Skip to main content

View Diary: Requiem for a Nightmare (269 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Uh uh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    StrayCat, llbear, lightfoot

    The seminal question here is the nature of citizenship and the nature of (pardon the expression) manhood.

    During WWII, women and girls would gleefully confront military-age men not in uniform on the street and pin yellow or white flowers on them, branding them - often unjustly, of course - as cowards.  After the war, it was generally recognized that no one who had not served in the war should contemplate a military career. (Name a politician from the 50s and 60s who was not a veteran.)

    During the 60s, almost all of us went through sleepless nights trying to decide what was the right thing to do.  Many of us in Viet Nam opposed the war but were there because our country asked it of us.  Many others went to Canada and Sweden, and others decided that they served the country best by avoiding service and protesting the war - I have never had problems with any of those people or their decisions.

    The people I have problems with are the ones who thought the war should be fought - just not by them: Dick Cheney and Bill Bennett come first to mind.  You see, they were special, and the rules that apply to ordinary people don't apply to them.  

    It's there, in defining themselves as different from you and me, that they deserve to be recognized. If they were not amount 'us' then, how can they claim to be among us now?

    •  because most people haven't served (0+ / 0-)

      and the attack, while aimed at a subset (those who didn't serve yet direct others to do so), gets felt by the majority.

      And you highlight an important aspect of why the chickenhawk talking point is dangerous:  if construed as "seminal question [on]...the nature of citizenship and the nature of (pardon the expression) manhood..." the indirect attack is on the "manhood" of all who didn't serve. Why carelessly alienate a lot of people?

      I know it feels good to rant at them, but I find it self-indulgent and not constructive.  And if you think about it, how often do our popular leaders, Feingold, Gore, Kerry, Boxer, Conyers, Dean, even Murtha, get quoted calling the current leadership chickenhawks or, by association, cowards?  Maybe it's happened here and there, but not much.  It brings to mind (for me only) the points in Melvin's diary currently on the rec list.

      Blogatha! The political, the personal. Not necessarily in that order.

      by ksh01 on Sun May 28, 2006 at 09:35:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're working hard to misconstrue, I think (0+ / 0-)

        The people discussed here have declared themselves to be special.  They have asserted that there are two levels of citizenship: (a) those whose lives and talents are too precious to risk, and (b) the rest of us. That's the issue, not who served and didn't.

        Don't be so sensitive about whatever skeleton you have in your closet . . . Get on with your life . . . It's okay . . . Really . . .

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site