This week’s letter of the week comes from Bill Bodden who takes issue with notion that people don’t have the right to protest outside military recruiting offices. The First Amendment thanks you Bill and so does the Source. As a token of our gratitude were picking up the tab for dinner tonight. You can pick up your $25 gift certificate for Dinner’s Ready at our office, 704 NW Georgia, anytime during business hours.
To put it in polite terms, Stephanie Bearse (Feb. 28) chose the wrong target when she criticized war critics in Bend. She objected to Code Pink picketing the recruiting offices where ill-informed young people go to join the military and possibly participate in the fighting in Iraq. The recruiters may be doing their duty and may not lie, but they won’t volunteer the whole and sordid truth. They won’t tell applicants this is an illegal war or that they may have to fight in it with defective or insufficient armor and supplies. Nor will they tell young women they will be at increased risk of being raped.
Ms. Bearse suggests protesters should instead take their complaints to our elected officials in Congress. For what purpose? Senator Smith and Congressman Walden reneged on their oaths to defend the Constitution in October 2002 by signing a blank check for Bush and Cheney to go to war and are thus accomplices in this crime against humanity. As many of us have learned, it is pointless talking to them.
Like Ms. Bearse’s son, I scored high scholastically and was considered bright and intelligent when I enlisted in the military. In common with many young people in that age group I was easily persuaded that I had a lot of knowledge, but I look back on that period with considerable embarrassment, recognizing how little I knew and how naïve I was. It would be a long time before I learned to appreciate I.F. Stone’s dictum about all governments lying. Despite a good grounding in history I was unaware that all wars are based on lies.
It is not clear whether Ms. Bearse rejects the charge that the military turns young men into murderers or if she just doesn’t want that to be publicized. The fact is many young men (and a few women) have been ordered to shoot and kill Iraqis, many of whom proved to be innocent. Many of these young people have returned after that experience suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Some have committed suicide. This information has been common knowledge for years among many people around the world and, belatedly, an increasing number of people in the United States, so Ms. Bearse’s concern about it being revealed is ill-founded.
Bill Bodden, Redmond
This article appears in Mar 6-12, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Bodden, with his usual tactics of smear, misdirection and fable, tells his outrageous prevarications and gets a reward…
He neglects to inform us why the war is illegal. Why doesn’t Bodden perform a citizen’s arrest on the war, if it’s illegal? I’d love to grab a six-pack, a comfy chair, sit back and watch that one.
Bodden neglects to inform us how he is privy to Ms. Bearse’s supposed personal concern about something being revealed. Has he and MS. Bearse discussed the subject, or is Bodden taking one of his customary enormous leaps of bullshit slinging, making things up as he goes?
He states that members of our military have been ordered to shoot Iraqi’s. What is wrong with that? Many Iraqi’s are insurgents, terrorists and Al Qaeda, and could use a damn good shooting. As for innocents, innocents die just like everyone else. When we fire bombed Dresden, do you suppose there was some innocents hanging out in that town? Any innocents in Nagasaki? Get real! Fire away, troop!
That, of course, as Bodden knows, but does not say, does not make them murderers. To be honest would be a very large stretch for Bodden, when smearing the military is so much more routinely enjoyable for him.
In my opinion, the members of code pink and those that defend them, should be thrashed within an inch of their worthless lives by all able bodied bystanders and any nearby members of the military, current or former, anytime they show up in public to do their scum sucking mockery of free speech.
It is true that even the dregs of our society have a right to voice their opinion, as Bodden does, no matter how immoral or odious and despicable their message. But all decent people should shun them like they were vermin.
Ginny Tetram, thanks for saving me the trouble. I could not possibly improve on that.
“so Ms.Bearses concern about it being revealed is ill-founded.”
Bodden starts out the paragraph with, “it’s not clear,” and ends the paragraph with it being clear to him…alone. To call this incoherent diatribe confused rambling would be both succinct and appropriate. He provides no insight into how he divines the emotions or positions of Ms. Bearse.
This Bodden appears to be an ill-informed conclusion jumper who rides his preconceptions as though they were the truth. Your obvious bias is not truth, dude.
I must have made some real good points, they scrubbed my previous post.
The Source, in it’s intro, states that Bodden “takes issue with (the) notion that people don’t have the right to protest outside military recruiting offices.”
Ok. But does he really address that issue? No, instead he attacks the military, ad hoc, and uses magic or some other undisclosed ledgerdemain to fathom the inner Ms. Bearse.
A gross attack upon the Military doesn’t really deal with the first amendment, other than by example. But, you can find that example, anywhere on these threads.
So, I find the Source creating a point out of Bodden’s thin air, just as I found Bodden missing the point.
Unless Bodden intends to propose to do away with the military in a future diatribe, what is the true purpose of his rambling anti-military hate speech?
Bodden is a regular letter writer to the Source. I have been reading his ‘stuff’ for years. The man has never made a lick of sense in anything he’s ever written. This misleading, semi-incoherent and misdirected letter is no exception to the Bodden rule.
If you dislike war, the military is not where your problem lies. You have an issue with both houses of Congress and possibly the President. What sense does Code Pink make then, protesting at recruiters? None. If you dislike the military itself, as Bodden clearly does, well, you are shit out of luck, because they are not going anywhere. We have always had a military and we always will, so, Bodden, you might as well get used to it. This sanctimonious pissing and moaning of yours solves nothing.
This is not an issue of the first amendment. Code Pink has a right to protest. But what possible issue do they hope to resolve by protesting? If the issue is not the issue, then we are talking about personal problems. The Code pink folks must all have personal problems, because you can’t get to where they are… by logical thinking. Prescient cognition does not lead one to protest outside military a recruiters office.
So, when you see these Code Pinks manically protesting, don’t think about beating them like a rented mule, have pity. They know not what they do.
Contrary to the Source’s intro to this denigrating exercise in hate speech, I found very little, if any, content to be directed toward defending the first amendment. The Source appears to be more involved in it’s own biased thinking than it is in accuracy.
Bodden’s piece is a direct frontal attack on the military itself and the morality of our our young men and women who enlist. This is about as deserving of an award as finding a particularly large dog turd on a hot sidewalk would be. Yes, it is a big smelly mess, but so what?
One wonders if the Source actually read this thing. Bodden clearly makes no sense regarding his comments about Ms.Bearse unless he is clairvoyant and the evidence against that possibility is overwhelming.
The Source’s endorsement giving high honors to this poorly thought out attack on the military clearly says as much about the Source’s far out editorial position as it does the far out author.
The Source and Bodden should both be ashamed.
Exactly what was denigrating and hate filled, Eldon? If you had a basic understanding of our constitution, or the principles on which this country was founded, you would understand that the right to protest outside a recruiter’s office is the bedrock of free speech.
It never ceases to amuse me how you right wingers get on this site and cry,cry, cry about about others letters, but never have the guts to write in yourselves. Go stick your head back in the sand.
editor: What I object too, is the Source saying the Bodden letter has to do with the right to protest outside a recruiters office, and if you bother to read the damn thing, almost none, as in zero, of the letter has to do with that subject. Boddens letter is 98 percent about trash talking the military.
Is that clear to you? You may think you are a constitutional scholar, but you clearly lack the ability to comprehend what you read.
My post that you criticise points out that very little of Boddens content is directed towards the first amendment. You need to get a firm grip on the English language, dude, and you might consider a reality check…
If you don’t think Boddens letter was denigrating and hate filled, perhaps you need resuscitated. Every other post here thought it sucked. Because hating the military is a mindless position that accomplishes less than nothing, does not mean that those who are aware of that stupidity are neccessarily right wing. Not everyone with a fully funcitional brain is right wing, but most are. So, I see why you jumped to that complimentary position. I personally, am a life long Democrat.
So, according to the Source, to trash our military is left wing, something desirable. To object to trash talking the military, is right wing, and undesirable.
I was taught that the need to slap a label on a concept was an indication of a poorly functioning intellect. Slap on a label, crank up the hate dial.
That’s easy.
Bodden has been expertly taken to the woodshed by several post-ers, so I’ll only comment on an area that hasn’t been discussed. Bodden comments: “all wars are based on lies.” Was Hitler a lie, Bodden? Was Mussolini a lie, Bodden? Was Tojo a lie, Bodden? Was the attack on Pearl Harbor a lie, Bodden? Was North Korea invading South Korea a lie, Bodden? Was our War of Independence a lie, Bodden?
Bodden: “all governments lie.” That is a false statement. A government cannot lie. The government is not other than animal, vegetable or mineral. The government is not an alien entity that speaks with one voice. The government is made up entirely of the citizens that it governs, so obviously it has no voice of it’s own. Individuals within a government might lie, but they are not the government. Has anyone ever heard the ‘government’ speak? Utter nonsense. This is one of those “us vs them” absurdities that is intellectually fraudulent from the get go.
“Bodden has been expertly taken to the woodshed by several post-ers, so I’ll only comment on an area that hasn’t been discussed. Bodden comments: “all wars are based on lies.” Was Hitler a lie, Bodden? Was Mussolini a lie, Bodden? Was Tojo a lie, Bodden? Was the attack on Pearl Harbor a lie, Bodden? Was North Korea invading South Korea a lie, Bodden? Was our War of Independence a lie, Bodden?”
They all began with lies, lies told by Hitler, Mussolini, et al. In these examples, the United States responded to wars initiated by people telling lies to their subjects. The Spanish-American war began with lies promoted by the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst. The British, French and Germans lied to their people to get them to fight in their respective military forces. Woodrow Wilson lied to Americans to get them to join in this “war to end all wars.” The war on Iraq was based on lies told by the Bush Administration as everyone except the (you?) 19-percents know.
I tried to respond to the earlier diatribes, but this site apparently wouldn’t accept the links to web sites backing up my points, not that they would have had any influence on the people I was responding to. Perhaps, I can come to some arrangement with The Source to give my response.
One point I made was in reference to the question of this war being illegal. Richard Perle, one of the proponents of the war on Iraq, admitted the war was illegal. Google for “Richard Perle Iraq War Illegal” for several reports on this. Check the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions to which the United States is a signatory, and if you can read those documents with better comprehension and less bias than you applied to my letter you will get additional evidence to prove the illegality of this war.
This is in response to part of Ginny Tetram’s diatribe:
“He states that members of our military have been ordered to shoot Iraqi’s. What is wrong with that? Many Iraqi’s are insurgents, terrorists and Al Qaeda, and could use a damn good shooting. As for innocents, innocents die just like everyone else. When we fire bombed Dresden, do you suppose there was some innocents hanging out in that town? Any innocents in Nagasaki? Get real! Fire away, troop!”
This indifference to slaughter of innocent human beings is similar to the way Nazis thought when they perpetrated their Holocaust against the Jews and inflicted collective punishment in occupied towns. It is similar to the attitude at My Lai in Vietnam that brought shame to the Army and this nation. It has much in common with the way members of Al-Queda thought when they planned and carried out 9/11. Let’s consider this in a personal hypothetical situation. A close personal member of your family is driving around town and some drunk plows into your family member’s car and kills or causes catastrophic injury to him or her. Do you shrug your shoulders and say, “So what? Accidents like this happen and innocents get killed or maimed every day.”?
“That, of course, as Bodden knows, but does not say, does not make them murderers.”
Towards the end of the Second World War, American and British lawyers were preparing lists of crimes with which to charge Nazi leaders. One was the mass and deliberate bombing of civilians in cities such as London and Coventry. The lists were sent to Washington and London where several suggested charges were deleted because Allied forces had committed similar crimes – the fire bombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo. The Nazis were charged only with crimes unique to them, and victors’ justice was applied.
The preceding quotes from Ginny Tetram’s diatribe indicate she ignored this part of my letter: “The fact is many young men (and a few women) have been ordered to shoot and kill Iraqis, many of whom proved to be innocent. Many of these young people have returned after that experience suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Some have committed suicide.” Clearly, people who share my critics’ opinions on this are not aware of the tragedies that have been inflicted on many of our Iraq and Afghanistan vets and their families. For enlightenment I would suggest they ignore Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and their ilk for a while and Google the following: “Iraq vets PTSD suicide.” Do I hear someone say, “So what’s the big deal? There are always vets returning from wars with PTSD.”?
With regard to the matter of women being raped by fellow soldiers try a Google search for “Iraq U.S. army women sexual assault rape” Did I hear someone say, “So what’s the big deal? Women get raped every day.”?
Nowhere in Boddens letter is there a reference to the first amendment, or any statement about any ones right to protest there. Clearly, no one at the Source actually read it. Or?
The Source: “takes issue with the notion that people don’t have a right to protest outside military recruiting offices.”
Not only does Bodden not take issue with the “rights” of protesters, he doesn’t even mention it. A general harangue against the military does not address first amendment issues.
Reading Ms. Bearse’s mind doesn’t address first amendment issues.
Saying our young men and women are murderers, doesn’t address first amendment issues.
Saying military women are more likely to be raped doesn’t address first amendment issues.
Saying all governments lie doesn’t address first amendment issues.
Bodden boasting about how bright and intelligent he is doesn’t address first amendment issues
I could go on and on, but perhaps you get the point.
The Source made up the introduction to this letter without reading it. Or, it was spin the information to fit the agenda. Only a whole lot of people saw through it. The Source should be embarrassed by the gaff.
Let me address William Dillon’s comments as this will also reflect on other critics.
He claims I was taken to the woodshed by other posters. This is not an apt analogy. To take someone to the woodshed requires the taker to have authority over the person being taken there. All of the “woodshedders” distorted positions in my letter with the consequence that their comments have no merit. I have already submitted information on how to find hundreds of sources that back up my main points; that is, the war on Iraq is illegal, U.S. servicewomen are being raped there, and young men and women are being traumatized in Iraq and returning with PTSD and committing suicide. So that shoots down any authority the “woodshedders” might like to claim over me.
Mr. Dillon took my comment on all wars being based on lies and seems to have read into that a blanket accusation against the United States. In response to his references about World War II and Korea, etc. I demonstrated that there were lies. In these cases the lies were told, as is usually the case, by the aggressors, not the United States. However, laying blame for World War II is not that simple as students of the history of both World Wars will attest. Many historians see a link between the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles as contributing factors for the Second World War. Who knows what will unfold from this war on Iraq?
Vietnam was a war based on lies with Lyndon Johnson’s story about the Tonkin Gulf incident being a real whopper. How many remember the old line about all of Vietnam’s neighbors would fall like dominoes and become communist if North Vietnam won? It didn’t happen, and we are now trading with Vietnam buying products made in their sweatshops.
Dillon when on to challenge my endorsement of I. F. Stone’s dictum that “all governments lie.” These are Dillon’s words: “That is a false statement. A government cannot lie. The government is not other than animal, vegetable or mineral. The government is not an alien entity that speaks with one voice. The government is made up entirely of the citizens that it governs, so obviously it has no voice of it’s own. Individuals within a government might lie, but they are not the government. Has anyone ever heard the ‘government’ speak? Utter nonsense. This is one of those “us vs them” absurdities that is intellectually fraudulent from the get go.”
His statement that individuals within the government may lie, but the government doesn’t lie doesn’t hold up. If those liars represent the government and they lie, then they are lying on behalf of the government, so the government is lying. If the government has no voice, then who is telling you you have to file your taxes by April 15th? And, if you owe taxes, to whom do you make the check payable? Do you make it payable to all the citizens that make up the government? If you have a refund coming, do all the citizens pass around the hat and send you a check? And, if you owe the government taxes you can thank the war on Iraq for much of that obligation. If you are unhappy with the increasing price of gasoline, you can credit the war on Iraq for much of that too. And what was Ronald Reagan talking about when he asked to be elected president to get the government off our backs? To get the people making up the government off their own backs?
Let’s return to Ginny Tetram’s screed. She said, “In my opinion, the members of code pink and those that defend them, should be thrashed within an inch of their worthless lives by all able bodied bystanders and any nearby members of the military, current or former, anytime they show up in public to do their scum sucking mockery of free speech.”
Ginny and others who agree with this vitriol would do well to consider an old Chinese saying: “He who strikes the first blow admits to having the weaker mind.”
As for the military, if you followed my directions for sources to back up my points you will have found many examples of Iraq and Vietnam war vets making stronger anti-war statements than I or Code Pink have made. Veterans Against the Iraq War “is a coalition of American veterans who support our troops but oppose war with Iraq or any other nation that does not pose a clear and present danger to our people and nation.”
Anyone who claims to care about our young men and women must demand an end to this and other unnecessary wars if the continuing sacrifice of their lives on an altar built on lies is to end.
The Source has sank to a new low in journalistic honesty. Not one single letter of the alphabet was used by Bodden to support the award he received.
Apparently, the Source believes that listing all the reasons why a particular individual hates the military, is somehow connected to the proposition that one has a right to protest that entity under the first amendment.
Those are two separate issues that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. How deserving of protest a particular entity may or may not be, is not a function of the first amendment right to protest it.
To deride those that protest this shameful dishonesty as those that, “cry, cry, cry,” is also dishonest and ill informed. Which is more commendable, to deride dishonest behavior or commit it? Adding further insult to injury we are told to go stick our heads in the sand. Editor, what makes you think we want to join you?
C. T. Belva said, “Apparently, the Source believes that listing all the reasons why a particular individual hates the military, is somehow connected to the proposition that one has a right to protest that entity under the first amendment.” Others have made similar unfounded accusations.
Let me repeat a statement I made that was recently published in The Bulletin: “She would do well to consider the following: (a) In most organizations of considerable size you will find the best and worst of people. Our military is no exception. (b) Wars bring out the best and worst in people.”
Perhaps Belva and others might explain how they came to the conclusion my remarks were evidence of being hateful towards the military. When the abuses were exposed at Abu Ghraib were all the people in Congress who said they were offended by this activity hateful of the military? If so, how do you explain the fact that they continued to fund the military if they hated it? Military officials recently arrested some Marines in Okinawa for raping a couple of local women. Did they do that because they hate the Marines? Those of us in the anti-war movement don’t want to see any more of our young men and women dying and being maimed for a war based on lies and pursuit of empire. What is there that is hateful towards the military?
Wow, the whole troll army turned out. Bodden must have hit a nerve.
HBM: You are right about Bodden being a member of the troll army. If you bothered to read the posts by the sane, you would learn that the problem everyone had was not with Bodden, who was just spewing his usual hate, but with the Source for erroneously stating what Bodden’s bilge was all about.
Boodden was lauded by the Source for writing about something he didn’t write about. Apparently neither you or the “editor” who chimed in with his trash talk, bother to read that which you lamely respond to.
It’ is no wonder both you, and the Source in general, get so much wrong. You lack the ability to comprehend what you read.
No one on this thread gave a crap about Boddens usual hate regurgitations. What we cared about was the Source’s deliberate spinning of Bodden’s corrupt content.
Do you get it now, troll?
This is part of Eldon Kramer’s non-response to The Source’s challenge that he explain his remark about hate: “Boddens letter is 98 percent about trash talking the military. ”
Where is the trash talking, Eldon? I stated facts and gave information on how to find supporting sources for those facts. Are you of the opinion that there is no one in the military without serious flaws? If so, then explain to me why the military has prisoners in its prisons and the navy has convicted criminals in its brigs. Congress has demanded better treatment for veterans returning with PTSD before they commit suicide, an issue that members of the anti-war movement have pushed for. Or, do you share Ginny Tetram’s “so-what” attitude?
This from Heather Tivoli is typical of the distortions among the trolls criticizing Code Pink, The Source and my letter: “Bodden boasting about how bright and intelligent he is doesn’t address first amendment issues” This implies conceit on my part. Now let’s look at the two related sentences from which that statement was dishonestly drawn: “Like Ms. Bearseâ ™s son, I scored high scholastically and was considered bright and intelligent when I enlisted in the military. In common with many young people in that age group I was easily persuaded that I had a lot of knowledge, but I look back on that period with considerable embarrassment, recognizing how little I knew and how naïve I was.” Read that last clause again, Heather and friends: “but I look back on that period with considerable embarrassment, recognizing how little I knew and how naïve I was.” What that shows is that I had the honesty to admit to having been wrong in my earlier opinion. How many of my and The Source’s critics on this thread will rise to that level of honesty?
With regard to the Google search suggestions I made above about the illegality of the Iraq war, women being raped in the military, and veterans return with PTSD, did they back me up or my critics?
Okay, trolls claiming to be pro-military. How do you explain this? Soldiers and marines were sent to fight in Iraq without enough body armor to protect them. In some cases where armor was provided it was defective. Check this out by a Google search for “armor shortage soldiers Iraq defective”
Do you remember a soldier complaining to Secretary for War (Defense?) Rumsfeld about inadequate armor and having to search for scrap metal to up-armor their vehicles? Do a Google search for “armor shortage Iraq Rumsfeld” to learn how criminal the upper levels of the chain of command were in their responsibilities towards the troops while their supporters among the public wandered around in blissful ignorance. When that made the news did you write to Rumsfeld or the president to voice your concern about how our young men and women were placed in danger. How about the time when word was broadcast that families were buying their loved ones good armor and the top brass said the soldiers’ life insurance would be invalid if they used unofficial armor even if it was better than what the military was supplying – if they supplied it? Did you tell Rumsfeld your objections to that contemptible behavior? Or did you just shrug your shoulders and say, “No big deal. That sort of thing happens all the time in the military.”? You mean you didn’t know because Rush Windbag and Bill O’LIElly didn’t tell you?
Bodden, spare us the website torture. Many of us don’t require a website as a substitute for thinking, as you do.
One of your statements that is hateful to the military, is your statement that if some innocent Iraqi’s get shot, the men and women of our military are then murderers. You rebut my remarks about innocents getting killed as a fact of war, by accusing me of being similar to a Nazi. You appear to be both metaphorically and simile challenged. My pointing out how many innocents were killed by the dropping of incendiaries on Dresden was not to demonstrate a cavalier attitude towards the death of innocents, but to make the point those Americans doing that were considered heroes, not murderers as you claim. How many tens of thousands of innocents did the Enola Gay wipe out with one A-bomb? Heroes or muderers? One thing you can be counted on doing, Bodden, is missing the point. You even miss the point of your own letter, which is incredible!
No wars are based on lies. All wars are based on actions and reactions. An action or a reaction cannot lie. Words never fired a bullet through the head or dropped a single bomb.
The war is not illegal. Something is only illegal after it has been proven to be illegal. Until then, it is an allegation of illegality. Richard Pearle has an opinion about the war? So what? So do you. Now there are two of you with the same opinion. Opinion is not fact. This is an area of real confusion for you. Fifty million people all thinking the same thing doesn’t make it a fact.
Bodden further demonstrates his inability to comprehend metaphor. To “take someone to the woodshed,” is a metaphor, not an analogy. A metaphor requires no ‘authority to act’ to be apt. It simply means, “you got your ass whupped,” which is another metaphor for, “you lost the debate,” which you did.
About your conceit. Who gives a crap about you changing some earlier opinion? How is that germane? Bear in mind, vapid condescension is not a substitute for honesty, it is a substitute for conceit.
Does the government lie? Bodden equates filing taxes with a government entity or writing a check, as dealing with THE ‘voice.’ How ludicrous. If everyone who represents the government has this ‘voice,’ then the government is many hundreds of thousands of different voices all saying something different. By extrapolation, that makes each employee a ‘government’ in their own right. Assuming a member of the government of a recreation district entrusted with a community pool tells a lie, according to Boddens simplistic flawed logic, two hundred thousand gallons of warm chlorinated water are then telling a lie… Individual parts are not the whole, and cannot speak for the whole. Get a grip.
I’ve gotten really bored with Bodden’s knack for endless befuddled blather that he cannot defend, so that’s it for me on this issue. I’m tired of taking this dude to the woodshed.
Way to go Ginny Tetram!!! Right on!!! The more this Bodden drones on, and on and on, and on and on, the more befuddled and confused his hate filled message becomes. This guy does not have a single solitary clue what the word ‘nuance’ means.
Thank God for Bill Bodden’s response. For a second there I thought all was lost but Bodden has taken ol’ Ginny “to the woodshed.” Get back Ginny – you been woodsheded! Your hate filled messages and anti-Americanism can not survive in an atmosphere of fact and logic – that’s why we have the woodshed. Keep on keepin on Bill, obviously this thread needed the bright light of reason.
Gadfly: To fight for the respect and honor of our military, as Ginny Tetram did so well, is Anti-American? You must be off your meds…and look around… the rocker you fell off is somewhere nearby…if you didn’t eat it.
“You mean you didn’t know because Rush Windbag and Bill O’LIElly didn’t tell you?”
I always find it amusing how the left assumes we conservatives take our marching orders from talk radio. Bodden, however, clearly worships at the altar of the left wing conspiracy theorist web sites, officially making him a 1 percenter.
If its on the net it must be true, right Bill?
It looks like the woodshed is about to get two more characters added to the wall. John and Jon – you have just been sent to the woodshed. That makes this thread 52% for Bodden and 48% for the rest of the people lined up to get into the woodshed. Respect for the military starts with respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which they are fighting for – whoops – did I just send some more folks to the woodshed. Here’s to defending everyone’s rights left, right and center. Here’s to the woodshed where you all just got taken.
Ginny Tetram said: “Bodden, spare us the website torture. Many of us don’t require a website as a substitute for thinking, as you do.”
That sums up the thinking process of Ms. Tetram and her compatriots. They know what they believe and are not going to let facts get in the way.
This is from John Reese: “By definition, ‘the government’ is a group. The group Federal employees belong to, forming our government, not counting military, is at least 2.7 mil. as of 2005. If you think they all speak with one voice, you are seriously whacked out, dude. So, the government cannot lie, unless all 2.7 million tell the same lie.”
These are questions I posed to William Dillon on the same subject: “His statement that individuals within the government may lie, but the government doesn’t lie doesn’t hold up. If those liars represent the government and they lie, then they are lying on behalf of the government, so the government is lying. If the government has no voice, then who is telling you you have to file your taxes by April 15th?” and “(W)hat was Ronald Reagan talking about when he asked to be elected president to get the government off our backs? To get the people making up the government off their own backs?”
Dillon appears to be unable to answer them. How about you, Mr. Reese?
For the record, I had over twenty years in and connection with the military during which I met some of the best people and some I was glad to see the back of. During that period I made many friends, one of whom won a silver star.
Ginny and company: You need to get after Lou Dobbs on CNN. He and some guests just trashed the military, specifically, the Pentagon where the cream of the military is supposed to be ensconced. What got Lou and his guests upset? Well, it seems the Pentagon just gave a multi-billion dollar order for flying tankers to a European company that translates to outsourcing 40,000 American jobs to Europe. Why don’t you give Lou a piece of your mind and tell him to mind his own business and quit hating the military because the military never does anything wrong? After all, what’s wrong with giving billions of American dollars to foreigners? We do it all the time, don’t we?
Ginny: Thank you for your dissertation on the differences between “metaphor” and “analogy.” I’m sending a copy to Roget’s Thesaurus which has mistakenly listed them as synonyms.
Oh my heavenly Lord of mercy and kindness! How are we going to make a woodshed big enough to fit the whole pentagon?! Looks like it’s going to be an octogon woodshed – and we’ll drop it right on top of all of their hate. Why does the military hate America? I’m running out of hate there’s so many places to put it right now. I just hope we can hurry up and get Hillary in the White House so she can sweep out all of these people that hate America so much. I see a new coming of the Age of Aquarius – only this time it’s going to be the Aquarius of the Woodshed where names are taken and bottoms are turned red. Bring ’em home Hillary – then we’ll see who’s really going to run the Octogon.
Bodden: Please post your address, so I can send you a custom made plexi-glass belly button window disc, which you can have surgically installed at any Arco station. Once installed, and you can see again, your outlook and awareness level should brighten considerably. It doesn’t do anything about the uncomfortableness of having your head in that position, but I’m happy to do what I can.
Enjoy.
By the way Bodden, Ginny was right:
analogy: a comparison between two things that are similar in some way…
metaphor: the use to describe somebody or something, of a word or phrase that is not meant literally but by means of vivid comparison expresses something about him, her, or it…
There is a difference…It is said on this thread that you are nuance challenged. We just proved it.
Ginny wins on every issue.
Bodden: Interesting to note that twelve different people, I make it thirteen, took time out of busy lives to take issue with your message of hate. One gadfly showed up to lend you a badly needed hand, presumably to your chagrin. That’s it.
Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that you are wrong on the issues? Clearly you do not possess an open mind. You have long since made up your mind on the issues that concern you, seeking out websites that support your preconceptions, scoffing at those that offer an alternative point of view. You are quick to use name calling and denigrating slights, slapping on a quick label to avoid thinking, to pigeon hole those that oppose you into the safe little closed off rooms, the SOP of the closed mind.
You may think you held your own in this debate, because reality is not your strong suit. You most certainly did not. I asked eight of my friends and acquaintances to read this entire thread and give me their honest opinion of who won or lost this debate.
In summation, all eight said you got your ass kicked.
Why? Because you sit so far to the left, mainstream Americans see you as a kook of the loony left. The vast majority of Americans think attacking the men and women of our military sucks, big time. That is why, even on a leftist website, such as this, you will find very little support. It appears that even regular far out leftists, such as Bruce Miller, did not want to be associated with denigrating the military, as he also left you flapping in the wind.
A word of advice, when you clearly lose an argument, repeating yourself endlessly, doesn’t help, unless your goal at that point is pity.
What is interesting to note Jensen is that you seem to be on the same endless loop that the other American haters who have posted against Bodden seem to be on which is to continue to repeat your angry irrational message of hate. That track only leads to one place – that’s right – the woodshed. I’m sorry but that’s where you ended up – consider your heiny hurtin’.
Woodshed!
“Bodden: Interesting to note that twelve different people, I make it thirteen, took time out of busy lives to take issue with your message of hate. One gadfly showed up to lend you a badly needed hand, presumably to your chagrin. That’s it.”
Jensen: I’m getting support from others, but I don’t need them to help me on-line. I have facts to do that. Facts that you and your colleagues apparently don’t want to be troubled with.
John Reese and William Dillon: Perhaps you should also go after Lou Dobbs. He is always ranting about the government and how it is broken. While you are at it you can give him what I would presume would be a version of your description of the Pentagon. Lou Dobbs said that the Pentagon had given a contract to a European company for tankers. Based on your line of reasoning, the Pentagon can’t do that since it is a stone building.
On the metaphor/analogy argument I’ll concede that I had a brief debate with myself about which word to use, but I was more concerned with the point I was making at the time and not nuance over two words. Now, am I the only one on this thread capable of admitting error? As my grandfather told me many years ago, “It takes a good man to admit to being wrong.” I would say that dictum also applies to women.
This is a commentary that preceded a copy of the farewell speech given by President (and former General) Dwight Eisenhower at ourdocuments.gov:
“In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, “old soldier” speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex.” As President of the United States for two terms, Eisenhower had slowed the push for increased defense spending despite pressure to build more military equipment during the Cold Warâ ™s arms race. Nonetheless, the American military services and the defense industry had expanded a great deal in the 1950s. Eisenhower thought this growth was needed to counter the Soviet Union, but it confounded him. Through he did not say so explicitly, his standing as a military leader helped give him the credibility to stand up to the pressures of this new, powerful interest group. He eventually described it as a necessary evil.” The state department also has the preceding statement on its web site. Neither site explains when Eisenhower used the term “necessary evil” in this context, but it would seem the author of this commentary knew what he or she was talking about. Based on the full text of Eisenhower’s speech it is understandable why he would think of the military-industrial complex as a necessary evil. The full text of the speech makes clear, Eisenhower saw the potential for risk to our democracy with an alliance of the military and the war industries. If he did, in fact, see this as “a necessary evil” does that make Ike’s speech a hate-filled attack on the military?
As students of history will be aware of, excessive militarism has been a factor in the decline and fall of nations and empires. The fact that we are pouring hundreds of billions dollars into the M-I complex while bridges are collapsing around the country might be a sign were are on a declining path.
Eisenhower also said in this speech, “In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.”
John Reese and William Dillon: What was Eisenhower thinking of there? Based on your narrow interpretation of “government” the Federal government couldn’t direct research as Eisenhower said. Could it?
This is an excerpt from Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech as it relates to the military:
” A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
“Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
“In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
* and is gravely to be regarded.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V.
“Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI.
“Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
“Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.”
Was that a hateful speech by former General Eisenhower?
Did you read with care the paragraph that began, “We must never let the weight of this combination (military and armaments industries) endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”?
You can quote everyone on the planet, Bodden, but that doesn’t give you, The Bodden, the ability to think straight. I sincerely doubt you ever had an original thought in your life.
Facts are useless, if they don’t convey to the examiner of them, relevant meaning. This is where it all unravels for you, Bodden. You don’t have a clue what the facts mean. In the meantime, you drone on and on, like the Energizer Dummy with useless boring crap that no one, believe me, no one, gives a shit about.
Get a life.
First the American haters want the Boddinator to stop with the opinions – then when he provides the facts – the facts don’t have any meaning. “Facts are useless, if they don’t convey to the examiner of them, relevant meaning.” Exactly, my friend Jensen, because you have to take the facts and do something with them. Other American haters have made whole documentaries from Eisenhower’s speech. It’s considered one of the most important speeches in American History – it’s up there with the Gettysburg Address. But it doesn’t mean anything to you because you are in the woodshed – ouch!! That heiny has got to hurt. I hear they sell inflatable seat cushions at Rite Aid. Keep comin on if you want more heiny action because my arm is like the Enigizer Dummy it doesn’t know who’s behind it’s whapping – it just whaps and whaps in the woodshed. Man it’s getting a little crowded in here.
This is from Jensen Thorsen: “Bodden: Interesting to note that twelve different people, I make it thirteen, took time out of busy lives to take issue with your message of hate. One gadfly showed up to lend you a badly needed hand, presumably to your chagrin. That’s it.”
There are a couple of reasons why others have not joined in this debate. Given the opening salvos they realized it would be pointless to reason with those contributors.
Another reason would clearly be Ginny Tetram’s vitriol: “In my opinion, the members of code pink and those that defend them, should be thrashed within an inch of their worthless lives by all able bodied bystanders and any nearby members of the military, current or former, anytime they show up in public to do their scum sucking mockery of free speech.” Anyone who studies the history of the rise of the Third Reich in Germany will find the Nazis had similar attitudes, made similar statements and sent their SA Brownshirts to put that sort of thing in practice, killing and torturing the people who disagreed with them. It’s a good bet that more than a few readers of that venomous hatred decided they would have nothing to do with this thread.
The only reason I countered these arguments was the fact that I considered there might be some people trying to make up their minds about which side was right, and I wasn’t about to let Ginny and her mob get away with their remarks. I had no illusion about ever persuading this bunch to concede being at least a little wrong; although, it looks like I managed to shut up a couple of contributors.
It has been interesting and fun and I thought I might be able to continue this exchange for a while, but it looks like I won’t have time. I took John Reese’s and William Dillon’s lectures on the government and showed them to my tax accountant. I asked him if the government can’t lie how can they require me to file taxes? I considered his response made more sense than Reese’s and Dillon’s and concluded the judicious thing would be to work on my taxes. Incidentally, John and William, you never answered my question about what Reagan could have meant when he was talking about getting the government off the people’s backs? Or, how about Lou Dobbs’ attacks on “the government?” Or, how about Eisenhower talking about research by the “Federal government?” Or, how about Grover Norquist, who I presume to be in your area of the right-wing fringe? He wants to shrink government until it is so small he can drown it in a bathtub. Does that mean he would drown all the people?
To repeat Jensen Thorsen’s: “Bodden: Interesting to note that twelve different people, I make it thirteen, took time out of busy lives to take issue with your message of hate.” After the Second World War a noted historian, A. J. P. Taylor, estimated that when Hitler came to power about 10 percent of the people actively supported him, about 6 percent opposed him, while the rest (84 percent) were apathetic. So Jensen you don’t want to put too much faith in some numbers. You could be drawing the wrong conclusions.
The Source will be publishing its new edition tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if there is something in it that you can vent your spleen on.
Bodden: The only way YOU get anyone to shut up is by boring them to death. I imagine many on this thread left because of sheer boredom, not because you managed to make a single point, because you didn’t.
Relentless plodding blather, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum, only turns people off. If you didn’t have a website to visit, a dead mouldering politician to quote, the only thing in your head would be the gentle flutter of all those pretty butterflies going around, around, around.
Forget the part about governments lying. You have demonstrated a profound inability to think in the abstract. You won’t get it.
This military hating Bodden character not only doesn’t get it, he appears to think that quantity of venom equals or exceeds quality of venom.
I didn’t count, but he must have devoted at least 26,432 words to achieve coming in a plodding turtle 20th in a field of fifteen bright sprinters.
Something I did count, however, was how many people on the entire planet give a rat’s ass about a speech by Eisenhower. That number is five. Bodden, and four others… who all passed away some years ago.
The overwhelming negative response to Bodden’s ‘hate the military’ letter should be a ‘wake up’ call to the Source. Print shit if you want, but don’t reward it and don’t lie about why you are rewarding it. That makes the Source complicit in the shit. There is a line. Sure, you have the right to cross it, say or reward whatever the hell you want, but when you cross it, people who despise what you say also despise you personally, as in the case of Bodden, for having the sick mind saying it and react against you accordingly, as we saw all the way down this thread.
Bodden will never ‘get it,’ he hasn’t the capacity.
The Source? Who knows? Time will tell.
As the threads on this post clearly show, Code Pink is the winner, with Bodden coming in a close second and then I think I came in third. Bodden’s long posts count for twice the number of the smaller and weaker posts. That’s a lot of venom he had to drink to keep going like he did – can you beleive the man’s fortitude? I counted the number of people that care about Eisenhower and it was really just one because everyone else is too poorly educated to even remember Ike. I’m not talking about just the America haters on this post, I mean our country in general. When the man who engineered D-Day is thrown off as irrelevant who wins – the woodshed. Oh wait did I hear the Enegizer Dummy getting cranked up? Before everyone’s tushkus gets warm and they run crying back to their homes let me place this bronze medal around my neck for bringing home third in this “debate.” That has a nice feel to it. Maybe those people who no longer love America for what she is but want her to be some little girl without an ounce of rebellion will look to my Bronze medal and know that a small mean little voice on this website will never triumph over the proud new generation of founding fathers like Code Pink and Bodden.