This is not to politicize Chris Kyle’s death, but I think we need to say something now rather than later. We’ve got a gun murder epidemic in this country. It needs to stop.
I’ve probably mentioned several times that my favorite NY Times article of all time is this one by David Brooks: Lunch Period Poli-Sci. In the article, Brooks speculates that we’re the same people we were in high school–jocks on one side who keep things simple and straightforward, and nerds on the other, who like to pontificate. In the end, Brooks says, we need both. Stuff doesn’t get done without the jocks leading, and the nerds help set the jocks on a deeper path:
The only real shift between school and adult politics is that the jocks realize they need conservative intellectuals, who are geeks who have decided their fellow intellectuals should never be allowed to run anything and have learned to speak slowly so the jocks will understand them. Meanwhile, the geeks have learned they need to find popular kids like F.D.R. to head their tickets because the American people will never send a former geek to the White House. (Bill Clinton was unique in that he was a member of every clique at once.)
When it comes to guns, it’s much the same: it’s generally the geeks (or jocks who work for the geeks) who are urging caution on guns, and it’s generally the jocks who want more guns. I say much the same, because since guns are the great “equalizer,” you’ll often see geeks who wish they had been jocks on the gun side, acting like stupid badasses (Seung-Hui Cho and Dylan Klebold come to mind). But in any case, it’s the same deal–jocks calling out the manhood of geeks, and geeks telling jocks to drink their carrot juice (or whatever will make them smarter.). In actuality, jocks and geeks both use their brains, but they use them in different ways, which I’ll get into.
In the most recent iteration of this battle between jocks and geeks, Chris Kyle, a decorated military sniper and “guns rights” advocate, was shot and killed by a man who was exercising the “rights” that Chris Kyle advocated. Kyle was supposedly the sniper with the most confirmed kills in the American military (the military doesn’t confirm numbers, so we have to take his word for it, but no one seems to be disputing it either.). Chris Kyle, according to reports, had taken Eddie Ray Routh and another man to the gun range as a form of “therapy”–the same kind of gun “therapy” that Nancy Lanza and Greg Griego reportedly (see below) used to “help” their sons–and Routh wound up shooting them both Kyle and his friend dead. See here for what Chris Kyle had to say about Obama and guns:
He says of Obama: “i don’t know exactly what he was doing, but I know he was definitely against the Second Amendment, and he was trying to ban everything.” Not only was his explanation simplistic, but it was also totally inaccurate.
The gun conversations coming from the Right (the jocks, as Brooks would describe them) are disturbing for their lack of critical thinking. G sent this one (thanks, G!): Travis Haley says to “think,” and then he goes off on an illogical and ignorant tangent that makes him look like a gun-toting religious fundamentalist who can’t understand that there are 20 dead children buried in Newtown. Haley makes some really ignorant, uneducated, and flat-out stupid statements like “Government has always been harmful to personal freedoms.” I actually couldn’t watch the whole thing; the lack of critical thinking was just too much for me.
But that’s the issue–critical thinking. It’s highly disturbing to me–and I believe it should be highly disturbing to all Americans–that a decorated veteran like Chris Kyle could so skillfully avoid getting killed in war, only to fall prey to a mentally ill man taking advantage of America’s easy gun laws, a man whom Kyle himself encouraged to shoot more guns. This was a decorated war veteran with two young kids and a wife, and his life was snuffed out like a candle. To die in battle as a hero is one thing, but to die because you were encouraging a mentally disturbed guy with PTSD to exercise his rights by shooting more guns? I’ve got all the respect in the world for Kyle’s military service, but that’s not a great way to die. Given that Kyle was raised with guns, became famous through his use of guns, and made a living with guns, it ought not to be surprising that he loved guns. But he’s not the only gun lover to get killed with one of the guns that he so loved and promoted: the same thing happened earlier this year to Keith Ratliff.
For the record, I don’t think that the nerds are smarter than the jocks. It takes a certain kind of mindset for the quick decision-making that fighting in war requires. You need great hand-eye coordination, a steady hand, a calm mind, good spatial reasoning skills, and a singular focus–traits that reside in the brain. There’s a kind of physical and spatial intelligence and quickness that nerds often don’t have. McFly was never smart enough to come up with a response to Biff’s “McFly, your shoe’s untied!” until McFly himself became a jock by punching out Biff. You don’t want to send the earlier McFly out into battle–he’ll trip over his shoelaces and wind up stabbing himself with a bayonet. He doesn’t have the spatial jock intelligence to succeed.
But back in society, jocks have to make an effort to use critical thinking and to look at issues from all angles. Just because they can fight doesn’t mean that their words should carry any more weight than anyone else when it comes to how we govern–our arguments need to rest on knowledge and logic. Jocks need to crack open a book once in a while, study the results of smart gun laws in other countries, and they have to compromise. Bad gun laws hurt everyone.
Chris Kyle, Rest in Peace. Your service was appreciated, and I hope we can respect your legacy and do right by your family by doing exactly the opposite of what you preached with respect to gun laws. Your mentally ill murderer never should have had the right to touch a gun. Let’s bring about some common-sense laws to prevent this from happening again.
What a hero! It takes real courage to kill 225 “savages,” most of whom had more or less no training, used shoddy equipment, and were forced into their situation because unthinking, stupid “heroes” like him ruined their country.
People like you are the biggest dupes. So desperate for acceptance as an American, you honor this thug who, some decades earlier, would have bragged about shooting “gooks” in Korea or Vietnam or wherever the fuck you (or your ancestors) were from. The guy was no different from the SS. They fought against “insurgents” as well.
Also, your logic regarding intelligence is terrible. Using your logic, a cat would be as “intelligent” as a human because it has good coordination, quick-decision making, etc., all attributes that come from the (cat) brain. Nobody defines intelligence like that.
“So desperate for acceptance as an American…”
What?! You have to be a White to be an American now? Hmm … What are the chances that you are White?
abc,
Thanks for your comments! I always welcome people who disagree with me. I agree that the war in Iraq was wrong, but I think it’s hard to put that blame on the servicemen–they don’t choose where they go. Kyle was defending his fellow men. I certainly respect him more than I respect that famous deserter Ehren Watada. But I appreciate your comment.
Hey, cats have nine lives! But I’d actually agree that cats could be more intelligent than humans in many ways. We might be able to learn something from them.
Harvard professor Howard Gardner is famous for his theory on multiple intelligences. Gardner isn’t a “nobody.”
He breaks them down into nine categories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
1.1 Logical-mathematical
1.2 Spatial
1.3 Linguistic
1.4 Bodily-kinesthetic
1.5 Musical
1.6 Interpersonal
1.7 Intrapersonal
1.8 Naturalistic
1.9 Existential
I do think he’s on to something. If you threw a basketball to me in the middle of an NBA game, I wouldn’t know what to do with it!
They might not choose where to go, but they can “choose” whether or not to revel in killing.
“People ask me all the time, ‘How many people have you killed?’… The number is not important to me. I only wish I had killed more. Not for bragging rights, but because I believe the world is a better place without savages out there taking American lives.”
Not a single word, of course, about how many Iraqi lives were taken by American savages. And, of course, it never occurs to this imbecile that they would not have to take American lives had Americans not invaded their country.
Frankly, I don’t care that he was “defending” his men. That changes nothing morally. The SS had to “defend” their men from partisans (guerrillas) in the countries they invaded. Should Germans honor the SS for defending fellow Germans?
And I don’t even understand the cognitive dissonance involved when you, in a post that urges “jocks” to “think critically,” talk about respecting this meathead serial-killer wannabe who mindlessly followed orders while getting hard-ons at the thought of murdering Iraqis, over someone (incidentally an Asian American) who, after thinking critically about a war he opposed, decided to use his agency not to engage in that war, which you yourself admit to believing was morally wrong. Honestly, are you that desperate to be recognized as a “true” American that you place the need to “SUPPORT ARE TROOPS” over basic reason?
As for “multiple intelligences,” that theory twists the definition of “intelligence” so far from how it has been traditionally understood that it effectively renders the term meaningless. He basically renames what were traditionally called “talents,” of which intelligence was one of them, and calls “intelligence” things nobody considers as such. He’s playing word games and, incidentally, I have never seen this theory used in by any serious intelligence researcher (Jensen, Flynn, etc.).
I haven’t said much here, but I been following the gun law debate. One person I tend to listen of his points and views is Phillp DeFranco, a Youtube news media commentator. I could write my thought directly, but I think he says them better and a good source how I built to what I thought about this so far. A couple of videos that have influenced my thoughts and I wonder of your response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdzPsey0KE4
An interview of Joe Biden by Defranco with Joe Biden’s response. Two of the most notable quote is the citation that gun sales of all types have went up in the past years since the end of the assault weapons ban, but the number of murders have went down.
Forking point – To me this undermines the claim of an epidemic the way you word. If epidemic is the right word, it seems the correct identification is mass shootings epidemic rather than murder by gun murder epidemic as long gun murder is defined by the murder rate by guns.
Joe Biden also gave a response that sounded reasonable that shotguns would be better protection.
Which a later video report – report of the part starts at ~3:25, but the part about shotguns starts at 4:25: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5hp_ArZdPw
…which found that while Biden seems to be approving shotguns, the legislation being submitted is calling to ban it.
Finally, the last report at this point that talks about the gun control debate is the one below (most pertinent part is 0:33 to 1:53 – though there is also an interesting gun history trivia for another minute or so).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhpg3KNJsl4
In it, he point out two more interesting points. One is the backing to the argument that an assault weapons ban won’t help at all. Which sounds reasonable to me, the area he noted that has one of highest gun violence rate also have the strong gun law and so far it haven’t met any discernible level of improvement.
Now, unlike DeFranco, I do recognize that having the strictist laws doesn’t help if guns can be gained from sources outside the city… obviously reachable. However, I can also recognize that even with blanket laws set equally across the country, other attempts like the drug war seems to show a possible scenario that violence in places like Chicago by gangsters will remain the same, but everyone else now have less access (or none depending how far one want to debate on this). Its basically the “criminals will be unaffected while law-abiders gets punished by making it harder to get it themselves” argument, but I see the logic. Also, as I write this, it comes to me that this only attacks gun murders – which apparently been going down in-part or in-spite of the assault weapons ban. Meanwhile this may have marginal effects on mass shootings who tend to be people who would get approved unless total banning or steal it.
The second point and pertinent to this blog post as said on 1:45 – “go after a small group of people that a lot of people do not understand”. This sounds like that. “Gun nuts”, “Not Relevant Anymore”, this point of “Jocks” and etc all sounds the line of “othering” a group.
So I think DeFranco made some good points and stumbled some interesting stuff. I wonder of the rebutting points to point like if *insert reform* can actually make the right people actually have a harder time. Or the shotgun ban despite Biden’s seeming to approve it. Or how murder have gone down in-spite/despite increasing sales of guns.
—
On the second half, I want to be critical of this blog post. It overly simplistic and just plain stereotyping. It doesn’t matter how you try to explain away by saying brain power is equal. You’re still using stereotypical qualities to make arguments, but unless you can show that jocks really reads that little and really doesn’t critically think and nerds are that uncoordinated and do critically think, then it’s a bad argument. It also sounds like “other” as a gun supporter is a “jock” with lacking of critical thought. Online people like DeFranco shows a supporter can think. People I know in real life who are conservative and/or support guns have more dimension than just a grown up jock.*
Your attempt to mitigate by saying nerds are not smarter than jocks (or jocks not dumber than nerds), it still sounds both compartmentalizing and fatalist. Your citing of Seung-Hui Cho and Dylan Klebold just make it sound like anyone who falls on the nerd side with opinions and thoughts that sounds jocky is a wannabe-jock. The explanation of “just using their brains differently” is just semantics. Instead of all brawn, no brains jock, it is just brains goes to spacial coordination… and still doesn’t read.
*While the direction seems to be against any categorization labels of nerds or jocks or whatever, I should leave open that they are distinctive groups and discernible. It is just that the generalization of such groups probably works best to predict shared taste of interests, ideas, and affinity to certain subjects or ideas and all probabilistically (as in everyone will share some but not all to each other). Rather than generalizing the way you done of Jocks not thinking critically and not opening a book and Nerds lacking that much in hand-eye coordination and spacial intelligence.
Also in regards to Chris Kyle. It was a mistake to do that. But I wrote so much already and its late…
Remember that time Shinseki said it would take two hundred and fifty thousand servicemen to bring stability to Iraq after an invasion? To guarantee the security of the people, to defeat remnants and secure the borders against terrorists, to guard Iraqis while they bring back the vital services of the nation back to working order and finally at long last install a working democracy that respects and upholds the fundamental human rights of man?
Neither America nor Iraq got that. Instead they had small numbers of troops, confined to enclaves, with the borders unsecured for years, the arms caches undiscovered until they had been looted and plundered, in a wilderness of hostility, and the shootings and bombings of “collateral” that started from day one persisted for YEARS.
Instead of two hundred and fifty thousand soldiers to get the job done right from the beginning, you had comparatively small numbers of soldiers not even rotated through their assignments but STUCK there for YEARS, and when they go home all they find is just a layer of lies that nobody is willing to break or see past. They return to army camps the size of small towns with small town newspapers that gloss over the domestic murder, the shootings, the beatings the fights and the suicides. They can’t find any employment anywhere else anymore because they can’t relate. They see people with normal lives but after what they’ve gone through and seen, and done, normality looks like an illusion. After a thousand battles, one sees only death.
This is what you call being a hero? It’s pathetic. Put an end to the lies and the myths. Aren’t we beginning to know by now that these are all just figments meant to make other people rich and influential?
bigWOWO,
Point of Order, your Honor:
“Chris Kyle, according to reports, had taken Eddie Ray Routh and another man to the gun range as a form of “therapy”–the same kind of gun “therapy” that Nancy Lanza and Greg Griego used to “help” their sons–and Routh wound up shooting them both Kyle and his friend dead.”
Please show me proof positive, and not presumption, that Nancy Lanza was taking her son to any gun range as a form of “therapy”.
I will wait.
@abc1234,
You spouted:
“People like you are the biggest dupes. So desperate for acceptance as an American, you honor this thug who, some decades earlier, would have bragged about shooting “gooks” in Korea or Vietnam or wherever the fuck you (or your ancestors) were from. The guy was no different from the SS. They fought against “insurgents” as well.”
Wow. Racist, much?
My grandfather, on my father’s side, fought in WWII, in the German Army. He was non-SS, and was a simple ground-pounder grunt variety. He was nothing unique or elite.
You feel it is shameful to support soldiers since their missions offend your sensibilities, but my grandfather fought with valor and honor, following the orders of those above him. Did Germany lose WWII? Yep. But this does not detract from what my grandfather did, serving honorably, even if for a losing army. Should I hate him, knowing now, in retrospect, the evils that Hitler implemented and carried-out against humanity? Why would I? Did my grandfather personally know Hitler? Did my grandfather personally protect Hitler? No. Like I said, he was a common grunt, and nothing more. He faced great difficulties when it came time for him to come to America, obviously, because of the inference.
I support all military service members. Not only because I am a Veteran myself, and because I know what really goes on, but because they deserve my support, regardless of my personal opinion of the mission they are given to fulfill. I would never have spit upon Vietnam Veterans when they came home. Despicable.
Have you ever served? Have you ever been in the military? Have you ever been in a Combat Arms MOS? Do you know what The Sandbox is really like, or do you believe the romanticized version fed to you by the media?
Exactly.
Raguel,
You’re full of yourself and wholly deluded.
Your comments reek of false bravado, probably picked up from an old Soldier of Fortune magazine, and there’s nothing about your words that bear any familiarity to real soldiering.
Do not presume to speak for any Veteran. Do not presume to be an expert in PTSD. You are merely parroting the words of others, recklessly and without restraint, for the purpose of glorifying your false notions.
Pathetic, indeed.
Dreamer,
No doubt they overlap! There are Rhodes scholars who can do both–be both a jock and a nerd. I’ve known some really smart people who also happen to be great athletes. They are stereotypes, but I think they’re useful for describing general directions that people go.
(I don’t have speakers where I am, but I’ll try to check out your videos later.)
Wow, I actually thought it beyond this guy to speak beyond a jumbled collection of platitudes.
Then I find out his sole reason for slavish hero worship is because his grandfather was a Nazi remnant from Germany who lived his entire life hiding his past pretending to be “white” and not a dirty Nazi hun, and therefore now after decades of this the grandson sympathizes with losers.
Then add a little pompous officiousness as a conceit and now we have amazing entertainment. “Point of order”, “your honor”, I think he only got those phrases from that huge breasted actress in JAG. Quite marvellous really. What a freakshow.
abc:
No, not really. You see, here’s the problem: a person who doesn’t revel in killing makes a bad sniper and may make a bad soldier as well. Look at Patton–he reveled in killing too. A fighting soldier’s job, irrespective of the moral label you put on his work, is generally to kill people. It’s a different kind of mindset. Whether you want to call him a “meathead” or whatever doesn’t change the fact that McFly would make a terrible soldier, Kyle was a good one. That’s the crux of my post. Certainly the military has changed over the years, and sometimes soldiers are more ambassadors than killers, but a soldier still has to be able to kill, and a sniper needs to revel in hunting and killing people who threaten his fellow soldiers.
I’m not sure why you brought up the German SS. Please clarify. If you think joining the U.S. military is the same as joining Hitler, I’d have to disagree. I believe our military generally does good work.
There’s no contradiction in my words, which is exactly why I point out the different kinds of intelligence. I’m not urging snipers in the battlefield to think critically; I’m urging jocks living as civilians to think critically. My advice to people on the battlefield would be to use their jock intelligence. Like Bruce Lee said, “Don’t think. Do.” Hesitation can kill you in a fighting situation. This is exactly my point about different intelligences. A “nerd” might not be able to shut off the noise and concentrate on the task at hand. A jock is better suited to fighting.
Watada is exactly the opposite. He wasn’t paid to to decide when and where the military would fight. No one ever elected him Commander-in-Chief, nor was he privy to war room discussions. Watada was paid to fight. Whether we think the war in Iraq was wrong or right in retrospect is irrelevant. He signed up voluntarily. He wasn’t drafted, which is why so many Japanese American WWII vets were pissed off at that lying dirtbag. As a man serving on the forefront, Watada didn’t have all the information he needed to make such a decision–it’s not as if he were ordered to murder children where all the information he needed was right in front of him. You and I, through our taxes, paid this slimy asshole to be at the ready when his government called him, and he cheated us. He lied. He took a job in the military, took our money, swore to protect the country, and then broke his promises. It’s not his job to decide where and when he’s going to fight. In fact, soldiers don’t even have all the information needed to make those decisions. He stole my tax dollars (and yours). If he was going to renege on his promises, he shouldn’t have taken the job. He belongs in prison, and he ought to reimburse the American people for all the money he stole.
Well, it would be “our” troops, not “are.” But it has nothing to do with being recognized as an American and has everything to do with basic reason. We need a military. We need soldiers who will take orders and fight.
Do you agree that we need a military?
You’ve never heard of Howard Gardner? Gardner is a also serious intelligence researcher. Do you know how many people have referenced his work? He’s very well respected. I don’t know that Flynn would disagree with his work. Jensen might, but he came from an older generation.
But more to the point, think about how we talk about being smart vs. being dumb. Even in MMA, when we see someone using a bad strategy, we say, “It wasn’t smart to do that.” People criticized that snowboarder during the Olympics for showboating and losing, saying it wasn’t the smart thing to do when she was so far ahead and would’ve won gold. We talk about “solving the riddle” of Machida’s or Sonnen’s style, and those who solve those riddles are called “smart fighters.” Sure, these guys have coaches that help them, but most of them are heavily involved in the strategy, telling their coaches what works and what doesn’t. This is intelligence too. Not the slow, deliberative kind of intelligence, but if we’re talking about using the mind to solve problems, this is what they do. Yes, this is a talent, but it’s also a form of intelligence.
Now we do also need to differentiate between what we don’t usually say is intelligent. A sprinter might be fast off the starting block, a powerlifter may be able to lift a lot, a swimmer might be able to swim very fast. We don’t normally associate intelligence with success in these sports, as it’s often sheer brawn or endurance combined with physicality. That is to say that the athletes might be intelligent, but the sports generally don’t require quick thinking.
Donald,
“Please show me proof positive, and not presumption, that Nancy Lanza was taking her son to any gun range as a form of “therapy”.
Good point. It was reported in the news media:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/nancy-lanza-was-deluded-to-keep-guns-at-home-with-troubled-adam.html
Now certainly this is the word coming from a friend of hers, not the words from Nancy herself, who is now deceased. Most of our info about Nancy comes from similar sources, so I’d say that it’s about as reliable as most of the info we had, although granted, most of the info we have wouldn’t qualify as “proof.” I’ll write “allegedly” or “reportedly” to make it better from a journalistic standpoint. Thanks.
Donald,
I would agree with you on soldiers. abc seems not to know that soldiers don’t make general overall macro decisions. They generally have a task which they are called to solve. They take orders for their commanders, all the way up to the top. The President or leader doesn’t invite every single soldier into the situation room to discuss all levels of intelligence.
Soldiers FIGHT. This is why General Robert E. Lee is held in high regard, despite the fact that he was on the wrong side of the fight, even though, according to some reports, he wasn’t such a big fan of slavery.
Raguel,
My grandfather was a German soldier. He was not a Nazi. He was not part of the Nazi Party. You could choose to not be a Nazi, much like choosing to not be a Democrat.
Your intellectual bankruptcy is tedious and insipid. Come by the site I write for and let’s chat there. I mean, if you can, of course.
To discuss things with you here seems inappropriate and foul, and I myself have no desire to sully up the place by schooling you. It’s not proper manners. Come to my house and take your intellectual beating like a good puppet.
bigWOWO,
“She seems even to have imagined that firing guns was therapeutic for young Adam Lanza. She reportedly told a friend that it helped him become more focused and confident.
“How about bowling?” a detective said on hearing this after the massacre.”
—————————-
Well….okay. Not exactly as though it was recommended by a psychiatrist, but…she did use the word ‘therapeutic’, so there’s that. Would you agree with me, however, that this kind of ‘therapy’, perhaps more from a mother who wants to bond with her son, is a far cry from re-exposure therapy used to treat PTSD, as with Chris Kyle and Eddie Ray Routh?
As a side note, I find it particularly rude to imply that since Chris was shot by Eddie, during re-exposure treatment, that this somehow negates such treatment as being of any worth. That’s like saying that rehabilitation efforts for wounded wild lions must be worthless once someone gets bit by a lion being helped. Just a thought.
Oh, and I will not be addressing “Raguel” on your blog any longer. That person has disqualified themselves from interaction with me due to their rudeness and uncivilized manners. Since this is your blog, I wanted you to understand this.
bigWOWO,
There is much about Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson that is not known. Neither of them were huge fans of slavery, and they both came under scrutiny when they chose to release the slaves under their names. Certain elements within the CSA did not look kindly upon that, and Jefferson Davis had to make peace between all involved parties.
Did you know that Lee had standing orders that no Confederate soldiers were allowed to molest/terrorize Northern civilians, while Grant gave orders to kill livestock, burn houses, kill civilians, and destroy everything that represented the South as the Union advanced further and further South? Yikes.
I agree with abc. How these people be called hero is beyond me. They didn’t defend a country, they invaded. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The American media and people talk about civilize and human rights. There is no more stories about Iraq or Libya. It is now Syria. Once that country is destroyed, the American people will be back watching their TV until the next country the West decided to attack – Iran.
Why would I go to your site, Donald? Am I interested in right-wing pseudo-intellectual spin masquerading as “libertarianism”? Besides, you are the one that came here.
Don’t make me laugh, Donald. Was the “re-exposure” therapy Chris did with his killer something that was prescribed by a qualified and licensed healthcare professional who had made a diagnosis for the killer? Or is this yet another one of the subjective interpretations and labels you liberally slap on the facts to form a narrative more to your liking?
Just like your grandfather having nothing to do with the Nazis. LOL! Since you brought him up in the first place, why don’t you tell us which front he served in and what happened over there? Come on then Donald, tell us which front your grandfather served in. Czechoslovakia? Ukraine? Poland? France? Norway?
Your grandfather having nothing to do with the atrocities the Nazis committed is as convincing as Albert Speer having nothing to do with Hitler’s plans.
“As a side note, I find it particularly rude to imply that since Chris was shot by Eddie, during re-exposure treatment, that this somehow negates such treatment as being of any worth. That’s like saying that rehabilitation efforts for wounded wild lions must be worthless once someone gets bit by a lion being helped. Just a thought.”
LOL, look at this clown twisting this way and that as if he still can’t reconcile himself with the fact that maybe, just MAYBE, letting mentally ill people have firearms is NOT such a good idea. ROFLMAO
It’s as if all of these gun nuts have some kind of fear and obsession that having restrictions on mentally ill people from having guns automatically equates to all of them having to give up their niche hobby entirely…. oh wait
I wish when people in our gov say common sense they were required to define it. I see some people saying limiting people to one gun or 2 bullets as common sense. Still others say universal background checks are the answer. It seems like a jock mind set to say what people want to hear in the media and then pass their agenda in Washington. It is important to support the troops even if you disagree with the whole war. I myself disagree with it but I respect the people fighting in it. Much like bigwowo has said the troops don’t get all the details Nd what they are doing with their limited mindset isn’t obviously wrong.
Bigwowo,
I really enjoy your blog and how you response to the users here. You meet the blog’s tag line and give some interesting insight.
Donald,
By the way, what branch of the military did you serve in? How long?
I knew about Lee. I didn’t know about Grant. Any books on the subject you’d recommend?
As for “re-exposure”–maybe you could shed more light on this, but I’d have to agree with Raguel on this issue (not all the others)–PTSD in soldiers comes about because of stress from the threat of getting killed with weapons. I can’t see how it’s helpful in ANY case for a soldier-turned-civilian who has PTSD to be around guns, for the same reason Alcoholics Anonymous meetings don’t take place in bars.
Oh…and to everyone else in the conversation, I just wanted to point out that I (bigWOWO) wasn’t the one who called Chris Kyle a “hero.” I said he was “decorated military sniper,” but I didn’t use the word “hero.” I think it seems he was a good soldier, but “hero” is something different. For me to say “hero” usually requires that someone’s life inspires me or other people to better themselves.
Donald,
Just asking about your military service because my grandfathers both served. Plus, one of the old great bloggers of the Asian American blogosphere (MinorityMilitant) was Navy.
Phoenix,
Thanks for your kind words!
I agree with you. I know LOTS of people in the military, and I think there perspective is one that doesn’t often come out. When they’re in training, they’re physically working and practicing all the time. When they’re on the battlefield, they’re defending themselves and their men (and women soon). They’re not spending their time scouring news articles on the internet or debating (in fact, they aren’t even allowed to debate–you can get kicked out for criticizing the President’s actions or publicizing what you know about operations). They’re fighters, and even if we disagree with some of the wars, we have to respect these men for their service.
I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp the simplest of arguments. Perhaps you are just supremely “intelligent” at being obtuse.
Do you know what “revel” means? You can do your job without reveling in it. You can be good at your job without reveling in it. The question isn’t whether soldiers have to kill people. The question is whether this sort of person, who saw those he killed as subhuman, who evidently wanted to kill more, who boasted about gunning down basically untrained, under-equiped partisans, who lacked any ability to comprehend why these “savages” might object to his presence in their country, is someone worth honoring. The point isn’t to simply condemn people everybody in the military; the point is to show people like you, who evidently can’t take the military’s cock out of your mouth for a second to notice that perhaps there is a difference between someone who shoots an enemy because it is a part of the job, and the type of garbage who relishes killing for its own sake, the type who signs up so they can go to foreign countries to legally murder Arabs.
Incidentally, regarding Robert E Lee: you seem to like shooting yourself in the foot, because Robert E. Lee is respected in the US precisely because he wasn’t the type of subhuman trash our late “hero” was. He fought, not because he loved killing, or because he had any particular hatred for northerners, but because it was his duty to do so. He was precisely not the type of person who would have hard-ons about the thought of killing “hadjis,” who takes “trophy” photos with bodies, who urinates on corpses, who laughs at civilian deaths, etc. that your beloved military seems so good at producing. Now, imagine if he had continued boasting about wanting to murder northerners or if he had been a fanatic for slavery. Had he been such a person, would he be as well received today by both “sides” today?
With regard to the SS: Is it really so beyond you to consider why some people (say, the populations of the countries it ruined) might see a resemblance between US imperialism and fascist invaders?
I had to quote this because this is just about the dumbest thing I have ever read. Oh wow, you’re a fucking idiot. First of all, I pay taxes because it’s required by law, not because I want to write a check to the military to defend ARE FREEDOMS. Congress does whatever it wants with my taxes; it does whatever it wants with money it doesn’t even have. Second, I’d love it if more soldiers were like Watada, i.e. capable of thought. Really? He didn’t have enough information to consider that perhaps it was not legitimate to invade a sovereign country that was not the least bit of a threat to the US? Third, nice attempt at building rapport LOL. Did they teach you that at a workshop?
Are you autistic?
As for “multiple intelligences:” yes, I had heard of the theory before you so helpfully mentioned it. It tends to be brought up by people who don’t have much going for them in terms of intelligence … so no surprise here. Again, you love shooting yourself in the foot. In the introduction of the wikipedia article you linked yourself, it says that “The theory has been widely criticized by mainstream psychology for its lack of empirical evidence, and its dependence on subjective judgement,” and half the article is devoted to describing how there is no evidence for the concept.
Anyway, I only came here to make a post, not to argue with someone who can’t even seem to follow a simple argument (no wonder intelligence is such a mystery to you). So let me summarize what I wanted to say: Chris Kyle should be fed to dogs and BigWowo is an idiot.
Good luck, farewell, and hope your military doesn’t intern you if there should ever be a war with China.
OORAH! USA! USA!
In my opinion citizens and soldiers alike have a DUTY to oppose, disobey and not take part in illegal wars or carry out inhumane acts. This obligation is not recognized by any formal codes of conduct or laws domestic or international, but it may really be high time for it.
Failure to do so will have an impact bigger than all the others keeping mum and playing along can imagine. Despite all the glory or good intentions it may lead to heroes or decorated people being walked barefooted and naked to the gallows after show trials, driven to the woods by fascists to swallow a cyanide pill in solitude, or wrapping themselves in a flag before shooting themselves in the head with a pistol, just like what happened to Canaris, Rommel and the captain of the Admiral Graf Spee. After men like these are gone who is left?
” When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.”
From all indications, abc is a hipster racist. Probably he will be better served at Huffington Post. Talk about being high on White Privilege. It flows from abc’s writing like piss. Good riddance.
bigWOWO,
“So let me summarize what I wanted to say: Chris Kyle should be fed to dogs and BigWowo is an idiot.
Good luck, farewell, and hope your military doesn’t intern you if there should ever be a war with China.” – abc1234
Wow. Your blog seems to attract some classy characters. Gotta love that Internet anonymity thing.
I, however, have no intention of making racist comments based upon your Asian ancestry. (But then again, I’m one of those evil Libertarian TEA Party kinda guys, and we are, after all, said to be rabidly racist and hateful. I mean, according to Huffington Post, Washington Post, Daily Kos, NY Times, and LA Times, that is…)
Raguel,
“In my opinion citizens and soldiers alike have a DUTY to oppose, disobey and not take part in illegal wars or carry out inhumane acts. This obligation is not recognized by any formal codes of conduct or laws domestic or international, but it may really be high time for it.”
It is easy to say inhumane acts b/c even in war time peeing on the dead isn’t ok. If there are parts of the war that is good but the whole war is illegal, is it still wrong to be apart of the War? Illegal is showing that our country never voted for it, but someone in the gov still feels strongly about having the war.
John Doe,
.
I’m not sure it is white privilege as much as “I have privilege because of my views, I’m evolved and you are all dirt.” That could just be said in the comment hipster
It is completely possible to revel in the skill it is required to kill someone and not revel in that person dying. Snipers should be able to do the former but the not the latter.
“If there are parts of the war that is good but the whole war is illegal, is it still wrong to be apart of the War?”
Well, when you consider how much suffering and damage wars inflict on people on both sides, if there are only “parts” of a war that will be good, I say avoid it altogether.
“I’m not sure it is white privilege ”
Nope.
You know us colored folks can smell this things as much as we are told to take a joke. You have to be a White to accuse an Asian trying to be American as if it comes effortlessly for Europeans and not so for Asians. You have to be a hipster White to make jokes about internment and labor camps for Asians because they don’t mean it but talking about what the other bad Whites might do.
I smell the poo, poo.
Raguel,
I don’t really agree with offensive wars. I tend to believe more in the defensive kind. Defensive doesn’t normally include invading. If the defensive does include invading, it is more like WWII, where they invade the perpetrator’s country.
John Doe,
call it what you like. I just say it is an a-hole of a comment to make in the first place. People should be treated with respect.
Iraq was a defensive war too, because Iraqs had WMDs, and they hated “freedoms”…
Behind the publicly accepted facade about all that was all that talk about shooting “sand niggers”, “hadjis” and all that of course, something the shit-eating and spouting mythmakers do their best to gloss over.
Raguel,
I don’t count Iraq as a defensive war. Just because they have WMDs doesn’t mean we need to invade them. Even if they are threatening to use them. Defensive to me is when they are launching the attack. Send a WMD our way would start a defensive war. Look at North korean now, they basically make threats but they haven’t really done anything to us yet. They may be jerks about things but they aren’t harming us. Sadly today we don’t wait for enough information before we attack or legislate. We have some knee jerk reaction and say this will fix everything. Thats why it was so important that a war be passed by congress because it takes time to get information and by the time they get everything through, it is more likely that we will better understand the problem at hand.
Phoenix, the big problem is that congress is just as much a part of the racket as the executive. Having congress involved in the decision to go to war, only works if the grassroots actively elect and select their representatives, and are actively involved in policy and decision making. This isn’t the case now. People are divided into special interest groups that the media and politicians play up to divide, so washington becomes the place where select elitists and lobbies make things happen by dividing and misinforming everybody else.
Congress getting involved wasn’t about congress getting involved, it was about putting the people back in charge by having them have enough will and influence to put the representatives they want in Washington. This would mean exerting more pressure and influence than the lobbies and the corporate channels and fixers.
Raguel,
Anytime there is a group to represent voters isn’t that a special interest group? A group allows more power to those individuals. So would the solution be to not allow people to group up for the purposes of pushing congress one way or another? The other question is how does congress get more informed? Asking groups for help at times helps congress to understand the current needs at times. I always wonder if congress wasn’t getting too much into people’s businesses if those businesses wouldn’t be as active in the government. The businesses are there to sway the law into their favor. If the gov wasn’t trying to pass laws which effect them so much they they wouldn’t be pushing congress so much. It makes sense even, if congress was to be environmental and ban incandescent bulbs then why wouldn’t incandescent manufacture push congress to use their kinds of new bulbs. They are losing business so why wouldn’t they push to have more control the next time around? I’m not saying I agree with it, but makes it sense. If congress struck more to dealing more with protection of rights then the people interested would be the ones who wanted to protect those rights. As it is now congress is all over the board, so everybody wants a piece of of the action.
“Anytime there is a group to represent voters isn’t that a special interest group? A group allows more power to those individuals. So would the solution be to not allow people to group up for the purposes of pushing congress one way or another?”
What I mean is that interest groups have to have more meaning beyond their own special, niche interests, or it’s easy to form groups of like-minded individuals who want rights that will clash with those of others. Now, this happens all the time organically, but without the will to come to terms with one another, make accommodations or even evolve together as a whole, it is very easy for external interested parties to fund and encourage TWO groups continually at odds with one another the better to perpetually divide the electorate to set them at odds with each other so they stalemate each other, leaving the ones pulling the strings to decide the kingmakers.
“I always wonder if congress wasn’t getting too much into people’s businesses if those businesses wouldn’t be as active in the government. The businesses are there to sway the law into their favor. If the gov wasn’t trying to pass laws which effect them so much they they wouldn’t be pushing congress so much. It makes sense even, if congress was to be environmental and ban incandescent bulbs then why wouldn’t incandescent manufacture push congress to use their kinds of new bulbs. They are losing business so why wouldn’t they push to have more control the next time around? I’m not saying I agree with it, but makes it sense.”
Seems a bit naive, this idea of businesses as some kind of benevolent enterprise. Capitalism is about the concentration of financial power. Even if government restricted itself to only maintaining “rights”, business would still get involved because the mindset among elites is that “rights” are granted, and thus naturally taken away by law, and that nothing is therefore set in stone as some kind of universal truth or value. So when you have a situation where common people are no longer able to stand up for themselves in comparison to the concentration of power and capital, what you will have is a very ruthless system of exploitation of the powerless.
I am not anti-capital or business but I believe there must be frameworks and independent bodies to protect the basic welfare and wellbeing of people and other things.
Don and John,
So abc has referenced my trying to be more “American,” he referenced the language used against Asians during Vietnam, and then he just referenced internment. I think the only one left is to make a joke about nuclear war and Japan.
Don, if you want to see some other entertaining discussions (not related to this), check out the HBD comments here:
http://www.bigwowo.com/2011/10/the-perversity-of-human-biodiversity-a-k-a-scientific-racism/
I think abc is just angry. I try not to take it too seriously.
abc:
I know you’re angry, but I think you need to step back and take a look at your arguments. You need to be calm and rational about this, otherwise you run the risk of making bad decisions and irrational arguments, which is exactly what you’re doing. I didn’t say that you have to leave the site. I’m not taking this discussion personally, so if you want to stay, stay. But for you own health and sanity and for the love of logic, calm down!
So there are basically two subjects we’re debating: the American military and multiple intelligences.
Let’s talk about the military. Here’s what you wrote:
You said Chris Kyle was “subhuman trash?” Wow, that’s quite….powerful. Based on what? Let’s examine this.
So again, I wasn’t the one who called Chris Kyle a “hero.” That said, just as you did when you compared the U.S. military to the SS, you’re comparing Chris Kyle to something that he wasn’t. Did Chris Kyle hate “hadjis?” Did he take “trophy” photos with bodies? Did he ever urinate on corpses? Did he laugh at civilian deaths? You’re stereotyping him based on the actions of a few that don’t include him. He simply said he wanted to kill more of the enemy. I didn’t call Chris Kyle a hero, but many, including Don’s site, did, and I have no objection to that. I don’t think you’d be hearing people call him a hero if he were some kind of Nazi who laughed at civilian deaths. In fact, in many of the obits, there was a quote by Kyle saying that he couldn’t kill a child who had a weapon. Is this something that “subhuman trash” does? You’re judging Kyle based on your own stereotypes. All he said was that he wished he killed more bad guys.
I think you’re wrong on the appeal of Lee. Robert E. Lee is respected for two reasons: he was an effective general, and he was loyal to Virginia. That’s all. If you read above, Don said that Lee had rules about civilian engagement, while Grant did not. This may be true (I’m hoping to learn more), but you’ll note that both are respected, and (as Don’s comment implies), most people don’t know about his civilian rules. People respect him because of his effectiveness and loyalty, not based on his views on killing. So there goes your theory on that. To be honest, I don’t even know (and you haven’t demonstrated that you know either) whether Lee didn’t revel in his victories and the body counts. ALL generals pay attention to this. It’s part of their job.
Another general who is highly respected is Patton. Here’s a quote by him:
Wow, he used the word “bastard!” Sacrilege! He ought to be identifying with them.
Here are some other great Patton quotes:
http://www.generalpatton.com/quotes/index.html
“I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”
“Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.”
“May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.”
“In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it.”
Dumbest thing you’ve ever read? Have you read Howard Gardner’s book on…never mind, won’t go there.
We’re talking about a difference in values rather than a difference in facts, and I think it’s important to make that distinction. It leads us to the original question I asked you: Do you think we need a military? And if the answer is yes and the military is defending “YARE” freedoms
, then why shouldn’t you be paying for it? Why should you be freeloading? I see my government as MY government. I think I ought to know how they’re spending money. I ought to be angry at freeloading thieves like Ehren Watada who take that money and then don’t hold up their end of the bargain.
Good soldiers, as Patton said, fight where they are told. When your superiors tell you where to fight, you do it. It’s like that in EVERY army, including the WWII German army where Don’s grandfather served, including the Chinese army, the British army, etc. How would a President or leader get anything done if soldiers could question and refuse to obey orders at any time. Think about it from a practical standpoint.
And that’s correct, Watada had no idea what was going on. Were there WMD there? He had no idea whether Iraq was a threat or had WMD. He was a First Lieutenant, a junior officer. He wasn’t the National Security Advisor or employed in any intelligence capacity. Sorry, those are the facts.
Again, I have no idea why you think Gardner, who is a Harvard professor and a bestselling author, is dumb or not respected or not well-cited. There are always people who have other people disagreeing with them, even your man Jensen, with whom Flynn disagreed on the differences in intelligences among races. But regardless, as I mentioned before, it shouldn’t be about Gardner. It should be about whether it makes sense to narrowly define intelligence to some limited sphere, or whether it makes sense to apply it to the general area of problem solving. You haven’t refuted or attempted to refute any of my points about the way we use “intelligence” as it relates to sports.
Raguel,
“Seems a bit naive, this idea of businesses as some kind of benevolent enterprise. Capitalism is about the concentration of financial power.”
I don’t assume that companies will be benevolent. I do assume that for them to exist people must buy from them. People are able to keep companies from getting too bad by simply buying from someone else or starting their own company. I’m not saying companies would completely stay out of the gov but they would have less reason to be there. It would also look more suspicious if they were always in the gov when the gov wasn’t even touching their industry.
I tend to go the business way because when they do what I dislike I have a way to deal with that. I do believe in a framework or some regulation. I don’t think the system should be completely left up to the businesses. I just also don’t agree that the largest power in the land should be the gov. The gov is a big concentration of power that is going to attract people that want power. So while gov needs to do some it shouldn’t do everything. I just don’t understand why people object to letting businesses have tons of power but yet willing to give it all up to some benevolent gov body. The less power an entity has, the less it has the abilty to abuse over you. now I don’t say the gov or business must be abuseive, it is some peace of mind that they can’t if they don’t have the power.
As you have pointed out the gov can get corrupt by lobbist but it also gets corrupted by the people who run and do what they care about. You would hope that is for the people but there isn’t a gurantee. unlike dealing with a business if a lawmaker turns out to be agaisnt what we want, I can’t just stop buying a product or vote them out. I have to wait till the next election or I have a long process of trying to get people to protest and hope the right people pay attention. As an individual I have less power.
“I am not anti-capital or business but I believe there must be frameworks and independent bodies to protect the basic welfare and wellbeing of people and other things.”
I’m not assuming you are anti-capital or business, I just wonder why so many people have a distrust for the power for companies but not as much the government. When the government is the one body that can tell you what you can’t do and compell you do to something at its whin. Now I hope that it is doing things for the people but there isn’t a gurantee. Ever notice how a lot of countries will call themselves “People’s republic of something” and then preceed to be anti the people? For gov to be for the people the people must speak and speak how ever they wish. As long as they aren’t physcially harming anyone.
bigwowo,
a post about critical thinking leads to critical thinking and discussion!
You would think that it would be common sense if someone is having mental issues then putting them in a situation that could be easily dangerous would be a bad thing. I have a friend who had a huge mental breakdown earlier last year and I asked him are you thinking of buying a gun he said yes. I replied smart man. I wouldn’t take him to the range now. The question would be who’s job is it to be smart and should there be any legal conqunces. In this article there wasn’t any legal but there was a death conqunce.
First of all, I said I wasn’t going to reply because you can’t follow arguments, not because you said I had to leave or that I am, somehow, trying to spare your feelings. Re-read what I said:
Reposted because I missed a blockquote tag.
First of all, I said I wasn’t going to reply because you can’t follow arguments, not because you said I had to leave or that I am, somehow, trying to spare your feelings. Re-read what I said:
Now, even if you had “requested” for me to leave, I wouldn’t actually care, because you are too much of a doormat to actually ban anyone. Of course, it wouldn’t be worth posting anything, because you’re also the kind of passive-aggressive type of person who would edit and censor someone else’s posts. But it had to be said.
Anyway, I actually found it really annoying you tried to present it that way. I don’t know if you were trying to “save face” or what. So, I felt a need to explain why I don’t want to argue with you. Two of your character flaws tend to color your arguments and make it not really worthwhile trying to argue with you:
1. You’re dumb. I’m not saying that to insult you. I literally think you’re unintelligent.
At least in terms of verbal ability—I don’t know if you’re any good at math or whatever. I’m sure you’ll attack me on something stupid like saying “I think” (you’d say something like “that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”), so let me just make things clear: I am stating that you probably have a low verbal IQ.
You can’t seem to grasp simple arguments. You can’t seem to comprehend how others may structure their arguments. In trying to understand things you don’t understand, you make up a logic for other people’s arguments, one that’s on your level (thus invariably stupider), and argue against that. But in doing so completely miss the point or misrepresent the argument. You’re attacking a strawman. But it’s not because you want to do it for rhetorical effect. It’s because you literally cannot get the argument right and argue against that.
You can’t seem to understand anything unless it is made as blunt as you are. In addition to not being able to represent my arguments correctly, you evidently felt the need to correct the spelling I made in a sarcastic comment (which was made in all caps and italics).
In response to me saying this:
You replied:
I don’t think anything proves my point better than this. When I said “no surprises here,” I wasn’t talking about Gardner. I was talking about you. I’m literally explaining a joke to you here.
You don’t seem to understand why I keep referring to “gooks” and internment. You evidently think I’m trying to slip in racial slurs without actually calling you a “gook.” Actually, it’s because I think you’re an idiot for being so supportive of a government and a military that despises people like you, who would intern you in a second if it served their purposes, who would have no qualms about treating people like you just like they treat “hadjis” and “sandniggers” if it ever came to it, historically, and in the future. You are utterly deluded if you think the government, the military (or at least a large portion of them), or even the vast majority of Americans see you as an equal to an actual American. If you had better verbal skills, you would be able to tell that I actually have the interests of people like you in mind, but you’re evidently too stupid to even realize it.
To go back to my point, I would be surprised if your SAT verbal broke 600. But, since you are evidently the type of person who doesn’t give much weight to IQ, let me put it another way: you have low “linguistic” and “logical-mathematical intelligence.” But perhaps you would be willing to volunteer your score (or an equivalent one) to disprove me.
2. You assume everyone is as unintelligent as you are.
In your world, Watada could have never conceived that perhaps the war he was being sent to was an illegitimate one. That is because you assume he was as dumb as you are. In your view, Watada did not have enough information to conclude that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was not a threat. It never occurs to you that perhaps the first reason was never a legitimate reason to invade the country in the first place, considering all the other countries that have WMDs, and that one could conclude that Iraq was never a threat to the US without being a rocket scientist, or for that matter, a general. I think it was clear to anybody who wasn’t an imbecile that Iraq was more or less a third world country with a military ruined in the first Gulf war that posed no threat to the US. It was also clear to anybody who wasn’t an imbecile that Saddam Hussein was not a supporter of Islamic terrorism, and was, himself, an opponent of people like bin Laden. Furthermore, by the time Watada was to deploy, after the CIA reported (in 2005) that there were no WMDs in Iraq, he could have probably concluded, with good evidence, that there were probably no WMDs. Also, by the time he was to deploy (in 2006), he would have known, from public information, about the massacres (including use of white phosphorus) in Fallujah, the massacres in Haditha, Abu Ghraib, the general disregard for Iraqi lives, the high civilian death toll (e.g. from the Lancet report). From this, if we assume Watada was more intelligent than the guy who runs this site, we can probably say that Watada had good reason to consider the war an illegitimate one. All this is apart from the possibility that he could have simply considered the nature of the war, as a war of aggression (one of charges against German and Japanese war criminals; considered illegal under international war) to be illegitimate.
With regard to Robert E. Lee, you are too unimaginative to consider why people might respect him. The regard for Robert E. Lee among both northerners and southerners goes beyond his skills as a soldier; his character is essential to his reputation. Had he been a good general but had a different character, his reception would be entirely different among the general public. Robert E. Lee was known for his magnanimity, and without this, he would have been regarded totally differently. Saladin was also known for this quality, and was for this reason respected highly among both the Muslims and the Crusaders. It cannot be, as you simple-mindedly suggest, simply due to Lee being a good general and being loyal to Virginia. William Tecumseh Sherman was also a good general and was also loyal to his side. Regardless of his purely military ability, he is reviled even today among many southerners. This is because people do not simply consider military ability when assessing a person.
Another example: Rommel is well-regarded among non-Germans, despite the fact he was fighting on the side of Hitler. This was not due simply to his military skill, but because of his character. He was not only not a Nazi, but attempted to asssissinate Hitler. He fought because it was his duty to do so, much like Lee. Now, suppose he had actually been a Nazi fanatic; his reputation would be much different. Some of Reinhard Heydrich’s exploits demonstrated a high degree of courage, but he was not primarily honored for these exploits, because, in addition to being a courageous and good soldier, he was also Reinhard Heydrich.
Now, is it so beyond you to consider why some people may consider Chris Kyle as trash, regardless of his incredible skill at shooting people at a distance?
In other news, I thought of a good epitaph for Chris Kyle’s grave:
Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.
-Henry Kissinger
Hopefully you’ll have his cock out of your mouth before rigor mortis sets in.
“or even the vast majority of Americans see you as an equal to an actual American. ”
Being an American not just a work visa but having citizenship naturalize or born here should be about an ideal not a race or religion. Although being here on a work visa that person could still believe in the American dream. That is what makes America special it is about an ideal. Thats why we have the most diversity and the largest economy on earth. To The people who I’ve talked to who were in a university but from a foreign country they get it. To the people I’ve worked with from foreign countries they get it. thats one of the good things American is known for. I haven’t don’t know bigwowo well but from what I’ve read on his blog and his comments, he very much seems to be apart of that American ideal. That would make him an American.
abc,
About 80% of your post is about ME. While I’m flattered, that also means that 80% of your post is completely irrelevant to the argument. Stuff like, “You’re dumb. I’m not saying that to insult you. I literally think you’re unintelligent” is not relevant to anything at all. You should be arguing the facts or the values, not the person. Whether I’m dumb or not isn’t the purpose of this discussion. As Don says, you’re showing how classy you are.
Yeah, I was fucking with you. Sorry. You were just addressing Gardner when I brought him up, saying that no one took his scholarship seriously. It seems half your stuff is ad hominem against EVERYONE who disagrees with you. Stick to the issues, dude. Don’t let your emotions get in your way. And if you think there is a reason why stupid people bring up Gardner, then by all means, tell us WHY.
You still haven’t addressed why you use such a narrow definition of intelligence.
Again. Focus. On. The. Issues. I know you’re angry at me, but it’s a complete waste of time to be spouting of ad hominems when there are other issues here. Use your logic. You might learn something. You might teach yourself something.
Errr…let me correct myself. I HOPE you’re angry with me. If this is just how you interact with people, then my bad.
Well then, surprise, surprise! I did in fact break 600 (and I know that it’s “Support OUR troops” rather than “Support ARE troops!.”) And that was back in the day when the SAT was harder than it is today. Woo hoo! I’m smart!! And no, I’m not telling you what I got. Sorry, dude, I don’t even know you. You’re not entitled to that information. I’d give it to you if we were friends. But I think you already knew I broke 600. You knew it, didn’t you. You were just fucking with me.
Actually, fwiw, I actually DO give a lot of weight to IQ. My point is that it isn’t the only kind of intelligence. Am I still fitting your stereotype of me?
Now let’s get to the points about the military.
Totally incorrect. Everyone and his brother has a belief about politics. It’s a democratic country, and Watada is an educated man. I have no doubt that he “conceived” of this. I personally didn’t believe there were weapons of mass destruction there either, as you can see from some of my previous posts. Nevertheless, that was just my belief, not anything that I knew. By the time Watada was set to deploy, no, it still wasn’t certain that there were no WMDs; even in your post above, you yourself use the adverb “probably”–”he could have probably concluded, with good evidence, that there were probably no WMDs.” And Haditha, Abu Ghraib, etc. have nothing to do with him. Was he planning himself to partake in such activities? Was the military planning more such activities? No? Then it has nothing to do with whether or not he should have deployed. There were other operations going on at the time as well. He couldn’t have known why he was going. He wasn’t an intelligence officer.
So there are three points:
1. A soldier has to follow orders.
2. A soldier fights when commanded.
3. A soldier isn’t always privy to information on why he’s fighting.
On the first two points (since it seems we actually agree on the third), do you know anyone in the military? Have you ever played a team sport?
If you answered yes to either of these two questions, you know that you can’t just decide on your own whether you want to obey your leader and expect to win. That’s just the nature of how wars and joint activities are executed. Look back up above at my quotes from Patton.
Your points about military leaders and character is a good one, but I think it’s wrong. Have you ever spoken to southerners? Lots of Southerners don’t like anyone who worked for the Union cause. If you follow politics, it’s easier for Southerners typically to get elected because the South often bands together, which has a lot to do with the shared history of losing a war, along with shared religion, gun culture, etc. Sherman followed a scorched-earth policy, yes, but I don’t know if that’s a shortcoming of character. That’s just a strategy. He destroyed property, hence “scorched earth” rather than “scorched people.”
Certainly if Lee engaged in genocide, it would ruin his legacy. But so what? That’s an extreme. We weren’t talking about genocide. We were talking about reveling in victories, which is why you hate Chris Kyle.
Rommel tried to assassinate Hitler. He’s well-regarded among non-Germans as a result. That says nothing. Of course most non-Germans would support that!
I think you consider him trash because he’s part of the U.S. military, which you liken to the S.S. He’s part of an organization that has had some people who’ve done bad things, like Abu Ghraib. You consider him trash because he doesn’t feel bad for who he is, and he’s proud of the job that he did. He wishes he could kill more people with weapons, and you sympathize with these people with weapons more than you sympathize with the people in your country’s armed forces.
Am I right? Answer honestly.
Hey, it’s a difference in values. You’re entitled to that opinion. I just think it’s wrong, and that the reason you feel that way might be that you’re not asking the right questions. You have a viewpoint that is based on not asking questions about practicality and about your own loyalties, which is why you get ad hominem when you’re under emotional stress.
Let’s begin with the one you’ve been avoiding: Do you think we need a military?
Before you get ad hominem again, think about it. The same loyalty you admire in Lee could be extended to you–are you loyal to the United States the same way Lee was loyal to Virginia? Is the U.S. military loyal to you? Does it protect you?
These are some good questions that I think it’s worth examining.
Phoenix:
It’s awesome when it works out, isn’t it?
To be honest, sometimes I blog something that I think is great, and no one responds. I’m glad you and others are responding to this one!
True, true, true. Well said!
You know, a point that I have to make is that America is not a perfect country. But it’s a great country. Some people focus on the negatives. We have a black president, the state above me for a long time had a Chinese American governor, and I know lots of Asian Americans in positions of power. I’m free to make this blog, which I wouldn’t be if my ancestors had stayed in China. It’s all a matter of focus. We can focus on the negatives exclusively. Or we can open our eyes to see the world as it truly is.
abc1234,
Byron invited me over to add my 2 cents regarding Ehren Watada.
Ehren Watada betrayed his higher duty and responsibility as a commissioned Army officer to his soldiers and his country. In that vein, this Army officer who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom Army explained his disgust at Watada’s action: http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2006/11/message-to-ehren-watada.html
Setting that aside, the key to judging the merit of Watada’s justification is when he refused to deploy to Iraq – June 2006. In June 2006, the US was not at war with Iraq. The war with Iraq concluded when Saddam’s regime was defeated in Spring 2003.
In June 2006, Watada refused to deploy to the post-war mission in Iraq. In June 2006, the US and Iraq were allies (obviously) and were working closely together, and with the other coalition-nation partners, the United Nations, and various other organizations in peace operations with the goal of building a liberal Iraq at peace after Saddam. Watada refused to take part in the peace operations, not the war.
In June 2006, any controversy over the war was moot and Watada’s justification was over 3 years obsolete. The national and international legal character of the post-war American-led peace operations in Iraq was unequivocally established by Congress and a matching legal frame by the UN.
The legality of the deployment that Watada refused is indisputable. Only he can say why he believes peace operations are immoral.
Still, while the war with Iraq is at most marginally relevant in Watada’s case, if you’re interested in my take on the justification for the 2003 regime change, I discussed it in Byron’s post on the Psy controversy.
With regard to the Iraq stuff:
The bulk of the fighting in the entire war was against the Iraqi resistance. To regard the counter-insurgency operations (“peace operations;” how Orwellian) not to be a part of the Iraq War is just sophistry.
@abc123,
“If he cannot make relevant counter-arguments, then there is no point in arguing with him.”
But abc is arguing with Bigwowo, so abc is an idiot. QED.
abc is only now learning to read his letters. Its likely he has low IQ. He probably doesn’t know even in the 21st century what a Lie derivative is. He can’t even do parallel transport correctly. Heck he wouldn’t even know symplectic geometry if it hits him on the head.
All abc can do now is sing: “Now I know my abc, next time won’t you sing with me”
I tell you, the internet never seizes to amaze me … you meet so many ummm.. “interesting” characters everyday.
Eric and John,
I agree with both of you.
Oops, did I delete that long, long comment of abc’s? It must’ve taken quite some time for him to write that. I’m sorry, 90% of the comment was about me. He lost that argument on the verbal aptitude stuff, and then…I don’t know. I’m not that interesting of a person. I guess I got bored of reading all that crap about me. And yes, most of it was crap. I can discern crap because I gots myself a high verbal IQ, based on my own own test score! And to think he didn’t even answer the two questions I asked: Do we need a military? Why don’t you believe in multiple intelligences?
Eric,
That’s a great point about the timing.
Here’s another thing that I was thinking about: If the war was, let’s say, misplaced and not done correctly, the fact is that there would still be some issues with respect to the troops already there. You can’t just immediately withdraw, which is why Obama eventually didn’t do it.
abc said that he wished more people were like Watada. Let’s take this a step further by imagining we did. What if we had thousands of Watadas who refused to deploy? The honest and loyal military men who were already there would be in danger, while our courts were choked up with thousands of traitors trying to sue the U.S. government for their “right” to abandon their country at the time of need.
I just don’t think that’s a good thing. When you promise to be there, you have to be there.
Oh, and by the way, abc, I did break 600. You asked me, and I’m telling you the truth.You’re a loser today, but don’t make it worse by being a sore loser. You placed a bet against the House, and the House won. I just wanted to let you know that it’s the truth. Numbers don’t lie.
bigWOWO,
Great thread! I am happily eating popcorn and have pulled up a lawn chair to sit and watch. You deftly handled abc123 with skill and calm rationale. Nicely done.
(I’m saving my strength for when the “Great Blizzard of DOOM 2013″ hits my home state and forces me outside to shovel snow! Friday or Saturday. Yikes.)
Haha! Thanks, Donald. Yeah, some people aren’t here for a discussion. They’re here to repeat the same thing over and over and over for God knows what reason. It’s like they see this as some kind of therapy. But it isn’t really therapy because they never get better. Such people ought to hire a professional, although that might require turning off their computers and seeing…the real world. You know, the real world in itself could be therapeutic for them.
Sorry to hear about the snow. Yikes. That sounds like a lot of work!
Holy crap. I just learned that Chris Kyle’s widow is the daughter of the mayor of Lake Oswego, near the area where I live. Fuck. It’s a small world.
This article is just so sad:
http://www.oregonlive.com/lake-oswego/index.ssf/2013/02/taya_kyle_daughter_of_lake_osw.html
I’m speechless. She endured years of him being away, gave him an ultimatum, had him back for only a little bit of time while he himself was struggling to fit back into society, and now he’s gone. The kids really didn’t even get a chance to know their dad.
This is all the result of an illegal and inhumane war that nobody could speak up against Byron. More people than Chris Kyle have been murdered by their own or committed suicide than all Americans killed or wounded by insurgents in Iraq.
For me, no matter who that happens to, it’s really unsatisfactory as an understating way of putting it.
Byron,
A leader of soldiers deserting his men and encouraging American soldiers “to abandon their country at the time of need” is bad enough to be worthy of condemnation. For me, though, the most alarming aspect is the context of Watada’s actions. Watada’s desertion and encouragement of other American soldiers to abandon the Iraqi people caught in the terrorist onslaught in their moment of greatest need was . . . selfish, cruel, and callous come to mind but hardly seem adequate to express the monstrous inhumanity of Watada’s purpose.
abc1234,
I understand – I do it, too. I’m as lazy as the next guy and it’s just easier shorthand to call the full sweep of Operation Iraqi Freedom a “war”. However, of labelling the post-war in Iraq as war has been popularly misleading and technocratically inaccurate.
You can Google the term ‘peace operations’. As you implied, it is indeed closely related to US military counterinsurgency – FM 3-24 for anyone who wishes to look up our COIN doctrine. Peace operations is the correct technical term for the bundle of tasks that American soldiers were undertaking in Iraq in June 2006.
This may help explain – it’s an op/ed column I wrote for my school newspaper that’s contemporaneous (Feb 2007) with Watada’s actions:
Oops. edit: However,
oflabelling the post-war in Iraq as war has been popularly misleading and technocratically inaccurate.I can do this all day…. yada yada [truncated]
By why would you do it all day? Don’t you have better things to do with your time? If you’ve got all day to post on this site, why not post something relevant to the topic, something that people can respond to?
Here, let me start you out:
1. Do you think we need a military?
2. Why don’t you believe in multiple intelligences?
Just being able to focus on issues will do a lot for you. I actually think that if you stop and try to work through these issues mentally, you might come to a different conclusion.
I must have hit a nerve. Leave the post up and ban, or be passive aggressive and keep trying to censor. Your choice.
Here’s the thing. I really don’t see this as censorship.
If a teacher tried to teach you something or asked you a question, and you responded with “I think you’re really dumb,” the conversation would go nowhere. Not because the person actually is dumb–you challenged me on the SAT score, and I’m clearly smart, at least according to my test scores, probably smarter than you (based on just scores alone, although that means nothing since people are mostly the same in the higher scoring ranges)–but because it’s not relevant. You should be focusing on the discussion, not the person. I’m sure I’m not the only person to say this to you.
So c’mon. Try again. If you’re not going to answer and converse in an intelligent way, then yes, please move on. I really don’t like banning, but if you could focus, I’d appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
In other words, I’m trying to teach you something here. But ya gotta meet me at least halfway! Otherwise, what’s the point?
Eric,
Watada can read all the anti-Iraq war (or “war”) pieces he wants, but at the end of the day, he agreed to be a part of the military in exchange for pay, and he ought to have kept those promises. He agreed to represent this country. This country put its faith in him. He screwed his country in response.
Iraq is a dangerous place (I don’t have to tell you since you were there), and while we might disagree on the rightness or wrongness of the war itself, Watada endangered Americans by refusing to be there as per his agreement. He didn’t show care about the safety of his men, and he may have jeopardized the safety to Iraqis as well. It was a terrible, terrible thing for him to do. It sets a very bad precedent, which could be further harmful to those who serve in our armed forces in the future.
For what it’s worth, although I find your irrational hatred for Chris Kyle repugnant, I do respect your feelings for the Iraqi people. I think, though, that at that point, Eric is probably right that the best way for Watada to help them would be to go over and help them.
Anyway, that’s all I wanted to say. You can keep this up. I just don’t understand why. If you’re looking to prove your intelligence which you seem proud of, post something intelligent.
Byron,
I didn’t serve in Iraq. I was out of the Army and in school by then.
The anchor points for my views are as a liberal protective of the liberal character of the Iraq mission, my Army service in general and specifically the perspective I gained from serving in the historically analogous Korea mission, studying the issues in school and understanding the stakes, and talking with Iraq veterans and Iraqis.
It was made clear early on that the Iraq veterans related to Iraqis on a personal level, even if it was focused only on the interpreter in their unit. It wasn’t all shiny happy love, of course, but their connection and concerns were for real people. It reminded me of serving in Korea where by design, at minimum, US soldiers have a personal connection via the KATUSAs. The Iraq veterans cared about Iraq and Iraqis. In contrast, the “anti-war” protesters on campus dehumanized Iraqis into generic abstractions decorating their driving narrative.
@Eric
Can you explain our stance on Israel?
UN reports had confirmed the settlements are illegal. Israel had been warned, threatened yet have done nothing about it.
So why arent we bombing the cr4p out of Israel until they do so? It ‘worked’ for Iraq didn’t it?
Look, your pseudo-bans aren’t going to work. You’re going to have to actually ban me (or close the thread) if you don’t want to see this. I want it to be known which post got me banned. Just leave the post up, and I will be out of your hair forever. It’s a good deal.
You’re not banned, dude. All you’s gotta do is answer the questions and not get ad hominem. And why should I close the thread? There are people on this thread that are actually having a real conversation. Do you not understand this?
Sigh. I’m moving on. Best of luck. I feel really sad for you. I think everyone who sees this thread will also see that I tried. The saddest thing is that you actually think your views actually do something for Asian Americans.
Byron,
This is my response to your last comment on my blog. It fits with your last comment here as well:
I understand ‘enlisted man’ is a matter of semantics – Watada volunteered like any enlistee. But what Watada did is distinctly worse than the same action by an enlisted man because Watada was an officer, although the same action by a sergeant (ie, non-commissioned officer) would have been almost as bad.
An officer is given authority over his men, but by the same token of that power, the officer’s personal needs and wants take a backseat to his responsibility for the needs of his men and the unit – whether it’s a platoon or division – he commands. The ethic ingrained in all soldiers of ‘mission first, soldiers always’ goes [insert multiple] for officers. The trust of soldiers in their commanding officer cuts deeper than a paycheck or job title. It is rooted in their fundaments as men. Watada revealed his quality as a man when he betrayed his responsibility and violated that trust.
Eric,
Mission First, Men Always. Indeed, indeed. Ne Desit Virtus. De Oppresso Liber. Ne illegitimi carborundum esse. And my personal fave: “This would be a good death.”
I told my guys under my leadership that I only had as much authority over them as they were willing to give me. If I ever had to pull rank on them to accomplish any task, it meant I didn’t have their fealty and fidelity. I did not have one time that any of my guys balked or hesitated to follow me and do as I said.
bigWOWO,
You had asked me on a different thread what I did in the military, since I mentioned I am a Veteran. I was a Grunt. I went into the US Army via Harmony Church, A-9-2 INF Training Brigade, Ft. Benning, GA in 1986, and I didn’t look back. I have served in 7 duty stations stateside, and only went overseas to visit The Sandbox when needed. I did many years serving the greater good, and then one day it was all done. Simple as that.
Eric,
I never served in the armed forces, but I can see how that would be. The men under an officer’s command, I’m sure, strive to someday become officers, to oversee other men. Because an officer has that authority, men literally put their lives in his hands.
I talk to the rest of the AA blogosphere. Other than perhaps my opposition to affirmative action, I think my attitude towards Ehren Watada is the stance that I least like to mention. I just can’t stand to think about how that guy sleeps at night. Watada violated the trust that exists in the armed forces. He violated our trust. He showed who he really is.
Donald,
Thanks! It sounds like it was a great experience. Both of my grandfathers served in the military (although back then, of course, lots of men were drafted). One of my grandfathers was Army. He fought in Korea.
Byron,
Among soldiers, masculine honor means something. Watada threw away his honor and, to make it worse, he did so foolishly.
For an insider account of Operation Iraqi Freedom from the same period that Watada refused to deploy, I recommend these e-mails from Baghdad by an infantry platoon leader who served in Iraq 2006-2007:
http://columbiamilvets2005-2006library.blogspot.com/2006/12/us-army-lieutenant-josh-arthur-columbia.html
Within the scope of relevance to Watada’s particular case, the legality of his orders was indisputable by any measure in June 2006. But as an academic contention, if Watada had been part of the invasion force in Spring 2003, his orders would still have been legal.
President Bush, if anything, was over-conscientious about a proper legal foundation, which was easy enough to do by repackaging President Clinton’s policy and following Clinton’s precedent.
This issue actually has been tested in court. The case was dismissed as a political question. The petitioner attempted to revive his case by inventing a new, artificial distinction and citing early-19th century war policy; by that point, he was just being pedantic.
The legal case against Operation Iraqi Freedom is strong in emotion, but weak on the facts and law. OIF has been on solid legal ground from day one with one of the most thorough policy trails in our history. Watada isn’t Psy, who had a built-in excuse to be duped as a useful idiot and isn’t American anyway. As an educated Army officer, Watada should have known better. He gave away his honor for nothing.
Even aside from the legality, Watada promised to obey his superiors. He let everyone down. That’s something that no one should support. Even if one didn’t agree with the second phase of the war, there’s no reason for a soldier to act like that. His behavior was unbecoming for an officer. Just shameful.
And I agree with you, it was dismissed because of politics. I think most likely, people were just tired. Already, Watada’s dishonorable behavior cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars in addition to the people in the military whom he let down. I think it would have been good to continue fighting, just to make an example of him, but politically, there were other issues on the table with the new President, etc.
Thanks for linking those e-mails too. I’m going to read through them all. It’s great that all this stuff is online.
Byron,
I was talking about a different case, not Watada’s case. Although Watada’s intended defense was the mission were unlawful, that issue was outside the scope of the charges.
However, the issue was addressed in the other case: a civil lawsuit that sought to hold President Bush liable for damages caused by an illegal/unConstitutional war – essentially Watada’s intended defense. The plaintiffs were the parents of KIAs. The judge’s dismissal of the suit as a “political question” meant he determined the President acted lawfully with OIF. The Court’s scope is limited to the legal character of issues; the Court doesn’t speculate on the “political question” of legal executive acts. In other words, whatever else OIF was the Court wouldn’t say; the Court only said the Iraq mission was legal.
Reading the case, the outcome was obvious. I felt bad for the parents who were used as plaintiffs. They were misled. The parents of our war dead should be respected and their children honored. They should not be abused by “anti-war” protestors who trick grieving vulnerable parents to be pawns for their agenda.
Read the Spectator articles on Josh, too. I think one of the Spec links was changed, but the 2nd one should open a PDF copy you can scroll down.
Josh is a good guy, smart, knows his shit. Josh would have been on a close deployment schedule to Watada, maybe even the same schedule.
Point being, I have to wonder at Watada’s ego that at some point in 2006, while everyone around him was gearing up for the mission, Watada convinced himself he had made a unique legal discovery about his deployment orders that his peers all missed. That Lieutenant Ehren “Sherlock” Watada alone had deduced the Big Secret that eluded well-educated, smart men like Josh.
Watada is the doofus who runs off a race course, sees no one around him, and decides that means he’s in 1st place. Unfortunately for Watada, there was no shortage of doofuses on the roadside encouraging him to keep running ahead.
I disagree with you somewhat in that if Watada actually had a legitimate point, that would mitigate my opinion. But Watada was more than dishonorable, he was stupid. The silver lining is his soldiers were probably better off deploying to Iraq with a lieutenant who wasn’t a fool. I can imagine 442nd vets rolling over in their graves, or in their beds, over the Watada embarassment.
Well, when I say “legitimate,” I mean on issues where following orders was clearly illegal.
So if he was ordered to shoot a bunch of women and children or rape someone, he ought to refuse. If he were told to shoot their men for reasons outside of subordination, I’d be fine with him refusing. In these situations, he’d already have all the info he needed to refuse. But rarely does a soldier know everything about the whys and hows of his larger mission. In no circumstance should he refuse because he thinks he doesn’t like the larger mission, especially when he doesn’t even know the full extent of the larger mission.
Soldiers don’t have the right to know everything about their mission. They agreed to serve. To serve means you do what you’re told, and you work for the President. Problems with whether or not to fight shouldn’t be decided by people who’ve already agreed to fight where they’re told. Those immediate decisions should be made by the President and the Congress, who are chosen by the American people.
Keep in mind that my opinion is also based in part on the fact that Watada signed up. If he were drafted and burned his card as a conscientious objector, I’d be fine with that–some people just don’t want to fight. But this guy signed up, knowing full well that the country would count on him too fulfill his promise. And he betrayed our trust.
Byron,
Women and children can be made into very destructive threats, too, if the enemy is willing to go there – and this enemy has been willing to go there – but I agree with your larger point. Beyond the bright line of their lawfulness, soldiers do need to faithfully carry out their orders.
As I said upthread, an anchor point for my views on the Iraq mission is my service in the historically analogous Korea mission.
The Korean War was brutal, worse on the ground than WW2 before and Vietnam after it. It was very unpopular among the American soldiers who fought it, many of whom started already weary and traumatized from WW2. (Lieutenant/Private in WW2 – Captain/Sergeant in Korea – Colonel/Sergeant Major in Vietnam was a not-uncommon military career arc in the 20th century.)
As we discussed in the Psy thread, whether you like them or not, the justifications for Operation Iraqi Freedom are clear once the misinformation is scraped off. Moreover, the backstory for the Iraq mission has a long trail that extends to the Carter administration.
The justification for intervening in Korea was less clear, while the arguments for sitting out Korea were better grounded than the anti-war arguments for Iraq. Legally, Truman’s deployment orders for Korea were more suspect than Bush’s deployment orders for Iraq, comparable to Clinton’s orders for Yugoslavia and Obama’s orders for Libya.
When the Korean War concluded at the same border, the belligerent enemy in control of half the country, widespread death and destruction in a backwards alien 3rd world country, a distrusted local government, and many Americans dead and wounded for no apparent gain, the Korea veterans were thoroughly disillusioned. They did not believe the war was worth their sacrifice.
Truman intervened in Korea with liberal goals for the sake of the big picture and long view. In the near term, though, Truman paid a harsh political price for his ambitious panoramic farsight. Eisenhower exploited the unpopularity of the Korean War and campaigned on the promise he would get us out of Korea ASAP, much like Obama leveraged the unpopularity of the Iraq mission in 2008. Truman was vilified, and in 1952, the White House that had been firmly Democrat for 2 decades was lost to the Republicans. Of course, once in Truman’s seat, Ike didn’t pull out of Korea anymore than Obama changed course in Iraq.
My job in Korea was inherited from the soldiers who fought the Korean War. Yet from my seat in Korea 50 years later, the Korean War looked a lot different in a historical context than how it looked at the time to the soldiers who fought it.
In 1950, the world was rapidly changing, yet the US hadn’t decided its global role. With his call on Korea, Truman – against strong domestic opposition – began an ambitious liberal course for American leadership of the free world that lasted through the Cold War.
Our global role became uncertain again after the Cold War . Then with 9/11, we had to decide America’s new global role in another rapidly changing world.
As Truman did with Korea, Bush decided with Iraq – against strong domestic opposition – to try to set a liberal course for American leadership of the free world.
Point being, you’re right: the soldier’s role is to focus on their piece of the big picture. It’s a full-time job; the big picture can’t work without attention to the detail. The President’s role is to guide the nation the best he can with a long view of the big picture.
Presidents Truman and Bush were both principled leaders committed to a liberal vision of America’s relationship with the world. At the time, Americans despised Truman for what he did to us in Korea. But America followed the liberal course he set there, and Truman’s reputation has been reformed. For now, Bush is unpopular, but time will tell whether America will follow the liberal course he attempted to set for us in Iraq. Other than a few problem children like Watada, our soldiers in Iraq faithfully held up their end, just as our soldiers did in Korea. Now we’ll find out whether we the people have the same character to follow up.
Of course, Ike didn’t bungle our post-war occupation of Korea like Obama screwed up the SOFA negotiation with Iraq (and then tried to weasel out of it by claiming his failure meant he fulfilled his promise to end the war), so we’ll see how that goes, too.
Off-topic …
Byron: “I talk to the rest of the AA blogosphere. … perhaps my opposition to affirmative action … is the stance that I least like to mention.”
I think you’ll appreciate this:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-comment-on-naacp-othering-asians-in.html
As a progressive liberal, I want to support affirmative action. If affirmative action was only progressive, it’d be fine. However, affirmative action contains Marxist DNA, ie, the oppressor/oppressed axis.
The problem with Marxism, and why it has consistently led to such pain and destruction, is it teaches oppressed/victim class members that it is their moral right to do anything and everything to maximize their benefit. Thus, modern Communist and political-Islamist insurgencies that share Marxist roots have shared the proclivity for shocking unrestraint.
We progressives hold a similar belief of empowering disenfranchised individuals. However, we check the individual by holding everyone accountable to a higher standard of morality for the greater good. Our Western canon is based on that bedrock.
Marxism, however, has no such check on the individual. When oppressed/victim class members gain power under Marxism, they just keep going their selfish way until they become the oppressor. (See Animal Farm.) Except they’re worse than the people they’ve replaced, because they lack the ‘bourgeoise’ inclination to regulate themselves by a common social morality.
In action, we see affirmative action’s Marxist character play out against us politically weaker Asians. Affirmative action proponents like the NAACP speak the progressive language of universal social justice, but actually carry out the unfettered Marxist pursuit of maximizing benefit for a specific group without balancing for the greater good.
You should speak out against affirmative action, Byron. We need to rescue true American progressive liberalism from the malignant cancer of Marxism that has infected our historic pursuit of social justice, including affirmative action.
Add – fyi:
For Marxists, the main axis has oppressors at one end and the oppressed at the other. For progressive liberals, the main axis has civilization at one end and barbarism at the other.
It’s a corruption of our popular political language that the definition for Marxists is now commonly applied to ‘progressive liberals’ whereas the definition for progressive liberals is now commonly applied to ‘conservatives’. The infection of the language has facilitated Marxist infiltration of progressive liberal endeavors like affirmative action.
Back to the Original Post – I found this comment interesting from the comment section of the liked article:
One thing that has been rather strange in the whole “empowerment” debate is that fewer people really took up Malcolm X’s (or Martin Luther King’s) exoneration to empower individuals through education and action–learning to run businesses, etc. Some have, of course, but it’s not the most popular philosophy of self-empowerment out there among people. My guess is that affirmative action may not be a battle we can win. Part of the problem is that we’ve got a ton of Asian American professors and college administrators who support it, despite the many problems it presents for a society looking for equality.
Byron,
I also wonder about Asian American professors and college administrators (along with Asian American politicians and advocacy groups in the case of high schools like Stuy in NYC or Lowell in SF) who support affirmative action that’s overtly hostile to Asian Americans.
In practice, Marxism is adversarial, zero-sum competition, so their submission may be a matter of self-preservation in a with-us-or-against-us situation. In contrast, equitable balance for the greater good is part of progressive liberalism, which in practice is tolerant cooperation.
Malcolm X was a libertarian. For libertarians, the main axis has freedom at one end and coercion at the other. He might well be active in the Tea Party if he was reincarnated today. Malcolm X was a staunch proponent of self-reliance, self-help, and Constitutional rights (especially the 2nd amendment), and against reliance on government and charities.
I served with black soldiers using the Army to escape the ghetto who, like Malcolm X, were strongly principled and opposed to the welfare state. To understand Malcolm X, think Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Unlike Malcom X, MLK was born affluent. He was a member of the southern black upper class, which had a self-sustaining economic community but a restricted legal standing. MLK was ideally equipped by his education and background for the 1st stage of his activism – civil rights. He appealed to privileged white liberals as a fellow privileged liberal intellectual. The civil rights movement that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reflected MLK’s interests as an affluent Southern black man. In his world, black political power was the issue; black economy wasn’t a problem.
The 2nd less famous stage of MLK’s activism began with the LA Watts riots of 1965. He swaggered in as a conquering hero to make peace … and was booed out of the building. Northern blacks already had legal rights before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Their issues were economic. To them, MLK’s signature achievement served the political interests of rich black southerners, not the economic needs of poor black northerners. Whereas to whites, MLK was a hero for all backs, poor blacks who had left the south to find work up north were acutely aware of class differences among blacks in the south. They resented this rich black southerner acting like they were the same people and he was their savior.
MLK was shocked by their resentment and made it his next mission to solve the economic problems of northern blacks. He decided to advocate for democratic socialism. The problem is MLK’s education was in moral philosophy, not economics. Business and finance were not his areas.
It’s hard to say whether MLK would have supported present-day affirmative action and government mandates for equality of result (impact), beyond equality of opportunity (treatment). It’s too bad that Malcolm X was dead by the time MLK changed course in his activism. I like to imagine the libertarian vs socialist debates he and MLK might have had in an epic contest for the soul of black America and ultimately all of America.
Byron,
I just read your original post for the 1st time. It reminds me why I started a student-veterans group in college with an eye towards the guys who would be arriving on campus from the war. It also reminds me why veterans will freely share their war stories with other veterans but are reluctant to tell them to lifelong civilians.
Lifelong civilians think veterans don’t share their war stories because they’re ashamed or the memories are too painful. No. The veterans don’t share them because they know the civilians won’t understand them.
You’re not a veteran, Byron. You’re judging people you don’t understand in your terms, not their terms.
Eric,
I think I agree that I DO judge Kyle somewhat, but only based on two things: his opposition to increased gun control, and his attempt to treat Eddie Ray Routh with gun therapy. I was reading an opinion by a psychologist who treats veterans for PTSD, and he too thinks gun therapy is a really, really, really bad idea for veterans suffering from PTSD. (although his reasoning is that veterans could kill themselves, not other vets.) Giving a gun to a mentally unstable person is a bad, bad, bad idea. It shouldn’t take a vet, or a psychologist who treats vets, to see this.
Is this what you were referring to, or is it something else?
I think I somewhat agree with you on Malcolm vs. Martin. One thing that I might say, though, is that times definitely were different back then. If I were alive back then, I’d probably be a supporter of affirmative action, just to break the historical patterns of discrimination that kept blacks out of high paying jobs. However, it’s been 50 years since then, and I think that the time for affirmative action is over in many areas, especially undergrad admissions.
Byron,
Kyle made a mistake. But I don’t know that any therapy was intended or if they were just buddies hanging out at the range. For combat-arms types, weapons ranges are safe, familiar, controlled settings. It’s their element, like how harried pro athletes talk about the playing field as their safe place.
PTSD is not exotic among war veterans. Most military PTSD sufferers are functional. Generally, they feel worse without their weapons and more calm with their weapons. In the war zone, their weapons kept them and their friends safe. It was their primary tool to control and counter threats and save lives. Many veterans with PTSD feel soothed by visits to the range – again, it’s a safe, familiar, controlled setting.
It doesn’t appear Routh’s mental state was a general case of PTSD, though. The killings may not have anything to do with PTSD at all. Kyle’s error may have been assuming Routh only suffered from PTSD, which Kyle was experienced with, when Routh acted from a different mental illness that blindsided Kyle.
If Kyle was attempting therapy, it most likely wasn’t prolonged exposure therapy, because they wouldn’t be phobic about shooting their own weapons at the range.
For Marines, being a Marine approaches religion, and that religion’s chief sacrament is mastery of the rifle. (Soldiers master their rifles, too, but for them, the Army is a way of life, not a religion.) With that in mind, if Kyle had therapy in mind, I guess it was meant to help Routh restore control of himself in tune with the Marines’ Rifleman’s creed of “This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.”
Affirmative action began as a progressive liberal initiative, but it’s been co-opted by the Marxists. Your different views on historical and present-day affirmative action are both textbook liberal. The present-day affirmative action you’re against is corrupted by Marxism.
If you think of yourself as a genuine liberal, you ought to study American progressive liberalism in depth. It matters because what’s often labeled liberal today in the popular political discourse isn’t liberal and sometimes what is liberal is mislabeled something else.
Progressive liberals are primarily idealists. While progressive liberalism is strong in morality, its critical flaw is weak economic grounding. Hence, MLK’s frustration after he switched his activism from civil rights to economic rights. That weakness is exploited by Marxists, who are primarily pragmatists with an economic focus.
Marxists and progressive liberals appear similar in their methods and goals, and Marxists are expert at disguising themselves with liberal language and co-opting liberal initiatives. But where liberals value principle before client, practice tolerant cooperation, and seek moderation with equitable balance for the greater good, Marxists employ no such self-regulating check. Marxists practice adversarial, zero-sum competition and advocate for maximal benefit for their clients even to the detriment of the greater good. Marxists have no restraint in their client advocacy – think George Orwell’s Animal Farm or present-day affirmative action.
Through the mid-20th century, progressive liberals appreciated the camouflaged threat that Marxism posed to progressive liberalism. Liberal leaders such as John F. Kennedy and Daniel Patrick Moynihan (the father of neo-conservatism) vigorously opposed Marxist-derived Communism. Yet present-day, Marxists have infiltrated liberal ranks to the degree that the traditional definition for Marxists is applied to progressive liberals, and policies that started liberal have been subverted by Marxists.
Real progressive liberals need to reclaim American liberalism from the Marxists.
Eric,
I’m definitely NOT a genuine liberal. I think I’m somewhere in the middle. Which kinda sucks–I’d be a lot more popular if I were a genuine liberal. But genuine liberals often make no sense, as in the case of affirmative action.
I think both sides are idealists in their own way. A friend of mine characterized it best. He said something like “Liberals treat money as if it were a limitless resource, the same way conservatives treat the environment.”
Byron, that’s my point: The excessive affirmative action of today isn’t genuinely liberal. It’s Marxist. Your recognition of the essential flaws in present-day affirmative action is a genuinely liberal recognition.
Your current operating definition of liberal is the Marxist-corrupted definition. It is in popular use, so it has practical utility to someone with your public role. It’s your choice whether you will to switch to the correct principled definition of progressive liberal or continue using the popular, corrupted definition of liberal.
As I mentioned above, Eric, you don’t use the term “liberal” the same way as the people you quote, although that’s just an observation more than something to get genuinely worked-up over
. Still, I think it makes sense just to use it the way modern people use it.
As for equating affirmative action with Marxism…yeah, that’s a hard one. I guess I technically agree with you. It contains some elements of Marxist thought on equality of outcomes, but I probably disagree based on the fact that the usage of the term “Marxist” doesn’t take into account that in theory, affirmative action recipients are supposed to go out in the world and become great capitalists. Of course it rarely works out that way. So I’m on the fence with that one.
Byron,
Again, that’s my point: Affirmative action started as a genuine progressive liberal initiative. However, present-day affirmative action has been co-opted and corrupted. You recognize the misalignment, thus your cognitive dissonance.
Your helpless response to the contradiction indicates the thing holding you back, which also manifests in your inability to process Operation Iraqi Freedom as a liberal mission: You’ve internalized the Marxist-corrupted definition of liberalism with its cognitive dissonance.
Go-along-to-get-along acceptance is pragmatic if your priority is to be accepted by the cool kids as a pundit. If your priority is to make a principled liberal difference, it’s self-defeating.
Besides, as an Asian American advocate, do the cool kids really have our best interests or do they just want our allegiance? In their adversarial, zero-sum pursuit of maximal benefit for their clients with disregard for the greater good, will they sacrifice us when it benefits their clients? Present-day affirmative action answers that question pretty conclusively.
You don’t need to join the Right, Byron. But it is within your reach to become a genuine progressive liberal. If you decide to go down the genuine liberal path, I recommend starting with an easy exercise to loosen the corruption and a beginning research point to establish first principles:
1. Do a side-by-side comparison of the George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy presidencies. The contextual conditions and details of their presidencies differ, of course, but the liberal principles of the two presidential records are congruent. JFK set the standard for presidential progressive liberalism, yet today, he would be labeled a neoconservative.
2. Look up John F Kennedy and Daniel P Moynihan and go from there.
Choose the harder right over the easier wrong, or go along to get along. Whether you prefer a Marxist or progressive liberal future for your kids is up to you.
Well, there’s where I disagree again, Eric. Was Karl Marx an advocate for affirmative action? Not at all. Not even close–Marxism advocates choosing professions based on talent, with the key difference being that it’s government-controlled. In fact, in just about all systems that use Marxism as a base, they do exactly the opposite of affirmative action–look at how China and North Korea choose their athletes–they do it based on merit and potential, not based on your lineage.
I don’t remember whether Marx covered this in his manifesto, but here’s what Stalin had to say: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”" The big difference between this and capitalism is that it’s controlled by a larger institution. Marx wrote: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
So for you to say that affirmative action comes from Marxism…sure, it’s easy to demonstrate that the outcome is supposed to be similar (“to each according to his needs” as Marx would say), and it’s also easy to show that government (or some larger entity) determines who gets the spoils. But it doesn’t meet other standards of how we attribute current policies to their historical roots.
And no, I can’t be accepted as one of the cool kids. I’ve tried, dude! I’m still the Black Sheep of the AA Blogosphere! I’m just too moderate. I’m using dictionary definitions or academic definitions, which is what I suggested that you use. It makes it easier when we’re all speaking the same language. I haven’t seen anyone use the term “liberal” the way that you do. In terms of politics, I probably agree with YOU more than I agree with most AA bloggers, but at the same time, I still think it’s easier (and I think more correct) to use the terminology the same way everyone else does.
BTW, I don’t think JFK would be labeled a necon today, the same way an interventionist like Clinton isn’t seen as a neocon. I did see that some Republicans are starting to claim Martin Luther King though. So certainly people can claim figures based on their own specific interests, but it’s hard to really take a historical figure from long ago and fit him/her into modern-day models.
Pingback: American Sniper by Chris Kyle (Review) | bigWOWO