I am heartbroken to report that, yet again, America’s leader has lied to his public.
I know there were millions out there who knew all along it would happen, that this supposed man of the people, this demagogue, would first drive his deluded followers to betray their own country in the name of his twisted ideology, then he would sell out the entire nation to the highest bidder. Really, it should come as no surprise, what with his record of deception, distortion, and back room deals, that what with his drug abusing past, that this fraud was not a real American at all. That this charlatan was born, bred, and programmed to lie to us. You just have to wonder why so many swallowed his lies for so long.
Now, hopefully, everyone sees him for who he is.
I am, of course, talking about Rush Limbaugh and him backing out of his pledge to move to Costa Rica if the health care bill got passed. It did and he’s still here backtracking faster than a train-wreck in reverse. Small surprise Limbaugh is against healthcare, he’s made so many of us so sick to our stomach.
But to tell the tale–as of Monday March 22nd, everyone from the Phoenix Examiner to the Huffington Post are cackling over Media Matters’ transcription of Limbaugh now clarifying what he really meant in his little hyperbolic hyperventilation. Thanks Rush, i was so way off base. Like millions of Americans, when Limbaugh said, “If this passes and it’s five years from now, and all that stuff gets implemented, I am leaving the country. I’ll go to Costa Rica,” I thought he meant he was leaving the country and going to Costa Rica. Silly me, so confused by such simple words.
On the Monday morning-after, after the bill wound up being passed in a marathon Sunday session that went so long Energizer Bunnies were panting for at least a pee-break, when it was time for Mr. Limbaugh to put up or … well, you know, Rush’s fate worse than death, Limbaugh quickly clarified: “Who thought that I said I would move to Costa Rica if we got health care passed? No, no, no once all this implemented I am going there for my health care.”
And who could blame him for a choice like that?
Costa Rica has universal health care just like all civilized countries do. Oh, i mean except for the US. We have the finest healthcare system in the world, or so i heard some Republican representative say. Well, barely heard that is, above the sound of 45,000,000 uninsured Americans laughing out loud at his audacity, and the 45,000 who died last year from lack of health care rolling over in their mass grave. Truth is World Health Organization actually ranks us 37th in the world, right behind, you guessed it, Costa Rica.
To be sure there was hypocrisy on both sides and meaningless slogans made more meaningless by multitudinous repetition, but around hour five of watching the debate the necessity of this bill passing became incredibly clear. It sometime around the time when Rep Nunes was calling the bill writing process totalitarian when his party was merely being spanked by their own Bush-era tactics. Or maybe it was when Rep. Darrel Issa was weeping over the 80 GOP amendments that got ignored as an example of the partisan nature of the bill, at the same time Issa himself was ignoring the 200 GOP amendments that did get included.
And just saying: if they seriously cared about the fact that we are borrowing 43% of our budget and creating a deficit, they could easily cut it from the 51% of our national budget that goes to the military and still have our military spending be nearly 10% of our national budget and it would still be double what we spend on educating our children.
Maybe it was right before Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer led the GOP to turn their tact to suggesting anti-abortion Dems were “baby killers” because Obama’s promise of issuing an executive order to prohibit federally funded abortion was nothing more than a worthless piece of paper since executive orders are farcically meaningless. Except, of course for the 800 or so executive orders of George Bush which so obstructed the will of Congress that in July of 2008, a televised House of Representatives hearing questioned whether Bush’s use of executive orders was so tyrannical it was tantamount to an impeachable offense.
And seriously, if one could accurately count the number who have died because they couldn’t, and/or their health insurance company wouldn’t, pay for their medical treatment since Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) was 1st thwarted in his effort to set up a universal health system, the number would easily dwarf the supposed “American Holocaust” right-to-lifers have harangued about since Roe V. Wade. Of course the Right’s hypocrisy on this issue is so bald it beleaguers the imagination, since they in general have endorsed the holocaust of dead babies our country has created in our wars and incursions since 1973. Of course they don’t seem to care much for mommies either since childbirth deaths in women have been on the rise since the 1st Bush was in power. Perhaps his thousand points of light were actually underinsured mothers getting their wings.
Actually if you just counted the death and suffering of those denied sufficient medical care due to expense merely since Clinton gave up on chasing universal health care in favor of making DNA deposits on Monica’s blue dress, the numbers would be enough to make Bush the Butcher look like a compassionate conservative. And truly he was, for even if he killed a million Iraqis, he did make sure they receive universal health care. The title of this piece is not just some sleazy sex joke about a bikini wax (not merely that), because the stain of their years in allegiance to Bush shades every one of Limbaugh and his Congressional lackeys’ words.
If the Right actually cared about the dignity of life, they’d be insisting on universal healthcare for the millions of women who suffer from the twin evils of illness and poverty in obscurity, and not grandstanding for extraordinary measures for the Terri Schiavos of the world when the cameras were watching. If they really cared about the sanctity of life they would have stopped Bush, or would have denounced him by now and would turn away from a fraud like Limbaugh, who championed Bush then, and have now become so Conservative he simply champions BS. If Rush lied to you about Bush, what makes you think that he isn’t lying to you now? How many other things have you been lied to about? Death panels, government takeovers, and baby-killing, to name a few. And that’s just this one bill.
And no, do not misunderstand or simplify my point. Like most liberals there is much i hate about this bill. To be gentle, this bill sucks sorrier than a rickety respirator; BUT– It is indeed better than nothing, been terribly distorted by its opponents, does take several necessary 1st steps to long term improvements, and but one of the key battles in the Right V. Left Charade. Sure the whole show is run by the richest 1% or so, not matter which party appears to be in power; but down here at ground level; the right is going ballistic and they already bought the bullets to get there.
To judge the Right by their own rhetoric, they are getting ready to start lynching parties as soon as they tire of tea and they are continuingly get ramped up to reach for the headier stuff. Make no mistake, this really is a culture war and the other side has taken no pledge of non-violence. All by itself that was enough reason to cheer for this bill’s passage.
It is in the entire country’s best interest to have a train-wreck like the GOP juggernaut derailed as frequently as possible. With Americans like Limbaugh and Beck, we won’t need any foreign terrorists; we’ll destroy ourselves. Right now, the Right needs continuing discreditation and invalidation, or we are all headed for Rwanda, people.
BTW, here’s a pretty good link summarizing the healthcare bill:
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bgemw/so_healthcare_has_passed_can_someone/c0mngn3
–mikel weisser writes from the left coast of AZ.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
"Dear Vets," Part 6, the Wrap Up, "Survey Said..."
What a long strange trip this has been. When I started this series I never dreamt, and the colleague who originated the survey certainly never imagined, how many people would end up having to weigh their opinions about veterans as a result of my efforts to distribute his survey. I just received a request from an anti-war group in San Diego to reprint the original survey and my original replies, and subsequently discovered the GI Rights News has reposted the whole series so far, so who knows how far this articles' impact may yet reach. And believe me readers, I am far from settled on the issue myself. I have learned far too much to conclude tidily; but now it's time to wrap it up, so let's answer some basic questions, starting with: Who all was surveyed? Well you, for example, and anyone else who has read even a couple of paragraphs in this series, or actually gone through all five previous installments, all of us have had our opinions examined, if not by me, then hopefully by yourself. And then there are the people I have interviewed or talked to on this subject these last six weeks, folks who had to come to some opinion about veterans in particular, the military as a whole, and war in general, especially the most recent wars , the ones so many current vets stake their reputation on. Judging from the strident comments posted on the various websites that ran this series (7 different sites), it seems for the most part that Americans, western Arizonans in particular, who are so quick to champion our veterans, can't say much good about the wars their heroes have fought in. No, no one wants to hate their veteran family members or friends (unless they are truly detestable and generally not even then), but far more Americans, even western Arizonans, are willing to admit they have little love for their wars. Unfortunately, however, war seems to be the kind of thing most Americans don't regret till afterward. According the most recent Gallup poll online, " seven out of 10 Americans (69%) still believe that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake." In the 90s George H.W. Bush could not even get re-elected in the wake of our national disappointment over the Persian Gulf War and the governmental neglect of the hundreds of thousands of supposedly-cherished disabled vets who the military tried to sweep under the rug in their decades-long denial of Gulf War Syndrome. Grenada and Panama are but the butt of jokes; and our Latin American adventures are a global embarrassment. By as early as May of 2007, only about four years after the glorious start of the current quagmire, "the New York Times and CBS News' poll [showed] 61% believed the U.S. 'should have stayed out' of Iraq." CNN polls show opposition to the Iraq Occupation has been as high as 70% since then. A survey of the literature available on vets also shows a decided no-vote on the efficacy of modern American warfare, at least as for its impact on those required to practice it. The military experience once thought to season a person, often does so at what we now understand to be a terrible price. I scanned several dozens of articles and recommend the single dozen links I've attached as a bibliography at the bottom of this column . But to summarize: various articles talk about the most glaring disservice our military does to its members, the sheer number of vets who find themselves homeless--1/4 to 1/3 of all the homeless on any given night are vets. Other articles note the outlandish rates of sexual harassment in the military, the increased rates of vets likely to have drug or addiction problems, or be convicted of violent/sexually violent crimes and the long-term dehumanizing effects of military training, much less PTSD. The holy myth that time in service is good for a person's character and is the noblest way to show one's love of country is again and again shown to be less a sacred vessel and more of a sieve: it only looks solid till the truth starts seeping through. Lastly, i need to note that as I've shared the life of this column with others, I also have received many amazing testimonials of people's personal experiences with the military, some of which I would like to honor here. This past Sunday, for example, I attended the ongoing Kingman peace vigils (2nd and 4th Sundays of the month, 12:00-12:30p at the corner of Stockton Hill Rd. and Airway) which are organized by Christine Meisenheimer, a local vet. Meisenheimer was also a founder of the La Crosse, Wisconsin chapter of Ladies in Black, an international anti-war group begun by grieving war-widows and mothers of dead soldiers. But back in 1977 Meisenheimer was a personal officer, a Lt. JG, in the Air Force when she had her change of heart. "I just didn't want to be part of a killing machine anymore. No matter what you do in the military you are part of its killing machine and I just couldn't keep doing that."She wrote to the Pentagon and requested humanitarian discharge. Her request was accepted "no questions asked." Like me, Christine, joined in the Vietnam aftermath, a time when the military itself was quick to dismiss doubters, having just been immensely burned by the PR disaster that was Vietnam. The Sunday before, a car tore into the parking lot near the corner where Meisenheimer and her crowd of anti-warriors gathered, waving at traffic and hoisting signs. An angry looking older man stormed up to the crowd and demanded to know if there were any vets present. We pointed out Meisenheimer in her wheelchair, out on the front row of protesters battling the wind as she tried to raise two signs. Also on that corner was a decorated Viet vet, Bert Garcia, wearing his VFW hat. These days he won't talk too much about his time in service except to say, "As soon as I got out, I became peace activist." "OK," the angry man muttered sheepishly and left without further word. Meisenheimer and Garcia are just two of thousands of veterans and former military who organize against war. Groups such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Iraq Veterans Against the War are highly visible at peace protests around the country. According to a phone call to their St. Louis office, Veterans for Peace nationally boasts about 6000 activist-members, including until recently one of the most celebrated vets for peace ever, the last historian, Howard Zinn. The VFP Phoenix area contact, John Henry is also Vietnam vet. In a phone interview, I asked him why so many Americans remain in love with the idea of war, even after they have been through the experience firsthand? "God, that is the question isn't it? If we knew how to answer that one then maybe things could really change. I'd guess that like most of us, most of them, the gung-ho vets, went into the military because they had issues. Something went wrong in their lives or they wouldn't have chosen the military. At the time it seemed the best offer they were going to get and then once they have made that choice, they have to keep believing it was the right one. Keep in mind most servicemen don't do the actual fighting. They are somewhere in the military, but not the front lines. They personally hadn't experienced anything particularly traumatic, haven't seen the people dying, the devastation. They buy into the premise we are doing great things by placing our soldiers around the world, that they are the people making America's greatness. They can't put it in their mind as doing something evil. As long as we can shop at our Starbucks we don't care about what we are doing to people in other countries. So they remain that way, sit at the bar at the VFW and continue their lives and still they cannot fathom what we are doing in war. But look at this: the current Iraq War was started, we say, so we could get Saddam Hussein. Well, we got him. And to get that one person we sacrificed almost a million lives. That was for our freedom? If you must take the blood of an innocent person, much less a million people and all the wounded and the refugees, to get revenge against one person who was that nation's leader, it's a lie to say it was about our freedom." The most compelling response came from a Vietnam-era veteran I met in Phoenix at that city's 1st annual Festival for Peace back in February, activist and educator, former Marine, Ahmad Daniels. Like myself and Christine Meisenheimer, Mr. Daniels decided to leave the military while in the active service, but unlike us, Daniels made his decision in 1967 during the height of the war and while in the Marines. He faced a horrendous series of consequences for his decision of conscience. Here is his own story, as sent by email: "When the Marine Corps' General Court-Martial sentenced me to 10 years and a dishonorable discharge (DD) in 1967, I was not shaken. Perhaps at the age of 19, ten years behind bars did not seem as ominous as it would today. Or maybe I was too naive and could not fully grasp the ramifications of having to go through life with a DD. While all of this may be true to some degree, what weighed heavier was my belief the war in Viet Nam was an unjust war and my convictions would not allow me to participate in such a travesty of justice. At the time I did not know that Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. took a bold and uncompromising stand against the War in Viet Nam. And even though Dr. King was harshly criticized by other Civil Rights leaders, King was clear on how he viewed America's acts of aggression. King would go on to admit he would have temporarily suspended his pacifism during WWII because Hitler was such a tyrant. Yet, he saw no such parallel in what was unfolding in Viet Nam. Whereas Dr. King's opposition to the war had universal appeal, mine was more personal. Having been told one Sunday morning (Jan. 1967) to leave an all white church in Middleton, TN, (did I mention I was in full Marine regalia?) I begin to ponder why was I training to fight and possibly die to defend a way of life (Jim Crow) that I did not subscribe to? Surely this was no battle for Blacks who had in previous wars come back from having gallantly served in Europe only to return to the USA where many were lynched from light poles while still in uniform. My initial opposition to fighting in Viet Nam stemmed from by belief it was a "white man's" war and Blacks had no place in that battle. My discussions with other Black Marines at Camp Pendleton entailed conversations stemming from news magazines depicting tanks mounted with 50 caliber machine guns rolling down the streets of Newark and Detroit during the hot summer of 1967. A period when racial insurrections tore at the seams of America. I could not, nor could the other Black Marines, make sense of going thousands of miles to wage a fight in Viet Nam when war was raging in our own neighborhood. Thus my decision to request mast and start the chain-of-command process of speaking with the Commanding General of Camp Pendleton to ask him 'why we should go to Viet Nam?' Having started with a staff sergeant who promptly admonished myself and a dozen other Black Marines that we would be charged with mutiny if we continued on this course of action, all decided to abandon the idea. It was only a week or so later the Office of Naval Intelligence was called in and they began questioning Black Marines to determine what impact my thinking had on their following orders from Marine superiors. A short time after that L/Cpl W. Harvey and myself, PFC. G. Daniels were arrested for violating a 1940 Smith-Act which made it a crime to "counsel, urge, cause and attempt to cause insubordination and refusal of duty." Four months later Harvey and me were court-martialed and sentenced to 6 and 10 years respectively and sent to Portsmouth Naval Disciplinary Command in Portsmouth, NH. Months later, I would learn of the ACLU and a relationship would begin that involved their representing Harvey and me on appeal and bringing national and international attention to our legal lynching. Finally, after over two years of incarceration, the Court of Military Appeals reversed the findings of the trail court and both of us received back pay and honorable discharges. Am I against all wars? No. I believe raising opposition to your country's international policies takes a great deal of soul searching and can not be done easily. I was confident I was doing the right thing because my conscience was clear then and remains so to this day." I could not end on nobler words, so I won't attempt to. Thank you all for all I have learned in this process. Back to my usual comedy column next issue. --mikel weisser writes from the left coast of AZ. Some Sources Cited and/or Recommended
http://www.commondreams.org/... --2002 Opinion piece on military training and post-military violence.
http://www.jointogether.org/... --2002 Article about vet increased risk of drug or alcohol addiction.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/... --2008 Article about suicide rates in returning vets.
http://www.counterpunch.org/... --2006 Article by retired Marine sergeant about connection between military training and atrocities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... --2009 Article on increase in violence among returning vets.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/... -- 2007 Article noting that veterans are less likely to go to jail than average population, but more likely to be jailed for violent/sexually violent crime.
http://www.antiwar.com/... --2008 article on Iraq vets testifying about war crimes and atrocities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/... --Wikipedia on Sexual Harassment in the Military.
http://www.nwlc.org/... --1992 white paper on sexual harassment in the military, rates have dropped since then, but are still outlandish.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/... --2008 news network update on newer stats on military sexual harassment.
http://www.nchv.org/... --National Coalition for Homeless Vets website.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ --Veterans for Peace website.
http://www.commondreams.org/... --2002 Opinion piece on military training and post-military violence.
http://www.jointogether.org/... --2002 Article about vet increased risk of drug or alcohol addiction.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/... --2008 Article about suicide rates in returning vets.
http://www.counterpunch.org/... --2006 Article by retired Marine sergeant about connection between military training and atrocities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... --2009 Article on increase in violence among returning vets.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/... -- 2007 Article noting that veterans are less likely to go to jail than average population, but more likely to be jailed for violent/sexually violent crime.
http://www.antiwar.com/... --2008 article on Iraq vets testifying about war crimes and atrocities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/... --Wikipedia on Sexual Harassment in the Military.
http://www.nwlc.org/... --1992 white paper on sexual harassment in the military, rates have dropped since then, but are still outlandish.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/... --2008 news network update on newer stats on military sexual harassment.
http://www.nchv.org/... --National Coalition for Homeless Vets website.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ --Veterans for Peace website.
"Dear Vets" Part 6, the Wrap Up, "Survey Said ..."
What a long strange trip this has been. When I started this series I never dreamt, and the colleague who originated the survey certainly never imagined, how many people would end up having to weigh their opinions about veterans as a result of my efforts to distribute his survey. I just received a request from an anti-war group in San Diego to reprint the original survey and my original replies, and subsequently discovered the GI Rights News has reposted the whole series so far, so who knows how far this articles' impact may yet reach. And believe me readers, I am far from settled on the issue myself. I have learned far too much to conclude tidily; but now it's time to wrap it up, so let's answer some basic questions, starting with: Who all was surveyed? Well you, for example, and anyone else who has read even a couple of paragraphs in this series, or actually gone through all five previous installments, all of us have had our opinions examined, if not by me, then hopefully by yourself. And then there are the people I have interviewed or talked to on this subject these last six weeks, folks who had to come to some opinion about veterans in particular, the military as a whole, and war in general, especially the most recent wars , the ones so many current vets stake their reputation on. Judging from the strident comments posted on the various websites that ran this series (7 different sites), it seems for the most part that Americans, western Arizonans in particular, who are so quick to champion our veterans, can't say much good about the wars their heroes have fought in. No, no one wants to hate their veteran family members or friends (unless they are truly detestable and generally not even then), but far more Americans, even western Arizonans, are willing to admit they have little love for their wars. Unfortunately, however, war seems to be the kind of thing most Americans don't regret till afterward. According the most recent Gallup poll online, " seven out of 10 Americans (69%) still believe that sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake." In the 90s George H.W. Bush could not even get re-elected in the wake of our national disappointment over the Persian Gulf War and the governmental neglect of the hundreds of thousands of supposedly-cherished disabled vets who the military tried to sweep under the rug in their decades-long denial of Gulf War Syndrome. Grenada and Panama are but the butt of jokes; and our Latin American adventures are a global embarrassment. By as early as May of 2007, only about four years after the glorious start of the current quagmire, "the New York Times and CBS News' poll [showed] 61% believed the U.S. 'should have stayed out' of Iraq." CNN polls show opposition to the Iraq Occupation has been as high as 70% since then. A survey of the literature available on vets also shows a decided no-vote on the efficacy of modern American warfare, at least as for its impact on those required to practice it. The military experience once thought to season a person, often does so at what we now understand to be a terrible price. I scanned several dozens of articles and recommend the single dozen links I've attached as a bibliography at the bottom of this column . But to summarize: various articles talk about the most glaring disservice our military does to its members, the sheer number of vets who find themselves homeless--1/4 to 1/3 of all the homeless on any given night are vets. Other articles note the outlandish rates of sexual harassment in the military, the increased rates of vets likely to have drug or addiction problems, or be convicted of violent/sexually violent crimes and the long-term dehumanizing effects of military training, much less PTSD. The holy myth that time in service is good for a person's character and is the noblest way to show one's love of country is again and again shown to be less a sacred vessel and more of a sieve: it only looks solid till the truth starts seeping through. Lastly, i need to note that as I've shared the life of this column with others, I also have received many amazing testimonials of people's personal experiences with the military, some of which I would like to honor here. This past Sunday, for example, I attended the ongoing Kingman peace vigils (2nd and 4th Sundays of the month, 12:00-12:30p at the corner of Stockton Hill Rd. and Airway) which are organized by Christine Meisenheimer, a local vet. Meisenheimer was also a founder of the La Crosse, Wisconsin chapter of Ladies in Black, an international anti-war group begun by grieving war-widows and mothers of dead soldiers. But back in 1977 Meisenheimer was a personal officer, a Lt. JG, in the Air Force when she had her change of heart. "I just didn't want to be part of a killing machine anymore. No matter what you do in the military you are part of its killing machine and I just couldn't keep doing that."She wrote to the Pentagon and requested humanitarian discharge. Her request was accepted "no questions asked." Like me, Christine, joined in the Vietnam aftermath, a time when the military itself was quick to dismiss doubters, having just been immensely burned by the PR disaster that was Vietnam. The Sunday before, a car tore into the parking lot near the corner where Meisenheimer and her crowd of anti-warriors gathered, waving at traffic and hoisting signs. An angry looking older man stormed up to the crowd and demanded to know if there were any vets present. We pointed out Meisenheimer in her wheelchair, out on the front row of protesters battling the wind as she tried to raise two signs. Also on that corner was a decorated Viet vet, Bert Garcia, wearing his VFW hat. These days he won't talk too much about his time in service except to say, "As soon as I got out, I became peace activist." "OK," the angry man muttered sheepishly and left without further word. Meisenheimer and Garcia are just two of thousands of veterans and former military who organize against war. Groups such as Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Iraq Veterans Against the War are highly visible at peace protests around the country. According to a phone call to their St. Louis office, Veterans for Peace nationally boasts about 6000 activist-members, including until recently one of the most celebrated vets for peace ever, the last historian, Howard Zinn. The VFP Phoenix area contact, John Henry is also Vietnam vet. In a phone interview, I asked him why so many Americans remain in love with the idea of war, even after they have been through the experience firsthand? "God, that is the question isn't it? If we knew how to answer that one then maybe things could really change. I'd guess that like most of us, most of them, the gung-ho vets, went into the military because they had issues. Something went wrong in their lives or they wouldn't have chosen the military. At the time it seemed the best offer they were going to get and then once they have made that choice, they have to keep believing it was the right one. Keep in mind most servicemen don't do the actual fighting. They are somewhere in the military, but not the front lines. They personally hadn't experienced anything particularly traumatic, haven't seen the people dying, the devastation. They buy into the premise we are doing great things by placing our soldiers around the world, that they are the people making America's greatness. They can't put it in their mind as doing something evil. As long as we can shop at our Starbucks we don't care about what we are doing to people in other countries. So they remain that way, sit at the bar at the VFW and continue their lives and still they cannot fathom what we are doing in war. But look at this: the current Iraq War was started, we say, so we could get Saddam Hussein. Well, we got him. And to get that one person we sacrificed almost a million lives. That was for our freedom? If you must take the blood of an innocent person, much less a million people and all the wounded and the refugees, to get revenge against one person who was that nation's leader, it's a lie to say it was about our freedom." The most compelling response came from a Vietnam-era veteran I met in Phoenix at that city's 1st annual Festival for Peace back in February, activist and educator, former Marine, Ahmad Daniels. Like myself and Christine Meisenheimer, Mr. Daniels decided to leave the military while in the active service, but unlike us, Daniels made his decision in 1967 during the height of the war and while in the Marines. He faced a horrendous series of consequences for his decision of conscience. Here is his own story, as sent by email: "When the Marine Corps' General Court-Martial sentenced me to 10 years and a dishonorable discharge (DD) in 1967, I was not shaken. Perhaps at the age of 19, ten years behind bars did not seem as ominous as it would today. Or maybe I was too naive and could not fully grasp the ramifications of having to go through life with a DD. While all of this may be true to some degree, what weighed heavier was my belief the war in Viet Nam was an unjust war and my convictions would not allow me to participate in such a travesty of justice. At the time I did not know that Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. took a bold and uncompromising stand against the War in Viet Nam. And even though Dr. King was harshly criticized by other Civil Rights leaders, King was clear on how he viewed America's acts of aggression. King would go on to admit he would have temporarily suspended his pacifism during WWII because Hitler was such a tyrant. Yet, he saw no such parallel in what was unfolding in Viet Nam. Whereas Dr. King's opposition to the war had universal appeal, mine was more personal. Having been told one Sunday morning (Jan. 1967) to leave an all white church in Middleton, TN, (did I mention I was in full Marine regalia?) I begin to ponder why was I training to fight and possibly die to defend a way of life (Jim Crow) that I did not subscribe to? Surely this was no battle for Blacks who had in previous wars come back from having gallantly served in Europe only to return to the USA where many were lynched from light poles while still in uniform. My initial opposition to fighting in Viet Nam stemmed from by belief it was a "white man's" war and Blacks had no place in that battle. My discussions with other Black Marines at Camp Pendleton entailed conversations stemming from news magazines depicting tanks mounted with 50 caliber machine guns rolling down the streets of Newark and Detroit during the hot summer of 1967. A period when racial insurrections tore at the seams of America. I could not, nor could the other Black Marines, make sense of going thousands of miles to wage a fight in Viet Nam when war was raging in our own neighborhood. Thus my decision to request mast and start the chain-of-command process of speaking with the Commanding General of Camp Pendleton to ask him 'why we should go to Viet Nam?' Having started with a staff sergeant who promptly admonished myself and a dozen other Black Marines that we would be charged with mutiny if we continued on this course of action, all decided to abandon the idea. It was only a week or so later the Office of Naval Intelligence was called in and they began questioning Black Marines to determine what impact my thinking had on their following orders from Marine superiors. A short time after that L/Cpl W. Harvey and myself, PFC. G. Daniels were arrested for violating a 1940 Smith-Act which made it a crime to "counsel, urge, cause and attempt to cause insubordination and refusal of duty." Four months later Harvey and me were court-martialed and sentenced to 6 and 10 years respectively and sent to Portsmouth Naval Disciplinary Command in Portsmouth, NH. Months later, I would learn of the ACLU and a relationship would begin that involved their representing Harvey and me on appeal and bringing national and international attention to our legal lynching. Finally, after over two years of incarceration, the Court of Military Appeals reversed the findings of the trail court and both of us received back pay and honorable discharges. Am I against all wars? No. I believe raising opposition to your country's international policies takes a great deal of soul searching and can not be done easily. I was confident I was doing the right thing because my conscience was clear then and remains so to this day." I could not end on nobler words, so I won't attempt to. Thank you all for all I have learned in this process. Back to my usual comedy column next issue. --mikel weisser writes from the left coast of AZ. Some Sources Cited and/or Recommended
http://www.commondreams.org/... --2002 Opinion piece on military training and post-military violence.
http://www.jointogether.org/... --2002 Article about vet increased risk of drug or alcohol addiction.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/... --2008 Article about suicide rates in returning vets.
http://www.counterpunch.org/... --2006 Article by retired Marine sergeant about connection between military training and atrocities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... --2009 Article on increase in violence among returning vets.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/... -- 2007 Article noting that veterans are less likely to go to jail than average population, but more likely to be jailed for violent/sexually violent crime.
http://www.antiwar.com/... --2008 article on Iraq vets testifying about war crimes and atrocities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/... --Wikipedia on Sexual Harassment in the Military.
http://www.nwlc.org/... --1992 white paper on sexual harassment in the military, rates have dropped since then, but are still outlandish.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/... --2008 news network update on newer stats on military sexual harassment.
http://www.nchv.org/... --National Coalition for Homeless Vets website.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ --Veterans for Peace website.
http://www.commondreams.org/... --2002 Opinion piece on military training and post-military violence.
http://www.jointogether.org/... --2002 Article about vet increased risk of drug or alcohol addiction.
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/... --2008 Article about suicide rates in returning vets.
http://www.counterpunch.org/... --2006 Article by retired Marine sergeant about connection between military training and atrocities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... --2009 Article on increase in violence among returning vets.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/... -- 2007 Article noting that veterans are less likely to go to jail than average population, but more likely to be jailed for violent/sexually violent crime.
http://www.antiwar.com/... --2008 article on Iraq vets testifying about war crimes and atrocities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/... --Wikipedia on Sexual Harassment in the Military.
http://www.nwlc.org/... --1992 white paper on sexual harassment in the military, rates have dropped since then, but are still outlandish.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/... --2008 news network update on newer stats on military sexual harassment.
http://www.nchv.org/... --National Coalition for Homeless Vets website.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/ --Veterans for Peace website.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Dear Vets, part 5:"Blaming Rape Victims"?
o One of the best things about writing a column like this is getting to learn how others think. I have received so many angry letters on this series. I have been challenged often and well from a variety of angles from the curt and uncensored "F__ you"s over on the Daily Kos to thousand word commentaries, from numerous encouragements to leave the country because i don't deserve to live in the land of freedom to a wonderfully worded debate on Buddhist tenets i violated in my "attack on vets." o But to me the quintessential retort i get runs along the lines of the message sent from Dave in Bremerton who equated my holding military personnel responsible for military actions "approximately the same as blaming rape victims for rape." o I think not. More like blaming the pregnant girl who wouldn't use birth control, because she thought she would keep safe or be lucky. Dude, you KNEW they were going to screw you. Talk about "Just Say No." I knew it 30 years ago when i joined and joined anyway figuring i could tolerate the obvious wrongness of the whole enterprise and then when i didn't want to be the kind of person who would stomach that crap any longer i got out. When i heard what garbage we were spewing, when i saw the death we were creating, when i saw that the whole thing was set up to internally and externally produce oppression, i said that's wrong by me and i won't do this. I literally sat on the floor and refused to move. I wound up with an honorable discharge through sheer good fortune, but it was a lesson that i learned. And i was not the only person in the military to choose to turn their back on it no matter the consequences because they could not continue to support the cause. Hundreds maybe thousands refuse to serve, and thousands more vets join anti-war groups. I am not a vet, mere former military, but as the song goes, i came to a point where i just wasn't "gonna study war no more." To me the person who joins and won't come to that point is A) dense, or B) into it, and since i now think, for the last 30 years that is, now think the whole mess is wrong, i have to think the people are wrong if they support it. Our brave men were just soldiers doing what they were told? How far down the line do you give forgiveness to a 1940s German soldier who killed Americans because "he was just following orders"? Still having been in the service and having gotten out, i used to be sympathetic to the impulse that would make one join. But my late wife would call me on it every time on the hypocrisy of my saying, "I'm against the war, but i support the troops." The troops are making the war. They offered to be the sword. It's a moral choice to me. Suppose they gave a war and nobody came. I still believe it was more than just a crappy 70s movie, it's a doable idea. Politicians can call all they want for valor and honor when what they actually want are pre-emptive wars of aggression or propping up resource controlling 3rd world dictators who are US business partners; but they aren't the ones having to blow-up buildings or dodge bullets. Congress has the power to declare war because it was meant to be the people's choice to go to arms. Washington didn't even want standing armies. In every war since Vietnam, the folly has been plain to see to those who look at our government with a critical eye. I am not a lone voice crying in the wilderness on this one. I'm just a guy with a TV and a computer finding basic widely available info that counters the official government story or at least calls me to question it. Again and again. Republo-crat, Demo-lican, doesn't seem to make a difference. In war and in peace they lie and distort, using our own loyalty of country as weapon against us--a weapon of mass deception; and it is our right, our duty, to stand against government hypocrisy, deception and wrongheadedness. So i actto work against war, and i am only one of thousands, probably tens of thousands of voices trying to battle against the noise machine that clamors for more war and more consumption and that the world was meant to be a battlefield. I did this, i turned against war. Others also did this, you can do it too. If the people will not support the war, the war can be stopped. But we will never want to stop a war as long as we as a people always have a dog in the hunt. We don't want to admit our country was wrong or that our loved were wrong to enable it with their numbers; and we surely don't want our loved ones in the military to have to admit the fighting might have been in vain. If they really are just loved ones, how could you support as they enter into, engage in, or afterwards champion an industry based on hate. You cannot claim to love the warrior and claim to hate the war. Well, you could claim it, but with a lie that obvious, what's the point? Without the war, what is left of the warrior? Some say 'well then love the man,' and i say yes; then if you hate the war and love the man then you won't want to honor its mark upon him. --mikel weisser writes from the left coast of AZ
Dear Vets, part four: The No Thank You Letter
I've learned a lot since i first agreed to distribute a survey about veterans. Over the course of this month i have surveyed far more of my fellow citizens than my colleague ever imagined. Like i say, i've learned a lot, far too much to finish off with this column; but we definitely have a purpose this week: the no thank you letter. See, that was the other part of the survey. Turns out, as i expected, the overall intention of the one page survey i distributed, which started this whole thing, was to get people to fill in the forms on the one page thank you letter on the back of the survey, to subsequently collect the letters and send them on to vets. That part was easy. But filling out my own letter was trickier. So, i thought, well, i'll write a "No Thank You" Letter instead, how about that? Ha-ha, thought it would be fun. At the time, i never intended to send my screed of invective anywhere near any actual vet; but that is just what happened with the first veteran i ran into. When i finished ripping through the questionnaire and slapped together what i've thought of as a witty string of broadsides at the military, i checked the time and dashed off to lunch to share my questionnaire's ideas with the lunch crowd and it turned out among them was my friend, a Navy vet. Or should i say my ex-friend, the Navy vet. We'd worked together for years. We had argued over about every red state-blue state issue available in the last several years of working together in modern contentious America and still somehow we worked together and joked together. He would always roll his eyes at me and sigh in a comically forlorn way, like my stupidity made him tired. It all worked out well enough up until, well, this. He was visibly wounded by my would-be clever little questionnaire and no thank you letter, though we talked it through., but when the first column came out, that was the last straw. He still hasn't recovered and neither has our friendship. He returned my beat up old Willie Nelson songbook by leaving it on my desk and these days has that forlorn look well before i have time to say anything. And that was just the beginning. The sheer number of Vet related experiences i have encountered make clear there's no clean way to wrap this up. Veterans are intertwined all through the fabric of our country. But i have not come to believe they are our country or have a greater right to dictate their will in it, or even that their actions either during a war or after it are necessarily good for it. I still think if vets want to demand a due consideration for their posts in the military they need then also to take responsibility for results of their actions in that military. Been a while since we had a good war. I have been alive half a century and seen US military involved repeatedly in wars of oppression. It was plain to see and since the 60s generations of American peace protesters and millions more protesters around the world have tried to warn Americans our wars have been wrong. But it is not until the Gulf of Tokin is a footnote and WMDs a punch-line that war loving Americans admit the error of their ways. When it was plain to see all along. It is one thing to honor a returning soldier who has acted nobly in an honorable cause. But America has squandered our children and our reputation around the world in tawdry intrigues and rigged games and it is embarrassing. It is the willingness of Americans to invest themselves to bloody causes that give our government the idea they can sell us on the carnage. As long as we champion our willingness to kill, the wicked will have us murdering for their unworthy causes. So, no i don't thank you. In fact, here is what i wrote in my no thank you letter that day. I still have it here beside me. If i would share it with my closest vet then surely i can share it with you: Dear Veterans (that was the form letter part) There has not been a military action since the 1940s i am thankful for. I do not thank you for killing civilians and destroying their lives so corrupt governments can make their points with each other and dollars off of each us. Some say as many as 90% of the casualties in recent US wars have been civilians. People like us. When the war is sold on lies, wrapped up in phony patriotism, where is the honor in that? I do not thank you for squandering US resources that could had aided our citizens but were used to oppress others instead. Can't afford to rebuild Detroit, but we can blow up Basra. Can't afford to teach our own kids, but totally willing to blow up Iraqi schools on the pretense it enhances our freedom. Or Afghanistan? Taliban was bad, they were, they blew up two thousand year old statues of Buddha and treated their women badly. So we punished them by blowing up their weddings with drone missiles and allowing most robust poppy market in recent memory to blossom right under our noses. Yeah? No thank you. I do not thank you for joining in the first place with all the vastly better ways you could have helped our country and our world. I do not thank you for perpetuating the illusion that US use of force around the world is always correct or always necessary. I do not thank you for spreading the lie that because it is done in a war, even in an unjust war, it is right or forgivable. I would have liked to thank them for at one point believing they cared about the country, but unlike me when they discovered the lies the military are up to, they continued to fight. When the war is wrong, it is wrong to fight it. So no, i don't thank you. I wish you hadn't done it. Next week: the finale, "Survey Said." -mikel weisser writes from the left coast of AZ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
