Sunday, April 5, 2015

A Dad doing what good Dad's do.......

Our children shouldn't be collateral damage. Props to 1SG Kastle for going the extra mile, as any good father should. Video at link.
Tonight, Seth will read his daughters "Why Is Dad So Mad?" — a book he wrote about himself. 
Kastle served for 16 years in the Army Reserve, and was deployed to Qatar, Afghanistan, and Iraq. When he returned home to his wife and kids in Wakeeney, Kansas, he struggled with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and had a hard time explaining it to his kids. 
"I struggle with anger. That's probably my main symptom. I also have some issues that go with my memory," Kastle said. "There's mornings that you go into the bathroom and you look at the cup that holds your toothbrushes, and you just stare at it because you don't know which one is yours." 
Kastle searched for resources to explain his PTSD to his children, but found the options lacking. So, he wrote a book and started a Kickstarter campaign to raise the funds to hire an illustrator and get the book published. The campaign met its $3,000 goal in just eight hours, and eventually swelled to more than $6,000. 
"In my book I talk about the fire inside dad's chest. To me, that's what it feels like," Kastle said.
Kastle is already working on his next book for military mothers with PTSD, and is using the extra funds from his Kickstarter campaign to finance it. 
As Kastle turned the final page of his bedtime story book, his daughter Raegan wrapped her arm around her father and kissed him on the cheek. "I like this book. I'm really proud you did it," she said. 
The book is available now at www.kastlebooks.com.
NBC News

62 comments:

  1. I really feel for these guys. They should never have been sent over there, at the very least not as they were, in relatively small numbers, tour after tour after tour. One of the reasons such a small percentage of combatants ever fought eye to eye with the enemy in other wars of 20th century was because the wars were fought with such vast numbers. 'War on the Cheap,' and for the worst and most cynical political expedience, left us hundreds of thousands of folks who's lives have been seriously damaged by this new "strategy."

    The next time we go to war, we'd better really need to do it, and really spend the money to do it right. We have lost far, far, far, far more to our reaction to 9/11 than we lost on that day. That should bother people. It should make people recoil from reactionary politics.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting points, Jersey.

    Though I'd be curious about the "on the cheap", money spent per soldier, etc, to see if it has gone way down. Your statement implies it has, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're not familiar with the expression? It refers broadly to tactics, cooperation, costs, and political capital.

    Some people call it the Rumsfeld Doctrine. Here's a good article from 2006: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0921/p09s02-coop.html

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, Jersey, I am aware of it. But I wonder if anything has been done to verify "on the cheap", because "we" sure spend a lot on it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, think of what it would have cost to have gone in with a steady half-million troops, or even 250,000, a number many experts believed was minimally necessary at the time. Do you recall our soldiers digging around in junk yards to make their own armor? And Rumsfeld, reacting to questions about that saying, 'you go to war with the army you have,' as if we just couldn't spend a dime more to take care of our soldiers in a completely optional war?

      Yes, we spent a fortune on those wars, especially Iraq, but we did not endow that beneficence for the soldiers. That money was blown by probably the single most corrupt and inept administration in American history, and no, it wasn't Obama's...

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. You made good points until the end. Obama has taken what Bush did and made it worse in most ways. Most definitely in regards to the secrecy/security state (as well as the economy/unemployment/debt), that's for sure. John Kerry and those like him were also part of the problem: voting to cut off supplies for the troops.

      Transparency? just one aspect.

      Reporters Without Borders - "Serious downgrade.......Obama worse than Bush.".

      Delete
  5. Jersey, here is an attempt to look at your statement about the second Bush administration being the most corrupt in history.

    It comes from the Left, actually: HuffPo

    "Here is America's international performance on the [World Economic Forum] factors relating to corruption....: The U.S. is down on 19 of these WEF factors, up on 2, and unchanged on 1, during the period while Obama has been in office. This overall finding, of declining U.S. performance, is entirely in line with the similar findings from the World Bank: Corruption in the United States is increasing significantly during Obama's Presidency."

    Inept? That can be quantified further if you want. I would start with about how millions of jobs were shed, and how the national debt increased, by his choice, at a significantly worse rate than under Bush.

    Anyway, rest assured that it would get even a lot worse under a President Hillary Clinton, with a history steeped in crime, obstruction, and secrecy. (And no, this is not a partisan statement. I will readily point out that Elizabeth Warren, a leading contender, more to the left than Hillary, does not have any sort of history of malfeasance)

    ReplyDelete
  6. In my view, the West has consistently underestimated the strength and, more importantly, the level of commitment of Muslim enemies for almost a century now -- maybe longer.

    The Gulf War (1st Bush) served to reinforce the idea of a targeted, limited war, which is an anemic approach to warfare in the first place.

    The Gulf War lasted from August 2,1990–February 28, 1991.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the key difference then, was the balancing act between bringing Islamic majority nations into the coalition, and persuading Israel to sit on the bench. We have next to neither in the current fight. Ironically, I actually welcome ISIL atrocities against Muslim nations [to a point] as that is the only catalyst by which the nations of the region will rise up and destroy the corner gang that sullies the name of their religion.

      Delete
  7. AOW: True. Most Muslim countries, even the supposed moderate ones, such as the UAE, are committed to killing off the Jews. Their refusal to recognize the rights of Israelis to exist is strong evidence of this.

    The real moderate ones, such as Egypt (now that it is being disinfected of the terrorist Brotherhood) need to be commended for actual moderation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the refusal to recognize Israel is tied more to the means of it's founding than merely to the aspect of their faith. This isn't a defense of those nations, but the founding of Israel was not a smart move regarding a culture that plays the long game.

      Delete
    2. All of those nations were founded by often careless dividing lines made in the 20th century.

      I will respectfully disagree on whether or not it was "smart" to found (restore) a homeland for an ethnic group that routinely faced/faces harsh discrimination/oppression in that region (discrimination ranging from rampant pogroms to laws put in place to punish and fine people just for being Jewish).

      The Roman Empire, too, played the "long game" but eventually the subject territory held in thrall by the vast multifaceted hegemony out of central Italy did become free of the empire after hundreds of years. There's something similar with the British Empire. The "long game" of conquest, control, and the conquered never breaking free can eventually be a losing game.

      Guessing what you mean by the "long game" is referring to Arab/Muslim conquest, and the refusal to let these subject lands break free of the legacy of the conquest/hegemony.

      And the UAE as a nation is actually newer than Israel.

      Delete
    3. ....I will agree, perhaps, that having Israel as a Jewish homeland is not a "smart move" once a majority of its neighbors separate the worship of the Muslim god from government and become entirely secular (with respect and no discrimination to atheist, Christians, Hindus, and anyone else, as well as for Jews).

      Because at such a point, such a haven as Israel would not be necessary. But the chances of such progress and movement toward decency from those brutal theocracies seems rather unlikely....

      Delete
    4. I will respectfully disagree on whether or not it was "smart" to found (restore) a homeland for an ethnic group....
      Much deference is paid to the ancestral homeland of the Jews, without much thought to no deference paid to displaced peoples with a much more recent claim to a homeland.

      The Jews in Europe faced unspeakable evil, but dispassionate colonizers drawing arbitrary lines on a map, was a distinct receive for future disaster,

      Delete
    5. ....once a majority of its neighbors separate the worship of the Muslim god from government and become entirely secular...

      The same could be said regarding the leading figures of the founding of Israel...being quite secular....and the rise of militant Zionism in the years since.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. "but dispassionate colonizers drawing arbitrary lines on a map, was a distinct receive for future disaster,"

      Then the UAE should refuse to recognize Morocco, Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc etc etc.

      (UAW corrected to UAE above. I accidentally referred to the notorious anti-worker racketeering and political pressure group, instead of the Persian Gulf-area nation)

      Delete
    8. CI said: "The same could be said regarding the leading figures of the founding of Israel...being quite secular....and the rise of militant Zionism in the years since.'

      The religious tyranny in Israel is still quite small. Muslims, for example, have more freedom in their faith in Israel than in any of the Muslim-majority nations.

      Delete
  8. CI,
    I think the refusal to recognize Israel is tied more to the means of it's founding than merely to the aspect of their faith.

    Numerous passages seem to indicate otherwise -- especially in the Hadith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't open the link on the godforsaken internet here....are the passages matn or isnad?

      Delete
    2. CI,
      Most of the passages are from the Hadith, but there is also this one from the Quran:

      Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

      Perhaps the most famous one from the Hadith:

      Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

      Delete
    3. AOW: That last statement is relevant, because the Palestinian government (Hamas) DOES use this statement in its charter.

      Delete
  9. AOW: Many faiths, including Islam, have rather atrocious things in their holy books. Many also choose to ignore these by an large. In looking at the record of a nation on antisemitism, I prefer to look at what they actually do or proclaim as being much more more important than Hadith passages.

    Unless the government starts quoting and enforcing them specifically...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dmarks,
      Yes.

      It is the combination of literal interpretation and religious institution united with the state that is the problem.

      BTW, I stumbled across this interesting essay today: Is the Islamic State the Islamic ‘Reformation’?. I hope that the author is wrong!

      Delete
    2. AOW: I support secularism there, and here also.

      Delete
  10. This discussion concerned soldiers damaged by fighting in the illegal wars of gwb. dmarks, as always injects his "killing off the Jews" meme. This non sequitur in reaction to AOW pointing out that the inhabitants of the countries we invaded were (and are) committed to defending themselves against foreign invaders.

    An attempt to divert attention from gwb's responsibility for all the deaths and maimings (of US soldiers and innocent civilians) his lying caused... I guess.

    And quoting HuffPo? According dmarks himself this is worthy only of an LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dervish,,
      Excuse me, but I didn't initiate any such non sequitur; rather, I responded to JMJ;s mention of War on the Cheap and some of CI's comments. I absolutely was not making an attempt to divert attention from gwb's responsibility.

      If CI finds any of my comments off topic, he is certainly welcome to delete them.

      Delete
    2. Also, AOW, his "defending themselves against foreign invaders." phrase is code-speak for his defense of terrorists in the Middle East committing atrocities against Americans. He defends that too.

      Delete
    3. If CI finds any of my comments off topic, he is certainly welcome to delete them.

      Won't happen. They've been civil, and I've participated in the tangents myself.

      ...defending themselves against foreign invaders...

      Point of order, it's naive and broad brush to characterize any and all who have opposed our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as 'terrorists'. Some have been, but I know how to construct IEDs, and if THIS nation were invaded....you'd best believe that the occupiers would feel the sting of my wrath.

      Delete
    4. CI: I will agree with you, if you separate the Taliban etc types fighting to crush those countries under brutal theocracies from actual freedom fighters.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. The Afghan War (which I supported initially but stopped once it became a nation-building and counter insurgency enterprise) was supported by every single Democrat in the House and Senate and candidate Obama even criticized Bush and the Republicans FOR NOT FIGHTING IT STRONGLY ENOUGH!! This who notion that the Afghanistan fiasco is a partisan scandal is total BS.

      Delete
    7. Oh, and let us not forget Obama's moronic surge (an action that he kind of backed himself into a corner on) and of how that wasn't Bush's doing.

      Delete
    8. Will: The Afghan War... was supported by every single Democrat in the House and Senate...

      The evidence for this is what? The AUMF authorized action against "the terrorists" and does not mention Afghanistan. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe the Democrats for the AUMF is what you incorrectly think equals support for the invasion of Afghanistan.

      It would help if Will ever explained himself. But he does not because he likes to claim "victory" if he is vague and someone guesses wrongly concerning WTF he's talking about.

      Delete
    9. Will: This who notion that the Afghanistan fiasco is a partisan scandal is total BS.

      BS. The invasion would not have been necessary if bush had accepted the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden. It was bush who turned them down. He did not consult any Democrats as far as I know.

      The Afghanistan "surge" was moronic, however. I will agree with you about that. Although I suspect Obama may have "surged" because he felt he had no choice, given that the Republicans had successfully fooled the American people into believing the Iraq surge worked.

      Delete
  11. It's OK, AOW. Some people like to refer to imaginary war crimes, and are themselves quite antisemitic when they deny/downplay the explicit call from the worst, most extreme Muslims to wipe out all the Jews. I've even seen this same guy defend Francis Boyle's fond wish that Jews in the Israel area all be forced out or put in prisons.

    ReplyDelete
  12. dmarks: I've even seen this same guy defend...

    I'm positive you have, although I should point out - for anyone who might take you seriously - that this is something you've only imagined you've seen. You couldn't have actually seen this since it never happened. Same as your BS concerning "downplaying" antisemitism or "some people" talking about imaginary war crimes. Two additional things I have never done.

    My point was that this discussion concerned soldiers suffering from PTSD, and that Israel has nothing to do with bush lying us into two wars. Two wars that are the cause of our soldiers being killed, maimed, suffering from PTSD and committing suicide.

    Yet dmarks defends the person most responsible for causing all this misery. My conclusion regarding such a person is that he either hates our soldiers or sees them as useful cannon fodder - and simply does not give a damn about our soldiers. Much like the ex president he defends. Which is despicable, IMO.

    AOW: I didn't initiate any such non sequitur...

    You didn't. I was referring to dmarks' non sequitur in response to your comment.

    I will readily point out that Elizabeth Warren...

    I would happily vote for Warren over Hillary if she won the primary, but I doubt dmarks would, given his previous slandering of Warren as "racist". More despicable BS. Especiably despicable given the fact that Warren is one of the few politicans who was stood up to Wall Street (something Obama has not done... As the article dmarks linked to pointed out). dmarks should be supporting Warren instead of falsely labeling her racist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dervish,
      You didn't. I was referring to dmarks' non sequitur in response to your comment.

      Acknowledged.

      Too little caffeine on my part.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. dmarks: ...explicit call from the worst, most extreme Muslims to wipe out all the Jews. I've even seen this same guy defend Francis Boyle...

    Francis Boyle (or "Frances" as dmarks usually calls him. Or "her", as dmarks calls HIM) is not Muslim. Francis Boyle is Jewish. He also has no "fond wish that [his fellow] Jews in the Israel area all be forced out or put in prisons".

    This is more antisemitism, similar to dmarks claim concerning the Jewish Norman Finkelstein (whose parents were Jewish Holocaust survivors) being "antisemitic because they [Jews like Finkelstein] criticize Israelis for not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens".

    I guess dmarks thinks Finkelstein hates Jews (including himself) so much that he wishes his parents had been burned up (and therefore he not have been born).

    ReplyDelete
  15. The rest has been disproven elsewhere. As am not a racist or bigot, i never excuse or support ethnic hatred due to the ethnic group a racist, antisemite, etc belongs to. That is concerning of the two men mentioned.

    But I will only mention that of course it was a sort of racism for Warren to have knowingly and fraudulently presented herself as a Native American in order to get special advantage, when she wasn't one at all and she knew it.

    Her fraud has never played well in Indian Country...

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/native-american-harvard-alumna-and-lifelong-dem-accuses-elizabeth-warren-of-ethnic-fraud/

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The rest has been proven elsewhere. By your own words! You deleted them (due to embarrassment/shame and/or so you could deny you said it). But I this screenshot shows you did say it.

      As for your link: Native Americans don't speak with one voice. Of course there are differing opinions within this group. Also remember Scott Brown attempted to make an issue over this and failed. It was, in fact, his supporters that came off looking racist.

      And, that Warren's grandparents told her she had Native American heritage - and she didn't get a DNA test at her earliest convenience to confirm or prove this incorrect - proves no "fraud" or "racism". In any case, if she were racist against native americans, wouldn't she try to cover up any native american heritage? I can only conclude that being proud of having a certain heritage (even if you don't have it) is "racism" against that heritage in dmarks' backwards world.

      Forget dmarks' dictionary redefinitions. They have been disproven elsewhere (the dictionary).

      Finally... Warren never received any "special advantage" by "presenting herself as native american". As the Washington Post points out "the evidence suggests the schools [Harvard and Penn] recruited her because of her groundbreaking research and writings on bankruptcy" and not due to native american heritage.

      Delete
    2. Faked screenshots mean nothing. But that long standing beef back in your pants: constantly trying to push your fan obsession blog by linking to it here doesn't win points.

      It has nothing to do with the discussion, really, to constantly promote like that. I did it once. CI. told me not to, and I complied.

      And yes, I delete the comments here due to the bug in blogger that double posts. In case someone with a blog mancrush imagined that I deleted them due to "shame".

      Delete
    3. dmarks: faked screenshots...

      Right. You know what you wrote. And it is clear to anyone who looks at the thread that you did not delete what you wrote due to a spelling error or "bug in Blogger". Every single one of your comments in that thread would not be missing if that were the case. Why delete them all? I'll tell you why... It's because you wrote EXACTLY what the "faked" screenshot shows. dmarks is too much of a coward to stand by what he writes.

      dmarks: CI. told me not to, and I complied.

      Baloney. You're whinning because I'm exposing your dishonesty.

      Delete
    4. And dmarks shows his immaturity with some "clever" (in his mind) sexual innuendo concering the word "beef". That is in addition to his BS concerning a nonexistent "mancrush" and "fan obsession". dmarks wishes.

      Delete
  17. Thanks, CI, for your comment @ April 7, 2015 at 2:01 PM.

    ReplyDelete
  18. CI,
    You made an important point:

    it's naive and broad brush to characterize any and all who have opposed our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as 'terrorists'.

    And not only the invasions. The United States became an occupying force. Huge mistake, IMO!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, AOW. Bush made mistakes and huge blunders, as you well know. Which have nothing with accusing him of lying when he told the truth, or accusing him of purely imaginary "war crimes". I welcome your views on this.

      Delete
    2. If the 'truth' your talking about is the justification for the invasion of Iraq......Bush supporters do themselves no favors when the sources for said intelligence were members of Badr and ISCI....nurtured by the IRGC-Quds.

      Delete
    3. Referring to the significant violations of the cease fire, which were detailed And did happen, CI.

      I agree that the invasion/etc was very badly done, and there were better options available. Derision heaped on "Rummy" is well deserved.

      Delete
  19. dmarks: ...accusing him of lying when he told the truth.

    Nobody needs to "accuse" bush of lying as his lying can be proven. the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei submitted a report to the UN Security Council on 3/7/2003 that said the "UN inspections in Iraq worked" and that they found "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites".

    Despite this report bush said (on 6/21/2003) "...our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction". How could Iraq be "disarmed" of WMD the IAEA verified they didn't have? They could not. And that bush said that was our "clear mission" is a clear lie (source).

    And we shouldn't forget that bush admitted he ordered torture and that torture is a war crime... although dmarks forgets that bush also admitted there were no WMD.

    So... no war crimes need be "imagined". bush wrote about committing them in his memoir. The Washington Post reports that In his book, titled "Decision Points", Bush recounts being asked by the CIA whether it could proceed with waterboarding Mohammed [KSM], who Bush said was suspected of knowing about still-pending terrorist plots against the United States. Bush writes that his reply was "Damn right".

    Real lies and real war crimes. The only one imagining anything is dmarks.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I was wondering your take on it. Its always more interesting from someone without a partisan view

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why am I "imaging" while CI is not? Something is either imagined or it is real. "Partisan views" do not make something which actually happened to become "imagined".

      Delete
    2. A stopped clock is correct twice a, day, but it is not correct at one minute past either of those times. I will be curious to see what CI says about Bush and others in this regard.

      Delete
    3. dmarks: A stopped clock is correct twice a, day, but it is not correct at one minute past either of those times.

      Translation of the above: CI is the "stopped clock" and dmarks won't insult him for his differing views while "wd" is the "one minute past" clock who dmarks will insult. This hypocrisy based on nothing but the partisan views of dmarks.

      Delete
    4. I tried to make some sense or find one glimmer of truth in the above claim by Dervish that CI is a stopped clock. But there's none to be had.

      Delete
    5. There's none that I can find.It appears that he has far more interest in what he thinks I care about comments, than I do. Perhaps this speaks to why he no longer has a blog.

      Delete
    6. dmarks: I tried to make some sense or find one glimmer of truth in the above claim by Dervish...

      dmarks does not even understand his OWN comments! You have many times stated that you disagree with what CI said he agreed with.

      CI: ...he no longer has a blog

      You are mistaken. I have a blog. It is located here.

      Delete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.