Submitted in comments by Zed
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
This guy is seriously overreacting. Hayes did not disparage anyone. His remarks were thoughtful and he showed a lot of deference to our troops if you look at his full context. He was just saying that he thinks the word “hero” may be overused and might not apply to every soldier out there. The speaker is blowing this way out of proportion.
Also, the random cat videos in the background while this guy is talking about people getting beheaded? Bizarre.
Chris you said, “He was just saying that he thinks the word “hero” may be overused and might not apply to every soldier out there.”
You almost got it all, but you left out the last part where he said using the word hero tends infer that our military actions were legitimate, which he obviously takes exception too. Paraphrasing…”using the words hero and valor because this is rhetorically proximate to justification for more war…”
So now you care about context? Interesting. Shouldn’t I be saying…”but he said”…about now?
You insist he was being thoughtful and didn’t disparage anyone. I take exception to that. He was not just talking about soldiers; he was talking about the war dead, those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country. He was saying that using the word hero could just be a way to justify going to war.
I realize he was engaging in an intellectual exercise, and he certainly has a right to his opinion, but his intellectual musings are way off base and insulting to those who are actually responsible for sending men and women into battle. It is insulting to the families that have lost loved ones to war.
His remarks are out of the bizarro world of those that haven’t given deep thought to the weight that is born in making those decisions. We use the words valor and hero because these men and women choose service of the type that includes the possibility for great personal injury and death. They know going in that they have given their lives and their immediate destiny over to the commander-in-chief and the potential dangers in the world. It’s an act of sacrifice that not everyone chooses and when they do end up paying the ultimate price they should be remembered as men and women of valor.
Would this guy hesitate to call any of the policemen or fire fighters that went into the twin towerts to rescue people on 911 heroes or would he observe that calling them heroes would just encourage blowing up buildings, presumedly so we could have a more parades?
Wittle tells you exactly why he was showing kittens and puppies…because America’s heroes, men/women of valor, keep the images of beheadings and other atrocities from coming to our shores. He uses them to make the point that our children are FREE to live a sweet life that includes such images rather than beheadings and people starving in the streets…because of the sacrifice these people make.
Man…there’s a huge disconnect from the real world on your side that is shocking to me. Not everything is an intellectual exercise…some things in life are life and death real. Enlisting in the service is one of them.
My apologies to Bill “Whittle”…I’ll correct that spelling ASAP.
It appears that “Chris” has an attention span so short that he is unable to watch the video in its entirety. That or he has a particular problem with the cats section. (Which I happen to think was brilliant.)
I won’t say that “Chris”, like Chris Hayes, is a twerp, he is merely rhetorically proximate to a twerp.
I am really glad you posted this video, I am glad I took the time to watch it, thanks.
Chris, you are something we can count on, you stick to your guns. I disagree with you about 99.9% of the time but you never waver in your blind support of the Left.
The MSNBC clown should keep his job, this is a free Country, he can speak his mind and we can change the channel.
I started a Netfix subscription 2 or 3 months ago and really enjoy a lot of the programing. They have some really great old TV and movies. Anyway I had not watched it in a week or two so yesterday I turned it on to see what “new” programs they had added (they update every week or so). To my disgust I see they have added the Michael Moore flick, Flatulence 911. That got me thinking about what a total hypocrite he is. How many movies would he have made if Obama was a Republican? Just imagine.
I am listening to Rush while I type this. He just reported that Andrea Mitchell and MSMBC have been busted again for doctoring audio/video. This time it has to do with Romney making comparisons between the public and private sector. MSNBC really did a job on it.
Chris do these people really deserve your blind unwavering support? I figure Libby, Q,Q and Q are actually suffering from severe head injuries and really have no clue or will ever have one. I happen to think you are better than that.
Toby you always bring a smile to my lips, if not a downright unladylike guffaw.
I sincerely hope you turn out to be right about Chris.
Toby I’ll second that. I think Chris is hooked into the wrong side, but at least he’s not closed the door to reason.
Toby: “Chris do these people really deserve your blind unwavering support?”
Toby, I would like to think that by now I’ve earned a reputation as someone who does not give blind, unwavering support to anyone. I do call out people on the left whenever I think they cross the line. For example, I have been vocal in my critiques of President Obama’s willingness to compromise civil rights in the name of national security. I have also criticized his strict enforcement of immigration, and I’ve criticized him for statements he’s made that crossed the line (such as “They bring a knife, you bring a gun,” frequently cited by Tina, and for good reason: it was appalling). I’ve also posted comments on this blog criticizing left-leaning media personalities such as Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Dan Savage, and Andrew Sullivan (I know that last one still claims to be a conservative, but who is he kidding?).
I’d also add that my willingness to criticize people on my side of the aisle stands in sharp contrast to the inability of others on this site to do the same.
I don’t defend Chris Hayes out of any sense of loyalty. I’m not even that familiar with him, having never watched his show. I looked at his comments, thought them through, and decided that I didn’t think they were all that horrible.
I don’t necessarily agree with him, as I am perfectly comfortable calling any soldier that dies in the line of fire a “hero.” But I think he brought up a valid point. I know a lot of people who have gone into the military, and while I admire them, the truth is that for many of them the motives for going into the military are not what we usually see as heroic. I know one woman who joined simply because she felt like her life had no direction in the aftermath of a break-up. Many go into the military primarily for economic reasons. Again, if (God forbid) any of these friends were to ever die while in service to their country, I’d call them a hero in a heartbeat. But I also don’t think someone who has issues with such characterizations is automatically a horrible person whose opinion isn’t worth considering.
It’s not like Hayes personally demeaned anyone. He didn’t use racist language or call anyone a slut. He simply suggested that perhaps not all soldiers who are killed meet the definition of “hero,” and that sometimes idealizing soldiers may be used as an excuse to justify war. He also immediately followed up by saying, “I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that.” He also said right after, “But maybe I’m wrong about that,” and offered his own counter-argument to everything he had said before. I don’t see what’s so wrong with this; clearly, he was examining both sides of this issue, admitting he wasn’t sure of his position, and making every effort to make sure no one felt disrespected or hurt. I just don’t see what’s so outrageous about that.
For the record, here is Hayes’ apology. I think it is heartfelt and genuine, and he shows a lot of respect for soldiers and their families.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/28/chris-hayes-uncomfortable-soldiers-heroes_n_1550643.html
Has Hayes given much serious thought to his idea that words like hero and valor are sometimes used to justify war? Probably not. His remarks are like the musings of someone who has barely begun to think about the subject.
I don’t know about wars in more ancient times but I can seriously say that no president in recent times has used the word hero to justify war or inspire men to war. These words have meaning when bestowed after the fact and spring from a heartfelt realization about what another human being(s) has sacrificed so we can remain free. It doesn’t matter whether the fallen was a warrior in the field, a cook, an officer, or a nurse their sacrifice was in service to our countries most important ideal…freedom!
The right to live and breathe free is so precious and it seems like young people today are barely aware of the fact…it’s incredible! I think this larger point is what Whittle hopes to influence. We don’t call them heroes like in the movies. We call them heroes because we value the blessings of liberty that blood has won and preserved for us. Most of us have friends and family that were lost to this cause so it’s quite personal.
One more thing. The errors and judgements of our leaders, whether they make sense or not, have nothing to do with how we honor those who serve our country. Which is what made the treatment of our Vietnam vets so reprehensible.
Chris is right; Hayes seems like a nice young man and open to exploring the premise.
ZED: “I won’t say that “Chris”, like Chris Hayes, is a twerp, he is merely rhetorically proximate to a twerp.”
More humor to send me off to dreamland…thanks!
“… They Bring a knife We Bring a Gun Obama ….”
And what’s more, I peg the above-referenced to that veteran cop, George C. Scott, in The Blue Knight … which you should find admirable … right?
Chris, I am eagerly awaiting your thoughts and feelings about Obama’s latest fiasco. I am talking about his invocation of executive privilege over documents concerning the DOJ putting weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and the death of an American.
If Obama as he has stated in the past has nothing to do with Fast and Furious, how is executive privilege applicable or legal in this case?
George C. Scott was an actor, playing a part in a movie. Your sourcing provides an apt comparison for the poser in chief.
My sourcing found it to be stolen from the Mamet film, “Untouchables”, with Kevin Costner and Sean Connery:
A fine Chicago Way thuggish photo of the thug can be viewed here (Sadly the video is no longer available):
http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2008/06/obama_if_they_bring_a_knife_to.html
Now here is an interesting contrast.
While condescending progressive twerps wring their hands over the use of the word “hero” to describe and honor people who sacrificed their lives in defense of our country and constitution, may I proffer this example of what it means to live in a country that neither values nor protects freedom of speech?
Here is what it is like to live in a country that does not even value rhetorically proximate free speech.
Feminist Punk Rock Group “Pussy Riot” Imprisoned
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_PUNKS_VS_PUTIN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-20-12-57-33
I have now seen it all, the words “Pussy Riot” in PS and it isn’t referring to the Occutards.
“George C. Scott was an actor, playing a part in a movie. Your sourcing provides an apt comparison for the poser in chief.”
’twas your reference, not mine. I’m just making with the historical reference … pre-dating Kevin and Sean … but the point is as was … what are you complaining about? These are your people. Are they not?
So the O-man must be your people too … his brown-ness notwithstanding.
Obama as a Chicago way thug would be the target of the Connery character. He would be playing the part of a criminal…not a hero.
You really have gone deeply into that morally equivalent thingy, Libs, when you don’t (won’t…can’t?????) make the distinction between common thuggery and murder and the defense of the people and the nation.
And for the record, the O-man is my people…all Gods children are my people; he still acted irresponsibly in conduct unbecoming to the office he holds.
Toby – “I have now seen it all, the words “Pussy Riot” in PS and it isn’t referring to the Occutards.”
HAH! 😀
“Obama as a Chicago way thug would be the target of the Connery character.”
But that’s not what you said. You said: “… They Bring a knife We Bring a Gun Obama …” and that’s Sean’s line.
Really freaks you out, don’t it?
Libby you are on the wrong page.
Now, there’s a substantive rebuttal.
I’m curious as to what those of you angry at Chris Hayes think about this.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/03/rep-joe-walsh-double-amputee-tammy-duckworth-not-a-true-military-hero/
Rep. Joe Walsh, a Tea Party Republican, has said that his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, is not a “true hero.” Duckworth received a Purple Heart award after losing both legs when her helicopter was shot down in Iraq eight years ago.
Hayes’ statement that Whittle targets in this video was quite hypothetical. He did not demean any soldier in particular, he merely said that he had some problems with applying the word “hero” to every soldier out there. He also immediately qualified his statements, saying he “could be wrong” and offering a direct counter-argument to what he had previously said. Walsh, in contrast, singled out a specific soldier who was injured in battle and said that she was not a “true hero.”
To me, what Walsh said was far worse than what Hayes said. I’m wondering what everyone else thinks.