Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
War Is a Hate Crime
It was a clever piece of marketing. It blunted debate about new funding for war. And behind the closed doors of the caucus rooms, the Democratic leadership told Blue Dog Democrats, who are squeamish about defending gays or lesbians from hate crimes, that they could justify the vote as support for the war. They told liberal Democrats, who are squeamish about unlimited funding for war, that they could defend the vote as a step forward in the battle for civil rights. Gender equality groups, by selfishly narrowing their concern to themselves, participated in the dirty game.
“Every thinking person wants to take a stand against hate crimes, but isn’t war the most offensive of hate crimes?” asked Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who did not vote for the bill, when I spoke to him by phone. “To have people have to make a choice, or contemplate the hierarchy of hate crimes, is cynical. I don’t vote to fund wars. If you are opposed to war, you don’t vote to authorize or appropriate money. Congress, historically and constitutionally, has the power to fund or defund a war. The more Congress participates in authorizing spending for war, the more likely it is that we will be there for a long, long time. This reflects an even larger question. All the attention is paid to what President Obama is going to do right now with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. The truth is the Democratic Congress could have ended the war when it took control just after 2006. We were given control of the Congress by the American people in November 2006 specifically to end the war. It did not happen. The funding continues. And while the attention is on the president, Congress clearly has the authority at any time to stop the funding. And yet it doesn’t. Worse yet, it finds other ways to garner votes for bills that authorize funding for war. The spending juggernaut moves forward, a companion to the inconscient force of war itself.”
The brutality of Matthew Shepard’s killers, who beat him to death for being gay, is a product of a culture that glorifies violence and sadism. It is the product of a militarized culture. We have more police, prisons, inmates, spies, mercenaries, weapons and troops than any other nation on Earth. Our military, which swallows half of the federal budget, is enormously popular—as if it is not part of government. The military values of hyper-masculinity, blind obedience and violence are an electric current that run through reality television and trash-talk programs where contestants endure pain while they betray and manipulate those around them in a ruthless world of competition. Friendship and compassion are banished.
This hyper-masculinity is at the core of pornography with its fusion of violence and eroticism, as well as its physical and emotional degradation of women. It is an expression of the corporate state where human beings are reduced to commodities and companies have become proto-fascist enclaves devoted to maximziing profit. Militarism crushes the capacity for moral autonomy and difference. It isolates us from each other. It has its logical fruition in Abu Ghraib, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with our lack of compassion for our homeless, our poor, our mentally ill, our unemployed, our sick, and yes, our gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual citizens.
Klaus Theweleit in his two volumes entitled “Male Fantasies,” which draw on the bitter alienation of demobilized veterans in Germany following the end of World War I, argues that a militarized culture attacks all that is culturally defined as the feminine, including love, gentleness, compassion and acceptance of difference. It sees any sexual ambiguity as a threat to male “hardness” and the clearly defined roles required by the militarized state. The continued support for our permanent war economy, the continued elevation of military values as the highest good, sustains the perverted ethic, rigid social roles and emotional numbness that Theweleit explored. It is a moral cancer that ensures there will be more Matthew Shepards.
Fascism, Theweleit argued, is not so much a form of government or a particular structuring of the economy or a system, but the creation of potent slogans and symbols that form a kind of psychic economy which places sexuality in the service of destruction. The “core of all fascist propaganda is a battle against everything that constitutes enjoyment and pleasure,” Theweleit wrote. And our culture, while it disdains the name of fascism, embraces its dark ethic.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, interviewed in 2003 by Charlie Rose, spoke in this sexualized language of violence to justify the war in Iraq, a moment preserved on YouTube (see video below):
“What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, ‘Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?’ ” Friedman said. “ ‘You don’t think, you know we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna let it grow? Well, suck on this.’ That, Charlie, is what this war is about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.”
This is the kind of twisted logic the killers of Matthew Shepard would understand.
The philosopher Theodor Adorno wrote, in words gay activists should have heeded, that exclusive preoccupation with personal concerns and indifference to the suffering of others beyond the self-identified group made fascism and the Holocaust possible.
“The inability to identify with others was unquestionably the most important psychological condition for the fact that something like Auschwitz could have occurred in the midst of more or less civilized and innocent people,” Adorno wrote. “What is called fellow traveling was primarily business interest: one pursues one’s own advantage before all else, and simply not to endanger oneself, does not talk too much. That is a general law of the status quo. The silence under the terror was only its consequence. The coldness of the societal monad, the isolated competitor, was the precondition, as indifference to the fate of others, for the fact that only very few people reacted. The torturers know this, and they put it to test ever anew.”
- Posted in
191 Comments so far
Show All...was attached to a $680-billion measure outlining the Pentagon’s budget, which includes $130 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
----------------
We have four months of screaming and hysterics about a health care proposal that'll cost less than $100 billion a year.
Yet there's virtually NO DISCUSSION about a war budget nearly seven times that amount.
Could the priorities of our country be any clearer?
Yup, how a country spends it's money is a clear indicator of its priorities. Along with that is who it admires and who marginalizes also speaks of its priorities. Dennis Kucinich who clearly over and over shows his concern for the average person is marginalized, while Friedman who could care less for average people like you, me, and obviously Iraqis, as this video demonstrates, is made a media hero.
Tom,
Yes, I agree that Dennis Kucinich is marginalized because of his concern for the average person.
You hit the nail on the head. The mainstream media, the democrat party and the republican party all want to shut him up and keep him out of the debates because he is articulate, reasonable, intelligent and always speaks the truth.
Dennis Kucinich speaks the truth even when it goes against the democrat party.
He speaks not with empty rhetoric or cynically, but in specifics and with a genuine heartfelt concern for all people, americans and the rest of the world.
I will not give up on electing Dennis Kucinich as President. We can outsmart the MSM, and both parties and vote for him despite their best efforts to keep him and keep us down.
If war is a hate crime, then warriors are (hate) criminals. Duh!
===
A very good article.
I suspect that the very same desperation and "insecurity" which, I believe is at the core of our perversion, is also why the vast majority of people in these United States of America and most other nations cling to religions wherein the ultimate power in the universe is a detached, judgemental, dictatorial, vain, deity lacking in any frailty (lacking in humanity).
The worship of the indifferent male is the root of all of our social and environmental injustice.
This is what life is trying to teach us.
Dare to see yourself in ALL of nature and then respect that vision.
Dear Birdbrain Alley,
I do see your point. But, please keep room in your mind that many, many wise and thoughtful people believe there is more to life than what our physical senses can detect. Logic, science and reason are well and good but can never explain what is ineffable, just reflect evidence.
"I suspect that the very same desperation and "insecurity" which, I believe is at the core of our perversion, is also why the vast majority of people in these United States of America and most other nations cling to religions wherein the ultimate power in the universe is a detached, judgemental, dictatorial, vain, deity lacking in any frailty (lacking in humanity).
"The worship of the indifferent male is the root of all of our social and environmental injustice."
What if what you call "indifference" is really instead the gift of FREE WILL, with NO interference (but perhaps guidance if open to it) which is a highly necessary condition for True Love?
What if the "detached, judgmental, dictatorial, vain" qualities are constructs and projections of man, and the real core of perversion or evil?
What if it is not the Divine lacking humaneness, just ego-driven humans, temporarily (dwelling in time)?
What if you are truly Divine?
There are lots and lots more what ifs than are on this short list.
"This is what life is trying to teach us.
Dare to see yourself in ALL of nature and then respect that vision."
Spiritual beliefs do not exclude this vision-- far from it.
"donnalou"
You are misinterpreting what I wrote. Nowhere do I say you cannot or should not have spiritual beliefs. I am trying to point out how the "majority of people" who consider themselves religious -worship as the highest of highest- a deity who I believe is a major prick. This is then reflected in their behavior.
As far as "free will" is concerned, by your argument we cannot make any judgements about behavior here on earth.
I believe that what you worship is a reflection of who you are. If you worship the MALE as the highest of all, then you are a misogynistic person who wpuld treat women as less than equal.
"I am trying to point out how the "majority of people" who consider themselves religious -worship as the highest of highest- a deity who I believe is a major prick."
Geeezus, Birdbrain, I'm shocked. What kind of talk is that from a clean living kid like you? Stop it, please, before you're tempted to call the pope a peckerhead.
I wish to Goddess war was morally reprehensible but we're a long ways from seeing that happen. Back when Vietnam ended who would have imagined that in 2003, another "Vietnam" would have been started? You see, the underlying engine that keeps the hate crimes coming back has yet to be extinguished. It still haunts my mind that my own nephew spoke vehemently against me when I tried to teach him the lessons I learned from signing up for such misadventures but nothing could stop him from. I hope he's a peacenik in his next life.
One quote from Hedges I find interesting is
"Gender equality groups, by selfishly narrowing their concern to themselves, participated in the dirty game."
This is exactly the weakness that most rightwingers will exploit to say "See, feminism is bad, helping minorities is bad, helping same sex couples is bad, etc..." Before I foolishly signed up for Vietnam, I encountered racism openly. Years after I recovered, disgruntled racists followed Reagan's idea of playing the "welfare" game to play the victimization game of blaming women, minorities, and later gays for their problems. The Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to this day count on such misdirected anger to stay in power.
Another interesting quote from this article I found is
"...a militarized culture attacks all that is culturally defined as the feminine, including love, gentleness, compassion and acceptance of difference. It sees any sexual ambiguity as a threat to male “hardness” and the clearly defined roles required by the militarized state. The continued support for our permanent war economy, the continued elevation of military values as the highest good, sustains the perverted ethic, rigid social roles and emotional numbness that Theweleit explored"
I warn any young man or woman who wishes to sign up in the military that not only is having a military mentality destructive to others but it is destructive to oneself. When you enter the military, you are basically taught to give your mind no room for error. This means that if you find yourself in defeat, rather than graciously accepting your mistakes, you are either likely to repeat it or try to commit suicide in sheer madness. We must not only reduce the military but we must see to it that our military properly trains its soldiers out of PTSD so that they can leave the military on a soft landing rather than allowing their symptoms to ruin the lives of their loved ones and themselves. It still remains a mystery why people who see these things would still choose to sign up aside from the military being more desperate in its hiring practices.
I appreciate your openness and I do not mean this as a criticism, but you made one statement which needs to be corrected.
The war in Vietnam has not ended.
Horrible and terrifying birth defects continue in Vietnam from the fact of our chemical poisoning of the ground upon which the Vietnamese people depend for food. We have physically poisoned their future.
I cannot deny the fact that the poisoning of Vietnam has continued. Technically, the poisoning you refer to is not part of war but occupation. Either way, you're right. The problem is most people won't see what harm they are doing to themselves with war let alone what harm they are doing to those civilians.
I apologize for not being more clear. I am referring to the ongoing effects of "agent orange", which I consider a continuation of hostilities toward the people of Vietnam. It was, is, and will continue to be a part of the war. We can accept the lie that the war ended because our troops pulled out or we can face our continuing atrocities.
As a nation and a culture, we absolutely refuse to take responsibility for our destructive history. Whether it be the genocide of Native people and Africans made slaves, or the people of the Phillipines, or German, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese civilians, the people of Iran, Guatemala, el Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, East Timor, Diego Garcia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Colombia (to name a few), we will not accept our accountability for their mass deaths and torture due to our all-consuming, rapacious lifestyle (The American Dream) and our foreign policy under all administrations which treats others as exploitable, expendable commodities for our benefit.
“Every thinking person wants to take a stand against hate crimes, but isn’t war the most offensive of hate crimes?” asked Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who did not vote for the bill."
Dennis Kucinich can always be counted on to do the right thing despite pressure and trickery from those in power.
As Mayor of Cleveland, Dennis Kucinich stood up to the powerful electric company plotting with the banks holding the city's notes. They threatened to call in the bank notes unless he turned over the city-owned electric.
Dennis was voted out of office in the next election and later recognized for having saved the people of Cleveland a lot of money by retaining the electric instead of privatizing.
Dennis Kucinich 2012 for President based on acts not rhetoric.
"Dennis Kucinich can always be counted on to do the right thing despite pressure and trickery from those in power."
LMAO ! The man has bowed to political pressure in endorsing Kerry and Obama. Kucinich would be better off leaving the party and joining Bernard Sanders if he is to be taken seriously. I like the man and his ideas but the Democratic Party is no more a place for him than the Republican Party. He could run for Independent Senator of Ohio against George Voinavich as part of teaming up with Bernard Sanders. I still think Ralph Nader deserves another chance in 2012. Ronnie had no problem running as a senior so why can't Ralph?
Dennis Duncan,
I don't know what LMAO means but whatever you say about "endorsing" Kerry or Obama does not change the fact of who Dennis Kucinich is and what he has done for the people.
We continue to make excuses as to why we cannot vote for Dennis Kucinich. There were numerous exuses to not vote for Obama (his votes in the Senate, his hollow rhetoric, lack of specific plans) so why did people vote for him?
The facts are that Dennis Kucinich is not a man of wealth or a graduate of Harvard Business School. He has lived in the same house he bought 30 years ago. He is not interested in wealth. He values people. He has faced struggles in his life and persevered and not forgotten where he came from or the people he came with.
Dennis Kucinich has the strength of his convictions and has not towed the party line. He voted against the latest war funding bill. He continues to fight for single-payer healthcare.
If he cannot get on the ballot or continue his campaign, it is because the same people that he has fought for and supports are not fighting for him and supporting him. If he starts taking money from corporations and the republican party like Ralph Nader, then where would his allegiance lie and why would we trust him? Dennis Kucinich on CSPAN on Sunday stated that we need to change the system to public financing of campaigns. This is an honest man.
If we vote for him, he will win. Dennis Kucinich has a large following and I don't see why the tv debates are necessary to win the election when the majority of people access their news from the internet.
Just because the majority of the democrat party has sold out the american people, does not mean there are not existing democrats who continue to believe in democracy and work for the people.
Dennis Kucinich 2012.
LMAO is internet-speak for "Laughing My Ass Off".
If DK really did say that, I can only suppose he wasn't thinking clearly. War is always about stealing somebody else's land or resources: wealth, in other words. Hate crimes are about irrational hatred and the pure joy of destruction, with no wealth motive involved. Hate criminals typically don't even bother to rob their victim. War criminals *always* rob their victim, if they win.
Mairead,
Hate criminals rob their victims of their security, of feeling safe and sometimes of their lives.
I agree for our government, war is about stealing resources and increasing their wealth and that of the war profiteers.
Signing up for war is signing up for killing. Hate must have something to do with it. Many of the military men or boys invading Iraq and Afghanistan listen to loud, violent music as they go in for the kill. From what I understand, many of these individuals are neo-nazis and some believe they are serving their god by killing.
Any time an assault is made on someone's life or their safety, it is a hate crime.
"Any time an assault is made on someone's life or their safety, it is a hate crime."
That is a very broad definition. A lot of crimes can fall into that definition, the term close to being meaningless.
Scenario A: a robber breaks into your house, threatens you, robs you, and leaves.
Scenario B: a robber breaks into your house, threatens you, robs you, and in the process of robbing you, injures or kills you because you attempted to fight him.
Scenario C: someone breaks into your house, and shoots you dead because he doesn't like you.
Are all 3 hate crimes?
Sue (and Kivals too), I can almost accept your thesis. But in truth, as rfloh points out, many attacks are made without any feeling at all about the victim.
To the assaulter (an individual or a country), the victim is just a barrier, something standing in the way of the attacker taking possession of their wallet, or land, or pool of oil, or diamond mine, or aquifer, or something else. There's no emotion at all behind the attack apart from greed. The in the case of war, government psychopaths-in-charge might *feign* justified hatred, or try to whip it up as a tool, but they don't actually care --the key is that the victims have something that the psychopaths want and think they can grab. (A good example is the number of Nazis who were, by Nazi standards, 'tainted' by having one or more Jewish ancestors. If the Nazi in question had the right connections, nothing was ever said.)
It is generally considered a hate crime if one attacks another because of the other's nationality, race, or ethnicity. Generally, in a war, the nationality of the party being attacked is different from that of the attacking party and is obviously a part of the reason for the attack. A different race and ethnicity are frequently involved in the individual acts of violence and often contribute to the brutality.
It is generally considered a hate crime if the only / primary reason for attacking someone is race, religion, gender identity, with no / little thought for material benefit.
Would you say that the primary reason most wars are fought is because of nationality with no / little thought for material benefit?
I believe Chris is wrong about one thing. He said we have more troops than any other nation. I believe China has more soldiers, and perhaps there are others. Of course there's quite a difference between having and using.
I suspect that he meant per capita.
Gringolandia surely spends a lot more on waging war (soldiers, armaments, missiles, planes, etc.) than all the other countries on the planet put together.
And among those ALL is China.
You do the math.
CQ from Maine: Hedges can be brilliant. Clearly this essay is an example of that brilliance. Not long ago, in The Progressive, Howard Zinn made the distinction between the just cause and the just war. I am of the slowly dawning opinion that once war gets going--even in the preparation phase--let alone the execution--that so much injustice occurs, so many people get hurt, so much damage gets done that the war can never be just. Or, once launched, justified. Of course that doesn't solve the problem of what to do about the injustices that lead to war. Surely, when attacked, when moved upon, one must respond. How do yo deal with bad international behavior that occurs on a massive scale? How do you convert a huge war feeding machine to more benign purposes? How do you sanction the violent disregard for international law? How do you not use nuclear weapons once you have developed them? We certainly don't know how do do any of that. Do we?
Hedges has developed a knack for getting things wrong. There is a connection between hate crime laws and the wars in the middle east, but not the one Hedges writes about.
The ADL is the sponsor of hate crime laws in the US and worldwide, from their site ..
"The Anti-Defamation League model hate crimes legislation has been drafted to cover not just anti-Semitic crimes, but all hate crimes. Currently, 43 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws similar to or based on the ADL model, and almost every state has some form of legislation which can be invoked to redress bias-motivated crimes."
So, the ADL exploits the issue of gay persecution, but the primary purpose of the hate crimes laws is to prevent 'anti-Semitic' hate crimes, and ultimately, hate speech. Hedges of course fails to mention any of this.
The ADL has had a tough fight in the US because of the First Amendment, they have been very successful in Europe which doesn't has comparable law ... here is the Irish law ... believe it or not ...
(1) It shall be an offence for a person—
( a ) to publish or distribute written material,
( b ) to use words, behave or display written material—
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,
or
( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds, if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.
To see the full law google ireland prohibition of incitement to hatred.
This law can be used by the government to outlaw any speech or publication it chooses. Like, for example, criticism of Israel's role in involving the US in middle east wars. Incitement to hatred, don't you know.
people cannot see the forest from the trees (or however that goes). many want this kind of control of speech and thought. But what happens when another view gets control? Free speech means free speech. We don't have the right to never be offended. I don't want to censor anyone. I do want the right to have an unpopular opinion and be free to say it. What if the gov't did use this in a year to two against anti-gov't speech? Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it.
"What if the gov't did use this in a year to two against anti-gov't speech?"
Hate Crimes laws ALREADY EXIST, BEFORE the Sheppard Act. All "this" does is tack on gender identity to the other groups that are already covered.
If you are concerned about the government and anti-government speech then you should it isn't "this" that you should be concerned about. It is the laws the ALREADY EXIST.
Not to mention "this" does not restrict your right to offend people. You want to call LGBT people names, you can. No one is stopping you from doing so. Similarly, the existing hate crimes laws do not prevent you from calling African American, or Latino, or white, or whatever, people, names. The existing hate crimes laws do not prevent you from calling Christians, or Muslims, or Wiccans, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or atheists, or Satanists, names.
There go those Joooze again, acting in their own self interest.
Jeeze, imagine if everyone did that!
Maybe you might want to explain what the Nazis were curing Primo Levi of when they put him in a concentration camp?
"Like, for example, criticism of Israel's role in involving the US in middle east wars. Incitement to hatred, don't you know."
Yes, incitement to hatred from Nazi apologists such as you.
"Everybody is somebody's Jew. And today the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis." -- Primo Levi
Indeed, the Palestinians are today, the Jews of the Israelis.
The hate crimes laws that Not Allan is ranting against are not being used against critics of Israel, despite his claims. They are being used, in very limited cases, against Nazi apologists.
Now, I personally would rather the Nazi apologists not be prosecuted, so that they can be ridiculed and laughed at, but Not Allan the Nazi apologist is being very disingeuos here.
Somebody please tell me what's a "Jew".
Very interesting comment, and very frightening law. "Thoughtcrime" that's almost it. Now with the US President-Nobel-Peace-Prize or "War Is Peace" and free porn on the wall, thanks to the Internet, we're really not too far from 1984, aren't we?
It's not that war is a hate crime, but that it kills people, and it "destroys the product of the system" as George Orwell explained very well. But he is not the only one. Read "The Pyramid" by Ismael Kadare to be reminded of the tactics used by the elite to hold their ground.
To say that 'War is a hate crime' is not a bad attempt to try and help people to understand that there is a lot of hypocrisy on the battle field of the so-called right groups. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the only thing to say is this: American boys and girls don't have any reason to kill Afghans and Iraqis.
"You shall not kill" was a shorter way to say it.
===
You seem to have an ax to grind, but sorry, the head's missing.
Another red-herring piece from Hedges designed to get you talking about anything except the economics behind the war. The war is for control of fossil-fuels and pipleline routes, not "male fantasies." Come on people, see the elephant in the room. Hedges is a shill for the fossil-fuel industry.
http://freepublictransit.org/Oil__Pipeline_Wars.php
"fpteditors"
Yours is a cheap shot. The economic system and the fossil fuels lust are part of the same auto-asphyxiating, sado-masochistic, macho BS as is our love of violence.
What is first, the economics or the psychology? Do we need to have free public transit and eliminate the auto? ... or do we just need better psychologists? Those who profit from the auto and sprawl would love to have us advocate the latter.
Sioux Rose
FPT: Not sure if you suffer from academe's "separation of disciplines" or your need for things to follow a hierarchical order. That's where the circle as basis for analysis proves superb to those who do not require, first, second, third level status attributable to the multitudinous factors that play into any situation.
Your need for a FIRST cause or singular motive is obscuring your capacity to see the various factors that like threads, form the entire fabric. In this case, the fabric is the bloodsoaked, tattered garment of war. Economics are an important strand... but not the only stitch required by the weave.
FPT is not alone. It appears that society has taken individualism too far that they will be unable to see the connection between the macho mentality and greed.
When I look back at some of the local election pols my wife used to campaign for, I noticed that some of them who try to look big by pretending to be some big shot shooter for the people end up getting into office only to economically shoot down the very people they promised to stand up for. I don't recall a single Texan pol who was both macho and yet not for the greedy. Texas has turned out true liberals such as Ralph Yarborough in the past and he was no John Wayne. I'm surprised TX actually kept him for so long despite his courageous moves to oppose Big Oil. Usually, I would assume that calm and cool is who to best trust but Obama proved that assumption wrong.
If you want to put out a fire, aim your hose at the base of the fire. Knowing the source of a problem is important, else you will spray your water uselessly throught the flame.
You're not getting it. Without "male fantasies", Big Oil would be unable to take control of fossil fuels and pipeline routes. Let me explain. See, a dangerous operation that would be otherwise impossible such as stealing oil from Iraq "legally" through a war based on lies requires macho motivation from the people. Without that macho feeling, there would be no war and there would be no stealing of oil. Instead, we would have turned to conservation, improving public transportation and carpooling, and improving gas mileage resulting in cutting back oil consumption. Why would we then go to war for oil if less was consumed? I still believe that wars were created to keep the public macho inflated so that the ruling elites could silently pull the rug from under their noses.
Great explanation. Looks like there's a rightwing troll lurking who's jealous. Your comment did not deserve to be flagged at all.
It was flagged by the resident fascist crackpot, ole chomp on a bullet.
Sioux Rose
JW VEREZ: Thank you for now owning TRUE courage by coming out to deconstruct the sexualized image of the US warrior. There is a female side to the "male fantasy," too. I can't deny that having seen some of Hollywood's most attractive male stars all macho'd up in uniform, that some subliminal sexual feelings are not activated. We women have been conditioned to grant our favors to these super men, super heroes. Remember how all the TV newscasters (women) were oogling over Rumsfeld? So easy for him to posture as hero when he was safe from combat, just pontificating on the theories of war from afar.
I am far enough into the book, "JFK & The Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," to realize what the author was moved by: that JFK having been IN combat, and nearly losing his life, changed his whole construct of war. He was, like you, an ENLIGHTENED-by-his-experience military man. His intent as president was to unmake the war state, and begin to dismantle the nuclear arsenal. To those covert devotees of Mars/rules, that just was not going to be allowed to happen!
I think there should be a law in this nation, that any president who takes a pro-war position must SERVE on the front lines. Let him see the wounded, let him see if his romanticized views about good and evil, about winners and loses, stands up to anything but a broken heart and a wounded conscience (for life), at the instant he sees the child rendered orphan, the collapse of a school or hospital, the young girl who is disfigured for life, ETC!
Mankind should be past this point! Had not the dark side killed Kennedy and turned our nation into a toll booth for the MIC and its rations of destruction, the destiny of humanity may have been in a far more holistic, healed, beautiful place for ALL to enjoy... nor would our planet more and more resemble the dead zones left as testament to the make-war state. Its lack of vision, its suicide pacts, its arrogance, and its hatred for LIFE the scar tissue that will last for generations as legacy. This is what 50% of the nation's taxes, fees extracted from our labors, is marked to go towards? WHAT IS WRONG with this picture!
If we don't get at the mindset, it doesn't matter which person is elected... the entire worship of the make-war state is the disease in need of a cure! I am VERY glad to see HEDGES get it...
I don't think women are as suckered into military mania as the men are even today even if the numbers are rising at times. But I will say that thanks to Hollywood propping up female fighting shows such as "la femme nikita" and "Xena the Warrior Princess" to name a few, more women have been motivated into the "getting even" feeling and allowed themselves to feel conditioned that way. A perfect example is my young friend who you know very well. That week early this year when met my wife and I upon coming over for a business meeting, the minute she saw what I looked like she was emotionally distraught. On the one hand, I was a well known employee bringing the company to life but looking at me physically crippled threw her into disarray. My wife had to console her. She would be surprised when JenniferB would say things like "I'm very angry at what the pols are doing to people like him by putting him in wars like Vietnam that I want to kick those pols with my boots and fight them like Xena!" It took a lot of effort to calm her down and stop crying and allowing her anger ruin her good looks. We didn't know what else was bothering her in life. We finally agreed to recommend that she take the time to visit Alternet and CD. A week after getting back to her home, she promised me that she would take our advice. She realized that she wasn't alone. I know she went emotional at first letting out everything that has angered her in life and its relation to politics but, after going through the archives to read her posts while I was away for so long, I was surprised to see how much she changed over the months based on her posts on this site and on Alternet. I wished I could find a way to help lots of young men and women like her out. If I hadn't helped her, my fear is she would not have lived through that time in the hospital even though she ate healthy. I don't know her conditions to fully confirm that but there is no doubt that the Mars-like mentality is definitely self-destructive.
I thank you and others for helping her overcome some of her life's difficulties. I feel better that your efforts are paying off.
JWVerez, thank you again for giving me one of the paths to healing myself and I hope to carry forth and help others my age and younger do the same. I sometimes feel like hitting myself for having acted like that. In general, I used to feel so lonely and left out and I would get treated that way just for being different in terms of political discussions with people or refusing to compromise my independence. I'm glad this site and Alternet have provided me the ability to laugh out political bullying in the real world instead of crying.
I used to post a lot because I felt I had so much to share and the anxiety and upset feelings were in me but I have softened up some. On some days, I don't feel like posting but prefer to read and see what else I have been missing. Another reason I might not post is I feel like explaining more to my uncle who I introduced to this site or I'm just plain worn out from work. I'm happy that some of the legendary fighters such as RichM and seriousprofessor are back. I still miss Red Rick but hope I think I met him at Truthdig. Henry8 can be ok but sometimes he loses his mind and gets insensitive. Lately, I was baffled on one of his comments where he said he opposed HR676 and he always says he supports single payer. I don't know what to make of him sometimes. Otherwise, most people here are civil. There will be trolls time and again but they don't hang around much it seems.
I wish you a lot more success and happiness for both you and your wife and I look forward to your posts in the future as well. Take care. :)
Re-read Hedges' piece. His reference to "the permanent war economy" is EXACTLY what the economics behind our wars ia all about.