TrueTomHarley

No. It is a teaching tool for adults. Every one of Jehovah's Witnesses knows this. If you do not know this, it is because you have been out of circulation too long focusing only on stirring up wrath for those who hate. JWs are taught to use this video, along with all the other Caleb and Sophia videos, as aides in teaching their children. The videos are not intended to stand alone. They are intended to facilitate instruction, and all in the congregation know this. Parents are encouraged in congregation meetings, which you don't attend, to use them this way. Our video has the added bonus, completely lacking in yours, of instructing parents on how to teach their children and encouraging them to do so. It is thus family-friendly - a force for family cohesion. We think family is good. In the end, it is family that will protect a child better than any network of outside agencies, who so often drop the ball, counterbalancing the good they do. Nonetheless, the Barbara Sinatra videos are well-done, and to be sure, 'mommy or daddy' have sometimes proved to be the abusers, particularly in step families. The Barbara Sinatra agency receives high marks from reviews I read on Yelp. Hey, watch those ad hominem attacks, will you? When did I ever do that to you?

No. It is a cartoon. God help our children if they see the cartoon Ann would produce. They will be afraid to ever go near an adult again. Zealots do that sort of thing. They are so single-mindedly focused on their cause that they wreak fear and chaos everywhere else. The trick is to protect children without terrifying them. Most adults are decent. Ann would portray them all as submerged predators. The deed is monstrous. Therefore it is portrayed as a monster. IF the cartoon was presented as standard TV babysitting fare for children, I might concede Ann has a point. But it is not. The cartoon is a teaching tool for parents. It is under 2 minutes in length. "Mommy' specifically says 'even if it is someone you know or trust." And immediately "tell Mommy or Daddy." Any Witness parent is going to ensure that point stands out when discussing the cartoon with their child. Has Ann accepted this world's thinking that parents abdicate their role as teachers of their children, and let pop media do the job for them? That would account for her attitude, though it is not the only explanation. Another is that she is unwilling to concede anything but pure villainry can come from the Jehovah's Witness organization. "The world can be a scary place. But you are never alone with Jehovah," Daddy says. But Ann's cartoon would say: "The world can be a scary place. Watch your back every minute. Any grown-up, no matter how nice they look, might be ready to pounce on you and do you harm. Watch out!" Tell us in detail the cartoon you would produce, Ann. One that will work with four-year-olds.

They welcomed back Charlie Rose on CBSThisMorning. He’d been off a few weeks for heart surgery. His colleagues made a great fuss over him. Even Trump said ‘Welcome back, Charlie. We missed you.’ Even CBS, who hates Trump, ran the clip. Who doesn’t like it when enemies come together? You know, I switched to CBS mostly because of him, but I liked him better personally when he stuck with PBS. There, he had freedom to interview newsmakers at any length he chose – sometimes 20 minutes, sometimes 2 hours. He’s perceptive in his interviews, and that talent can’t come across on razzle-dazzle network TV. Did he sell out? Yes and no. He didn’t give up PBS. He simply went for more exposure. Goodness knows I go for more exposure. I want to sell my books, which I like. If anyone sold out, it is Larry King years ago. When I first heard of him in the 70’s, he was interviewing newsmakers for three hours on-air. The first hour was one-on-one. The second and third was moderating questions from the call-in audience. But he sold out to someone, and pretty soon he they had him doing only puff-pieces with celebrities, which aren’t as good. Nonetheless, who am I to say? A person can do what he/she wants with his/her career. Sometimes people tire of the present and want to move on. Is that so wrong? They wouldn’t be able to (in my eyes) degrade unless they were up there in the first place. I was furious with Mary Tyler Moore for sinking the Dick Van Dyke show by leaving for a solo career. But why should she not? She made shows of her own, which I didn’t like as well. Not that hers were bad, it is just that Dick Van Dyke’s was so good. But is there not an overall sad component to this? Charlie once stated he has enjoyed a wonderful career because he has been able to know so many newsmakers. Are they really worth knowing? I’ll take brothers and sisters in my circuit any day. And surely there is also something tragic about hitting maximum exposure just as you know the clock is about to run out. It is why I value the JW faith, for only they explain how that came to be, and how it will be remedied.

My sister owned a shepherd dog like in your photo. When my Dad and I would visit, the dog would stand on hind legs, look him in the eye as if to say: 'Hey! You don't belong here! Move along!" "That dog almost makes me uncomfortable," Dad would say.

"let's not impute bad motives on the part of others." The trouble is, if we're not allowed to discern motive after 8 pages and countless posts, what really is left? Surely Ann has been able to make her point again and again and again and again and again and again again and again and again and again and again and again again and again and again and again and again and again again and again and again and again and again and again. Don't you agree? I mean, what is left but to assign motive?

I think we will not communicate well because we weigh things differently. I put much stock in what has been accomplished. You, as near as I can tell, put no stock in it. If the GB's take on Isaiah and other verses were not valid, they would not have 8 million persons gathered as Christ's disciples to show for it. They would, instead, be eight separate cranks, reduced to posting on the internet threads of others, trying to tear them down. It's a big word and I'm not sure what it means. Possibly JTR knows.

I don't believe that quantity of honey exists.

says Ann O'Maly, as though she was genuinely curious, and then proceeds to ask her question, which is the same question she asks anyone she passes within 100 yards of, which is the question she positively lives to ask these days, which is the question that can be rephrased 20 different ways and will be if the answer is not the one she is hoping for. But John Clarke is not some naive kid. He has been around the block. He knows insincerity when he sees it. He does regular Bible reading and he knows it is time to apply Isaiah 52:11: 'Turn away, turn away, get out of there, touch nothing unclean'

Many times when you are a passenger in a plane that has hit some turbulence it is a fine thing not to smash down the cockpit door, chew out the pilot, and grab the wheel. This is especially true if it is only Passenger O'Maly, sitting two rows over, who insists the pilot be shot because she has hated his guts long before the flight ever began.

Every good story needs a villain. If you are writing your next book, wondering how you are going to sneak it past the Librarian, since she has forbidden you to speak of your other two books and you must be contacted using the Message feature in order to say anything about them, thus She is interfering with FREE SPEECH, to which I have a RIGHT!!! our forefathers having DIED for it!! Do you HEAR me, you DISGUSTING and IGNORANT old HEN??!!! (stylistic nod to JTR, thank you) you need some villains. Unfortunately for Jehovah’s Witnesses, they don’t get to hang out with many of them. To be sure, they get to hang out with endless oddballs, but that is not the same. Nor is it a bad thing. Our oddballs are lovable, generally, because they are humble and usually well-intentioned. But when the outside world produces an oddball, call the SWAT team and after that, the FBI for a new identity. As I get older, I find I don’t really like people unless they are nuts like me. That is an overstatement, like most of what I write. I get along quite well with the straight shooters, and they with me, but it’s the nuts I am most drawn to. Tragically, for the JW writer, whenever a villain is found out in the organization, he is shown the door. Once again, the Witness writer is stuck with nothing but goody-two-shoes - fine people to be around, but worthless to an aspiring writer. Fortunately, God provides. The problem of finding villains is easily remedied. No one can be said to be worthless, for they can always be used as a bad example. All you need do is go online and post something favorable to God and his organization. Instantly a villain will appear. “OH YEAH?!” they scream, and then it is ‘Game On.’ You engage with them for whatever time it takes. Eventually you have your article or your post or your book written, and then you cut them loose. When you do, you are not snotty about it. On the contrary, you are grateful, for they have helped you. Of course, you still must hang around to help out the home team, composed of members so different, but so cooperative, like members of the same body. JTR, I’m afraid, will readily agree I am a member of the body: An ARMPIT!!!! If not WORSE!!!****

If you answer someone like Witness, and you probably should not, make several references to God’s organization, totally without supporting evidence, and watch her pull her hair out in frenzy and hurl two dozen scriptures at you which are relevant only in her own mind. There is evidence, of course, but it is nothing that she would ever accept. The evidence lies in opening your eyes to what is right before you. If God didn’t like jw.org, he would short circuit the translation department so that all languages devolved into Pig Latin. How many languages does anyone else have - five? This feat and a dozen other parallel ones, all by unpaid volunteers, all for the furtherance of Christ’s commission to preach and teach, would not exist if God was steamed at them. That is your evidence. However, if you hate the Kingdom message, you will hate the organization that facilitates its spread. It’s no more complicated than that. When they throw scriptures at you that they imagine undermines organization, it’s well not to patiently explain each one to them, because the scriptures have nothing to do with it. It is hatred of the Kingdom message that motivates everything they do. Address their motives, not their questions. Of course, these are generalizations. There are caveats. Who cannot be grateful to AllenSmith, who interprets Ann’s bit of bile and throws it back in her face? I would not know enough to do it. I just assume that the liars are going to lie, and it always turns out that way. But Allen highlights for us all just how and where they lie. Thank you, Allen. Loyal brothers and sisters of Jehovah, all of whom have some reservations about participating here, but in the end feel they must assume Elihu’s role and rally to the defense of an honest man being attacked by dogs, encourage and reinforce and teach one another.

If Ann cannot discern allusions, metaphors and literary devices, it is because she has single issue razor sharp focus on one issue and one issue alone. And she also has an interest in children. It is often that way with zealots. They see only what they want to see. They ask 20 questions, which are all actually the same question. It does little good to answer them, because they don't want an answer. They rephrase their question, and ask it again. Or seek another person to ask it to. It does no good to even win the victory with them. They are like the Monty Python Black Knight, who loses both arms and both legs, and still taunts his opponent as he leaves in incredulous disgust. Surely Hillary v Trump has taught us that. Both side tirelessly scream at the other. they are like fans at the football game - cheer when the home team scores, wince when they incur penalty or injury. But they never imagine for one second the other side is not the Devil.

Hang your head in shame, Ann, for your people butcher your second most important cause. Because, like you, they all have additional agendas, which conflict, and thus they cannot cooperate on what ought to be the easiest project in the word. You’re not fixing it. It worsens. If you’re isavvy, Ann, tune in at the right time, which is anytime, and watch a twelve-year old girl hang herself on the internet, a victim of child sexual abuse. A further victim of an internet run by adults of the world you’ve chosen who cannot collectively ban even that image online (you don’t see it on JWBroadcasting, do you? They know what belongs, and what doesn’t belong, online), thus planting a cool new idea in the minds of countless ravaged youngsters who already have the highest suicide rate. Hang your head in shame, Ann, for doing nothing beyond words to stem the calamity. Hang your head in fear, Ann, and Witness, and JTR, for opposing the one people who consistently favor children. Who do not barrage them with internet violence and perversion. Who do not spy on them AI to sell them merchandise, who do not run them $$$$$ into debt as they seek education, who act immediately to clear out perverts from the ranks, and who offer children a wholesome life now and a joyful future. JTR doesn’t belong with the villains? Bullshit! His comments show where his heart is. Pity the elders at the Kingdom Hall, if there is one, that is graced by his presence. No. He is Professor Emeritus at the O’Maly Institute, though even Ann blushes at his belligerent tirades. Still, she hates what he hates, and so they are the most bosom chums. Straighten out and fly right, Ann, and your chums, while there is yet time, if there is. For while the door was shut to you, probably, it was not locked.

Turn back, turn back, John Clarke, good soul, before it is too late. This thread has been going on forever, maybe from before you were born. There are some here who are vicious, and some who are merely deranged. (and some fine loyal people, to be sure) You won't be able to calmly reason with them, for their greater goal has nothing to do with children. It is hatred for the organization God uses. Seriously. If you do want to comment, and I don't doubt you have worthy things to say, read the whole thread (skim it, anyway, for some posts are obnoxious) for there is little to be said that's not been already said. I mean it, John. Your only reward for making loyal points is to be smashed in the teeth with a baseball bat. It's too late for me. I've been trying to escape for pages, for I do have a life and I want to resume it. But then JTR or someone says something more stupid than usual and I am sucked in anew. Run, John. Save yourself!

The nicest thing you could say about Alan Harrall was that he was a terrible employee. I used to pick him up at his rooming house on Boise St. Sometimes I had to delicately suggest that he ought to pay more attention to his hygiene. Then I had to knock him over the head with the same idea when he blew off the initial suggestion. It really wasn’t him. It was his clothes. The laundromat cost money, so he would swish his clothes about in the tub with some soap mixed in. Coming back from Fairport, you had to merge from the 490 lane into 590 North. I usually didn’t think of it until my lane was about to run out - he would have done it immediately - that's just the way he was. Though he would never say anything, as the end of lane approached, Alan would look over his shoulder to see if we had finally outrun our luck and would find ourselves shoved off the road. I admit with shame that, when I repeatedly saw him doing this, I used to delay my lane-change even more than normal until I saw that response. It was a little mean, because he was a recovering drug addict and he was a jittery sort. I was not an early adapter of the cell phone, for it represented a change in habit, and I hate things like that. I used to carry on about ‘What Would Jesus Do’ – “I’ll tell you what Jesus would do; Jesus would use a phone with a wire attached to the wall! He would never use a cell phone and especially one with apps!” before I even knew what they were and imagined they were like bugs. So when I say that Alan lived to talk on the phone, understand that it was one with a wire attached to the wall - this story is from pre-cell phone days. On one occasion, I unexpectedly entered the room he was assigned to mop and there he was, sitting on the desk, talking on the phone, with the mop in one hand, pushing it back and forth in case I might come upon him suddenly like I did. Nonetheless, I never fired him and I’m glad. The man had many issues and he later hung himself. Had I fired him, might I not have always feared I had been a contributing factor? You want to keep your conscience as clean as possible. I wasn’t a very good small business person but I had a clean conscience. I think he was studying but I forget with whom. I think he attended meetings but I forget where. At any rate, he was loosely recognized as one of us. The closest family connection he had in the congregation was the mother of his child, who was also studying, and in time was baptized. It wasn’t clear to me at all who was in charge at the Metropolitan Funeral Home. I mean, someone must have been, or he would not have been there. Was it his family, of whom I’d never heard a word? Or was it the studying mother of his child, who found much support in the congregation she attended? At any rate, there wasn’t a funeral talk – just a gathering of many mourners. The place was packed. After I’d been there a half hour, the mother of the child approached me in some confusion because nobody wanted to give a prayer and Alan’s family’s preacher would be soon clearing his throat if no one stepped up to the plate. I knew he would butcher it, sending Alan, who was afraid of heights, up to heaven to play the harp like Little David, so I said I would give one. It’s not hard. Just don’t promise anything. How do you know what God will do? Just say whatever good things about Alan that you can – he was never mean-spirited – acknowledge how this world is rough and not necessarily fair, and tread heavily on Jehovah’s merciful qualities.

Yes. Show the little girl hugging the smiling Pope. For the Pope is loved by many, even if he is not our guy. I don't like to see him maligned any more than I like to see our people maligned. If he has organizational misconduct he has to account for, do it in its proper setting and context.

Here is a possible scenario for the next meeting of the Australia Pedophile Commission: Lead Commissioner: "Mr. Jackson, I hope that you people will straighten out and fly right, and cooperate more fully with what we are trying to do. I emphasize the word 'trying,' Mr. Jackson, because we are terrible at it and the overall track record of the world would be laughably bad were it not so tragic. But our hearts are in the right place. "Nonetheless, Mr. Jackson, I am impressed by your humility, your distress at what clearly is a problem, and your overall demeanor. We have so many people strutting their stuff about here and you almost can't stand them. We appreciate your willingness to work with us and we hope we can further work with you along this line. "You have pleaded with us, Mr. Jackson, to make our policies the same across all territories, for that would make your job so much easier. it is a reasonable request. Unfortunately, Mr. Jackson, we cannot comply, though we would like to, because we represent squabbling and disunited governing entities that cannot collectively tie its own shoe. You would think it would be a piece of cake to do what you request. Unfortunately, it is impossible. "And this is just Austraila. Don't get me going about international efforts to fight child sexual abuse. Why, Arauna has said in another thread that children in Africa are routinely raped every day without anyone to stand up for them. That's because there is no money over there, and consequently, no interest. But we do have a lot of money here. "We have a request for you, Mr. Jackson. I know it's a bit irregular, but can you take this off our hands for us? I have looked into your organized nature and have concluded that you could do it. Aren't you the people who set up and take down your buildings of worship almost as easily as our people set up and take down Coleman tents? i know you do not have grandstanding politicians who will push and shove to do whatever will keep them in their jobs, and that you can focus on the real issues undistracted by personal agendas. I know you can separate the truly worrisome pedophiles from the run-of-the-mill ones, who appear to be almost everyone. I know too, that you care about poor people just as much as you care about well-off people. Listen, we just want to save our kids here, and we think that if we funneled all reports to you, you would be able to handle keeping a centralized list and handle its distribution. I know it is not your main line, but surely you can devote a committee to it. Ten of your people are worth 10,000 of ours because your people know how to work together and our people do not. Actually, the more people we add to our efforts, the more chaotic the overall picture gets. "I apologize, Mr. Jackson, for not recognizing your true nature sooner. Every day in the Courthouse, the instant the janitor unlocks the door, Witness and Ann race in to save 100 seats for their friends, placing WatchtowerSucks Magazines on each one, then leaving a six inch high pile of documents upon each of our desks - what is it with those people? They had us confused for a while. I've never seen people smile so broadly as they whenever a point is made not in your favor." Maybe it will go down that way. Do you think? *****JTR: PERHAPS THERE IS A REASON YOU CANNOT USE FONTS LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD!!! IF SO, I WILL IMMEDIATELY APOLOGISE!!!! ***********. The standards aren't unreachably high here, JTR. Your points have as much right to be here as anybody's, apparantly. Just be less bombastic, if you can. And whatever you do, don't try to sell any books.

Oh, very well. Sheesh! Once a librarian, always a librarian

C'mon, Ann! I've got to do everything for you? I found it in two seconds: http://www.economist.com/node/14165460 There are two or three articles on the same subject. Please don't demand I provide links to each one. The overall point is that the sex offender list is of little value. Reasons vary. 1) it is made a vehicle for public shaming and revenge by persons who don't realize that that negates its value as a enforcement tool because too many people are on it. 2) Politicians absolutely love the sex offender list because there is no finer way to tell the voters they are 'tough on pedophiles' 3) Assinine, ineffective, or even hurtful (to innocuous persons on the list) provisions cannot be repealed because as soon as that is proposed someone with vested interests will misrepresent it as wanting to hurt kids. The vested interests often are the result of turf wars - every expert wanting to expand the program as much as possible so as to ensure job security. Don't misunderstand, Ann. Fighting child abuse is a fine thing. Nobody says otherwise. But your people are terrible at it. Yes, the paragraph quoted bounced back to me because it is from my book, Tom Irregardless and Me, which the Librarian is too mean to let me talk about much. What a battleaxe! I never said the paragraph was the Economist. I said the facts backing it are from the Economist. The paragraph about Arizona is from my book, too. I'm not supplying a link. You do it. For, again, Arizona is a real place. It is in a real country. (The USA) And they are really nuts over there, doing nutty things, because they are frothing mad over a problem they have not been able to solve.

I served 20 years in a city congregation that was two thirds black. There were several sisters with unbelieving mates, and some of those mates had issues. One would spend weeks at home where life would be 24/7 bliss. Then he would disappear into the streets for more weeks. Nobody knew if he would return or not. When he did, his wife always took him back. His wife asked me to give his funeral talk. Though most avoided assignments like this, I relished them for the challenge of offering comfort amidst horrendous circumstances. I mean, when a guy gets knifed to death on a strange doorstep while seeking drugs, how do you put a smilely face on that? “Jimmy had some hang-ups,” I said, “and it is likely those hang-ups had something to do with his death,” I told mourners at the Metropolitan Funeral Home. “We all know it. We might as well say it. Only then can we begin to offer comfort. Like all of us, Jimmy was a combination of strengths and weaknesses. You never know for sure which will win out and sometimes you say ‘there but for the grace of God go I.’ Look, this system is rough and it destroys people. When that happens, you don’t go moralizing over it. These were Bible type people, most of them not ours, so I read a lot of scriptures. But I also went heavy on his good traits, for he did have some. Few in the audience knew that he had graduated at SUNY Brockport and that he was a skilled pianist. I told of the happy times he would play piano at home. I didn’t know how to conduct myself at the Metropolitan Funeral home. It was not my culture. I gathered that much was expected from the preacher (me) who conducted the funeral. I told the funeral director that I didn’t want to do it, for it would be phony. I would give my talk, sit down, and they could take over and I would do whatever they said. He told me that after his remarks I should lead everybody out the front door. After his remarks, I led everyone out the front door. When I was almost there, I turned around to find they were way behind me all moving like snails. Of course they were way behind me all moving like snails – they had a casket to carry. I hadn’t thought of that. I doubled back and led them out at a snail’s pace, and felt a little uncomfortable doing so. My most emotionally rewarding moment? When a Rochester police officer, approached me with tears in his eyes to thank me for speaking well of his brother. Emotional reward is all that counts. Though I have given many funeral talks, I have never charged a dime, as is the way with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I relate the event not to draw attention to myself. It was emotionally fulfilling giving the talk. It is emotionally fulfilling again telling of it.

There should not have been another thread. You said it too eloquently. Anna, who starts the now never-ending thread, protests that she did not deliberately start it. Her remarks were shuffled about by the overlords to make it appear as though she started it. How that came about I haven't traced. Who cares? It should have ended with you. Don't you hate it when you give so much effort to organize points so well as you have done and then find a few days later it is as though you never existed? I have seen none of the proceedings so I don't really know. I'm not holding my breath. But I am beginning to wonder, just possibly, if Jehovah's organization might emerge from this in the eyes of the authorites as honest, decent, ready to repair and help, and that the negative buzz about them originates from person who have their own agenda.

What do you mean, "not going to take the bait?" Are you nuts? The paragraph speaks for itself. Granted, it is exaggerated the way I am wont to do, but it is not untrue. (it is called hyperbole when Jesus does it in Luke) It is backed by Economist Magazine. The GB does not author Economist Magazine. There's more on the absurdity of your single issue focus one one issue and one issue alone: "Working himself into a lather, he [the god of the sex offender registry] passes a law in Arizona (2016) criminalizing contact with the private areas of any child under 15 regardless of intent. That makes criminals of parents changing diapers, aghast parents point out, but he doesn’t care. No “sane or reasonable prosecutor” is going to misuse the law that way, he says. Besides, if one did, you’d have your day in court to point out your lack of ill intent; it would be a fine defense. It is reassuring to know that the sane and reasonable prosecutors will leave you alone, but what about the insane and unreasonable ones? What about the political hacks or young firecrackers keen to show they are tough on pedophilia? What about the prosecutor who knows the charge is ridiculous, but wants to string it along anyway as a bargaining chip for an unrelated crime? Sometimes you think the god of registries is helping the god of the adversarial judicial system so that the latter’s devotees do not suffer unemployment. “Just try repealing the law,” the god of registries taunts, “just try it, and I’ll tell the voters that you love pedophiles.” This, too, is real and easily searchable onliine. Arizona is a real place. It is in the USA. It is in the southwestern portion of the USA.. The paragraph shows how inept authorities are in leaving no stone unturned. But don't search it, Ann. Be very smart. Don't take the bait! Many things are proven by ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Almost everyone on the public sex offender register is harmless or of minimal risk. From the first book: " Most people were quite naïve when the epidemic suddenly burst upon the scene – unheard of one day, Public Enemy #1 the next. Determined to leave no stone unturned rooting out pedophiles, the god of the sex offender registry has arisen in the United States. Unfortunately, he is another idiot. The nature of his game changes from state to state. The name you spot on the sex offender registry that you assume is that of a child rapist is really just the adult who, as a teen, texted half-dressed photos of herself to schoolmates. Or he is the fellow who, as a teen, had sex with his underage girlfriend. Or she is the dope who streaked naked across the football field. Or he is the drunken clod who peed in public. Or he is even the character who put his hand on a child’s rear end – not good, but perhaps not worthy of a sex offender registry where he will water down efforts to track violent predators; historically he has been controlled by parents alerting children to let no one touch them inappropriately, not even Uncle Feely (This is the topic of another ‘Caleb and Sophia’ video - everyone should have the tools to safeguard children that Jehovah’s Witnesses have; Caleb and Sophia learn to say No! and then tell a parent) - or he perhaps really is the serial child molester, but probably not – that scoundrel is hidden in a sex offender list so long that it is worthless to law enforcement" The source for much of the above is a 2009 Economist, April issue, easily searchable. I've nothing against the world's efforts to combat pedophilia - how could one oppose that? But they screw up everything they touch and I am unwilling to hail them as the Grand Panacea. (As an aside, it is annoying when one is asked 'the reason for edit.' What do they think it is? It's because you screwed it up the first time. When I edit my book for typos or whatever, Smashwords does not ask me the reason for my edit.)

This is a bit of a cheap shot. I, too, was a draft 'dodger' as I took advantage of the legitimate 2S student deferment. The country had the same ridiculous prejudice that it does now: only college people matter. Some connected or savvy kids proactively joined the military and chose spots which assured them relative or absolute safely. Ordinary 18-year-olds were who weren't paying overclose attention were sucked up into the war machine as hamburger.

I hastily misread this as 'Colin Kapernick' and was all set to comment: "Everyone knows of some injustice somewhere. Why should anybody stand?" before I noticed it wasn't him at all, but the Uber guy. Here in Rochester, we don't have Uber.