Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Happy Veteran's Day

Let's thank WWII vets for defeating Hitler and making America safe for lunatics who compare our leaders to Hitler

In other Veteran's Day news:

Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator — Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.

Coburn has been identified by Senate aides as the lawmaker preventing consideration of S 1963, the Veterans’ Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act of 2009, by using an informal but legal practice of putting a hold on a bill.

Coburn’s staff did not respond to questions, but Senate aides said the first-term senator has expressed concern about creating new and unfunded benefits and wants the opportunity to amend the measure.

One of Coburn’s suggestions is to divert money from unspent economic and job stimulus programs to cover costs of new benefits for veterans and their families, according to sources who have discussed the issue with Coburn’s staff.

So far, at least, Senate leaders don’t want to let Coburn offer any amendments because of the precedent that would set to delay other legislation. Actual funding for benefits traditionally is handled separately from the bills that authorize the benefits,
Senate aides said.

This from the same Senator who has enthusiastically supported earlier war-spending bills that neither specified where the funds would come from, or specifically cut spending somewhere else in order to fund the war. But where were his "principled objections" then? No, we can enthusiastically send them off to be killed and mangled in a war, but we can't provide the most basic care they need when they come home injured and disabled. Compassionate conservativism for the win!


  1. Aren't you disturbed by the fact that your readers go apeshit over a post about limiting abrotion rights but don't even comment on a post about legislaton for disabled vets? what a bunch of sorry hypocrits

  2. Yes and no. Blogging is like that - certain topics get a lot of response while others don't. It's hard to predict. But I agree that we should be as deeply invested in injustices that affect others as we are in those that affect us. It's not human nature to be, but this is one area where we should fight our natural tendencies.

  3. Hey Rachel,

    Based on your response to AssMan I'm not thinking you're getting it.

    I think his point is that vets have already "paid the price". If I was him I'd be feeling a pretty big disconnect with your "We / Others / Us" comment. Most service people / vets feel that they are there for all Americans. They probably won't appreciate the human nature comment as these people are getting their asses blown off to assure you and your girlfriends can be the true feminists you were destined to be.

    Maybe a bit more empathy would be appropriate given the current casualty rate of 98.5% male / 1.5% female. So much for equality.


  4. Jesus, Burn. I posted on the topic. I signed a petition on the topic. I'm concerned about it. I haven't been badmouthing disabled vets. What the fuck do you want?

    This is a feminist blog, and in my view feminism ought to concern itself with injustices in every segment of society. But obviously not everyone shares that view. And I am not solely responsible for feminism in all its forms, and for the behavior of feminists everywhere. I posted on this topic because I think it's important. But I cannot control which posts my readers comment on.

  5. Anonymous11/16/2009

    given the current casualty rate of 98.5% male / 1.5% female.

    Generally speaking women aren't allowed to serve in combat roles. So are you suggesting now that it's their fault that most of the casualties are male?

  6. @ Anonymous,

    I'm suggesting that if we are progressive enough as a country to have flipped from a 60/40 Male/Female university graduation ratio thirty years ago to roughly 40/60 now that maybe women need to actually have some skin in the game in war versus continuing to receive most of the benefits and take little of the risk in our brave new world.

    It's pretty well documented that women aren't allowed in combat roles due to their well known physical limitations as a group and much higher non-combat (training) injury rates. The political reason is of course that it's easy to talk about "girl power" but not so acceptable for our society to actually put the princesses at risk. That said, the service bosses have no problem putting women officers in charge of men in combat units when the chicks themselves have never been in combat roles. Check it out.

    In any case, I would be thrilled if the casualty ratio matched the male / female service population ratio. I didn't say it was women's fault, I stated a fact and that it is nothing close to "equal".

  7. DiamondsforHorses11/18/2009

    You don't even make any sense Burn. Nobody here is trying to say that women shouldn't be in combat or that the military is a perfect paradigm of equality. Many, many feminists have issues with the way things are done in the military. Nobody I know thinks that it's a great shining beacon of equality and justice. Gawd, talk about wrestling with strawmen.

  8. Anonymous11/18/2009

    All of this is a massive derail. Rachel rightfully pointed out that certain conservative politicians will happily send people off to war, and approve massive war spending with no guaruntee of where the money will come from in the budget, but when these same people come home disabled, they refuse to support a bill that would provide for their care unless we show upfront where the money will come from. And this is hateful and hypocritical. If they're good enough to fight your war for you then they're good enough to get decent care when they come home injured and diabled.

  9. @ DiamondforHorses,

    It's a male disposability issue. I'm just wondering why you and your sisters aren't strongly pressing for equal combat risk and casualty exposure for young women in the military instead of sitting back and letting this shit go on. I thought it was all about equality. Last time I checked most of these kids are sons of a mother somewhere here in the good old US of A. Be really progressive and ask the Moms.

    Don't try to sell your holier than thou bullshit to me. Take a stand. Or...continue to let young men get toasted because both you "mature women" and society think they are expendable and young women are somehow "more special". I know you want it both ways but being the smart progressive chick you are it seems a bit hard to justify, don't you think? I love it when breast cancer is more important than a 19-year-old Marine dude getting his ass blown off. Maybe you progressive chicks need to reprioritize your view of the world.

    @ Anonymous

    This is about as far from a derail as it comes. Do me a favor to a mother who had a son in Iraq back in the day and is now a social misfit due to PTSD. Big picture is that actually these guys manifest being damaged down the road. If you look at the stats what happens is these kids support many negative male crime stats. This of course supports your agendas in all areas, but most specifically in domestic violence. But Thanks for not caring about this.

    If American Kids are going to get their asses blown off then in the interest of equality women should get the opportunity to be amputees and suffer the PTSD at the same rate as opposed to getting to go to college at a greater rate.

    I think the most telling issue here is that women are not interested in increasing females at risk in the military, but they are totally ready to bitch about support for their sons that get their asses blown off. Maybe it would be a good time for some Feminist introspection. It certainly is time for men to wake up to how they are being put together in society today.

    Maybe if girls were getting killed and maimed funding wouldn't be a problem. You chicks totally don't fricking get it, but then why would you?

    If Rachel thinks this is a derail or doesn't like it she can bounce it. I don't give a shit.


  10. I'm utterly mystified as to why you think we don't care about the damage inflicted on soldiers in wartime, Burn. I wonder why you think I posted on the topic, or why I'm outraged over the fact that certain politicians are blocking funding for the care of disabled vets. If I didn't give a fuck about the people who sustain permanent damage in war, then why would I have even brought up the topic or pointed out the political hypocrisy involved? Your line of thinking is incomprehensible.

  11. My point, which I made previously was not about supporting vets. I think it's a pretty safe bet that everyone believes that supporting vets is the right thing to do. Kind of like finding a cure for cancer, stopping global warming and supporting your local pet shelter. A classic No Brainer.

    What I wrote about was my observation that although you and your Feminist girlfriends, while claiming to be all about equality in your dogma aren't really too interested in supporting equality when it comes to military casualties. If you were you would be raising hell about trying to get more women in harms way in the service.

    Interesting to me that you don't see it if it doesn't fit with your world view.

    I've reviewed my prior posts and there are no surprises here. Maybe your students actually care when you write on their papers that the product is "incomprehensible", but since I'm not paying tuition, you aren't grading me and all I actually care about is the truth I really don't give a shit about your opinion. Sound Fair?


  12. Military policy on who gets to fight is not in the hands of the citizenry, Burn. If you would do a minimal amount of research on this you'd find that many attempts have been made to make the military a more equitable place. But this is not something that citizens can influence in any way.

    And your claim about everyone supporting an end to global warming is absurd. Most conservative politicians deny that global warming is happening. Just like they're eager to send people off to fight their wars for them but then don't want to pay for their care when they're injured and disabled as a result of the war.

  13. @ Monti,

    Actually I was in the Naval Submarine Service. How about your direct experience? I think I already know that answer.

    Frankly, if YOU understood anything about how the services work you would know that although women have been admitted to the military academies on an ever-increasing percentage for the past 30+ years, they are still not approved for direct combat roles on the ground. So...women have been allowed directly into the "management" class of all of the branches of the services without ever having to be at risk in direct combat roles. Here's a quick quiz for you and your girlfriends…How many female enlisted or officer personnel have ever served or currently serve in direct combat roles in the special forces branches of our services? That would be the Navy Seals/UDT, Army Special Forces/Green Beret or Marine Force Recon. Let me know. This isn't a trick question. Even you should be able to get this right.

    The REASON that women aren't being allowed in these roles is that their well documented inability to physically perform missions makes them unqualified and the Politicians that supported their preferred entrance status in the service academies don't have the balls to put them into direct combat roles as they understand that when a bunch of women start coming back in body bags they will have a negative political outcome for them personally.

    All this does is continue to reinforce the disposability of men and confirms the expectation of women that they are somehow more special and deserve preferential treatment to men in the services. If citizens couldn't influence the Services in any way how do you explain the increase in females in the service academies and the reduction of physical requirements for military enlisted people? Let me help you. It's a political double standard that was jammed through by Feminists and their supporting politicians. All of this is well documented if you care to look.

    Maybe you're missing my point after all. I'm fine with everyone, Feminists included, complaining about and wanting better treatment for disabled vets. My point, which I have stated about four times now, is that if in fact Feminists actually wanted true equality they would be pushing to put more women at risk of death in combat on the ground. They are not doing that. Period. They have no problem advocating for more female officers, pilots or other privileged posts, but women at risk, not so much.

    I love how you goofs only see what you want to see. Tell that to the mothers of these guys that thought they were doing the right thing. This type of privileged thinking will be what will eventually bring your political agenda to its knees.


  14. Texas Army National Guard, 6 years. Thanks, tho.

    And my point was that many feminists have pushed for increased combat roles for women, but this is not something the military has ever been flexible on. I'm afraid you're the one who's ignorant when it comes to feminism and feminist activism.

    And almost all of the arguments against allowing women in combat are purely psychological and have nothing to do with the physical demands. The dominant ideology is that if men were fighting alongside women, they would be distracted, and would be more likely to put themselves at risk to defend the women and would thus do a shitty job in combat. And that may or may not be true. But if it is true, it's due to our social attitudes about women and their proper roles and capabilities, not about the women themselves, or what they can or should be doing.

  15. @ Monti,

    Good, were you in a combat or support rating? If you're a woman it wouldn't be combat, would it? If you were in the Guard and went active or at least went through boot camp then you should have a fricking clue about what I'm talking about, although based on your comments it doesn't sound like you do.

    While there are certainly some arguments for the psychological aspects of having women getting injured or killed next to men and the men losing their minds due to their life long conditioning of taking care of and dying for women, the overriding reasons that chicks aren't allowed in combat are political and physical. If you were actually in the service for any amount of time you would get that other than "real" politics there is probably not a more political organization around than the U.S. Military, particularly in the officer corps. They know that if they say one politically incorrect statement their career will be screwed. Hence the current status of women in the military and lovely events like the recent Fort Hood debacle.

    In any case, have you ever reviewed any of the published injury stats for male vs. female basic training injuries? It's all out there if you get off you ass and look. If in fact you were in the Guard then you should know about the physical requirements and well-known and documented physical limitations of women in combat roles.

    Instead of being disingenuous please share with your girlfriends on this blog how much a combat field pack weighs. Then let them compare that to their body weight and consider the well-documented empirical data out there that indicates that in addition to having an average lower gross body weight than men, women carry a significantly lower level of lean body mass (muscle) than men.

    I know it flys in the face of the popular "Girl Power" culture out there, but frankly you aren't doing anyone any favors by trying to bull shit your way through this dialogue.

    I can't tell from your signature if you are a chick or a guy. I'm assuming the former. It would explain how you would try to rationalize this situation in spite of the obvious inequality and your implicit blessing of the disposability of men. If you are a dude and are trying to earn your feminists "stripes" I'm thinking you are going in the right direction, as feminists don't normally let the facts get in the way either. You should fit right in. Congrats

    Actually I understand feminists far better than you can imagine. I get that your movement has had its way for literally decades in the U.S. & much of Europe. I get that you've been able to weasel your way into academia and government. I get that you have gotten used to having your way on most social issues. I get that there is no level of victim hood that you won't embrace to support your agenda. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

    The good news is many regular people, like me, are waking up to what has been going on and we're thinking your days of selling your weak line of reasoning are coming to an end. Stay tuned.

    By the way, I appreciate you stepping up and confirming women's' privilege on this issue. What should we tackle next?

    Your Buddy,