 sj |
||
|
||
Veterans' Day Politics
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Request respectful Veterans Day Thread From: GUEST,pdc Date: 12 Nov 03 - 01:08 AM One slightly bitter comment: I watched on the television news tonight as George Bush, the President of the US who went AWOL from his own military service, a man who could not take physicals during his so-called military service because he was on drugs, a man who started yet another war without reason -- I watched as he laid a wreath of poppies at a war memorial, then stood with his hand over his heart, then I listened to him talk about the fact that it's going to get worse. Ugh. |
|
Subject: RE: Request respectful Veterans Day Thread From: GUEST,Boab Date: 12 Nov 03 - 02:11 AM Guest pdc---I saw a mere flicker of that too---I immediately flicked to another programme. I felt like you---but wouldn't have brought it into this thread, which has brought forth 95% of genuine feeling, and respect due to boys who fought and died believing in their cause. |
|
Subject: RE: Request respectful Veterans Day Thread From: GUEST Date: 12 Nov 03 - 08:30 AM There was a lot of disgusting, hypocritical crap on "in honor of vets" yesterday, and the whole thing sickens me. Bush, the Jessica Lynch propaganda (ie the "dramatic rescue" of the helpless, pretty young blond girl "soldier", with no mention of the average looking young black woman soldier also captured that day), the phony way that the right wing militarist machine manipulates the emotions to coerce the public into "supporting the troops" as a way of imposing a hugely unpopular war on us and the Iraqis... I'm with Bobert. It is utter hypocrisy to suggest that we pretend those things aren't happening, in order to honor the dead without the hassle of conscience over what war does to both the soldier, the civilian, and for the war profiteers and politicians. IMO, we disrespect the dead by honoring the dead by dismissing the truth and the lies surrounding war. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 12 Nov 03 - 10:30 AM pdc, did you make those same complaints about the draft-dodging inhaler who preceded him? Just curious. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Peace Date: 12 Nov 03 - 10:39 AM GUEST from 8:30 AM post. Do you have a real name that we might get to know you by? |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: beadie Date: 12 Nov 03 - 11:07 AM Guest,CO (oops, didn't mean to imply anything by using your initials rather than spelling out the entire handle): While niether of the last two presidents served (exactly) with honor, I suppose that one could make a differential argument that the one who said, outright, that he didn't want to fight had a bit more honesty, if not cojones, than the one who signed up for a nearly impossible to obtain Air National Guard Flight Status assignment (likely with Dad's help) and then booked before the hitch was up. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 12 Nov 03 - 12:30 PM Or, one could make a differential argument based on the fact that one was a Democrat and the other is a Republican... Just so we're clear - I didn't vote for either one of them. What galls me in some of these discussions is that equal time doesn't seem to be given to all offenders. My friends in the military tell me that Clinton made a right mess of things for them. Maybe that is something we civilians wouldn't necessarily be privy to on a daily basis. The fact is that all our Presidents do a little posturing for photo opps on various holidays and other national occasions. We shouldn't be surprised by this one. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Nov 03 - 01:32 PM Casual Observer, who really doesn't appear to be all that casual. There is a clear difference. Druggie one didn't try to connect supporting the troops with supporting him as if he were one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST Date: 12 Nov 03 - 01:52 PM Rehash of the same old crap - certainly doesn't need yet another thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 12 Nov 03 - 03:06 PM You can go ahead and rationalize it, if you wish. They are both rascals, fair and square. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST Date: 12 Nov 03 - 03:14 PM Hey Guest 1:52, I was just thinking it was great that this thread had been split off into this one, just as Mary Garvey suggested. It seems like a simple, elegant solution. For those who wish to have a thread to honor vets, no problem. For those who prefer to discuss the politics surrounding Veteran's Day, no problem. Neither group needs to be villified, IMO, as both sorts of discussion are appropriate. Had the two thread solution been done last year, perhaps much of the rancorousness wouldn't have occurred. I may not be recalling things accurately, but I seem to recall the problem last year was that there weren't two threads like we have now. I'm not sure, but I think this is working great. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: mg Date: 12 Nov 03 - 03:28 PM me too. Thanks everyone. mg |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Nov 03 - 03:49 PM Jack's first law of rightwing nutjobs. Any criticizm of George Bush must be countered with an equal and opposite attack on Bill Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST,pdc Date: 12 Nov 03 - 03:55 PM Guest Casual Observer: I didn't like Clinton either. I thought he was sneaky, manipulative and probably a liar on a lot of issues. But yes, Bush is worse, in terms of the blatancy of his hypocrisy. Bush is directly responsible for thousands of deaths - in Iraq, and possibly, if the truth is ever known, in the WTC in New York. He has put the US into debt which will have to be paid, and paid, and paid, for generations. He "presides" over an economy to have the only net job loss since Herbert Hoover. He is part of an ugly agenda. He is not very bright, but lies as well as Clinton, but on more important issues. And yes, he repeatedly went AWOL and was a cocaine addict during his "military" career. Shall I go on? |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: beadie Date: 12 Nov 03 - 04:00 PM Corollary 1.a to Jack's first law: "It's even more politically effective if the opposite attack is a little more than equal in volume and vitriol." And, CO, although I understand your point, considering that neither is a candidate for the Medal of Honor, what difference does their party affiliation make (unless this really isn't about the men as much as about winning)? |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Nov 03 - 04:04 PM Jack's first law of rightwing nutjobs. (ammended) Any criticizm of George Bush must be countered with an equal or greater and opposite attack on Bill Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: artbrooks Date: 12 Nov 03 - 06:33 PM BTW, as most people know who bother to check, Clinton's draft avaidance was flakey, but most likely not illegal. The whole confusing story is here. One of the things I find most fascinating about it is that, when he went looking for political strings to pull, they were Republican ones! |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Ebbie Date: 12 Nov 03 - 07:48 PM From a letter Clinton wrote to the Colonel who had assisted him in the belief Clinton was planning to be inducted: "As you know, I worked for two years in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did. I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine." December 3, 1969 These sentiments, imo, depict a thinking man. I only wish he weren't carrying all that baggage from his upbringing. Less flawed in his emotional development, Bill Clinton could have been a great man. And Artbrooks, Snopes makes it very clear that, slick or not, Clinton did NOT do anything illegal, not just merely, quote: most likely not illegal. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Bobert Date: 12 Nov 03 - 08:14 PM Yo, C.O., Hmmm, ya' got one guy, who has spent his entire life in the service of the public and resists going into the service because he is morally opposed to a war that he fely was wrong. Then ya have another guy who was just too busy getting stoned, drunk and womanizing to fulfill his duty. And you see them as both the same? Or not. Maybe you see Clinton as the least honest... Fir real? Here, pee in this cup... I have a theory on why you like the druggie... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Midchuck Date: 13 Nov 03 - 10:29 AM As near as I can tell from this thread, the Democrats feel that doing drugs (or drinking, or womanizing,) is no big deal if you're a Democrat, but is a Bad Thing if you're a Republican, and the Republicans feel that doing drugs (or drinking, or womanizing,) is no big deal if you're a Republican, but is a Bad Thing if you're a Democrat. Which more or less confirms my impression of the two major parties, if there are actually two any more. Or am I missing something? Peter (who is prepared to support Dean, although I've never before supported a Democrat, simply because if neither the Republicans nor the "insider" Democrats like him, he can't be as bad as the rest...) |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: The Shambles Date: 13 Nov 03 - 10:39 AM Hey Guest 1:52, I was just thinking it was great that this thread had been split off into this one, just as Mary Garvey suggested. It seems like a simple, elegant solution. For those who wish to have a thread to honor vets, no problem. For those who prefer to discuss the politics surrounding Veteran's Day, no problem. Neither group needs to be villified, IMO, as both sorts of discussion are appropriate. Had the two thread solution been done last year, perhaps much of the rancorousness wouldn't have occurred. I may not be recalling things accurately, but I seem to recall the problem last year was that there weren't two threads like we have now. I'm not sure, but I think this is working great. Of course there was no need for any rancour this year either but whilst there may not be any real need for rancour it is totally unrealistic to expect us all to feel the same way or to express the same opinion. Last year there was no separate area for non-musical thread topics but all the argument could and should have been headed off this time by simply starting two (non music) threads both with the BS heading. Perhaps the lesson is learned and this will be the case in future? For as for villification - we now we have Mudcat clones making value judgements as to what views are political and can be dumped and lost in the BS dustbin and what views are non-political or worthy enough to be recalled in the future on the main forum. Had the original post of the thread started with a song or a poem, there may have been some justification for starting or leaving it on the main forum but all these appeared later - possibly in part to try and justify the threads position on the main forum. Will the inclusion of a few songs now be enough to promote the posts in this thread back to the main (music) forum? I suspect not..... Perhaps the clones will just leave things alone in future? For sadly the impression has been given by these actions that contributors to this second-rate thread do not share the compassion for all those lost to war. I am sure that this was not the originator of the thread's idea but perhaps next time we will get it right and respect everyone's views and their equal right to express them? |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 03 - 02:25 PM I see the two halves of the page as being that one is for music-related and technical stuff, and the other is for everything else..A rough and ready distinction that often enough breaks down - bit there's no way in which "promotion" or "demotion" is involved. Since the other thread, predictably, has picked up a fair number of songs, the music-related part of the page was the appropriate place. The politicisation of these things that nauseates me is the way remembrance is used as a way for manipulating people to support wars and to support politicians who are making war. And somehow that is often seen as non-political. What makes me almost as uneasy is the way in which it's so easy to slide from honouring and mourning the dead to implying that this means that the things they died for were right and just - not merely that they believed they were right and just, but that they actually were. And that's the kind of politicisation that creeps in almost inevitably, especially when it gets to, for example the Vietnam war. It's a main reason why threads about such matters can turn uncomfortable. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST Date: 13 Nov 03 - 02:57 PM For those in the US who might be interested, there was a pretty good PBS documentary in my viewing area that was on last night: "Reporting America at War" It is about how media reporting and spinning of war coverage changed over the years and over the wars. Not much was on the most recent fiasco in Afghanistan and Iraq unfortunately. Also not much analysis of the post-9/11 propaganda and censorship campaigns by the Bush administration. But it did show the differences between WWII, Korea, and Vietnam pretty well (for a PBS documentary that is). |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 13 Nov 03 - 03:05 PM I'm not a rightwing nutjob. As I said, I didn't vote for Clinton (well, not the second time, anyway) or Bush. And Bobert, the only thing you'll find in my piss is a lot of filtered water. Maybe a little beer. I'm only trying to bring a little balance. Whatever happened to things like equal time and diversity? My observation is that many on this forum will readily vilify Bush, but at the same time, will sanctify Clinton - who wasn't much better. I believe he was responsible for a few deaths himself, wasn't he? Who sent troops to Somalia? I don't believe it was Santa Claus. And people act like a bumbling President is some sort of great surprise. I can't figure that out. I'm just saying, let's be honest. That's all. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST Date: 13 Nov 03 - 03:12 PM Hey CO, just because Bush gets villified doesn't mean that Clinton is getting sanctified. That is just a red herring argument. I haven't ever seen much praise of Clinton here at all. But villification of Bush? You bet. Bush is much more than a bumbling president. His administration has done more to turn back the progress of the past 50 years in this country than any other president. Their hidden agenda has been to scrap every New Deal/post-New Deal socially progressive institution they could. No other president in the post-WWII era has attacked civil rights of both US citizens and non-citizens than this administration. And frankly, I don't think there has been a more corrupt administration in the US since pre-Hoover at least. Clinton didn't do much of anything as president. Which is why in retrospect he might look good (to some, certainly not to me) by comparison. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Nov 03 - 03:31 PM I don't think I've been reading posts selectively, but it seems to me that there haven't mean many people, if indeed anyy people, going on about how great Clinton was. What they've been saying is that, for all his faults, at least he wasn't George Bush. So far as Vietnam is concerned, true enough, the brave thing for an opponent of the war would have been to refuse to go and to take the consequences. Clinton didn't have the moral strength to do that. I imagine he had political ambitions that got in the way. But on the other hand Bush was in fvaour of the war, but made damn sure to avoid subjecting himself to any danger or even inconvenience. Whether Bush's physical cowardice weighs more heavily than Clinton's moral weakness is a moot point. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Don Firth Date: 13 Nov 03 - 03:45 PM GUEST,CO, the problem right now is Bush. Clinton is a thing of the past. Get with the times. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST,Casual Observer Date: 13 Nov 03 - 05:36 PM Fair enough. |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: DougR Date: 13 Nov 03 - 05:45 PM A problem for the minority, Don, not for the majority. Read the polls. Bush's approval rating has gone down, but his numbers are still pretty good. Casual Observer is seeking something not attainable on the Mudcat. There is no parity here because the overwhelming majority here are in agreement with each other. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Bobert Date: 13 Nov 03 - 06:42 PM GUEST and CO: Yeah, Clinton was no danged saint, his own "ahhhh, yer-zippers-down-Mr.-President" self and, being a Greenie, he din't get my vote. I mighta voted fir him if he wasn't the so much the Repubocrat. Fir the life of me, I can't understand why the Repubs hated Clinton. Heck, he was more of one of them than many of the other Repubs... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: GUEST Date: 13 Nov 03 - 09:14 PM Bush Sr's poll numbers were higher and Clinton's lower than Dubya's at the same point in their presidencies. Bush lost, Clinton won. So why would we think Dubya's numbers being "good" mean anything at all? |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: Bobert Date: 13 Nov 03 - 09:35 PM GUEST, It's anyone's guess.... First, we know that the privatization is gonna steal as many votes fir Bush as they can but... ...the Dems have been doing some quiet, but effective, voter registration drives in northern and midwestern states which should offset the corruption of ballot counting by the Repubs so, hey, it's anyone's game... (Note. I do not use the word election as the US no longer has, ahh, elections...) BUsh can't figgure that he has it made since employment figures are up. Wat too many folks, who used to make a decent living in making stuff, are now selling men's suits at Walmart for less than half what they used to make but still have the two kids in college. Numbers don't always tell the stroy... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Veteran's Day Politics From: The Shambles Date: 14 Nov 03 - 03:37 PM I see the two halves of the page as being that one is for music-related and technical stuff, and the other is for everything else..A rough and ready distinction that often enough breaks down - bit there's no way in which "promotion" or "demotion" is involved. Kevin you may well see it that way but it would appear that no one really cares how you or I may see it. I stand to be corrected but my understanding is that threads and posts on the BS half are not treated the same as those on the top. So perhaps there are issues of promotion and demotion? |
|
Subject: RE: Veterans' Day Politics From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Nov 03 - 04:55 PM There does appear to be one rather odd difference between the two halves of the page, and that is there seems to be an automatic "this thread is closed" for the BS threads, after an unknown period, that doesn't apply to the others. I can't really see the point of that. Though this thread maybe isn't the place for a discussion about the ins and outs of it. But I think it might be useful to have one, so we can be clearer about the rules and conventions. Maybe it's all happened and I've missed it. It's some time since I looked at the FAQ Note how I've modified the heading of thgis thread in my post -"veterans'" instead of "veteran's" . After all there's more than one veteran involved. |
|
Subject: RE: Veterans' Day Politics From: The Shambles Date: 15 Nov 03 - 04:51 AM I feel that it is possibly a little too long since many of us looked closely at what exactly is going on since the BS split. I had hoped that this would have simply put an end to any need or justification for unneccesary editing and 'snitching' to the cones about minor indiscretions in other peoples's posts and that request made there for editing would be limited only to one's own posts. A look at the help/trouble site will show that sadly this is far from the case.........People there seem to be unwilling to extend their freedom to post - to others whose views they do not share and do not accept that freedom of expression on a forum is about possibly having to read things that may not be to our particular taste. That as in this thread - you can request that posters respect your wishes but that you have to just accept that they are free not to do so. There does not appear to be any mention in the FAQ about closing threads, editing out so-called political posts, of posting quotas or many other things and I fear that the forum is being shaped by this editing into an ideal if unspecified form by a number of inconsistent personal value judgements. All I suspect being done for the best motives and undertaken by fine folk on our behalf and generally supported (when noticed) because these people are trusted by us and the owner of the site. Not a very easy situation to change, especially as the opinions of posters only seem to be considered or actioned if they should fall in line with the views of our editors. |
|
Subject: RE: Veterans' Day Politics From: artbrooks Date: 15 Nov 03 - 10:12 AM This statement, from the FAQ, seems to cover it quite completely. As it says, the Management doesn't see any need for an itemized rulebook, and in my experience reliance on such a thing just results in people looking harder for loopholes. The Mudcat Cafe reserves the right to edit, move, combine, rename, or delete all threads and messages posted in the Forum. We will try our best to edit sparingly, but there are times when we may have to take some action to keep the peace, or to protect the interests of our community. Editorial decisions are made by Max, Jeff/Pene Azul, and Joe Offer, or under their direction. We follow principles and common sense, and see no need to have everything spelled out in some sort of pseudo-legal code. We don't allow hate, racism, stalking or other intimidation, or personal threats or attacks. We don't cater to chain letters or non-music advertising, and we expect people to use moderation when they advertise music-related things. We allow just about all sorts of discussion, but we draw the line when it's clear that an individual is flooding Mudcat with information - things like multiple "copycat" or interrelated threads, lengthy copy-paste messages of non-music articles from publications and Internet sources (one screen full of text is the limit - and remember that we encourage you to post the entire text of music-related information). If you regularly start more than one thread a day, you are quite probably starting too many. Please try to post to existing threads as much as possible, rather than splitting topics into a number of threads. I suppose there are a few other things we take action against, but I think this is a pretty good summary. When we encounter individuals who cause us continual problems, we may take action to temporarily or permanently bar them from posting at all, but this rarely happens. Most of these are people who post just because they like to cause trouble. They may become very self-righteous in defending their right to "free speech," but it's usually quite clear what they're up to. On the Internet, they're called "trolls." We deal with them as we see fit. |
|
Subject: RE: Veterans' Day Politics From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Nov 03 - 11:05 AM Fair enough. This implies a case by case approach, and I incline to favour that, rather than having too many fixed rules. However, when there are decisions on a more general basis, such as that BS threads should get automatically closed after a fixed period, whereas non-BS threads should not, I think that the existance of rules that should be openly indicated. That's an example, the point is, what other parameters like that are in existance? |
|
Subject: RE: Veterans' Day Politics From: The Shambles Date: 16 Nov 03 - 09:35 AM It has to be said that over time the goal posts had rather been shifted by the main author of this FAQ to this position and it does rather imply that this censorship is a last resort and there is an expectation that these actions will be agreed ones. In the case of this thread this so-called reluctant censorship was not agreed but had to stand as the damage was already done. In this case Missing Threads whole threads were deleted just because of a posting there from a "known" troll. In this one Why are my threads deleted? they were deleted because they exceeded some unspecified quota or because they were considered as incoherent. It is not known if these were agreed censorship decisions as no clone has written to disagree. Whilst you may agree with a case by case approach it may reasonably be expected that this would be a consistent and agreed approach. My fear is that there is also a very thin line between this and an arbitrary approach of making it up as one goes along. My feeling is that there is far too much censorship undertaken by too many people. It is done far too readily for the size of the problem now being presented and that this chaotic and unnecessary censorship is the real problem that urgently requires addressing. The BS split has largely made any requirement for this scale of censorship a thing of the past. The key to this in the FAQ is "reserving the right" to censor contributions without the poster's wish or knowledge and not automatically exercising this right to enable some personal value judgement to be made over what other people can or can't post. Or in this case where they should be allowed to post it. Perhaps there should also be something in the FAQ which gives ordinary posters some rights also? A simple one would be that posts only receive any editing or movement if the original poster requests it and that other posters are not encouraged to request any editing or movement of other people's posts. This would do away with the rather unsavory and un-Mudcat like business of 'snitching' on each others posts and would encourage us all to simply mind our own business. |
|
Subject: RE: Veterans' Day Politics From: The Shambles Date: 16 Nov 03 - 02:29 PM Minding our own business |
| Translate Thread |
