Page not found « Bunker Mulligan

September 20, 2004

Free Speech

Filed under: Society-Culture — Bunker @ 5:40 pm

Frank has a very good post entitled What does a “blogger” look like? He also adds a Norman Rockwell painting. Just the right touch.

This painting is what a “blogger” looks like. We are just people, average joes( and josephines), having our say on the affairs of the world without fear from neighbors or our government. The only difference between ourselves and the man in the painting is that the method for speaking our minds has moved from the cold wooden walls of the Elks Lodge to the cold wiring of the internet.

I had been thinking of the internet as a library, with bloggers acting as librarians. A librarian can direct a researcher to all kinds of information they never knew existed, and bloggers often perform the same function. Yet Frank’s analogy is probably far more apt.

Comments Off

Shock

Filed under: Media — Bunker @ 4:32 pm

Wallace has posted a famous photograph, taken by Eddie Adams in 1968 of Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan as he killed a captured Viet Cong. Adams has just passed away, and Wallace offers his sense of loss.

Those of you who weren’t yet born, or who didn’t watch the news in 1968 probably don’t grasp the impact of that photograph. When I taught a lesson on Vietnam, I used some videotape of a humorous piece from the movie Full Metal Jacket to set it all up. As the cadets were laughing, the clip transitioned quickly to movie film taken at the same instant as Adams’ photo. The general quickly raised his pistol and shot, which is what Adams captured, then lowered his pistol and went about his business. The room went silent. And that was precisely the effect I wanted.

The cadets knew the story well, that this VC had just killed a family the general knew well. But that was irrelevant. The sense of shock was what Americans felt in 1968, buttressed with reports from the field by such journalistic icons as Dan Rather.

Some things never change, do they?

Comments (1)

Selective

Filed under: Media — Bunker @ 4:15 pm

James Taranto points out just a single piece of selective journalism by Dan Rather last month published here.

In the end, what difference does it make what one candidate or the other did or didn’t do during the Vietnam War? In some ways, that war is as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns. What’s far more import is this: Do they have an exit strategy for Iraq? If so, what is it? How will they address the national deficit? And what are the chances their plans will work?

I have problems with that, but more in the last four lines than the first. Why is it that media types and opposition politicians are always asking for “the plan”? Countries the world over employ thousands of people who spend their waking hours trying to discern “the plan.” They are called Spies.

Why would any leader in any country explain his “plan” during wartime?

Comments Off

Leapfrog?

Filed under: Military — Bunker @ 12:36 pm

I have seen many claims, and talked to people who believe, that Dubya was allowed to join the Texas Air National Guard ahead of 150 others on a waiting list. So, I decided to do a little research. I came up empty on the internet. Every citation of this, such as one from CBS News (quite a reliable source, I’d say) says something similar:

Questions about the president’s National Guard service have lingered for years. Some critics question how Mr. Bush got into the Guard when there were waiting lists of young men hoping to join it to escape the draft and possible service in Vietnam.

Another post at DU:

It has been reported that Bush jumped to the top of a list of over 500 applicants for the position…

And yet another:

Although he only scored in the 25th percentile on his pilot aptitude test Bush was somehow able to skip this entire waiting list and get an immediate appointment to the Texas Air National Guard.

But I have yet to see anything anywhere which corroborates these claims.

Has anyone seen anything at all that shows this to be true, or are we all listening to something which has been repeated often enough to sound believable? Can someone, somewhere, provide a copy of said list, or even some reliable information that such a list actually existed?

Dan Rather would know, wouldn’t he?

***UPDATE***
I found this which may answer the question. Also, the Washington Post has more integrity than Dan Rather, even if they word things a little oddly:

Retired Col. Rufus G. Martin, then personnel officer in charge of the 147th Fighter Group, said the unit was short of its authorized strength, but still had a long waiting list, because of the difficulty getting slots in basic training for recruits at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio. Martin said four openings for pilots were available in the 147th in 1968, and that Bush got the last one.

So, it seems Dubya didn’t jump past all those other folks waiting for a slot after all.

Comments (2)

Credibility

Filed under: International — Bunker @ 10:11 am

John Kerry is beating his gums in front of an audience right now, and I saw a banner roll across the TV screen that quotes him as saying, “Our credibility in the world is plummeting.”

Interesting.

For years, governments around the world have been uneasy in making commitments with the US because we have a tendency to change direction with new Administrations. In other words, our credibility is often suspect. For two years now, people who opposed our invasion of Iraq, for whatever reason, have tried to paint Dubya as a liar and cheat, and the lowest form of humanity. That has happened both here and abroad. I would say that any loss of credibility is due to their constant harping rather than any fact.

Yet every leader in every nation of the world now actually views US policy as much more credible than before 9/11. Credibility comes from doing what you say you will do. People may not like what Dubya has done, but you can’t make an honest assessment and say he isn’t following his stated policy in regards to foreign policy.

We as a nation, not just George W. Bush, have decided we need to eliminate the supporters of Islamicists or make them crawl back into a hole. They know this. Our credibility will be diminished only if we take a more nuanced approach, and return to the 9/10 mentality of legal action, and warrants for the arrest of people like bin Laden.

Credibility means commitment. How committed are we?

Comments (1)

September 19, 2004

Good vs. Evil

Filed under: Bunker's Favorites,Society-Culture — Bunker @ 4:32 pm

Alex and Paulie have had an ongoing discussion both on blogs and through email regarding the concepts of good and evil, religion, and Islam. All these have coalesced as this post at The Commons.

It is a long one, one in which Paulie attempted to put all of it into perspective. Last night I printed it out so I could read it at leisure and not on a monitor screen. That’s how we old guys have to do things as our eyesight deteriorates. I suggest it to you all, and Paulie is very interested in seeing the discussion continue in his comments.

I agree with the general concepts he presents. But I wanted to add my own thoughts both here and on his site.

I look back at a film series which has the essence of it all in three episodes: Star Wars. The most recent episodes have lost the flavor and are really nothing more than productions meant to fulfil the thirst of fans–both of Star Wars and computer generated visuals. The stories don’t have much to them. But the first three are extremely symbolic of the concepts of Good and Evil, God and Satan.

My personal religiosity fits well with the concepts in the trilogy. We humans are quick to think of God as something in human form with thought processes much like our own. Likewise for Satan. But my sense of the Almighty is very much like The Force. God is the synergism of Good. Likewise, Satan is a collective of the Dark Side, of evil people and their own energy. It matters not which religion they claim to follow, the Good or Evil they do is their adherence to a god.

For that reason, I see no organized religion which completely fits my view of God. I am a Christian. I view Jesus, as does Paulie, as an embodiment of Good in this world. But I do not align myself with any sect.

Now, as I say that, I understand there are people out there who will repeat the chant, “If we could all just get along.” Yes, that is what Jesus advocated. But there is another force working out there which refuses to “just get along” except on their very personal terms. Do you reconcile this conflict through appeasement? That is the only avenue they offer, and that only for long enough to become overpowering. Getting along is not their goal.

The United States has the power to be overwhelming, both economically and militarily. Yet we aren’t, because we choose not to be. Is there any doubt that given the same powers we have, those we are supposed to get along with would eliminate us from the face of the Earth?

So, which side works for Evil, and which side works for good, albeit imperfectly. Which will eventually prevail? It really comes down to what the people of this world view is best. Right now, there are a lot of folks both here and abroad who want the Evil side to win, even though they won’t say it aloud.

Comments (3)