Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chief]

I got this in email today.....

Joe,
 
This reply was sent to Garrison Keillor from a friend and fellow veteran, here in MacDill, who was at and volunteered his time during Rolling Thunder.  I thought it useful to know what the military community (many of them bikers) feels about Keillor's editorial.
 
Stay safe, my friend.
 
-Armando
 
Mr. Keillor


I couldn't resist responding to your article, "The roar of hollow patriotism" in which you were complaining about the "fat men with ponytails on Harleys crowding up your city".  I think the point you fail to realize is that Washington DC is America's city.  Every American who pays a penny in taxes owns that city and every bureaucrat in it works for us.  Those elected officials that think they own America are there to answer to us.


Another point you fail to realize is that Rolling Thunder just completed its 21st year.  You think of it as a "patriotic bike rally".  It isn't a bike rally at all.  Go to Daytona, Sturgis or Laconia if you want to see a bike rally. Rolling Thunder is a protest.  It's designed to be disruptive. We are not a bike club.  We are a political activist organization.  So for 3 hours, 1200-1500, once a year, you can just suck it up and be inconvenienced.   


Our purpose is to remind our elected officials that we intend to hold them accountable for every American they send on to the battlefield.  We still have over 80,000 soldiers still missing from past wars.  3 from Iraq and 1 from Gulf War 1.  There are names and families attached to each name.  Their mothers want and deserve closure.  The military does not send soldiers onto the battlefield, you and your elected officials do.  When a soldier walks onto the battlefield he has to know that every resource of the greatest military ever assembled and every resource of the greatest country in the world will be used to bring him home.  Dead or alive.


America's mothers entrust their children to our care when they join the military. They know and understand the dangers, but they volunteer anyway because they understand the world is made up of sheep, sheep dogs and wolves.  They are the sheep dogs.


Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, author of several books, including "On Combat." As he says it, "We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world." The sheep do not like the sheepdogs (the military) even though they protect them from those who mean them harm (the wolves). They don't want the sheepdogs around. But when the wolves show up, they clamor for and try to hide behind the sheepdogs they loathe, demanding protection.


I can see Mr. Keillor, that you are a sheep.  That's OK.  The world needs sheep.  Just don't complain when the sheep dogs get together to make sure they are properly cared for.  The vast majority of those fat guys on the Harley's are veterans.  They have already served time protecting you're heard of sheep.  My personal feelings aside Mr. Keillor, those fat men with pony tails on Harleys have already risked their lives for you and the rest of the fat cat liberals in this country.  The time has come for you to do your part.  You should be shipped to Baghdad where you would quickly realize that words in a book can never describe the horrors of war.


By the way, the World War II Memorial is a beautiful Memorial to the greatest generation.  Only a sheep could not see the beauty in it and swell with pride just walking near it.  America continues to produce generation after generation of heroes.  If you had taken the time to walk down to the Lincoln Memorial you would have had the chance to hear from the parents of a Medal of Honor recipient, a young man that sacrificed his own life so that his fellow Marines could live.  That's the kind of sheep dogs we were honoring last Sunday.


In addition to letting our elected sheep know we will be holding them accountable for the 80,000 missing servicemen we also demand Congress do something for the 28,000 plus veterans that were misdiagnosed with Immature Disability Disorder, rather than using the correct medical term PTSD (Post Trauma Stress Disorder). This incorrect diagnosis is an insult to all the military having served or serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are combat veterans and this is just a way for the Government to save money on the backs of the veterans who have PTSD related mental problems. More suicides will occur because frustrated veterans are not getting the proper diagnosis and treatment.


Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is holding up House Resolution 111 – Select Committee on the POW/MIA Affairs, even though it has 263 cosponsors. The Democrats constantly complain that they want control to make government work; well they have control and fumbled the ball! Use your pen to make Ms. Pelosi do her job and get this bill in play or get out of office.


So you see Mr. Keillor a lot more was going on than you thought.  I could say you shouldn't write such unpatriotic dribble, but this sheep dog fought for your right to write such dribble.


Respectfully,


Jim Linesberry
 

[LabRat]

[iski]

Our local fishwrapper prints a keillor article every week or so.

The guy is a loquacious loon. His hatred of President Bush is usually worked into most every article (even if the subject is relatively non political), and he also appears to be quite proud of disrespecting the the USA and the military (also some of his favorite topics).  Now he disrespects Rolling Thunder, vets, and guys/gals riding motorcycles which apparently messed up his walk across the street by delaying him a bit.  Oh well.  keillor has the freedom to be a loon and lucky for him he is a loony in a country which tolerates lunatics who pen drivel for a living. 

Freedom of Speech is a great freedom indeed - it allows us to hear what others say & form opinions based on same.  My opinion of keillor has not changed in years, thanks to Freedom of Speech. 


Good response article you posted, Chuck!

[TankerPig]

When I read articles like that, it saddens me much more than infuriates me.  I find it sad that people, especially those who haven't served, degrade those who have.  Intellectual snobbery is the worst.  The above letter using the analogy of sheep and sheepdogs is one I haven't heard before, but will use it in the future.  It's spot on.  I've never heard or read from this man before, but it's dripping with a holier-than-thou tone and a complete ignorance of what Rolling Thunder is.  The worst part is that he didn't take the several minutes out of his day to look it up and learn before he typed away.  It wasn't worth his time.  Apparently, he feels he is above the people on motorcycles, since he went to appreciate art as opposed to appreciating the service of the men and women riding by and of those they are representing, and it was inconvenient for him to have the bikers in Washington DC.

The freedom of speech many of those vets fought to defend would have been better served by this man if he took time to learn about the organization and event, then written some well-reasoned arguments against it or suggestions to better protest.  It was simply an article from a man who didn't serve because he probably thought he was above that...an intellectual...and thinks those that do are lemmings.

[Twolanerider]

This thread in some ways raises a wider question.  One I've never quite gotten my head around though it's come up in different venues before.  Why do we care what entertainers say politically?  Or, for that matter, in any other area outside the area of expertise we pay or enjoy them for (i.e., their entertainment skills)?

Back a few years ago when all the uproar happened over The Dixie Chicks in country music I didn't get it.  As national news networks and the wires give space to "celebrities" making endorsements for Presidential candidates I don't get the importance of it.

I listened to The Dixie Chicks because I liked the sound of the melodies and the stories they told in their songs.  Same reason I might listen to John Mellencamp or Jackson Browne or a variety of others.  But I don't pay any attention to them for political or other insights.  Why even consider taking political counsel from someone with career experience elsewhere and probably a community college education?

I don't mind at all that they speak their mind.  More power to them for having the stones to do so.  But their opinions aren't important enough to get me all jacked about them. 

[SBB]

This thread in some ways raises a wider question.  One I've never quite gotten my head around though it's come up in different venues before.  Why do we care what entertainers say politically?  Or, for that matter, in any other area outside the area of expertise we pay or enjoy them for (i.e., their entertainment skills)?

Back a few years ago when all the uproar happened over The Dixie Chicks in country music I didn't get it.  As national news networks and the wires give space to "celebrities" making endorsements for Presidential candidates I don't get the importance of it.

I listened to The Dixie Chicks because I liked the sound of the melodies and the stories they told in their songs.  Same reason I might listen to John Mellencamp or Jackson Browne or a variety of others.  But I don't pay any attention to them for political or other insights.  Why even consider taking political counsel from someone with career experience elsewhere and probably a community college education?

I don't mind at all that they speak their mind.  More power to them for having the stones to do so.  But their opinions aren't important enough to get me all jacked about them. 

Great post Don!
In retrospect I realize I should apply that thought process to some people I know on other issues!
You have taken me from a dim 25 watt bulb to a HID flooding of knowledge.
Thanks!

SBB


 

[Twolanerider]

HID flooding of knowledge.

Thanks!

SBB


 

And just remember Chip, from HD-Dude HID comes at a discount !!

[SPIDERMAN]

This thread in some ways raises a wider question.  One I've never quite gotten my head around though it's come up in different venues before.  Why do we care what entertainers say politically?  Or, for that matter, in any other area outside the area of expertise we pay or enjoy them for (i.e., their entertainment skills)?

Back a few years ago when all the uproar happened over The Dixie Chicks in country music I didn't get it.  As national news networks and the wires give space to "celebrities" making endorsements for Presidential candidates I don't get the importance of it.

I listened to The Dixie Chicks because I liked the sound of the melodies and the stories they told in their songs.  Same reason I might listen to John Mellencamp or Jackson Browne or a variety of others.  But I don't pay any attention to them for political or other insights.  Why even consider taking political counsel from someone with career experience elsewhere and probably a community college education?

I don't mind at all that they speak their mind.  More power to them for having the stones to do so.  But their opinions aren't important enough to get me all jacked about them. 

Interesting that you bring this up in this context. Dan Abrams has a show on CNBC. As I recall, Abrams first turned up covering the Michael Jackson trial of all things as a legal correspondent. Now he's a pundit on anything and everything with his own show. And we won't even mention Nancy Grace. And Keith Obherman was a smart guy on ESPN who evidently had enough interest in politics that he's now like the left's version of Bill O'Reilly.  Truth be told, unless the person speaking is SECSTATE,SECDEF etc, it's all just opinion and conjecture isn't it ?  I mean really, Why is Charles Gibson's take on things any more valuable the Geraldo Rivera's ? And who really cares what Lou Dobbs thinks ? And please don't tell me anybody pays any attention whatsoever to Katie Couric. The line between entertainment and news got blurred a long time ago. As such, that's why I think everybody thinks they've got the right to editorialize (hell, I know I do  ) But you're right, it is all just opinion and in today's world where perception is 9/10ths of reality, it's about molding people's opinions. I often think that the reason some folks get so upset with other folk's opinion is that sometimes if those opinions make enough sense, the offended is worried the offendor might influence someone.

B B 

[Twolanerider]

Interesting that you bring this up in this context. Dan Abrams has a show on CNBC. As I recall, Abrams first turned up covering the Michael Jackson trial of all things as a legal correspondent. Now he's a pundit on anything and everything with his own show. And we won't even mention Nancy Grace. And Keith Obherman was a smart guy on ESPN who evidently had enough interest in politics that he's now like the left's version of Bill O'Reilly.  Truth be told, unless the person speaking is SECSTATE,SECDEF etc, it's all just opinion and conjecture isn't it ?  I mean really, Why is Charles Gibson's take on things any more valuable the Geraldo Rivera's ? And who really cares what Lou Dobbs thinks ? And please don't tell me anybody pays any attention whatsoever to Katie Couric. The line between entertainment and news got blurred a long time ago. As such, that's why I think everybody thinks they've got the right to editorialize (hell, I know I do  ) But you're right, it is all just opinion and in today's world where perception is 9/10ths of reality, it's about molding people's opinions. I often think that the reason some folks get so upset with other folk's opinion is that sometimes if those opinions make enough sense, the offended is worried the offendor might influence someone.

B B 

Brian, I know it's a heresy among that community to ever knock Walter Cronkite.  And I know there were crackpots before him.  I still, however, place the first important cracks in the wall allowing abject opinion to be seen evenly with news with him.  On 27 February 1968 when he sat at the anchor's desk and declared his opinion that the war was "mired in stalemate" and "unwinnable."

Didn't matter whether he was right or wrong.  He was editorializing from the anchor desk and from a pulpit wherefrom much of the nation expected only gospel.  If it was good enough for Uncle Wally it was then good enough for others.  And the drops became a flood.

[iski]

Brian, I know it's a heresy among that community to ever knock Walter Cronkite.  And I know there were crackpots before him.  I still, however, place the first important cracks in the wall allowing abject opinion to be seen evenly with news with him.  On 27 February 1968 when he sat at the anchor's desk and declared his opinion that the war was "mired in stalemate" and "unwinnable."

Didn't matter whether he was right or wrong.  He was editorializing from the anchor desk and from a pulpit wherefrom much of the nation expected only gospel.  If it was good enough for Uncle Wally it was then good enough for others.  And the drops became a flood.

That was the beginning of the end of the myth of "TV journalism."  Now tv is indeed what Edward R. Murrow stated in the Wires & Lights in a Box speech.  http://www.rtnda.org/pages/media_items/edward-r.-murrow-speech998.php

And tv is also now much more - which means it is less important.  Speaking of Uncle Walter, now I wonder if the REAL reason he sniffled when JFK was shot was that he knew that LBJ as prez would not be his brand of Dem.  He outed himself a while back as a Polly-Partisan Dem.

Years ago I asked a good friend with good political chops to name a statesman - one statesman - either party - on a national level.  Could not name one who was actively serving.  Now trying to name a journalist - a true journalist (tv version) is about impossible.  Every time I think someone has risen to that lofty level, they open their mouth & remove themselves from contention.  So I settle for a mishmash of semi-journalists on tv and get my info from all kinds of sources, none of which I trust completely. 

[Twolanerider]

Every time I think someone has risen to that lofty level, they open their mouth & remove themselves from contention.  So I settle for a mishmash of semi-journalists on tv and get my info from all kinds of sources, none of which I trust completely. 

Agreed that the "news" isn't much to write home about Iski.  About the best one can do is subscribe to the raw wire feeds and do your own homework.

There are a few good ones out there still.  Both domestically and internationally.  The best are mainly print though.  No big face on the tube hubris issues is probably why they've not outgrown their avocation with celebrity.  Print is by and large bleeding money though.  So there's less and less of it that's not mass circulation vox populi. 

If you want to see a remaining breed of "journalist" that's just in it for their part of the story there is a niche.  It's the photo guys.  Photojournalist commandos might be more like it.  Guys and gals that go anywhere and face damn near anything to get "the picture."  Junkies to the calling in many many cases.  The best of them are nearly all mercenaries too.  No one job can hold them so they're itinerant from story to story to war zone to war zone to publisher to publisher.  If I had any balls they're who I'd want to be when I grew up.

[Twolanerider]

Years ago I asked a good friend with good political chops to name a statesman - one statesman - either party - on a national level. 

Just noticed that part.  Couldn't name one?

Even I'm not so jaded as to not think there are none remaining on the American political scene.  There are others who I think might be if circumstances put them in a position to earn the calling and the title.  But I'd still give the title to at least one person from each of the two major parties in today's mix.  The Senator-Ambassador-Right Reverend John Danforth and Senator-Ambassador-Governor Bill Richardson.

[iski]

Agreed that the "news" isn't much to write home about Iski.  About the best one can do is subscribe to the raw wire feeds and do your own homework.

There are a few good ones out there still.  Both domestically and internationally.  The best are mainly print though.  No big face on the tube hubris issues is probably why they've not outgrown their avocation with celebrity.  Print is by and large bleeding money though.  So there's less and less of it that's not mass circulation vox populi. 

If you want to see a remaining breed of "journalist" that's just in it for their part of the story there is a niche.  It's the photo guys.  Photojournalist commandos might be more like it.  Guys and gals that go anywhere and face damn near anything to get "the picture."  Junkies to the calling in many many cases.  The best of them are nearly all mercenaries too.  No one job can hold them so they're itinerant from story to story to war zone to war zone to publisher to publisher.  If I had any balls they're who I'd want to be when I grew up.

Agreed there are good news folks out there still 2LR.  As in other things, the older I get the less satisfying certain things are, due to my "seasoned" view perhaps. I listen/watch several folks fairly regularly and find their commentary, for the most part, to be generally ok but each has a slant.  A slant is not necessarily a bad thing, but some folks pretend they don't have one & most viewers like to pretend, so there are plenty of pretenders for them to choose from I suppose. 

Agreed on your take on tv news - the "big guy" days are gone.  Print is bleeding money badly - NY Times has lost more circulation than I imagined but of all of them, they deserve to the most.

I find some photo journalists to be quite good & others were busy framing the curtains on nekkid statues behind John Ashcroft.  Depends upon perspective.  Photos can lie, but Britney spears may really be pregnant with an alien baby, if the checkout tabloids pics aren't lying.... 

As you well know, I like pics:

[SPIDERMAN]

Just noticed that part.  Couldn't name one?

Even I'm not so jaded as to not think there are none remaining on the American political scene.  There are others who I think might be if circumstances put them in a position to earn the calling and the title.  But I'd still give the title to at least one person from each of the two major parties in today's mix.  The Senator-Ambassador-Right Reverend John Danforth and Senator-Ambassador-Governor Bill Richardson.

Agree on Danforth, totally disagree on Richardson

See I'm a moderate, you get 1/2 a loaf

B B

[iski]

Just noticed that part.  Couldn't name one?

Even I'm not so jaded as to not think there are none remaining on the American political scene.  There are others who I think might be if circumstances put them in a position to earn the calling and the title.  But I'd still give the title to at least one person from each of the two major parties in today's mix.  The Senator-Ambassador-Right Reverend John Danforth and Senator-Ambassador-Governor Bill Richardson.

Frankly do not know enough about Danforth - so not sure there but will take your word on it since I cannot think of a single Repub.  statesman.  Richardson would have been my pick for Dem prez candidate, but not sure I would give him "statesman" chops.  McCain was closer to it 10 years ago than now - he is better than the average pol no doubt.

Sam Nunn was the last statesman serving that I can remember, honestly.  And yep I'm cynical as well as jaded politically.