home

The Brown Ones

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:47:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via digby, Canadian born David Frum says people like me lack something:

[a] deep attachment to the American nation (and who are thus immune to the most potent of Republican appeals.)

The irony of a Canadian born person stating that he will have a deeper attachment to the American nation than I, a native born Hispanic-American, is deep.

The despicable nature of a WHITE Canadian born person assuming he has a higher capacity for deep attachment to the American nation actually is the BEST explanation of why Republicans are now relegated to a dim political future.

The funny thing is, say what you will about Bush and Rove, they had the good sense to know that darker skinned Hispanic Americans were just as capable of a deep attachment to the American nation as white Canadian Americans.

< Gonzales Responds; Leahy Not Impressed | Lieberman's Irrelevance >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Brown Ones | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Whatever to that B.S. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by brklyngrl on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    I understand why you're pissed off, and I don't blame you, but if white voters only favor Republicans by two percentage points I'll be laughing all the way to the ballot box.

    Some Republicans really wanted to be the party of angry white men, and now they are. Just desserts for their incredibly narrow view of what it means to be an American.

    PPJ's (et al) Greatest Fear (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:03:15 PM EST
    That the lily white boys will lose their country to immigrants.

    Simple math.

    squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:14:56 PM EST
    You know, you just have no concept and understanding.

    Basically speaking, and I can quote you, you just want to smear, and you need no facts.

    There. We know you.

    Parent

    Oh I Forgot (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:44:57 PM EST
    You are a liberal who only quotes conservative and wingnut sources.

    And who also is a champion of Walter Russell Mead. Brown people are supposed to assimilate into "white culture" aka the rulers.

    Parent

    squeaky.... you are so easy (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:28:53 AM EST
    I am a Social Liberal Independent who believes in those issues commonly associated with Liberals who also believes in a strong national defense you and I, and most who frequent this site, are at odds over this war.

    Since many of the TL posts, especially in the past year, have been attacking the war and discussing how we can surrender the easiest, I find myself supporting the administration although it makes me uneasy from the Social Liberal side.

    As I noted to kdog the other day, I don't like Bush and don't want to have a beer with and shoot the breeze. He does, however, have it right when it comes to the war on terror, which really is a war of cultures in many respects.

    So he gets my support. When the Democrats and the Left stop opposing the government's rights to tap/record telephone calls that orginate and terminate outside the US, merely tandeming through a switch in the US for technical/cost reasons, stop opposing a bill to protect people from being sued  who report what they believe to be terrorist type actions they will start getting some consideration from me.

    Find me Leftist site that supports the war and you might see some links.

    As for assimilation, yes, that is what is supposed to happen, and has happened in the past. And despite the Left's and the Democratic party's efforts to keep today's new arrivals in the ghetto and on the reservation I think it will happen again.

    Parent

    falsehood (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:52:22 AM EST
    When the Democrats and the Left stop opposing the government's rights to tap/record telephone calls that orginate and terminate outside the US
    Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners

    Parent
    Sailor - Misleading quote from your link (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:30:48 AM EST
    This is what your link said in context to the subject. Leaving out the second paragraph was misleading and a serious sin of ommission.

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

    Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

    And, as you are well aware because you have commented on them, I have provided links time and again where previous appeals courts, four prior to W and one in 2002 in fact, said that the President had the right to tap calls that orginate outside the US to numbers inside the US and vice versa, without warrants when he deems national security requires it.

    These links were to Powerline, with the underlying link to the Chicago Tribune. Your response, I believe was to criticize Powerline and ignore the Tribune.

    The comment I made above at 8:28AM regards calls that orginate outside the US and terminate outside the US that tandem through a telcomm switch located inside the US. That means terrorist A in X country calls terrorist B in Y country.

    Since you are a scientist I assume you understand what a tandem telecom switch is.

    If you do not, let me expalin.

    It goes in here. It comes out here. It doesn't stop here.

    Simpler. A call from Montreal could easily be carried to a tandem switch at a gateway location in NYC and be switched to London and then to Syria.

    Since the routing of these calls change, sometimes daily, based on the number/amount of traffic and agreements between ILECs just the credibile threat to tap will cause terrorists great pause and concern.

    Why the Demos and many on the Left think that peope outside the US calling people outside the US deserve protection I have not the vaguest idea.

    The Demos have opposed this. Why they want to take this tool from our forces I haven't the slightest.

    Parent

    powerlie is not a reputable source (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    I've quoted the NYT and ABC and here are plenty more NEWS sources.

    bushco admitted spying on Americans w/o a warrant.

    Parent

    WH admits domestic spying (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 03:39:21 PM EST
    The Bush administration's top intelligence official has acknowledged that a controversial domestic surveillance program was only one part of a much broader spying effort, The Washington Post reported in its Wednesday edition.

    Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell wrote in a letter that other aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program remain classified, the Post said.

    "That is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been officially acknowledged," McConnell wrote, according to the Post.

    Bush acknowledged the existence of a program that monitored domestic phone calls and e-mails without court oversight in December 2005. The administration has not confirmed other secret spying efforts reported by news outlets, such as one that searched millions of telephone records.

    Parent

    sailor's strawmen (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:17:51 PM EST
    Bush acknowledged the existence of a program that monitored domestic phone calls and e-mails without court oversight in December 2005. The administration has not confirmed other secret spying efforts reported by news outlets, such as one that searched millions of telephone records.

    That is a misstement. The program referred to was the NSA tapping of international to domestic and domestic to international, not domestic to domestic.

    You know that.

    Parent

    moving the goal posts again (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    ppj stated "
    When the Democrats and the Left stop opposing the government's rights to tap/record telephone calls that orginate and terminate outside the US, merely tandeming through a switch in the US for technical/cost reasons
    and when provided proof that even bush has admitted to tapping American's phones he moves the goal posts.

    At least he's consistent in his inconsistancy.

    BTW, a federal judge found the program unconstitutional, and no federal judge has said it was constitutional.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#30)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:32:53 PM EST
    Sure it is.  Is this the only reply you can think of?

    Parent
    hAHAhahahhaha (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:54:52 AM EST
    Strong national defense. It is a strong national offense that we are engaged in. Preemptive war is not a liberal position it is a neocon idea.

    It is hilarious that you blame liberal sources for not being conservative or reactionary enough to quote or link to. And no it is not just the war it is immigration, NOLA disaster, right wing judicial nominees.

    No liberal would ever support Janice Brown, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Pryor etc.  To quote a liberal source on Brown, People For the American Way:

    California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, has a record of ideological extremism and aggressive judicial activism that makes her unfit to serve on the appeals court. Remarkably, her judicial philosophy puts her even further to the right than the most far-right justices now sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

    PFAW

    Anymore dishonest drivel you want to serve up about your "liberal" credentials?

    Parent

    squeaky.... you are so easy (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    When you think of a liberal  with a strong national defense position think of Hubert Humphrey, LBJ, JFK, Scoop Jackson.

    Being a member of the Left does not make you a Liberal. In fact, since it is the Left who supports speech codes and hate crime laws, and since it is the Left who opposes a war against radicals that openly kill gays, women and Jews I have to wonder how you can claim to be Liberal. The position appears to be of two actions that are always mutually exclusive.

    Judge Brown was elected in CA with a total vote in the 70% range. If you wish to say that one of our most liberal states elected a conservative judge pleasen do so, but don't be offended by my horse laugh.

    You again indulge in your capacity of Chief Smearer when you claim I am against immigration. That is not true and you can not show otherwise.

    I am against illegal aliens who engage in illegal immigration.

    New Orleans was a disaster for many reasons. Yet the Feds responded and got their faster than for any other disaster, and the NG and CG did a masterful job and all of the stories about the Dome were not true. In fact, that's where the NG had their headquarters.

    I will leave out the fact that LA officals wouldn't let a mobile hospital from NC into the state, that the mayor didn't use 600 school busses to get people out of the city and the Gov, bless her little turf protecting heart, wouldn't turn the reins over to the Feds creating a tangle of responsibilities and authorities.. I will also ignore the lack of knowledge and rants about Bush saying it wasn't anticapted that the levees would be breeched.. It was, of course, expected they might be overtopped. The difference between the two is huge. A breeched levee has to be repaired to stop the water. An overtopped levee remains in place and stops water when the surge rise has gone down. As to why they were breeched you might ask the Corp of Engineers to explain how, after 60 plus years and millions of dollars they let that happen. And a hint. It didn't happen in 4 years and 7 months.

    So there you go, squeaky. Facts and links. Truth to your nonsense.

    Have a nice day and enjoy these links.

    Link

    Link1

    Link2

    link 3

    Parent

    Your Record Here (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    Speaks for itself. Your postion here is to shill for Bush, Rove, Gonzo, Delay, Lieberman, Cheney, and all the Republicans down the line.

    Any sane or honest person would tell you that the center has shifted way to the right in the last 20 years. But you complain that the center is too far left.

    You are not fooling anyone.

    Parent

    squeaky won't fight the terrorists (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:22:31 PM EST
    My position here is to defend all supporters of the WOT.

    Why do you fail to support a war against people who are against all Liberal Principles?

    Does that mean that you are against Gay rights, women's rights, NHC, drug law reform, etc..??

    As you know, al-Qaeda is. Why aren't you for a war against these radiocal terrorists who support honor killing of females, killing of all Jews..

    Really squeaky, how do you manage to look in the mirror to shave??

    Parent

    Really Jimbo (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by aj12754 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 08:53:45 AM EST
    you are exactly as dumb as this administration needs you to be.

    Parent
    aj (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:23:22 AM EST
    You never mount an argument, just nasty personal attacks. As Ihave noted before, that defines you, not me.

    Please continue.

    Parent

    standard rethug tactic (none / 0) (#66)
    by Sailor on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:37:48 PM EST
    accuse others of what you are guilty of:
    My position here is to defend all supporters of the WOT.

    Why do you fail to support a war against people who are against all Liberal Principles?

    Does that mean that you are against Gay rights, women's rights, NHC, drug law reform, etc..??

    As you know, al-Qaeda is. Why aren't you for a war against these radiocal terrorists who support honor killing of females, killing of all Jews..

    Really squeaky, how do you manage to look in the mirror to shave??




    Parent
    Heh. Not really. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    It's worse than it appears. He doesn't buy what he sells. No one is that dumb. ;-)

    Parent
    At least, I don't "think" anyone is. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    But... I've been wrong before. ;-)

    Parent
    This raises an interesting thought, though... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:06:13 PM EST
    Maybe this identifies what the neocons biggest problem is.

    No one could successfully sell the lies and swill that they need sold if he did believe and buy it himself. It would be like a crack dealer trying to run a successful crack selling business, while using his own product.

    It would be a sure recipe for failure.

    They picked Bush to sell their product to dummies... forgetting that a believer and a ventrioquists dummy is exactly that? A crack dealer using his own product?

    Parent

    powerlie is not a reputable source (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:35:35 PM EST
    why you continue to quote an extreme wrongwing blog that is just a shill for bush as facts is just astounding.

    Parent
    Less Astounding (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:56:46 PM EST
    Than predictable. The only disconnect with ppj is that he insists that he is a liberal. It should come as no surprise that he will forever shill for wingnuttia, which in his mind, and his mind alone, represents the true liberal POV.

    Up is the new down.

    Parent

    Who determines (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    what a reputable source is?  Is a blog that sez screw em reputable?  

    Parent
    Wile (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:25:36 PM EST
    Any blog that has the same opinions as Sailor, et al, is reputable. All others are not.

    I thought you knew that.

    :-)

    Parent

    no blogs were cited (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:53:30 PM EST
    and several independent news sources werte, but this personal attack is typical of your inability to deal with facts, as proved by your constantly citing wrongwing opinion peices to support your delusions and ignoring the fact that even bush admitted he was spying on Americans

    Parent
    DA (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:23:59 PM EST
    The fact that you want to claim one news source is always correct says it all when it comes to your ability to think logically.

    Good night.

    Parent

    DA tries to ignore (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    You understood the point.

    Parent
    The great thing (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:27:40 PM EST
    about being a social liberal whose main issue is national security is you get to talk the talk of social liberalism, but you don't actually have to walk the walk of social liberalism, because you keep voting for Presidents who, not only do not advance the case of "social liberalism, but actually hinder the cause of social liberalism.

    The saddest joke of all in this, is you voted for the President who committed the greatest national security blunder of all time- Iraq. And you did it twice.

    Please do us all a favor, refrain from voting on issues of national security in the future.

    Iraq is the conservative debacle. It is owned lock stock and barrel by the GOP, conservatives and social liberals who cast their vote on based upon national security.  



    Parent

    Molly (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:34:37 PM EST
    Actually JFK, LBJ, Humphrey, etc did a rather nice job. Since then the Demos have done zip, although to be fair Humphrey never got his chance at bat.

    In fact,  Bush's Medicare Rx insurance program is the only social liberal improvement in the last 30 years.

    The Left, and the Demos, they are mostly the same, are just anti-war US bad I hate Bush people.

    Check the current Congress. They have done zip except to try and surrender in Iraq, quit supporting the troops and trap Gonzales..

    What a great record. I mean, that just does so much for the failing Medicare program, drug laws that are insane, federal taxes that are totally unfair...

    Sooner or later in life you must be judged by you have done, and the Demos have done nothing.

    Aren't you ashamed you voted for them???

    And now they are giving up on the NSA because they know Bush is right.

    And I again remind you we can print page after page of quotes from Demos in support of the war. That's a fact. Don't think you can hide.


    Parent

    You avoided my point nicely. (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 06:57:46 AM EST


    Parent
    Molly doesn't care?? (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:07:48 AM EST
    No, you keep forgetting that if loose the country and the culture we have nothing.

    How can a liberal not support a war against radical Moslems who destroy all civil rights in any country/community they gain control of?? Look at these examples.

    The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism. The Danish editor who published the cartoons, Flemming Rose, explained that if Muslims insist "that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos ... they're asking for my submission."

    Link

    Zand-Bonazzi: Well, sadly this young woman was hung in public charged with adultery. The man with whom she had allegedly had sexual relations with was also arrested but he only received 75 lashes apparently and then freed!

    Link1

    Muslims rioting in northern Nigeria have devastated a Christian community in Jjgawa state. At least 18 churches have been destroyed in the city of Dutse.

    LInk2

    Most honor killings occur in countries where the concept of women as a vessel of the family reputation predominates..... honor killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and UgandaIn countries not submitting reports to the UN, the practice was condoned under the rule of the fundamentalist Taliban government in Afghanistan, and has been reported in Iraq and Iran.

    National Geo

    The Whore Lived Like a German"
    By Jody K. Biehl in Berlin

    In the past four months, six Muslim women living in Berlin have been brutally murdered by family members. Their crime? Trying to break free and live Western lifestyles. Within their communities, the killers are revered as heroes for preserving their family dignity.

    Spiegel

    Tell me Molly. Why isn't the Left constantly screaming about such things?? Has the Left's hatred of Bush completely destroyed its ability to condemn those who are truly evil??

    Parent

    Do you seriously think this country is about to be (4.33 / 3) (#56)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:37:29 AM EST
    taken over by Muslim extremists? Little early in the day to be eating mushrooms Jim. I reject your foolishness that "the left" does not condemn the practices that you are wailing about.

    As a self proclaimed social liberal I think you should be more worried by GOP Mullahs who wish to deny civil liberties here. They are a bigger danger and they are more likely to gain control with your voting help.



    Parent

    the Philistine norm (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Sumner on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:04:01 AM EST
    This sounds very much like a case of the "Philistine norm". The "Philistine norm is where people believe themselves to be normal and that the things they treat normal are the norm."

    David Frum Entitled to His Opinion (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by john horse on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:13:15 AM EST
    In this country David Frum is entitled to his opinion.  If he wants to know why he has a right to express his opinion I suggest a visit to Arlington National cemetary.  Many of those soldiers in those graves happen to be of black, brown, and Asian Americans.  Their "attachment to the American nation" was second to none.

    Indeed - this is America so (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by aj12754 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:22:25 AM EST
    he is naturally entitled to his opinion -- and to his deep attachment to the American nation.  

    Of course the fact that his America is some kind of amalgamation of 24 and a Frank Capra movie means that Frum's attachment to reality is tenuous at best.

    Parent

    Rick Perlstein has a question for Frum (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 08:07:37 AM EST
    This nails it.
    I invite Frum, with whom I've had friendly exchanges in the past, to answer me this question: how is your argument different from that of the 1920s nativists, including the Ku Klux Klan, who argued that my Jewish ancestors who became naturalized citizens-as well as Catholics from Eastern Europe--likewise couldn't possibly develop a deep attachment to the American nation.

    I don't think there's any way he can answer.

    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    McCarthy is one of "liberal" ppj's heros. It is not an insult for him but a compliment.

    smear (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:03:18 PM EST


    Parent
    how is it a smear ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 03:44:18 PM EST
    ... when you constantly defend McCarthy?

    Parent
    Self Smearing Social Liberal (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:22:04 PM EST
    If he would only come clean about his ultra right wingdom he would not have so much self hatred. Kind of like Ed Schrock who voted for the Marriage Protection act and was co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.

    Parent
    In Canada's defense (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:54:37 PM EST
    David Frum is the intellectual product of the US advanced education system, not Canada's, which might have saved him from neocon-itis. I'm sure one day he'll finish working out his adolescent rebellion against his famously liberal mom, the much loved and admired broadcast journalist Barbara Frum.

    James Robertson (1.00 / 3) (#3)
    by jarober on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    The fact that you immediately pulled out the race card makes his point better than I could have.

    et al (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:11:09 PM EST
    I think I'll stick with the American people. After all, we have heard this before.

    As Hiram W. Evans....Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, wrote in 1926, ...the old stock American of his time had becomea stranger in large parts of the land his fathers gave him. Moreover, he is a most unwelcome stranger, one much spit upon, and one to whom even the right to have his own opinions and to work for his own interests is now denied with jeers and revilings. `We must Americanize the Americans,' a distinguished immigrant said recently.

    But to the surprised chagrin of the KKK, as well as those who deemed themselves the "leaders" of the immigrants....it didn't work out like that.

    Americans "americanized" the immigrants rather than the other way around. In what is still a largely unheralded triumph of the melting pot, Northern immigrants gradually assimilated the values of Jacksonian individualism. Each generation of new Americans was less "social" and more individualistic than the preceding one. American Catholics, once among the world's most orthodox, remained Catholic in religious allegiance but were increasingly individualistic in terms of psychology and behavior ("I respect the Pope, but I have to follow my own conscience"). Ties to the countries of emigration steadily weakened, and the tendency to marry outside the group strengthened.

    So as disgusted as I am with Big Tent's politics and his continual songs of everyone is dumb but me, I doubt that he is any less a patroit than I. He is just wrong. That neither of us can help.

    If we look at the pictures coming out of Iraq we will find a huge number of "brown skins" out there fighting for their country. With my bias showing I would guess the other large group would be Scot Irsh. That's why I want Universal Military Service. Let's get everyone involved. Even if they don't want to.

    You live here, you serve here. And don't give me any trash about being too busy.

    Link

    Start up the draft! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:31:24 AM EST
    Yeah, that'll make Bush's war a hit. I hope the Republicans are listening.

    Parent
    I didn't say draft... (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:56:02 AM EST
    The word draft brings up visions of some being selected and and some not.

    Universal Military Service means just that, Universal. Like in everbody. Even those with medical problems unless they are severe. Even those who think they are fast tracked to college. Even those who have religious issues can serve in some capacity.

    Universal.

    Would it make people happy? Probably not. But it would let us know who is a patroit, and who is not. It would be there for Congress when they vote on military salaries and supplies. It would be there for Congress and the media when they chat up the war songs. It would be there for the Left, the Middle and the Right.

    Talk, as they say, is cheap.

    Parent

    just another name for ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:23:51 AM EST
    ... involuntary servitude.

    Parent
    sailor (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    So you think serving the country that you are enjoying all the benefits from is slavery?

    What happens when everyone takes your position??

    But wait. We know that the Demos are for surrender.
    Looks like I had the answer all along.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:36:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah ppj, cuz there is no better soldier (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:46:27 PM EST
    than some poor slob who doesn't want to be there and has constant daydreams of being any other place in the whole world.  Of the soldiers that I know they still agree that it is something you have to choose for yourself and if you make that choice and take it that seriously you will approach everything you do wearing that uniform with that same seriousness and frame of mind.  There are still those who come into the ranks that will do things we are not proud of as a nation but those instances will be less when soldiers are dedicated to their jobs and choose those jobs for themselves just like the rest of us.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:02:49 PM EST
    On one hand you don't want the military to fight this war, on the other you claim that a UMS army would be bad.

    Follow this.

    There are only two good duty station/tours. The first is where you have come from, the second is where you are going.

    Every other crew/squad is good and you love'em but the only righteous one is your crew/squad, and as much as you love the others you wish they would get off their behinds and do their fair share.

    The only thing better than one day and a wake up is a wake up.

    The purpose of UMS is not to replace the professional fighting force but to train a large group of people that could be readily available should we get into a war in which our fire power and technology advantages is not applicable.

    That would be to take and hold certain areas rather than go in and kill a bunch and then leave.
    Think surge. Think Iraq.

    It would provide a ready source of military people to do jobs now being done by contractors, which I judge most on the Left thinks would be a good thing.

    It would insure that everyone knows everyone else. Yuppee Jane's little darling would have to quit worrying about his/her entrance into the "right" school for two whole years and learn to live with Jose, Jorge, Bubba and Big John. A learning event in how to be respectful to others, speak American and then only when spoken to. On the flip side, Jose, Jorge, Bubba and Big John would learn that Theodore can hump a pack, clean a weapon/fix a plane and be counted on when the rubber hits the road.

    That would do wonders for the political discourse in this country.


    Parent

    What a bunch of Oscar Myer (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:01:59 AM EST
    I'm only talking what I have been told by other soldiers, to include Jeff Huber online once when this topic came up.  I have friends who strongly believe that we need UMS.  None of them have ever served themselves but they firmly believe that if we went this route there would be no unnecessary wars when everyone stood to loose.  I don't think that UMS is the answer to that particular problem since this administration has proven that any administration can lie us into a war.  Humping a pack is so far removed from what the reality of serving in the U.S. military is today......it is so high tech it isn't even funny.  At least Clinton understood this and started cultivating a well educated military, but Bush has damned near broke that all to heck.  Educated soldiers do tend to think though and start organizations like VoteVets, that can be troublesome as well ;).

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    Your inability to understand is amazing.

    Those that have a distaste for UMS merely means that they are not anti-war, they are just against having to actually be in the war.

    This was plain in the Vietnam era when much of the opposition to the war ended when the draft ended.

    And that you think that physical ability has been removed from war is just plain dumb.

    But my point about the pack really was that from a societal view, the asspociation of disparate groups is a very good thing because it shows that all are equal, all have abilities and all are due respect.

    You have again convinced me that you are associated with the military.

    Parent

    My point of view (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    about the societal view of military service is that it is always very different from the reality of the military service being done.  It is always the same job to be done when called but American society judges soldiers based on their opinion of whether or not the job is a just one.  Some Americans can graduate above blaming the soldiers but there are a lot who can't when they don't feel the job being done is a just one.  I don't think UMS can fix that and if it did what do we do with all these soldiers that really don't want to be soldiers and will not care to study carefully their particular jobs or systems that they will use in that job?  You have again convinced me that you are not associated with the military because most career soldiers do not want UMS, but I'm glad that you have stated above that I have convinced you that I am associated with the military ;)

    Parent
    And as long as a U.S. soldier has to be a (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:48:50 PM EST
    thinking for self human being there is much less chance of the United States ever having ranks large enough that some fruitcake behind the podium decides a little world domination would be fun.

    Parent
    News to me (none / 0) (#2)
    by koshembos on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 08:50:58 PM EST
    It turns out that I lived 60 years before learning that love of a country depends on the color of the skin. Do you think he meant red necks, like native Americans?

    This reminds me ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 09:21:43 PM EST
    ... of the time Bush referred to Middle Easterners as people who 'don't look like us', in answer to which I have observed that the people he was talking about were mostly olive-skinned 'white' people with deep suntans, not unlike myself if I lived in Iraq rather than halfway to the North Pole.

    No... (none / 0) (#6)
    by jarober on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 10:10:43 PM EST
    The biggest worry is that people wanting to come here legally find it onerous to do so.  Right now, we make it easy for low skilled labor to come here, and hard for high skilled labor to do so.  How does that make sense?

    Dear God Unbelievable (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    Our family is friends with a female Major who's family immigrated here from China when she was a child. In America she matters even though she is a woman and she can even be a soldier, the very idea of that just tickles this woman to no end because her opportunities were so limited in China and she knew that even as a child she says.  She is a very serious career soldier, her military resume puts to shame most of the guys she serves with and they will admit it too, and sometimes I think she's too patriotic and too attached to America (how ironic).  A past enlisted soldier is now a new warrant officer and helicopter pilot, he is also an immigrant from Sierra Leon.  His mother just left here after coming for a visit.  She loves Sierra Leon and her son loves America and is more appreciative of what America stands for and means in the grand scheme than I am......I take it for granted every day, I have never known anything different from being a lotus in the lotus sactuary.  He is also obviously a career soldier who will willingly go where ever his CIC tells him to and lay down his life. He is so happy to be an American and serve America, I can't even paint you a word picture of his face or his spirit here. In this current climate I have told these people I think they are blindly loyal sometimes.  Who is more deeply attached to the American nation though?  Is it me, this pale chick many generations born within the borders and eager to find fault with its leadership or these two brown people who would give their last breath for this nation?

    Excellent point, MT. (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 02:34:54 PM EST
    A quote from another, non-political, blog I read on occasion:
    Thnx so much guys for all the kind words, obviously for my immigrant parents this is an insanely big night, so as cool as it is for me and it is darn cool, the fact I can make Mom and Dad proud is a HUGE deal, especially since last week I was in Hungary and in Tokaji and we went to the Ukraine ( I was born in the former Soviet Union) and after a day there I just want to do anything I can for my folks for getting me the hell out of there!


    Parent
    This post surely went off the rails very (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:47:56 PM EST
    quickly.

    A thought.  In Carlos Eire's memoir, Waiting for Snow in Havana, he describes arriving in Miami from Havana with his 15 year old older brother.  They were immediately called "spic," a term he had never heard before.

    The Brown Ones | 62 comments (62 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment