Another (Cynical) Veteran's Day Post...and Ultrarunning

Via Jude at First Draft, in a post called "I Didn't Fight for Your Freedom," that is actually more realistic rather than cynical.  Pretty much in its entirety:

So it's Veterans Day, which means that the US is awash with mostly obligatory tributes to military personnel.

I hate this shit.

I didn't fight for your freedoms. In the six years I was in, I never once defended your right to vote, or to carry a gun, or to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure (that one doesn't really apply anymore, anyway), or any of the other things you enjoy as a citizen of this country. I just didn't. Neither did anyone who went to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam. It's all bullshit. It's a fucking lie that we tell ourselves and each other so that we don't have to think about why we send young men and women to serve, suffer, and die for old men's vainglorious ideas and profit margins.

I don't mind honoring sacrifice, but the military doesn't have a monopoly on that, now does it? I also don't mind remembering military dead and wounded. But we do it all wrong. We just fetishize the suffering (like good Catholics, no?) without wondering why it ever happened in the first place. Remembrance and memorial, it would seem, also involve reflection and assessment. Just because someone died or was wounded doesn't automatically validate how he or she came to be in that state. We send our young people overseas to be bored, pull duty, sometimes get shot at, and occasionally get hit. Then we never ask why they're over there in the first fucking place, because doing so, apparently, does them a disservice. What kind of jack shit is that?

A real Veterans/Remembrance Day would involve commitments to cease sacrifices that don't actually, you know, do anything in the name of freedom. Losing your legs so that Chevron can see higher profit margins is not noble. It's a god damned shame. Dying in the service of defense contractors doesn't bestow sainthood on the deceased. It just means that a life got snuffed out for no good reason. Reflexive military worship is a cancer on society. Unscrupulous people use it to justify their actions and avoid any criticism. That shit makes the act of asking why we should send young people to absorb bullets and get blown to pieces into some kind of subversion and/or sedition. How fucking ridiculous is that? Wondering if someone's death was worth the cost doesn't dishonor the person. I don't know how we've confused evaluating the motives and actions of leaders with spitting on corpses, but we have. And until we can untangle those things, we're just well and truly fucked when it comes to international affairs.

So this Veterans Day, take a minute to actually reflect on the acts and deeds of people in uniform. But that involves critical thought instead of blind acceptance of the rightness of our leaders' actions. Honor the dead and care for the living, but don't think that people in uniform today are actually standing between you and tyranny.

Remember that.
 

There is no nexus to Ultrarunning here.  Politically and militarily we run roughshod over the world because we can and we choose to.  Our military doesn't protect our fundamental right to run, as many of us might like to imply.

 

The Cost of War...and Ultrarunning

Belatedly--'cause I didn't see it until yesterday--I want to cite some fine blogging by David Swanson, here. 

On the original Armistice Day in 1918, much of the world ended a four-year war that served no useful purpose whatsoever while costing the lives of some 10 million soldiers, 6 million civilians, 21 million soldiers wounded, an outbreak of Spanish influenza that took another 100 million lives, environmental destruction that is ongoing today, the development of new weapons -- including chemical weapons -- still used today, huge leaps forward in the art of propaganda still plagiarized today, huge setbacks in the struggle for economic justice, and a culture more militarized, more focused on stupid ideas like banning alcohol, and more ready to restrict civil liberties in the name of nationalism....

Let's pause there to digest what was said before we finish that sentence.  The "war to end all wars" snuffed out or forever altered literally millions of lives.  Without, you know, ending all wars.  In fact, many historians view WWII as merely a continuation of WWI, after hitting the PAUSE button for a couple decades.

Now, the rest of the sentence, which is where I really wanted to go:

....and all for the bargain price, as one author calculated it, of enough money to have given a $2,500 home with $1,000 worth of furniture and five acres of land to every family in Russia, most of the European nations, Canada, the United States, and Australia, plus enough to give every city of over 20,000 a $2 million library, a $3 million hospital, a $20 million college, and still enough left over to buy every piece of property in Germany and Belgium. And it was all legal. Incredibly stupid, but totally legal. Particular atrocities violated laws, but war was not criminal.
 

Can you imagine the good that spending today's dollars on butter and not guns could do?  How about universal childhood immunizations?  Safe drinking water all over the planet?  Universal health care?  Funding sufficient research to eradicate any number of diseases?

Instead we p*ss it all away under the guise of defense.

My previous Cost of War posts are here, here, and here.  And especially here, where I posted about Water Project.

The link to Ultrarunning is that we know, probably more than most here in the west, about the importance of safe drinking water.  Most of the rest of our citizens take it for granted that good water just plunges happily out of our taps.  We don't, based upon our experiences in the backcountry, where safe water is still a neccesity, but not a given.

 

 

How to Finance War

My recent running experiences about which to blog have been in short supply while I was recuperating, so let's try some politics, shall we?

Seems that there was a Faith & Freedom conference a week or so ago, attended by some high-profile Republican folks and Presidential contenders.

M. Bouffant at Whiskey Fire pointed out a sad example of a politician speaking the truth:

Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell spent a little time away from the podium to meet activists and talk to reporters. He runs [strategist Ralph] Reed's affiliate in Ohio; he's thinking about running for U.S. Senate. He was the only Republican in that position who said what the social conservatives believe.

"Clean water is important to us," said Blackwell. "Decent housing is important to us. But they're not rights. And we have to begin to say that what's important is that we in a rational way are able to reform these programs in a way to save them. And, yes, if it means that somewhere down the line individuals have to make sacrifices, because the rationalization of the system means we save it, but we are also doing it in a more efficient way. … I don't think too many Americans will object to that. At the end of the day we're going to get back to making sure we're in a position to finance the wars in which we engage. Does that mean we can do that without sacrificing? No. We have to make sacrifices. But what's more important? Our freedom and security or the gluttony of the federal government?"

Bouffant's comment:

There you have it. We are to "sacrifice" in order that "the wars in which we engage" may be financed. Wars that protect our freedom and security, but won't allow for clean water, decent housing or anything else of real worth.

In order to protect the nation, we must destroy it. (Or make Ken Blackwell drink some less-than-clean water. Which would you prefer?)

So, this joker, with no apparent self-awareness or inkling of what he actually is saying, tells us that we have to sacrifice basic entitlements to clean water and decent housing to be able to afford our military adventures. 

You'll pardon me if I believe that the esteemed Mr. Blackwell has it exactly a**backwards.

REPOST: The War is Making You Poor Act

While I am down after arm surgery and can't type, I am recycling some posts from a year ago.

This from 28 May 2010, here (you'll need to click back to see any images, I could not easily or quickly insert them in this re-post):

Here's an action that I can support:


From Congressman Alan Grayson's (Dem, FL 8th District) web page, he gets its exactly right:

During a compelling speech on the floor of the House last night, Congressman Grayson pointed out that the United States spends as much as the rest of the world combined on defense.

"Why is that necessary? If we are going to have that much military spending, do we really need another $159 billion for the wars on top of that? I think not, particularly when people in America are suffering," Congressman Grayson said.

The War Is Making You Poor Act (H.R. 5353) does not necessitate an end to the wars or mandate a cut-off date. The bill simply requires the President to fund the wars from the $559 billion budget for defense spending in FY 2011. "There is no longer any need to go beyond the exorbitant base defense budget. It is not necessary. Enough is enough."

I don't think that Congressman Grayson's action here is a mere stunt, I want to believe--and I do--that he is a person of conviction and courage, with the unique ability to influence U.S. events by being in Congress.

I do, however, despair at the possibility for meaningful results. I'm working on a post I think I'll call Habituated to War, that will try to delve into our lack of concern? outrage? over the perpetual state of war we have found oursleves in for the past 9 years. Even if the mood of the country is to continue these military efforts, as embodied by our elected representatives, then we do need to treat such expenditures as part of the budget rather than as a semi-permanent supplement appropriation each year.

The way we do it now is nothing more than a form of book-cooking, and masks the true cost to the American people...and the Mister Tristans of this nation, on whose backs and wallets this burden will ultimately fall.

(photo credit here)

No, I am NOT depicting Congressman Grayson as an a-hole...the key feature is a couple feet south of there. You go, Congressman Grayson!

Note that I hesitated to include this picture of balls to represent the courage of Congressman Grayson, since I consider myself as a feminist and am sensitive to the fact the language of sexism is pervasive and damaging. I don't want to perpetuate the male-dominated patriarchic society, but go with this image anyway for now...I certainly would be grateful if someone could provide me a gender-neutral equivalent of balls = courage.
 

Tell Me Why Our Govt Isn't Paying ForThis?

Tell me why this is not paid for by the government who sent these servicemembers into harm's way?

The mission statement of Homes For Our Troops:

Building specially adapted homes for our severely injured veterans at no cost to the veterans we serve.

Q: Why on earth should a private entity be doing this?

A: Because it reduces and obscures the true cost of war.  Oh, also because our decision-makers are callous, craven haves, and injured servicemembers are have-nots.

Again I ask, and please, anyone, tell me, why is this NOT a service provided automatically by our government for vets needing this type of assistance?  So seriously wounded as to need specially adapted housing, why does not the government shoulder this burden?  It's an issue iof basic fairness, on a huge scale.

From the Homes For Our Troops newsletter:

As we celebrate our 6th Anniversary I would like to personally thank you for your generosity and support. You invested in the mission to support our injured heroes and together we have grown from a startup non profit in 2004, struggling to build awareness for our mission and to build our first home, into a strong military charity that is regarded as one of the best. With your support, we have been able to expand our program and give back some of the freedom and independence to more of our injured American heroes through barrier-free homes. Freedom and Independence. These are American treasures that our military heroes fight to protect for all and we made the promise to help rebuild their lives when they return home severely injured and in need.


I am proud to say we have built and donated more than 50 specially adapted homes and we have committed to building an additional 30 homes nationwide at this time. As the wars rage on, we are reminded that our work is far from complete and our Veterans are still coming home with catastrophic injuries each day. In 2010, let's rededicate ourselves to our mission in service to those that have given so much for their country and have asked for so little in return with a contribution. Choose a contribution level that works for you whether it's financial, volunteer time, or helping us raises awareness, it all makes a difference.

Thank you for your continued support, together we are keeping the promise.

Best Wishes, John Gonsalves

This tune seems appropriate:



 

The War Is Making You Poor Act (H.R. 5353)

Here's an action that I can support:

From Congressman Alan Grayson's (Dem, FL 8th District) web page, he gets its exactly right:

During a compelling speech on the floor of the House last night, Congressman Grayson pointed out that the United States spends as much as the rest of the world combined on defense.

"Why is that necessary? If we are going to have that much military spending, do we really need another $159 billion for the wars on top of that? I think not, particularly when people in America are suffering," Congressman Grayson said.

The War Is Making You Poor Act (H.R. 5353) does not necessitate an end to the wars or mandate a cut-off date. The bill simply requires the President to fund the wars from the $559 billion budget for defense spending in FY 2011. "There is no longer any need to go beyond the exorbitant base defense budget. It is not necessary. Enough is enough."

I don't think that Congressman Grayson's action here is a mere stunt, I want to believe--and I do--that he is a person of conviction and courage, with the unique ability to influence U.S. events by being in Congress.

I do, however, despair at the possibility for meaningful results. I'm working on a post I think I'll call Habituated to War, that will try to delve into our lack of concern? outrage? over the perpetual state of war we have found oursleves in for the past 9 years.  Even if the mood of the country is to continue these military efforts, as embodied by our elected representatives, then we do need to treat such expenditures as part of the budget rather than as a semi-permanent supplement appropriation each year.

The way we do it now is nothing more than a form of book-cooking, and masks the true cost to the American people...and the Mister Tristans of this nation, on whose backs and wallets this burden will ultimately fall.

(photo credit here)

No, I am NOT depicting Congressman Grayson as an a-hole...the key feature is a couple feet south of there.  You go, Congressman Grayson!

Note that I hesitated to include this picture of balls to represent the courage of Congressman Grayson, since I consider myself as a feminist and am sensitive to the fact the language of sexism is pervasive and damaging. I don't want to perpetuate the male-dominated patriarchic society, but go with this image anyway for now...I certainly would be grateful if someone could provide me a gender-neutral equivalent of balls = courage.