I hope you all found something worthwhile in your Memorial Day Weekend. I know I did in mine. It was busy, and it seemed like I spent much of it on the run, but I still found time for the sober reflection that is the reason for the holiday, and heard an excellent sermon on Sunday about reflection and remembrance, the latter being important enough to be mentioned in the Bible more than 100 times.
Then later that evening, I got to watch Courageous, a movie about heroes who made a decision and a committment to be the heroes that every man should be. My oldest son watched it with me, and we had a very good discussion about the various topics raised in the film. It won’t be a candidate for an Academy Award, but I appreciate the fact that people like the producers of this film, and people like Tyler Perry are willing to make movies with small budgets, and short timelines to tell a story that encompasses values no longer embraced by the larger studios.
Then, Monday morning, we finally went to see The Avengers. It didn’t disappoint, but then with Joss Whedon at the helm, it would have been an unpleasant surprise if it did. What did surprise me was the insertion of some lines, and story developments that reflected some values that Hollywood hasn’t been too big on in recent years. I suspect that this was allowed to happen because it was based on comic book heroes, and therefore. those values could be mocked by those who felt the need as childish or simplistic. Sadly, I doubt the message will be received by the rest of Hollywood, much of which chalked the success of The Dark Knight up to “making the character dark”. After all, the truth doesn’t fit the narrative. It was an exhilarating experience to see a story unfold that allowed for sacrifice, determination, and redemption in the characters that didn’t leave me feeling as if the dreams of childhood were retconned by a society that feels an overwhelming urge to “reimagine” and redefine that which it finds itself opposed to.
It was a good weekend that was a celebration of the things that it should have been about, and I felt relaxed and ready when I went to work today. Then I read about Chris Hayes’ shallow pontification over the weekend. If, like me, you were busy having a good weekend, and decided not to shave points off of your IQ by watching MSNBC, let me fill you in on what Chris said in his show “Up With Chris Hayes” :
I know what you’re thinking. I didn’t know that Butch Maddow had a brother either. Yes, “Up With Chris Hayes” is a stupid name for television program, as it evokes images of this, which doesn’t really get me thinking “serious credibility” but in its own way, does make a certain sense.
The apology, as predictable as an afternoon rain shower in Florida, came less than 24 hours later, and underscored his focus and the true target of his remarks, demonstrating that he still didn’t understand why what he said was wrong. (Yes, Rutherford, I said “wrong” and not “offensive”. Deal with it. Or don’t.)
Regardless, Hayes issued an apology for his comments on Monday, saying that he was “deeply sorry” for the remarks. “As many have rightly pointed out, it’s very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots,” Hayes said in a statement. He said that he had made a mistake by conforming “to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war.”
While its fine to oppose war, secure in the knowledge that other will still join the military and lay down their own lives to keep yours safe, to fail to recognize that sacrifice for what it is, and deny them the very basic respect they deserve simply for having made the decision that you wouldn’t (for whatever reason) is the mark of an ingrate. You don’t have to have done it yourself to recognize that signing up (or accepting selection) into a service that will take you far from home and most certainly put you in harm’s way to protect your nation and your loved ones, or to be a part of something much larger than one’s own self-interest and benefit is an act requiring the kind of courage that not everyone choses today. The fact that one would choose to do it, either in the previous administration, or this one, indicates to me that they clearly see something obscured to the Chris Hayeses of the world, and reminds me of a famous movie speech delivered over a decade ago:
“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to. “
There are many ways to be a hero. Some will cast much longer shadows than others. Some will do it by living up to their responsibilities, no matter how much they would prefer an eternal adolescence, and some will do it by exhibiting valor and great sacrifice, up to and including the one life they have to give, for their country, or for their fellow man. That doesn’t always have to be a conscious decision to charge a machine gun, or exposing yourself to fire, because the first act comes with the decision to serve, and to be a target so that others won’t. It isn’t glamorous, but then, it doesn’t lack conviction, either.
Gads, some people… Anyways, yes, Courageous is, according to my stepson and grandsons an exceptional film. After living nearly all of my life surrounded by misandry, radical feminism, and the portrayal of men as being nothing more than bumbling fools combined with innate evilness it has become a must see.
I have, over the years looked back on things that happened to me as I made my path through life. “Heroes,” is a word often used about men and women that don’t look at it that way. Not at all. Growing up where I did, on Camp Pendleton, I had the opportunity over the years to see several men that had a pretty blue ribbon on their chest. To a man, they thought of themselves as nothing more than just another Marine that did his job when it needed to be done. Same situation later in the Army. Just another Dogface or Ranger doing what he was supposed to do. Again, in Public Safety, be they Police Officers, Sheriffs deputies, Firefighters, Paramedics and EMT’s, it’s the same. Doing what needed to be done. Nothing special.
What have I learned in my sixty years? That uncommon valor really is not all that uncommon. People just fail to recognize it when it happens right under their noses.
I’m glad you mostly enjoyed your weekend. Since you referenced me, the only thing Hayes should have apologized for was terrible timing. This was NOT the weekend to say what he said. But the notion that you and your conservative buddies get your panties in a knot over the philosophical subject of what language glorifies war just shows your hypersensitivity not Hayes heartlessness. How we talk about war is fair game. It is a philosophical conversation worth having.
Your quote (that was Jack Nicholson?) speaks to the deification of the soldier, something we should NOT do. It DOES matter how Col. Jessup does his job. He does NOT get carte blanche because his job involves courage and heroism. He does not get carte blanche because we are protected by him. The ends do NOT justify the means.
You already know that.
Rutherford, what you said is a study in worthless contradictions. . . or should I say “rhetorically proximate to unintelligible blather.”
Since Agile offered the more substantial critique, please see my answer to him for my answer to you.
It ain’t like we didn’t go through this at your place Rutherford. 😆
R, if you can’t see the problem with trying to draw a corollary of a disdain for war with those who fight in them you are a fucking moron.
Using the term “hero” in relation to fallen members of the military makes people want to go to war is NOT a discussion worth having. It is the self-deluded approach of a pseudo-intellectual douchebag struggling with the recognition given to those that are willing to do what he will not that he feels he rightly deserves.
You really should look in the mirror and question the your real motivations for opting to defend this pussy’s efforts to insult America’s fallen servicemen on Memorial Day for not dying with an appropriate level of heroism. If you haven’t noticed, you’re not doing a very good job of it anyway — becuase it’s absurd.
the only thing Hayes should have apologized for was terrible timing. This was NOT the weekend to say what he said.
So when is it acceptable to disrespect the people who serve and keep us safe? Especially those who gave their lives? May Day? Cinco de Mayo? Red October Day?
If you agree with what he said – if you think it is the truth, why would it be any less true at a particular time? If something is true, you should be proud to say it at any time – if not, maybe it is isn’t true.
Deification? What a strange turn of phrase from someone like you. It shows that you clearly do not understand our mindset if you confuse the respect we show towards our military (and others who risk their lives for us) to the deification you do of your progressive leaders.
Obviously I disagree. There are times when sensitivity to certain debates is greater than at other times. When John Doe has good traits and bad traits you don’t discuss his bad traits at his funeral. So there is such a thing as etiquette and protocol and I think Hayes violated these.
As for the movie quote that BiW chose, that is the deification I’m talking about. This notion that simply because I protect you and you wouldn’t trade places with me for all the money in the world, that means that I am the final arbiter of right and wrong … I make the rules and you don’t get to question them.
I’m surprised you would support that attitude.
This was NOT the weekend to say what he said.
But diminishing the sacrifice being observed is copecetic any other time?
But the notion that you and your conservative buddies get your panties in a knot over the philosophical subject of what language glorifies war just shows your hypersensitivity not Hayes heartlessness.
I know that it is hard for you to focus and differentiate sometimes, but let me help you with this concept. Memorial Day is about remembering those members of the armed forces who have fallen in the service of their country. The cause of their demise might be (and probably is) an armed conflict of some kind, including peacekeeping missions, but obviously not everyone who dies in uniform goes that way. Training accidents, and accidents period come to mind as another cause. It has nothing to do with the “glorification of war”, and as such is indicative of a pernicious cluelessness, not heartlessness, on the part of Butchie’s little brother. Recognizing the sacrifice of the that service as heroism is not hyperbole or an overstatement. But more to the point, it doesn’t glorify war, precisely because not all of the dead being observed died in a war.
How we talk about war is fair game. It is a philosophical conversation worth having.
It is, but seeing as you allign yourself with the camp that unconvincingly spent the Bush Presidency uttering things like “I support the troops, but hate the war.”, I find it curious that you have such trouble with the distinction now.
Your quote (that was Jack Nicholson?) speaks to the deification of the soldier, something we should NOT do.
There are times I suspect that you are a fool, and then there are the times when you obliterate any doubt on the question. This is one of the latter. For the sake of continuing this discussion, I’m going to assume that you’ve actually seen then the movie, which would mean that you know that the last thing on Col. Jessup’s mind was the “deification” of the soldier. The nastiest thing about that movie, aside from the truely abysmal cinematography, is fact that Jessup was right. Our security rests, in part, on the fact that the world KNOWS we have people who are trained to make decisions that are harsh and rough edged, and that don’t fit in with the elements of society that do not want to think about the brutality that never left the world even if it was brought to heel here, and is no longer part of our daily lives. He didn’t want to be elevated to godhood or blindly worshipped for what he choose to do for a living. He didn’t even really want to be thanked; he just didn’t want to be second-guessed by those who couldn’t be bothered with the dirt, and sweat, and blood that he choose as a career.
No one is saying that those fallen soldiers are gods; we’re saying that they made a sacrifice that turned out to cost them everything. They knew there was a possibility they would be killed, and they did it anyway. Some did it out of a sense of duty. Some for love of country, and some in the hopes to keep their loved ones safe. Any one of those motivations is worthy of recognition as heroic, and doing it knowing the risk demonstrates courage.
It DOES matter how Col. Jessup does his job. He does NOT get carte blanche because his job involves courage and heroism. He does not get carte blanche because we are protected by him. The ends do NOT justify the means.
You already know that.
This is self-indulgent twaddle and base pettifoggery of the first order. The fact is that words DO have meaning. That’s why the left is constantly trying to redefine so many of them. Your man lost his focus, and found that the taste of his foot was not to his liking. He backpeddled, while remaining unfocused, as you also have, by putting the emphasis on war, rather than the fallen.
Using the term “hero” in relation to fallen members of the military makes people want to go to war is NOT a discussion worth having. It is the self-deluded approach of a pseudo-intellectual douchebag struggling with the recognition given to those that are willing to do what he will not that he feels he rightly deserves.
I’ll get Rutherford an ice pack for that as soon as the sting of the hot coffee blown through my nose disapates.
Tigre, somewhere in this thread it was stated that Hayes focused on war when he should have focused on the soldier.
I offer an analogy. If I walk around singing the praises of every player in the NFL would it be wrong for you to infer I like the game of football?
Hayes was simply saying how we talk about the “player” may reflect how we feel about “the game”.
I honestly don’t understand why this is so hard to grok.
Because it’s bogus reasoning and it’s offensive.
If I walk around generically praising firemen, would not be right to infer that I like fires? 🙄
And what the hell is with your need to defend that little twit like he’s your little brother? The sophistry you are willing to employ to do so is creepy.
What he said was worthless bullshit intended to diminish, not focus, and your repeated claims that “is a discussion we should have” is a crock.
I offer an analogy. If I walk around singing the praises of every player in the NFL would it be wrong for you to infer I like the game of football?
It is a stupid analogy, since football fans usually have their favorite teems and therefore players. I don’t know any fan who sings the praises of every player in the NFL, and if I did, I would likely think that they are an idiot.
<Hayes was simply saying how we talk about the “player” may reflect how we feel about “the game”.
Again, still stupid, because as I have already pointed out, not all dead soldiers died in WARS. Some die in peacekeeping missions, some die in training, and some die in accidents. The one way war is a commonality is to possibility that they make themselves available to fight in one whenever they sign up or in a time of drafts, choose to serve over running away, eh?
I honestly don’t understand
Only because it is obvious that you choose not to.
It is completely understandable that when the average man hears someone he does not like (Hayes) say something on its face offensive, he will be highly unlikely to dig deeper and consider the statement’s implications.
I always considered you and Tigre above average.
How ironic.
“Only because it is obvious that you choose not to.”
Precisely.
I REALLY do have to watch My Cousin Vinny to get a better idea of your arguing “skills” Tigre. Firemen? Firemen fight fires to end them. Are you telling me soldiers fight wars to end them? Perhaps in the sense that they fight to win and winning ultimately ends the war but your analogy makes mine look like sheer genius.
Look, only someone with no understanding of the English language nor any empathy would have trouble understanding your objection to Hayes’ statement. I GET why you’re offended. If I viewed this simply as a slight against the war dead I too would find it very offensive. I happen to like Hayes and I give him the benefit of the doubt for wanting to have a more expansive discussion of the notion of hero than the one you’re comfortable with.
Oh and an aside to BiW … you’re being disingenuous when you talk about the fallen who have died in training or simple accidents. You know full well that when most of us think about Memorial Day we think about those who died actively defending our country not someone whose helicopter crashed during a training exercise at Fort Bragg.
“Firemen fight fires to end them. Are you telling me soldiers fight wars to end them?”
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m telling you.
It is a slight against war dead without a valid purpose R.
Your logic would not be so tortured if it had merit. You are no genius, you’re just intellectually stubborn.
I can settle for that. Actually sounds a bit virtuous. 🙂
BTW, your comment gave me a flash back to one of my new Food Network discoveries where the host tells losing contestants “You are no sweet genius.”
Oh and an aside to BiW … you’re being disingenuous when you talk about the fallen who have died in training or simple accidents. You know full well that when most of us think about Memorial Day we think about those who died actively defending our country not someone whose helicopter crashed during a training exercise at Fort Bragg.
If I talkeds about things the way that most people “thought” of when they opened their mouth to speak, then I would only be suitable to be a community organizer for Duh Won, or a commentator on MSNBC. While the appeal of more money for fewer hours has a very real appeal, I simply couldn’t prey on the ignorant and the foolish that way and still sleep at night.
And you call yourself a capitalist! Pfffft.