Fresh (And Unwussy) Air
My first interior response to Joel Stein’s candid admission that he doesn’t support the troops was “at least one of them has finally told the truth.”
[B]eing against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. [SNIP]My second response involved a bit of bluster, especially at these lines:We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful. [SNIP]
[W]hen you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.
But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.On the contrary (I thought for a bit): please, Mr. Stein, spit on me (I’ve had my shots) so I can beat you to a pulp and get arrested so that everyone will laugh at the notion of you getting a beat-down from a slightly overweight middle-aged woman!I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea.
But then I realized that such a spectacle would serve the same purposes that Mr. Stein’s commentary was designed to serve, along with his rather refreshing honesty:
1. To bring attention to him.
2. To demonstrate the alleged Neanderthal nature which exists in those of us who have volunteered to fight in America’s prospective wars, even the women. Kicking Mr. Stein’s a** for exercising his very American right to publicize his opinion—as odious as it is—would demonstrate the "tool" nature of all of us: those of us who have volunteered to be in the military, who allegedly didn’t “gr[o]w up with money, [and didn’t do] well in school”; and, who, as a result, don’t know any better but to administer a righteous beating to a man honest enough to openly display his opposition to—along with his contempt for--the most intelligent, educated, thoughtful, competent, motivated and lethal military force that has ever been assembled.
The “Nazi” meme would be complete.
Right, Mr. Stein?
I want to thank you, Joel—may I call you Joel?—for taking the decidedly un-wussy option to display the thoughts that many others of your profession attempt to obfuscate in order to ward off criticism of their actual position. May this open attitude of yours result in many more of your ilk coming out from behind the bogus “we-support-the-troops-but-not-their-mission” shield.
None of your fellow travelers will get a beating from me; well, as long as they don’t spit on me, that is. However, they--and you--should be prepared for the returned verbal contempt dished out. It’s our right also.
(Thanks to Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive, who is less sanguine about this column than I am.)









Hugh Hewitt mopped the floor with this tool AND provided a link to cancel your subscription to the LA Times. There goes their last 6 readers. I knew it would be for something stupid. Way to go, Joel.
Posted by: Teal Marie | January 25, 2006 at 12:22 AM
At least this one slithered out front and admitted what the rest of us knew all the time.
I wonder when the rest of 'em will break cover. Oh, the pols won't do it. They don't have the testicular fortitude.
One of the things that really irks me is his "I'm better than them" attitude towards the military. There's a lot of that on the left. I understand the previous incumbent (or his wife) banned wearing uniforms in the White House or tried to. Didn't want to be seen with 'scruffy soldiers' or whatever.
Even in the sixties I served with people who were better educated and came from better circumstances than Mr. Stein could even dream of. Many were in the enlisted ranks too.
I never understood why someone with a master's degree was scraping paint on a destroyer, but there he was, it was his choice.
SN Johnson was very handy for his linguistic skills on liberty in Europe. I think Greece was the only place he disappointed.
Posted by: StinKerr | January 25, 2006 at 03:31 AM
I don't read LA Times editorials--who is this guy? Is he just trying to be provocative and controversial, or is he a serious columnist? Reading his bio, it seems that he would love nothing more than for people to make a big deal out of anything out there he says. The 2 Live Crew approach--controversy equals fame.
Posted by: Justin | January 25, 2006 at 07:29 AM
Mr Stein outlines an ethical dilemna that has no logical basis in fact and is purely guilt by association, a perennial weapon of the left. If armys and soldiers were the causes of war and not just the instruments of war there would indeed be a dilemna in objecting to the one and not the other. In cases where a military rules the gov't and controls the conditions leading to war he might have had a point worth pursuing but that's never the case in modern democracies, by definition. By his logic anyone objecting to fatal car wrecks would face an ethical dilemna by not objecting to cars themself. Or someones support of communist ideals is somehow support for the Soviet and Chinese models. I imagine, like most anti-war proponents, that Mr Stein, at the minimum, supports the full funding of first responders to deal with the effects of a terrorist attack, post facto. But by his logic he shouldn't support them because of their association with terrorist events. Expanded bomb disposal/hazmat/nuclear decontamination facilities only serve a useful purpose in the event of a terrorist attack and therefore induce terrorism, ie "call it in". Of coursem, this is assuming he rejects the terrorists desire to murder him in their quest to defeat the West.
Posted by: torchy | January 25, 2006 at 09:21 AM
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007867&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage
You want to know what the commiecrat leadership is up to?
Read the above article.
Posted by: babylonandon | January 25, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Dearest Baldilocks,
I think we should take a hint from the CIC. Ignore the pissants. The LAT is in a death spiral. I will always remember that they had the best Sunday comics section in the country.
Regards,
Roy
Posted by: Roy Lofquist | January 25, 2006 at 06:12 PM
A word of caution to punk Joel Stein. You seem to be in tune with rock, but you don't comprehend the meaning. You say you won't spit on soldiers as the New-Left Stalino-Fascists did in the 1970s.
Mister, let me quote one of my favorites, Tennessee Ernie Ford. "When you see me coming (in uniform), you better step aside. A lot a men didn't..."and I think you know the rest.
You may be honest in expressing your gut opinion, but that still doesn't get you off the hook for being a scumbag coward!
Posted by: Mescalero | January 25, 2006 at 08:59 PM
This guy, like most liberals, belives it is cool to be above the fray. Just because the first floor is on fire is no concern of his since he is on the 9th floor. He can even complain about the noise the firemen are making putting out the fire.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis | January 25, 2006 at 09:37 PM
HUH?!?! My father is a former Marine and Vietnam veteran. He was also a former Black Panther. He's been against the Iraq war from the start and still is against it. Yet he always supports the troops. My father has always told me he will "support the troops no matter his beliefs because he will always be a soldier". So my father is a wussy? Or does being a former soldier gets him a free pass away from Wussyville? I respectfully disagree with you Baldilocks. You aren't a wussy when you support the troops but disagree with the war. In fact, the term "wussy" shouldn't even be used in this discussion. I reserve the word "wussy" for those that volunteer for the armed forces than go AWOL. Don't volunteer if your not going to follow through.
Posted by: T-Steel | January 26, 2006 at 07:01 AM
T-Steel: I certainly hope that you read the title of the article.
Posted by: baldilocks | January 26, 2006 at 10:07 AM
Yeah, I read the title of the article. Ah heck with it. I'm just a tad hypersensitive to my father getting flack from people we both know when he says he doesn't support the war but supports the troops. Especially since he's a proud former Marine and veteran.
You know what Baldilocks, I just plain tired of all the extracurricular activity surrounding the Iraq War from the left and the right. The positioning, posturing, and grandstanding burns me up. Harsh words and fired-up rhetoric means NOTHING for a situation that we won't really see stabilize for another decade or so.
Posted by: T-Steel | January 26, 2006 at 05:56 PM
Loved your take on this Juliette.
I have come to realize also that the existence of these people in our society is a sign of freedom.
It is distasteful (especially to us in the military or military family), but the alternative (denying the freedom of speech) is intolerable.
So to Mr. Stein, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand and the rest of the loons, I say: speak on.
Posted by: Constantine | January 27, 2006 at 09:34 AM
You know what Baldilocks, I just plain tired of all the extracurricular activity surrounding the Iraq War from the left and the right. The positioning, posturing, and grandstanding burns me up. Harsh words and fired-up rhetoric means NOTHING for a situation that we won't really see stabilize for another decade or so.
Amen to that.
Posted by: Justin | January 27, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Another Stein weighs in:
I support them, pray for them, am humbled just to be on the same planet with them. With every morning I wake up, every meal I eat, every walk I take in freedom, every night I sleep in peace, I ask God to look after the men and women who guard the ramparts of this blessed island of peace and decency called America. Without them, we would be nothing. Without them, Joel Stein would have his head sawed off. Saints in armor is what I call them and what they are. They are God's gifts to a wayward world. --Ben Stein
Posted by: Tully | January 28, 2006 at 08:03 AM
Wow, Tully. Great quote. Right on the money and right timely, too. Thank you. We needed that. I did, anyway, slurs against our military folks dishearten me. Thank you very, very much.
Posted by: Teal Marie | January 28, 2006 at 08:24 AM
"...administer a righteous beating to a man honest enough to openly display his opposition to—along with his contempt for--the most intelligent, educated, thoughtful, competent, motivated and lethal military force that has ever been assembled."
I'm really starting to like you!!!
My boss just retired...enlisted man... with his Masters degree. The people I work with (active duty and retired) are the best and brightest. Me? I try to keep up, but failing that, I'm a crack rifle shot :)
Posted by: Brian the Sailor | January 31, 2006 at 10:04 PM