The comedy stylings of John Kerry have provided something else to play into GOP hands besides congressional pages. They’re teeing off on his statement that lack of education “lands you in Iraq,” claiming that he was trash-talking the troops. Everyone knows that lack of supporting the troops has replaced social security as the third rail of politics. Kerry’s response is that he was making a misfired joke about the administration.
Who to believe? Well, putting aside my personal dislike for Bush and the fact that I voted for Kerry, let’s see what makes more sense: The notion that Kerry, who served in the armed forces, would be dissing the troops, or that Kerry, who despises Bush and Co., would be dissing the administration.
To quote that great pundit, Daffy Duck: Pronoun trouble. Displaying the comedic instincts of a California Redwood, Kerry SHOULD have said “we.” “We wind up in Iraq,” which would have made it at least somewhat clearer. Or if he insisted on “you,” then it becomes, “you wind up landing us in Iraq.” Something like that.
Considering word around the campfire is that “Studio 60” may be shutting down soon, perhaps Kerry can draft Aaron Sorkin to write some jokes for him.
PAD
• 
“But seriously, on another site, somebody asked the question of whether our system of government has failed. I said basically what you said: no, the system of government hasn’t, the people have.”
My feeling is that our system of government succeeds as long as the fundamental underpinning of it still functions: Peaceful transition of power.
I think a lot of people take for granted just how miraculous that is. They forget the number of countries in which power flows directly from family member to family member, or only changes through coup and violence. The measure of whether our system of government succeeds, to me, is that the most powerful individual in this country willingly cedes his power if either the people say it’s time or the constitution says it’s time, and that goes for every other representative of the people.
Whether it *accomplishes* anything is another matter entirely, but the basic underpinnings–formed by a group of men who knew all-too-well what it was like to be under the thumb of a monarchy–continue to succeed.
PAD
“Micha, welcome to the club. It’s unfortunate that al of this has been focused around The Shrouded One since there really IS an interesting discussion to be had about genocide and the fight against it.”
Bill, it is all too common for people to throw around the word genocide and holocaust and other big words lightly. They end up trivializing both genocide and the issue they wanted to discuss or promote.
Unfortunatly, I’ve seen it done too often in my country by people all accross the political spectrum.
Some people do it because they actually want to diminish the term genocide. But many others do it for others reasons. Usyally it is very excitable people. I suspect that, since genocide is considered the ultimate evil, the psychological motivation for people to cast themselves as the victims or fighters against genocide, and their enemies as commiting genocide, is to cast themselves as absolute heroes and their enemies as absolute villains.
I’m afraid this black and white way of thinking was and is responsible both to the mistakes in Vietnam and Iraq, and in the mistreatment of the soldiers after the war.
Craig, I hope your brother comes out of this war unharmed both physically and mentally.
Bill, it is good to hear that your uncle did find some degree of healing. I hope the same is true for you Mike Weber.
——————–
“What Bill Mulligan, Bill Myers, Jerry C, Craig J Ries, and Micha deny is genocide-apologism”
Mike, you are like the Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his own hair. We are just going around in circles based on the ridiculous claim that hate crime equals genocide, as well as the complete distortion of Bill’s argument concerning hate crime.
Two party system and a system with more parties both have their flaws.
Come to Chimpy McHitlerburton’s, where the beef is gay and you’ll be happy.
Yeah the food is great but I got tired of having poo flung at me for just asing if I could have some extra salt.
Craig, I, of course, share the hope that your brother comes back fine.
It’s thirty-plus years and more, but some of us here at home are still in that jungle, fighting that war, and nobody seems to be thinking much about them anymore…
And does anyone think, if i live to be ninety, that i’m going to see the vets of this year’s little military misadventure treated any better?
I think the shoddy treatment so many Vietnam Vets got is still a major source of embarassment to many. When I go home to New York for the 4rth of July they have a parade (basically an endless series of firetrucks–safety tip to those in Saugerties New York; try not to set your house on fire between 9 and 11 Am.) When the contingent of Vietnam Vets march by they get one of the biggest ovations.
I’ve seen people spontaneously walking up to military men in uniform and thanking them (hëll, I’ve done it myself). A lot of that is the desire to not see the mistakes of the past repeated. Whatever one’s feelings on the current war it’s stupid to take it out on the men and women in the armed forces and those that do, while a tiny minority of the anti-war movement, should be shunned.
And I note: while I’ve seen lots of people talk about being a Vietnam vet I’ve never yet seen anyone talk with pride about how they called one of those vets a baby killer or something like it way back when. So who is that seems to be ashamed of what went down? Not you, that’s for sure.
(It is interesting to see how the pop culture regard Vietnam Vets. First as killers, then ticking time bombs, then super heroes, now, as writers and directors come along who have had these men as their fathers and uncles, a more realistic, kinder view.)
Craig, my best wishes and thoughts go out to your brother.
Mike, thanks to you and your comrades for your service and sacrifices. You deserved better than what you got for it. 🙂
mike weber –
And does anyone think, if i live to be ninety, that i’m going to see the vets of this year’s little military misadventure treated any better?
I truly believe it will be this Administration that will bear the brunt of the mistreatment, and deservedly so. Bush set his sights on Iraq as the basis of his legacy, and he’s getting his wish in the worst way: Iraq will be his legacy, and everything that went into this ‘war on terror’, and the complete incompetence with which it has been fought so far.
But the troops? I think they have been, overall, treated well so far, and will not see the kinds of things Vietnam vets had to put up with.
There are cities where people are lining up to welcome the troops home from their tours, whether the have family in the military or not.
I may think my brother is an idiot at the moment, a feeling which will likely pass with time, but I know he’s doing a service for this country, and so I don’t deny him that.
I do also think, however, that in this day and age, we need to have more accountability on the part of our troops and our leadership, and we’re certainly not getting it.
Just the other day, there was a news report that one of the soldiers involved in Iraqi prisoner abuse was being sent back to Iraq. I think he was already on his way to Iraq when somebody noticed and stopped the soldier.
The reason they stopped him? A general said it was for HIS safety. That general should be embarassed – that soldier embarassed this country by his actions, and we should be protecting the Iraqis from him, not the other way around.
// But the troops? I think they have been, overall, treated well so far, and will not see the kinds of things Vietnam vets had to put up with. //
Country to popular belief the troops weren’t that mistreated after Vietnam, at least not by the public, stories of returning vets being spit on and called “baby killer” where largely a fiction created by hollywood screenwriters. In reality a large number of returning vietnam vets joined the anti war movement when they got home and were welcomed, (not judged), by others in that movement.
People who invoke that image of the embittered vietnam vet, mistreated by the war protesters back home, (IOW the movie RAMBO), are invoking a fiction and for the most part are doing it to forward thier own agenda, not for the welfare of the troops.
Where the troops were mistreated was by thier own government, who for the longest time wouldn’t pay for ailments they received (Both physical and emotional) as a result of some of the things they experienced in Nam, (like exposure to agent Orange for instance), and I see no sign of that really changing, in fact from what I’ve read it’s actually worst now then it was back then.
“My feeling is that our system of government succeeds as long as the fundamental underpinning of it still functions: Peaceful transition of power.”
Agreed. George Washington’s greatest legacy was leaving office without a fuss.
Country to popular belief the troops weren’t that mistreated after Vietnam, at least not by the public, stories of returning vets being spit on and called “baby killer” where largely a fiction created by hollywood screenwriters.
I’ve heard diffetrently. Mike Weber, did you encounter any mistreatment by people in public upon your return?
“…stories of returning vets being spit on and called “baby killer” where largely a fiction created by hollywood screenwriters.”
Some in my family are Vietnam Vets as well. I’ve asked them about this before. They’ve said that this kind of thing did happen, but that it was, at least where they and their friends were, far more rare then common wisdom says it was.
Hëll, my dad came home and got a new car cheap from a guy that was knocking the prices down to almost negative profit levels for G.I.s who could show proof that they were in Vietnam. A friend of his got his first, but no where near his last, bike in the same kind of deal.
None of that means that lots of guys didn’t come home to people being first class @$$es. I just think it means you’re going to get different stories with each different person you ask.
They did not, however, ever tell me about getting this kind of treatment.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/brothel.asp
Craig J Ries,
When I interpreted the m-w definition of genocide as, as Bill Mulligan summarized, “ANY racially motivated murder,” referring to this you said, “Your lack of intelligence shouldn’t be our problem either, but it is.” I found the definition of the word by the man who coined it, and it matched my interpretation of the dictionary definition.
The only virtue in denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” is to shelter racism as something other than it really is. You, too, are so stupid you don’t even know there is such a thing as being smart.
Micha,
The person who coined the word “genocide” lost 49 members of his family to the Holocaust. My interpretation of the dictionary of the word matches his.
The only virtue in denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” is to shelter racism. Shame on you.
My interpretation of the definition of the word…
My interpretation of the definition of the word…
Thanks for the clarification. Otherwise, who knows, people might have thought you were stupid or something…
By the way, why do you never actually write the name Raphael Lemkin? Is it part of the rules of your organization to never call a Jew by his name?
You are a very, very strange person, Mike. What happened?
“The person who coined the word “genocide” lost 49 members of his family to the Holocaust. My interpretation of the dictionary of the word matches his.
The only virtue in denying “ANY racially motivated murder” matches “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” is to shelter racism. Shame on you.”
I do not have a problem with the person who coined the word genocide, only with the way you use his definition.
I did not have 49 members of my family killed in the holocaust. Maybe some distant Lithuanian relatives I’m not aware of. My father was a little boy in Romania during the war, but none of his immediate family were killed. The Romanians were not that motivated apparently, although they were part of the system. I believe other Romanian Jews were killed. Ironically, my father had blonde hair, blue eyes, and my gradfather’s first language was German, so the German soldiers stationed in Bucarest thought he was a model Aryan child, not relizing he was Jewish. So, no 49 dead family members, but still, you can assume I do not take Genocide lightly.
The virtue of denying that any racially motivated murder is genocide is so as not to debase the term nor cheapen the historical events (not only the holocaust) associated with it.
It should be noted that most Jews usually (except extremist right wing and some time left wing people) distinguish between the holocaust, which was a unique historical event, and other attacks against Jews through history, that did not reach the level of Genocide. Those (too many) who do not, end up cheapening the significance of the holocaust.
Of course all this is irrelevant to your silly attack against Bill, who never denied the significance either of Genocide or even a single act of racially motivated violence. What he did, as should be clear to anybody, is to oppose the wisdom of hate crime laws, i.e. adding a penalty for the thought beyond the penalty for the action. You can agree with him, or not. But do him the curtesy to argue with what he said instead of making silly accusations.
You can agree with him, or not. But do him the curtesy to argue with what he said instead of making silly accusations.
It’s all he’s got, Micha.
My feeling is that our system of government succeeds as long as the fundamental underpinning of it still functions: Peaceful transition of power.”
Agreed. George Washington’s greatest legacy was leaving office without a fuss.
Actually, his greatest legacy was that he left office, period.
There was no law then stipulating that he could not continue running for President and become a de facto king (which I understand was what European monarchies expected to happen — his voluntary “abdication” was surely quite a shock). The fact that the military leader of a revolution refused to seek lifelong power in the resulting new regime, is a testament to the Father of our county.
“You are a very, very strange person, Mike. What happened?”
See, this is what I hate about the modern way of looking at super villains (or, as in this case, not so super villains). There always has to be a reason for why they’re nutters.
What, it works better if he was a normal teenager that took one too many shots to the head with a handball and declared war on a cruel world? One day he slipped on a banana, tipped a bookshelf, was knocked loopy by a dictionary, woke up face down on the drool covered page, saw the word “genocide” and decided that he would become General Genocide and decided it was now his mission in life to cloud issues with meaningless uses of the word?
Why can’t we look at Mad Mikey in the old school way? He wasn’t made a complete nutter, he was just born that way.
🙂
Micha,
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Your and Bill Mulligan’s persistent denial “ANY racially motivated murder” matches “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” is a plainly observable attempt to hijack the word. Its only virtue is to shelter racism. You have no spine.
Bill Mulligan, the only reason you know the name Raphael Lemkin is because of me — correcting your ignorance of the word genocide — and I refer to Peter here by his name all the time.
Your persistent, desperate, Saruman-like denial “ANY racially motivated murder” matches “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]” is laughable. Gay or straight, your staff is broken.
// “…stories of returning vets being spit on and called “baby killer” where largely a fiction created by hollywood screenwriters.”
Some in my family are Vietnam Vets as well. I’ve asked them about this before. They’ve said that this kind of thing did happen, but that it was, at least where they and their friends were, far more rare then common wisdom says it was. //
I did not mean to imply that such things NEVER happened, but that they were far rarer then the conventional wisdom believes. It was popular movies made in the late 70’s and into the 80’s that made the public think that all returning Vietnam Vets were treated like crap by the general public, and it is those movies, not any actual occurances, that people with thier own agenda’s invoke when they want to make people feel guilty for speaking out against our current war.
While I’m on the subject I should point out that Nam was not the only war where returning vets had a hard time, and often given a hard time by the civilian populace, check out the movie “the Best Year of our Lives” for a fairly realistic view of what returning WWII vets had to deal with. There’s a scene in that movie that’s fairly close to the “baby killer” stuff only done about 30 years earlier and for an entirly different war.
Jerry, maybe the word genocide wouldn’t be meaningless to you if you didn’t persist in trying to render it obsolete. You’re obviously waiting for your own personal link to the word as defined by the person who coined it, so here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Convention_ on_the_ Prevention_ and_ Punishment_ of_the_ Crime_of_ Genocide.
The part that matches “ANY racially motivated murder”:
“I did not mean to imply that such things NEVER happened…”
Weren’t saying that you did. I caught the bit were you said that the returning vets weren’t THAT mistreated and understood what you were saying. I was just throwing my two cents in.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at November 4, 2006 12:10 PM
There are cities where people are lining up to welcome the troops home from their tours, whether the have family in the military or not.
Lessee how that plays in a couple years…
One of my favourite cartoons from Bill Mauldin’s “Back Home” (not nearly so well known as “Up Front”), from about 1946 or so, shows a bunch of vets visiting a buddy who’s still in a VA hospital recuperating from losing both legs “So, guys, what am I this week? Heroic defender of my nation, or cynical malingerer feeding at the public trough?” (Probabaly a slight misquote, but the meaning is pretty well exact.
Or anohter one, showing a guy wearing parts of a uniform sleeping on a park bench under a canvas banner that says “…, Ohio Welcomes home our hero, PFC Joe Bloggs!” – a guy passing by says “Yer lucky – mine was paper and it wore out in a couple weeks.”
I wasn’t particularly ill-treated after i got home, i never faced actual enemy cmbat,(though one little misadventure resulted in a barbecue the next day) and i have no PTSD issues of my own to get through (though i have more than a touch of survivor syndrome whenever i run up against something that reminds me of how many weren’t nearly as lucky).
But i’ve watched the way that guys who, to some small extent i am presumptuous enough to call “brothers” have gone through.
And i have some idea what issues my son-in-law is sooner or later going to have to face, and no-one seems to be doing anything more for him and his brothers than they did for mine.
I’m bitter and i’m cynical, and i know that there’s nothing less newsworthy than yesterday’s hero.
Cash sang that song (about one of the Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima – hunting up his biography might be instructive) with an Indian kid from Oklahoma the day before his company went in.
The day after that, the kid was dead…
I direct you to my blog, specifically the entry entitled Anaropoia {http://electronictiger.com/roare/2006/01/anarapoia-v11.html}, and that entitled They Are Killing My Brothers Again {http://electronictiger.com/roare/2005/11/they-are-killing-my-brothers-again.html#links}
Posted by Darren J Hudak
Where the troops were mistreated was by thier own government, who for the longest time wouldn’t pay for ailments they received (Both physical and emotional) as a result of some of the things they experienced in Nam, (like exposure to agent Orange for instance), and I see no sign of that really changing, in fact from what I’ve read it’s actually worst now then it was back then.
I wouldn’t say “worse” – i would say that the Viet Nam vet is sort of on the back burner, so to speak.
I have been told that a Viet Nam vet who develops diabetes may qualify for 100% disability, since apparently that is now believed to be one of the long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange.
Posted by Bill Mulligan
I’ve heard diffetrently. Mike Weber, did you encounter any mistreatment by people in public upon your return?
Me, personally, no.
Some military personnel – not even necessarily Nam vets – were verbally abused (especially if they were part of a unit operating as a group), but you were as likely to, as i did more than once when in unifrom in Chicago when stationed at Great Lakes, meet people on the street who would salute you or shke your hand and thsnk you for protecting our country.
As to the “spitting on vets” bit, that seems to be basically a fiction, promoted by people like Nixon and his ilk, in an effore to turn popular opiion away from the anti-war movement. If it did happen – and i have yet to encounter a first-person account of such things happening, and someone whose skills at google-fu i respect was nable to come up with a single primary-source account from the period of it happening – it didn’t happen often.
Generally, the more rational peace/anti-war groups welcomed vets; there was a large all-vet section of the huge demonstration at Nixon’s Second Inaugural.
Posted by Darren J Hudak
While I’m on the subject I should point out that Nam was not the only war where returning vets had a hard time, and often given a hard time by the civilian populace, check out the movie “the Best Year of our Lives” for a fairly realistic view of what returning WWII vets had to deal with. There’s a scene in that movie that’s fairly close to the “baby killer” stuff only done about 30 years earlier and for an entirly different war.
I’ve already quoted two of Bill Mauldin’s cartoons on the subject from his second bok, “Back Home”.
Anyone who’d like a feel – just a feel, but a good one – for what WW2 was like from the viewpoint of the ordinary soldier needs to read Mauldin’s “Up Front” – both his commentary and the cartoons.
And remember that this insightful commentary is coming from a man who was barely twenty-one, if that.
And then find a copy of “Back Home” (it’s harder to find) and see that same insight turned on this ocuntry and the way soldiers were treated after the war…
Ah, I should have more common sense then to do this…
Mad Mikey, your failure to understand what others with slightly more functional mental faculties grasp may be due to your desire to keep reading the abridged version of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Try something other then Wikipedia.
http://www.law-ref.org/GENOCIDE/index.html
You might find both the main page and the links you can understand somewhat enlightening. Somehow though, I doubt it.
Until then, I have this motion to make.
We of the PAD blog with mental capabilities greater then that of a syphilitic crustacean believe that the word “genocide” does not include random acts of a racially motivated homicide when performed by one individual and aimed at no more then a few people. You, Mad Mikey, sufferer of advanced syphilitic crustacean mental degeneration simplex three, seem to believe that one nut job randomly killing someone because of the color of their skin or because of their beliefs is in fact guilty of not only Hate Crimes violations, but actual genocide. We can’t seem to agree with you and you can’t seem to come around to seeing it the way the rest of us in the reality based community do. We are faced with the issue of our interpretations being in dispute.
I refer you to Article 9 (of 19) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
__________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 9
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article 3, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Owing to the fact that you’re just too stupid to debate this with, I believe that the best course of action for you to take is to submit the issues of our dispute to the International Court of Justice for deferment to their judgment. We’ll be happy to wait for them to get back to you on the matter before ever hearing from you again.
Take your time.
No rush.
No need to hurry.
We’ll wait a whole year if we have to.
Yes, indeedee. As long as it takes for them to get back to you…
You, too, are so stupid you don’t even know there is such a thing as being smart.
Uhuh. That was such a wonderfully constructed sentence, I hope you said it out loud a few times before typing it, just to make sure it’s really as ridiculous as it reads.
I couldn’t give two piles of mule dung about your definitions of this or that, the fact that you accuse me of denying anything, when I have yet to respond to one of your posts about said garbage, just goes to show how much of a moron you truly are.
Next, somebody will say the sky is blue and you’ll accuse them of being your faery godmother.
Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2006 10:14 AM
You pulled the topic of my unattractiveness to women out of your ášš.
_______________________________________________
Internet Jack@$$ “Unattractive to Women”
Nov 5
By GUY SMILEY
The online community was stunned today to learn that the Internet jack@$$ known as “Mickey” is, in his own words, “unattractive to women.”
“Seriously, I thought the guy had, like, an entire harem at his disposal,” said Bill Myers, a frequent poster at http://www.peterdavid.net.
“I wish that were the case,” said Mickey. “But it’s not. And I don’t understand what I’m doing wrong. I’m avoiding all the pitfalls: I don’t shower, I’ve avoided learning any social skills, I live in my family’s basement, and I spend all of my time online accusing people of misinterpreting the word ‘genocide.’ I thought I’d have women falling all over me!”
According to Mickey, a lifetime of being “dateless and desperate” isn’t all bad.
“I’ve had plenty of time to spend studying up on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien in order to come up with some really rapier-like insults for my online enemies. When I’m finally noticed by a woman, I’m sure she’ll be very impressed.”
originally posted by Bill Mulligan: “And I note: while I’ve seen lots of people talk about being a Vietnam vet I’ve never yet seen anyone talk with pride about how they called one of those vets a baby killer or something like it way back when. So who is that seems to be ashamed of what went down? Not you, that’s for sure.”
Nor I. I was involved in the anti-war movement in the 1960s and 1970s. I never spit on a returning vet, never called one a baby-killer, and I don’t recall any of my friends having ever done that or ever having talked with pride of having done that.
So the fact that you don’t hear anyone talking with pride today about having spit on returning vets does not necessarily mean we are ashamed of what we did. I think it is more likely further evidence that such incidents were extremely rare.
One flaw I have often noticed in library periodical collections is that they fail to include something important to future historians: the tiny circulation newsletters of activist political groups (both left and right). The statements that one hears on the evening news, or quoted in large-circulation magazines and newspapers, are generally words that were carefully chosen. To see what groups are really thinking and doing, one needs to find and read their own internal discussions. Some groups that try to appear moderate and reasonable are a lot wackier when they’re talking among themselves; some groups which have an image of being crazy loons are actually nothing like how their opponents have painted them. But the newsletters, pamphlets, leaflets, etc., which would help document what people, groups, and movements were really like tend to be ephemeral and to get discarded.
Unfortunately, even though I am a packrat who collects leaflets and other items, and who tries to save as many odd and obscure things as I, time space inevitably take their toll. I no longer have those old issues of WIN (published by War Resisters League), Fellowship (published by Fellowship of Reconciliation), or Direct Action (published by CNVA) and I have only a handful of back issues of The Peacemaker, mostly from the 1980s. So I don’t have actual anti-war newsletters around to quote from. But I was there in the ’60s and ’70s, and my memory tells me a very different story than the one I often hear from people who weren’t.
Fortunately there is one historical record which is has survived and can be examined: music. There were a number of prominent political folk-singers back then who wrote numerous songs on virtually every political topic out there. Phil Ochs, Pete Seeger, Tom Paxton, Judy Collins, the Chad Mitchell Trio, Eric Anderson, and Peter, Paul, and Mary, to name some of the ones that leap to mind, were not hesitant about expressing their opinions. So I invite anyone who believes anti-war means or anti-vet to look up and listen to some of those people’s albums and see if you find any songs celebrating hatred of soldiers.
Pete Seeger is perhaps the most famous of the anti-war folk-singers of that time. I recommend listening to “Waist Deep In The Big Muddy”, a powerful and anti-war song based (if I recall correctly) on Seeger’s own experience as a soldier.
Phil Ochs has a number of top tier anti-war songs: I Ain’t Marching Any More (from the album of the same title); The War Is Over; The Thresher; One More Parade; Talking Viet Nam; and many more. None of them expresses hatred or contempt for the soldiers fighting the wars. Listen to those. Then listen to him (or Pete Seeger, or the Chad Mitchell Trio) sing “Draft Dodger Rag”, a classic song which savages those who evaded the draft and let others die in their place. Ochs wasn’t shy about tearing into those he had contempt for; it’s simply that the average soldier wasn’t someone he felt that way about.
Ochs, and other anti-war singers of the Vietnam era, felt contempt for the war and for the people who got us into the war, not for the soldiers who had to fight it. Ochs feeling about soldiers is well-expressed in his song “The Men Behind the Guns”. (The lyrics can be found at http://www.lyricsdepot.com/phil-ochs/men-behind-the-guns.html . Please go there and read them. It’s a wonderful song.)
Yes, Bill, you are right: no one today is talking with pride about calling a vet a baby-killer. No one I knew was talking about it with pride back in the ’60s or ’70s either. There may have been people back then who did take pride in it, just as there may be people today who take pride in saying all Democrats are traitors who should be executed immediately without a trial– but such people if they exist are the exceptions, not the rule.
“Gay or straight, your staff is broken.”
A psychologist would have a field day with you, Mike.
Bill Myers– This could have been from The Onion. It’s that good.
So the fact that you don’t hear anyone talking with pride today about having spit on returning vets does not necessarily mean we are ashamed of what we did. I think it is more likely further evidence that such incidents were extremely rare.
That’s a good point.
So I invite anyone who believes anti-war means or anti-vet to look up and listen to some of those people’s albums and see if you find any songs celebrating hatred of soldiers.
And if I gave anyone the impression I thought the anti-war movement was wrong or filled with haters, I apologize. My uncle is a Vietnam war vet and I have other family members who are war protestor vets. Neither has anything to be ashamed of, in my opinion.
I do remember looking at articles an/or letters in the radical student newspapers from colege (both my parents were attending college part time when I was a kid) that really were vile. But college newspapers are hardly to be taken as indicative of opinions at large.
Then listen to him (or Pete Seeger, or the Chad Mitchell Trio) sing “Draft Dodger Rag”, a classic song which savages those who evaded the draft and let others die in their place. Ochs wasn’t shy about tearing into those he had contempt for; it’s simply that the average soldier wasn’t someone he felt that way about.
Not familiar with that one–and my folks played a LOT of anti-war folk songs (I’ll styill take Joan Baez over 99% of what passes for “music” these days) but isn’t that an odd message? What alternative did those who did not support the war have? They could stay and go to jail (which would still send someone in their place) or run (ditto) or go and just do whatver they could to avoid fighting (which could result in others being put in danger).
Yeah, I have more respect for those who went…but I can’t work up too much contempt for those who fled. (It’s a different story now–people who join the armed forces to get student loans or whatever and THEN discover they are secretly Quakers, I have no use for them).
Anyway, thanks for the post, it was a good one. It’s really too bad the internet wasn’t around back then–we have to rely on the news sources of the time and what they picked and chose to report.
(One other point–the argumnet that no vets were spat on comes largely form a book written by some guy who looked at news reports of returning vets and found no report of such things. This seems to me to be a sungularly unenlightening method. I’ll wager that if you looked at the local newspapers of some southern towns during specific times you would not find every account of the virulent racism that was an everyday occurance. Similarly, holocaust deniers (you know who you are!) point out that there are no German newspaper account of such as “evidence” of their twisted ideology.)
(and aanother thing–if anyone accepts John Kerry’s second hand accounts of atrocities performed by soldiers to be valid, why is this respect not given to first hand accounts of other soldiers who bear witness to their treatment at the hands of fellow americans when they returned?)
Jerry, I second your motion to appeal to the international court. It is not only a smart idea, but, more importantly, it’s funny. This discussion with Mike is neither, so I’m stopping it. I know you warned me, and I should have listened. Sorry.
I also motion that dictionaries have some sort of child tampering device, a learner’s permit, an age restriction, a rating system, seatbelts, or at least a manual, for public safety.
Pay attention folks, this is how racism gets propagated:
Persistently citing ambiguity in the plain language of “Killing members of [a national, ethnical, racial or religious group]?” Pitiful.
So the convention defers to the International Court of Justice to arbitrate genocide. Laws are interpreted by judiciary. So what else is new?
// (One other point–the argumnet that no vets were spat on comes largely form a book written by some guy who looked at news reports of returning vets and found no report of such things. This seems to me to be a sungularly unenlightening method. I’ll wager that if you looked at the local newspapers of some southern towns during specific times you would not find every account of the virulent racism that was an everyday occurance. Similarly, holocaust deniers (you know who you are!) point out that there are no German newspaper account of such as “evidence” of their twisted ideology.) //
Not arguing the point, OTOH one would think there would have been some mention of such things in some media prior to Rambo and for the most part there wasn’t. I know people who served in Nam who never had such things happen to them nor knew of any such incidences happening to anyone they know, (And they would presumably know of more people in that situation they I ever could). I don’t deny such things happened, there are, and always will be jerks, but once you scratch beneath the surface they seem to be far rarer then comon knowledge would lead folks to believe.
I also stand by my statement that when most people evoke this image of the spat upon Vietnam vet they are evoking Rambo, (or simular movies), and not anything that really happened, or at least happened en mass, and most of the folks who envoke this image do so for thier own selfesh reasons and not out genuine concern for the troops.
I also stand by my statement that the true mistreatment the Nam Vets received was from thier own government, not the general population, being called a “baby killer” is far easier to bounce back from then the untreated emotional and physical wounds of actual combat, wounds that often went untreated because the government decided they weren’t “war related”. And this is still going on in our current conflict, from some things I’ve read it seems that it’s worst now then it was back then. If you want to get angry at the way returning vets are treated, don’t get angry at the stupid college kid with no tact, get angry at the government for not properly supporting our returning vets.
Darren, good points.
I think it’s always important to not assumer commonly heald beliefs are automatically true–or untrue.
Luckily, with youtube, cell phone videos, and digital cmaeras in the hands of everyone, the true history of our time will have a lot more physical evidence to back it up.
A kid in a group…
Oh. How old are you? Not that it totally excuses you but if you’re too young to understsnd how badly you’re acting I suppose it COULD be a mitigating factor…
Then listen to him (or Pete Seeger, or the Chad Mitchell Trio) sing “Draft Dodger Rag”, a classic song which savages those who evaded the draft and let others die in their place. Ochs wasn’t shy about tearing into those he had contempt for; it’s simply that the average soldier wasn’t someone he felt that way about.
Not familiar with that one–and my folks played a LOT of anti-war folk songs (I’ll styill take Joan Baez over 99% of what passes for “music” these days) but isn’t that an odd message? What alternative did those who did not support the war have? They could stay and go to jail (which would still send someone in their place) or run (ditto) or go and just do whatver they could to avoid fighting (which could result in others being put in danger).
Yeah, I have more respect for those who went…but I can’t work up too much contempt for those who fled. (It’s a different story now–people who join the armed forces to get student loans or whatever and THEN discover they are secretly Quakers, I have no use for them).
The Draft Dodger Rag isn’t really directed against those who didn’t support the war; it’s about those who supported it but didn’t want to serve themselves. Here’s the last verse:
I hate Chou En Lai, and I hope he dies,
but one thing you gotta see
That someone’s gotta go over there
and that someone isn’t me
So I wish you well, Sarge, give ’em Hëll
Yeah, kill me a thousand or so
And if you ever get a war without blood and gore
Well I’ll be the first to go
(If you Google “draft dodger rag,” with the quotes, the complete lyrics should be the first hit.)
D’oh! Everything up to “I have no use for them” was supposed to be italicized to show it was quoted. My comments start at “The Draft Dodger Rag…”.
if anyone accepts John Kerry’s second hand accounts of atrocities performed by soldiers to be valid, why is this respect not given to first hand accounts of other soldiers who bear witness to their treatment at the hands of fellow americans when they returned?)
One factor may be the fact that Kerry’s accounts were given at the time, while the accounts of soldiers were given later, after the preconceived notions of the treatment of Vietnam vets were put into the public mind.
The problem seems to be that there may be more evidence for atrocities than for such treatment of soldiers?
// My feeling is that our system of government succeeds as long as the fundamental underpinning of it still functions: Peaceful transition of power.”
Agreed. George Washington’s greatest legacy was leaving office without a fuss.
Actually, his greatest legacy was that he left office, period.
There was no law then stipulating that he could not continue running for President and become a de facto king (which I understand was what European monarchies expected to happen — his voluntary “abdication” was surely quite a shock). The fact that the military leader of a revolution refused to seek lifelong power in the resulting new regime, is a testament to the Father of our county. //
I would argue that having to “Run” for leadership in and of itself prevents one from becoming a de facto king, (assuming of course the elections aren’t rigged and I don’t remember anything in the history books about elections being rigged in Washingtons time).
“I voted for the 80 billion before I voted against it.”
Ooo, nice. Let’s put something inept that Kerry said several years ago against Bush saying stupid things such as “However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses,” two days ago.
The terrorists “won” the moment Bush and company pursued a course that was straight out of the bin Laden wish list.
PAD “
Than you Captain Obvious.
“I would argue that having to “Run” for leadership in and of itself prevents one from becoming a de facto king, (assuming of course the elections aren’t rigged and I don’t remember anything in the history books about elections being rigged in Washingtons time).”
You are missing the point entirely. George Washington made a conscious decision not to be president for life, which is what the Congress originally wanted him to do. He wanted to retire and go back to being a farmer at Mt. Vernon.
Washington set the standard for running for office and keeping him from being a defacto king, not the other way around.
That’s why he’s the Father of our country, and a personal hero of mine.
And you liberals claim to be so smart.
Then again, Kerry the cluess got worse grades at Yale than Bush did and HE seems to think he’s the smart one.
Go figure.
“Darren, good points.
I think it’s always important to not assumer commonly heald beliefs are automatically true–or untrue.
Luckily, with youtube, cell phone videos, and digital cmaeras in the hands of everyone, the true history of our time will have a lot more physical evidence to back it up.
A kid in a group…
Oh. How old are you? Not that it totally excuses you but if you’re too young to understsnd how badly you’re acting I suppose it COULD be a mitigating factor…”
Yes, Darren. WE ARE GODS. WE KNOW BEST. DO NOT ANGER US.
Lighten the fûçk up, Francis.
Um, hey, Ben? You claim to be so smart, but…
Up until 1951, people were allowed to run for office as many times as they wanted. FDR served three terms.
Washington stepped down because he was getting old and wanted to retire, simple as that. In fact, he wanted to retire after his first term was over but stayed on after his Cabinet begged him for another four years. The guy just wanted to relax in his old age, it wasn’t about setting a precedent for term limits. If he’d wanted to set such a precedent, what was stopping him from getting it written into law way back in the 18th century when he was in office?
// You are missing the point entirely. George Washington made a conscious decision not to be president for life, which is what the Congress originally wanted him to do. He wanted to retire and go back to being a farmer at Mt. Vernon.
Washington set the standard for running for office and keeping him from being a defacto king, not the other way around.
That’s why he’s the Father of our country, and a personal hero of mine.
And you liberals claim to be so smart. //
Don’t know why you automatically assume I’m a liberal, I don’t consider myself to be either a liberal or a conservtive, whenever I take one of those “what’s your party” test I always come up libertarian, read into that what you will.
As for Washington, I don’t have a strong opinion on this, nor do I think I know enought about this to argue one way or another. I’ve read things that confirm what you say (and that’s the way I was taught it in history class) but I’ve also read other historians that don’t buy that story of congress wanting Washington to be the new king. My point wasn’t to argue history but to point out what struck me as something odd in your original post, namely this line: “There was no law then stipulating that he could not continue running for President and become a de facto king “
Once again if you have to run for something you’re not a king, “de facto” or otherwise. Unless of course the elections are rigged. I would also point out that if he had to Run that kinda contridicts the Congress wanted him to stay on for life story.
// Yes, Darren. WE ARE GODS. WE KNOW BEST. DO NOT ANGER US. //
Huh?
Posted by: Ben Bradley at November 5, 2006 10:07 PM
Lighten the fûçk up, Francis.
Oh, get a grip, Sparky.
The only time I’ve ever personally heard from vets talking about mistreatment, inevitably the name “Jane Fonda” comes into it. Could this be where the stories got started?
And in First Blood, since I see so many references to Rambo, the cops didn’t mistreat him for being a vet. They mistreated him because they thought he was a vagrant.
What alternative did those who did not support the war have? They could stay and go to jail (which would still send someone in their place) or run (ditto) or go and just do whatver they could to avoid fighting (which could result in others being put in danger).
“Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees,
Hot air for the cool breeze,
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange
A walk-on part in a war
For a lead role in a cage?
“How I wish
How I wish you were here
We’re just two lost souls swimming in a fishbowl
Year after year
Running over the same old ground
And how we found
The same old fears –
Wish you were here…”
// And in First Blood, since I see so many references to Rambo, the cops didn’t mistreat him for being a vet. They mistreated him because they thought he was a vagrant. //
There’s a speach in either the first or 2nd Rambo movie, (I think it’s the 2nd) where Rambo talks about coming home from Nam, stepping off the plane and being called a “baby killer” by war protesters. As far as I remember this is never actually shown in either film, just talked about.
The idea about Washington turning down an offer to be king actually predates his taking office as president. During the Consitutional Convential, Hamliton lead a faction that wanted to establish a system in the constituion whereas the people would elect a chief executive who would serve for life and then the office would pass to his eldest son, in other words, a monarchy. Washington’s popualarity as a leader was such that it was a given that he would walk away with such a leadership. When Washington made it clear that he had no interest in serving as chief executive for life, support for Hamilton’s plan (which was never that large) dried up.
Washington’s decision not to run for a third term simply established that customary practice of presidents serving only two terms and then stepping down. Only two presidents violated that custom and they were both Roosevelts. Teddy Roosevelt ran unsuccessfully for a third Term, while FDR was elected for four terms, but died just as his fourth term began. After that, when the GOP took control of Congress, they quickly pushed through the amendment to set the two term limit into the Constitution. Ironically, the first two presidents to be prevented from running for a third term by the Constitution were both republicans: Eisenhower and Reagan.
“Oh, get a grip, Sparky.”
Get a life Comic-Boy.
Get a life Comic-Boy.
No no, it’s Comic-Book-Magazine-Internet-Newspaper-VideoGame-Boy.
If you’re going to attempt to insult somebody, at least be accurate in your insults.
Of course, the fact that you are even here to begin with…
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at November 6, 2006 11:17 AM
No no, it’s Comic-Book-Magazine-Internet-Newspaper-VideoGame-Boy.
Craig, can’t my super-hero name be a little bit shorter? The above may be accurate but it’s hardly marketable.
“Get a life Comic-Boy.”
This from a Troll who has made more posts in the last day then some of us make in a week. And the point of all those posts? God knows.
Look, Ben. We all know you’re lonely. Living in your Mama’s basement with nothing but a bed set, a computer, your TV and a stack of second hand Playboy magazines has obviously taken its toll on your sanity. We know that the frustration you feel from lack of social interaction with anybody other then Inflatable Irene has mad your conversational skills a little rough around the edges.
But it’s ok. We’re here to help.
First: Go out and get yourself a job. Something simple will do so long as it puts you in a public setting. Why not bag groceries. You can slowly work your way up to real human conversation with those around you However, if you feel particularly inept on any given day or with girls in general, you don’t actually have to talk to people beyond, “paper or plastic.”
Second: Get out of Mama’s basement. I would say that you need to get a place of your own, but that’s not happening for a bag boy with no savings. The best you can hope for now is to get an above ground bedroom. Maybe you can convince Mama that a room with a nice window view of the outside world would be good for both your awareness of what’s going on around you and fixing the pasty, blueish white skin color you got while living in the basement.
Third: I love British comedy. Apparently you do as well. Fine. And aren’t the best characters the ones that are full of wit and sarcasm? Yes. And you want to be cool like that too, don’t you? But, Benny, you have to have some real people interaction experience to know when to throw those sarcasms around. You can’t just start out with the sarcasm, follow it with an insult and end it with another sarcasm right out of the gate. You have to get to know the people you’re addressing, learn when and where to tweak them and then slide a well constructed jab out there. I understand you want to run with the big dogs from day one, but you really need to get out of the crawl stage first. As it stands now, you just keep trying to crawl too fast to keep up with the big dogs and end up falling face first into the poo.
Fourth: You have to know when and where to play. Yes, I know you want to play with others. But they may not always want to play with you. But, don’t worry about it. If you can’t play with others… Well… As least you’re left with the option that you obviously have a masterful level of experience with and do better then anything else.
So, until you’re ready to engage adults in adult discussions, why don’t you go away and do what you do best until then.