bugman's sig

[JJuggle]

bugman's sig
"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."
~Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMCI'd like to start a dialog on bugman's sig. I hope to do so without rancor, but the fact is it rankles me. No doubt this rankling is a good thing on all accounts.

I'll preface this by saying that a sig is an expression of opinion and one's own feelings and as such it is not my hope that it will be removed nor, of course, do I have any right to request that it be. I just want to discuss it.

I find it to be a romanticized, sentimental untruth that attempts to overly glorify the role of the soldier in American history. Or world history for that matter.

This is not to say that there haven't been conflicts where the use of force wasn't justified. The War of 1812, the Civil War, and WWII come to mind. However, the vast majority of US use of force has been largely unjustified. The soldiers deployed in these wars, while they may have in many instances acted nobley and bravely did so despite the purpose of the conflicts. They certainly did nothing to defend the rights of those here at home in the United States.

I also believe that the quote is part of a terrible anti-intellectual strain in American thought. One that tries to minimize and trivialize the role of thought and speech over might. One that attempts, sometimes quite successfully, to present men and women of ideas as ineffectual cowards.

On to the specifics. It was Peter Zenger who in 1733 criticized the governor of New York and was censored and tried for it in 1735 who got the ball rolling for freedom of the press. It was all the subsequent journalists who refused to be cowed and who wrote disapprovingly of the fraud, abuse of power, and misdeeds of the powers that be and who held their sources private who continued his work. And their lawyers, some of them brilliant and noble, who worked to defend these rights.

It was the likes of Allen Ginsberg who defended his right to publish his poem "Howl" against charges of obscenity and the poets and writers who came before him and followed him who forge and maintain the right of free speech. And their lawyers, some of the brilliant and noble, who worked to defend these rights.

It was all the protesters from the suffragists to the abolitionists to the trade unionists to the civil rights marchers to the anit-war protesters who demanded and create the right to demonstrate. In many cases, such as the labor disputes of the 1930s to the Vietnam war protests, the soldiers were the ones putting the protesters down. Let us not forget Kent State. Where are the soldiers defending our right to demonstrate as the current administration pens protestors in "free-speech zones" often blocks or miles away from the events and people they seek to be heard by? Where were the soldiers when at the 2000 Republican National Convention protesters were arrested on flimsy charges, given excessively high bail and held for unprecendented lengths of time as a tactic of intimidation?

On occasion the soldier does serve to protect these rights from external forces. But never forget that the biggest threat to these rights is always from internal forces and against them the soldier is at best neutral and at worst the enemy of these rights.

Respectfully,
Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[johnfoss]

It can be argued that the soldier doesn't make the decisions. Though he is the tool to enforce the nation's will, he does not represent the thought process. He does represent the solution, if that solution is determined to require force.

I disagree with JJuggle on many of the wars he probably lists as not affecting our rights at home. Let's use Vietnam as a powerful example. It was a bad war, fought for some bad reasons, with bad outcome both at home and abroad. Just bad stuff all around.

It is easy to say that in the long run the outcome had no effect on our rights at home. It is not easy to say what would have happened if nations had not stood up to fight the spread of communist regimes.

Did all those soldiers die in a "bad" war? Yes. Did they die in vain? I think not. It was just part of a much larger picture. The ending of the cold war in the 1980s may have renedered all that fighting moot, but who could have known this in the 60s and 70s? Though the war may have been dishonorable, they died with honor.

How about a different approach. Instead of saying the soldier "gives" us our freedoms, how about that he (she) dies for them? This is true also. But soldiers aren't the only ones who die. Citizens, radical thinkers, reporters, labor union members, maybe even a few lawyers as well.

But I like Bugman's sig. I understand its meaning without being mislead that we need soldiers to have rights. I can't speak for JJuggle, but I'm pretty sure he is grateful as most of us are for our soldiers, who are willing to die to protect our nation's interests (and cannot be blamed for the choice of those interests).

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by johnfoss
But I like Bugman's sig. I understand its meaning without being mislead that we need soldiers to have rights.John, as a matter of contrast is this equally likeable or unobjectionable? Or put another way, do you believe the below to come close to the truth?

"It is the reporter, not the soldier, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the poet, not the soldier, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the organizer, not the soldier, who gives the freedom to demonstrate. It is the reporter who respects the principles embodied by the flag, it is the poet who serves the flags' ideals, and the organizer who sometimes burns the flag to demonstrate its resilience."I can't speak for JJuggle, but I'm pretty sure he is grateful as most of us are for our soldiers, who are willing to die to protect our nation's interests (and cannot be blamed for the choice of those interests). This is very complicated and I am quite honestly very conflicted on this matter. Suffice it to say that my wishes are always for the safety of American service men and women nor would I do anything or support any action that made their return home from any service or conflict anything other than welcoming. I believe that all people are deserving of respect and dignity. This will seem lukewarm at best to some, but I hope that it will not be interpreted as suggesting I bear any ill will to our soldiers.

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[johnfoss]

Yours is fine, but it suggests that the soldier is not needed. The world is full of aggressive people. The "good," "civilized" people of the world are not the ones we need soldiers to protect against. Without the soldier, even if used only as a deterrent, our freedoms are at much greater risk.

[tomblackwood]

Originally posted by JJuggle
This is not to say that there haven't been conflicts where the use of force wasn't justified. The War of 1812, the Civil War, and WWII come to mind.
I'm hoping this was an inadvertent double-negative. In my opinion, the use of force certainly was justified in these cases, especially WWII.

That said, I'd agree with your overly-romanticized assertion, although the sig itself doesn't really bug me. I am thankful for the short history lesson you provided...good context.

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by tomblackwood

I'm hoping this was an inadvertent double-negative. In my opinion, the use of force certainly was justified in these cases, especially WWII.A bit off-topic, but this is actually an advertant use of a triple negative and says exactly what I mean:

"This is not to say that there haven't been conflicts where the use of force wasn't justified."

Take off all the negatives and you have:

"This is to say that there have been conflicts where the use of force was justified."

I think they're equivalent. :confused:

Although mayber you're right. In any event, I meant what you thought I meant. :)That said, I'd agree with your overly-romanticized assertion, although the sig itself doesn't really bug me. Here's another way of putting why the quote irks me.

Why create the image of the noble soldier at the expense of the reporter, poet, and organizer, except to make the latter appear to be parasites feeding on the deeds of the soldier? What is the purpose of that contrast? Can't the soldier be elevated without denigrating those others?

And what does the insistence on that contrast say of the speaker's (or writer's) feelings about those rights to begin with if those who benefit from them don't even deserve them? Frankly, it's disrespectful.

Where does that lead?

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[johnfoss]

Originally posted by JJuggle
Why create the image of the noble soldier at the expense of the reporter, poet, and organizer, except to make the latter appear to be parasites feeding on the deeds of the soldier?Possibly this:

The soldier is something we pay for. Reporters, poets and organizers are optional (not paid for by our tax dollars). Therefore, the soldier needs to be justified more than the others.

We need those soldiers (in today's world), even in times of peace for two basic reasons:

1. In case there is a war

2. To help prevent, by their very existence, training, and skills, possible wars.

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by johnfoss
Possibly this:

The soldier is something we pay for. Reporters, poets and organizers are optional (not paid for by our tax dollars). Therefore, the soldier needs to be justified more than the others.

We need those soldiers (in today's world), even in times of peace for two basic reasons:

1. In case there is a war

2. To help prevent, by their very existence, training, and skills, possible wars. John, as usual a very interesting perspective. However, I still think there is something more to the need to downplay the role of the reporter, poet, and organizer. I think it is fair to say that without them the world would not be worth the soldier's efforts to defend.

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[wentz]

The soldier is a tool intended to assist the government in running the country. In an ideal situation, the government runs the country based on the constitution. In other words, our rights and priveleges are protected by the constitution, while soldiers and citizens serve as a system of checks and balances to ensure the freedom offered by the constitution.

At times, other powers (either domestic or abroad) will try to limit our rights by force. During such times it is the soldiers who act to defend the freedoms offered by the constitution.

Other times, (through oversight by many or corruption by a few) the government will suppress our freedoms. It then falls upon the poet, the reporter, and the organizer to protect those freedoms.

As far as downplaying one group or the other, it is wrong to do either. At the heart of a soldier is a man who says: "I will die before you do, because you represent the country I love." Poets and reporters say: "By the nature of his task, a soldier is not allowed to question how he is used. I must act to ensure that he is used for just causes, lest his impact stray from his intent."

Both are necessary, and although sometimes they conflict, most of the time they work together in ways that make me proud.

Rob

[bugman]

I put that in my sig because I knew it would bug you Rapael.:D I am going to do a little searching later and find the story I got it from. It will give a little context to the qoute that may bring you a little more understanding as to why it was said. Maybe not.

Boy this just makes me want to post more!

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by bugman
I put that in my sig because I knew it would bug you Rapael.:DYou've had it up for a while. I'm dubious that you actually had me in mind when you put it up. ;) I am going to do a little searching later and find the story I got it from. It will give a little context to the qoute that may bring you a little more understanding as to why it was said. Maybe not.Whatever my reaction, be assured that I'll read it. Boy this just makes me want to post more! OY! This is eating into my work and free time. I keep telling myself to shut up, but I just wont listen. :(

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by wentz
As far as downplaying one group or the other, it is wrong to do either. At the heart of a soldier is a man who says: "I will die before you do, because you represent the country I love." Poets and reporters say: "By the nature of his task, a soldier is not allowed to question how he is used. I must act to ensure that he is used for just causes, lest his impact stray from his intent." I like that. Thanks.

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[dogbowl]

Originally posted by bugman
I put that in my sig because I knew it would bug you Rapael.:D I am going to do a little searching later and find the story I got it from. It will give a little context to the qoute that may bring you a little more understanding as to why it was said. Maybe not.

Yo Bugman
I'll just say that your sig made me feel like puking every time I read it. I'm not anti-military at all, I just hate self-righteousness, left or right. And your sig, to a stranger's eye, reeked of self righteousness.

Sort of like a new Right-wing Political Correctness. Yea, that's what it is. I didn't like liberal PC, and now I am discovering that I can't stand Conservative PC either.

Your sig also appeared to be an attempt to "put you (Liberal reader)in your place" if you questioned the war. A common thing from conservatives these days. Supportbushshutyourmouth kind of thing.

But then again, maybe you were kidding. Like you said, you did it just to bug Rapael. I guess that's why they call you The Bugman.

Cheers,

Steve

[dogbowl]

Oh, and I forgot to add--

I completely agree with everything Raphael said. Especially the part about "terrible anti-intellectual strain in American thought."
So true. And really tragic.

When you think about it, Reagan was our first true anti-intellectual president. And Bush2 is continuing that particular tradition...

--Steve

[bugman]

The quote that I have as my Sig was born out of a controversy that originated over this exchange of e-mails.

--------- Original Message ---------------
To: Peter Kristein
From: Cadet xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:16:20 -0700

Dear Sir or Ma'am,

The Air Force Academy is going to be having our annual Academy Assembly. This is a forum for mainly but not only Political Science majors, discussing very important issues dealing with politics. Right now we are in the planning stage for advertising and we would appreciate your help in the follow areas. Do you know of or have any methods or ways for inter advertising and or communications? What would be the best way for us to advertise at your school whether it is sending you the fliers and you making copies or by perhaps putting an advertisement in your local publication? We would appreciate your input and the cost of what you recommend. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Very Respectfully
Cadet xxxxxxxxxxx

Alright, not so bad so far, right? Just a college kid who attends the AF Academy and is asking for some contact information for another university. No biggie. But here's the reply he received.

-----Original Message-----
To: Cadet xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Peter Kristein
Sent Thursday, October 31, 2002 146 PM
Subject: Re: Academy Assembly

You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage. Help you recruit. Who, top guns to reign death and destruction upon nonwhite peoples throughout the world? Are you serious sir? Resign your commission and serve your country with honour.

No war, no air force cowards who bomb countries without AAA, without possibility of retaliation. You are worse than the snipers. You are imperialists who are turning the whole damn world against us. September 11 can be blamed in part for what you and your cohorts have done to the Palestinians, the VC, the Serbs, a retreating army at Basra.

You are unworthy of my support.

Peter Kristein
Professor of History
Saint Xavier University

____________________________________________________

The professor after much unwanted publicity gave a formal apology. Then was relieved of his duties for a while. It is OK to speak your mind, but this was a little uncalled for and I can't imagine represented the school in the best light.

The quote actually came from the Air Force Academy website and was related to an official statement made by the school. The school was trying to find a positive way to deal with the controversy. There were many quotes or statements from cadets. This statement was a quote from one of the cadets parents I believe, and was appropriate for the moment.

[john_childs]

Originally posted by dogbowl
I completely agree with everything Raphael said. Especially the part about "terrible anti-intellectual strain in American thought."
So true. And really tragic.
Take a look at the email reply that Bugman posted below from Peter Kristein, Professor of History at Saint Xavier University. If there is an anti-intellectual strain in American thought then you only have to look at what that well reasoned professor wrote to understand why.

[GILD]

Originally posted by JJuggle
I'd like to start a dialog on bugman's sig. I hope to do so without rancor, but the fact is it rankles me. No doubt this rankling is a good thing on all accounts.another deja vu post
exactly the reaction i had when i first saw the sig in question
i wanted to have a go at it then but since i dont really have much time to spend on here anymore :( , i thought i'd rather not waste the bit that i do have
thanx for 'making it happen'

i'm also saving this thread addy as an example of how a discussion of as touchy a nature as this one can be conducted without it spiralling down into a morass of name-calling

i realise that Kristein is being made out to be the bad guy here, i'd like to register my complete support for his original email response to the cadet's unsolicited 'support'-based harrasment

and untill this (http://www.soaw.org) is admitted to and sorted out, that support will be unwavering

now, to lighten the mood, let's discuss the democratic convention in chicago...

[JJuggle]

Originally posted by GILD
i realise that Kristein is being made out to be the bad guy here, i'd like to register my complete support for his original email response to the cadet's unsolicited 'support'-based harrasment
I would say that I support the sentiments of Kristein's response, but not his choice of words. It is perfectly appropriate for a college or university, assuming they do not already have a ROTC or other military program, to refuse to participate in recruiting for the branches of the military.

Kristein's choice of words as well as John C's (seeming) defense of anti-intellectualism are both unproductive overreactions.

And I'll add only that nothing in the exchange changes how I feel about the original quote. It is still unflattering, unfair, and untrue, however much it may be an emotional response to such unkind words.

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

PS Nice to hear from you GILD!

[JJuggle]

Here (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/cadet.htm), by the way, is a longer version of the incident.

Raphael Lasar
Matawan, NJ

[darchibald]

Where is Saint Xavier University located?

David

[john_childs]

Originally posted by JJuggle
Kristein's choice of words as well as John C's (seeming) defense of anti-intellectualism are both unproductive overreactions.
I wasn't defending anti-intellectualism. Just pointing out that it's stuff like that from college professors that feeds the anti-intellectualism movement. It's the heavily liberal PC tone on most college campuses that causes people with conservative beliefs to detest those pointy headed intellectuals. When intellectualism gets equated with liberalism then people who are conservative are going to be anti-intellectual. I'm not saying that there are no conservative intellectuals, but the tone on many college campuses would make you believe that's the case.

Professor Kristein's comments were rude, a personal attack, and completely inappropriate for the email request for information that was made. It is the rudeness and the inappropriateness of the reply that caused the public outrage. There is a time and a place for blowing your wad like that, but that was not one of them.

Professor Kristein basically invoked Godwin's Law (http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html) against himself. He didn't make the Hitler analogy, but given the tone of his reply he might as well have. If he is so full of hatred for all things military that he can't even conduct a civil email exchange or conversation then he is never going to get anyone but the choir to listen to him.

Could you imagine taking a world history class from him? What would happen when he has to cover the end of WWII in the Pacific and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I'm sure his presentation of the events would not be unbiased. I don't even think he would be physically able to teach areas of history like that. All it would take is one student to say that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because it allowed us to win the war against Japan and the professor would go completely ballistic.

[john_childs]

Originally posted by darchibald
Where is Saint Xavier University located?

David
Chicago.
Saint Xavier University web page (http://www.sxu.edu/)

[darchibald]

Oh okay thanks. In my town we have Saint Francis Xavier University, and often times people say Saint Xavier University. Rated number 1 in Canada for under-graduate universities and number 1 CIS Mens Hockey team, and number 1 Mens basketball the past few years excluding this year, if any unicyclists were curious and dwanted to attend and give me someone to ride with. ;)

David

[dogbowl]

Originally posted by john_childs

Take a look at the email reply that Bugman posted below from Peter Kristein, Professor of History at Saint Xavier University. If there is an anti-intellectual strain in American thought then you only have to look at what that well reasoned professor wrote to understand why.
I would hardly call Peter Kristein's reply anti-intellectual, because it has no connection to intellectualism. It is simply a nasty and over the top tirade against a well-meaning cadet. I would say that this professor is certainly anti-military in a broad and clumsy way that betrays his own ignorance, and certainly his own inability to try and sway others to his cause.

But typical of anti-intellectualism? No, that is easily found on the FOX News Channel, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, all those countless media types who prey on peoples insecurities, trying to blame intellectual "elites" on the countless problems in our country, when in fact, one could not be more elite than a Bush or a Cheney.

Trying to use Kristein's quote as an example of "typical" liberal thought is like me using one of Anne Coulter's more acidic quotes and saying "See, this is what all conservatives think!" It's not true (or is it?)

By the way, there was a bit in Bugman's infamous quote about burning the flag. I have been to loads of anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC and New York City. I have NEVER, not once, seen anyone attempting to burn the American flag. Never. Lots of people proudly carried them while marching, but no burning. There is this idea on the right-wing that all anti-war demonstraters are flag burners. That is such rubbish. Maybe in brussels or Pakistan or Chile they do that, but not here, and believe me, I've been to them all. There was a joke I heard at a demonstration--"Q: How do you spot the undercover cop at a demo? A: Easy--he's the one burning the American flag in front of the news cameras to give us bad publicity."
Now I don't think that that ever happened, but it does explain the establishment trying to paint an unflattering picture of demonstraters...

[dogbowl]

Originally posted by john_childs

Take a look at the email reply that Bugman posted below from Peter Kristein, Professor of History at Saint Xavier University. If there is an anti-intellectual strain in American thought then you only have to look at what that well reasoned professor wrote to understand why.
Wait a minute--Now I see what you were saying--you were using this as an example to understand WHY there is an anti-intellectual strain, and not using the quote as an example of a lefty version of anti-intellectualism. I posted my reply too soon (I also had a bit of guiness), I slightly misunderstood what you said--still, my reply still stands, with achnoledgement that I misunderstood what you posted. (I am certainly no intellectual--look at my spelling!)

[GILD]

Originally posted by dogbowl
...a well-meaning cadet... a concept that ranks tight up there with a 'friendly peadophile'

does the intention change the outcome?
if the guys at my lai 'meant well', does that make their actions any less criminal?
the nurmburg defendants claimed to have no intention at all, they were simply following orders
and see where that got them

oh, and by the way, i'm still waiting for a pro-military type to respond to the link i posted about the SOA
i suspect i'll be waiting a while...

[dogbowl]

Originally posted by GILD
a concept that ranks tight up there with a 'friendly peadophile'

Yea, I know what you mean, perhaps "naieve" would have been better.
I said "Well Meaning" only because it seems that so many Military types here in the USA (and gung-ho military fans, and war-cheerleaders) have really left out the notion of DEATH in military endeavers.
In America, war has really become sanitized.
So, probebly that cadet really was indeed "well meaning" from his own perspective.
Not that it makes recruiting on campus right in any way. I personally don't like it.
In fact, I was totally pissed off when I went to take my two kids to see the new Harry Potter film, and suddenly there is this huge hard-core advertisement for the Army, one that practically romanticized combat. Shown to a theatre filled with children.
Army, army, military military military--come on, it's everywhere now--give it a rest! There is more to life than just everyday going on about the military constantly. Life here in America is becomming too militeristic. It is not the America I grew up with anymore....

[GILD]

Originally posted by dogbowl
In America, war has really become sanitized.
This (http://www.mnet.co.za/CarteBlanche/Display/Display.asp?Id=2471) is the most chilling example i've seen of war becoming 'sanitized' and 'video-game-ified'
it's like it wasn't even human beings down there
scary, real scary

i'm sure the aforementioned 'war-cheerleaders' can't wait to jump on this post and point out all the wonderful breakthru's that were made for freedom and democracy and and and by the courageous actions of the guys hovering 2 miles away in a helicopter...
keep at it, the choir is listening
maybe one day u'll even be able to convince yourselves