Random Replies, Volume 1
January 7, 2004
Atten-hut!
After my two articles about the plight of Lt. Col. Allen B. West, and his subsequent vindication, I had a brief e-mail exchange with this fine officer. As the election draws closer — and the number of letters to Congressmen, Senators, and the President continues to pile up — my expectation is that his punishment will be set aside. Will he remain on active duty after his ordeal? I tend to doubt it. But, I also doubt that we’ve seen or heard the last of this man of thought and action.
Positive e-mails came in about the story of Sgt. Christopher Chandler, also. But, some readers reminded me that there have been other people that have jumped with an artificial leg. (Hello! I wrote that in the story.) In particular, people wrote in to tell me about former Marine sniper Don Hamblen, whose lower leg was amputated after his parachute became entangled in 12,000-volt electrical lines during a jump at Camp Pendleton in 1962. The resulting third-degree burns and infection necessitated the amputation. But, that jump occurred after Hamblen was already jump-qualified. Thus, my story was correct in saying that Sgt. Chandler was the first person awarded Airborne wings while wearing an artificial leg. (After receiving his prosthesis, and passing the grueling physical tests, Hamblen went on to duty in Force Recon, and was involved as an advisor to teams that conducted “snatch raids” into North Vietnam. He was lauded as the first American to go into ground combat with an artificial limb.)
One of my facts was not quite correct, however. A sharp-eyed EOD Marine wrote me from California to inform me that Sergeant Chandler was not a member of the EOD community. I re-checked the official Marine News story. It said that Chandler was “providing security for an explosives ordnance disposal unit”, and I wrongly assumed that he was part of that unit. (In my defense, although the news article specified Chandler’s duty assignment at the time of the story, it did not specify his duty title at the time of his injuries in Afghanistan, two years prior.) And, another sharp-eyed Marine (is there any other kind?) wrote to inform me that I had misspelled “ordnance” (a military explosive) as “ordinance” (a low-level municipal law). It is a common mistake; and, I attributed it to force of habit from my paralegal background. (And, given that the Air Force is the closest to “civilian lingo” of all the Armed Services, we usually just called them “explosives”.) Fortunately for opinion writers, getting our “wires crossed” is not quite as serious a mistake for us as it is for EOD technicians. Thanks for those sharp eyes (and steady fingers!), gentlemen. And, thank you for your service to our country.
General Clark
Much to my surprise, I got more negative mail about my article on General Clark’s campaign remarks than any other topic. And, the mail was long on emotion, but short on facts. And, almost without exception, the e-mails claimed that I distorted the general’s remarks. I did not need to distort them; he did a fine job of that himself.
The trend of those e-mails was that General Clark was not talking about the War on Terrorism, but specifically about Operation Iraqi Freedom. Two points are significant. First, it is impossible to distinguish Operation Iraqi Freedom from the War on Terrorism, because it is part of the War on Terrorism. It would be like claiming that the wing is not part of the airplane, simply because you say so. That’s not enough. One reader tried to support his argument by claiming that General Clark wrote a book on that point; but, the reader only named the title. Not a single quote from the book was provided. But, as you will see, it really didn’t matter.
General Clark introduced his remark with the phrase, “After 9-11….” By using that phrase, the implication is immediately or promptly or shortly after 9-11. And, history shows that is what happened. If General Clark meant to say that President Bush got us into a war in Iraq after 9-11, then he would’ve had to say, “After 9-11, and after winning in Afghanistan, and after putting al-Qaida on the run, and after building a successful coalition, and after shutting off many sources of funding, and after creating a new cabinet department (Homeland Security), etc., etc.” But, the general did not say any of those things. He only said, “After 9-11.” Thus, grammatically, he must have been referring to the War on Terrorism that started shortly after 9-11.
And, if the general meant what he said, then my commentary about his remark was correct. And, if the general did not mean what he said, then he is not a viable candidate for President of the United States. And, that was my point. Period.
other collateral damage
One of the e-mails regarding my article on General Clark’s campaign remarks went into an area that any civilized discourse should recognize as off-limits. A reader commented to me: “You would think that a father would care about being accurate on the news. You wouldn't want your daughter to wander upon an article written about your military history that was written from the other side with the distortion of the views. What if that distortion completely changed your daughter's views towards you, maybe then you would understand that it is important to have journalistic integrity when you are providing news to people.”
First of all, I was not “providing news”. I was providing commentary about the news; the news had already been provided. Secondly, I checked other local news accounts of the general’s remarks, and all of the quotes matched exactly. So, I did not “distort” his remarks. They were linked in my commentary, so that any reader could check the source personally. But, although those points are important, they are not the most important.
The most important point is: keep my daughter out of this! Leftist politicians often hide behind the phrase “it’s for the children”, because it is their way of candy-coating the bitter pill of their wacky ideas. Apparently, Leftist defenders of General Clark feel the need to tangentially attack the children of anyone that disagrees with them. Anyone that would threaten — even rhetorically — to change a child’s view of their parent for such a petty reason has already proven that my comments about both General Clark and his supporters were apparently right on target. (Why would a four-star general need an unknown civilian to defend him, anyway?)
And, just to clarify, no reader of my columns needs to do anything to distort my daughter’s view of me. I have an ex-wife that has already handled that for you.
About that name…
During my blasting of Santa Claus (now a.k.a.: Satan Lucas), there was some unintended “collateral damage” against a popular name: Lucas. The most likely Latin root of this name was lucaris, but may have also been lucidus. The first means “of or pertaining to trees; a grove”, and the second means “containing light”. Now, the explanations I gave for those root words were in the context of their connection to Santa Claus and “Christmas” trees. Thus, the explanations had a very negative angle, because the whole point of my article was that Santa Claus is a fictional distraction from the proper celebration of the birth of Jesus. (Whether we need to highlight that day at all is the topic of another argument, which was linked in the article, but not addressed.)
But, there can be positive connotations to the name Lucas. If the name derived from lucaris, then someone named Lucas could have descended from lumberjacks or carpenters, or could have been so named to honor such workers. If the name derived from lucidus, then the name could have described someone that is bright. That would have obvious positive connotations. Either way, there is no automatic negative meaning attached to the name Lucas by itself. However, when the word immediately in front of it is Satan, then a negative connection is quickly established. My apologies to anyone named Lucas that may have been offended. (Oddly, I did not get a single e-mail to that effect. I just thought of it later, and decided that it was worth explaining.)
On a brighter note
The replies to “The hijacking of Christmas” were overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic. I have other comments of a religious nature that I’ll share from time to time. My views are somewhat intense. (You’ve noticed.) But, they are also supported by study and/or research. One of my beliefs is that we have too much “Church-ianity” these days, and not enough “Christ-ianity”. There are too many people willing to follow a particular preacher, but not to follow Jesus Christ, who commanded simply, “Follow Me.” So, my first published effort in this area was to try (as have many others) to put Christ back into Christmas.
The future
I love writing. I have other projects that may demand my time occasionally. But, based on the reader comments that I’ve received so far, I hope to continue this column, and possibly go into syndication. You can help by calling or writing to your local newspaper and asking them to carry articles by Tom Kovach. When they ask, “Who?” simply refer them here to Mens’ News Daily. You can also help by contacting me with newsworthy information. I’m especially interested in the “story behind the story”, and particularly any facts that debunk “news myths” in the so-called mainstream media. (An example of a “news myth” would be that TWA Flight 800 simply blew up by itself. More about that in future columns.)
