Dad Story: Buck's Telephone

Dad's best man at his wedding was a guy named Frank "Buck" Brown. Buck was a leather-skinned man who lost an arm in a farm accident. He lived in an old run down house that seemed to me as a lonely place. Dad would check in on Buck every now and again as his health wasn't the best. When I think of Buck I see his old gray, weather-beaten, paint-deprived house and the following story that Dad told more than once about Buck.

One day Buck was talking on the phone to an operator. Somehow Buck and the operator were not getting along well that day. As Dad tells it, "Buck verbally roughed-up the operator." Unless Buck apologized to the operator the phone company was going to remove the phone and phone service from him. Those were the days when the phone company owned the phone. Well Buck was not about to apologize. So out to Buck's house came the phone company representatives to remove Buck's phone and cut off his service. Buck allowed the phone guys to come into his house to get the phone. One of the phone guys told Buck, "If you call the operator and apologize we will allow you to keep the phone." Buck said, "Okay." So, the phone guy called the operator and made sure that the correct operator was on the line before handing the phone to Buck.

Buck took the phone in hand and asked the operator, "Is this the woman I roughed-up last week?" After making sure he was about to apologize to the right operator Buck said, "Get your ass ready! They are bringing in the phone!"

Recent Feingold letter on Afghanistan

Dear Mr. Schaefer,



Thank you for contacting me regarding Afghanistan and the recent operations in the district of Marjah. I strongly support our men and women in the military serving in Afghanistan and I am deeply grateful for their service and their sacrifice.



Eight years ago, I voted in favor of the authorization to use military force against those who planned and carried out the horrific terrorist attacks on our nation on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, our military involvement in Iraq distracted us from our mission in Afghanistan and the global threat posed by al Qaeda, and the situation in the region has deteriorated in recent years.



While President Obama appreciates the global threat posed by al Qaeda and the importance of addressing its current safe haven in Pakistan, I am concerned that sending more troops to Afghanistan at this point may not help, and could even undermine, our efforts to address that threat. I appreciate General McChrystal's focus on protecting the Afghan population, but continuing to send more troops to Afghanistan could inflame civilian resentment and provoke militancy in the region without significantly contributing to stability. And it could further destabilize Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country where al Qaeda has a safe haven.



After eight years of war in Afghanistan, we need to acknowledge the serious risks of continuing our massive, open-ended military commitment in that country, and instead pursue a comprehensive, sustainable strategy to combat al Qaeda's global network. That is why on April 14, 2010, I introduced S. 3197, a bill that would require President Obama to establish a flexible timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Such a strategy would bolster our national security by undercutting the perception of the U.S. as an occupying force in the region, while at the same time removing a tremendous strain on our troops and our economy.



I have attached my statement for the record regarding this legislation and an op-ed on the need for a comprehensive national security strategy. For additional information on this issue, you can find video recordings of Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings at http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/, and I encourage you to visit my website for a more detailed account of my work on Afghanistan and Pakistan at http://www.feingold.senate.gov/afghanistanpakistan.html



Thank you again for contacting me. If you would like to discuss your comments further, please contact Brian Chelcun in my Washington, D.C., office at (202) 224-5323. For more information about my work on behalf of Wisconsin, you can subscribe to my monthly e-newsletter by visiting http://feingold.senate.gov/newsletter.cfm. I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

According to www.business dictionary.com the definition of a hierarchical organization is as follows:

“Common, pyramid-like organization where one person is in charge of a functional area (engineering, finance, marketing) with one or more subordinates handling the sub-functions. In an hierarchical organization (whether business, military, political, or religious) higher levels imply greater superiority and domination than the lower ones, and the chain of command extends straight from the top to the bottom.”

The hierarchical organization is common in our society as you can see from the definition. It is common in business, military, political and religious organizations. When belonging to a hierarchical organization one gives up one’s freedom to some degree or another. Of course the higher that one is in the hierarchy the more freedom and more control of the organization one has. As a member of the Air Force for more than twenty years I reached the rank of Master Sergeant. I had more input into the organization than an Airman but not near the input of a General. At the top of the military hierarchy is the President of the United States. The president has full control of the military. If a subordinate does not agree with the commander-in-chief the subordinate, especially one of the lowly enlisted ranks has very few options but to obey the president or suffer the consequences. The subordinate does have some control as when his/her enlistment is up she/he can leave the military. As a citizen the military member can also vote for his/her choice as commander–in-chief and can even write in someone. That’s about it. Even if the subordinate leaves he/she still has to be complicit in some way to all actions of the commander-in-chief as the subordinate will always have to pay taxes to support military decisions or else suffer the penalties of tax evasion, fines or maybe even some prison time. Another hierarchical organization with a very powerful head (if you decide to empower him) is the Catholic Church. For those that subject themselves to the Pope’s power and control there is little one can do but do as the Pope says. Perhaps you wish to do this. That is your choice and I say less not more power to you. Choices are beautiful. The Pope is an absolute dictator who answers to no one but his version of God. However if one finds that he/she can no longer live under the hierarchical control of the Pope there is something one can do. It won’t do much good to try to change the hierarchical system unless the Pope wants to give up some control as did John XXIII. Like in all hierarchical systems the absolute head of the system usually cares less what the low level members want as opposed to conserving the organization no matter its functionality or disfunctionality. The system is not designed for the upper levels to serve the lower levels of the hierarchy but vice versa. Like with the military system one can choose to leave the Catholic Church and no longer give one’s freedom away to the hierarchy. There is one more thing that the lowly member of the religious hierarchy can do that the former military member turned civilian citizen cannot do without reprisal. That action is to take away financial support from the organization. So, if one does not agree with the workings of the hierarchy don’t support the hierarchy financially. That’s really the only power one has in the lower levels of a hierarchy. However, if one agrees with the organization stay and support it. If not, leave and don’t support it. We all have those choices.