We're back in Watergate mode again. All the cliches are blossoming on the surface of this dirty dishwater we call a Presidential administration. Let's see, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up, what did he know, and when did he know it? don't forget about "midnight massacres" and the ever-popular "Constitutional crisis."
So the Attorney General acting under orders fires the Deputy director of the FBI right before he's eligible for his pension. After 20 years on the job, some "thank you for your service."
Your service... your service, we hear this when people work for the government. We hear it especially when they fight the government's wars. It's become a sacred chant for most who serve their government. But there are a few who serve and never get thanked. They get explanations, accusations, and all too often, shown the door.
What happens when government service takes another form? Those young people, myself included, who disrupted their lives to serve in either the Peace Corps or Americorps don't get the gratitude from many. Not sure why that is, perhaps because there is a bit of romanticism connected with Peace Corps. People see themselves on a beach in Africa or Asia, working with the locals to bring them water, or higher crop yields, or definitely teaching children to read. With Americorps, once known as VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) there is also a romantic notion, but a bit less because in this country we are much more familiar with many of the conditions that breed poverty in the midst of so much abundance.
Perhaps it comes as a surprise that those who volunteer for VISTA and Peace Corps sometimes experience the same kind of danger and threats as the members of an invading army. During my service in Houston, Texas, I went to live in the murder capital of the nation (at that time) with very few resources and was instructed to win the hearts and minds of the people. Sound familiar? If not, it closely parallels the philosophy of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Now, I'm not suggesting that VISTA service should be considered the same as being in the military, no, no. But there are similarities. Both were intended to disrupt the lives of those who served. That was the official government line for consideration as a conscientious objector t the Vietnam war.
People who serve the government in any capacity often do drop everything and give their all for their government. They often sacrifice good jobs and career opportunities. In the end, I wonder why people serve their government. Obviously, those drafted into the army would have preferred to go on with their lives but felt the responsibility to give back to their government. If you ask them most often you'll hear about freedom and how it isn't free. Fair enough. Those who serve by working to improve the lives of others seem to care more about their own worldview. They may ever prefer to be called citizens of the world. Their willingness to disrupt their lives lies closer to the notion of improving the human condition by building rather than destroying. Sometimes, you get what you need.
So the Attorney General acting under orders fires the Deputy director of the FBI right before he's eligible for his pension. After 20 years on the job, some "thank you for your service."
Your service... your service, we hear this when people work for the government. We hear it especially when they fight the government's wars. It's become a sacred chant for most who serve their government. But there are a few who serve and never get thanked. They get explanations, accusations, and all too often, shown the door.
What happens when government service takes another form? Those young people, myself included, who disrupted their lives to serve in either the Peace Corps or Americorps don't get the gratitude from many. Not sure why that is, perhaps because there is a bit of romanticism connected with Peace Corps. People see themselves on a beach in Africa or Asia, working with the locals to bring them water, or higher crop yields, or definitely teaching children to read. With Americorps, once known as VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) there is also a romantic notion, but a bit less because in this country we are much more familiar with many of the conditions that breed poverty in the midst of so much abundance.
Perhaps it comes as a surprise that those who volunteer for VISTA and Peace Corps sometimes experience the same kind of danger and threats as the members of an invading army. During my service in Houston, Texas, I went to live in the murder capital of the nation (at that time) with very few resources and was instructed to win the hearts and minds of the people. Sound familiar? If not, it closely parallels the philosophy of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Now, I'm not suggesting that VISTA service should be considered the same as being in the military, no, no. But there are similarities. Both were intended to disrupt the lives of those who served. That was the official government line for consideration as a conscientious objector t the Vietnam war.
People who serve the government in any capacity often do drop everything and give their all for their government. They often sacrifice good jobs and career opportunities. In the end, I wonder why people serve their government. Obviously, those drafted into the army would have preferred to go on with their lives but felt the responsibility to give back to their government. If you ask them most often you'll hear about freedom and how it isn't free. Fair enough. Those who serve by working to improve the lives of others seem to care more about their own worldview. They may ever prefer to be called citizens of the world. Their willingness to disrupt their lives lies closer to the notion of improving the human condition by building rather than destroying. Sometimes, you get what you need.
Comments