at least matched by the pride in their service, whether or not they view it as a sacrifice. Even when not seen as any kind personal sacrifice on their part, they recognized that for many of their brothers and sisters (both literal and in-arms), the service was indeed a sacrifice that deserves recognition.

There will always be exceptions, of course, but I hope, and do believe, that we have progressed as a country to the point where we can appreciate our servicemen and women while still, when necessary, separating their efforts on our behalf from whatever political decisions made by our government put them in harm’s way. The fact that they may have benefitted personally or professionally from their service does not discount its value to the rest of us.

So I will, when the opportunity presents itself, continue to express my thanks to our military men and women for their service to our country. That small token is the least that I can do. I will continue to support charities like The Wounded Warrior Project or St. Louis Honor Flight. Beyond that, I would hope that our politicians start doing more than wearing flag lapel pins and making speeches around election time; instead I hope they start keeping the promises, both implicit and implied, that have made not only to our soldiers but their families, as well (http://bobberndt.blogspot.com/2014/05/ought-to-be-no-brainer.html). That will take money and can’t be funded simply by cutting budgets or eliminating wasteful spending. We need to start recognizing the true and ongoing cost of maintaining – and supporting – our military and make decisions based on those numbers, not imaginary ones.

As one of the original commenters, a young man who has actually served, noted, it’s your sincerity that makes the difference. Any gratitude for anything, sincerely expressed, might be misunderstood or misinterpreted, but should never be a cause for regret or second-guessing. It is your responsibility to make sure that’s the case, however.

In the meantime, to all my friends and formers, as well as their families and extended families, my sincere thanks and appreciation for your service.

The Fallacious Fear of The Nanny State

Fear of an ever-encroaching “Nanny State” has been a common theme among conservatives for a number of years, as they bemoan the decline of personal and the growth of government responsibility, the loss of liberty to do what you want when you want, the right to the consequences of your own actions. I get it in theory, but there seems to me to be a fallacy in that thinking, one that has been brought to the fore as over the weekend GOP contenders Rand Paul and Chris Christie pandered with their answers about vaccinations. I was most disappointed with Christie who at least claims to be a “Damn the consequences, here’s what I believe” kind of politician.

There used to be another libertarian axiom, “Your freedom stops at the tip of my nose.” Those who claim to be most fearful of the growing nanny state seem to have forgotten, or just deliberately ignore (as so many seem to do with that sciencey stuff) such a concept. Too many of those trying to reclaim the primacy of personal responsibility ignore the far-reaching consequences of the irresponsible. It’s not government overreach if the majority are being protected from actions of the few that put us at risk.

I’d be happy to support your right to drive 110 mph (without a seat belt) if you guarantee that you will travel alone on this highway to hell and pay for the cleanup costs and damage to the infrastructure.

You don’t want to wear a helmet riding your motorcycle? Fine, I concede your right, but promise to die instead of living for months in a brain-dead coma, driving up health care costs for everyone (to say nothing of creating mental anguish for those who care about you).

Don’t want health insurance? Okay, but then don’t expect the hospital ER to treat you when you’re sick or injured. There is no such thing as “free care.” Someone is paying for it, and for a long time it’s been those who had health insurance. It’s why conservatives from the Heritage Foundation proposed mandatory coverage to solve what they called the “free rider” problem.

The ironic coalition of ultra liberals and anti-government conservatives joining forces in the anti-vax movement is mind boggling, but as long as the wackos are willing to solely associate (and infect) each other and not put at risk children with compromised immune systems, as long as they isolate their epidemic to their own group, I’ll grudgingly accede to their misguided notions. However, we protect children from bad parenting on so many other levels (and, having seen too much of the negative results of irresponsible parents firsthand, I might argue not often enough), I have my doubts about even this. And who will be paying for the children permanently damaged by their parents’ failure to vaccinate them? All of us.

I am a live and let live kind of person, but our society has become too interconnected, too complex, to allow the few to take actions that jeopardize the well-being of the many. It is never just your mess, never just your problem. The fallout from individual irresponsibility spreads throughout society. It may not have been what John Donne was really talking about when wrote “No man is an island,” but we do have obligations to our fellow human beings, even if those obligations interfere with what we want to claim as rights. It is the price we pay to live in the world today. Your claim to a freedom that jeopardizes my, or a loved one’s, health, safety, security, or future creates a problem that is beyond just you, a conflict that must be resolved in favor of the majority.

Any concept, pushed to its logical extreme, can be ridiculed, of course. That is precisely the tactic used by both fringes, to advocate for the positions of those who want either no government involvement or those who want the government to solve every problem. But the re-emergence of measles offers us the opportunity to discuss rationally the role and limits of government rules and regulations, as long as we don’t allow the slogan masters to slam the “nanny state” or “my freedom, my choice” doors in our faces.