The Final Farewell

On this, Memorial Day, I thought the following would be of interest. I used to have the honor of presenting what could be called the final farewell to a number of servicemembers, who all too soon, were called to serve at that final duty station.

Origins of "Taps"

During the Civil War, in July 1862 when the Army of the Potomac was in camp, Brig. Gen. Daniel Butterfield summoned Pvt. Oliver Wilcox Norton, his brigade bugler, to his tent. Butterfield, who disliked the colorless "extinguish lights" call then in use, whistled a new tune and asked the bugler to sound it for him. After repeated trials and changing the time of some notes which were scribbled on the back of an envelope, the call was finally arranged to suit Gen. Butterfield and used for the first time that night. Pvt. Norton, who on several occasions, had sounded numerous new calls composed by his commander, recalled his experience of the origin of "Taps" years later:

"One day in July 1862 when the Army of the Potomac was in camp at Harrison's Landing on the James River, Virginia, resting and recruiting from its losses in the seven days of battle before Richmond, Gen. Butterfield summoned the writer to his tent, and whistling some new tune, asked the bugler to sound it for him. This was done, not quite to his satisfaction at first, but after repeated trials, changing the time of some of the notes, which were scribbled on the back of an envelope, the call was finally arranged to suit the general.

"He then ordered that it should be substituted in his brigade for the regulation "Taps" (extinguish lights) which was printed in the Tactics and used by the whole army. This was done for the first time that night. The next day buglers from nearby brigades came over to the camp of Butterfield's brigade to ask the meaning of this new call. They liked it, and copying the music, returned to their camps, but it was not until some time later, when generals of other commands had heard its melodious notes, that orders were issued, or permission given, to substitute it throughout the Army of the Potomac for the time-honored call which came down from West Point.

In the western armies the regulation call was in use until the autumn of 1863. At that time the XI and XII Corps were detached from the Army of the Potomac and sent under command of Gen. Hooker to reinforce the Union Army at Chattanooga, Tenn. Through its use in these corps it became known in the western armies and was adopted by them. From that time, it became and remains to this day the official call for "Taps." It is printed in the present Tactics and is used throughout the U.S. Army, the National Guard, and all organizations of veteran soldiers.

Gen. Butterfield, in composing this call and directing that it be used for "Taps" in his brigade, could not have foreseen its popularity and the use for another purpose into which it would grow. Today, whenever a man is buried with military honors anywhere in the United States, the ceremony is concluded by firing three volleys of musketry over the grave, and sounding with the trumpet or bugle "Put out the lights. Go to sleep"...There is something singularly beautiful and appropriate in the music of this wonderful call. Its strains are melancholy, yet full of rest and peace. Its echoes linger in the heart long after its tones have ceased to vibrate in the air."

photo and text curtsey Military District of Washington.

Smoke, Smoke, Smoke, That Cigarette.

"They" kept telling me smoking was bad, evil, and nasty.

Then at the ripe old age o' 15 I snuck a pack of dads Kents, and tried em. What the f***! I didn't get sick, I caught a(the first of many) nicotine buzz. Hmmmm perhaps smoking was not all that bad.

Well, 1000's of cartons later, I'm finding I get winded much sooner with little or no effort. And the joints are much stiffer, my feet stink and I don't love Jesus. Could smoking be the cause?

BUTT, the real cause(s)to my problems are as follows.

1. I don't exercise nearly as much as I did when in the Navy. So, with no daily running or calisthenics...you's gonna get outta shape and find shortness of breath comes quicker than it used to.

2. I'm getting older(the "and wiser" part seems to be lagging behind that..but that's another story). So the old habits (some call em vices I prefer "character enhancers") are starting to leave their marks. Again, perhaps watching the diet a tad closer and exercising would reverse or at least slow down the aging process.

"Well, it could be that the nasty cigarette companies are the ones that caused you all your physical problems...they caused you to become addicted to their vile product." WHOOOAAAHH hold it right there! I don't recall anyone twisting my arm to either start smoking or to continue to do so for all these many years. And I'll be damned (ok, so that's redundant,being guilty of most all the seven deadly sins at one time or another) if I am going to have the nanny state (federal or People's Repulic of Illinois) tell me what to do with my ol' grizzled carcass.

"Oh, but think about the children!" "All that second hand smoke"....Sheesh you anti-smoking Nazis just don't quit (note to self, give em a tad more "lead" before returning fire). Now, when I am in a restaurant, if there is any question my smoke may be wafting into anyone's immediate space, I will ask before lighting up. (This assumes the smoking and non smoking areas are adjacent to each other) If it is in a bar/tavern/nightclub, unless I know the people I am with don't smoke, I'm gonna smoke em if I got em. BTW, recent studies that you can findhere and here would indicate that much of the data used from past studies was manipulated (what a surprise...NOT) by either government agencies or anti-smoking groups.

All this ranting ...oh, check out what an Air Force blogger, who goes by the handle of "Blackjack", feels about the same thing. (And read the rest of his stuff too, just hide the beverages if you value your screen/keyboard.) Think it's time for a smoke break. Later, all.

Lest We Forget

First off, a major tip of the "whitehat" to Kate for the "heads up".

Monday while you are out and about enjoying the day, take a minute to remember. You can go here and see how the rest of the country is taking part in remebrance. Or perhaps just a quite moment of remembrance and reflection to pause and honor those who gave that last full measure of devotion so we could continue to enjoy the freedoms, that we hold so dear, today.

Fair Winds and Following Seas to all my shipmates and fellow servicemen you are not forgotten.

The Little Man In The Boat

No.....not *that* little man in the boat, rather I speek of John F'n Kerry, who's actions have finally caused his so called band of brothers to disown him. They don't take this action lightly nor are they, as a collective group, aligned with any political party. They are the ones who served with him, or were his direct chain of command, while he was in Viet Nam.

It would appear after all is said and done, charactor matters after all. And it seems INDC is on top of this too. But go and download here and here their story in video form. Then grab a beverage and listen to the men who know the truth. Kerry was indeed the little man in the boat, and he grows smaller with each passing day.

Just A Matter Of Time?

Just took a look at the latest from townhall.com, and this caught my eye. Now I am not the most religious person in the world, or even here in the hinterlands of northern Illinois, but this got the little hairs on the back of my neck to stand up.

Looking deeper, it is more then "just a religious issue". It is a "hate crimes" issue. And to a lesser extent a PC concern as well.

Now before we get too deep into this, being you all don't know me (or you just might, then I am really in dutch), let me get a couple o' things off my chest. I am gonna say it loud and clear,so there is no misunderstanding, there is no such thing as a hate crime! Since when were we in the business of being "thought police" and arresting/trying/convicting individuals based on what they think? Before you all get your knickers in a knot understand this; If a couple of knothead knuckledragers go break in to someone's house, take the stereo, and decide to whip-up on the person that owns same, just because that person happens to be gay, should not make a difference. They should be charged with trespassing/theft/assault/battery and any other criminal code they may have broken in the carrying out of their deeds. It should not matter what their intent was. What matters is the result/consequence of their actions that is culpable. Now, if it can be proven there was pre mediation, then you could upgrade to "aggravated". You still are not charging them for what they "thought" but rather, on the "successful" carrying out of a planed series of actions. There is a difference. Once we start legally prosecuting based on thought, it is only a matter of time before it isn't just "hate" that is looked at as a factor in the commission of a crime.

Which leads us to the link above. Yes blame Canada for this. The Canadian Senate passed bill C-250(and more detail here), by a vote of 59 to 11. In passing this legislation, the Canadian Parliament added "sexual orientation" to the nation's laws criminalizing "hate speech." The end result is that the Bible may now be considered a form of criminalized hate literature and Christians who teach that homosexuality is sinful may face criminal charges....

"So what", you say, "That's Canada, and not here. We have freedom of speech and religion." Do we? Try exercising your free speech rights on any major college campus. If it doesn't conform to what is considered "politically correct", stand by. If you take the opposite position on gay marriage, for example, at the very least you can expect to be called a "hate monger" or "fascist". And god forbid if you have a bible in your hand and you start to preach. Now so far here in the US of A a crime has to have been committed before the "tag" of it being a hate crime is attached. But there are a number of folks in academia and the judicial side of the house that would have little or no problem in seeing the Canadian addendum added to our current hate laws.

Are you ready to have the state dictate just what and how your religion can be taught, how it can (or should be) interpreted? Are you ready for your minister,preacher,priest, or rabbi to be charged with a hate crime for just espousing the tenant's of your faith? Freedom of speech...religion...separation of church and state?

And that is my worry. Just another bit of the constitution becomes eroded in the name of "fairness". It would seem the Canadians don't get it, and that is their loss. Folks, there are plenty of laws on the books to address most any injustice or criminal injury committed to person or property. What really needs to happen is the strong consistent enforcement and prosecution of said laws. And applicable sentencing on a case by case basis.

That is something we can control to a greater (local) and lesser extent (federal). We (in most cases) elect our local Judges. And in many cases our District Attys. From these come our appellate Judges,and State supreme court folks. The federal bench is just the next step, but we elect the folk who (ultimately) select them. So, we have some control over that. If we don't start taking a strong look at who we are placing on the bench than, based on what is already happening in many courts through out the country, it is just a matter of time before what has come to pass in Canada could very easily happen here.

Beating a dead horse(face)

My better half sends me various things via e-mail she thinks I will find of interest (and I do the same for her). Well, this morning she sent me an article that got my blood pressure to head right up to the danger zone. It was from The Village Voice,of all things. By any stretch of the imagination, not a paper which could be considered a conservative organ.

This is not new news. (And if others have ranted about this, I will be happy to link to them.) My question is, where is the outrage? Is it lost amongst all the other shortcomings of the current Democratic contenders considerable baggage? Perhaps not. At least the Viet Nam vets are rising to the occasion to keep this at least out there in the blackberry. Here is a site by and for Viet Nam Vets who recognize John "F'n" Kerry for who and what he is. Sounds like they are rather warmed up to the topic.

Why am I interested in this? I am a veteran. Served 20 years in the Navy. I care about my fellow vets and for this poor excuse of a man, who has not even the pretense of character, to be running for commander and chief... Well, better to have the devil we know stay in office, then to elect someone who, I firmly believe, will cause more damage then we can even imagine. Bush may be accused of making poor choices based on good intent. Kerry, hasn't the intestinal fortitude to make a choice of any sort and stick to it (unless he can place the blame, if any, somewhere else).

I won't go so far as to denigrate Kerry's service (in Viet Nam) until it is proven otherwise. However, just because he did time "in country", does not excuse his voting record and his public statements before and after he became a senator. But the thing that really sent me over the top, and caused me to "publicly" state my feelings as to who should be in the oval office for the next four years, was his gross mismanaging, as the Chairman, of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs and their ultimate "findings".

Senator, you stink! For all those who were "left behind", who you could have used your power and influence to help return....even if it was only one. Their blood, and the pain, suffering, and shattered hopes, of their loved ones are forever on your hands (and soul if you still have one). You are one sorry son of a bitch.

I could say more, but I am afraid it would just be redundant.

Love Colored Glasses

Just saw an interesting post by Mrs.du Toit. She was talking about which do men prefer, women in sexy stiletto heels (uncomfortable) or ye old sneakers (comfortable).

Mrs du Toit goes on to say although most would look at the gal in stilettos, what we really want is the gal in sneakers. And I think she is right at least in the long run. This is definitely true if we are equating stilettos to style and sneakers to substance.

But this got me to thinking about what men want and why we do or act toward the fairer sex the way we do. And at the end of this bit of rambling I promise to let you all in on something most real men know, and few women (want to) believe.

As I stated in replying to her post, men are visual creatures. We are, at least initially, attracted to that which visually stimulates us. I don't know of many fellows that wouldn't give at least a passing glance to a gal in stiletto heels, especially if her legs were long and the skirt was of the shorter variety (going back to the shoes for a second).

But there is more to the visual thing. The things which attract males to the fairer sex initially are many and varied. Some guys are "leg men", some "breast men", others have a fondness for other parts of the female package. I am a leg man, but add to the gams an exotic pair of eyes and red hair and wow watta woman (if I must draw a picture, think of Ann Margaret). Again, this is based on initial visual *contact*.

Now, once having met a female, regardless of the initial visual stimulus, the criteria changes. In my case, if she is an "airhead", with no opinions, or the ability to back them up (at least in friendly banter on the first meeting), then she is apt to be no more then a chance acquaintance. If she is an interesting conversationalist (assuming we discover at least some common interests), then the potential for a relationship is greatly enhanced. This will (in my case) over ride the initial visual cues, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the individual.

A case in point. I met my wife on line. We started off as friends in a place that (at the time) was of interest to both of us. And we had many friends there. Both of us had met a number of folks from this place on the net (it was more than just a chat room so I hate to pidgin hole it with that phrase), in "real life". This was even before we had met on line.

At this time we were about 1000 miles apart. So as the friendship grew we still didn't "know" what the other looked like. Instead we got to know each other and what was of interest to each. There came a time when we were not only talking "on line" but writing each other and sending the obligatory photos as well.

A number of months passed, and as it happened a three day weekend was coming up. I made the drive to see her for the first time. Now it should be noted, we were already more than just friends, but we were both at least a little apprehensive about the pending meeting. Would the same chemistry which was there on line and in letters (and various calls we made), be there?

It was. We sat on the couch and talked (and to be honest I don't remember what it was we talked about). The one thing I will always remember was her eyes, and cute little smile she thought I didn't see when I was looking away from her(or so she thought). Yes, back to the visual again, but in this case it "sealed the deal". She had me hook, line, an sinker.

And now for the promised thing "that men know, and in my (limited) experience women refuse to believe."

You may have been a goddess when first we met. The hour glass figure may be more pear shaped now. The hair streaked with silver. We are after all visual creatures, we men are....but we also have memories. In our minds eye, you will always be the women that we first fell in love with. We remember with fondness, and treasure the shared memories that are the true riches of a married life. So, whenever you think time, gravity, and grey hair, diminishes your loveliness, you are mistaken, we men look through "love colored glasses". A real man never forgets that.

Welcome Aboard !

I have been reading and commenting on many good peoples blogs. And I would like to thank all of them for allowing me to do so. The flip side of that coin? Well, this is the first social disease I ever got, I don't want to get rid of (and having been to more foreign ports than Carter has little liver pills, that's saying a lot). This is going to be my area to ropeyarn, to tell sea stories, and generally rant about anything from politics to my own albatross, the Chicago Cubs. And with any luck at all I won't be hogging so much bandwidth from others in their comment sections.

As I gain my sea legs, with this beast, there will be a(long)list of fellow travelers listed on the sidebar.