In this day and age of rage and what’s in and what’s not, certain things catch our collective Facebook Eye. The absolute latest rage is Veterans. Live, in the flesh, active duty troops for NFL games, real war heroes who have overcome diversity and wounded folk who managed to crawl out the other side of adversity and escape. They now are actively engaged in rebuilding their lives and going on. They epitomize courage and that insane ‘devotion gene’ singular to us Patriots with a capital P.
It’s the same gene that engendered the Shot heard ’round the world, the planting of the flag at Mount Suribachi, even that insane assault up (Hamburger) Hill 930 on May- 10-20, 1969. On that august occasion, I was preparing my Valedictorian Speech for the graduating class of Vermont Academy. Turns out it wasn’t needed. Being 59th in a class of 64 doesn’t generally make the educational hierarchy beat a path to your door for a speech. Turned out, too, that my senior Trigonometry course ( D-) in its most rudimentary form would soon be my new BFF when enjoying and employing Mr. Thumper a year or so later.
Which brings us to a nasty CBS newscast last night that a Veterans Charity was losing its prime contributor. This is disconcerting news for any number of reasons. It endangers all Veterans Charity organizations with the onus of profligate expenditures on single malt scotch and expensive digs in five star hotels. I’m sure the DAV and other VSOs were shivering in place at the future prospect of having to justify drunken debauchery at some of their funny hat conventions across the fruited plain.
No one wants to be tarred and feathered as being pro Vet about collecting donations and then hoarding them. This doesn’t play well with the Veteran lovers in Peoria. It didn’t last night. What’s worse, it seems no one can have a one-on-one with any of the Board of Directors of the charity involved. Everyone is “not available for comment.” Or, they send out the apologist.
We are watching one of two things. Either a wonderful, deserving Veterans charity devoted to helping Vets is being assaulted by a vengeful press for no real reason or we are witnessing a travesty of justice of unimaginable vindictiveness. Or, Occam’s razor is for application. I always use the presumption of regularity. If it appears legitimate then it is legitimate. On the other hand, if it appears queer and there is no rationale to explain it, the the presumption of regularity cannot attach and it is irregular. Once the sobriquet of irregularity attaches, nothing can be taken for granted and all explanations ring hollow.
We seem to have reached that impasse. Who to believe? As most of you know, I have adopted the stance of an agnostic and defer to others for their unbiased views…