This Snopes thread has a few interesting posts:
In the late 60's I served in an AF unit that had previously won the award. As I recall, there was a constant running argument over whether "we who were not there" when it was awarded - should wear the ribbon. As several posters have pointed out, it's not an award anyone would go to great pains to point out.
...
When we had uniform inspections half the time "we who were not there" got gigged for wearing the damn thing and the other half of the time we got gigged for not wearing it!
Another poster links to the "pertinent Air Force regulation" (PDF), which would seem to indicate that he shouldn't have been wearing the award. But, the rules might have been different back then. And, as anyone who works in a large bureaucracy can attest to, the regulations that get made at the top often have very little to do with what happens amongst the rank-and-file...
Also, this article by Courtney Love pretty much backs up Albini's claims about how bands get screwed by major labels. I don't think they're talking about musicians on the level of, say, Jay-Z, think more along the lines of, for example, Semisonic...
The TapeOp threads (1 and 2) about this lecture have a whole lot (read: more then you probably want to know) of information on the digital-versus-analog storage issue...
You could always date this guy:
http://www.bracesarebeautiful.com
(SFW, but creepy.)
Really, though, everybody is attracted to different things, some men will find the braces off-putting, other guys will think they're cute. Don't worry about it.
path, good post. I don't mean to disrespect anybody who thought they were genuinely serving their country and providing for the defense of the United States, either in Vietnam or Iraq.
Your point seems to be that Kerry was tricked into fighting in Vietnam. Apparently he didn't learn much from this experience, because 30+ years later, he supported the invasion of Iraq. Either Kerry is a hawk himself, or he is easily mislead by them -- and either way, I'm not optimistic about the prospect of Kerry making foreign policy for the United States.
Your original claim was "Kerry personally murdered people in another country, for no reason." I merely pointed out that a)he did not go over there 'for no reason', b)in a warzone its kill or be killed, c)military service is considered an honorable action for a vast majority of people.
A. The US invaded Vietnam for no good reason (in my opinion) hence the people doing the killing were doing it for no good reason (in my opinion.)
B. Kerry chose to go to Vietnam, and chose to kill once he was there. He could have stayed home, or, after he left home, could have refused to fight.
C. I only speak for myself, obviously.
Also, he might have believed that going to Vietnam was the right thing to do.
shawnj, I'm not sure I understand your point. Bush thought it was "right" to invade Iraq. Does that mean I should vote for him?
...for an awful lot of Americans, there's nothing inherintly bad about enlisting at all.
Again, a lot of Americans supported the Iraq war, does that mean I should vote for Bush?
My point is, that Kerry's war record is a negative, regardless of exactly what he did while he was in Vietnam. He volunteered (he was not drafted, nor was he already a member of the military when the conflict started) to fight in a pointless, aggressive war.
(If you think it was a good idea for the United States to get involved in Vietnam, then you may have a different opinion, of course...)
You know, other than being in a warzone thousands of miles from home and having orders to be followed under penatly of courtmartial. No reason whatsoever.
Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam, it's not like the Vietnamese came to Massachusetts...
Kerry personally murdered people in another country, for no reason. Bush sent others to murder people in another country, again for no reason. Who is more electable?
(I just noticed that the author of that essay has the same name as me, but, rest assured it is not a self-link...)
posted by michael 20 years ago
I GREW HEMP: rubber-stamped money A couple of years ago I became aware that ordinary people have been using currency to spread ideas...
posted by michael 20 years ago
In "Barcelona club injects members with chips"
CREEPY Whatever happened to these folks?
posted by michael 20 years ago
In "George Bush wears unearned award."
posted by michael 20 years ago
In "Steve Albini gives a talk on analog vs. digital and other audio engineering questions"
Also, this article by Courtney Love pretty much backs up Albini's claims about how bands get screwed by major labels. I don't think they're talking about musicians on the level of, say, Jay-Z, think more along the lines of, for example, Semisonic...
posted by michael 20 years ago
The TapeOp threads (1 and 2) about this lecture have a whole lot (read: more then you probably want to know) of information on the digital-versus-analog storage issue...
posted by michael 20 years ago
In "Curious George: Metalmouth"
You could always date this guy: http://www.bracesarebeautiful.com (SFW, but creepy.) Really, though, everybody is attracted to different things, some men will find the braces off-putting, other guys will think they're cute. Don't worry about it.
posted by michael 20 years ago
In "Procrastination begone!"
Savannah, have you tried writing on a typewriter, or with pen-and-paper?
posted by michael 20 years ago
In "First Republican Congressman to break ranks and call Iraq war "a mistake"."
path, good post. I don't mean to disrespect anybody who thought they were genuinely serving their country and providing for the defense of the United States, either in Vietnam or Iraq. Your point seems to be that Kerry was tricked into fighting in Vietnam. Apparently he didn't learn much from this experience, because 30+ years later, he supported the invasion of Iraq. Either Kerry is a hawk himself, or he is easily mislead by them -- and either way, I'm not optimistic about the prospect of Kerry making foreign policy for the United States.
posted by michael 20 years ago
Your original claim was "Kerry personally murdered people in another country, for no reason." I merely pointed out that a)he did not go over there 'for no reason', b)in a warzone its kill or be killed, c)military service is considered an honorable action for a vast majority of people. A. The US invaded Vietnam for no good reason (in my opinion) hence the people doing the killing were doing it for no good reason (in my opinion.) B. Kerry chose to go to Vietnam, and chose to kill once he was there. He could have stayed home, or, after he left home, could have refused to fight. C. I only speak for myself, obviously.
posted by michael 20 years ago
Also, he might have believed that going to Vietnam was the right thing to do. shawnj, I'm not sure I understand your point. Bush thought it was "right" to invade Iraq. Does that mean I should vote for him? ...for an awful lot of Americans, there's nothing inherintly bad about enlisting at all. Again, a lot of Americans supported the Iraq war, does that mean I should vote for Bush?
posted by michael 20 years ago
My point is, that Kerry's war record is a negative, regardless of exactly what he did while he was in Vietnam. He volunteered (he was not drafted, nor was he already a member of the military when the conflict started) to fight in a pointless, aggressive war. (If you think it was a good idea for the United States to get involved in Vietnam, then you may have a different opinion, of course...)
posted by michael 20 years ago
You know, other than being in a warzone thousands of miles from home and having orders to be followed under penatly of courtmartial. No reason whatsoever. Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam, it's not like the Vietnamese came to Massachusetts...
posted by michael 20 years ago
Kerry personally murdered people in another country, for no reason. Bush sent others to murder people in another country, again for no reason. Who is more electable?
posted by michael 20 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)