24 January 2006

Today's Military Moment

Drudge linked up to an LA Times op/ed by a guy named Joel Stein who apparently doesn't support our troops. I usually don't like to give these queers (and I mean that in the proper sense of the term) any more press than they've already sold their souls for, but sometimes you just have to shout back at the lunacy-- especially when you can have such fun doing it.

This op/ed was written by a man whose head has obviously been spun around a few too many times in that toilet of postmodern patheticism known as intellectual pop culture. The entire tone of his argument within the first paragraph reeks of the cologne worn by psychotherapists that rubs off as a result of too many group hugs. Look, hon, saying you "like" everyone and "have no problem" with anyone doesn't make you any nicer. It does, however, make you as wishy-washy as your reasoning behind your argument. If I were a cruder character, I'd tell you what my grandfather is saying right now: Grow some balls.

After setting himself up to be the biggest pansy since Tiny Tim, the author goes on to point his finger at the REAL wusses: the pacifists who say they support the troops, even though they disagree with the war. Pacifists, he says, are "wussy by definition" but the idea of them supporting the troops gives "soft acquiescence [triple word score] to the hawks" of war. Excuse me, but that's Eagles, sir, thank you very much. Wearing yellow ribbons, the author argues, is the pacifist's way of dealing with "the guilt" of "sending recruits to do our dirty work."

But, wait, the pacifists aren't the only ones at fault. Another paragraph down, we learn that, actually, it isn't really their fault at all. After he's barrelled two-thirds into this latest form of journalistic pork, the author decides that the troops are the guilty ones. "The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying." Oddly enough, the majority of Americans take a similar view when reading The New York Times or watching the Communist News Network. As far as "morals" go, well, let's just say I love it when people who belong to the ilk that defends the right of a man to stone a woman to death in public feel the need to grandstand about "morals." Don't even get me started on a socialist defending the concept of "individual choices."

If the liberal claptrap hasn't becoming dizzying enough, just wait until the next paragraph where the author filibusters his way into employing one of the greatest socialist catchphrases of our time; that's right, "American imperialism." Seriously, have we beaten you pathetic morons to such a pulp that you can't even mask your communist lingo anymore? Quick, someone, go pull Bill Clinton out of whatever whore house he's in-- I'll pay for the V.D. vaccinations-- just get him out of there and back into public life so the libs have at least one spokesperson to rely on for handy doublespeak in a pinch. Really, I don't mind playing the game, but could you at least give me a whit of a challenge?

The military isn't all bad, though, according to the author. "Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo..." he writes. Gee, and sometimes you get lucky enough to be sent to bomb an aspirin factory because your Commander in Chief can't keep his fly zipped in the Oval Office. It doesn't matter that that same President also had a problem keeping his lips zipped when it came to giving nuclear secrets to our enemies, right? Tell me-- do they make condoms for nukes nowadays?

Of course, displaying that lack of historical knowledge that has become a trademark among the Gen-X liberal community, the author compares Iraq to Vietnam no less than 864 times, and punctuates his comments on military service with, "And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany." Hey, Mister, remember that little thing called World War II? Or that other thing called the Cold War? Oh, that's right, to liberals, yesterday's enemy is today's golfing partner. Actually, according to most liberals, guys like Hitler and Stalin were just misunderstood, closeted homosexuals with abandonment issues. It's all in that new movie, Brokeback Pakt. It's true; I swear. Movies never lie.

Displaying that narcissism prevalent among writers who have been taught by academia to put themselves into their stories, the author concludes with, "I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book."

Ahh, that's it. He's afraid of a pistol-whipping from those "tools" of "American imperialism." If only. (Really, I'd pay to watch it.) You see, American soldiers would never do such a thing, because honestly, they could care less. They know all about those dingbat dissidents out there who claim to be American, yet do everything they can to tear at the moral and ideological fabric of our society until it is threadbare. American soldiers are what preppy, hedonistic, morally bankrupt, egomaniacal intellectuals like this guy aren't: They are good. They are honorable. They put their country, and the lives of their fellow citizens before themselves. They're brave, strong, tough. They don't find emotional depth in French cinema, or get a manicure every two weeks at the day spa, or spend nights snorting cocaine off of the backs of 14-karat gold toilets in downtown Manhattan. They're decent, normal, average human beings who have managed to do the extraordinary despite the fact that some voices-- too many, in my opinion-- expound all their energy screaming defeatism into their ears. No American soldier would ever attack you, Sir, although they'd have every right to. They'd never attack you because they're too good, because they're better than you'll ever be.

He concludes with, "All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades. Seriously, the traffic is insufferable." That's right, because it's all about you and your fancy convertible and getting to Paris Hilton's latest fashion show on time, isn't it? Watch for an Angry Jewish Woman behind the wheel of the next Humvee you encounter, Sir, because it may just be your lucky day.

After reading the article, I looked at the writer's name again and thought, hm, I think I've heard of this guy. It turns out I have. Click on his biography link and you'll find a list of accomplishments that qualify him to comment on absolutely nothing related to the military, politics, government, or war. The only conflict he should be commenting on is the battle between Paris Hilton and Nikki Richie over whose name is listed first in the credits of the new season of The Simple Life. Two out of the three paragraphs in his bio begin by stating that he is "desperate for attention." Tsk tsk, sounds like someone needs to take a few more writing courses. I wonder, does the L.A. Times do direct deposit, or do they just mail his paycheck straight to his therapist, made payable to CASH?

Get a mirror, Mr. Author, if that's what you need to make you happy. Give yourself all the attention you crave. Stop bothering the American public with your nonsensical bloviation. Instead, save it for those coffee houses, dinner parties, and dance clubs where your little "I Hate America" groups hold their daily therapy sessions. I'm glad you don't like the military, because I do, and I certainly would not ever want to be on your side. Spare me your pathetic waste of words-- you are an insult to good writers everywhere. Moreover, your abuse of the freedom you claim in ignorance is an insult to those military men and women who are out there defending your ability to put pen to paper without remorse.

Don't think your self-effacing humor is going to redeem you, either. My advice: Buy a one-way ticket and get on the next flight to France.

Technorati Tags



0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home