"The Surge"

Xen:
Below is an excerpt from letter to the editor in the Projo ...
I left off most of it because I am sure you are tired of hearing from people like me, and this person, who believe Bush is a problem.
But I like this person's phrasing as cited below.... To me, it is a VERY true statement about the treatment of the military, the press' approach (as witnessed by their almost universal switch in 'opinion' in the 3 weeks leading up to the election), and the way we have accepted manipulation as a way of life
(The point of the article is that the administration has been hell-bent on increasing the troop level in Iraq from the beginning, and will not be deterred from it. Of course, they DID come up with a new "phrase" to describe it: "a troop surge"

"The administration is once again proceeding from an ill-conceived conclusion and bullying the military into backing them. The press accepts whatever script the White House hands them, and the American people seem to be too conditioned by the consumer culture of endless manipulation we live in to see past even the cheapest sloganeering and knee-jerk appeals to a patriotism and sacrifice."


Sassette:
I totally agree. Where do the administration think these troops are going to come from? You would have to be crazy to enlist right now.
And do you know what infuriates me (and that is NOT hyperbole)? Every single commercial for the armed forces (I am specifically thinking of the current army ad campaign) features middle to lower middle class families, many of them minorities.
Where is the commercial where the ivy leaguer comes home on break and tells mumsy and dads that he/she has decided that there is no greater honor than that of serving one's country? Where is the scene with the CEO and his son where the father tells the son that going out and seeing the world and getting discipline and working hard to accomplish a goal are worthwhile?
These ads SICKEN me. They are targeting a very specific demographic, and assuming no one notices that the entire rest of the country is off the hook. If they were being honest and decent instead of deceptive and elitist they would ask for people TO ENLIST, TO SERVE, TO SACRIFICE because it is a worthy thing to do, and the country needs its men and women to step up and answer the call. But they are not. They are carefully couching these appeals in offers of things that moderate to lower income families want for their kids (and the kids want for themselves) but cannot offer: travel, education, money, etc.
Why is no one calling attention to this?
(FYI: I don't necessarily believe that serving in this particular conflagration and climate is a worthwhile thing to do, but my point is that is what the government should be saying)

Xen:
Oh, so you don't think the sudden opinion piece by the former military chief was planned? The one that said he had rethought his original 'don't ask - don't tell' policy and that now, well, we should embrace (OK, maybe he didn't say 'embrace') gays in the military? And how was it that the exact number of military personnel that were tossed because they were gay was known? And it was 11,000?
ITA with your observation about the ads. Again...we are not supposed to notice this manipulation .. this level of subterfuge.
I actually thought it was a VERY interesting point on The Colbert Report the other night where he called for the reinstatement of the draft ....because ONLY THEN will there be enough impetus for young people to actually get involved and question the leaders of this country PROPERLY again.

Sassette:
I've been saying that for a while. Can you imagine this country being led to war on flimsy evidence if our sons and daughters were forced to participate?

Discussion ~ Race

Sassette:
OK, I wanted run something by you that has been percolating in my brain for a little while now. The zygote of this musing came into being as a result of the Michael Richards situation, and it has grown into a healthy baby preoccupation from there as I have puzzled over it.
The subject of my musing is the idea of language that is exclusively racist. Is it ever possible to use "racist" language without being racist? Is there a difference between someone who is indeed racist who uses the "racist" language available as verbal extensions of his passionate bigoted beliefs; and someone who is simply angry who uses the most hurtful and insulting language available to cut down, to injure, to vent frustration and rage, but who does not hold those racist beliefs? Can such a person exist?
I guess my question is this: Is it the beliefs a person holds or the language a person uses that determines racism. And if it is the language, does this apply to other forms of bigotry (misogyny, homophobia, ethnic and religious, etc.)?
I have been mulling over why the media and the public immediately discarded the possibility that Michael Richards got very angry with someone (who was black) and used the most convenient and effective language available to hurt the person who had upset him. I am not saying that either way is an "OK" thing to do, but it was never really even considered. He was immediately branded a racist - which he may be. But, would the outburst have been taken as seriously if it had been equally insensitive words aimed at a different target? A woman? A Muslim? A Mexican? A gay person? Would some of these be considered less egregious breaches of the social contract (assuming that the language used was as equally offensive to each group as it was to the black audience member) than others? And if so why? And would he still be considered bigoted and become a social pariah as a result, or would it be chalked up to a loss of temper?
Just wondering what you think. It amazes me the ridiculous things that will take up residence in my brain - often to the detriment of more pressing matters...

Xen:
I understand your 'theory'. My example in the purest sense would be one who didn't know that the language used WAS racist. (When I was a wee lad, I told my sister to "screw" and my father lost his sh** on me because if meant f*** ..... but I only knew it in the way that meant "leave, get out of here). So in the purest example, I believe that a person who is ignorance of what they are saying can utter racist language without being a racist.
The thing of it is: We have to define purely what is a racist.... and by that I mean at what level is something merely "crude" and when is it an indicator of racism - even at the tiniest level. And - as imperfect beings, there is a level of prejudice in everything we do. What level do we tolerate and exclude? If I become angry ... ultimately, explosively angry ... and use the worst swear words ever, or say the most hurtful (but clean) things to someone, then it is considered rude, crude and not permissible ... but acceptable. If someone gets violent, well, we have written laws that say you must curb your behavior or you will be punished and labeled a criminal. If I cannot restrain myself, that is what happens.
And likewise, a person who knows that, say, the "N" word is an indicator of racism (use any example you like) ... but is so mad that they use it ...that they can't restrain themselves ... well, the will suffer those consequences for saying it.
Are they a racist? Well, because those words are associated with racism ... expressions of those people who ARE racist, and you aren't able to restrain yourself - then you must think at some level that it's acceptable to use them.
My mind is trained by either upbringing or self control and learning not to use the certain horrible words in front of people. If I let loose, then I am wrong. I will be ostracized accordingly. There are some people, for example, who will NEVER EVER SAY THE "C" word. EVER. If you come across someone who does, you think of them as being a certain type of person. Suppose someone just snaps and says it, but doesn't usually? It means it's in their head - and it has a meaning ... otherwise they wouldn't be able to quickly come up with it when emotions take over.
Michael Richards knows what those words mean. He was trying to hurt those hecklers.. He saw they were black. He knows that that is a hurtful set of words that are as offensive as any ... Would he have used those same words against white hecklers? No. So his brain made a conscious, differentiating decision. That, I think, points to a level of racism.
By the way, it might be completely ingrained. It might be WAY under the surface. But it's there. That's the problem.
I might be rambling... but this is a very interesting subject, as you have presented it.

Xen Again:
But what about "intent" ?
What about the underlying base belief that ALL people of a certain race (creed, nationality, color, etc) behave a certain way, or should be treated a certain way .... or are inferior, or superior? Isn't THAT racism?
See? That's now different from my earlier rambling argument....

Sassette:
That was more along the lines of my question. If the person's intent is to hurt by using the most hurtful language available, is that person a racist if the most hurtful language available (most hurtful towards the person you want to hurt) is considered racist?
When you mentioned that MR would not have used the same language if the heckler had not been black - I agree. He would have grabbed the most hurtful language available for that person (weight comments for a fat person, etc.). Does it make him a racist that he employed hurtful words that are considered racist? Or is he a racist because only a racist would employ such words?

Xen:
MY HEAD HURTS NOW !!

Sassette:
Sorry. I don't know where this came from. I guess I can trace it back to an old George Carlin routine about how words are neither good nor bad, in and of themselves...

Xen:
Oh, no .. I find it VERY interesting.
These are the discussions that should be going on. Otherwise nothing changes for generations on end.