Saturday, December 22, 2012

And we're back

Someone complained that something I wrote may have been in violation of Artilce 88 or 89 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

They didn't, however, note exactly what it was they thought might have crossed that line.

So, looking back across nearly two thousand posts, I went back and pulled every post which I thought had any politics involved at all.  (of the posts I wrote.  Anything written by someone else, I've left alone.) 

I make no bones about it, the current administration isn't the one I would have chosen.  It is however, the one the electoral college chose, and therefore I accept their choice, and the CIC remains the CIC for the next four years, and I will support my commander completely.  Bear in mind, however, that the beautiful thing about our Military, which differs so vastly from almost every military on the planet, is that we do not pledge loyalty to the president, the congress, or any person.  We are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of these United States.

Perhaps defending the constitution lies in speaking out against what I believe are clear violations of it.  I don't think it's wrong to call things as I see them, with respect for the person sitting in office, as long as I don't attack that person, just the policies of the administration.  Attack is too strong a word--disagree.  Respectfully disagree.  It is neither insolent or discourteous to respectfully disagree with a policy.  I have done that many times in the past.  I have also crossed that line in the past, and have received guidance telling me what is and isn't appropriate.  (For instance, salty language is best left in the locker room, and making up nicknames for the VP is also not a good idea.)

As a wordsmith, I choose my words, usually, for their exact meaning or the emotion they convey.  When I write from the heart, fueled by emotion or passion, my words tend to get more precise, but less discerning.  It may be a character flaw.

I used to keep this blog as a place where I could write anything I wanted, about any topic, in any way I saw fit.  Then I was forced to grow up.  Internet graffiti is taken seriously by some, especially since my audience has grown beyond my mom, dog, and imaginary friend.  I now have tens of people visiting every day, and what I write may upset one of them, it may cause them to completely skip over the bigass disclaimer at the bottom of the page (or the link to it at the top of the page,) and rather than confront me directly about what they think may be an error or worse, a speech crime, they choose to go completely off the rails and file formal complaints. 

I understand why someone would do that.  Most people, given the choice, are non-confrontational.  However, given the anonymity offered by the internet, I can't simply assume they didn't want to say something here.  What I am left with then is that they are either simply cowards, or they are acting out of malice.  They want to see me act rashly--pull down the blog permanently, or rail against the machine and put my career and livelihood on the line.  Worse, they want me to not write at all. 

I believe, (believe, mind you, means I have no proof) that this person making complaints is a combination of the three: a coward who disagrees with my point of view and wants to silence me because they know deep down that I am right.

And that's the other thing:  I believe in what I write, at the time that I write it.  My opinions do change, with age, wisdom, learning, or in the discovery of new facts.  I am willing to change my mind, about my views and about the people who complain about me.


I make no secret about my identity, nor is it really that hard to find me online. (try tcoverride-at-gmail-dot-com.)  Or you can find me on facebook, though that isn't the best way to get in touch. 

No comments: