I tend to think of veterans, along with the people they maim and kill and turn into refugees, as mere victims. They know not what they do. They are mostly high school graduates, many drop-outs, but not by any means of lesser intellectual ability than the rest of us. They only suffer limited exposure. Also, they needed a job.
On return from duty they often assume an exalted posture, thinking of themselves as exceptional people who have given of themselves, put their lives on the line to “protect” us. Indeed they are at risk, and a small percentage die, more are wounded, and many are so jaded by the things they saw and were asked to do that they are forever changed – “PTSD” we call it now.
But there is a problem with that line of thought, as they are protecting us from non-existent enemies. No Vietnamese, Nicaraguan, Afghan, Iraqi, Libyan, Somalian, Sudanese, Colombian, Yemeni, Iranian, Panamanian or Grenadan has threatened our safety. Yet we have attacked them all.
We set this day aside in their honor. President Obama today repeated the myth that Vietnam veterans were abused on return. I suppose I should honor veterans in some way, but not for what they do or for their low level of awareness. I honor them if they return smarter people, if military duties changed them in such a way that their political and social awareness was raised. If they assume their proper role as world citizens, respecting life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness everywhere on the planet, and not just here, then I honor them.
Pat Tillman, prior to his death, had arranged to have a meeting with Noam Chomsky. That’s an extraordinary transition of mind, and few can be expected to make such a change. But if a few of our veterans leave the military in a higher state of awareness than those I have encountered in my life’s wanderings, I guess I can say it’s a bit like kissing your sister. It ain’t exciting, it ain’t fulfilling, but it ain’t nothing.
Piece of Mindful 
Pres. Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech, or the “Military-Industrial Complex Speech,” raised all the particulars we continue to struggle with today. Excessive spending on an “immense military establishment, new weapons systems, and an overreliance on electronic technology.
He also warned against squandering scarce natural resources for short-term gain, when he said: ” As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”
Then Reagan and Thatcher happened. I see 1980 roughly as the point of no return. Certainly Carter and Nixon could not steer, but never once thought of actually throwing the rudder in the drink. Frustrated, not knowing if we are free or stranded, we now bob up and down wherever the current takes us.
LikeLike
The Reagan victory was a product of the inability to finish the job in Vietnam. The perception that we had somehow “lost” set in motion reactionary forces that set out to crush every part of the rebellion that took place during the 1960’s, or 1965-75, to be more accurate. Colleges morphed into places where kids take on debt as an assimilating force, and money took over the Democratic party, exemplified by Clinton, and making it the current farce we see. To say that “Reagan” was a motivating force is to say that the third rocket thruster that puts a satellite in orbit is what made it all happen. The Powell memo is more a first-stage thrust. But resentment that natural forces would rebel at the attack on Vietnam, and freeze the military machine, making it difficult to launch other attacks, is what solidified the forces that now govern.
Everything we see is a reaction to Vietnam, in my view.
LikeLike
I cite the Reagan era to mark time, not to assign any credit or blame. I recall clearly the institutionalization of greed, and the bumper sticker that proudly said: ” We’re spending our children’s inheritance.” Perpetual war and perpetual funding for a vast military establishment has never been seriously challenged since. Perpetual means that other programs must be cut. Stuck.
LikeLike
Yeah those expensive wars. They’re sucking us dry.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/last-decade-65-percent-federal-expenditures-paid-entitlements_645873.html
LikeLike
Shame on you for not thinking these things through. But that’s your nature, to stop thinking when you find what pleases you.
The largest “entitlement” programs are in full or partially self-funded – Social Security and Medicare. Your graph makes it appear as though self-funded programs should sit side-by-side with war spending, which is general-fund.
So take those programs
ourout, and you’ll see that the vast majority of discretionary spending is for war, and the resultant deficits are due to war.Nice try. In the future, don’t be so easy.
LikeLike
By funding you mean my kids and their kids will pay for my SS and MC.
But your admission of a partial self funding interests me.
What is your estimation of that figure?
LikeLike
SS is in total self-funded, and we boomers have paid ours in advance. You don’t know anything about its structure, do you.
Medicare is funded in three ways – payroll tax, premiums paid by recipients, and subsidy by general fund. Don’t have numbers handy.
LikeLike
Does “structure” trump sustainability?
LikeLike
Yes, if the structure is sustainable. And it is. I do wish you would not discuss this matter, as you simply don’t know enough about the program to be discussing it, especially to be so negative about it. I don’t do right wing talk radio here, neither should you.
Nor am I going to go into it any further. I have done so time and again, and know that not a word will sink in with you.
LikeLike
Damn, a lot more people listen to talk radio than I imagined.
September 16, 2010|By U.S. News & World Report
Can Social Security be saved?
Only 22 percent of young adults believe Social Security will survive until their retirement, and 60 percent of people do not believe the program will be able to pay them benefits when they retire, according to a recent Gallup poll. The GOP has argued that increased life expectancy, baby boomers’ looming retirement and flat revenue are sinking the program’s finances.
LikeLike
That’s not even a cogent point, much less valid. Social Security has been under attack, for real and in PR, sice 1980. of course public opinion is confused. Stick to facts Swede. What about the funding structure of the program?
Your f****** words! Don’t link. Tell me what you think words. I’ll have you for dinner, but try.
Address funding structure of the program or go away.
LikeLike
Basically SS is a govt. run trust fund supported by taxes on employees and employers.
What do you want here a flow chart?
LikeLike
How long before current revenues do not support current expenditures? what’s the purpose of Obama’s tax holiday? What is the nature of the trust fund and how much value is there in it? How much would you pay for a private sector equivalent offering disability and first day survivor and guaranteed benefit retirement?
just for starters. you have a lot to learn, so hit the inner tubes, report back.
LikeLike