Don't Vote. It's Your Right.

It's Primary election season, and in particular it's election day in South Carolina if you're voting in the Republican Primary.

South Carolina's primary is interesting in that it is an open primary. This is the day when Democrats turn out in force to vote for the Republican candidate that they think will perform the worst against a Democrat in a general election.

Or perhaps it's a good time to just jump the fence. Trump's campaign is counting on it. He knows that up to 20% of Democrats can be made to defect. Those include Democrats that can't endorse Clinton's baggage or Sanders' socialism. He has no intention of winning with Republican votes alone. And that's OK... you expect to appeal to more than just your party in the general election.

Photo by Stacy Mae via Facebook

Where Trump differs is that he's actively targeting Democrats in the Republican primary. Click to "embiggen" the photo above and note the "Open Primary" on the campaign sign.

We might see a little more of that next week during the Democratic primary, which is also open. Bernie Sanders is actively courting Rand Paul voters, and that's perfectly fine, too, even though I think Sanders is mistaken in the belief that their support of legal marijuana is based on a desire for marijuana vs. a desire for Liberty. (In fact if you talk to them, you'll find out that they have very little interest in "legalizing" marijuana. They want to repeal the laws that criminalize it in the first place. It's not really a subtle difference.)

--==//oOo\\==--

And this brings up a point... it's a common tactic during elections to drum up votes by shaming people into voting. They tell you how much it's your duty to vote, that "you can't complain" if you don't vote, etc.

99.44% of the time they have no interest in you going to just cast a vote. Rather, they want you to cast a vote in their direction. 

If that doesn't describe you... then you're part of the 0.56%. Congrats.

That's really visible in the case of an open primary where people can "tactically vote" for the other side. If they were voting honestly and fairly, the "correct" thing to do in the case of another party's primary would be to not vote at all. To abstain, and then vote in their own primary.

But that's not the only time when it makes sense not to vote.

Look... you're not doing anyone any favors if you're voting just to vote. The American electoral system is based on the idea that people will vote in their interest... and it being a republic, that they will vote for people to represent those interests. Lacking that, they should stand for election and represent their own interests. This has long since been perverted into a party system, and for many reasons (for instance, lack of money or political talent) an individual may not be able to represent their own interests politically. The system that we have actively discourages participation by any but Republicans and Democrats, neither of which may represent you at all. It's not to your advantage to compromise your interests just to go through the motions of pushing a button or pulling a lever when you're told.

Here are completely valid reasons not to vote:

1. There is no candidate with whom you agree. For instance, a die-hard Rand Paul fan might find himself without a voice now that his candidate has dropped out of the race. In this primary election he may be completely without representation, and thus may choose to abstain. This is reasonable.
2. You may be ignorant of the candidates' views. Sure, you should have done your homework long before election day, but you didn't and it's water under the bridge. The fact remains that you can't make an informed decision, and your "duty" as a voter is not to "cast a vote"... it's to cast an informed one. You're not going to satisfy that duty by cramming on election day. Rather than let the alphabet, or pure chance decide for you, you abstain. This allows the decision to be made by informed minds. This is reasonable. 
3. Same as 2, but you're being guilt-tripped into it by people who are trying to steal your voice. They want you cast a proxy vote for them. In other words, they want to cheat. Typically they'll send a bus 'round to take you to the polls and "educate" you as to who to vote for on the way. They don't see it as cheating, because they're all wrapped up in the larger cause that they're pursuing. It's vitally important to them that "Candidate Jones" gets elected, and they don't even think about whether you vote for a candidate of your free, unfettered, and informed choice. Should you push back because you're feeling manipulated or imposed upon, then it's because you are. This is reasonable.

Basically, if you don't want to vote, it is your right to abstain. You no more have to give your reasons than they have to tell you who they voted for.

--==//oOo\\==--

So what about the people who tell you that you've forfeited your right to complain if you don't vote?

Well basically, they're full of shit, and I won't tell you that without explanation:

1. Your First Amendment right to free speech and more especially to petition the government for the redress of grievances is not constrained by whether or not you cast a vote. Ever. It is an unalienable right which may not be abridged. So "Mr. You-can't-complain" is simply full of shit, as he's suggesting an unconstitutional penalty for your choice to abstain, and therefore has neither the business nor the wisdom to coach you on election politics. This trumps any other excuse he may throw at you, without any exception whatsoever.

That's it. A list of one.

I actually had a long list of reasons; but basically, they're unnecessary.

• the fact that you had no viable candidate for whom to vote; 
• the fact that you may have already participated in the electoral system by financially or otherwise supporting a candidate who didn't survive to be on your ballot;
• the fact that the "informed voters" chose so poorly in not only the general election, but in a succession of primary elections leading up to yours that you were faced with this non-choice; 
• the fact that we have a plurality election system that allows a candidate to "win" an election despite having two thirds of the vote cast in favor of anyone but that candidate (instead of a vastly more reasonable instant run-off system)

... all of these are valid reasons to complain, whether you voted or not. But be assured that they are all eclipsed by the fact that free speech is your right.

If anything, the person who does vote has no business complaining. He's the one who willingly took part in a system that by many objective standards is completely broken. If he casts a vote and the majority wins, whether he's a part of that majority or not, then he has agreed to take part in and accept the results of this broken system.

So he's the one who should STFU and stop bitching.

--==//oOo\\==--

If you really want to see less post-election complaining, then don't guilt-trip citizens out of their First Amendment right to air grievances. Rather, you should advocate a switch to a system that's not broken.



You might not get your favorite candidate, but under this system the voters will always elect a candidate that the maximum number of citizens can best live with.

And by the way... you'll note that this is not the kind of positive change that can ever be effected by telling they have no say because they didn't endorse the system they want to replace.


UPDATE:

Someone already disagrees... can't say I'm surprised. The gist of it:

If you're not informed, then its your fault. If your favorite candidate isn't there, then vote against your least favorite or spoil your vote. But not voting at all makes you a "lazy shit".

In response, I should mention this... if you're abstaining just because you're lazy, then I don't like that at all. But your rights are not determined by what I like.

It's still your right to abstain, and you still have the right to complain. Keep in mind that I'm primarily blogging against telling people they can't complain, which is just plain false. I'm not advocating not voting... but I don't endorse elections that are decided by uninformed voters. So I encourage you to inform yourself or don't vote. If you're ignorant, and you want to stay home, do it. It's the best thing you can do. Furthermore, I don't encourage people to be forced to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. That's a false dichotomy. You have other choices, one of which is to abstain. Sure, you could write in "Porky Pig", but that's a different message than "I'm not going to participate in this process". You have that Constitutional right to abstain whether some bully wants you to exercise it or not.

But if someone abstains because it's their choice not to vote... because their interests are not represented, or are best expressed by actively abstaining... that's the complete opposite of being a "lazy shit", and you would do well to recognize the difference.

On the passing of Antonin Scalia.

Antonin Scalia.
1936-2016

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at a Texas ranch last Saturday, of apparently natural causes. Because this is a blog and not a news aggregator, I won't be posting follow-ups.

Just know that any person who has gone through the vetting process necessary to become a Supreme Court Justice is there for the purpose of justice, whether you agree with their opinions or not.

Our politicians know this, and I believe that their expressions of loss are sincere: [link]

--==//oOo\\==--

I've found myself inclined to distance myself from some personal connections over the incident, at least for a while. Scalia's body wasn't cold before I was raking through social media posts in which people declared their delight at the news.

That's right. Delight.

Hell, I didn't even express delight when bin Laden, Qaddafi, or Saddam Hussein died. Some deaths are necessary. They're not cause for celebration. And while I know there are people who celebrated those deaths, I think those people were being asshats. I have never expressed delight over the death of any Supreme Court Justice. And if you celebrated this death, then I think you're being an asshat as well.

The most astonishing statement came from a friend of whom I expected more. I won't quote it here, because I don't want to directly identify them and thus cause them strife. But as similar points are expressed by others on social media, I feel the need to respond. Here's the gist of it.

Scalia's very existence was threatening beyond all other threats. His death is a relief equivalent to that of having a police sniper kill a screaming terrorist who is holding a gun to your head. The glee that they have expressed is due to this overwhelming relief from this primal terror, and if you don't approve of that glee, then you're disconnected.

Furthermore, Scalia's death is a lesson in white privilege because it allowed them to understand that Black Americans feel this very same abject terror every moment of their lives, and therefore they must rejoice in the same way when police officers die. Only more so, because hey, they're Black.

To that, I must say... you're right. I can not grok that threat because my brain is incapable of generating that incalculable level of immature, self-serving, soft-racist condescension.

--==//oOo\\==--

Firstly, we all know of judges that disagree with us politically.  All of us. You don't learn anything about white privilege from that. You just don't. And you don't get a pass for claiming that your problems are bigger everyone else's because [queue violin]. You don't know their problems. And you don't get to claim that this is the same as having a gun to your head, in complete disregard for the feelings of real victims with real guns pointed at real heads.

What you do have is something profoundly important missing from your psyche that prevents you from interacting with the real world where people have both the right and the privilege of disagreeing with each other without being accused of being terrorists.

Let's put this in perspective: we're talking about a judge sitting on a bench in Washington DC along with 8 other judges who may or may not rule on a subject pertaining to a case which may or may not be heard by them after it may have been heard by numerous levels of appellate courts... said subject being strictly limited to the constitutionality of a law. This is what my friend has equated to a gun to the head.

Exaggerating much? You bet. Clueless? Totally.

Here's how an educated adult handles both the life and the death of someone who disagrees politically:

Read Justice Ginsburg’s moving tribute 

to her “best buddy” Justice Scalia

Seriously, read Ginsburg's comments. We are primarily struck by the fact that she understands, as did Scalia, that differences of opinion do not make people enemies. We must value diversity on the Court because diverse opinions must be spoken for, and not through strawmen or lip-service. When an argument is made before the Supreme Court, it is not like any other court. It is the judges who directly ask questions of the lawyers, and they make those questions as difficult as they can; because when setting a precedent that will be followed as forcefully as the law itself, you must be able to defend that position. You do not find out whether an argument is weak by failing to test it.

And whether such questioning results in the Court rejecting a weak argument, or accepting a strong one; and whether the Justice himself is in the majority or the minority; it doesn't change the fact that the decisions of the court as a whole are better for this tough, direct approach. We must value dissent on the court precisely because it strengthens the majority decision. Ruth Bader Ginsburg shared that job with Antonin Scalia, her close friend. She understood this.

Unfortunately, those who are indoctrinated to look at everything through the lens of confrontational politics know nothing of this, and both misunderstand what the judges are doing through questioning, as well as confuse the difference between personal opinion and the written opinion of the Court. They also regularly misinterpret the purpose of a dissenting opinion in writing.

Scalia was a Constitutionalist precisely because he felt that the Court has no greater charge than that of safeguarding the rights of individual Americans to make decisions for themselves. Thus he opposed all attempts to legislate from the bench. And this was completely divorced from any opinion he might have held about whether the thing being legislated was good or bad, as that kind of decision is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice. Rather, if you want to change the law, then you should do so through legislation. And if you want to change the Constitution, you should amend it. And if you think that position is "threatening", then you have no understanding whatsoever of how utterly, hopelessly clueless you are.

That's not so hard now, is it?

--==//oOo\\==--

Secondly, there is not one iota of "blackness" to be gained from your histrionic display. None.

In an earlier post ('Splainin') I had just addressed the subject of such condescension. And then I got to read the static on social media. Between the time I posted my last post and the time I read of Scalia's death, a video appeared in my feed from Prager University. I thought about, and then rejected the idea of appending it to my post. But with this, I have a different reason for doing so.

Do you know what good, decent Black people want from you? Exactly the same thing as every other good, decent person. Not condescension. Not pity. Not victimhood. And most certainly not to be held up as the reason for applauding the death of an innocent man who did his best to uphold the Constitution and with it the rights of individual Americans of every stripe. Frankly, if such a person can't hold a different political viewpoint than you without being pronounced "evil" in your view, then the problem lies within you, not them.

And here's how an educated adult defines equality:

St. Valentine's Day

I went to far too much trouble to make this image. But it IS the feast of St. Valentine and people DO give each other hearts. I just put two and two together. Some day my sense of humor is going to land me in a lot of trouble. Maybe today.

--==//oOo\\==--

Interesting Fun Facts:

There was more than one St. Valentine. On February 14 we honor Valentine of Rome and Valentine of Terni, although almost nothing is known of these gentlemen except that they were martyrs and Valentine of Rome was buried on February 14th.

Although some folks claim that this observance was a Christian assumption of the fertility rites of the ancient Roman festival of Lupercalia, there's no evidence that this was the case. Rather, the co-incidence of the dates is just that... co-incidence. Lupercalia was abolished in the Fifth Century by Pope Gelasius, who didn't replace it with anything.

Hearts don't really look like this.

Of course, you knew this already. So did ancient artists. In antiquity, hearts were depicted as being more anatomically correct. The stylized heart symbol is an invention of the Middle Ages, which may have been popularized by its use on playing cards. But even as late as the 18th century, sacred hearts were drawn as being anatomically correct in ecclesiastical art.

The sending of flowers, chocolates, and greeting cards are all British innovations, but one of their traditions hasn't quite made it into the worldwide main stream... Jack Valentine. You might think of him as a cross between Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny with really bad press. In Norfolk, on February 14th, Jack Valentine would leave gifts at the back door, knock loudly, and then run like hell. Sound creepy? Still, I prefer it to the similar practice in the US of leaving a flaming bag of dog poo.

Finally, here's a fun little song that was written with Valentine's Day in mind:

The Pundits are Getting New Hampshire All Wrong

I haven't been hanging on the news over the past week or so, but what I have seen and heard bugs me in a way I've been wanting to comment on for a while (and just haven't had time).

Where's what I am TOLD by pundits:

1. There is more "excitement" on the Republican side resulting in a larger turnout in the Republican Primary 
2. The "excitement" for Bernie and Trump is great as evidenced by their respective wins.

But here's what I SEE.

1. New Hampshire has an open primary, like my home state's (South Carolina). You don't have to declare party affiliation to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary.
2. Voting in the Democratic Primary was weak.
3. Voting in the Republican Primary was strong.
4. Democrats are more deeply divided than they themselves know:
1. Many voters will not vote for a publicly avowed Socialist, no matter how you 'splain it. Some will, but many will not. 
2. Clinton is facing a crisis of scandals. The classified document scandal alone presents a reasonable doubt as to whether she'd actually be indicted before the general election. People don't like that, and some would not vote for her under any circumstances.
5. Trump is widely acknowledged to be as un-Republican a Republican as has run in recent memory. A number of his positions aren't terribly different from Clinton's.

Now here's what I THINK.

1. The people of New Hampshire weren't particularly excited about Bernie Sanders at all. Rather, they were disenchanted with Hillary Clinton. But even though they couldn't vote for Clinton, they found themselves left with an alternate choice (Bernie) that they couldn't vote for, either.
2. Nevertheless, they didn't stay home. The voting in the Republican primary was above expectations because many of those voters were Democrats.
3. Those Democrats voting in the Republican primary voted for Trump.

I think that the New Hampshire election is evidence that there are a large number of Democratic voters who can not bring themselves to vote for any of the candidates currently fielded by their party. These disenfranchised voters are inclined to defect to the Republican side if they don't simply stay home.

This did happen for Ronald Reagan; and despite his personality it could possibly happen for Trump. In fact, as I was preparing to post this I went searching, and a poll last month concluded the same thing... as many as 20% of Democrats would defect if their own candidate wasn't on the ballot. That spells bad news whether your name is Clinton or Sanders. As Trump would say, 20% is HUGE. It's far greater than the difference in raw numbers between the two parties. And Trump, thus far, has a commanding lead on the Republican side, as much as that makes me shudder.

As to why the talking heads aren't paying attention to this during the actual primaries, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe all of them are except for every last one of them I've seen.

I have no idea why these two are smiling.
The chances are very good that both of them are completely screwed.

'Splainin'

Charles M. Blow made an erudite observation in the New York Times on Feb 11th:

"If only black people knew more, understood better, where the candidates stood — now and over their lifetimes — they would make a better choice, the right choice. The level of condescension in these comments is staggering."

Welcome to the world, dear White Reader.

Charles Blow is describing something that's true on a far broader scale than he limits himself to in this editorial. This level of condescension is aimed not just at Blacks who choose one Democratic candidate over another, but at those that choose ANY candidate but the "right" one... as if Black people have to think and vote alike or lose their Blackness.

Good thing they have a "white knight" like you to tell them which candidate is the one they should be voting for, huh? And which party, too. And when to be offended.

In reality, people -- all people -- have all kinds of opinions and vote all kinds of ways and it's far too easy to fall into a mentality that assumes they should "all look alike to you". And what's worse, that they should all look like your expectations of them.

You want people to be free?  Really free?

Then stop trying to chain them to your expectations.

Personally, I'd pay serious attention to any candidate who stops talking about "white voters" and "black voters" and instead looks for voters who freely share their clearly declaimed ideology and values. Because that's the candidate who's paying serious attention to what really matters.

Electric cars are even less green than PragerU says.

Prager University has posted an analysis of whether electric cars really help the environment.




It's a thought-provoking argument, but it doesn't really cover all the bases for those who are really environmentally-conscious. For instance, I'm not sure that their analysis takes into account the production and refinement of gasoline. If we do that for coal, it's only fair to do the same for petrol. But the numbers won't change that much, really. As it turns out, petrol's pretty efficient. So much so that it's worth burning a little petrol to make vast quantities of petrol. Nevertheless, it's an expense.

PragerU definitely missed a few things which take into account the driving habits of those who are predisposed toward certain kinds of cars. I've discussed before with friend of mine who regularly leases hybrid cars to stay on the cutting edge. He dutifully turns in his car every 3 years or so for the latest and greatest and thus feels he's doing the best he can to support the "green initiative".

And that three-year lease is about typical. Given a 90,000 mile lifespan (as per PragerU's video) divided by the average number of miles driven per year of 16,550 miles (from the US Department of Transportation) we find that the average car has an expected lifespan of about five and a half years. So it's obvious that the term of a lease doesn't cover the life of the car. As my parents would say, he hasn't "gotten all the good out of it" before he turns it in.

I, on the other hand, until very recently drove a 1992 Toyota Camry, which got comfortably over 30mpg... about 34mpg on the highway. My friend's hybrid got 36mpg. But over my car's 20 year lifespan, my friend would have fired up a factory seven times.  Me: once. Of course, I had already owned the Camry or ten years before we met, so the actual score over our ten-year acquaintance has been him:3, me:0.  Even had I been turning in my car for a comparable one every three years as he did, the difference in mileage couldn't justify the increased expense and environmental damage done by mining the lithium and rare metals used in the construction of the hybrid.

Doubtless there will be some people reading this who will be sputtering and searching in vain for some math in which an electric or hybrid vehicle is more environmentally sound than driving a well-tuned economy car into the ground. And notice I said 'environmentally sound', not 'environmentally conscious'. Just being conscious of what you're doing doesn't make it a logical decision. For instance, my friend has fallen into the fallacy of valuing what feels good over that which does good, as have a great many others who "think green".  His driving habits compared to a driver content to stick with one economy car over the years have landed him in carbon debt to a degree which he could not pay back in multiple lifetimes.

After viewing a draft of the above, a friend noted that "having an electric car definitely reduces the amount of miles a person drives." He considered this to be a hole in my logic, as if driving fewer miles changes the equation per mile driven. It's the opposite. If your less-green-to-manufacture car is driven less, then it is far less green per mile than the equivalent internal combustion car. In addition, this is clear evidence that the utility value of an electric car is far less than that of a gas-powered vehicle. And while an internal combustion car may be the only vehicle owned by its driver, it's also typical for an electric vehicle to be a second car, supplemented by a gas-powered one.

My point is, There's nothing wrong with investing in electric in the hopes that it will someday become more green, but thinking that it is now is fallacious. If you want to be environmentally conscious, keep your vehicles in good repair, no matter what kind of vehicles you drive. Drive them well past their 'expected' lifespans, which are always woefully understated. Stop using so many electric appliances. You can cut food with a knife just fine. And not every damned thing in the Universe has to have an electronic chip in it, and those with chips aren't necessarily doing a better job.

But mostly, stop putting your feels in front of your logic. Think.

Mattress Exchange Day

OK, today I'm just wanting to share a couple of memories. They're anecdotes, really; but you might find them entertaining.

Way back in the day -- 1982 -- I left US Air Force Basic Training to start radio tech school at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi.

To my geek friends: Basic Training is NOT where you learn about line numbers and why you should never type GOTO (unless you should). That's BASIC training.

This is the place, roughly as it looked when I arrived (click to embiggen it):

Today it looks a great deal different. Hurricane Katrina washed much of the base away, including almost all of the buildings that housed the training squadrons. These are the weird-looking buildings that are in the triangular area at the bottom-left. They've been replaced with buildings that look depressingly normal.

I was initially assigned to the 3413th Student Squadron, affectionately known as "Animal House", as I was reminded today. We didn't earn the title, but we maintained it with vigor.

FYI, someone in training at Keesler was known as a "pinger", which is actually an acronym standing for "Person In Need of Graduation". As is usual for all places of continuing education, we took it upon ourselves to put those newly arrived students to the test.  Let's not call it "hazing", shall we? That always sounds so crass. I thought of them as fun gags.

One of the gags that had a long tradition was that of "Chief Master Rope". And now you need to know what a "Rope" is. In military tradition, aiguillettes are decorative colored braided cords worn on the shoulder, often by Third World dictators. In the US Air Force they're worn under the epaulet and unobtrusively tucked under the shoulder.

In other countries, and particularly the United Kingdom, they tend to be more prominent. To the left is picture of Prince Harry in splendid regalia at William's wedding. It's either that, or he fell off the dock and onto a trawler and, being in a hurry, just showed up still entangled in the rigging.



At Keesler these devices were worn by student leaders, who were known by the color of their "ropes".

• A Green Rope was also known as a Bay Chief. Each was responsible for a dormitory "bay" in which were housed maybe two dozen Airmen. 
• A Yellow Rope, aka "Floor Rope" was responsible for an entire floor, maybe six or eight bays. This was the best of the student leader positions. I know because I was one.
• A Red Rope, aka "Suck-up" (but only behind his back) was responsible for all of the Yellow Ropes and reported to the Squadron Commander. 
• A White Rope was a chapel guide.
• A Black Rope was on the drill team.
• Blue ropes weren't worn by students... those were instructors.

Augillette of a
"Chief Master Rope"

And now you know. The important ones for this story were the traffic light colors. "Chief Master Rope" (or CMR, a parody of Chief Master Sergeant), was a fictional grade used for the gag. Enterprising jokesters would un-braid one of each of the student leader cords and then braid them back together to form this emblem of super-rank. Then he'd show up in a dormitory bay unannounced and perform a mock "inspection". Of course, everyone would be in the know except for the new guy, who would be quaking in his boots. Of course, he'd be the one singled out. His belongings would be scattered, he'd be yelled at and belittled until at some point he'd be shown mercy. His buddies would come clean about the gag, and everybody would have a good laugh as they helped him put his stuff back in order. It was a protracted form of jumping out and shouting "Boo!"

Of course, The Powers That Be couldn't allow such a thing to continue, lest it be confused with hazing. So by the time I got there, new students were warned of "Chief Master Rope Inspections" during their in-processing, and were encouraged to report such behavior.

Naturally, only a dick would actually report it. Enterprising souls found ways to use these warnings to their benefit. One ingenious solution was "Mattress Exchange Day"...

--==//oOo\\==--

There were many ways to pull this one off, but we started with the old "Chief Master Rope" gag. Of course we knew our victim had been warned, and he was suitably unimpressed by the charade. We nevertheless pretended to be fearful and respectful of our fake boss, while our victim was convinced of how terribly lame it was. And truth be told, the CMR was as lame as we could possibly make him... all dressed up like a cross between General MacArthur and a bag of Skittles.

Then, just when our victim is convinced of the stupidity of it all, an older fellow barges in, preferably in his late twenties or thirties, with no signs of a recent trainee haircut, and with a mustache, wearing civilian clothes. Before he says a word, everyone in sight of him snaps to rigid attention. An almost inaudible "oh, shit" might escape someone's lips.

He never announces his name or his rank -- lying about that could get you discharged. The implication is clear, though, that this is an NCO at the very least or perhaps even an officer. Whoever he is, he's one Important Guy. He demands, "What the hell is going on here?"

And that's when the CMR sees him. SNAP! Attention! Oh, shit, the hat! Off comes the hat! Off come the mirrored glasses, revealing eyes that look as though they have witnessed the fury of God Himself. The corncob pipe clatters to the polished floor.

The victim is perplexed, but he knows that something just went horribly wrong and he's at attention, too, out of sheer reflex. He's straight out of Basic. It's what you do.

And now the "Chief Master Rope" is dressed down thoroughly, and might be made to do pushups or some other fun task, the purpose of which is to convince the victim that this is real.

"You jackasses want an inspection, you'll GET ONE!" bellows the IG, who then turns on his heels into the pinger's room and proceeds to tear it to shreds. Nothing is right about it. Nothing. The poor victim can't even see the mayhem, as he's standing at attention in the hall, facing away.

Once the sheets are torn from the bed, IG lets out a cry of astonished rage:

"You idiot! It's Mattress Exchange Day! Why the hell isn't your g**d*** mattress at the g**d*** CQ?  Get your ass down there!  Move it!  Move it!  Move it!" 

And of course, our completely cowed target would be halfway down the hall before the second "Move it!" with mattress in tow.

We had to stop the poor victim as he was dragging his bedding down the stairs. And we'd come clean about the gag and everybody would have a good laugh as they helped him put his stuff back in order.

Of course, if you really wanted to mess with the pinger again, you could always tell him that it was all a joke except Mattress Exchange Day.  That's next Tuesday.

--==//oOo\\==--

Shortly thereafter I changed shifts and moved to the 3411th. They never did Mattress Exchange Day. Boring.