Sometimes, this "civility" thing may be just a little overrated. Consider, for instance, the awesomely unconcerned-about-fee-fees response of Houston's Gay Lady Mayor Annise Parker to the homophobic idiot Phil Robertson: "What some redneck wingnut has to say about the GLBT community is completely irrelevant." And from "across the pond," a phrase which here means "in jolly old Blighty," there's Anna Soubry, a Defence Minister responsible for veterans and soldiers' welfare, who made some rather impolite comments about one Nigel Farage, the leader of the very, very rightwing
Yeah, it's a complicated situation beyond the level snark can address. On the one hand he should have quit when Wolfowitz called him an idiot, but didn't have to because Rummy fired him anyway. Now he's probably got people whispering in his ear that if he quits, whoever follows will just be a timeserving bureaucrat running out the clock with no real interest in helping the vets. At one time he was the future Inouye; now he seems doomed.
1. Shinseki has always appeared to be a stand-up guy.
2. Progress in wartime protective and medical technology has led to a much higher percentage of seriously-wounded versus deaders. Also, we now recognize that there can be mental consequences from spending a year or more killing people and having them try to kill you.
3. We (that is, you, me, and our fellow Americans, on average) appear to think that the correct response to returning veterans is "Thanks for your service. Now fuck off. You're too expensive". If hippies were spitting on them, the same people would be OUTRAGED. (Note: Yes, I know that the number of actual cases of hippies spitting on returning vets is, approximately, zero).
4. So, the problem is that we think we're hiring these suckers for, say $40K a year, and then they go and get seriously wounded and we're paying $500K+ a year for life. After a few thousand, you're almost talking about real money.
5. The obvious solution is to dial back the field medicine. More deaths in the field == much lower maintenance cost. I suppose, if that is politically unacceptable, you could try something radical like: don't send troops into harm's way unless there is a good reason. But that would just be crazy.
I think it&#039;s a sense of broken promises. In the US, the Boomers (that would be me) grew up with the idea that they <i>would be</i> successful. This is a little stronger than the previous idea that you had the <i>opportunity</i> to succeed.
For the early Boomers, the expectation often turned out to be true, and they passed it on to their spawn.
In UK and Europe, I suppose this happened a few years later, as their economies were fairly flattened by the war, but got restarted in the fifties.
Then we all ran into globalization, and the fundamental limits on how fast the global economy can possibly grow, and the kids of the Boomers, and their European equivalents, discovered that not only wasn&#039;t success guaranteed, it was fucking elusive.
When you have problem, it&#039;s pretty much human nature to try to find someone to blame. (Now I think of it, this is probably the worst result of evolution that I know of). Almost everybody does it. We want there to be an agent responsible for our distress. (The people I&#039;ve known who could sincerely say &quot;Well. stuff happens&quot; are rare, but also the happiest folks I know).
For Brits, the obvious culprit is &quot;Europe&quot;. For Murkins, these days, its all them illegal Messicans that are taking the jobs we don&#039;t want to do. For Europeans, I suppose it&#039;s Greece, or Turkey, or the Rom.
Occasionally, I find it helpful to remember that the average IQ is 100.
&quot;Telephone, Mr Hilter, it&#039;s that nice Mr McGoering from the Bell and Compasses. He says he&#039;s found a place where you can hire bombers by the hour.&quot;
Shinseki&#039;s a good guy, black berets notwithstanding. But if &quot;they&quot;won&#039;t give him the resources he needs, he should quit.
Yeah, it&#39;s a complicated situation beyond the level snark can address. On the one hand he should have quit when Wolfowitz called him an idiot, but didn&#39;t have to because Rummy fired him anyway. Now he&#39;s probably got people whispering in his ear that if he quits, whoever follows will just be a timeserving bureaucrat running out the clock with no real interest in helping the vets. At one time he was the future Inouye; now he seems doomed.
Well, shit, how else are they supposed to learn, eh?
1. Shinseki has always appeared to be a stand-up guy.
2. Progress in wartime protective and medical technology has led to a much higher percentage of seriously-wounded versus deaders. Also, we now recognize that there can be mental consequences from spending a year or more killing people and having them try to kill you.
3. We (that is, you, me, and our fellow Americans, on average) appear to think that the correct response to returning veterans is &quot;Thanks for your service. Now fuck off. You&#039;re too expensive&quot;. If hippies were spitting on them, the same people would be OUTRAGED. (Note: Yes, I know that the number of actual cases of hippies spitting on returning vets is, approximately, zero).
4. So, the problem is that we think we&#039;re hiring these suckers for, say $40K a year, and then they go and get seriously wounded and we&#039;re paying $500K+ a year for life. After a few thousand, you&#039;re almost talking about real money.
5. The obvious solution is to dial back the field medicine. More deaths in the field == much lower maintenance cost. I suppose, if that is politically unacceptable, you could try something radical like: don&#039;t send troops into harm&#039;s way unless there is a good reason. But that would just be crazy.
I think you score one on Dok for this.
Okay, if nobody is going to suggest &quot;silly mid-off&quot;, I will.
They could get a whole caravan up in there?
Is that pronounced BNP?
I like Hermione.
Wait, wait...
I think it&#039;s a sense of broken promises. In the US, the Boomers (that would be me) grew up with the idea that they <i>would be</i> successful. This is a little stronger than the previous idea that you had the <i>opportunity</i> to succeed.
For the early Boomers, the expectation often turned out to be true, and they passed it on to their spawn.
In UK and Europe, I suppose this happened a few years later, as their economies were fairly flattened by the war, but got restarted in the fifties.
Then we all ran into globalization, and the fundamental limits on how fast the global economy can possibly grow, and the kids of the Boomers, and their European equivalents, discovered that not only wasn&#039;t success guaranteed, it was fucking elusive.
When you have problem, it&#039;s pretty much human nature to try to find someone to blame. (Now I think of it, this is probably the worst result of evolution that I know of). Almost everybody does it. We want there to be an agent responsible for our distress. (The people I&#039;ve known who could sincerely say &quot;Well. stuff happens&quot; are rare, but also the happiest folks I know).
For Brits, the obvious culprit is &quot;Europe&quot;. For Murkins, these days, its all them illegal Messicans that are taking the jobs we don&#039;t want to do. For Europeans, I suppose it&#039;s Greece, or Turkey, or the Rom.
Occasionally, I find it helpful to remember that the average IQ is 100.
I&#039;ll just have a peak under his bonnet....
if the penguin on top explodes, it&#039;s called a telly
Just a light hearted couple knuckle deep rooted response.Man those can be a pain
Or up it.
&quot;Telephone, Mr Hilter, it&#039;s that nice Mr McGoering from the Bell and Compasses. He says he&#039;s found a place where you can hire bombers by the hour.&quot;
Shinseki&#039;s a good guy, black berets notwithstanding. But if &quot;they&quot;won&#039;t give him the resources he needs, he should quit.