It’s been interesting to be at Ft. Benning for the last few days. Biggest Guy had two ceremonies – the ‘Turning Blue’ ceremony pictured below, and a final graduation at which he and his peers (all except six young men who failed post-Christmas drug tests and were shown the door) were officially accepted as infantry soldiers.
The cultural gap between our family home and his new home are wide – not just everyone in the movie theater standing for the national anthem played before the feature, but the fact that everyone obeys – seriously – the speed limits, the clerk at the videogame store who wouldn’t let Littlest Guy buy World of Warcraft without my OK, and that the level of courtesy and helpfulness from everyone from the checkout clerk at the PX/mall to the guard who noticed our expired vehicle pass and sent us back for a new one puts my courteous, helpful suburb of Los Angeles to shame.
I worry more than a little about the military being far too isolated from not only mainstream America, but from the cultural and political elites that run it. The feeling of being in a cocoon on base – in almost every way – got my attention in a not-good way.
But in a Blue America where veterans are objects of fear or pity, I guess it makes sense.
I had fantasies that the New York Times series that I dinged last week would be better than the lead article suggested. The second article is out, and it looks like it won’t be.
The article is a human-interest story about a badly damaged veteran, his crime, and the consequences of his crime.
Power Line does the best take on it, and asks the reader to compare the Time’s coverage of a murderous vet with a Medal of Honor winning one.
I’ll stand on my original comment:
“Because it’s not part of the narrative of how our soldiers are either depraved or damaged.”
It’s funny; I passed up all the Army swag at the PX as kind of tacky – you know, the bumper stickers and license plate frames that seem so cheesy.
After reading the article, I went and ordered one – “I [heart] my soldier”. Once we mount it, I can’t wait for the reactions our hybrid gets when we valet park it in West Los Angeles.
A.L., 3 quick questions:
1. What’s your objection to the 2nd article in the series?
2. if you were to do a piece on PTSD, how would you avoid focusing on actual vets who suffer from it?
3. How does highlighting a few deeply troubled vets, imply that all–or most–vets fall into that group? Especially given that this sentence was included on the 1st of 9 pages: “Clearly, Mr. Smith’s descent into homicidal, and suicidal, behavior is not representative of returning veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Okay, so the last 2 were somewhat leading questions. Now for an entirely rhetorical one: IF PTSD does exists, and IF some vets do suffer from it (however small the #), and IF there is a stigma attached to it, or a reluctance to acknowledge or to deal with it, isn’t a good thing to bring it out into the open?
New York Times editors are so wasted they buy urine from Britney Spears.
Just trying to bring the issue of substance abuse out into the open.
If the NYTimes were to do a story about PTSD, it might do well not to focus entirely on the extremely miniscule portion that have PTSD so bad that they become psychotic. Homicides are not at all a normal parameter for discussing PTSD. Wait, the NYTimes knew that: “Clearly, Mr. Smith’s descent into homicidal, and suicidal, behavior is not representative of returning veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.” No sh*t.
“But in a Blue America where veterans are objects of fear or pity, I guess it makes sense.”
Ummm, overgeneralize much?
Seriously, to paint all of Blue America, or even over 50%, as viewing veterans as only objects of fear or pity, is a generalization, in no way based in fact.
Data – real data – not cherry-picked NY Times articles.
You find me groups of polls, asking questions starting with “do you view veterans positively or negatively?” and “is serving in the military an honorable or dishonorable thing to do, in your opinion?”, in the BLUE states – even in the super-blue cities, such as San Francisco or Los Angeles.
If you really believe that those type of surveys would paint show that a majority, or even a significant minority, of people don’t honor their service, you’d be wrong.
Question – do you actually really believe that? Because if you truly do, it’s a delusionary belief, you would be well advised to modify to something more resembling reality.
Soldiers and Marines HATE the way they are portrayed in the media. I hear an earful about it every single day when I’m in Iraq. They do not appreciate being portrayed as either killers or victims, which is nearly the only kind of coverage they get in the media. They don’t expect or demand to be portrayed as heroes, they are just sick of the bullshit. And I can’t say I blame them.
The difference between the military in the media and the military in reality is absolutely extraordinary.
What is perhaps nearly as extraordinary is now many Americans give the military high marks in polls despite the media culture that pushes the crazily distorted image. I guar-an-tee you that if you were to poll journalists exclusively about the military and compare the results to the general population that you would find a massive, massive disconnect.
When I run into other foreign correspondents I have a hard time believing the bigoted crap that comes out of some of their mouths. I knew it would be bad, but it’s worse than I expected. Not surprisingly, embedded reporters are looked down on by many because supposedly we get “too close” to the subject to write about it objectively.
No journalist ever accused me of being “too close” to the Lebanese to write about Lebanon, though, when I lived there. THAT logic only applies to the American military. Studying no other subject up close and in person is stigmatized that I am aware of. The axe-grinding wing of the media knows that those of us who live and work with soldiers for a while have our preconceptions demolished, and they are threatened by that.
Not every reporter I’ve met is like this, but at least a third of them are.
bq. But in a Blue America where veterans are objects of fear or pity, I guess it makes sense.
But in “Red” America they are objects of admiration and approval. And THAT is the fundamental difference between the two. You who hide in your ‘Blue’ enclaves need to get out to the rest of the country more.
I always thought that the divisions of America into ‘Blue’ for Liberal and ‘Red’ for Conservative was a misnomer. Because what the Democrat and Liberal/liberal side of the political divide has become the hidey-hole of the Progressives (read Socialist/Communist) they should be properly the ‘Reds’. I DO bleed blue for my beleagured country so us Conservative/conservatives should be the ‘Blues’. Just sayin’ is all.
I remember the fear and pity a few decades back. My former friends thought I was going to go ballistic at any time I guess. But they looked down upon the service of me and others pretty thoroughly.
I do not agree with hypocrisyrules too often but I have to agree with him this time. I would say that IF the ‘Blues’ do view the service of those highly honorable soldiers with “fear and pity” I know which side of the divide I would rather dwell in.
AL- Your son is doing a great thing. The honorable thing. Which seems to rarer and rarer these days.
Remember Andrew Olmsted.
hypo –
I’m delusional? I’d love to see some stats on this – but as far as I know, they don’t exist.
But as “anecdote”:http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=i_team&id=5673526 after “anecdote”:http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/07/26/hollywood-launch-raft-anti-military-anti-war-movies piles up, as our blue state friends reactions pile up – indignant sputtering is a classic example – it’s hard for me to avoid the simple truth that the divide between the military and the coastal elites is insupportably large.
A.L.
The “121” from the first “War Torn” article worked a bit more of its magic today. A Baltimore Sun editorial, “Homeward Bound,”:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.veterans20jan20,0,1668616.story decried inadequate psychological resources for vets returning from Iraq. This line in support of its premise:
bq. The New York Times reported last week that it had found 121 cases of murder in which the suspect is an Iraq or Afghanistan veteran.
Fake–or meaningless–but accurate.
The desire to see the Pentagon and VA devote more dollars to PTSD is good. But I recall hearing something about using such intentions as pavement?
mark – sorry to be slow but was flying to Orlando (in the last 60 days – LA – Orlando- LA, LA – Orlando – LA, LA – Paris – LA, LA – Orlando – Atlanta – Orlando – LA. Friday I fly to New York. This is getting stupid…).
First, I fully accept the reality of PTSD (see my piece on “Grossman and movies”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/hollywood_slimes_but_i_repeat_myself.php ). What would a good series on it look like?
It would be honest about the rarity, and talk about people whose lives were destroyed by it – and about people who overcame it, and people who caught it immediately and dealt with it and how.
One reason I find this so infuriating is my real belief that soldiers will be harmed by this; that PTSD is in some part a problem that some people fall into because they believe they should.
A.L.
AL — in all seriousness I would not have that license plate holder on your car. In California or other Blue states that is asking for the car to be vandalized. It’s what Blue State people do.
Best.
I’ve got great insurance. F ’em and feed ’em fisheads. Plus the cognitive dissonance of those frames on a Civic Hybrid will be stunning…
A.L.
First of all, what Michael Totten said.
Second, when you mention “the fact that everyone obeys – seriously – the speed limits,” it’s worth pointing out that base police are notorious for stopping people doing 3 over. It’s more of a self-preservation behavior shaped by the environment than anything else.
At dinner tonight with a Marine he mentioned that he had to write the warning label for the government vehicles with the GPS-speeding detectors. If the driver is doing over the “limit” (whatever that is) they know it before he gets back to the base and the General sends a memo to the Col. who sends it to the LTC, and down the line.
I know speed kills, but I couldn’t resist pointing out they are sort of in the killing business.
PS – congrats on the son’s graduation. I am sure you are very proud, and you should be.
hypocrisyrules:
This of course isn’t the point. The New York Times aspires to be “the paper of record” and as such intends to make the record say what it says.
Propaganda is what it is; when it works, it is accepted as truth. That’s why we all know Viet Nam vets were crazy motherf**kers.
Yes congrats on your’s son’s graduation and thanks to him for his service. I am grateful.
Congrats on your sons graduation
I live in a Very blue state – NY – and worse, in NYC, but darn it – those guys and gals in uniform are OUR people.
I don’t know – I was brought up to respect them. Maybe it was visiting friends at Ft Totten (Bayside NYC) as a child, maybe it’s the way I was raised.
There is at least one pro-military outpost among our academic elite: the military-related groups at Columbia University.
“U.S. Military Veterans of Columbia University”:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/usmilvetscu/
“Hamilton Society of Columbia University”:http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/hamilton.html
“Advocates for Columbia ROTC”:http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/case/index.html
A.L., “that PTSD is in some part a problem that some people fall into because they believe they should.” That’s an interesting theory and I think it would be worth exploring. I note that in the first article in this series, the NYT offered an equally interesting and somewhat opposite theory. Some do not seek treatment for PTSD because they believe that they SHOULDN’T have it. Perhaps both theories have validity. Perhaps there are two sets of social forces pushing/pulling in opposite directions, but both leading to the same results, i.e., an unnecessary increase in incidence. However, I do question the wisdom of printing or not printing an idea, opinion, or detail because of how other people might or might not react to it. Some respect for the discernmenet ability of others might be in order. E.g., I have not opposed US involvement in Iraq because I’ve been snookered or conned by any left-wing narrative promoted by the US media and I do not believe that you support it because you are an unwitting tool of the Bush administration. Let’s give ourselves and others a little more credit for being able to look at the same group of facts and yet arriving at different conclusions. This is not a “can’t we all get along” plea. This is a plea to stop working on the assumption that those who differer with you do so because they are too stupid or naive to avoid being duped by a controlling agenda-driven media.
mark – that’s the last thing I believe. All of us are – to a large extent – living with perceptions of ourselves and the world shaped by the media.
But we’re all owners of our own views and values. We’re all responsible for every word that we send out into the world.
A.L.
A.L. An apology is in order…by me to you. In re-reading my comment, I realize I used the term “you” in the last sentence, whereas I should have used “one” or “we” or something more generic. I didn’t mean to suggest that you in particular, any more than, say, myself, were guilty of this sin. It wasn’t meant to be an accusation and I am sorry that it reads like one.
Mark,
It’s even more worrisome when you defend the sort of nonsense the Times has been selling without being “duped.” Sadder too.
Corvan, yes, I do defend the NYT against accusations of smearing the troops when those accusations turn out to be based not on the content of the article, but rather on the expectations, assumptions and speculations of the accusers. I’m sorry that worries or saddens you, but it really shouldn’t. There’s not much more I can say about such emotional responses. However, if you have a different opinion, I’d be happy to listen to any evidence and arguments in support of that opinion.
Why Mark?
You’ve ignored the content of the article. Ignored all the evidence presented here and in other places on the web that are contrary to the article’s thesis and you have ignored the lack of evidence presented in the article itself for the article’s thesis. At this point we’ve reached something of an impasse. The rest of us are talking, you have covered your ears and resorted to screaming “I will construct my own reality! I will construct my own reality! I will construct my own reality!” That’s why it is sad, and grows sadder each time you post a comment. I wish we had a common basis to start a discussion here, I truly do. But we don’t and we won’t until you allow simple facts to make some small in road into your political convictions. At this point that doesn’t seem likely. For you, for the Times, or saddest of all, for most people ( not all but most) involved in the enterprise of journalism.
Hell Mark,
I’m a Blue Stater – there’s your anecdote right there. There’s this thing called Fleet Week out in SF. Happens every year, have you heard of it?
Coolest thing – Blue Angels come and put on a show.
At any rate, during that week, lots of Navy guys, out and about. Lots and lots and lots of times, these boys are bought drinks “on me”, personally, and on some of the most liberal guys you’ll ever meet.
You’re dealing in anecdote, and making a false generalization.
hypo – you mean the Blue Angels show the Supes wanted to cancel? Or the off-Fleet Week visit from the USS Iowa that the Board rejected?
Somehow I don’t think things are quite as you’re advertising…
A.L.
corvan, that’s all easy enough to claim, but you don’t actually back up your claims with anything. What evidence is there in the article to support the claim that the NYT is “smearing the troops?” I say there is none. I say the article claims that the NYT found 121 examples during the last 6 years of a vet or a serving troop being accused of a killing. The NYT claims that this is an 89% increase over the previous 6 years. The NYT claims that 75% of the increase is attributable to returning vets. The NYT attributes this rise to PTSD. I claim that a story about some of these 121 vets cannot reasonably be construed as smearing the 999,9999 troops that are not included. I claim that there is no evidence to support the claim that this article was written or printed as part of a conscious or unconscious “narrative” that our troops are damaged or depraved. I maintain that the statement that a small part of the whole is x, does not mean that the whole must be x.
I haven’t ignored the evidence presented here. I am challenging the evidence being presented here as not being very good evidence. The accusations being made here are basically accusations of motive, and they are unfounded. They are attempts at mind-reading. They are suspicions and speculations, based upon the preconceived expectations about the NYT on the part of the accusers. I am saying, finally, that the accusations are based on subjective interpretations, not on facts.
mark, thanks for the clarification.
A.L.
Mark,
What you are saying is that the world you have built around youself is much more comfortable than the world that actually exists, and that you will go to any lengths, any lengths at all, to remain in the world you have imagined. I’m not your parent. It really doesn’t fall to me to expalin to you that telling “stories” about other people (even if they are just soldiers) is wrong. Al that is left to me then, it so point out, regretfully, that on this matter you are being willfully dishonest. I’m sorry about that. But I’m not going to pretend that the tantrum your pitching is productive, or based on any real grievance, just to make you feel better.
corvan,
“What you are saying is that the world you have built around youself is much more comfortable than the world that actually exists, and that you will go to any lengths, any lengths at all, to remain in the world you have imagined.” Yes, corvan, that is exactly what I am saying. Thank you for saying it better. Thank you for opening my eyes with such a persuasive, eloquent, fact-based argument.
A.L.
“you mean the Blue Angels show the Supes wanted to cancel? ”
A little fairness in media here, A.L. WoC is a part of the media, is it not? “the Supes?” “the Supes wanted to cancel?” More Supes voted against canceling than voted for it. 7 to 3. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “the Supes did NOT want to cancel” since by over 2 to 1 more Supes didn’t want to cancel than did? Don’t you leave the misleading impression that SF elected officials as a group are opposed to Fleet Week in SF, when, in fact, as group they are not.
mark, corvan – I think we’re kind of talking past each other here a bit; we’re (all) asserting certain things about the world as we see it. Let’s ask two questions that I think could be useful:
How would you disprove your respective assertions -i.e. what would convince you that you were wrong?
If you were right, what (if anything) should be done about it?
A.L.
fair catch, mark – should have been “some” Supes.
A.L.
A.L. Good points, questions (in #32). What would convince me that I was wrong is text taken from the article that indicates the NYT tried to sneak 121 vets into a representation of the military as a whole. I mean by that, a passage or group of passages from the article that could be construed by a reasonable, nonpartisan, neutral party as suggesting or implying that PTSD was more widespread or a larger problem than the facts would justify.
My arguments against yours are very different than my arguments against many others here. You, as I understand it, simply feel that the article should have made an effort to point out that the total # of killings is below the national average. Otherwise, you thought it was an okay article. (Although, I still don’t understand your objection to yesterday’s installment).
I do disagree with the belief that there is a narrative out there in media land that claims vets are damaged and depraved as a group….at least a meaningful narrative in the sense of a common and effective one. For every DeerHunter there is a Rambo IV.
I guess, A.L., I am arguing two things. One against a specific accusation. The other against the moral general accusation. I am saying that the interpretation that you offer requires bringing in a predjudice. If you could demonstrate the validity of the interpretation without reaching beyond the text of the article, that is, without attaching it to a pre-existing framework, OR if you could substantiate the validity of the framework itself, then I would have to re-examine my opposition to the accusations being made. It’s all so subjective…so much a matter of opinion. But it seems to the me the word in here is that this belief is NOT opinion but is a matter of fact. I think it’s close to 100% opinion.
If I were right, nothing particular should be done as my opinion is–more or less–that all is as it should be. The only change in this matter I might look for is more openness to the possible existence of PTSD so that those who suffer from it might be willing to seek the help the military is offering.
#4 and others looking for “real data” about blue state attitudes towards the military …
Enlistment rates are a very good proxy for overall attitudes towards the military. When you look at “per capita enlistment rates”:http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_tot_mil_rec_arm_nav_air_for_percap-navy-air-force-per-capita the results are quite remarkable, and present an absolutely devastating portrait of blue state attitudes towards the military, along with a couple of real surprises.
When you consider that there are solid red areas in many blue states — Hawai’i, California, Oregon and Washington come immediately to mind — which probably furnish the bulk of those states’ recruits it’s even worse. The statistics include five territories, but they don’t hide the fact that only four blue states even make it into the top _HALF_: Hawai’i (#4), Washington (#12), Maine (#16), and Oregon (#27).
*California comes in at _#53_.* There are also MI (54), RI (47), CT (46), NJ (44), VT (42), NY (38), WI (35) and so on.
Case closed.
This is not the first time I’ve seen an indignant San Franciscan all unhappy over the notion that the military isn’t loved in his fair city.
Hypo’s telling me I get treated better in SFO than I do in Omaha? Heh. Talk about creating one’s own reality.
I’ve been to both in uniform; I know which town harasses me and which one doesn’t. Yes, there are lovely people in both places. I just get harassed less in uniform, is all. You don’t see national news from Kansas City about breaking into recruiting offices or banninating JROTC on a regular basis. You may see it as “just one politician” but I know which place threw out the submarine visits back in the day, which place rejected a battleship memorial, which place called itself a “nuclear free zone” and threw out the carrier visits, which place sends big, loud signals that They Don’t Like Our Kind.
Even with your beloved Fleet Week, which sailors I know didn’t want to do–even though the trip is a good deal for sailors and the Navy League does us right–because of the year round enmity and irritation. Anecdotal? Sure, but it’s my shipmates. I have enough data points to make a curve, thanks.
If you don’t like it, FIX IT.
Sorry, there were a couple of sudden family matters I had to attend to. I would be convinced my thesis was wrong if the New York Times had actually bothered to offer any evidence that all 121 cases were the result of PTSD ( or even that a majortiy of them were the result opf PTSD) or had offered any evidence that the 121 cases it presented were actually representataive of all service memebers as a whole. Or had offered any evidence at all that PTSD treatment might have prevented a significant number of the 121 homocides. Or had even proved that all 121 homicides were committed by serivce memebers exposed to significant amounts of combat. I also might be swayed if the Times had offered any evidence at all that the homocide rate among military members was greater than the homocide rate among civilians, or that the homicides committed by these service memebers were the result of an emotional disturbance of any kind. It would also help if the Times had offered any evidence at all that they hadn’t simply gone on an expedition desgined to confirm their own worst, and most fervently held, miscopnceptions. As it is PTSD for the Times and for others it seems, is simply a convient cover to use while they attack those they despise.
As far as Mark’s claims of clean hands and perfect objectivity of the part of journalism in these matters…after the willie pete noncontroversy, the Haditha hysteria, the fetishizing of Abu Grahib, the pathetically one sided coverage of Genral Sanchez’s recent remarks, and the Beauchamp affair I’m not buying.