Victory or Peace?

| Main | APB: Beer Truck Stolen »

Letters! We get Letters!

Well, its week one here at Varifrank and its been quite an eye opener. I have to say to all that have visited here in the inaugural week that things are moving along nicely. With one Vodka-lanche and two -count 'em- Two Insta-lanches, the traffic is moving along just fine. Its more than I could ever hope for and I thank you all.

The Moveable Type site is beginning to form and with the sure as the sunrise arrival of payday and a cash infusion to the hobby will provide what I need for a graphics mercenary to get it in professional shape.

I also have to say I get one heck of a lot of email. I also have to say that 99% of you are polite, erudite and smart, even when you disagree with me. Some of you however, are a real adventure.

You learn a lot when you blog. It's like being a teacher. People have this illusion that students learn from their teachers, but its really the other way around, its the teachers who are learning from their students.

For example, I grew up in a four generation Navy family, I thought I had heard every dirty word ever uttered in about 12 languages. This week, I learned a lot more. I cant wait to see my dad again so I can tell him all the new things that monkeys want to do with me and apparently what people want me to do with monkeys. Surprisingly, most of the anger seems directed at my mom and her genetic lineage, why? I don't know.

I also learned that "the kids today" end all the words that end in "s" with "z". I learned that there is a large population of people who are utterly shocked to find that not only is George W. Bush running for office, but that there are a substantial number of people who actually are supporting him.

I learned that there is a hotbed of anger, bile, bigotry and hatred called "Democratic Underground", where bigots trade invectives and give each other hints on what new names to call people with whom they disagree. Think of this as the webs equivalent to the kind of place that southern sherrifs and their deputies used to sit around killing time in before the evenings cross burning and lynching activities were underway.

Now, I know I'm not supposed to do this, but I do try to talk to them when they write. If I can translate their text ( often it appears in the form of Instant Messenger shorthand text) I try to form a response to their statements. I want the record to be clear - I do not hate Democrats, I hate Tyranny. Democrats are my countrymen, I need a strong Democratic party for this country to exist. I happen to disagree with them on many issues, but that is not the end of the world, at least not to me. If Western Civilization is about anything its about tolerance. I am a very tolerant fellow.

Here's an exchange I had with one of the members of "Democratic Underground":


Care to name all 40 states? Or would that make plain
how ridiculous both your prediction, and you, are?

While you're on the subject of Vietnam service, why
not mention that while Bush supports that war, he used
his family connections to avoid it? Or that he
couldn't be bothered to show up for Guard drills for
months at a time? Just like Iraq, he's perfectly
willing to send the less fortunate in our country to
die for an unjust war. Apparently, so are you, you

Name Withheld

The author posted this email on the forum, but seems to have neglected to post my response.
So, Here is my response:

Ok, let's be nice here. I'm just a guy and so are you. There's no need to get upset.
I'll try to answer your questions as long as you promise to play nice.

Here's the states I don't think Bush will win:

New York
New Jersey
Rhode Island

I see Bush taking all the rest, 'cept Washington D.C.

For the record, I didn't mention Bush.

But since you did -

I don't see a problem with Bush's performance in the National Guard. If Bush made it the centerpiece of his campaign, my opinion would grow very dark indeed. He was the equivalent of what I believe Kerry to have been, a mediocre officer just marking time. There's no shame in that, there's nothing wrong with it at all for either man. There is something really weird with making it into something more than it was, as Kerry has clearly done.

If Kerry's is a "War Hero" doesn't that make Vietnam a "Heroic War"? I'm ok with that definition, but I very much doubt that you are willing to go that far. For a man who testified in front of the Senate that "Vietnam is the biggest nothing in history" to now champion his time in Vietnam as having "fought for his country" seems odd to me.

I do support the war in Iraq. Kerry has said recently that he too would have invaded Iraq. President Clinton has also said that "While he would have done it differently" he too would have take the actions that President Bush has done in Iraq. I didn't need WMD's to invade Iraq. the words "Children's Prison" was enough to justify our invasion. The recent return of enough nuclear material to produce 142 atomic weapons to the Oak Ridge laboratory is not a bad thing either. My biggest reason for wanting to invade Iraq? it gives us a nice long border on which to invade Iran. Hopefully we will get around to doing it before they have atomic weapons, which they are busily working day and night to acheive, and rest assured, they will use. It's not a question of "if" we will fight the Iranians, but when. Iraq is just logistical staging area for a bigger more dangerous enemy elsewhere. It was also long overdue.

If Bush was invading Iraq just for the ability to feed his friends in the Oil industry, He could have simply declared war on Iraq in the week after September 11th. The emotions of the time would have allowed it to occur with little problem. Bush didn't do that, He didn't declare war as he easily could have done, and the question has to be asked "why"?

While many call President Bush a "bloodthirsty warmonger", it doesn't resolve to the process that we have used to persecute this war. It's important to understand that our troops aren't dying because our enemy is effective, but simply that we wish to remain humane. We could kill with extreme precision and in mass numbers and our shirts would not so much as get slightly moist with sweat, we've chosen not to do this, but there's nothing really stopping us but our basic humanity.

"Chicken hawk" is a nice word. There are those of us who believe that a democracy is only a democracy when all citizens have a voice in their affairs. There are those who believe that only those who have military backgrounds should be given the full rights of citizenship. Those people are called "fascists". I don't think you really want to be a "fascist", and rest assured I don't want to be one either. I like differences, I like opposition. You are not my enemy, you are my countryman and I hope we can learn to live together. If you are truly for peace, you will find a way to do this, as I have. "Peace" if that is your goal, starts with you and me, right here.

If you can't learn to get along with little old me, what hope do you have for the rest of the world learning to get along?

I'm willing to serve in any capacity that I can to see that the civilization that you and I live in is allowed to survive. I believe that you too are willing to do what is necessary. If I could serve in the military, I'd be happy to do so, if you have some contacts to get me in, send them my way, it's not that I haven't tried. I hope that you would say the same, and I give you the benefit of the doubt that you would.

You, my friend have a lot to lose in the war that's going on. This war is far beyond just Iraq. The Jihadis have told us to "submit or die". We in the west didn't choose this war and frankly we spent 20 years turning the other cheek to avoid it. We can argue about the parameters of western civilization after we are assured that it will survive. While I'm hopeful and optimistic that we will win, I'm painfully aware of how easy it can be to lose.

You should also know that if the Jihadis win, the only difference they will make between the two of us is the order in which we are marched to an open trench to be killed at gunpoint. You and I are both "infidels" to them and in that respect we have that much in common at least.

I'm thinking of making a Letters section on the blog. Some of these are really precious. I just love it when little kids learn to speak and spell, they are just so precious at that age, these kids today have such a dynamic language, it just makes you tingle to read it. .

August 26, 2004 at 09:20 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Letters! We get Letters!:


Glad your blog is doing well because I enjoy it greatly. I live in a very liberal university town, and am daily confronted with livid, angry, Bush-haters screaming GIVE PEACE A CHANCE DAMMIT!

Posted by: Eric in Oregon | Aug 26, 2004 10:58:30 PM

It reminds me of that old joke that any time a country has in its title the worlds "democratic" or "peoples", that you can be sure that those are two things that the country is not.

I was talking to another blogger tonight on the subject and we both noticed the propensity by those who are supposedly for human rights and peace are always the first ones to say how they want to kill us simply because we are 'different'. Apparently, being different is ok as long as you are not like us, if you are you must be hunted down like a dog. Oh, the things you learn in the blog-o-sphere.

Don't get angry, don't get mad, just be. That in itself is enough to change a few minds. Most people go along to get along, they dont want to make any waves so when the crypto-fascist peace movement trys to get everyone in line, most people comply, but rest assured, there are lots of people who know these people for the common thugs they are.

Posted by: Frank Martin | Aug 26, 2004 11:14:59 PM

Don't assume that because the context is juvenile that the writers are. I think that regardless of who wins in November that the next four years or so are going to be ugly. The cultural swing left that began in the 60s has reached apogee. The ideological progeny of that era now influence or dominate the MSM, academia, labor and teacher unions, the federal bench, and a great swath of the Democratic Party. They need the Executive Branch or they face a certain erosion of their influence on the national agenda.

Power and influence are not given up easily. Al Gore was willing to take the country to the brink of Constitutional crisis in 2000. Even the overwhelming emotive nature of 9/11 only temporarily slowed the vicious public relations assault on the Republican President. When faced with a tiny ad buy from the Swifities Kerry mounted a rear guard action with an army of lawyers while the MSM holds the main line. The Democrats are whining and claiming victim status for a billionaire US Senator. Go figure. Maybe I'm overstating the case but I can see hate-speech laws taking on a whole new role in shaping political discourse in a Kerry administration. The Dems have demonstrated time and again on both federal and state level that what they cannot get fairly in the legislature they will take from their courts. All in the name of protecting some class of victims from an insensitive society (that would be us).

If Bush wins the hate cacophony will only grow in instensity. Much time and attention will be spent fending off impeachment attempts on the President and individual cabinet members. Maybe Kerry is already tipping their hand that Rumsfeld is the first target. We know which side the MSM will take. What we don't know is which way public opinion will go. If I had to guess I would say that people generally have had enough of the leftist agenda and that the the Democrats will be punished at the polls in 2008, but who knows?

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 27, 2004 5:50:27 AM

Just a quick note to say thank you for your post. You have a wonderful style and I like the way you think. You are - as they say - a man after my own heart. Keep up the excellent writing. You are on my blogroll and your are rising to its top ten. Thanks again.

Posted by: G. | Aug 27, 2004 6:48:54 AM

>If you can't learn to get along with little >old me, what hope do you have for the rest of >the world learning to get along?

I suspect most who post at DU have no desire to "get along" with the world. Instead, they only wish to denounce any and all who don't share their views, thus cementing their own self-image of being a righteous iconoclast on the right side of history and above the sheeple like you and me.

Posted by: BA | Aug 27, 2004 7:10:39 AM

Yes, BA, and my impression is that those confidently on the Left seem to be - basically - unhappy and angry people. Unable to argue with logic and a civil tone for very long (there appears to be little or no critical thinking), they tend to quickly come to a point of expressing themselves with lots of emotion (especially anger). Like children - and claiming the ends justifies the means - they tend to employ or applaud juvenile "gotcha" na-na-na-na-na gimmicks (a la Kerry's repeated use of "crippled" - his word ' veterans, or Michael Moore's propaganda) in place of logical argument. Yes, in the blogosphere, these true colors by those on Left become quite apparent.

Posted by: G. | Aug 27, 2004 7:35:10 AM

We can argue about the parameters of western civilization after we are assured that it will survive. While I'm hopeful and optimistic that we will win, I'm painfully aware of how easy it can be to lose.

If you polled 100 delegates at the Democratic convention you probably wouldn't get more than 20 who think that the WOT is anything but a figment of some neocon's imagination, and certainly not even 10 who think that Iraq could be in any way connected to it. Of course nobody can deny that 9/11 happened but for the others the perpetrators of 9/11 are a gang called al Qaeda with an unknown but identifiable membership.

The US should be enlisting other countries to use their police power to help capture al Qaeda members - and that's the end of it. That's not too far from Ted Kennedy's public position and I don't think those ideological apples fall too far from the party tree. Even another 9/11 or two will not change the minds of those who require a foreign army bobbing in the surf off Long Island to define the meaning of imminent threat, and even then some Californians will say that is not a threat to them.

And I'm not even counting that knot of ideologues enconsed in academia and the MSM who would welcome that foreign army to knock a peg or two out from under American hubris so a more correctly aligned America would participate in the wonderful world of multiculturalism. Yeah, I worry about it too.

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 27, 2004 10:13:42 AM

You're being remarkably tolerant, but I wonder how long you can keep it up mentally. The abusive letters will only grow in frequency and volume. Other blogs I've monitered like this one, with open commenting, are already having to go to registration only, or to no comment.

I think Warthog is spot on -- as the election approaches, and if you're right and it looks like Kerry will lose, things will reach an ugly crescendo that will make the 2000 aftermath look like child's play.

The point has been made before, but it bears repeating for anyone here who has just come of voting age in the past few years. The Democrats controlled the House of Represenatatives continually from 1954 to 1994 (essentially all my life -- as I grew up and became interested in politics, everyone just took their control as a given). I think they came to look upon it as a divine right, and this attitude has to be understood in order to comprehend their remarkable blindness to their own hypocrisy about the 527's.

With their inability to get the House back for 10 years now, and their not having control of the White House or the Senate currently, they're becoming "unravelled" (as Bill Bennett said on Hannity & Colmes last night to Jerry Brown). Brown was the most irate I've ever seen him.

Posted by: Paul H. | Aug 27, 2004 10:34:05 AM

why did kerry's shipmate rassman fall overboard?after all he was on kerry's boat and kerry's boat did not hit anything.was it the fact that in his haste to flee what he thought was an attack,kerry pushed on the throttle so hard that the powerful engine accelerated with such a lurch ahead it caused poor rassman to go over the side.i once saw an incident such as i have described actually happen.

Posted by: elsie mcfarland | Aug 27, 2004 1:13:58 PM

one great blog site, my friend, but do you really think GW will be winning the state of Oregon?

i live here among the misled in Calif. and on a vacation to Oregon last week, i was confronted by more Kerry signs in yards that one would think they had to cut down all the trees on their whole coast to accomodate all those with opinions. maybe the people inland have more common sense than all the folks in the fog along the beaches.

Posted by: roberto | Aug 27, 2004 9:14:33 PM

He was the equivalent of what I believe Kerry to have been, a mediocre officer just marking time.

That's not fair -- or accurate. GWB trained for a full year to fly the F102 -- a demanding aircraft that took the lives of at least four TANG pilots. And, to all accounts, GWB was diligent and consciencous for a full four years before getting into politics.

The only disputes about GWB's service are the the strawmen raised by the Kerryites concerning GWB's FIFTH and parital SIXTH year of service. And these are more than adequately dealt with in the blogsphere.

Kerry served less than two years of his six year committment.

Posted by: Norman Rogers | Aug 28, 2004 5:30:10 AM

I dont think either officer can be said to be of an outstanding caliber. I respect Bushs piloting more than I do Kerrys sailoring, because no matter his political connections on the ground, none of that helps you in the air, alone in the cockpit, trying to maintain a center ball on an instrument approach in a thunderstorm.

I dont think that piloting alone shows that Bush was thought of as an asset by the TANG. He was, in my opnion, just another low ranking officer who had not found himself by that time in his life. TANG made no attempt to mould him into an asset beyond his piloting duties. They do not appear to have said " he'd make a good instructor or maybe we should have him work on transition of new aircraft, or even farm him out to the active air force. He was, one pilot among many, who was not recognized as an asset beyond that as a resource to the organziation.

He served, he did ok, but clearly he did not excel. Theres nothing wrong with that at all. As I said, if Bush had then strutted around and said that he was flying SR-71s over Cuba in "Secret missions" while with the TANG, My opinion would be rather low of him ,as it is of Mr. Kerrys equivalent stories of "Christmas in Cambodia".

Mr. Kerry, in my opinion was also an officer of no remarkable skills. I often wonder if the reason why Kerry was allowed to go home so fast in an active war zone was because he was such a problem to deal with by his command. At a time when officers were in short supply, the Navy seems to have been little interested in keeping Mr. Kerry in the command structure.

The big difference between the two men for me is the way they have chosen to portray themselves. For Bush, he seems to have been serving the country, while Kerry seems to have been serving himself.

Posted by: Frank Martin | Aug 28, 2004 11:21:19 AM

It's hard to imagine a town with more Kerry lawn signs than mine. Of course, there are two factors that make me think Oregon could very well go for Bush: one, drive 5 minutes in any direction out of the city center (ie, away from the University), and the Bush=Hitler bumper stickers are quickly overwhelmed with the American flags and "support Our troops" signs. Two, Ralph Nader just got on the ballot here, giving the anti-war left a non-waffling representative to vote for. In a state so closely divided, even a few percentage points for Nader will matter.

Posted by: Eric in Oregon | Aug 28, 2004 11:22:59 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.