Hello to those of you who actually read my rants,
The last few days have been a whirlwind for me. Not only am I absolutely enraged by some of the statements in the mainstream media, as well as alternative media regarding Iraq, but I also had my first real experience with accessing health care since getting out of the military.
Let me make this more clear; I had my first real experience with getting my family access to health care since leaving the military. I go to the VA for care even though it is a nightmare of a bureaucracy to navigate and can be pretty frustrating. I must admit, I'm willing to put up with it in order to not have to pay out of pocket. However, now I might as well use a private doctor because the Affordable Care Act has required me to insure myself in order to insure my two sons and wife. I found this out because my family's health insurance plan was expiring because of me getting out of the military (Military health insurance lasts for 180 days after you get out). So long story short, I started trying to find health insurance to buy for my family so that they would still be covered (I haven't been with my company long enough to get their insurance, and from what I hear from coworkers, it isn't anything to rejoice about).
Like most veterans, I am a member of USAA. So I did some shopping around before I asked them about health insurance. They are partnered with a company called Assurant Health that offers medical, dental, and vision insurance. Pretty cool; I can handle all my insurance needs (car, house, life, medical, etc.) through USAA. That's the only upside to this story.
So my military health insurance expired on June 28th. As luck would have it, my wife got really sick on the 29th. You might be thinking, "why didn't you just use the new insurance through USAA?" Well, Obamacare won't let you start a new insurance plan without having a "qualifying circumstance." Furthermore, that plan can only start on the 1st of the month. Additionally, as I eluded to before, I had to get a plan for my entire family (including myself) so that my kids and wife could be covered. I literally spent two hours on the phone with the lady explaining to her that I could go to the VA for all my needs and didn't need a policy for myself. "Sorry," she said. "You can't just buy a policy for your kids and wife without you being on it." What's worse, is that I now pay $1,100 a month for a plan for a family of 4 because of my income. Granted, I could've got one for $750 a month that would have had a higher copay and required referrals from a primary care provider, but we agreed that the extra cost would be worth avoiding the headache of going through the HMO system. But still, $750 is a lot of dough. You would think that rate would get you lower copays and not having to go through a primary care provider to be seen by a specialist for an area of your body you already know needs attention from a specialist. If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this example. If your foot hurts under the HMO system, you have to go to your primary care provider (A general physician) to get a referral to see a podiatrist. This can take time and be a pretty frustrating process. Furthermore, the referral can only be in network and be with a doctor that is pre-approved by your HMO. So in order to have more control over our health care, we opted to pay more per month.
This is great. I grew up in the lower middle class (sometimes in the upper lower class depending on the time period), and now my first chance to get ahead in life and create a better future for my offspring requires that I pay a higher insurance premium because of the "Affordable Care Act." Awesome!
For those of you haven't really done your research on the Affordable Care Act, just know this; there is no such thing as getting insurance that isn't Obamacare. A relative of mine tried to tell me she got a plan that is only $172 a month and "it isn't Obamacare or anything subsidized." I laughed. The Affordable Care Act governs all insurance policies in the country and if you go out into the "marketplace" on your own as I did, things like your income help determine your premium. Another "tax" on success. Glad I worked my ass off for the past 15 years and did well in college so that I could get a good paying job and have to pay higher insurance premiums. There are new rules that insurance companies, like mine, have to abide by (like when your policy can start, and who has to be on the policy). So just because you have health insurance through your company or with a "private" company that you had before the ACA, that health insurance policy is still governed by the ACA.
My point is this; for me, Obamacare isn't "affordable." And because of the new rules, I had to pay out of pocket for my wife to get seen and get medicine for her illness. But this actually brings me to the next point which I always try to implement into my blog posts, the solution!
So luckily there is a Walgreen's close to our house with a "Minute Clinic." There is a Physician's Assistant (PA) on duty 7 days a week. My wife went there, was diagnosed and given a prescription. Out the door, medicine in hand, total cost $165. Boy was I glad it wasn't more. But it got me thinking. We are pretty healthy people and don't go to the doctor that often; maybe once a year a piece for my wife and I, and two times a year a piece for the kids just for "mandatory" vaccines so they can attend their school. So $1,100 a month times 12 is $13,200. That's a lot of money that I could be putting into their college fund rather than paying for other people's subsidized and much lower insurance premiums. I could give half that amount a month to a nonprofit organization that provides healthcare to underprivileged folks and it would make way more of a difference. Now I know the first thing some of you are going to argue is; "what if they get cancer or tuberculosis?" Well, yeah, I think we should have insurance for that, just like we have car insurance in case we get into a wreck, but it shouldn't cost $1,100 a month, or even $750 a month. If we all paid some sort of "medical catastrophe" insurance, and then only paid the doctor directly when we needed to visit, then health care would be much cheaper for everyone.
For those of you who think health care is a human right; please answer these questions:
1) How do you say that someone has a right to health care at the economic expense of somebody else?
2) If you are entitled to health care because it is your human right; is the doctor's human obligation to treat you?
3) If there were no doctors, should the government force people to go to medical school so that you could receive your human right to health care?
I think nobody should physically or legally inhibit you from getting whatever healthcare you want, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to provide it for you. Doctor's, as well as employers, should have the right to deny services just like you should have the right to do what you want with your own body. It is up to you to find a another party who consents to rendering whatever services you are seeking. Don't try to use the Supreme Court and the Legislative system to require people to pay for something for you that is a personal choice to take (birth control-Hobby Lobby).
This whole issue is just another issue ruining our country. Once people start taking responsibility for themselves and not expecting the government to take money by force and coercion from other people in order to provide services to them, we might head down a better path. And before you try to call me out for being a hypocrite and using a government program (VA healthcare), please know that I would gladly pay for my own healthcare (which I do now anyways even though I am supposedly "entitled" to VA healthcare) if the government totally got out of the healthcare business and started letting Americans govern their own personal lives.
Last note: Many people who I respect have expressed disdain for today's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling that says businesses don't have to provide birth control due to religious beliefs. This shouldn't even have been spun as a religious issue. No person or business should be required to give anything to an employee except a paycheck for the work they perform. What is wrong with people when they feel so entitled that somebody else owes them something that has nothing to do with their job? People make a choice to have sex and to have kids or not have kids. Unless your job is to have sex with people for a paycheck, then I see no place for birth control to even be involved in the compensation package. And even then, I would say it shouldn't be mandated by the government.
I understand the statement; "Get your beliefs off my body." And I agree. But I say get your beliefs out of my wallet. I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do in your bedroom or with your body and you shouldn't be able to require me to pay for shit you want to put in your body and that you should pay for yourself. Bottom line.
Sorry this blog was more of a rant than a constructive post, but I got really heated today when I learned about how the federal government was making my life way more stressful. I'm making more money than I did in the Marines, but still WAY WAY less than Obama's magic $250K a year number (top of the middle class income earners), yet I still get penalized for climbing the socioeconomic ladder by having to pay higher health care insurance premiums. I hope he doesn't try to pass the "Affordable Car Insurance, or Affordable Renter's Insurance Act." I'll have to start moonlighting just to pay insurance premiums.
Until next time, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Monday, June 30, 2014
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Iraq, ISIS, and the Solution
Greetings,
I hope you all have been surviving the recent overwhelming propaganda and rhetoric coming from "Inside the Beltway." If you're a futbol (soccer) fan, at least you have the World Cup to take your mind off the massive influx of BS coming from the talking heads.
I was going to avoid blogging about Iraq, but all the beating of the war drums from some of my fellow Iraq war veterans has disturbed me to the point of chiming in. Let me start by plainly and blatantly saying that we do not need to intervene for any reason whatsoever and there is not a single US interest in bringing stability back to Iraq (not even because we are the ones who caused the instability). Now, I know it is somewhat too late since we technically have already intervened on a small scale by sending in "military advisors." However, we should not go a step further, and here's why:
1. One more American life lost as a result of a war that was started on false premises is not worth it, nor is any other life for that matter. I too lost friends and guys who were literally like family to me in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that going back to Iraq and fixing this (even if we could) would make their loss be any less in vain. All the lives lost in Iraq were in vain and there is nothing we can do to change that. There was no global threat by Saddam Hussein or Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden and his followers were never going to come to America and take away our liberties and implement Sharia Law. Saddam Hussein was never going to bomb American cities with his supposed arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the "yellow cake" he was supposedly stockpiling to make them. More armed conflict won't fix any of our past indiscretions.
2. We've already lost our money there and we have no further economic advantage to gain from intervening (not that economic profits or losses should ever affect the decision to engage in armed conflict). Iraq doesn't have some huge market in which American businesses sell their goods and services. If Iraq decays into further chaos and turmoil, it doesn't mean that a mass of American citizens will lose their jobs and livelihood. And again, even if it did mean those things, that shouldn't justify us engaging in a war.
3. My last argument for the sake of conciseness is that we have proven we suck at fighting a counterinsurgency. Mr. Miagi once told Daniel-son; "I only fight the battles I know I can win." We don't know we can win that battle. If we know anything, we know we could lose it because we have already lost two counterinsurgencies. I know that is a hard pill to swallow for my fellow brainwashed veterans and those still on active duty, but it's true. We got beat. Maybe we never lost a gunfight with the enemy, but we lost the war. We need to cut our losses and go back to the drafting table, just like the Miami Heat are doing right now.
So as with all my blog posts, I try to propose a solution. In this scenario, it's kind of hard. My solution would be to do nothing, and to stop whatever we're doing now. There is no zero-sum game in global politics. Iran getting influence in Iraq doesn't mean the decline of the United States. If anything, Iran can exhaust their resources just like we did. They'll fail at a counterinsurgency just as we did. Let them. Their gain doesn't mean our loss. However, this type of proposal is usually labeled "isolationist," which is a dirty word in Washington, D.C. and among those that think the USA has to be involved in all international affairs and conflicts in order to maintain its status as a global power, actually THE global power.
We still are the only global power on Earth. Every other nation you hear the mainstream media fear mongering the population about is really just a regional power. China is the elephant in the room in Asia, Iran might be in the Middle East; however, Israel is a close contender. Russia is really only a threat to non-EU/non-NATO states in Europe, and I wouldn't even call them a threat.
So to get to the point, if we have to do something, it should not be militaristic in nature. We need to start and win a propaganda campaign in Iraq that makes ISIS look bad, or at least worse than Maliki's government. And we should do this using Iraqi personnel and resources only, meaning no "infidel American" faces passing out pro-Maliki propaganda on the streets of Iraq. Not sure why we didn't learn from our successful Cold War tactics of having the locals do all the legwork for us, but it definitely works better than bureaucrats from Washington trying to figure out how to operate in a foreign environment with an extremely different culture.
Lastly, to all of you who have said or thought; "Hey, we need to go finish the job!"... screw you. What job? What was our job in the first place? Ask yourself that. Use that brain in between your ears and think about those long hot days we spent in Iraq and the people who died or were injured. Then try to quantify what you really accomplished for the "Greater Good" and how it benefits anyone here at home.
Until next time my friends, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
I hope you all have been surviving the recent overwhelming propaganda and rhetoric coming from "Inside the Beltway." If you're a futbol (soccer) fan, at least you have the World Cup to take your mind off the massive influx of BS coming from the talking heads.
I was going to avoid blogging about Iraq, but all the beating of the war drums from some of my fellow Iraq war veterans has disturbed me to the point of chiming in. Let me start by plainly and blatantly saying that we do not need to intervene for any reason whatsoever and there is not a single US interest in bringing stability back to Iraq (not even because we are the ones who caused the instability). Now, I know it is somewhat too late since we technically have already intervened on a small scale by sending in "military advisors." However, we should not go a step further, and here's why:
1. One more American life lost as a result of a war that was started on false premises is not worth it, nor is any other life for that matter. I too lost friends and guys who were literally like family to me in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that going back to Iraq and fixing this (even if we could) would make their loss be any less in vain. All the lives lost in Iraq were in vain and there is nothing we can do to change that. There was no global threat by Saddam Hussein or Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden and his followers were never going to come to America and take away our liberties and implement Sharia Law. Saddam Hussein was never going to bomb American cities with his supposed arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the "yellow cake" he was supposedly stockpiling to make them. More armed conflict won't fix any of our past indiscretions.
2. We've already lost our money there and we have no further economic advantage to gain from intervening (not that economic profits or losses should ever affect the decision to engage in armed conflict). Iraq doesn't have some huge market in which American businesses sell their goods and services. If Iraq decays into further chaos and turmoil, it doesn't mean that a mass of American citizens will lose their jobs and livelihood. And again, even if it did mean those things, that shouldn't justify us engaging in a war.
3. My last argument for the sake of conciseness is that we have proven we suck at fighting a counterinsurgency. Mr. Miagi once told Daniel-son; "I only fight the battles I know I can win." We don't know we can win that battle. If we know anything, we know we could lose it because we have already lost two counterinsurgencies. I know that is a hard pill to swallow for my fellow brainwashed veterans and those still on active duty, but it's true. We got beat. Maybe we never lost a gunfight with the enemy, but we lost the war. We need to cut our losses and go back to the drafting table, just like the Miami Heat are doing right now.
So as with all my blog posts, I try to propose a solution. In this scenario, it's kind of hard. My solution would be to do nothing, and to stop whatever we're doing now. There is no zero-sum game in global politics. Iran getting influence in Iraq doesn't mean the decline of the United States. If anything, Iran can exhaust their resources just like we did. They'll fail at a counterinsurgency just as we did. Let them. Their gain doesn't mean our loss. However, this type of proposal is usually labeled "isolationist," which is a dirty word in Washington, D.C. and among those that think the USA has to be involved in all international affairs and conflicts in order to maintain its status as a global power, actually THE global power.
We still are the only global power on Earth. Every other nation you hear the mainstream media fear mongering the population about is really just a regional power. China is the elephant in the room in Asia, Iran might be in the Middle East; however, Israel is a close contender. Russia is really only a threat to non-EU/non-NATO states in Europe, and I wouldn't even call them a threat.
So to get to the point, if we have to do something, it should not be militaristic in nature. We need to start and win a propaganda campaign in Iraq that makes ISIS look bad, or at least worse than Maliki's government. And we should do this using Iraqi personnel and resources only, meaning no "infidel American" faces passing out pro-Maliki propaganda on the streets of Iraq. Not sure why we didn't learn from our successful Cold War tactics of having the locals do all the legwork for us, but it definitely works better than bureaucrats from Washington trying to figure out how to operate in a foreign environment with an extremely different culture.
Lastly, to all of you who have said or thought; "Hey, we need to go finish the job!"... screw you. What job? What was our job in the first place? Ask yourself that. Use that brain in between your ears and think about those long hot days we spent in Iraq and the people who died or were injured. Then try to quantify what you really accomplished for the "Greater Good" and how it benefits anyone here at home.
Until next time my friends, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Monday, June 9, 2014
The Real Issue w/ Bowe Bergdahl
Well, well, well...
Again, I wanted to wait to "contribute" on this issue until the sensationalized media settled down a bit. The media is totally addressing the wrong issues surrounding the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange.
The right wing is saying we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, which is wrong in my opinion and I'll explain why later.
The left is saying that it is our duty to bring all service members home from a war we sent them to, which I agree with, and actually it is already precedent. However, the Obama Administration did several things wrong in this instance:
1. Trading top level commanders for a low level enlisted soldier.
2. Not giving Congress the agreed upon 30 days notice laid out in last years reauthorization of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
3. They used the word "hero" to refer to Bowe Bergdahl.
So back to the point of negotiating with terrorists. First let's refer to our old friend Merriam Webster to define terrorist:
Terrorist - an individual who uses acts of violence and intimidation to frighten people as a way to achieve a political goal.
If you agree with that definition, then the Nazis were terrorists, the Asad regime is operated by terrorists, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, and the list could go on and on. So the first point is that we have negotiated with terrorists in the past. The second point (the more important one) is that we should negotiate with terrorist if we hope to actually influence change and not just continue armed conflict.
Believe me, as a former Marine, I'm the first person who gets riled up and likes to resort to American military might against the "bad guys." But that course of action rarely achieves desirable outcomes, as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just to drive the nail home, Muqtada al-Sadr was the leader of an extremely violent and effective terrorist group in Iraq. Now he is the leader of a political party holding seats in Iraq's parliament and has vowed to use the political system to achieve his goals rather than violence. I see this as a good thing. Again, this happened because we negotiated with him and brought him to the table rather than forcing him to operate outside the system.
So hopefully I've made the case for negotiating with terrorists. However, that doesn't mean we should engage in bad negotiations with them. To expound on my earlier points about what the Obama Administration did wrong:
1. Look at the trade from a different perspective:
- Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa (former governor of Taliban held region) would be like Jeb Bush
- Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban Army's Chief of Staff) would be like U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Odierno
- Mullah Norullah Noori (former Governor of Taliban controlled region) would be like Mitt Romney
-Abdul Haq Wasiq (Deputy Chief of Taliban's Intelligence Service) would be like Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael J. Morell
-Mohammad Nabi Omari (Taliban Communications Chief) would be like Jay Carney (Former White House Press Secretary)
So do you think if the Taliban had the aforementioned American personnel held in one of their prisons and we had a low level guy like Bowe Bergdahl, that they would trade? I'd bet not.
2. Giving Congress the required 30 days notice:
This is pretty self explanatory. This country is supposedly governed by the rule of law. If our leaders don't abide by that law, then what good is our system?
3. We are not heroes:
Lately, I have heard complaints by journalists on NPR and other news outlets that accuse Bergdahl's platoon mates of changing the narrative on this story and causing all this bad press by stating that he was a deserter and that several deaths were a direct result of his desertion. They only spoke out because the media was referring to Bergdahl as a hero. If you bother to read most of Bergdahl's platoon mates' opinions and concerns, it was not the actual exchange that bothered them, but that everyone was referring to him as a hero. This points to a larger problem in our society. Military veterans are not heroes. I can say this because I am one. We sign up knowing what we are getting into, and more importantly, what we are getting out of it. People can say they didn't join for the college money or benefits, but you really don't know unless those benefits don't exist. We are paid well, fed well, and housed. On top of all that, if you get the slightest service connected injury, you get a check for the rest of your life from the VA. Oh yeah, that doesn't mention the GI Bill to pay for college and the no money down government backed mortgages we can get. That's just the basic stuff that is known to everyone. The benefits go on and on. So please, stop calling us heroes, especially a guy like Bowe Bergdahl. Even if he didn't desert his post, does it make you a hero to get captured by the enemy?
So in keeping with the theme of the blog, here's the solution:
Yes, negotiate with terrorists. Get them to lay down their arms and pick up their pens and foghorns. However, don't trade pearls for sand. Better yet, don't get our military into unnecessary situations that lead to scenarios like this. And more importantly, if you're the President or Congress, obey the legislative protocols that you signed into law.
Again, this all goes back to our failure as a society to engage our leaders and hold them accountable for their bad policies. Conservatives and Liberals alike continuously reelect bad politicians like John McCain and Harry Reid. I think we should personally have six year terms for every federal political office and that only one term should be allowed. Every six years, you'd get a completely new roster. Imagine what that would do for special interests.
So I hope you all decide to think critically when taking your stance on the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange. We do owe it to our soldiers to bring them home; however, it doesn't mean we have to do it stupidly. Furthermore, just being a service member doesn't make you a hero.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Again, I wanted to wait to "contribute" on this issue until the sensationalized media settled down a bit. The media is totally addressing the wrong issues surrounding the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange.
The right wing is saying we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, which is wrong in my opinion and I'll explain why later.
The left is saying that it is our duty to bring all service members home from a war we sent them to, which I agree with, and actually it is already precedent. However, the Obama Administration did several things wrong in this instance:
1. Trading top level commanders for a low level enlisted soldier.
2. Not giving Congress the agreed upon 30 days notice laid out in last years reauthorization of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
3. They used the word "hero" to refer to Bowe Bergdahl.
So back to the point of negotiating with terrorists. First let's refer to our old friend Merriam Webster to define terrorist:
Terrorist - an individual who uses acts of violence and intimidation to frighten people as a way to achieve a political goal.
If you agree with that definition, then the Nazis were terrorists, the Asad regime is operated by terrorists, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, and the list could go on and on. So the first point is that we have negotiated with terrorists in the past. The second point (the more important one) is that we should negotiate with terrorist if we hope to actually influence change and not just continue armed conflict.
Believe me, as a former Marine, I'm the first person who gets riled up and likes to resort to American military might against the "bad guys." But that course of action rarely achieves desirable outcomes, as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just to drive the nail home, Muqtada al-Sadr was the leader of an extremely violent and effective terrorist group in Iraq. Now he is the leader of a political party holding seats in Iraq's parliament and has vowed to use the political system to achieve his goals rather than violence. I see this as a good thing. Again, this happened because we negotiated with him and brought him to the table rather than forcing him to operate outside the system.
So hopefully I've made the case for negotiating with terrorists. However, that doesn't mean we should engage in bad negotiations with them. To expound on my earlier points about what the Obama Administration did wrong:
1. Look at the trade from a different perspective:
- Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa (former governor of Taliban held region) would be like Jeb Bush
- Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban Army's Chief of Staff) would be like U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Odierno
- Mullah Norullah Noori (former Governor of Taliban controlled region) would be like Mitt Romney
-Abdul Haq Wasiq (Deputy Chief of Taliban's Intelligence Service) would be like Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael J. Morell
-Mohammad Nabi Omari (Taliban Communications Chief) would be like Jay Carney (Former White House Press Secretary)
So do you think if the Taliban had the aforementioned American personnel held in one of their prisons and we had a low level guy like Bowe Bergdahl, that they would trade? I'd bet not.
2. Giving Congress the required 30 days notice:
This is pretty self explanatory. This country is supposedly governed by the rule of law. If our leaders don't abide by that law, then what good is our system?
3. We are not heroes:
Lately, I have heard complaints by journalists on NPR and other news outlets that accuse Bergdahl's platoon mates of changing the narrative on this story and causing all this bad press by stating that he was a deserter and that several deaths were a direct result of his desertion. They only spoke out because the media was referring to Bergdahl as a hero. If you bother to read most of Bergdahl's platoon mates' opinions and concerns, it was not the actual exchange that bothered them, but that everyone was referring to him as a hero. This points to a larger problem in our society. Military veterans are not heroes. I can say this because I am one. We sign up knowing what we are getting into, and more importantly, what we are getting out of it. People can say they didn't join for the college money or benefits, but you really don't know unless those benefits don't exist. We are paid well, fed well, and housed. On top of all that, if you get the slightest service connected injury, you get a check for the rest of your life from the VA. Oh yeah, that doesn't mention the GI Bill to pay for college and the no money down government backed mortgages we can get. That's just the basic stuff that is known to everyone. The benefits go on and on. So please, stop calling us heroes, especially a guy like Bowe Bergdahl. Even if he didn't desert his post, does it make you a hero to get captured by the enemy?
So in keeping with the theme of the blog, here's the solution:
Yes, negotiate with terrorists. Get them to lay down their arms and pick up their pens and foghorns. However, don't trade pearls for sand. Better yet, don't get our military into unnecessary situations that lead to scenarios like this. And more importantly, if you're the President or Congress, obey the legislative protocols that you signed into law.
Again, this all goes back to our failure as a society to engage our leaders and hold them accountable for their bad policies. Conservatives and Liberals alike continuously reelect bad politicians like John McCain and Harry Reid. I think we should personally have six year terms for every federal political office and that only one term should be allowed. Every six years, you'd get a completely new roster. Imagine what that would do for special interests.
So I hope you all decide to think critically when taking your stance on the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange. We do owe it to our soldiers to bring them home; however, it doesn't mean we have to do it stupidly. Furthermore, just being a service member doesn't make you a hero.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)