UnSpace

This is my personal blog; nothing in here should be construed as official from the Pleasant Hills Community Presbyterian Church. Sometimes, like when I'm being sarcastic or trying to think something through, this blog doesn't even represent my own opinions. As the Acting Director of Communications, I need to be careful about how the things I do are interpreted.

One of the wonderful things about the Presbyterian Church USA is that there is plenty of room for differing opinions. For example, some people at the church do not have any problem with celebrating Halloween, others do. I don't, but in my work as Director of Communications, I am careful to not alienate anyone. Mostly this was accomplished by not even using the word "Halloween." I can write creatively when I need to.

I suspect I'm one of the few who believe whole-heartedly in predestination. I know that sounds strange for a Presbyterian church. But remember that there are far more crucial points being dealt with by our congregation: feeding the poor, caring for the sick, studying the Bible, glorifying the Name of Jesus Christ, etc. There simply isn't much time for the more theoretical considerations. So I cannot speak with a definitive voice for my church on many things simply because there is no definitive voice or no one really cares enough to make a definitive pronouncement. For example, if someone wishes to celebrate Halloween, they can, as long as they don't rub it in the faces of those who don't wish to celebrate it. I don't know of anyone who asks at the grocery store if the meat has been sacrificed to idols, either.

I do not blog from work for three reasons. One, I don't want there to be any possible confusion between work and this blog. Two, I don't have time to fly my radio-controlled helicopter (that's pronounced "STRESS RELIEF") at church (a large, usually empty gym is a definite work perk), let alone blog. Three, I've forgotten the password I used for this blog and can't log on from any computer but the home computers — I couldn't blog from work if I wanted to!

Yeah, I could fix that last problem, but remember #2 and the lack of time.

Given what I'm thinking about posting here on UnSpace, I decided there was a significant need to clarify the relationship of this blog to my church.

I just got a chance to read Tony Norman's most recent column "Here come da Judgement Day."

Tony might have been a little more heavy-handed toward the end than I would have chosen, but his column is still better than anything I could have written. Tony did a better job of expresing my religious beliefs than I could, also.

"Here come da Judgement Day" is worth a few moments of your time, but I suspect it will wind up occupying more than a few moments once you've read it.

I read through a lot of news sites in the morning as I eat breakfast. Two articles which I pulled up back to back were:

• Death From All Sides: "An extensive evidence file assembled by the Iraqi National Police after the controversial Blackwater shooting suggests that the private contractors opened fire unprovoked from the ground and the sky."
• Nickel Mines legacy: Forgive first: "Members of the Nickel Mines Amish community came together to share their sorrow the day after the shooting a year ago that left five girls dead. When the community reached out to the widow and parents of the murderer they sparked a national conversation on the power of forgiveness."

For those of you not familiar with the Blackwater USA security firm, it's founder is Erik Prince, someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Most of the Blackwater soldiers claim to be followers of Jesus.

For those of you not familiar with the Nickel Mines Amish community, you probably think of them as "technologically impaired." But the reason for their avoidance of most technology is to keep them from being distracted from Jesus Christ.

Like I said, the two articles showed up back to back. To the first, I would say "These people do not represent all Christians." Unfortunately, I would also say the same about the second article, with a totally different feeling about it.

Why didn't Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson show up at the "minority debate"? This latest GOP debate featured African-American and Hispanic journalists asking the questions. Why didn't the top four Republicans show up?

They claimed they all had "prior commitments" but the real reason is strategy. Minority voters aren't likely to vote Republican in the primary, so why should the top four bother appealing to them as a constituency? Had they appealed to minority interests, such an appeal might even hurt their cause with those who are racist among the Republicans. Right now, their biggest foe is not the Democrats, but each other — including President George W. Bush.

Of course the also-ran Republicans showed up. They are so little known, any coverage is good. And of course all the Democrats showed up at the previous Democratic minority debate — if the minorities are going to vote in the primary, they are likely registered as Democrats.

The Republicans shouldn't appeal to the minority groups at this point. During the last presidential election, they didn't try all that hard to reach out to the minority voters. Instead, they created a bogus issue like gay marriage to frighten religious minority voters into voting for them. That way, there would be less damage when the Republicans forgot about minorities once the election was over.

Tactic wise, skipping the minority debate was the perfect thing for the Republican front-runners to do.

This does beg the question, though: are these the tactics you want your president resorting to? Is this the sort of morality you want in the Oval Office?

Because my depression is gone (still, thank God![literally, I might add]), I'm getting things done better and more efficiently than before — but I'm also doing more! This "Acting Communications Director" gig at my church has me working harder than I expected. I'm having fun doing it, which means a lot of my energy is going toward the newsletter, bulletin, and all the other things the job entails.

I don't have the time to blog that I once did. I do hope to do a couple posts this weekend, but in the meantime, here's an update or three:

1. I asked the question about "church marketing," knowing I'd be attending a seminar on church marketing by Yvon Prehn. She answered my questions, including some I didn't know I had, and a follow-up post will discuss that. But now that I think about it, the answer is the same as the answer for the standard technology question "Is ______________ evil?" Are computers evil? Is biochemistry evil? Is church marketing evil? The technology is neutral; the question is, what are you doing with that technology? If you're using it to send out computer viruses, neurotoxins, or stuff designed to manipulate people, then what you are doing with the technology is evil. But if you're using the computer to turn data from a CT scanner into images a doctor can use to save a life, medicines to cure HIV or diabetes, or let people know who Jesus is or when the collection of goods for the needy is, then of course it's good. Yvon pointed out some Biblical answers. Yeah, I was impressed. If you're involved in church communications, you should take one of her seminars! More than one, actually! Her web site is a great resource. I'm not just saying that because she wants me to send her the link to this blog.
2. Speaking of links to this blog, I need to get up a statement that points out all of the opinions expressed here are either mine or me playing with ideas. This blog is not sponsored by my church, my church does not even have imprimaturs to give out, and I know some of the opinions expressed here are part of big discussions in my church. This is my blog.
3. I was talking with someone about Mother Theresa, and before I even got to my theory about her, the person said "You know a lot about depression. Did she strike you as terribly depressed?" It's the whole "microexpressions" and body language thing (c.f. Blink). I'm beginning to realize just how much I operate on intuition — trained experience on a subconscious level. So yeah, I have no doubt Mother Theresa was depressed. If anything, watching her when she speaks in a language I don't know improves my ability to catch it. No, it's not a DSM-4 level of diagnosis — I can think of other things that present as depression. As a rough analysis goes, though, she was depressed. And yes, I blame the Catholic church for being in denial about her depression. There are very few churches out there that aren't in denial about psychological problems among their members. If you think I'm picking on the Catholic church, remember that they're just the most public current example.

More later.

I had to remove several photographs from one of my posts. The pictures were of several children enjoying a concert by Cathasaigh. I was looking through my referrer log today and noticed how some jerk found the pictures. There was nothing to identify the children involved, the photos were taken in a public location and with parental permission, and the jerk didn't find what he was looking for, but that doesn't matter. I removed the photos. It's an over-reaction, but it's my blog and I can over-react if I want to.

No, I won't say what the search was for — you can guess, and I don't want to risk attracting any more creeps.

For all my time as a paramedic, for all the horrible things I've had to try to remedy — or call the coroner for — I'm still horrified at human depravity, still surprised. I'm glad to know my heart hasn't been destroyed by my time as a medic.

Having been approved by our church's Session, I am now the "Acting Director of Communications" for my church. Seeking to improve my skills, I began searching Amazon.com to see what books are out there to help me keep from re-inventing the wheel. I found the following comment on a review of one of the books:

There has been no Biblical proof yet offered which shows that Jesus was a marketing man, or that marketing is to be part of the growth of Jesus' Kingdom. See my critique in Testing the Claims of Church Growth. This is good marketing, but poor theology.

Our church believes that everything we do should be Biblically based. Our form of church governance is modeled on what little is recorded in the Bible of the early church polity. Our basic worship format is taken directly from Isaiah 6 (with things like hot coals being taken metaphorically, of course). Evangelism, small group Bible study, etc. are all to be based on Biblical models. Even our internal arguments about things like whether practicing homosexuals should be accepted into the ministry are based on the model given us by the early church as it debated whether Gentiles should be accepted into the church.

I flinch every time I use terms like "advertising" and "marketing" in my job. Jesus Christ is not a pack of cigarettes or a politician running for president. If you watch the worst of the television preachers, you'll see them using the same manipulative tricks the cigarette companies and Swift Boat committees — tricks designed to cause the person to act against their "will" and best interest.

In doing the bulletin or newsletter or signs around the church, I know I'm using basic marketing skills. I'm surprisingly good at it. I'd like to think I'm not being manipulative (if it is even possible to communicate without manipulation), but still I wonder.

Is this Rodney Zwonitzer (who is marketing his own book by leaving comments on books he hasn't read) correct? Is "marketing" the church wrong? Or are there examples of "marketing" in the Bible? If not, then what should we be doing?

What do you think?

This is how people reporting fraud by U.S. companies in Iraq are treated:

Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics “reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants.”

How can this go on?

How can we allow it?

Why is the government supporting this abuse of the whistleblowers?

Why aren't the conservative blogs talking about this abuse and demanding it be stopped?

Why aren't the liberal blogs talking about this abuse and demanding it be stopped?

Pedro Guzman, a mentally handicapped American born in the United States was deported to Mexico by the United States Federal government. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says that they did nothing wrong in deporting an American citizen to Mexico and possibly having caused his death. The U.S. Federal government has refused all requests to help find Mr. Guzman.

Pedro Guzman  made one phone call home from Tijuana in May. The phone call was cut short, and he has not been seen or heard from since.

I expected to hear Jerry Falwell claim that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer's return was because of gays, lesbians, and Hollywood. I expected to hear Pat Robertson ask people to pray for her death so that John Edwards could not possibly become President.

Granted, there was some slime spread about, but nothing as bad as I expected, and at least one incredible response to that slime. But none of the garbage I've come to take for granted in our modern world. Maybe I just got lucky and missed the worst of it.

Soon after, the world found out that Tony Snow's cancer had returned. Go read the article at Capitol Hill Blue about the hatred and evil directed at Snow at a time when humans ought to gather together to support the man in a difficult time. Even worse, read the responses to the very article criticizing such disgusting attacks. Some people can't buy a clue.

Maybe I need to keep repeating to myself my favorite of Larry Niven's Laws:

There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.

Last night's dream was disturbing. The United States set up internment camps for Muslims and Catholics. This dream is definitely not the way my conscious mind feels. I guess I'm hoping that writing this down will let me process the dream and stop thinking about it.

I was standing in a crowd when they announced on TV that all people of certain groups would be rounded up and placed in internment camps for the duration of the war on terror: Muslims and Catholics.

For some reason, I was suddenly at Powerball's place, standing outside with the guards. I flashed one of my little public safety DIs to them, and got to stand on the line. The National Guard standing next to me had been in three tours of Iraq. He wasn't 23 yet, and except for the scar on his face and his right hand, looked too young. He towered over me. I asked him why Catholics were being rounded up.

"American Catholics supported the IRA during their long battle with England. They supported terrorists. Now, some of those same IRA terrorists they supported are training Al Qaeda in terrorism. We can't trust the Catholics." He also mentioned some incident somewhere in 2000 where Catholics shot up an Islamic school, killing 70 people.¹

They marched Powerball's kids out first. Their hands were bound behind their back with plastic cuffs. The children were crying. Some stereotypical woman with hair pulled back, glasses, clipboard, and a business suit with too-high heels checked each of the kids. She was to make sure the process wasn't inhumane: if the children had been young enough, they'd have been given to some other family for adoption. None of Powerball's kids met the age limit. They would go to the children's internment camp, where, with indoctrination and hard work, they might find lives with some sort of meaning and benefit to society.They were put in a trailer — one of those shipping trailers with the sides and roof that tear open so easily in an MVA (motor vehicle accident). There were already about 40 kids in the trailer from the neighborhood. The smoke from the diesel stank up the air.

I said to the guard "Isn't this a mistake? He's a Republican!"

The guard continued to look straight ahead, gun at the ready. He said that we couldn't take chances. "Besides, Catholics molest children. It's part of the strategy. It makes them more willing to be suicide bombers."

"But there have never been Catholic suicide bombers! Granted, a few died when bombs went off early in Ireland…"

"That was what everyone thought. Now we know better."

"This is insane."

"The guard turned to look down at me. He didn't say anything, but the look was clear. "Do you want to join them?" I shut up, but did the standard internal seething that makes me feel like crap so often.

The brought out Powerball and his wife next. His wife was hysterical. Powerball was in shock at what was happening and said nothing. Most of the onlookers were cheering. Powerball looked at me and I shrugged. I wondered if he still supported interning the Muslims, and immediately thought how rotten that thought was. The whole thing worried me. "First they came for the Muslims, but I said nothing, because I wasn't Muslim. Then they came for the Catholics, but I said nothing, because I wasn't Catholic." I felt miserable and powerless. Usually I can save the day. I'm used to fixing things, not standing by helpless. This time there was nothing I could do but watch. The adults were put into a different truck. The truck moved on to the next house to be evacuated and the guards released Powerball's house to the crowd.

I felt so bad, that as I went through the house, I ignored some nice sound equipment. My heart wasn't into the looting, and so I only took a computer and the silverware.

It's a wonder I sleep at all.

1. I found a reference to a 2000 attack by 3 Roman Catholic militants on an Islamic school that resulted in the deaths of between 70 and 191 people. Just how much junk that I don't know about is stored in my brain? [back]

The National Association of Evangelicals, fresh from driving James Dobson up the wall by opposing global warming has come out opposing torture.

This story made my day. Of course, in a few minutes, I'll stop to ask why such an obvious statement was even necessary. Then Falwell or Robertson or someone will come out and proof-text the idea that Jesus wants us to torture our enemies. At that point, I'll be back in mourning.

But right now, I'm just going to feel relieved for a little bit.

The Republicans, business interests and Religious Right told us that acid rain was not man-made and was not a problem. Eventually, it got so bad even they had to cave in and do something about it.

The Republicans, business interests and Religious Right told us that depletion of the ozone was not man-made and was not a problem. Eventually, it got so bad even they had to cave in and do something about it.

Now, the Reppublicans, business interests and Religious Right tell us that global warming is not man-made and is not a problem.

Why are they getting even one nanosecond of our attention?

I would dearly love to create a post to demonstrate how the Fox News attack on John Edwards worked. The headline would be about officials taking down a child porn website. The subhead would talk about how vile the porn was. In the body of the article would be a quote from Fox News about the incident. You know that Fox News must have reported on a child porn website being shut down some time. And so, to fully document the source of the quote, above the body of the text and below the subhead would be a giant 600 pixel across "Fox News" logo.

The post would cause you to associate "Fox News" and child pornography. Here's how the trick works:

Virtually everyone coming to my blog would read the title. Have you ever tried to look at a word and not read what the word says? By the time you're an adult, you can't. You have to read that word. So people read the title; the shorter and more succinct, the better. They also see the picture. Again, they can't help but see the Fox News logo.

That's the first thing readers see — and most readers never read another word. Alas, it's true. Look at the way Fox News and MSNBC and CNN are designed. Headline, Subhead, usually a photograph, and text. They do that because of how people skim websites. Most people just check the headlines and the photograph. A few read the subhead. A surprisingly small number of people read the body text, and the chance that a reader will leave increases as you move down through the text. Darned if I can find the stats that give how many readers you lose at each stage, but clearly, your headline needs to tell the reader what the story's about and the picture has to suck the reader in.

In other words, in my hypothetical example post, most people only read about a child porn website and see the Fox News logo.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Have you ever taken a "Stroop test" to check how well your brain functions? I've taken too many, usually with needles in my arm and some polite (not mad) scientist pumping me full of insulin and a radioactive tracer. No, I'm not kidding. Anyway, they give you this list, and you have to read the words: red, blue, and green. The only problem is, the word "red" might be printed in blue or green, but never red. The same for the other two colors. For a normal adult, reading the list is just mildly annoying. When your blood glucose (normally 80 mg/dl) is down around 56 mg/dl, every word is a fight. Your brain believes the image it sees rather than the word it reads, and it takes real brain power to force yourself to read the word correctly.

In my hypothetical example, unless people work at separating the Fox News logo from the concept of a child porn site, they'll form an association. They may even realize the association is absurd and guess that the data came from Fox News. That doesn't matter: the association will form and some place, deep in their brain, they'll form a linkage between "Fox News" and "child porn website."

Trust me, Fox News works very hard to make sure stuff like that doesn't happen. The advertisers know it will affect how you behave. I don't dare create that post, because I know Fox News' lawyers would be sending me nastygrams — and they'd be right. I'm not sure if the lawyers would sue me or just threaten to, and I don't want to find out, because it's a nasty thing to do.

The Fox lawyers would sue me for doing to them what they did to John Edwards. Such a trick is not right. I didn't try that trick on Fox News, not because I'm afraid of their lawyers but because doing so is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it would be funny, which is why I sound so full or regret.

Now you know how people read articles. Can you use it to improve your blog? Sure you can. I knew you could!

This is the article as it appeared earlier today on Fox News. You can click on the photo for a much larger image that's easier to read.

This is how it appears now, at 5:41 p.m. EST:

Again, you can click on the image for the full size.

What was the purpose of putting the Edwards photo on an article about how Bill Maher did something as reprehensible as Ann Coulter? Was it to associate what was said, not with Maher, but with Edwards?

The Edwards photo would make sense, had it been on the article about Ann Coulter: he criticized her for her homophobic slur at him. Even putting Coulter's photo on this article would have made sense: ignorance can come out of both the left and the right.

But what possible reason was there to put Edwards, as large as possible, on the article about Maher, except to trick people into associating Edwards with a death-wish against the Vice-President? I do not like Dick Cheney. Any possible sympathy I had for the man, I lost when he shot his lawyer friend and then let the spin teams blame getting shot in the face on the victim. But I also have to respect the office. What Maher said was bad — probably even worse, in my opinion, than what Coulter said (though it certainly is close).

But Fox is deliberately attempting to associate the smear with Edwards, not Maher, with this little trick. Even they must have eventually realized the stunt was too blatant, because they changed it. And don't tell me they didn't have a file photo of Maher for the article. You know they did!

Fox News is scum.

I hate to say this. I really hate to say this. Back when Michelle Madoff was mayor and wanted to build a baseball park like Baltimore (trust me, if you've been to Baltimore, you'll see where a lot of ideas were ripped off from), I agreed with her. But when the ballpark turned from Pirates into piracy, I began to wonder.

As the Penguins dragged on the negotiations, I started to wonder if keeping a sports franchise was worth it. Why were the cash-strapped governments paying for stadiums and parks and arenas that should have come out of the team's pocket? What happens if a city were to just say "We can't afford you. Bye!"? Eventually, if enough cities did that, sanity might return to the civic financial crisis.

I like hockey, although the one game I went to with Nancy was so filled with fan violence, we've not been back since before we were married. I remember the season the Penguins went out of their way to come in last, to get the next hockey superstar. Who can forget that great radio analysis: "Pitt lost, Penn State lost, the Steelers lost, and the Penguins are up next!" I celebrated when Mario won the Stanley Cup, prayed for his recovery, and watched as Sidney Crosby came to be yet another great hockey star to play in Pittsburgh.

When Ed Rendell proclaimed the Penguins deal the best sports franchise deal ever in Pennsylvania, I'd had enough. Governments need to form a union, to quit being thrown on the rack by these sports teams. Enough is enough.

The Penguins are intent on moving the team now. They didn't get far more than they ever should have been offered.

Kansas City or some other city will get the Penguins. Pittsburgh will get some much-needed financial sanity.

I'm really sorry it had to come to this, especially since I don't think most politicians or voters have enough brain cells to learn from this loss.

I might be wrong, and your mileage may vary.

Please don't firebomb my house.

Police in Washington Township, Michigan, have been searching for Tara Grant since February. Starting Friday night, police searched the home that Tara and Stephen Grant shared. In the garage, they found Tara Grant's torso.

According to MSNBC, the lawyer for Stephen Grant is asking "the real question":

“The real question here is, you have heard the police over the past two weeks continuously say that Stephen Grant is not a suspect,” Griem said. “You’ve heard the sheriff continuously answer questions from the media about a search of the Grant home, the sheriff’s answer consistently being, ‘We don’t have probable cause to search the Grant home.’

“The question I have for the police is, what has changed in the last several hours from what they have been saying for the past several weeks?”

Now tell me, is that "the real question" you have? My "real question" might be "Why didn't they search the house first thing?" Or it might be "How could anyone do that to their spouse?" Similar would be "What was Stephen Grant thinking?" Or my "real question" might be "If the cops chased Stephen Grant out of the house to execute the search warrant, why didn't they keep an eye on him and keep him from getting away?"

Maybe eventually I might make my way down the list of important questions to "Is Stephen Grant's lawyer related to, or was he a roommate of in college, a certain silver-haired Pittsburgh lawyer whose mere presence in the case is incontrovertible proof of guilt?"

Ok, maybe that's not fair. Our legal system is founded on the adversarial principle, and so Griem does need to be wondering what else the cops know that links Stephen Grant to the murder of his wife, and how lousy a plea agreement should Griem advise his client to take?

Still, to call it "the real question" is absurd.

I wonder if I've been wrong.  I've been taking a stand against the ignorant who can't think their way out of a paper bag and claim there's no such thing as global warming. Why should I stand up to them? What's in it for me?

There are plenty of advantages to supporting global warming. Here are just a few, off the top of my head:

• Power. If humanity is going to destroy itself, why not help? How many people in the history of mankind can say "I helped bring about the end of mankind"?
• Convenience. What's more important, my comfort or the life of people I've never met and probably wouldn't like if did meet them?
• Greed. Pain and suffering always provide business opportunities. Just call me Daddy Globalwarmingbucks.
• Consistency. No one will call me a hypocrite for leaving a light on by mistake.
• Entertainment. Disasters are fun. I can watch the end of civilization on the news, after the extended Steelers coverage.
• I told you so. I've had great fun being snarky about cigarettes and acid rain, and this one's far bigger.
• No kids. Why should I care what happens in 2060?
• Space travel. If we screw this planet up bad enough, maybe we'll be forced to move out into the universe. Star Trek, here we come. Ok, so maybe it will be more like Battlestar Galactica….

I'm kidding, of course.

You hope.

As payback for talking to the press about the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital, the veterans being treeted there are being subjected to 7 a.m. inspections and are ordered to not talk to the press. I was willing to argue for the intelligence of the Bugblatter Beast of Traal, but I can't come up with anything remotely believable to excuse the person who issued those orders.

Don't think that the top officials didn't know: underlings warned and begged them to do something about the condition our Iraqi veterans were being subjected to, but even the Army Surgeon General did nothing.

Not only is our government willing to torture captured terrorists, but apparently they're quite happy torturing our own soldiers, not to get information to save lives, but to avoid having to do their jobs and to save money.

The only word I can think of to describe the abuse of these American soldiers is "treason." How is treason in the line of duty treated during wartime?

Yesterday, I posted about how unconscionable our treatment of our returning veterans was. Well, I just got off the phone after calling the offices of my two senators and representative about the problems veterans returning from Iraq face. Senator Specter's staffperson handled my call quickly and with no questions. The person who answered Senator Casey's phone took my name and zip code and thanked me, assuring me this would be mentioned to the senator. Congressman Murphy's staffperson stated that she thought this was a very important issue. She took my name, address, and stated that my concern would be passed onto the Congressman Murphy.

I probably got better at the phone call with practice. I've done this before, I don't know why it's still hard. I don't think the practice accounted for most of the response from the person answering the phone, though. Murphy, being elected by a region rather than the whole state, probably needs to be more responsive. For all I know, all three pay some grunt to go "Yeah, uh huh, I'll inform him" and then take the next call, with nothing being done. I am feeling a little cynical today. The best I was realistically hoping for was an additional tally mark on a list of what people are concerned about. I was left with the impression that Senator Specter doesn't intend to run again, Senator Casey's staff might be educable, and Congressman Murphy knows how hard he's going to have to fight next time.

Technorati shows that I'm not the only one talking about this. Remember the Ladies includes the abysmal treatment of veterans in a long post. The Impolitic calls the veteran situation a national disgrace. ThinkFast includes the veteran situation in a "quick link"-like list. I could go on and on…I even came across a very hard left site and a White Power site that were outraged. Nearly everyone agrees on the need for better treatment for our returning soldiers — but will the politicians do anything?

I can't condone the approach taken in the video on Viral Media in Retrospect to dealing with the problem, but there's a part of me going "Yeah, baby!" Come on — do we really have to con society into taking care of those who were willing to serve their country?