But RR, you didn't answer ark's more relevant question. What were you doing in KY/IN?

I have an old childhood buddy I hadn't seen in several years who is an engineering prof at Rose-Hulman, and all of my forebears are in KY. So I went there for six days with my gf--was in Terre Haute for three days and then drove to KY. Heard some interesting stuff about politics, as you might guess.

well,

it wasn't a real too good pic of anyone except for larry. you couldn't hardly see HCo or neiporent. but i was surprised how tall kevin is.

There is no way for a presidential candidate to effectively "duck the public" in the digital era--in addition to which it has provided right-wing hard-ons like you and Joey with a talking point. So, if "ducking the public" is the intent, it is not a very effecive strategy--we would likely agree on that.

I agree with this; it sorta points up the silliness of Obama's suggesting the 7/4 date.

oh

by the way,

whichever primate left those 2 great comments on my blog (russert/jackson) - i wanna say thank you and it was HILARIPUS and please come back ANY time

but i was surprised how tall kevin is.

kevin isn't tall, in the pic he was leg pressing the stadium.

kevin isn't tall, in the pic he was leg pressing the stadium.

That'd be more impressive if he weren't being aided by gravity.

so cmon

WHY are all yall avoiding talking about the great kevin/DMN matchup?????????

bbc,

Andy said that all were mostly at peace including Nieporent and kevin--no politics, no Bonds, no steroids etc. Andy played pool with Ray DiPerna and (I think) kevin prior to, and I got the impression no one talked much or at all about Obama or any other divisive topic except maybe to joke around.

I thought City Slickers was a pretty weak movie, but I always liked that line when the guy says that even when he couldn't agree on anything else with his dad, they could still talk baseball.

So someone should reveal who's who in the photo ...

My completely uneducated guesses: Kevin's the guy in the back in the white shirt and blue hat. Andy's the guy in the middle, blue shirt, arms folded. DMN ... Guy in front with the black O's jersey? Not sure who else was there.

Dayn,

I think I know these--got them last time, through knowing stuff about the guys involved (age, etc) and Andy's telling me who sat where before I guessed. Here you go:

Guy in Nats' hat: Mahnken
Guy in Orioles hat in front: AROM
Guy in green button-down shirt: kevin
Guy in blue polo: Andy
Guy in Orioles' hat/glasses you can barely see: David
Guy in glasses visible over Andy's shoulder: Ray DiPerna
Guy with goatee visible over kevin's shoulder: Hanging Chad Ogea
Guy in back in white shirt and baseball hat: Retro

Kevin's the guy in the back in the white shirt and blue hat.

OUCH! :-)

I actually did that list from memory fron the smaller photo posted last week--in which it looked greener. In the big one posted now, which I just eyeballed, it looks more khaki.

And as a bleedingheartPCleftist, I am not color blind--I am very sensitive to all people and things of color.

I will send you and Andy an email of congrats if/when the C's close out my guys. I am surprised you passed up a "seeing green" joke based on the shirt.

And as a bleedingheartPCleftist, I am not color blind--I am very sensitive to all people and things of color.

Indeed, your identifying several of us by the color of our clothing simply illustrates your enslavement to identity politics.

Out of curiosity, just why is it so absurd to think that McCain and Obama could hold ten debates between now and election day if they really wanted to? Obama and Hillary must have taken part in about fifteen to twenty so-called "debates" during the primaries, and they agree with each about 95% on the issues. They would have had even more, except that Obama did so horribly in the one where he started getting tough questions that he didn't like, he started whining like a crybaby and his handlers decided they weren't going to do any more debates.

And the idea that people across America are actually going to get up on Independence Day and say "hey honey, don't forget to set the DVR tonight to record the debate so we can watch it tomorrow!" is a laughable joke. That's some of the weakest, lamest attempt at spin I've ever heard here.

If it's hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy because of what they say vs. what they do

Which is the very textbook definition of hypocrisy.

Out of curiosity, just why is it so absurd to think that McCain and Obama could hold ten debates between now and election day if they really wanted to.

It's not absurd; it just seems like overkill. My guess, like David said, is that they will settle on 2, 3, 4 or some such number.

And the idea that people across America are actually going to get up on Independence Day and say "hey honey, don't forget to set the DVR tonight to record the debate so we can watch it tomorrow!" is a laughable joke. That's some of the weakest, lamest attempt at spin I've ever heard here.

You should know about weak attempts at spin. And like I said, even if you're right, any mistakes Obama or McCain make will be replayed one zillion times in one zillion formats, including network and local news on non-cable outlets. And I do, in fact, know several people who teach at night and DID set the DVR for the Clinton/Obama debates more than once. Finally, I would guess that undecided voters who actually care will try to see some of it one way or another, and undecided voters who are more or less apathetic until November 5 or so wouldn't see it anyway.

And of course whether you or Nieporent or I see it doesn't mean #### anyway in terms of voting.

Spahn Insane Posted: June 16, 2008 at 12:48 PM (#2821326)

Kevin's the guy in the back in the white shirt and blue hat.

OUCH! :-)

- sigh

well darling boy, if you be front and center and show some LAIGSSSSS then wouldn't nobody make that mistake

now it is kevin who my auntie thinks is hot

now it is kevin who my auntie thinks is hot

Does this mean it's OK for kev to joke about your aunt's skirt blowing up on windy days?

Does this mean it's OK for kev to joke about your aunt's skirt blowing up on windy days?

She's just wearing that skirt for our boy kevin!

You should know about weak attempts at spin.

This bit of spin on Obama's part is the last straw. Joey's definitely not voting for Obama now.

You know, you guys who argue about this stuff really ought to take into account the views of someone who wears the uniform, and who deals with the ramifications of foreign policy. The amount of ass-talking in this thread is damned incredible.

Scotto's right. We should. So I think of all the military men--not civilians, but military men--who have publicly lamented the deadly mistake that is the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq. A few of these are:

--Four-star Gen. Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander, NATO, who said:
"The fact is, the president has never listened to the soldiers on the ground effectively. This administration is not listening to the troops and is not supporting them."
---Major General John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq
---Major General Paul Eaton, in charge of training the Iraqi military in 2003 and 2004
---Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2002 to 2005.
---General William E. Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, who called the Iraq war "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States." Odom is a Republican who once headed the National Security Agency and also served as a deputy national security adviser. Odom calls plans for democratizing Iraq a "pipedream" and said we must remove U.S. forces "from that shattered country as rapidly as possible.... we have failed," and further said, "the issue is how high a price we're going to pay — less by getting out sooner, or more by getting out later."
---Major Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., commander, 82nd Airborne Division,
---James Webb, Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Webb said the Vietnam War was "more justifiable and more defensible" than the war in Iraq. He called the ongoing war "a palpable strategic error" and "a strategic mousetrap" that arose from "a breakdown in group ethics."
--General Anthony Zinni, USMC
--Brigadier General John Johns, West Point, leadership and ethics instruction
--Lieutenant General Robert Gard
--Lieutenant General John Riggs, D.F.C.
--Lieutenant General Gregory S. Newbold, USMC, Director of Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff
---Iraq Veterans Against the War
---Veterans for Peace
---Gold Star Families for Peace
---Military Families Speak Out

I tend to listen to these guys.

Spahn Insane Posted: June 16, 2008 at 01:23 PM (#2821357)

Does this mean it's OK for kev to joke about your aunt's skirt blowing up on windy days?

She's just wearing that skirt for our boy kevin!

- naughty NAUGHTY smile

i would guess it is "not wearing"

hehhehheh

Joey's definitely not voting for Obama now.

Indeed. Now Obama's only chance with Joey is that BO's secret service detail can save him a brain scrambling, which will increase his cluelessness.

WHY are all yall avoiding talking about the great kevin/DMN matchup?????????

It's because the court-imposed gag order remains in effect until after the jury reaches a verdict.

So someone should reveal who's who in the photo ...

I'm pretty sure the seated (or really short) guy in the glasses and O's cap at the edge of the frame is a crazed Democrat. Just look how he's leaning to his left. If that's not a secret shoutout to his buddies at the Huffington Post, what would be?

-I didn't need Russert coming on in an epilogue to tell me "Everything you just heard was ########" or something. Journalism should not be advocacy, in my mind.

This is incoherent. So something like factchect.org or investigative journalism is now advocacy? Investigating the truth claims of advocates for one or another position is exactly what a journalist should do, and it is the exact opposite of advocacy.

This is also a great irony, since Russert made his reputation (deservedly I believe) precisely because he did tell people they were full of "crap."

I guess speaking truth to power is no longer considered part of journalism? Wow.

I didn't say anything resembling what you said I said.

Indeed. Now Obama's only chance with Joey is that BO's secret service detail can save him a brain scrambling, which will increase his cluelessness.

You never know. With his Godlike powers that he has, there's always a chance that he could lay his divine, supernatural hands on me, heal my poor broken soul, and turn me into a fanatical Obamaniac who faints during his speeches.

there's always a chance that he could lay his divine, supernatural hands on me, heal my poor broken soul, and turn me into a fanatical Obamaniac who faints during his speeches.

Nah. You're too far gone to feel the power.

With his Godlike powers that he has, there's always a chance that he could lay his divine, supernatural hands on me, heal my poor broken soul, and turn me into a fanatical Obamaniac who faints during his speeches.

That's change we can believe in.

Does this mean it's OK for kev to joke about your aunt's skirt blowing up on windy days?

She's just wearing that skirt for our boy kevin!

Is it just me, or does the skirt/no-underwear look (despite the best efforts of the poptarts to dumb it down to a low-IQ hello) never really go out of style?

I tend to listen to these guys.

Of course you do. You agree with what they have to say. Bush listens to other military guys. Because he agrees with what they have to say.

Bush and Ark, two peas in a pod. One a loon, one a nimrod.

What an unbelievable golf match. I only wish it could have lasted another 19 holes. Pure class from all directions, too.

--------------------------------

Here, it makes litte or no sense for a war opponent to volunteer for a war that he opposes, beyond taking a sort of Mother Teresa role. But for a war supporter of military age to advocate sending others---but not himself---off to battle, amounts to little more than cowardice and hypocrisy.

No, it doesn't.

First, in the absence of a draft, people aren't being "sent." They're choosing to go. That's the whole reason I brought up the issue of no draft. It no longer makes sense to talk in the draft-era language of people being "sent." (Yes, that's a little oversimplified, in that they didn't necessarily volunteer for this specific mission -- although this far in, that's less and less true -- but they did volunteer to go whereever the government decided the mission was.)

Second, there's nothing the least bit hypocritical about it. I don't mean that it's not very hypocritical; I mean that the word doesn't mean what you think it does. There is precisely zero hypocrisy in supporting a war but not volunteering to fight it. Now, if one refused to fight, and did so without good reason, that might be hypocritical. But not volunteering is not even remotely the same as refusing. It is precisely as "hypocritical" as supporting fire departments but not volunteering to be a fire fighter -- that is to say, not at all. The charge simply makes no sense.

All that bluster, and then this, which you add almost as an afterthought in another post:

If it's hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy because of what they say vs. what they do;

Which is precisely the issue I was talking about. Many war supporters are of military age, in reasonably good shape, and childless. For them to advocate that others---many of whom have children---volunteer for a war that they say is necessary to defend our country, while at the same time refusing to volunteer for that "necessary to defend our country" war themselves, gets to the very heart of "do as I say, not do as I do" hypocrisy. And the more you or others try to twist this into a discussion of whether military service is a voluntary decision (which I've never denied that it is, in the absence of a draft), or the more you bring up civilian jobs that have never in our history been considered comparable to military service, the more it's evident that the issue of chickenhawkism evidently hits home.

Is it just me, or does the skirt/no-underwear look (despite the best efforts of the poptarts to dumb it down to a low-IQ hello) never really go out of style?

I'd have to agree.

Of course you do. You agree with what they have to say. Bush listens to other military guys. Because he agrees with what they have to say.

With the magical power of hindsight, we're able to go beyond "who agrees with who" and skip right to "who was right and who was not." The Administration made their choices, and in hindsight, they made some terrible decisions. Perhaps you agree with why those decisions were made, but at some point you have to concede that them being wrong for the "right" reasons still means they were wrong.

With the magical power of hindsight, we're able to go beyond "who agrees with who" and skip right to "who was right and who was not." The Administration made their choices, and in hindsight, they made some terrible decisions.

I think Joe's against the war *and* against arkitekton. This strikes me as a reasonable position.

If it's hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy because of what they say vs. what they do;

Which is precisely the issue I was talking about

But you misunderstood it. What they're saying doesn't contradict what they're doing. If they were saying, "You should serve whether you want to or not, but I won't serve because I don't want to," that would be hypocrisy. But they're not saying that. They're saying, "You should serve if you want to."

For them to advocate that others---many of whom have children---volunteer for a war that they say is necessary to defend our country, while at the same time refusing to volunteer for that "necessary to defend our country" war themselves, gets to the very heart of "do as I say, not do as I do" hypocrisy.

No, it doesn't.

It doesn't matter whether firefighting is "comparable" to military service. It doesn't matter if we're talking about war, firefighting, or mowing the lawn. The hypocrisy, or lack thereof, is the same. And in this case, it's the lack thereof.

If it's hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy because of what they say vs. what they do;

Which is precisely the issue I was talking about

But you misunderstood it. What they're saying doesn't contradict what they're doing. If they were saying, "You should serve whether you want to or not, but I won't serve because I don't want to," that would be hypocrisy. But they're not saying that. They're saying, "You should serve if you want to."

For the benefit of the Peanut Gallery, that first line was yours. In fact, you were doing nothing but reinforcing exactly what I said: It's "do as I say, not do as I do" hypocrisy. If you don't believe that, then why did you write it?

And it's you who's misunderstanding the issue here. The question isn't whether or not a war supporter is in favor of the draft or a volunteer army. That's a political question that has nothing to do with one's personal decision to serve.

And the question isn't whether or not a war supporter, absent a military draft, has a right to remain a civilian. Nobody questions that.

The question is much plainer. A military aged war supporter, absent truly extenuating circumstances, who chooses to remain a civilian while the war which he supports rages on, is as hypocritical as can be.

On the one hand, by supporting the war, a chickenhawk is saying that some Americans should volunteer to put their lives at risk for a cause in which he purports to believe, often to the point of casting aspersions on the patriotism of those people who are against the war.

On the other hand, that same believer in this sacred war to save us all from the Islamic Terror is apparently so unimpressed with the urgency of the situation that, like Dick Cheney circa 1968, he finds that he has "better things to do" than actually put his body where his mouth is.

And how dare we point this out!

If the shoe fits, wear it. (Not meaning you personally, but the generic war supporter from the demographic group I'm talking about.)

And if these chickenhawks are NOT effectively saying, "I support the war, but I like it better on TV," then what is it that they are conveying by their actions---or lack of them?

By that logic all rich leftists are hypocrites.

Before getting back to the less important issue of the war:

Who's the ass in the pic?

By that logic all rich leftists are hypocrites.

Not at all, unless they're also tax evaders or tax cheats. If you have examples of that, then you have a point---with regard to those people in particular.

But Swedish Chef, you tell me: If a vocal campus war supporter decides that he has no personal obligation to put his life on the line at the same time he advocates that others do so, then what is it, other than hypocrisy?

What is it, other than "do as I say, not do as I do?"

What is it, other than "I support the war, but I like it better on TV"?

That's a blunt way of putting it, but how is it inaccurate?

For the benefit of the Peanut Gallery, that first line was yours. In fact, you were doing nothing but reinforcing exactly what I said: It's "do as I say, not do as I do" hypocrisy. If you don't believe that, then why did you write it?

I didn't. I put an "if" in front of it.

The question is much plainer. A military aged war supporter, absent truly extenuating circumstances, who chooses to remain a civilian while the war which he supports rages on, is as hypocritical as can be.

And I'm saying that this would only be true if the word hypocritical had a different definition than it actually does. Inconsistency is not hypocrisy. Changing one's mind is not hypocrisy. Cowardice is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is pretending to have virtues that one does not actually possess. That simply does not have anything to do with the circumstances we're discussing.

The only way such a person would be a hypocrite would be if he condemned someone else for not serving, while choosing to remain a civilian. But merely supporting a war while choosing to remain a civilian is not hypocrisy. That's not what the word means.

And if these chickenhawks are NOT effectively saying, "I support the war, but I like it better on TV," then what is it that they are conveying by their actions---or lack of them?

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is exactly what they're saying, that's not hypocrisy.

Personal experience certainly counts in weighing someone's opinion on the war, and I'll profess that I'm pretty ignorant about what's really going on -- all of my info is secondhand at best. (And I have great respect for REMF who claim that status).

But to go back to Justin's #268 -- we have to hold Bush more than a little accountable for our ignorance on Iraq. Propaganda, esp. propaganda aimed at the homefront, has always been an aspect of war, but it's been shown that the BA distorted, inflated and just downright lied concerning every aspect of the case for war, and has spent the past five years trying to convince us that the war has gone great, all evidence to the contrary. From "Mission Accomplished" to "the surge worked".

As far as the War on Terrorism, you've got to start with the fact that the BA, while not completely to blame, was accountable for us being attacked in the first place. Again, good evidence points to them not taking Al Qaeda seriously before 9/11, and good evidence that Al Qaeda has been of backburner concern since. We had to pull resources out of Afghanistan in order to fight in Iraq, and tremendous resources are tied down in that country now.

It's really impossible to know how much a threat Islamic terrorists still are to the US in the current information environment.

For me, worse than all of the above, worse than the financial costs, have been the costs to the US in international respect as a leader of law-abiding countries. We've often been poor at following international agreements, but the disregard for international law, US Constitution and law, the concentration camps in Gitmo and Afghanistan, kidnapping of foreign subjects and transport to torture states -- the damage done in these areas have weakened us at our core.

I wish I was talking out of my ass on this subject, I really do.

And if these chickenhawks are NOT effectively saying, "I support the war, but I like it better on TV," then what is it that they are conveying by their actions---or lack of them?

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is exactly what they're saying, that's not hypocrisy.

Call it what you like, David. But since I'm more interested in the substance of the issue, I'll settle for just plain "do as I say, not do as I do," and "I like the war, but I like it better on TV," and you can call it whatever the hell you want to.

And BTW what DO you call it? Perhaps it's merely a hard-to-argue-against case of rational self-interest....

I think people are too quick to forget 9/11, and that even if Bush jumped the shark talking about evildoers and such, the terrorists still brought the war onto our soil. The military's job is to protect the nation and its citizens, which it is doing by making Al Qaeda fight in Iraq. I don't know for certain that there would have been another major attack in the US if it weren't for the war, but I think it's a significant possibility.

The only problem is that there is no evidence of any Al-Qaeda operatives being in Iraq before the war. The war radicalized large numbers of mostly foreigners who came to Iraq to fight the US, and Zarqawi (who had only just moved to Iraq, and who Saddam likely would have wanted dead) organized these fighters into AQI.

Also, the whole "don't forget 9/11" thing bothers me. When used to justify the war in Iraq, it always sounds to melike people saying 3,000 American lives are worth hundreds of thousands of Iraqi ones.

Also, I really don't think there is quite the increase in numbers of Islamic militants chomping at the bit to put a hurting on us. There may have been, but the tide has turned. The surge has made life very uncomfortable and you'd be surprised how quickly these guys lose their fervor when they are forced to hide and look over their shoulder all the time. There was a tie when our country didn't put any real pressure on these clowns, and it certainly seemed glamorous to young and impressionable people. That isn't the case anymore. Al Qaeda is screwed, and if we keep our foot on their throats as Beano says, they won't be long for this world. If we don't, well, I'm not sure, but I have a pretty good idea they'll regroup.

A couple of problems with this point:

1. You seem to be only considering Al-Qaeda in Iraq when talking about Iraq, when it is pretty clear the Insurgency is now much more splintered, with various Islamist groups, and more importantly, Mahdi army forces attacking US troops.

2. You talk about Al-Qaeda diminishing, but seem to only be talking about Iraq, when Al-Qaeda proper (the ones who attacked us) are not in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and Pakistan,where we certainly haven't been able to "keep our foot on their throats" because our forces are tied down in Iraq.

3. You attribute AQI's weakening to the Surge, when most Iraq analysts will say the Anbar Awakening and the Awakening Movements that followed were the biggest factor in their weakening. They lost support because of their too-brutal tactics and their attempts to subvert tribal leaders. That, combined with the US reaching out to tribal leaders who were part of the insurgency (some might call it "appeasement"), is what led to Al-Qaeda's current problems.

Of course you do. You agree with what they have to say. Bush listens to other military guys. Because he agrees with what they have to say.

Too easy, and consider that that list includes a hell of a lot of most senior and very senior military men. There's never been criticism on anything like this scale while a war/occupation has been ongoing.

Also, I agree with what they have to say because they make a great deal of sense. Bush listens to those military guys who are left after he's forced out all the other military guys who wouldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.

General William E. Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, says,

our objectives in Vietnam passed through three phases leading to defeat. These were: (1) 1961-65, "containing" China; (2) 1965-68, obsession with US tactics, leading to "Americanization" of the war; and (3) 1968-75, phony diplomacy and self-deluding "Vietnamization." Iraq has now completed two similar phases and is entering the third, says Odom, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. In March he wrote in the newsletter of Harvard's Nieman Foundation:

"Will Phase Three in Iraq end with U.S. helicopters flying out of Baghdad's Green Zone? It all sounds so familiar. The difference lies in the consequences. Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already having. On this point,

those who deny the Vietnam-Iraq analogy are probably right. They are wrong, however, in believing that staying the course will have any result other than making the damage to U.S. power far greater than would changing course and making an orderly withdrawal.... But even in its differences, Vietnam can be instructive about Iraq. Once the U.S. position in Vietnam collapsed, Washington was free to reverse the negative trends it faced in NATO and U.S.-Soviet military balance, in the world economy, in its international image, and in other areas. Only by getting out of Iraq can the United States possibly gain sufficient international support to design a new strategy for limiting the burgeoning growth of anti-Western forces it has unleashed...."

We'll be leaving Iraq. It just comes down to, on whose terms do we want to leave. Ours, or someone elses?

By that logic all rich leftists are hypocrites.

Not at all, unless they're also tax evaders or tax cheats. If you have examples of that, then you have a point---with regard to those people in particular.

You're contradicting yourself. Here, you're saying that one is not a hypocrite unless one disobeys a legal obligation. (In this case, the obligation to pay taxes.) But in the military context, you're saying that one is a hypocrite even if one doesn't disobey a legal obligation.

Call it what you like, David. But since I'm more interested in the substance of the issue, I'll settle for just plain "do as I say, not do as I do," and "I like the war, but I like it better on TV," and you can call it whatever the hell you want to.

Puh-lease; if you're looking for terminology, I call that claim of yours "dishonest." There's no real "substance" to the "issue" of Dick Cheney not having served in a war 45 years ago. What you're interested in is having a club to bash him with, and the biggest club you think you have is the word "hypocrite."

As to what I'd call it, I wouldn't call it anything, any more than I'd call the person who advocates for fire departments without becoming a firefighter anything. (Such a person might be motivated by cowardice. Such a person might be motivated by selfishness. Such a person might be motivated by laziness. But none of those are inherent in the situation.)

And if these chickenhawks are NOT effectively saying, "I support the war, but I like it better on TV," then what is it that they are conveying by their actions---or lack of them?
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is exactly what they're saying, that's not hypocrisy.

Call it what you like, David. But since I'm more interested in the substance of the issue, I'll settle for just plain "do as I say, not do as I do," and "I like the war, but I like it better on TV," and you can call it whatever the hell you want to.

And BTW what DO you call it? Perhaps it's merely a hard-to-argue-against case of rational self-interest....

Puh-lease; if you're looking for terminology, I call that claim of yours "dishonest." There's no real "substance" to the "issue" of Dick Cheney not having served in a war 45 years ago. What you're interested in is having a club to bash him with, and the biggest club you think you have is the word "hypocrite."

No, it doesn't show anything at all about a man's character that he's perfectly willing to cheer on a war that he chose not to enlist for, in spite of his demographic eligibility.

As to what I'd call it, I wouldn't call it anything, any more than I'd call the person who advocates for fire departments without becoming a firefighter anything. (Such a person might be motivated by cowardice. Such a person might be motivated by selfishness. Such a person might be motivated by laziness. But none of those are inherent in the situation.)

I've already noted the exceptions to my characterization of chickenhawks, which roughly parallel the sort of deferments that were granted during WWII*: Sole surviving son; 4-F or I-Y physical or mental status; employment in civilian defense work; etc. If Cheney or any other chickenhawk fit (or fits) in any of those categories, the shoe doesn't fit, and the term wouldn't apply to them.

Otherwise, they're exactly what they are: chickenshlt chickenhawks of the timeless "let's you and him" fight school of philosophy.

As for that absurd "firefighter" analogy: Tell me about casualty rate for firefighters compared to that of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. Let me know how many firefighters endure repeated tours of overseas duty under enemy fire, while separated from their families.

*And note I said WWII, not Vietnam, because in WWII we had genuine shared sacrifice among all classes, unlike in Vietnam where just about anyone with connections could avoid the draft, and where it was a calculated policy (known as "channeling") to steer college students out of combat's way. Cheney was but one of millions of beneficiaries of this.

As for that absurd "firefighter" analogy: Tell me about casualty rate for firefighters compared to that of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. Let me know how many firefighters endure repeated tours of overseas duty under enemy fire, while separated from their families.

I don't know about firefighters, but timber cutters/loggers have a similar death rate to members of the armed forces. By my back of the envelope estimate 142 of each 100,000 people in the military have died in Iraq while according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 129 of each 100,000 people in the logging industry have been killed.

So, if any of you have ever used paper and not cut down trees yourself, you are a hypocrite.

As noted previously, a lot of these criticisms would make more sense if we didn't have a 100% volunteer military.

I don't see why one who didn't serve would need to specifically advocate for the war in order to be branded a hypocrite under this fun new definition of the word. Why wouldn't simply advocating for a military qualify?

I don't know about firefighters, but timber cutters/loggers have a similar death rate to members of the armed forces. By my back of the envelope estimate 142 of each 100,000 people in the military have died in Iraq while according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 129 of each 100,000 people in the logging industry have been killed.

Well, if you can find a "combat timber cutter" subcategory that corresponds to "combat soldier," the comparison would be a bit more valid, although I've yet to hear anyone treating the timber industry with quite the same manner of "nation's survival" rhetoric that I've heard from the chickenhawks.

As noted previously, a lot of these criticisms would make more sense if we didn't have a 100% volunteer military.

And as noted previously, nobody's questioning the right of chickenhawks not to volunteer for a volunteer military. The only thing being called into question is their "do as I say, not do as I do philosophy" about a war which so many of them has called "key to our survival."

don't know about firefighters, but timber cutters/loggers have a similar death rate to members of the armed forces. By my back of the envelope estimate 142 of each 100,000 people in the military have died in Iraq while according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 129 of each 100,000 people in the logging industry have been killed.

Well, if you can find a "combat timber cutter" subcategory that corresponds to "combat soldier," the comparison would be a bit more valid, although I've yet to hear anyone treating the timber industry with quite the same manner of "nation's survival" rhetoric that I've heard from the chickenhawks.

So that makes you only 90% as much of a coward as Dick Cheney! Bravo!

Oh, this IS fun.

Yes, the word games and rationalizations of the chickenhawks are always a source of constant amusement.

As for that absurd "firefighter" analogy: Tell me about casualty rate for firefighters compared to that of U.S. combat troops in Iraq. Let me know how many firefighters endure repeated tours of overseas duty under enemy fire, while separated from their families.

Again, none of that has anything to do with the issue of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy, according to your own definition (which as I've noted is not right) is a disparity between what a person says (military good) and does (not join the military). So if a person says firefighting good but does not become a firefighter, then the same disparity between what he says and does exists, and therefore the same hypocrisy would exist. Nothing about relative risk of the job is relevant to the question. The reason you think it's absurd is because you recognize how absurd it would be to call someone a hypocrite for not becoming a firefighter. So you realize that it breaks down, but instead of realizing that it's because your claim about the military is equally absurd, you're trying to fight the analogy.

I think this thread's well past the point of calling in the Analogy Police. It's time to deploy the Analogy National Guard.

Given how many Democrats voted for civil rights legislation but exempted themselves from following the civil rights legislation, can we call Democratic politicians "bigothawks?"

Glenn Greenwald probably has what is a fairer definition of a chickenhawk.

A "chicken hawk" is one who strikes the pose of a warrior, who imputes the personal courage of a soldier in combat to themselves by virtue of the fact that they are in favor of sending that soldier off to war, or who parades around with the pretense of personal courage and resolve while assuming none of the risks. And a "chicken hawk" will, conversely, attempt to depict those who oppose such wars as being weak, spineless and cowardly even though the war opponents are not seeking to avoid any personal risk to themselves, but instead, are arguing against subjecting their fellow citizens to what they perceive are unnecessary dangers.

This seems a better evaluation of the word.

This seems a better evaluation of the word.

I'm not a fan of Greenwald, but he's right in this case, and it matches what I had said the definition of hypocrisy was: pretending to have virtues one doesn't possess.

(One can explicitly pretend to have those virtues by saying, "I have these virtues," or implicitly do so, by impugning someone else for not having them.)

It's time to deploy the Analogy National Guard.

Only request that if you are willing to join.

And a "chicken hawk" will, conversely, attempt to depict those who oppose such wars as being weak, spineless and cowardly even though the war opponents are not seeking to avoid any personal risk to themselves, but instead, are arguing against subjecting their fellow citizens to what they perceive are unnecessary dangers.

I don't know that I'd call this a "chickenhawk", but it is a line of rhetoric--along with the old "If you don't support the war, you don't respect and support the troops" line--that bugs me. I think the latter is likely a product of the VN era, before my time, when a few protesters called soldiers "baby killers" etc.

Also:

Chickenhawk (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Chickenhawk.
Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk; sometimes designated after a person's name by [c.h.]) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person actively avoided military service when of draft age.

The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.

***

more:

The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War. In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe ardent supporters of the Iraq War who have themselves never been in combat; it is seldom if ever used with respect to supporters of the (more broadly supported) war in Afghanistan as such. The label is not usually applied to women (who were historically, in most countries, barred by law from serving in combat). People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat. Although it is possible to have a military career and never be at war, the term is often used in the context of someone who has been in the military in time of war but make efforts to steer clear of combat, such as George W. Bush's military records showing he wrote "do not volunteer" on being requested if he would consider a tour of duty in Vietnam.
***

I was surprised there was no "the neutrality of this entry has been questioned" thing at Wikipedia. I didn't see it if there was one.

Glenn Greenwald probably has what is a fairer definition of a chickenhawk.

A "chicken hawk" is one who strikes the pose of a warrior, who imputes the personal courage of a soldier in combat to themselves by virtue of the fact that they are in favor of sending that soldier off to war, or who parades around with the pretense of personal courage and resolve while assuming none of the risks. And a "chicken hawk" will, conversely, attempt to depict those who oppose such wars as being weak, spineless and cowardly even though the war opponents are not seeking to avoid any personal risk to themselves, but instead, are arguing against subjecting their fellow citizens to what they perceive are unnecessary dangers.

This seems a better evaluation of the word.

Good call, Dan.

And I'll gladly let Glenn Greenwald have the last word on this subject. I'm off to realign the Majors in the Steinbrenner-Wang thread, a far more pressing matter.

I never use the term "chickenhawk", because most of the people that are generally described that way (Kristol, Feith, the Kagans, etc.) are better described as "batshit crazy"

It's time to deploy the Analogy National Guard.

Only request that if you are willing to join.

Locked and loaded.

I don't know that I'd call this a "chickenhawk", but it is a line of rhetoric--along with the old "If you don't support the war, you don't respect and support the troops" line--that bugs me.

It bugs me, too, as all dementia tends to bug me, on the ground that your quote demands we support the troops by keeping them in the middle of a bloody, civil war, a Kafkaesque madness. Like all good conservatives, I support our troops' right to life by refusing to support their deployment to dangerous areas unless absolutely necessary.