[P1] self-quotes

[Eric B. Richardson]

At 11:26 AM -0600 1/4/03, John Paul Moore wrote:
>At 10:38 AM -0600 1/4/03, Eric B. Richardson wrote:
>
>>
>>Finally, prior to this 'chicken hawk' had intimations of a pedophile,
>>and using such language towards the president and his cabinet is
>>shameful and reprehensible. The people that coined this term knew
>>what they were doing and now you do too. Hopefully, now that you do,
>>you will stop.
>
>Although this whole thread is way OT, I cannot let this go unchallenged. It
>is by no means "shameful" and definitely not "reprehensible" to call the
>president and any of the cabinet by whatever name fits, and for those who
>are now advocating war but who managed conveniently to dodge their duty as
Americans during Vietnam, "chickenhawk" is a very good fit indeed.

Go ahead and challenge it all you want, but try to comprehend why it 
was said in the first place before you go off on your little rant.

What I objected to has to do with the term 'chicken hawk' which is 
long term standing slang for a pedophile that is decades old at 
least. The people who appropriated this term for this debate are 
aware of that meaning, and by doing so, implicating our national 
leaders with such connotations, is shameful and reprehensible 
behavior. I did not object to the criticism. If I did, it would be 
along the lines like this:

But let's be honest.

The fact that one didn't serve in the armed forces during the Viet 
Nam conflict does not mean that one shirked. Serving in the national 
guard was a legitimate alternative, as some of our leaders did. 
Others got legitimate deferences for their studies, or for health 
reasons, reasons that were recognized by our society as legitimate 
reasons. Others just got lucky, remember the lottery? That was the 
way that things were done. What they did not do was send a letter to 
their local draft board telling the commander how much they loathed 
the military, nor pardon those who did shirk by running away, and not 
only pardoning them but lauding them as patriots.

Having not served in the military, makes them no less an expert than 
all the people that sit in their comfy chairs at home or in their 
ivory towers that also never served and preach against war for any 
reason. The fact that they did not serve in the military is a nice 
piece of propagandistic obfuscation, but it is pretty much irrelevant 
as to whether or not they have the knowledge and expertise at their 
disposal to decide whether or not they have a job to do in fulfilling 
their oath of office to provide for our national security. They then 
have a moral responsibility to seek the best advice from militarily 
trained people, with experience far beyond what almost all of the 
politicians in either party could hope to have, considering that a 
military and political career, are by and large mutually exclusive 
except for a few exceptional people. Those military have the ethical 
obligation to provide them with the best advice possible. This is how 
it is done, and either you are ignorant and unthinking or you enjoy 
spouting stupid propaganda for some other agenda other than promoting 
peace.

BTW, I support Rangel's proposal, noting the alternatives for 
military service that he is providing. I would add another thing, ala 
Heinlein in Starship Troopers: you are allowed not to serve at all, 
but, if you don't serve, you don't vote. And non-military endeavors 
should require longer terms of service to gain the right to vote.