Monday, May 5, 2008

Death of the DC Darling

The DC Madam is dead. She did what few women chose by way of suicide; she hung herself. While it's unclear if she did this alone or may have had some "help," one thing we know: she was recently convicted for running a call-girl operation.
She maintained she was merely a single mom trying to make ends meet. Many single moms have chosen for the sex trade in order to keep their economy afloat. In America, that means engaging in illegal practices. Prostitution is a no no, but as we've seen when politicians are involved hardly any ever serve time, and the only victim is their spouse having to flank her man as he publicly sobs and promises to seek help for his deviant behavior.
Sex can't be a crime, if it's something everyone does. It should not be a crime to make an arrangement with another consenting adult. The US has a terrible record of criminalizing its citizens and publicly exposing anyone suspected of a crime. Lives are destroyed and reputations tarnished because by criminalizing sex between adults there can't be protection of individuals on either side of the transaction. There are cultures where prostitution is much more accepted, such as in The Netherlands. When I lived there a long divorced friend surprised me one day by announcing she'd been working in a brothel for the last 3 months. She was enjoying the extra money, enjoying the sex, and enjoying the friendships with other women, most of them divorced mothers. She was taxed as a sex-worker, and no one in our circle of friends ever spoke ill of her choice. In fact, her new line of work seemed to have empowered her. We all know that her situation isn't uncommon for many women that find themselves without adequate income. Most of us prostitute ourselves for the gain of our "Johns" by engaging in the trade of time and energy. The bodily fluids we exchange for wages is our sweat. Rationalize for yourselves why one form of physical exploitation is accepted and the other one is not. It doesn't make sense. Legalize it, legalize pot and other victim-less behaviors and America's overcrowded prisons can begin being used for people who actually commit crimes.

John McCain, hero or traitor? Some straight talk...

2008 presidential nominee, Republican Senator John McCain (born August 29, 1936 in Panama) is repeatedly being called an "American hero" by people on all sides of the political spectrum and all walks of life. He's often being thanked for his service to his country.
Not much thought seems to go into such words of praise. After all, since 9/11 almost anyone in public service who wears or wore a uniform is now customarily being labeled "hero," or "heroes" in the case of an entire group or profession.

Most know bit and pieces of McCain's story, as it's been widely publicized. He comes from a family of four-star admirals in the US Navy. He became a Navy pilot and in 1967, on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down and captured, badly injured, by the North Vietnamese. He spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war during which time he was according to his own statements tortured before being released in 1973.

While he survived 5 airplane crashes (4 while piloting!), his hero status is mainly attributed to the time he spent as a POW, and during which he claims to have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of his captors. It's well-documented, including by McCain himself in various books he wrote and in interviews, that he ended up divulging military information to his captors and signing "war-crime confessions," acts commonly associated with treason, but long since forgiven by many (but not all) due to his ordeal, which by his own account, included two years of solitary confinement.

If the above description contains the information necessary to define him as an "American hero," so be it, but it's a far stretch from how the idea of "hero" came to be understood.
Let's first make it clear that McCain has never referred to himself as a hero, but rather that he "was privileged to serve in the company of heroes, but never, never have I described myself as having done anything heroic." Indeed, reference to his capture on his own website is limited to the following paragraph: "John McCain spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement, aided by his faith and the friendships of his fellow POWs. When he was finally released and able to return home years later, John McCain continued his service by regaining his naval flight status. His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross."

Does McCain know better than anyone that flying technically advanced aircraft over the city of Hanoi on his 23rd bombing mission, releasing tons of bombs on a predominantly civilian population during a misguided war in which America was the aggressor was a far cry from the kind of behavior that sets a true hero apart? Moreover, the man who first saved him from drowning after he crashed in the Hanoi lake and then shielded him from being killed by bystanders, a peasant (and hero, by every definition!) by the name Mai Van On, died without a mention in any of McCain's publications, or a token of his gratitude other than a photo op.

Not that McCain was without valor, again, by his own account. In 1968, after the North Vietnamese discovered he was the son of an Admiral and offered to release him (which in itself is questionable, as he was a golden catch for their propaganda), he says he refused. He would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well. We have only McCain’s word for it.
Yet, this incident itself is hardly ever mentioned as the reason for his widely perceived status as hero. It's certainly overshadowed by his own testimony in U.S. News and World Report, of May 14, 1973, in an article written by former POW John McCain, in which he states that "On October 27, 1967, four days after being shot down, (McCain) called for a North Vietnamese guard. (McCain) told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." And he did, from ships' positions to personnel readiness, attack package routes, and targets... Maybe that's why it's not odd that on a 1993 visit to Vietnam, McCain pleaded with his former captors not to release any records they hold pertaining to returned U.S. POWs. Many believe McCain's records could prove so damaging to his reputation as a Senator they could eliminate his chance to become president.

As outlined above, and as publicly stated by McCain, so far there's nothing classically, or traditionally, heroic in his tale. To the contrary.
I'd go further and express that today America suffers from an inferiority complex that's being compensated for (and smartly exploited for political gain) by bestowing the title of hero haphazardly on just about anyone in uniform. Protesting it is tantamount to being seen as “anti-American,” or “unpatriotic.” Then, should we not ask why Americans need to turn deeds performed in the line of duty into acts of heroism? Can't that be called a superiority complex?

If you act on an impulse and run into a burning barn to save someone, is that the same as having trained for just such an event and go in with experience and full support of other firefighters, wearing special equipment designed to help you see, breathe, communicate, and survive? I don't want to minimize a firefighters virtue, but someone can't be a hero just for putting on a firefighter suit (or a fly-suit as Bush tried for his infamous "mission accomplished" statement).

If definitions are changing when it comes to what makes a hero, is it really just up to those intended on manipulating our emotions for political gain to create modern mythology, and invent a quintessential "American" branded kind of heroism, or do the centuries-old definitions of heroism still apply today?
By comparing tales of heroism from ancient to recent we can establish the common traits of the hero. History seems to indicate that among other things there must be perceived risk and selfless intention to become a hero. In the example of John McCain, his choice to enter the US Navy be considered selfless act, but once enlisted, just doing his job—and by extension being captured while doing it not very well—doesn't necessarily make him a hero.

In the classic sense, the title of "hero" is reserved for those who do something extraordinary that goes far beyond the call of duty. Someone who saves others with disregard for his or her own life or limb is by definition a classic hero. John McCain saved no one and instead engaged in the brutal act of raining fire and brimstone from the sky on civilians in a country that had never threatened the US. This is a man who cheered on the US's Christmas Bombing of Hanoi from his confinement, knowing very well that while aimed at breaking the North's resistance it would also wreak great havoc among civilians. That in itself seems selfish rather than selfless and shows that at the time he had learned little about the cruelty of war and remained a stout supporter of the US's involvement in the Vietnam war—all the while collaborating with his captors and acting as a war criminal for their propaganda purposes.

America's cult of celebrity worship may have more to do with how we perceive modern day heroes. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 delivered Jesus and Martin Luther King as #1 and #2 heroes. John Wayne and Michael Jordan were in the top 10. I don't want to diminish the personal contribution and sacrifices these individuals have made to society, but what does that tell us about the quintessential American hero? That celebrity status is more valuable to us than the performance of actual heroic feats?
What some of these individuals exhibited can certainly be attributed as traits that at least partially characterize a hero, such as courage; or not giving up until a stated goal is accomplished; or doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences; or doing more than what's expected of them; or changing society for the better; or exhibit a willingness to risk personal safety to help others...
However, most of these traits have to do with character, which is supposedly already present prior to the performing of any act of heroism. In that respect, McCain has exhibited character more than anything else, and I would present that his character falls in one of two camps for judgment: those that agree with his behavior as a POW and later as a Senator, and those that don't.

While heroes may have a strong character on the outset, often a hero's character develops during the journey toward hero-dom, and can be the result of it, as may be the case in the example of an otherwise as ordinary perceived individual surprising everyone by running into a burning barn to perform a heroic feat. In that respect, heroes don't sit by the fire waiting to be called into action. Rather it's a set of circumstances that propels an ordinary individual into action with heroism being the extraordinary result.

Is then bravery alone enough to be labeled a hero? The press today likes to paint our soldiers in Iraq as quintessential "American" heroes at every opportunity, but while they can certainly be viewed as brave for going into combat and risking their lives, they do so in the line of duty, a duty which often have them empty their weapons almost indiscriminately in the general direction the enemy, often killing and maiming innocent bystanders, afterwards conveniently dehumanized with official terms such as "collateral damage," or "casualties." Heroism in itself it is not, as argued earlier, even though heroic moments may ensue when for instance comrades are rescued under fire. For the recognition of those specific moments there are medals, but a soldier’s presence alone in a combat arena cannot be used to label them as heroes. It's simply not how heroism has been defined throughout time.

In McCain's case we're looking at a man who initially performed in line with the duty he signed up for. Loss of life, injury, capture, and imprisonment were and are risks that are well understood by anyone engaging in combat and are also part of training and the military code of conduct. Collaborating with the enemy is not being taught as a survival technique. On the contrary, the entire military machine hinges on the principle of honor. It is difficult then to rhyme the military's notion of honor with McCain's willingness to divulge military secrets during his captivity. For that reason alone, McCain is probably the most unsuitable person to ever have gotten this close to the presidency. What man in his right mind would declare it's "fine by me" to see our military remain in Iraq for a hundred years? As argued before, a hero is someone opposite from the idea of putting more lives at risk. Oddly enough, McCain has not shown to be particularly occupied with the soldier's or veteran's well-being, and his dealing with POW cases and families raises more questions than it answers.

To this day, there are plenty that see McCain as a traitor instead of a hero. Many of them served in the military the same time he did. They remember him as the man who as soon as after four days in captivity (during which he claims he was tortured, a claim contested by other POWs) made a deal with his captors and did the opposite of what a hero would've done. There are pictures of McCain warmly embracing his former interrogators (and torturers?). Apparently he's either very forgiving, or has his own reasons as touched on earlier.

So then, in light of the aforementioned, is John McCain the quintessential American hero or a traitor? A strong case can be made that he was and is not a hero by any standards, but has become someone with celebrity status Americans often confuse with that of a national hero, like Michael Jordan. On the other hand, if a traitor is someone who aids and abets the enemy willingly and repeatedly, an equally strong case can be made that it applies to McCain, enforced by his own statements, and the question then is if such a person ought to be President of the United States...