Although your pay is tax exempt, it is still earned income and still eligible for the deduction. This ArmyMom (language alert) said you have to call and talk to a live IRS person to correct the error because it is a glitch in the electronic filing system.

Make sure you follow up and push the issue. It is money that you are entitled to and you should not allow the government to keep it!

I read this opinion piece and started thinking about "How do you define a 'terrorist?'" Extremist I can understand. But when does an extremist morph into a terrorist? Is it, as claimed by the author, solely based on skin color/religion?

Being the opinionated person I am, I thought I'd share my own thoughts and leave you with some questions.

Arsalan Iftikhar starts off his essay with a statement that I take exception to:

Within the last month, our country has witnessed two senseless, high-profile acts of criminal violence that would have been labeled terrorism if brown-skinned Arab Muslim men with foreign-sounding names had committed them.

I actually take exception to this because what I have seen in the media, when a person of the same citizenship/color/religion attacks his or her OWN GOVERNMENT AND COUNTRY, they are usually labeled an "insurgent." Do a google search of that word and look at how many stories there are from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.

My opinion is that a terrorist is defined by the fact that he or she wants to commit the highest level of chaos by targeting those that don't suspect violence is at their doorstep. Average, every day citizens. The Stop 'n Go gas station clerk. The Walmart worker. The broker working at Cantor Fitzgerald on the 102 floor of a building in NYC. A terrorist will target those so as to create an atmosphere in a greater area of fear and uncertainty. When 9/11 happened, every American wondered if his or her small community, job, office building, farm house could be the random target of death and destruction.

The two white examples that Iftikhar uses had specific grievances with our government (although one was totally off his f'ing rocker). They took on those targets that represented the things they found wrong with our country, government, etc. There would not have been a small resonance in America when Joseph Stack flew his plane into an IRS office building if there isn't the perception that somewhere, somehow, our government has lost its way and the IRS represents the leech by which the greater entity sucks our lifeblood. I don't agree with what he did and how he did it. Let me make that clear. But if the founders of this country didn't think that government can become abusive, they never would have used the phrase "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…" in the Declaration of Independence. The list of grievances is long in that piece of paper. Further down, the signers of the Declaration put their name to something that included this, "In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."

They had had enough and they weren't taking it anymore. And they formulated and executed an insurrection of epic proportions.

Let me repeat that….it was an INSURRECTION.

Terrorism would have been random colonists boating over to England to bomb banks or markets or whipping out a musket to shoot up a group of school children to make a point that the Colonies were not happy with the way things were.

Do you see my distinction?

So my questions to you….do you think Lee Malvo was a terrorist? He randomly shot people in and around Washington, DC with no method to his madness. Do you think Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist? He killed kids in a preschool at the McMurrah building but he had a grievance with the government. Do you think an American Muslim who shoots up the Pentagon would be given the same treatment in the press as whacked out John Bedell? If targeting government type targets preclude the terrorist label, does that mean military targets such as the USS Cole don't count as terrorism? (I actually have thoughts on that too, but I have to take my kids to school now so I'll leave it to you to debate in comments and I'll throw my opinion in there if anyone wants to take up that discussion).

Again, some ponderings to keep your thoughts occupied for the weekend. No one responded to my last post and I'm not sure if it's because the topic is boring, stupid, or just a waste of time. If this is interesting to you….thought exercises, speak up and let's talk about it.

(EDIT: There was a migration in the blog to a new server and I think the default setting of no comments has stuck for new posts. I fixed it for this one, so if you have thoughts you want to share, please do. It was an oversight that I asked for opinions and then gave you no avenue to do it. Really, I'm not THAT closed minded. haha)

A month ago, a fourteen year old student, Todd T. Brown, died at Huntsville Hospital after being shot in the back of the head at Discovery Middle School in Madison, a city that borders Huntsville. The shooter was a wanna-be gangsta who wanted out of the gangsta lifestyle. Fearing he would get beat up by his fellow members, he decided to shoot one of the kids instead of just take a few punches. Because of this incident, Huntsville City Schools Board member Laurie McCaulley is proposing a system wide uniform policy. The shooting didn't even take place in her jurisdiction.

McCaulley knows who I am quite well. I've addressed her and the board in person and attended numerous meetings. She also knows me from the lawsuit she's going to have to answer for.

According to WAAYTV.com, McCaulley thinks that adopting a uniform policy will cut down on bullying and gangs that apparently reside in neighboring school districts. The only gangs I've ever seen in the schools were actually employed by the city! They're paid to bully students and parents and they have yet to be required to wear uniforms. Maybe UAH should also adopt a uniform amongst its staff to prevent more professors from murdering people too.

The sad fact is that there is no evidence that school uniforms will prevent another shooting, reduce gangs, or cut down on bullying. I defy Ms. McCaulley to produce some hard evidence to support these claims. I've done the research, which is how I came to my newfound ardent opposition to school uniforms thanks to the Huntsville City Schools Gang. I wrote about the REAL research that proves MY point and contradicts what Ms. McCaulley is trying to bully students into. First, here's an instance of how school uniforms prevent gangs activity and bullying:

Oh wait, they didn't prevent anything. But, let's get back to the research. McCaulley says that if she can't institute a system-wide policy, she wants to focus elementary and middle school uniform policies. After all, elementary schools are a breeding ground for gang activity and bullying. I remember vividly my 6-year old daughter coming home with red crayon markings all over her because she dared to wear a My Little Pony t-shirt, a major elementary school gang mascot. The next day she was accosted with Elmer's glue for taking her Rainbow Bright notebook out, a clear violation of the Rainbow Bright 1st Grade gang. We decided it was best to just have her wear Star Wars clothes, but then the middle school Jedi Gang got upset and threatened to cut her right hand off with a lightsaber.

Uniforms are not the answer to gang activity and bullying. The answer lies with parents first and school administrators second. If a child is bullying, kick them out of school! Suspend them! The problem is twofold, but begins in the home. A uniform won't change the fact that a parent doesn't know what their children are doing on the weekends or after school. A uniform won't change the actions of a kid getting beaten at home at taking that anger out on weaker kids at school. Uniforms won't change the fact that most of the kids who are even prone to engage in gang activity come from single parent homes where the parent is working multiple jobs and doesn't have quality time to spend with their child. Uniforms won't change the root cause of issues of violence in our schools – lack of conflict resolution skills, poor self esteem, and instilling discipline and pride. Setting and enforcing curfews in public areas among young people would go further to preventing gang activity than any uniform.

One of the foremost authorities on the school uniform debate comes from Dr. David L. Brunsma, who wrote a book titled "Uniforms in Public Schools: A Decade of Research and Debate" (Rowman & Littlefield Education; illustrated edition edition (December 13, 2005)) has done more research on this topic than anyone. It started back in 1996 while reading the text of President Clinton's State of the Union Address where he first "introduced the concept of uniforms into the public school system.

I challenge all our schools to teach character education, to teach good values and good citizenship. And if it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.

Interesting, though, that they won't heed what President Clinton said just before this comment.

I challenge every state to give all parents the right to choose which public school their children will attend; and to let teachers form new schools with a charter they can keep only if they do a good job.

But, I digress. The Department of Education responded to President Clinton's call for school uniforms and created a "Manual on School Uniforms." It's still on the Department's web page. In the user's guide section, a very important statement is made that "for uniforms to be a success, as with all other school initiatives, parents must be involved." To be fair, this is something that Ms. McCaulley is advocating, according to the WAAYTV article.

McCaulley plans to the other board members to create a committee. That committee would get feedback from parents using surveys. Then, the information will be used to determine if parents would support a system wide uniform policy. McCaulley says, the idea of uniforms actually came from teachers.

The Clinton administration gave a few POTENTIAL benefits of going to a school uniform policy within public schools:

* decreasing violence and theft — even life-threatening situations — among students over designer clothing or expensive sneakers;
* helping prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school;
* instilling students with discipline;
* helping parents and students resist peer pressure;
* helping students concentrate on their school work; and
* helping school officials recognize intruders who come to the school.

With over a decade of research on the topic now available, have those potential benefits been realized. Dr. Brunsma says no.

"To state the results of that study in a nutshell, we found that uniform policies did NOT distinguish between students who had attendance problems, behavioral problems, or substance use problems and those who did not. Furthermore, uniforms FAILED, in our empirical analyses, to increase academic preparedness, pro-school attitudes, or a peer structure that supported academics. Finally, to our surprise, we found a small, weak, yet statistically significant negative effect of uniform policies on" violence.

Yet, because one wanna-be gang banger decides to murder a fellow student, HSC doesn't want to waste a good tragedy in implementing their authoritarian leadership on the citizens that pay taxes to fund those decisions (like me). They will ignore that students at schools that require uniforms score lower on tests, more behavior problems, and violence won't be affected according to Bunsma's research. Students can hide a weapon inside a uniform just as they can inside a pair of jeans. What our educators need to be doing is enforcing their own current dress policies and actively taking an interest in students as individual people and a collective group of cattle.

Ms. McCaulley and other uniform proponents have no facts from which to base their assertions that uniforms work. They cling to anecdotal stories from the perspectives of educators while ignoring real research. Uniforms cost families more, cost taxpayers more, and don't provide any benefit to anyone other than the companies supplying them. Developers become huge contributors to so-called vouchers to assist with purchasing uniforms not because they will help students, but because there is a perception (and probably a reality) that uniforms increase home values. I'm also surprised that in the WAAYTV poll, 64% of those polled think uniforms are a good idea – probably the teachers and school administrators taking the poll.

For more on my writings and research of school uniforms, click the "school uniforms" tag on this post.

One of the graphics really got me thinking. It dealt with the types of drugs being prescribed to troops. In a Military Times poll, 10% of the 263 respondents said they had taken medications for a mental health or combat stress reason. Now, I realize that we are only talking 26 Soldiers here, but consider that of those, 73% were taking an antidepressant. 56% were taking a sleep medication. 12% were taking a narcotic painkiller. Those were the top three medications our troops need to stay mentally and physically healthy – and I take all three, in addition to others.

What concerns me is the effect all these drugs are having on me in other ways. As a result of my war injury, I'm unable to run (I can jog) at all. During my most recent checkup, I was also told to stop doing sit-ups. I tried arguing with my doc and was told that the choice was mine: accept the profile and be able to walk the rest of my life or continue trying to pretend I'm not injured and be confined to a wheelchair one day. With much reluctance, I accepted the permanent profile barring me from doing sit-ups (I still do crunches until it hurts).

I put a lot of stress on myself trying to be a good NCO in spite of my limitations. Some of my depression comes from the fact that I can no longer lead from the front in certain areas, specifically physical fitness. I'm limited in the types of jobs I can have. For example, I'll probably never have another opportunity to be a First Sergeant, especially in a tactical unit, because of these physical limitations. Through no fault of my own, I'm incapable of "keeping up" in the things I love to do. I think back with fond memories running from the ball field at Fort Irwin up to "Blackie Mountain" and back each Monday with my squad.

On top of this, PTSD provides another obstacle to really being able to concentrate the way I used to. I take sleeping medications to silence all the things going through my head so I can sleep at night. It's a double edged sword, though, because I'm worried constantly that while I'm knocked out I'll be unable to respond to any threats. That frustration breeds anger.

And yet, if I stop taking these medications, will it trigger something in my mind that makes me go completely batty? According to the Army Times article, retired Colonel Bart Billings testified before Congress that he believes the recent spike in suicides directly correlates to the types and quantities of PTSD medications being handed out. I never have been, am not now, nor do I think I ever will be suicidal. I think it's futile and stupid to take one's life.

It's a position to be in to wonder if there is an answer out there that won't kill us. Obviously, doing nothing is not an option which is why I started seeking help last year. ALL Soldiers that think they may have mental health issues should seek help. There is nothing wrong with it and it isn't a sign of weakness. If I've learned anything, however, don't do it publicly but don't do it alone. I've learned from personal experience that while the military is fully engaged in removing the stigma, the general populace is not and neither are some leaders.

I'm not sure what I'm really trying to say here since I feel like I'm over the place. I haven't been as regular in taking my prescriptions and that may be why. I can still operate and perform my duties, but inside there is a war raging and I don't know who is fighting it or which side is winning.

Skillet has a song called "Invincible" that goes like this:

I, I'm invincible
I'm indestructible
It's my destiny

I, I'm invincible
I'm unshakeable
Through the truth in my soul

[Chorus:]
You know you just can't kill a man when he's dead
You know the spirit survives (invincible)
You can't stop the advance of the Kingdom to come
You know the truth is alive (invincible)

To be invincible
Is unattainable
Without sacrifice

Feel, feel the birth inside
The life that cannot die
Are you invincible

[CHORUS]
Invincible-Invincible

You know you can't kill a man when he's dead
You know you can't

[CHORUS (repeat)]
You know you can't kill a man when he's dead

I have been thinking about those types of "character" issues because of the Adam Kokesh interview last night. See, I'm a libertarian. And his overall ideals fit in exactly with mine. And he really talked a good game last night. His handler and coach must be really proud. I was impressed.

And then I look at what is underneath the glossy, slick, and oh-so-properly presented Candidate For Office and I cannot reconcile the two.

We all have a past. Good decisions and bad litter our histories like grains of sand on a smooth clean floor. You can't walk across that floor without seeing the evidence or feeling that grit between your toes. Nobody is perfect. But there are different underlying reasons for the bad decisions that make a difference in the character of our person. I may make a bad financial decision and end up in the poor house. But I won't make a bad decision that purposefully hurts another person. It's not in my character.

Adam Kokesh's character is lacking. He is comfortable with declaring himself a former Marine Sergeant. Yes, at one time, he was that rank. But when he left, he was a lower rank. What if a Staff Sergeant was busted down to a Private? Is it morally right and relevant to say he was a SSG in the Army and to use that highest rank achieved as a selling point when ultimately, he or she did something egregious enough to garner a demotion? That is a reflection of character. Misdirection, sleight-of-hand, details left out.

So then we come back to what I was thinking about…does that lack of character, or maybe excess of a certain type of character bode well or ill for an elected officer? Do you judge a candidate by the issues and talking points alone, or do you look at the overall candidate, including the evidence of past and present character flaws, and try to decide if that candidate is worthy of your vote?

Unfortunately, last night there was not enough time to dig deeper into what many of us consider serious issues and activities that Kokesh chose to engage in. We are not in his district and won't be voting for him, so in the end, I guess it doesn't matter, but it is a serious thought exercise.

————
The hosts and producer of You Served radio show, CJ, Troy, and Marcus, are issuing a challenge to the MilBlogosphere in a charity fundraising event with bald heads at stake.

Marcus has already lost a bet to shave his head bald from a bet on the second coin!

The new challenge is two-tiered with a third bonus tier added this evening during the You Served radio show.

The first tier is to raise $100 cumulative on the engravable memorial medallions we are auctioning in the You Served eBay Store (http://stores.ebay.com/userved). All proceeds will be donated to Soldiers Angels. The kicker and incentive on that cumulative total is that we have a generous anonymous donor who will donate $1,000 to Soldiers Angels if we can meet that $100 total. In addition to a donation of $1,000, CJ will shave his head along with Marcus! We currently have 2 coins auctioned with a total of $37.50, so we will need to raise $62.50 over the next 4 weeks (including this one). We will put up one coin a week to be auctioned.

The second tier is that if we can meet $250 cumulative total, not only will we garner that $1,000 donation, CJ and Marcus will allow Troy to shave their heads in Washington, DC during the Milblog Conference. It will be video recorded also, for all the listeners and donors to see! Imagine the fun and hilarity THAT would be.

The bonus challenge is if another person or organization donates an addtional $1,000 to the first tier, the Hero Maker Clayton Murwin, a regular listener of our show, will produce an orignal 16×20 military themed oil painting of the person or organization's choosing!

This challenge is issued to all who enjoy a bit of good fun with a bit of humiliation mixed in. The You Served crew hopes everyone enjoys this bit of excitement for a good cause and that you don't forget the real reason behind all of this; Soldier's Angels!

On behalf of the entire You Served Team,
Marcus

You can find BTR Youserved here.

You can find previous Kokesh posts here on ASP here, here, here, and here (in chronological order).

Each year, as you know, the Girl Scouts sell their over-priced, but overly-yummy cookies. And each year, I've tried to get together a bunch of people to help send some of these cookies to deployed troops. Since many of the readers of this site are in small towns or in the boonies where the Girl Scouts tend to ignore, I give people an opportunity to support the cause here!

I have 18 additional cases of cookies I'm trying to ship to Soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan (not nearly as many as normal, but I started too late this year). What I need to do is raise another $300 to purchase and ship these cookies. I've already raised about $400 which takes care of most of the purchasing.

If you'd like to help, either use the paypal link on the sidebar and type "Girl Scout Cookies" in the notes of your donation or send me an email for a direct mail address to which you can send a check. Once I've raised the right amount of money, I'll update this post. I'll also let you know when I'm getting close so I don't raise more than I need. I'm using my birthday money to pay for some as well!

"Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, WAR has Never Solved Anything."

"U.S. Marines – Certified Counselors to the 72 Virgins Dating Club."

"U.S. Air Force – Travel Agents To Allah"

"Stop Global Whining"

"When In Doubt, Empty The Magazine"

"Naval Corollary: Dead Men Don't Testify."

"The Marine Corps – When It Absolutely, Positively Has To Be Destroyed Overnight"

"Death Smiles At Everyone – Marines Smile Back"

"Marine Sniper – You can run, but you'll just die tired!"

"What Do I Feel When I Kill A Terrorist? A Little Recoil"

"Marines – Providing Enemies of America an Opportunity To Die For their Country Since 1775"

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It"

"Happiness Is A Belt-Fed Weapon"

"It's God's Job to Forgive Bin Laden – It's Our Job To Arrange The Meeting"

"Artillery Brings Dignity to What Would Otherwise Be Just A Vulgar Brawl"

"One Shot, Twelve Kills – U.S. Naval Gun Fire Support"

"My Kid Fought In Iraq So Your Kid Can Party In College"

"Machine Gunners – Accuracy By Volume"

"A Dead Enemy Is A Peaceful Enemy – Blessed Be The Peacemakers"

"If You Can Read This, Thank A Teacher. If You Can Read It In English, Thank A Veteran"

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But the U.S. ARMED FORCES don't have that problem." … Ronald Reagan

An article from the Washington Post titled "For soldiers, single motherhood becomes another battlefield" brings up the question of single parents in the military. Now I understand that there are many people that want to serve their country, but not all should. Heck, I tried at the age of 42 but my body did not cooperate and I chose to come home. I felt, even though the Army was willing to do what it took to help me over come the problems in my lower back and hips, that it was better for my fellow soldiers for me to stay home and give them all the support I can, than to be the weak link. And that is what I felt I would be. If you can not perform the duties required to the fullest, whether physically or mentally, then you are just putting the people around you at risk.

I don't care if you are single, married, a single parent, or a married parent, when you sign on the line to join the Military, you should know that one day you could be sent into battle and have to leave your children behind. If you have children, then you need to weight the responsibilities as a parent against those of being in the military. What is best for you and what you feel you and your family can deal with may not be what is best for your career in the military. I am NOT saying that all military personnel should be single, many make it work. Yes, it is hard on the whole family, I don't deny that, BUT, what do you think the military is and does?

I get so tired of people that say they joined the military to get out of this or that, or to get a "free" education. It isn't free! That "free" education or "free" ticket out of the situation you are in could be paid for with your life. To me that is very expensive! If you are not willing to lay your life down for this Country, DO NOT JOIN THE MILITARY! It is that plain and simple.

Yes, the military still has many things that it needs to work out where women are concerned, health care and women in a combat MOS are just two. But as the article, "G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier" that they reference from "The New Your Times", many women are honorably proving that they can handle "the shit" just as well as many men that they stand beside in battle. So how can it be any different for a single mother in the military then a single father? Just a few years ago a friend of mine that was in the Navy, retired because he and his wife divorced,  and he got custody of their children. Feeling that it was better for him and his boys, he gave up a military career that he dearly loved. I respect his decision, I am saddened by it, but respect it. He was, and still is to me, a great Sailor! And look at CJ and the battles he has gone through over the last year. He is still in the Army AND doing his duty as a parent. Yes, it has cost him greatly, but apparently he was willing to make that sacrifice for the things he believes in, the Army and being a Dad.

Many years ago during WWII, my grandmother was in the Army. First she was a flight instructor and then a darkroom tech. When she became pregnant with my mom, she was released from the Army with a dishonorable discharge.There was no debate about it and she had no choice. Today, women can stay in the military when they become pregnant whether they are married or not. That is a great thing! We have come a long way in the last 60 to 70 years. But to sit there and refuse to deploy when you have known for months that it is going to happen is inexcusable.  I understand in the case of Spec. Alexis Hutchinson that her mother was supposed to take care of her son, but she was offered other help and refused it.

Now granted I don't know all the regulations and maybe CJ and Marcus can help me with this, but can't a person get out of the military siting hardship, without getting a "other-than-honorable" discharge? According to the story, Hutchinson choose the"other-than-honorable" discharge because she could get on with her life and would not have to face court-martial or possible jail time. In a way, I can understand that decision and sympathize with her. But I have many questions that these articles do not answer. Did she exhaust every means possible to delay her deployment and find other arrangements? Is there not any other family? And what about the offer of help that she did get and refused? Why did she refuse it? What were the conditions of it? There are a lot of unanswered questions. I believe that MSM has yet again taken a story and reported only half of it to, once again, make the military out to be a bunch of cold-hearted bastards!