Regrettable though it might be for the United States military to become an untouchable "third rail" in American politics, there can be little sympathy for someone who keeps on brushing against that rail just to see what will happen. One could have assumed that Sen. John Kerry, who has reason enough to wake up whimpering and biting his knuckles when he reflects on past embarrassments, had learned this lesson. He's almost spoiled for choice in the matter--from the cringe-making "reporting for duty" to the sickly discovery that he had been part of a "band of brothers" rather than a bunch of killers, to the phantom "Christmas in Cambodia."Oh, why is Hitchens being so charitable to Kerry?!
Yet of all the days that he might want to have back and do over again, last week's clumsy appearance in Pasadena must be the most whimper-inducing of all.
The senator's labored defense of himself is so lame that it has to be true.
Anyway, read the whole thing. He talks of the email he's gotten from soldiers in Iraq:
Many of my respondents agreed that his words may not have meant or intended quite what they first seemed to mean, but they also felt that the klutziness was Freudian, so to speak, in that the senator's patrician contempt for grunts and dogfaces was bound to come out sooner or later.Those of Scots-Irish provenance.
One thing I already knew is confirmed--there is a very great deal of class resentment in these United States. Another thing I wasn't so sure of is also confirmed--James Webb in Virginia is right to stress the huge rage felt by those of Scots-Irish provenance who feel that they have born the heat and burden of the day in America's wars, and been rewarded with disdain.
Anyway, Hitchens has a proposal to deal with the race-class problem he perceives:
Sen. Kerry and his party should publicly demand that the U.S. military be allowed to recruit openly on elite campuses. And the supposed reason for the ban on ROTC--the continuing refusal of the armed services to admit known homosexuals--should be dispelled at a stroke by a presidential order rescinding the Clintonian nonsense of "don't ask/don't tell."
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
"He's almost spoiled for choice in the matter--from the cringe-making "reporting for duty" to the sickly discovery that he had been part of a "band of brothers" rather than a bunch of killers, to the phantom "Christmas in Cambodia.""
What is he talking about, could someone clarify this? I have no idea what he means. (I'm serious)
kettle,
He was against it before he was for it.
"the klutziness was Freudian, so to speak, in that the senator's patrician contempt for grunts and dogfaces was bound to come out sooner or later."
Hitchens has put his finger on that special de-haut-en-bas quality that makes Kerry so odious.
Here is my own personal we-hate-Kerry story. On the weekend before the 2004 election, I was in Santa Fe, NM. Dining in an upscale restaurant, I spotted 6 secret servicemen wedged around a small table near the door. I caught the hostess' eye, and she responded, rapturously, "Theresa Heinz KERRY is dining with us tonight!!!" (Theresa was seated at a far better table elsewhere).
The next evening, the same secret servicemen turned up at a far less pricy spot without Theresa (she must have been dining in that night). They all wore very prominent Bush/Cheney lapel buttons. No doubt the Kerrys had been treating them like domestic help.
There's always cognitive dissonance when the Democratic standard-bearer is some wealthy elitist who knows what's best for the little people. The Dems did so much better with Clinton, whose modest background made him far more plausible in the role of advocate for the masses.
I should have been clearer about what I wanted clarified. I didn't know what events (gaffes) he was referring to with these allusions:
"Reporting for Duty"
Duty Vid(YOUTUBE)
"Christmas in Cambodia"
and "Band of Brothers".
"the continuing refusal of the armed services to admit known homosexuals--should be dispelled at a stroke by a presidential order rescinding the Clintonian nonsense of don't ask/don't tell."
Don't ask don't tell is a federal law, not a policy of the executive branch. Is Hitchens really advocating that the President of the United States should have the power to overturn Federal law he disagrees with at the swish of a pen, or is he saying that 10 U.S.C. §654 is unconstitutional because it clashes with the President's inherent powers as Commander-in-Chief?
I thought liberals were terrified of such aggrandizing claims of power by the executive branch? Who knew: Chris Hitchens, George W. Bush's new best friend. What "nonsense" law is the next target for the Presidential bulldozer?
kettle,
Let me try to be clearer: he was for it before he was against it, or he was against it before he was for it. It works both ways.
"The people trying to shove the gay agenda down America's throat - even fully backed with secular Jewish progressive money and legal muscle - are butting up against enormously powerful cultural institutions like the churches, Boy Scouts and military. Mess with them at peril."
Ahh, it's Cedarford, jumping to the gay-agenda "throat shoving" metaphor again! That image seems to come so easily to you, Ceedy.
And who would have guessed that, all along, it's the fault of those wily Jews! Maybe even an alliance of Jewish bankers and communists! The Jews should know about allowing the gay agenda (cue three sinister, descending notes, double forte on the third) to be shoved down the supple throat of the military, as Israel was one of the first nations to allow openly gay citizens to serve in their military. Drat those nefarious Jews!
kettle and Fen: Regarding "He's almost spoiled for choice in the matter," I took that to mean the same thing as "an embarrassment of riches."
He already used "embarrass" so maybe he figured he'd mix it up a bit.
Elegant variation or something like that.
Kettle and fen wonder what Hitchens means by the phrase, "He's almost spoiled for choice in the matter..." It's a sufficiently odd turn of phrase that, like them, I stopped to look at it too. I don't think it's a Brit-ism, but only a striking locution connecting the thought immediately before it, with the list the comes immediately after. Kerry is "spoiled for choice" because he has so many "reason[s] ... to wake up whimpering and biting his knuckles when he reflects on past embarrassments...." How could Kerry ever pick his most embarrassing gaffe from such a rich list? How could a professional politician like Kerry be so consistently tone deaf when it comes to all things military? Hitchens, in his way, enjoys superlatives, things that stand out from the ordinary. If you were trying to come up with an "all time best" list for politicians with runaway foot-in-mouth tendencies, Kerry surely would be at or near the top.
Hitchens packs all of that into his little phrase, "spoiled for choice," and since it makes you stop and look, it obviously works.
While I always enjoy Hitchens' way with words, his basic thesis is a bit shopworn. The notion of deep-rooted Scots-Irish resentment is seriously out of date. There was a time, which was already fading out when JFK was elected, when Irish resentment directed against entrenched WASP elites was palpable, particularly in the Boston area where I grew up. And there is something, too, to his notion of continuing class resentments. But it's easy to overdo that stuff, and I think he does.
His idea that there is some burning desire by those currently serving in the military to associate with Ivy types, such that it would make any difference whether the Ivies stopped their war against ROTC, doesn't ring true to me. It would all to the good, and mostly beneficial to the Ivies themselves, if they stopped their little version of the culture war aimed at the military. As for the military, it needs people of quality and dedication; and the Ivies have no monopoly, or even any privileged place, any more where those matters are concerned.
It's obviously true that the kinds of resentments Hitchens mentions get trotted out frequently, and that Kerry manages to personify them to a tee. But I think it's usually only for rhetorical or political purposes -- as a away of attacking the university-based lefty elites, who express deep love for Mankind and the Common Man, even as they sneer at those whom them deem inferior, which usually encompasses pretty much everyone else. People, even people in uniform, notice things like that, and don't like it.
"The people trying to shove the gay agenda down America's throat - even fully backed with secular Jewish progressive money and legal muscle - are butting up against enormously powerful cultural institutions like the churches, Boy Scouts and military. Mess with them at peril."
There was a time when the Boy Scouts were not that concerned with the sexual orientation of it's members. This interpretation of the phrase "Moraly Straight" has only become in vogue in the last twenty five years of the organizations history if I remember correctly. Many churches see this exclusionary policy as wrong and discriminatory. But they are not the churches that have the ears and hearts of current Washington leadership.
kettle said...
"He's almost spoiled for choice in the matter--from the cringe-making "reporting for duty" to the sickly discovery that he had been part of a "band of brothers" rather than a bunch of killers, to the phantom "Christmas in Cambodia.""
What is he talking about, could someone clarify this? I have no idea what he means. (I'm serious)
without attempting to decode the Britishisms involved, let me make a guess and then tell you how I interpret the phrases.
I read that as "almost spoiled for a chance to touch the 3rd rail". Meaning that in classic Kerry fashion he was alternately:
1. anti-military or at least agnostic or disdaining in college
2. then joined up
3. then bailed out of VN early
4. did the 71 "they're all Genghis Khans" Senate lecture
5. went to Paris to meet with the enemy in 71
6. ran for office in 72 saying that the volunteer army was anti-democratic and made of of the poor and the black and brown.
7. voted against GWI
8. decided that was a bad move and voted for GW2
9 voted for funds before he voted against funds
10. stood up in the Dem convention wrapped in the flag and discovered that the Genghis Khans were his long lost "Band of Brothers"
11. Was shocked that a bunch of the real band (swiftees) had long memories about being called baby killers
12. supports the troops, but thinks that they are gestapo, kicking in doors and molesting Iraqi women and children
13. supports the troops, but thinks they are losers, too dumb to...
you get the point. He likes to get close to the third rail and what the sparks arc to various portions of his body then is shocked at the outcome and cuddles his flag like Charlie Brown and is surprised that "somebody who wasn't a VN hero" questions his patriotism.
The guy is an elitist fraud.
One could have assumed that Sen. John Kerry, who has reason enough to wake up whimpering and biting his knuckles when he reflects on past embarrassments, had learned this lesson. He's almost spoiled for choice in the matter--from the cringe-making "reporting for duty" to the sickly discovery that he had been part of a "band of brothers" rather than a bunch of killers, to the phantom "Christmas in Cambodia."
The meaning seems clear to me when taken in context. Kerry has made made so many gaffes; he should have been able to reflect on any one or number of them and learn how not to make the same mistakes over and over again - thus he was spoiled for choice on opportunities to learn how to avoid these types of gaffes. I find it interesting that so many of his gaffes seem to center around military service and policy.
Hmmm, I descend from a long line of warriors of Scots provenance, although they thought of themselves as Americans. Never heard my father, uncles, grandfather or cousins express any resentment along those lines.
Webb sounds like another Republican military fabulist, like Capt. Reagan, although unlike Reagan, Webb has had the experience to know better.
tjl's comment expresses better than I could the ick quality that Kerry moves around in, like the cloud of dust around Pigpen in Peanuts.
However, even if he didn't, if Kerry is so much smarter than me -- he never misses a chance to say he is -- why does he keep doing so many stupid things?
6. ran for office in 72 saying that the volunteer army was anti-democratic and made of of the poor and the black and brown.
"Would be" for "was" is more accurate. In 1972, the military wasn't volunteer. Kerry was fear-mongering that were the military to become all-volunteer, it would be even worse than he said it was in 1971.
I saw a bumper sticker yesterday reading "Bush voters: sorry yet?" Had I the opportunity, I would've asked the driver of that car how he feels about Kerry now.
Richard Dolan said...
The notion of deep-rooted Scots-Irish resentment is seriously out of date. There was a time, which was already fading out when JFK was elected, when Irish resentment directed against entrenched WASP elites was palpable, particularly in the Boston area where I grew up.
Richard, Webb isn't talking about "those Irish", he's talking about displaced Scots Highlanders, encouraged to their Clan leaders and the Brits to emmigrate to Derry, and subsequently to the new world. Landing in Baltimore, moving into PA, then south along the Mountains. We're talking about the folks that were called Hillbillies, and now RedNecks. Neither English Planters, nor green Catholic Irish later waves.
Joan,
I was in VN in 70-71 and in what was the called the Volunteer Army (VOLAR) in 71-72. It wasn't very professional by today's standards, but it was trying to transition.
John Kerry is a big Elitist French Satan Traitor !
You guys are priceless. But if it insulates you from reality, and from what's going on in the real world right now, have it. It's much easier believing O'Reilly, and Rush, aint it? Just remember though, these two (among many others) were the ones who were spreading rumors to millions of people that the Clinton's had Vince Foster whacked. Credibility? Not so much.
Anyway, do Iraq War Vets have to check in with you guys, on what they can say, or not say? Is Kevin Tillman a traitor too? Are Republican War Vets fair game?
Another head fake from Drudge - We're all going to die! (but keep bashing Kerry by all means...)
fen, I think you miss george mahal's point. He's right, you're wrong and there will no 'debate' allowed when his favorites replace your fascists.
They're totally in favor of freedom of speech and expression except when evil idiots like you are trying to say something they disagree with.
There is nothing to talk about except how right george and the Lefties are, and if anything does come up he, or they, will let you know and then tell you what you think about it.
There's actually a surprisingly large Celtic pride movement in the US, the breadth of which you can see on this Google search. Some of these are people who simply have a healthy pride in their culture, others are dedicated to refighting the Civil War, and some -- with a lot of overlap with the Civil Warriors -- are somewhat sophisticated white supremacists.
The basic thesis is that Appalachia was settled by protestants of Celtic descent from northern England, northern Ireland and Scotland. Lots of people believe that Celtic culture has been preserved in its purest form in these communities. There is a growing field of Celtic studies, and even Celtic diaspora studies.
James Webb argues that the Celtic/Appalachian culture is a warrior culture (as opposed to the English farming culture) and that's why the Scots-Irish disproportionately fight the nation's wars.
Others argue that the Celts have been oppressed, serially, by the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the English and the American north for the last 2000 years, had nothing to do with slavery, were more like slaves themselves and thus are not "white" and are actually history's real victims. In this theory, New England was settled by the English and all of American history is simply the recapitulation of the historic oppression of the Celts by everyone else in Europe.
Christy......you refer to them as "Scots"
...and not "Scotch" ?
Scotch is a beverage, not a people, I guess.
Scottish?
I just call 'em North Englanders, myself.
And, I've never gotten in trouble with that yet.
Peace, Maxine
"Scots-Irish heritage"
A most genteel way of saying "hillbilly rednecks and their descendants." That's me!
But we just call ourselves Americans.
"Gore and Kerry were (and still are) depicted as effete elitists who disdain the common man."
That's because they are, Freder. Have you been to Nantucket lately? Do you know how much it costs even to get there, much less live next door to John & Theresa?
Freder makes an excellent point, which is that some people are led ot believe that Kerry is elitist and Bush is not, while, of course, they both are. I remember reading that every single member of the Senate is a millionaire. I also took the time to read the financial disclosures of several members of the Bush admininistration--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld. They are all millionaires many, many times over.
So, sure, sneer at Kerry for being elitist. But don't forget they are all far from being the common man, and it is silly to imagine that any of them--on either side of the aisle--live lives like the average American.
Let me suggest that the difference is that the Republicans have long championed the middle class, while the Democrats championed the lower classes. So, it is a much shorter stretch for someone with Bush's advantages to represent the middle class than for a Kerry or a Gore (or a Kennedy, Pelosi, etc.) to represent the working classes.
Also, while GWB obviously had all the advantages that family and money can buy, eventually, he really didn't see that until he went away to boarding school. The house that he grew up in in Texas was no more pretentious than the one I grew up in in CO, and a lot less so than a lot of today's preppies I know live in.
George: I'm quite aware of all that, including that book, but I was struck by Hitchens's Britishness in pointing it out and in using the word "provenance" -- normally associated with objects -- rather than "heritage" or "ancestry." I have a lot of that Scots Irish ancestry myself.
a couple of comments:
Tully said...
"Scots-Irish heritage"
A most genteel way of saying "hillbilly rednecks and their descendants." That's me!
But we just call ourselves Americans.
I can't back it up with a link, but I have been told that West Virginia traditionally provides the most service people per 1,000 of each cohort. More of that Scot-Irish legacy, Kerry would agree I expect :)
Cedarford said...
I have a different read on the ROTC ban. The original bans, ROTC bombings and burnings were by 60s Leftists (sometimes backed by Soviet efforts) to demonize the military over "repression, atrocities, Vietnam, imperialism" here and in Europe. Decoupling the best universities...
Interestingly Congress mandated the Land Grant College program 1860 and 1890 (includes my school, UCD and Ann's UW-M) with explicit requirements for ag extension and ROTC. How far we've come.
I'm curious... when one uses the term 'Scots Irish ancestry,' to what exactly is being referred - a mixture of Scottish and Irish parentage or Scottish ancestors who were planted in Northern Ireland?
Meade said...
I'm curious... when one uses the term 'Scots Irish ancestry,' to what exactly is being referred - a mixture of Scottish and Irish parentage or Scottish ancestors who were planted in Northern Ireland?
the second.
here's the wiki extract/intro
Scots-Irish (or Scotch-Irish) is a term used to describe inhabitants of the USA and Canada of Scots-Irish (particularly Ulster-Scots) descent, who formed distinctive communities and had distinctive social characteristics. The term is sometimes qualified with American or Canadian, when it is necessary to distinguish between communities in the two countries.
This article deals with those who arrived prior to the large influx of Irish Catholics in the mid-19th century, in connection with the potato famine and the tenant clearances. The people who arrived before that time were almost all Protestant, usually Presbyterian, and formed distinct communities. Most of the early migrants had an historical opposition to both Anglicanism, due to issues of religious freedom, and Roman Catholicism, due to relatively recent religious wars in Europe which had culminated in Ireland in the Battle of the Boyne.
I happen to be Scots-Irish with roots in Kentucky, but this whole subject dovetails with my view of sheep as the telltale mark of violence throughout the world. :)
Appalachia, Scotland, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Basque Country... what do they have in common.. Angry men living on poor land with too much time on their hands, watching sheep, plinking targets and dreaming of raiding lowlanders for cows and women.
sheep, the mark of Cain... j/k or half kidding :)
The Scots-Irish Presbyterians and Coventers were the primary settlers of Western Pennsylvania pre-Revolutionary War. My ancestors were part of that group and were the first to form militias and take the fight to the British. They were/are still fierce patriots. They were farmers when they weren't fighters, although soon moved into positions of local government as the nation was born. They were especially good at church building and schooling and rebelling against taxes (i.e., Whiskey Rebellion)
For full details on Kerry's record with those who serve see: http://www.swiftvets.com/
We, as military families who have given much to our country, do not like him. Period.
Thanks Sarge! Interesting history, fascinating and humorous theory.
Squiggler said...
The Scots-Irish Presbyterians and Coventers were the primary settlers of Western Pennsylvania pre-Revolutionary War. My ancestors were part of that group and were the first to form militias and take the fight to the British. They were/are still fierce patriots. They were farmers when they weren't fighters, although soon moved into positions of local government as the nation was born. They were especially good at church building and schooling and rebelling against taxes (i.e., Whiskey Rebellion)
Webb documents that saga in his book, "Born Fighting". From memory, my synopsis of that section would be:
William Penn welcomed the Scots-Irish into PA, recognizing that if encouraged to settle in the right spots, these settlers would serve as an armed militia, protecting the less militant PA residents, e.g quakers, etc. The Scots Irish had a history of living on the edge of civilization, fighting to protect themselves and their kin. Unlike the Anglicans, and the Catholics and the German Protestants, they had little respect for hierarchical authority in religious or civil society. Thee highest form of government they recognized was the clan meeting or Kirk elders.
In this respect they were akin to Rome planting retiring legionaries on the borders of the empire in armed colonies. They tamed the land West of the mountains.
I thought Drill SGT's theory was funny, too, but I don't remember a lot of sheep in the Great Smoky Mountains.
A more universal attribute would be fierce self-subjugation to a sacred, savage text. It does not seem to matter much which one.
Well, this is funny.
The kerry.com piece is exactly right -- except about Kerry.
Bush didn't, and doesn't, know anything about the Middle East and is bound to fail because of it.
And the military has been a way for intelligent people to rise socially and economically. My dad, for example, who grew up poor and got a college education by joining the navy.
But that doesn't change the fact that Kerry is a fuckup.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा