Three Years on the Public Dole

Today (Nov. 2) marks the third anniversary of my liberation from the clutches of the federal bureaucracy, i.e. of my retirement and -- soon to follow -- escape from the Death Star, i.e. the all-encompassing toxic blob that is Washington, DC and environs, where criticizing "big government" is tantamount to criticizing "big ocean" in front of a group of South Sea islanders. My career in the belly of the beast was, in one sense, a monument to underachievement, although it could be argued that I did "add value" by doggedly, whenever possible, trying to maintain or even improve the quality of output of one very small organizational cog in the mightiest bureaucratic machine yet devised by the mind of man. And as such, I am entitled to a comfortable pension that shows no signs, as yet, of being swallowed up in the wake of the Great Wall Street Bailout of 2008, which is already, even as its implementation is just getting under way, proving to be the biggest scam of all time. I mean, talk about "redistribution of income"! Obama and his crew of dreamers have nothing on the "rescuers" of our financial system, who are allowing the people responsible for the debacle to walk off with the cream of the taxpayers' "investment". In the annals of the transition of this society from a three-class to a two-class one, I doubt if any other event will be viewed, by future historians, as more critical than the one we are experiencing at present. The great American middle class, which has been milked and bled for lo these many decades, is about to be sent to the shambles like an old dry cow, and it's only their habitual apathy and starry-eyed belief that the government is "here to help" that keeps them from rising up and hanging all the Wall Street CEOs from lampposts.

But -- having gotten that out of my system for the moment -- life is good, and frankly I do not apologize for my career, such as it was, because at least I was working in a part of government, i.e. defense, for which there is a valid Constitutional basis... unlike nearly all other departments, bureaus, and "programs", which are blatantly unconstitutional if not downright oppressive. And as to my compensation, well... it could be argued that they are paying me to stay out of their hair, and that might be a good thing for all concerned. But also, I wouldn't have climbed on board the government ship without certain contractual guarantees, like the one that said that if I put in my "30" (to which I added an extra 3, free of charge -- well, not quite) I would get to walk out the door someday to a life of genuine leisure (which is, after all, the basis of culture -- now who said that, class?) rather than the pseudo-, guilt-ridden leisure which is usually the lot of government workers while on the job. My entitlement has nothing to do with my race, ethnic group, gender, sexual identification, or any disability -- heaven forbid, since I don't qualify as a "victim" on any of those counts -- but purely to the fact that I was willing to fight DC traffic and prices for 33 years and somehow come out of it in one piece. Besides which, the experience taught me volumes about government, the bureaucracy, and how things work (so to speak) in DC and anywhere else where government constitutes the economic base. And yes, "government worker" is a contradiction in terms in one sense... although we would all be significantly better off if more government workers did _less_ work, since the work that they do do seems to add daily to the burden on the rest of society, i.e. on the truly productive (or even the truly needy). And thus, I sit back in retired splendor and proceed to bite the hand that fed me so well for lo those many years, and continues to do so... but not really. As I said, defense is a legitimate function. If only it really were "defense" and not, in nearly all cases, "offense". We forget that, up until just after World War II, what is now known, in news speak, as "The Pentagon" was called the Department of War. At least that was honest, and I think the term should be revived just for the sake of candor. But no, we are in an Orwellian age now when nothing may be called by its right name, and the amazing thing is that people are actually fooled by this! It's right in plain sight, but they persist in thinking that pursuing Afghan tribesman up hill and down dale is a vital part of our "national defense". But in any case, at least in theory defense is an honorable pursuit, even if on an everyday basis it's just as corruptible as any other government activity. And I will never scorn the soldier, the grunt, the guy in the trenches, although I may accuse his leaders, both military and civilian, of acts bordering on high treason (or surpassing it). To paraphrase an old quote, just because a cur occasionally lifts his leg against the Pentagon is not, in itself, reason to claim that it has no valid mission -- or even that, on occasion, someone in the military bureaucracy does not occasionally remember why he (or she) is there, and what their ultimate mission ought to be (as compromised as it regularly is by our "leaders"). My observation is that the military has been sorely misused, and abused, at least beginning with the Korean War, if not earlier, current follies abroad being a perfect example. The military finds itself being placed in the position of, in a word, whores, in the interests of people who have no use for true national security, not to mention prosperity. The American Empire requires sacrifices which will never, because they _can_ never, be paid back -- it is all bloodletting and very little visible reward or benefit except for the people on the top layer of the Regime. But "civilian control" of the military means that those in uniform will never rise up in protest, revolt, or mutiny against the follies they are expected to support and die for. And thus we have, at best, active-service generals and admirals occasionally "questioning" -- but in the mildest possible way -- the decisions of their betters... and, on a few more occasions, retired military members "outing" some of the worse follies once they are safely in retirement mode. And am I saying the answer is to put in military in charge? Heaven forfend! Because not only are they not paid to think, but there is a ruthless winnowing process by which the rare true thinkers are culled out of the herd and awarded an "early retirement" just to get their irritating presence out of the way of business as usual. Ever wonder why most of the truly insightful books on the military are written by retired colonels rather than generals? There you have it, in a nutshell. The ideal senior military leader of today is a technocrat... an administrator... a bureaucrat... a "geek" of sorts (not mentioning any names, of course). The old-time "blood and guts" types like Patton and MacArthur are long gone by the time the "promotion list" is scanned for people who might make general (or admiral). So we wind up with many highly-intelligent, but somewhat robot-like, commanders who at least say (and never admit otherwise, even to their wives in the sanctity of the bedroom) that they fully support the decisions of the civilian leadership, who can do no serious wrong. I won't go so far as to call this "authoritarianism" of the totally rigid, old-school type that hampered many of the operations of the German military in World Wars I and II. These people are trained to think for themselves, and on the spot, within certain boundaries. But when it comes to sitting back and considering the overall rationale for the mission -- whatever it may be, from chasing goat herders around Afghanistan to setting up day-care centers in Somalia -- this is not only not their stong suit, it's a full-blown brain lesion. And maybe in some respects this is not a bad thing; the record of "career military" types in the area of international diplomacy isn't all that stellar. But to call on people who have developed their physical survival skills to a high level to totally give up all moral, ethical, and political judgment seems a bit of a waste. And yet that is what one sees on a daily basis. I, for one, think a more middle ground would be preferable; how it would be implemented is another matter. The "charge of the Light Brigade" is being re-enacted over and over again by our troops overseas -- theirs not to reason why, etc. -- while pink, polished civilians sit back and count not the cost but their own gains. Surely this is something that a "quiet revolution" on the part of the voters could be applied to... but the current election tells us that that is unlikely to happen very soon.