Does anyone remember this Benjamin Franklin quote: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. There are many variations of this, the original quote, but they all carry the same freight.

I am thinking that the men and women fighting and dying in SW Asia are being betrayed by the ease with which we are surrendeing our freedom to an agency that can take that kind of stand on freedom and security. (Denver Post, November 22, 2010)

Our service members are risking life and limb to protect a free and open society. When we look at the casualty figures we say to each other that this is the price of freedom. I am willing to take the same risk and so should we all. The chance that you will be caught up in some kind of terrorist activity is the price you pay for living in an open society; that’s one of the risks you  take along with putting up with speech with which we don’t agree, tolerating religions we don’t necessarily believe in, and so forth. We should all be willing to share that risk. Instead we have rolled over and allowed ourselves to be treated like criminals (actually like sheep, but I’m too polite to say so). This is just one veteran’s opinion of course, but frankly I believe that on September 12th our president should have made it clear: If you boys want to do terrorism, go ahead. We aren’t changing anything.

Not only is there no shred of evidence that on any given day passengers are a potential terrorist threat, there is no evidence that the invasive body searches actually prevent anything. However there is considerable evidence that an individual who has decided to act out will act out. The burden should really be on the intelligence services to identify potential threats before anyone ever gets to the airport.

This is of course how totalitarianism happens; they don’t roll into town on tanks, they get you to stand in long lines, spread your arms and legs, do a little dance, etc. We smile at the cartoons in the paper showing terrorists laughing uncontrollably at our airport antics, but don’t ask ourselves what’s wrong with this picture.

So Memorial Day has come and gone over the weekend. The Denver Post yesterday had letters to the editor wondering why more folks didn’t turn out to honor the fallen.

Maybe that’s it; the fallen.Veterans Day is good because it’s about veterans — ones you can see, but Memorial Day is for those who gave their lives in service to country and maybe there’s just not enough sharing of the load for anyone to feel the obligation to the dead. I don’t know where you come down on the universal service issue, but in my opinion the burden is not being shared evenly. I think too that if service is strictly “voluntary” then we can write off the fallen by saying: well, they knew what they were signing up for. Of course service has never been borne evenly; there have always been ways to get out of it, but it seems to me that in Vietnam there was a fairly heterogeneous representation in the various “serving” services.  In my bootcamp company there were a couple of guys who coudn’t read or write sufficiently to write a letter home to mom and guys who had dropped out of PhD programs and gotten swept up.  Same story in the field; enlisted men with more education than some of the officers, and guys who you wonder how they made it past the induction interviews.

For most veterans the measure of patriotism is service: did you serve. Military service is a great learning model for future participation in the civilian workforce but it always carries the risk of injury or death. That’s a chance many are unwilling to take. For those willing to take the chance however it can be at the very least an “adventure”; at best a powerful experience in getting complex projects done with people you don’t necessarily like. There is a certain kind of confidence that goes with honorable service and it perhaps comes to those with combat experience more so than to those who do not: we don’t have to prove anything to anyone; we’ve already been tested.

I think there need to be service options so that all may have this experience. I’m not arguing for universal military service, but don’t you believe that you are obliged to do something to repay the privilege of having all the infrastructure in place for you so you can pursue a meaningful life.

Those who came before you already paid; it’s your turn.

So Veteran’s Day has come and gone; there’s so much veterans hype the last couple of years I think I’m becoming numb to it. We seem to go through cycles of ignoring veterans and lionizing them.

Most veterans themselves don’t give much thought to their military service; just another chapter in a long life. However, there is a core of (mostly) men for whom veteran status is the primary identity they present to themselves and everyone else on an daily basis. And there is a segment of the general population who buy into an idealized notion of what a veteran is and what being a veteran means. In the Navy, folks who bought into this kind of foolishness were accused of having “smoke blown up their ass”. I guess we’re all guilty of that to a certain extent. So the VA says it’s time to put up or shut up.

Now homeless vets are a hot item and the secretary of veterans affairs has announced a five-year plan to end homelessness among veterans. Those of us who work with the homeless think this is a worthy goal, but from our experience with a local ten-year plan it seems a bit ambitious. To be certain, it is possible to do this. You count and register all the homeless veterans, you put them into apartments with no strings attached, provide wrap-around case management services, and the problem is solved, right?

We know this “housing first” model works. We know that it costs almost 3 times as much to leave a homeless person on the street and at the mercy of social service agencies and the legal system for a year than it does to put them into an apartment for a year. The City of Denver has data that overwhelmingly supports this. Fine. The fiscal side of the equation makes sense, but what about the chronically homeless veterans who do not wish to be helped, do not wish to contribute to this worthy social goal. Don’t believe there are homeless folks who don’t want to be “helped”? Here in Denver we are personally acquainted with 800-900 homeless veterans who have no intention of “coming in from the cold” under any circumstances. At this point it becomes a moral issue. Do we say: well, it’s a choice-based society so they made their choice; or do we say: these are folks who served their country, there’s got to be something we can do.

I don’t know and I’m supposed to.

Say thank you.

     Members of the armed forces are easy to spot; take a moment and thank them for their service. You probably know folks who served, who are veterans; thank them too. The most typical response will be “Don’t mention it”. Most veterans are not much taken with their veteran status; it’s not something they wear on their sleeve. It’s something they did at one time in their lives and then they got on with it. Don’t expect them to wax eloquent about patriotism or the noble cause. Members of the armed forces do not make policy; they just do their duty.
     The fact that they are serving or have served doesn’t mean that they believe in war or agree with the politics of their government; what they believe in is freedom: the freedom to say the unpopular thing and have the government support them; freedom of internal movement without having to show their papers and prove who they are; freedom to worship or not worship; the freedom to seek redress for grievances from the government.
     It’s a mistake to assume that service to country is equal to blanket approval of the way things are going — or have gone. It just means those who serve believe in the potential of the system and its survival. The founding fathers were a group of angry, back-talking, belligerents. They were not “yes men” and certainly didn’t want the country in the hands of people who were — or are — satisfied with the way things are. Patriotism is not about waving the flag or saying the politically correct thing. The true and only test of patriotism is SERVICE

I’ve been thinking about homeless veterans a lot lately.   Heck, I think about them every day.   I’m the county veteran service officer for Denver County and even though I regularly tell people that the Veteran Service Office is a VETERANS program not a HOMELESS program, the fact is the majority of veterans I see are homeless.  Denver is a favorable spot for homeless vets in many ways (well, for the homeless in general), still the sheer numbers are staggering.  There are no less than 600 homeless veterans in Denver — we know them personally, but over 1900 homeless veterans have passed through our outreach office since January.

The perspective I try to maintain is:   I don’t care how they got in the situation they are in;   they served and they deserve to be served.   Easier said than done.

My experience is that there are many homeless veterans who do not wish to substantially change their lives.   Oh they don’t mind picking up the occasional food voucher or a handful of bus tokens, but they’re really not up to effort that it would take to get even partially “reintegrated”.

There’s a popular idea that these veterans are just marginal members of our tribe and if we could get them in the right program they could be just like us again.   I don’t think these folks are members of our tribe;   I think they’re well built in members of another tribe altogether.   And I don’t think they’re coming back.

So,   how to serve them?

“The 30th of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country and during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.” General John Logan

Veterans Talk is a new blog by, for, and about veterans, especially those veterans living in Denver and Colorado. My name is George Cassidy and I’m the Veteran Services Officer for the City and County of Denver.

I’ve started this blog as a way to communicate with vets about news that affects our lives and the services and community resources available to us. I’ve been involved with the issues, services, and resources for vets since 1992. I’ve been the Veteran Services Officer since 2005, working to get the word out about our resources and services, and I’m excited to use this new medium to communicate regularly with people who may not know about us yet and those whom we are already serving.

I will be providing information, but more importantly, I will be available through this blog to answer questions and clarify information, whether provided by our office or that may be out there somewhere else. We’ve launched this blog in connection with our new web site for veterans, Veterans Helping Veterans, available at www.denverveterans.org.

That web site has a wealth of information and connections to resources for veterans. I’ll be posting here to explain some of what’s there in more detail and to comment on issues that are important to veterans. For each posting I welcome your feedback and comments. I’m looking to create a community of veterans who feel comfortable requesting, as well as providing, information. I welcome your thoughts and comments. I’ll have a more complete commenting policy page here in the near future.

Please don’t hesitate to comment to the postings here and to check out the information on our new web site. Our contact information is on that web site. I look forward to hearing from you!