I first heard the above phrase in 1984, and, frankly, it pissed me off. 24 years down the road, and it still pisses me off.

I can relate my personal story, and history, on this later. I would rather tell you a story.

When I was in college (the late 1980's), the persons playing in the top few seats of the military bands in Washington, D.C., were regarded as the best euphonium (my instrument) players on the planet. A man named Brian Bowman was the top euph player for the Air Force band in DC. At the time, Brian Bowman was considered the best living euph player on the planet. There were more than a few people (most of my college professors with a knowledge of brass playing included) that built a reasonable case for Brian Bowman being the best euph player in history.

I heard Brian Bowman play, live, in concert, in January. His playing was ... imagine the most scrumptious meal you have ever eaten ... the taste, the smell, the textures ... Now, imagine all of that for your ears. He played that sensation for an hour. Music that was written for cello, not euph. Everyone there that knew him (and there were more than a few), said that he had lost some in his playing ability. But, it was, still, musical "ambrosia".

With that said, he is no longer Chief Master Sergeant Bowman of the Air Force Band in DC. He is, now, Dr. Brian Bowman of the University of North Texas.

He is a teacher, who, occasionally, gets a chance to play.

He might have lost a "step" or two from his best day, but he can, still, captivate, and render silent, a crowd of almost 500, to include most of the euph players that were his peers when he "could" play.

Not bad for a guy that "can't", and, therefore, has to teach.

It's interesting, to me, at least. This blog is coming up on it's 4th anniversary. I started it as a way of keeping family informed of what was going on with me. It grew to be much more than that, then if dwindled, as my posts dwindled.

A lot of my posts in the first year, had to do with Presidential campaign, and here we are in another one.

The previous Democrat nominee was out of the race before it began, because he talked about being "Stuck in Iraq". During his last Presidential run, I was "stuck in Iraq".

Now what are we looking at?

There is John McCain ... former POW, acted honorably in the 1970's, and has betrayed his party, and espoused principals for most of this decade.

There is Senator Clinton ... whose chief recommendation for office is that she has not divorced her husband.

Then, there is "Barry" (that is the name he went by in college) Hussein Obama ... who says nothing, donates thousands of dollars to a racist(the preacher at his church ... that he has been a member of for, what, 20 years?), and espouses the same socialist/communist crap that Senator Clinton spews every chance that she gets?

Case in point, I am not rich. I am a Staff Sergeant in the US Army. If my wife and I had a kid right now (we have none), we would qualify for WIC, but, somehow, both Obama, and Clinton voted against renewing the tax cuts for the "rich" in the last week. So, now I am "rich". Because both of these Presidential candidates have both voted to take $600 dollars a year from my paycheck.

On the one hand, according to them, I am too uneducated, unskilled, etc. ... to do anything else, but serve in the Army.

On the other, because I am "rich" and "privileged", they are going to vote to take even MORE money from my paycheck.

That's right folks, military personnel pay federal income tax, unless you are serving in a combat zone, for the moment.

It has never made sense to me, either.

But it must make sense to Senators Obama, and Clinton, because they both voted to have me pay even more federal income tax, because, as an enlisted person in the military, I am "rich".

They, both, voted to rescind the Bush Tax Cuts ... for the "rich" ... like me.

I am so "rich" that I can't afford to buy the "rent to own" house that military housing allownace pays for ... even with a VA loan ... which will not cover the cost of this house.

Which brings us back to the original point of this post, our three crappy choices. By being stuck with these three ... Senators ... (not the first choice I would make for words starting with "S"), we are beyond SNAFU (Situation Normal, All F'bombed Up). We are well into TARFU (Things Are Really F'bombed Up). At this point, in my estimation, we just have to keep things at TARFU, and not go into FUBAR (F'bombed Beyond All Recognition). I'm not sure that is possible, at this point.

I do know, however, that I am going to retire from the military the first chance that I can. No matter who wins.

I mean, really? Obama, Clinton, or McCain ... if I don't retire, one of those three are going to get to make, literally, "life or death" decisions about me.

I was just reading an aritcle in one of the various historical journals that I read on a regular basis. The article was about the Presidential election of 1824.

Back then, according to the way the Constitution worked, the #2 vote getter in the electoral college was the Vice President. The Presidential ticket of Presidential nominee, and running mate, did not exist back then.

I had forgotten about that.

Spring forward to today ... imagine our current President with the haughty "Horseface" Kerry, who got shot in the butt in Viet Nam, as his Vice President for the last 4 years.

Which reminds me of something that I would like to reitierate here, to soldiers, Purple Hearts are not a point of pride.

I have several friends with Purple Hearts. In my heart (not meaning to belabor a metaphor), they hold a special place of respect.

Only one of those is kind of proud of his Purple Heart. The rest consider their Purple Hearts as a kind of consolation prize.

Let me remind you of the George Patton quote: "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

As a soldier, and a noncommissioned officer (sergeant), I am proud of my friend Sergeant First Class (retired) Rolando Zamora. SFC Zamora did two tours in Iraq.

His first tour in Iraq was as a Platoon Sergeant for a Stryker Platoon. This means that he was the senior enlisted person for about 27 infantrymen, and 4 Strykers. He co-led this group with a Second Lieutenant. These guys saw "the shit", pardon my language.

SFC Zamora's point of pride was that he brought his ENTIRE platoon home safe, AND the only people to win a Purple Heart in the platoon were himself, and the Second Lieutenant.

This platoon was hip-deep in the worst part of the war. Their leaders led from the front, and took care of their troops. So much so, that if someone was going to have "Taps" played over their bodies, these leaders decided to make sure it was them, and not the kids they were in charge of.

It was one of the great honors of my military career to take part in the retirement ceremony of SFC Zamora late last year.

He, to his credit, has not thrown his medals over any fences, or testified against his troops, wrongfully, in front of the Senate. Bringing this post full circle back to the Senator from Massachusetts ... that got shot in the butt in Viet Nam.

First interesting question, if you are engaging the enemy with your rifle, and covering the retreat of your men ... how did you get shot in the butt, Senator?

In closing, is it just me, I have heard people (Democrats, and Kerry supporters) say how unfair the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were, but I have never heard those same people accuse the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of lying ... or attempt to refute their claims?

So, when former President Clinton mentions that people are trying to "Swift Boat" her current Presidential run, does that mean that Senator Clinton's detractors are trying to harpoon her with the TRUTH?

To quote Arsenio Hall: "Things that make you go .... HHHHhmmmmmm"