Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhen Frank Wilkinson died on January 2nd, obituaries focused on his role as a leading defender of the First Amendment and as a fierce opponent of McCarthyism. But Wilkinson was by all accounts--including the compelling new biography about his life and work, "First Amendment Felon" written by longtime Nation contributor Robert Sherrill--an ordinary, even a conservative, American who became an accidental champion of our right to speak and (by extension) to think what we choose.
For decades, Wilkinson waged a David vs. Goliath battle against the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover and others who illegally wiretapped and harassed domestic dissidents opponent. (In later years, Wilkinson obtained his FBI file--all 132,000 pages of it!)
As many obituaries noted, as a result of a shameful Supreme Court decision, Wilkinson was one of the last two people jailed for refusing to tell the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) whether he was a Communist. As a result, in 1961 he spent nine months in federal prison in Lewisburg, PA. After prison, Wilkinson spent more than a decade on the road, working with the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, determined to shut down HUAC. When HUAC was finally abolished in 1975, Wilkinson's crusading work was widely cited as a key reason for its demise.
But there was another important part of Wilkinson's legacy--his pioneering work as an activist for affordable public housing--which received too little attention in the national obituaries. Of special significance was his role in the controversial battle of Chez Ravine--a tightly-knit Los Angeles neighborhood--which became a legend of urban planning, inspiring a recent album by guitarist Ry Cooder, a play by the Culture Clash Theater group, documentaries and many books and academic articles.
In this spirit, longtime Nationcontributor Peter Dreier and his colleague Jan Breidenbach offer a fascinating tribute, with a sharp focus on the other legacy of Frank Wilkinson, which they've kindly allowed me to publish in this space.
Frank Wilkinson's Legacy Peter Dreier and Jan Breidenbach
The obituaries for Frank Wilkinson, who died January 2 at 91, primarily focused on his role as a leading opponent of McCarthyism and his fervent dedication to the first amendment. The years he spent fighting for our basic freedoms were catalyzed by his own experience in 1958, when he was one of the last people ordered to prison for defying HUAC. After prison, he formed what became the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, and until his death, dedicated his energy and brilliance to our basic rights.
We lose a champion just at the time the assault on our civil liberties is increasing--the Patriot Act, National Security Administration spying--these are only the most egregious of the present Administration's attempt to undo all that Frank stood for.
Frank's dedication to civil liberties is worthy of a book-length memorial. However, it is worth reminding ourselves that he began his career as an activist for affordable housing. His crusade for the first amendment actually began when he was fired from the Los Angeles Housing Authority for his radical politics.
For Wilkinson's generation of idealists -- who came of age in the Depression of the 1930s -- public housing was part of a broad movement for social reform and economic justice. To the extent that public housing now bears the stigma of failure, it is due not to the progressive values that inspired Wilkinson and others, but to the political influence of right-wing forces who fought to undermine public housing from the beginning.
Los Angeles and other cities again face a severe shortage of affordable housing. Many of the same battles that Wilkinson fought 50 years ago -- -- over land use, government subsidies for the poor, racial integration, and "not in my backyard" opposition to low-cost housing -- confront the current generation of public officials and civic leaders.
Frank Wilkinson grew up in Beverly Hills, was a Republican when a student at UCLA and seriously considered becoming a Methodist minister. He joined the new Los Angeles Housing Authority in 1942 when it was an independent agency with the mission of ending slum housing in the city. Under the then-Mayor Fletcher Bowron, a reform-minded liberal Republican elected in 1938, The LA Housing Authority supported the idea of building decent housing for poor and low-income families and believed in racial integration in the city's developments.
After World War II, Bowron sought to expand the program, especially for the many veterans who faced a desperate housing shortage. He endorsed a plan to raze many homes in the tight-knit Chavez Ravine neighborhood replace them with a large public housing development to be designed by world-class architect Richard Nuetra that would include two dozen 13-story buildings and more than 160 two-story houses, as well as new playgrounds and schools. Bowron, Wilkinson and other reformers viewed the housing plan for Chavez Ravine as a way to improve living conditions poor Angelenos. Opposition to the plan came from immigrants to lived in the area, which was essentially, a rural setting of small shacks, unpaved roads and no city sewer system. Opposition was understandable, given that in spite of these conditions, the people there considered the hills their home. One of the incentives offered to the residents was the absolute promise that they would be the first ones to move into the new housing. In 1950, the plan was presented to them.
While Frank and the Housing Authority wanted to rebuild the neighborhood for the people who lived there, others in the City--businesses leaders and right-wing politicians--agreed to bulldoze the area but for other reasons. Land so close to the city's downtown was worth more exploited for profit that the provision of affordable housing. Using McCarthyite "Red Scare" tactics, these forces combined to characterize the Chavez Ravine proposal -- and public housing in general -- as socialist planning. The attack focused on its leading advocate--Frank Wilkinson--portraying him as a dangerous Communist. Brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee, he refused to answer their questions on First Amendment grounds and was fired from his job, tried and sent to federal prison.
The same business leaders who opposed Wilkinson and public housing also ended Bowron's political career. They handpicked Congressman Norris Poulson to run against Bowron and orchestrated his mayoral victory in 1953. During his campaign, Poulson vowed to stop the Chavez Ravine plan and other examples of "un-American" spending. Under Poulson, the city bought back the Chavez Ravine site from the federal government at a cut-rate price.
Los Angeles allowed Chavez Ravine to languish as an almost abandoned slum until the mid1950s, when City Councilman Kenneth Hahn gave the Brooklyn Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley a helicopter tour, pointing out the area's proximity to freeways and downtown. To get O'Malley to bring his team to Los Angeles, the City bulldozed the few remaining homes, forcibly evicting the last residents. No one was relocated into better housing, no decent housing was built for the poor who lived there. Deep ravines were filled in to make the flat playing field of Dodger Stadium.
The "battle of Chavez Ravine" has become a legend of urban planning, inspiring a play by the Culture Clash theater group, a recent album by guitarist Ry Cooder, and many books and academic articles.
The attack on Frank Wilkinson as a housing advocate for the poor was only one of many repeated in numerous ways across the country.
Until the Depression, most American opinion leaders believed that the private market, with a helping hand from private philanthropy, could meet the nation's housing needs. In the first three decades of the 20th century, a few unions and settlement house reformers built model housing developments for working class families, but without government subsidy. The nation's economic collapse provided reformers with a political opening to push their "radical" ideas that the federal government should subsidize "social housing" and help create a noncommercial sector free from profit and speculation. Like their European counterparts, they envisioned it for the middle-class as well as the poor.
These reformers - union activists, economists, planners, architects, social workers, and journalists - had faith in the positive role of government on people and communities. They believed that well-designed housing with adequate amenities ) could uplift the poor. They pushed for well-designed, mixed-income, noncommercial, government-subsidized housing projects, sponsored by unions, church groups, other non-profit organizations, and government agencies. During its first few years, the New Deal build a few model developments that reflected this vision. They included day care centers and playgrounds, involved residents in cultural and educational activities, and were physically attractive enough so that middle-class families wanted to live there.
But the reformers were soon outmaneuvered by the real estate industry. The industry -- worried that well-designed and affordable government-sponsored housing would compete with the private sector for middle-class consumers -- warned about the specter of "socialism." After WW2, recognizing the pent-up demand for housing and fearing competition from public housing, the industry mobilized a major campaign against the program. Especially with the federal housing act of 1949, the industry sabotaged the program by pressuring Congress to restrict its funding, give local governments discretion over whether and where to locate developments, and limit it to the very poor. Senators from the South made sure that local governments had the authority to keep public housing racially segregated.
With limited budgets, many projects were poorly constructed and/or badly designed - ugly warehouses for the poor - stigmatizing "government housing" as housing of last resort. Local housing authorities -- typically dominated by business and real estate representatives -- often located public housing developments in areas without adequate stores, transportation, or schools, and isolated from middle-class neighborhoods, contributing to the concentration of poor people in cities. The problems we now associate with public housing were not inevitable. They were due to political choices made in Congress and at the local level.
Public housing became identified with drug wars and crime, places where children are afraid to walk to school, and elderly tenants, for whom hallways and elevators are as dangerous as streets, are afraid to leave their apartments, portrayed more as a trap than a ladder. Eventually, only 1.3 million public housing units were built -- less than 1 percent of the nation's housing -- and this construction came to an end in the Nixon era. Other programs-- rental vouchers for poor tenants and smaller production funding--have been implemented, but the United States effectively walked away from our responsibility to house everyone--including the very poor--when we abandoned public housing.
Today, Washington provides housing assistance for less than one-quarter of the nation's poor. And while the number of poor people has increased since President George W. Bush took office, his administration is cutting housing subsidies for low-income families.
Some federal funds are still used to build new housing for the poor. Ironically, most of today's government-subsidized housing is built by nonprofit community development organizations. They are typically well-designed to fit into neighborhoods and small-scale compared with the massive public housing projects built in the 1950s and 1960s. A growing number of these developments are mixed-income and provide child care, job training, and education and art programs. In other words, they look similar to the kind of projects that early housing reformers and their political offspring, like Frank Wilkinson, envisioned. But without sufficient federal subsidies, these community groups lack the resources to seriously address housing shortage for the poor.
And to this day, right-wing politicians use stereotypes of public housing to attack the very idea of government activism. During his 1996 campaign, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole said that public housing was "one of the last bastions of socialism in the world", calling the authorities "landlords of misery." More recently, after the Katrina hurricane, Congressman Richard Baker (R-LA) was overheard telling lobbyists, "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did."
Having the federal government turn its back on housing for all has not made the crisis go away. The nation's cities must address a serious housing crisis, but without the federal government as a partner. In Los Angeles, where Frank lived his entire life, elected leaders and activists are trying to deal with the legacy of the federal neglect, including more than 80,000 homeless people and a housing market where even middle-class families can't afford to buy a home. Finding resources for a local housing trust fund, exploring policies such as inclusionary housing, ‘granny flats' and increased density, and pushing landlords to fix up slum buildings, progressive Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is calling on local housing advocates--and the spirit of Frank Wilkinson--to come up with solutions to an overwhelming crisis.
After Wilkerson emerged from prison, he was not allowed back to work for public housing. Instead, he went on to become one of the nation's leading civil rights activists. Like his fight to protect the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, Frank Wilkinson viewed decent, safe, affordable housing as a basic human right. He was an inspiration to tens of thousands of activists in this nation. In his memory, we recommit ourselves to dismantling the Patriot Act, as he fought to dismantle HUAC. And in his memory, we fight for a safe, decent and affordable place to call home--for all.
Peter Dreier teaches political science and directs the Urban & Environmental Policy program at Occidental College. Jan Breidenbach is the executive director of the So CA Association of Non-Profit Housing and Housing LA.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
but the United States effectively walked away from our responsibility to house everyone--including the very poor--when we abandoned public housing.
What a piece of socialist garbage. The government has a responsibility to house everyone? Can you say Manifesto?
Posted by love liberty at 01/10/2006 @ 1:28pm
Curious...."an ordinary, even a conservative, American"?
What exactly was Mr Wilkinson "conservative" about?
And of course Ms vanden Heuval makes the single sentence defense of the public house debacle ("They were due to political choices made in Congress and at the local level."....i.e. "We didn't spend ENOUGH money, or the problems wouldn't have happened"), which is the rationale for all the failures of the Great Society, etc.
Until the Left starts taking SOME responsibility and admitting that YES, even they, morally and intellectually superior to all others, CAN make mistakes and implement bad policies....they are NEVER going to fully enjoy a return to power.
Oh, the Democrats may re-take Congress, a 2nd "New Democrat" President might inhabit the White House....but as long as (in Ms vanden Heuval's public housing example) they NEVER admit to any mistakes and blame it all on "lack of funding", they'll never regain true political power outside of a catastrophe (which will merely let them inact more flawed policies and they won't seem "as bad" as they would under normal circumstances).
Posted by Mask at 01/10/2006 @ 1:34pm
LOVE LIBERTY--
Yes, I can say "Manifesto". Moreover, I've read the one to which you refer, although it's been a few years and my memory is somewhat fuzzy, and I can't quite remember a call for government housing. Would you mind showing where this is discussed? I'm assuming here that you do know what you're talking about, and aren't just using the word "Manifesto" to express your distaste with ideas that you can't properly rebut on your own ("if Karl said it it must be bad...").
Speaking of which, after you've refreshed my memory of the details of the CM, perhaps you could do something to address any of the issues raised in the "Legacy" piece. After all, the five paragraphs leading up to the line that you quote hardly qualify as Manifesto material (not nearly rhetorical enough, for one thing), but rather seem to give a description of the history, aims, and failings of some of the public housing project. I don't know much about this history, so it may well be the case that what is presented here is inaccurate. However, and this goes to the every eyes-on-the-prize (prize=winning elections) MASK as well, if those paragraphs are accurate, I would find it hard to reach a different conclusion from that a program that was to address an important social problem was ultimately bought out by monied interests and that we are now reaping the benefits. After all stadia are much more necessary than housing.
Matthew
Posted by matthewg at 01/10/2006 @ 2:23pm
MASK--
I'm sure that your heartfelt desire that Democrats regain power is appreciated in the proper quarters, but it's starting to get a little repetitive, you know? Especially when the point is a laughable "the Dems never admit mistakes". Why laughable? Well, it seems that this strategy ended up working pretty well for the other party, or at least the President. Remember his inability to think of a mistake he'd made in the first n years of his administration? This hubris was so off-putting to the American public that no one besides people who didn't like Bush cared, or at least it seemed that way from where I sat.
I don't think you're really honest about your criticism; you'd be happy if the Democrats continued in their minority status. Why should anyone left of center take advice from someone who's looking for em to fail? I think it's pretty obvious, after reading your comments for a while, that the whole "You'll never win elections (hahaha)" schtick you do really focuses on the "(hahaha)" part. In other words, this is just a variant of the "my team is better than yours" mentality that you exhibit, which has as a corollary that the work of politics ends with the election of your candidate. I'd tend to think that that's when the actual work begins, but I'm just a leftist who will never see anyone I support in power, after all.
Matthew
Posted by matthewg at 01/10/2006 @ 2:34pm
MATTHEW
Actually, as far as CONGRESSIONAL Dems go....you're right.
What I want was what we had in the 90s...a "New Democrat" President and a Republican Congress that wanted to act like "Republicans".
As far as not admitting mistakes ("Well, it seems that this strategy ended up working pretty well for the other party")...I thought the Left was "more intellectually honest" than the Right?
Posted by Mask at 01/10/2006 @ 3:21pm
is it not negligence to turn a blind eye to the homeless and the downtrodden?----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/10/2006 @ 2:04pm |
FRANK, The "Homlessness Crises" was a political tool, created during the Reagan Years (with guys like Mitch Snyder claiming that "10 MILLION people were homeless" when the figure was a 2% of that!)
Proof?...the total "media and Democratic Party blackout" that started on the "crises" on January 20, 1993 and then magically disappeared on January 20, 2001.
Posted by Mask at 01/10/2006 @ 3:25pm
LL, See now that's where you and I don't agree. We live in a supposedly compassionate country that currently supposedly practices compassionate conservatism. It's obviously not the responsibility of the gov. to house everyone, witness the homeless population. But in the richest country in the world, is it not negligence to turn a blind eye to the homeless and the downtrodden? I don't think it's within your nature to disagree.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/10/2006 @ 2:04pm
Frank,
Of course we agree on the need to help those who cannot help themselves. Two points on your response and KVH posting:
1. My point is especially directed towards KVH citing the authors statement that government has a responsibility to house everyone.
2. KVH and the authors go beyond helping the homeless to a sweeping guarantee to provide everyone with decent housing. A very subjective determination and one that would bankrupt the country if KVH and the authors had their way.
Ted Hayes in LA has provided his Dome City to the Homeless now going back to the Los Angeles Olympics in '84. He used to take some government subsidy but says he will now only rely upon private donations.
Posted by love liberty at 01/10/2006 @ 3:31pm
Matthew;
Hyperbole; sometimes used to illustrate a point. Think in larger terms than individual words.
Posted by love liberty at 01/10/2006 @ 3:32pm
Manifesto
n. pl. man·i·fes·toes or man·i·fes··tos A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature.
So what? "All public declarations of principles" is bad? Maybe, a personal manifesto should be a manditory part of all campaigns.
It'd be better than the retrospective bullshit, posturing and excuse making that we get now. From both parties.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/10/2006 @ 3:55pm
LOVE LIBERTY--
Not horribly surprised at the response. I was just expecting more from someone who thinks himself so bound to facts (and sometimes even FACTS, though I may be confusing you with any of a number of other posters).
I am well able to think in larger terms than individual words, but I think you in particular need to have your individual words examined closely. This is because you have a tendency to substitute various slurs or words that otherwise make you uncomfortable (eg "socialism") for an attempt to argue against the thing that bothers you (although you do start down that road in your response to FRANKGRITS). When someone's primary weapon is rhetorical, it seems wholely appropriate to attack his use of language.
Matthew
Posted by matthewg at 01/10/2006 @ 4:17pm
The only way that people can develop informed opinions and thus make intelligent decisions is by utilizing the best information available to them at the moment. The American mainstream media has failed the citizens of this country in this role. It consistently diminishes the importance of significant issues and enhances the superfluous. Most Americans are aware of this on some level, yet buy into the idea that we are often more collectively interested in the trivial than we are in the substantive, thus stories like the Scott Peterson saga are well known and disseminated and stories like the 100+ Israeli students arrested in the United States for espionage immediately following September 11th, 2001 are unfamiliar to the vast majority of American citizens and suppressed by the mainstream news media. The actual facts behind the Israeli art student spy scandal, are incredible, inconceivable and even earth-shattering, yet seem to be unknown to ninety-five percent of the American population, simply because the news media has dedicatedly avoided the issue. This self-evident refusal by the media, a veritable conspiracy in fact, to omit certain uncomfortable aspects of modern history in favor of the state of Israel can only have negative consequences, there is no upside, it is and will continue to be, until seriously addressed, a blight on the consciousness of the American people and a significant impediment in American foreign policy.
http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=496547
Posted by plunger at 01/10/2006 @ 4:19pm
MASK--
Am I misreading you or do you hope for Repbulican control of Congress and a Democratic President that acts like a Republican? Why on earth should anyone left of center want to take your advice knowing what your goal is? But I guess the point isn't really to advise, which is what I think you admit in the first line of your 3.21 post. If I'm judging your view of politics correctly, in that winning elections is the primary goal (like for example the primary goal of a basketball fan would be that er team wins the championship), it strikes me as remarkably short-sighted, if not completely backwards. I think a more accurate view of politics has running the country as its primary goal, the question just being how that is best done. Every time I see one of your "the dems will be forever a minority party" posts I get the sense that that's all that really matters to you, or that your rejoicing in that fact is all that you really have to contribute.
Finally, I didn't realize that the left was more intellectually honest than the right. Are you still playing the game where you intentionally lower expectations for the right or raise them for the left so that a given action can be either lauded or deplored depending solely on the actor? Is this why you think the left is the more intellectually honest?
Matthew
Posted by matthewg at 01/10/2006 @ 4:35pm
LOVE LIBERTY:
You don't have to go to the Communist Manifesto to get a sense of the government's responsibility to the citizenry for basic needs, including housing. The preamble to the Constitution states that it is the government's responsibility to provide for "the general welfare" of the citizenry. *GASP* The drafters of the constitution must have been COMMIES!!!
Get over it. We do, as a society, have a responsibility to the least of us. Otherwise, it is the rule of nature... which is precisely that against which civil society was designed.
Posted by jorcheim at 01/10/2006 @ 5:59pm
MASK:
Give me one example where a Republican admitted a mistake (ones that get indicted or impeached do not count).
Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2006 @ 6:00pm
"Man proposes and disposes. He and he alone can determine whether he is completely master of himself, that is, whether he maintains the body of his desires, daily more formidable, in a state of anarchy. Poetry teaches him to. It bears within itself the perfect compensation for the miseries we endure. It can also be an organizer, if ever, as the result of a less intimate disappointment, we contemplate taking it seriously. The time is coming when it decrees the end of money and by itself will break the bread of heaven for the earth! There will still be gatherings on the public squares, and movements you never dared hope participate in. Farewell to absurd choices, the dreams of dark abyss, rivalries, the prolonged patience, the flight of the seasons, the artificial order of ideas, the ramp of danger, time for everything! May you only take the trouble to practice poetry."
--Andre Breton's Surrealist Manifesto (1924)
Clearly this is what LL was referring to, such a dreamer he.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 01/10/2006 @ 7:21pm
Housing isn't a right. Eating isn't a right. Breathing isn't a right. Teeth aren't a right. Good health isn't a right. Mental health isn't a right. Life isn't a right. Well, up until you're born it is, but after that, it's up to you. Work isn't a right, unless you don't want a union, then it's a right. Getting buried anywhere but the potter's field isn't a right. Lay in the street. Die. Getting buried isn't a right. Rot. Stink. Wash into clean water and give your neighbors cholera. Clean water isn't a right.
Posted by Legba at 01/11/2006 @ 12:23am
I'm tired of this jackassery. I'm going to go discuss this shit with conservatives who aren't insane.
Posted by Legba at 01/11/2006 @ 12:24am
Frei, welcome back, your bromides were soerly missed, god forbid we should give a crumb to a poor person, wether public housing or health care. you go on being a rhetorical miser, but don't expect us to applaud your selfish agenda
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 08:39am
Frei:" A government that provides both soon basks in absolute power. And we know where that leads...
whatta crock, all civilized countries provide their citizens, and sometimes non citizens as well, with health care, yet it is the US which basks in absolute power. not only does your me and only me philosophy stink, you also play loose and fast with facts, which is the same as lying
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 08:42am
Frei, this thing about the fish is such bullshit and you haven't examined your position, think man, you give a homeless family a home, health care and good schooling for their kids and then the enxt generation will have a chance to move out of the projects and pay lots of taxes, it works everywhere and here too, but of course you lead such a well isolated existence, I don't call it a life, as I don't consider what you do living, living implies compassion, reason, which have not been particularly evident from your posts.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 08:46am
Posted by MATTHEWG 01/10/2006 @ 4:35pm |
A "New Democrat" President and REALLY Republican Congress would fit MY personal politics, Matthew....maybe not yours, but I was responding to what "I" wanted.
Ask around, despite the loathing of Clinton by some on the Left, I think most of them would take that over NOW, huh? Especially since it would mean USSC nominees like Ginsberg and Breyer and not Roberts and Alito.
As to the "intellectual honesty" of the Left over the Right....that's THEIR words and claims, not mine.
Posted by Mask at 01/11/2006 @ 08:59am
Posted by HMAN23 01/10/2006 @ 6:00pm
Quite a few Republicans of the 40s admitted that their isolationist stance was wrong and Roosevelt was right about aiding Britain with Lend-Lease.
Most modern Republicans think that Nixon's wage and price control policies were a horrible mistake.
But I'm curious can YOU find ANY liberal policy or program that was innately wrong....or is "divine perfection" invested in your political ideology?
Posted by Mask at 01/11/2006 @ 09:04am
I think this line in Katrina's article is the key to the difference between liberals and conservatives:
"of our right to speak and (by extension) to think what we choose."
Right.. You have the right to think what you chose, however the part liberals conveniently forget is that so do conservatives. Liberals think that their human rights causes trump the values that conservatives hold dear and that conservatives should cave to the left. Liberals just can't comprehend that we don't think they are right and are willing to fight for our values. The pearl of wisdom liberals refuse to see is that although they have the right to speak and think as they choose that not all of the rest of the people in America will accept those views and the rest of us that don't are willing to fight to hold tight to our core values.
You fight for what you want via tools such as Naral, the ACLU, the unions, civil liberties lawyers etc. to get your ideals of "progressivism" (which for the most part do NOT align with our value system) pushed on conservatives that disagree with progressive values, and then you have the audacity to chastise those on the conservative side of the fence for trying to make you live by our value system, i.e. chastising our state of Oklahoma for it's "intolerance" in amending our state constitution to ban gay marriage.
The hypocrisy just reeks.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 11:09am
legba-where are the conservatives who aren't insane? freheit-are you an indian? do you have even an elementary understanding of the war waged on their culture long after the killing stopped, which wasn't that long ago? the reservations are a very complex phenomena, not a simple social experiment. i agree that opportunity is lacking and we should be targeting that. how do you propose that be accomplished?
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 11:25am
todd, i think, as a nation, we should give oklahoma to people like you and then fence it off. just out of curiosity, do you think the muslims have a good idea in enforcing that women be completely covered except their eyes?
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 11:30am
Loveloki,
"do you think the muslims have a good idea in enforcing that women be completely covered except their eyes?"
Being that that is their custom as part of their religion, if I went to a Muslim country with my wife, I can assure you, I would have my wife covered in a burka out of respect for their religion.
Just like, if you and your gay boyfriend came to Oklahoma, you best respect our Oklahoma law and not expect to marry your queer lover. You would not be allowed too, and if you tried, you would be arrested.
To use some good ‘ole fashioned southern slang, it ain't happenin here = )
So to answer your question, yes if that is their laws and custom, and I were there, my wife would cover her self up voluntarily, and if she didn't I would cover her butt up.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 11:44am
Todd by your rationalizations the liberals are trying to create an our way or the highway society. Yet is it not the conservative right whom are in the forefront of the "Values" issue. They are the ones who insist that we as a society must adhere to their values and believe in their version of god.
Conservatives are pushing their ideals on everyone in the name of their god not the liberals in total disregard to the preaching of Christ and our Constitution.
Under the guises of conservative values we now have a war, support of the corperate interests over the needs of the old and infirmed, run away deficeit, run away energy costs with an emphases on drilling for oil instead of alternate energy sources, outsourcing of prime jobs, Politicians who take a money over the interests and well being of the American people, a screw the poor give to the rich philosophy and the creation of the Corperate agenda as a constitutional right.
And this in your opinion is the fault of the Liberals. You need to take off the rose colored glasses and take your head out of your ass, see who is actually making those changes you are afraid of to our society, the reality will scare the s--t out of you.
Posted by dycel8r at 01/11/2006 @ 11:52am
Dycel8r,
"And this in your opinion is the fault of the Liberals. You need to take off the rose colored glasses and take your head out of your ass, see who is actually making those changes you are afraid of to our society, the reality will scare the s--t out of you."
No my friend, you must need to pull off your rose colored glasses and realise not everyone is willing to bend, cower, and cave to the All Sharptens and the Jessie Jacksons and the ACLU's of the world. We are just as willing to fight for our value system as you are for yours.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 11:57am
todd, i asked you if you thought it was a good idea.
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 11:57am
And currently, by the way, you are loosing
Bush is in office, Congress is controlled by republicans, and we are at war in Iraq, all of these fly in the face of what liberals "want"
Get over yourself.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 11:58am
DYCEL
Before you get TOO self-righteous....as to conservatives, you said- "They are the ones who insist that we as a society must adhere to their values".
So you have no values you wish to "insist society adhere to"?
What of the "values" of "fairness", "compassion", "equality", etc?
Posted by Mask at 01/11/2006 @ 11:58am
Loveloki,
"todd, i asked you if you thought it was a good idea."
No, but it's their religion and custom, it's not up to me.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 11:59am
i believe in a religion that is not muslim, jewish or christian. in fact, it is not even monotheistic. should i be able to worship in my way as long as it hurts no one?
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 12:00pm
i think it's amazing, considering your mindset, todd, that you are willing to respect the muslim religion and culture.
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 12:02pm
Loveloki,
"i believe in a religion that is not muslim, jewish or christian. in fact, it is not even monotheistic. should i be able to worship in my way as long as it hurts no one?"
It depends on what the customs and religions are of the people that live in the community/city/state that you live in.
I continue to go back to our state. If by worshiping in a way as along as it doesn't hurt anyone, you mean can you marry your gay lover as that is what you believe in, you may be able to do it in your state, but don't expect to do that in ours.
The states should have the right to establish norms, and laws that are in line politically, socially, and religiously with those of the people that live in the state.
It's called federalism.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 12:06pm
Loveloki,
"i think it's amazing, considering your mindset, todd, that you are willing to respect the muslim religion and culture."
Ah, so you make the fatal mistake of stereotyping me. Why do you say that, do you think that people with devout faith, can't respect other peoples beliefs, values, cultures and social norms?
How myopic of you Loveloki..
todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 12:09pm
todd, i think marriage with a license from the courthouse is a state issue. marriage in a church a religious issue. i don't think state should be able to mandate what religion you practice. do you see that, todd, in theory you believe that theocracy is ok.
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 12:11pm
fatal mistake? are you gonna murder me now todd? i see you learned a big word but you use it over and over again. myopic, myopic, myopic. at least it's better than the moron who can only sling obsenities in his/her every post.
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 12:16pm
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/11/2006 @ 11:57am No my friend, you must need to pull off your rose colored glasses and realise not everyone is willing to bend, cower, and cave to the All Sharptens and the Jessie Jacksons and the ACLU's of the world. We are just as willing to fight for our value system as you are for yours.--
Another outstanding example of conservative hypocrisy at it's finest.
When did any of these men and organizations stand up and insist that you have to follow their beliefs, they are the ones who have stood up and questioned those who want to impinge your rights as stated in our Constitution.
You know your freedom to speak and mis-quote reality and insist that your version of gods values are to be upheld by all, these are what they stand up to defend for you and the rest of the American people.
If we all thought as you do you would have to cover up your wives ass because in your world there are no civil rights for all.
Posted by dycel8r at 01/11/2006 @ 12:17pm
Another outstanding example of conservative hypocrisy at it's finest.
Should read:
Another outstanding example of conservative hypocrisy "and literacy" at it's finest.
Posted by dycel8r at 01/11/2006 @ 12:19pm
Loveloki,
Yes, I very much see your point of view and acknowledge the difference between the state and the church.
And this is why I'm all fine with "unions" of gay people in a courthouse for financial reasons, however don't you dare think that I would ever sacrifice the holiness of my marriage OR change the value system I instill in my children by allowing my children to receive very confusing mixed messages, one from the law that says being gay is "o.k." by allowing gays to marry, and the message they are taught at home and on Sundays which is that being gay leads one on the path to hell.
You will not take the term and institution of "Marriage" and defile it in the state of Oklahoma by allowing gays to "Marry". This has already been determined by the electorate of Oklahoma, and as a matter of fact the initiative passed by an overwhelming 72% of the voters.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 12:20pm
Dycel8r,
Civil Rights?
The civil rights laws are not the laws I concern myself with or value.
If they are your god then follow them.
They are not mine.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 12:22pm
So to answer your question, yes if that is their laws and custom, and I were there, my wife would cover her self up voluntarily, and if she didn't I would cover her butt up.
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/11/2006 @ 11:44am
Yea...those damn liberals making people behave as if we all shared their values. I think it would be very interesting to hear you say that in a group setting with your wife present....I love those funny looks I get from mine, when I over step my authority.
How does gay people marrying keep YOU from living your life by your values? Your laws sure force others to adhere to your values. That to me is the essence of right vs. left. The left wants everybody to do their own thing. The right wants everybody to conform to their values.
Yours is a hollow (self-centered) argument.
---------------------------------------------------
Johannesrolf, Have you ever been on an indian reservation? I used to believe that giving people homes, healthcare, education was the answer too. But then I spent time in the real world. Your contention that I am isolated is wrong.
You continuously say that I lack compassion, but quite the opposite is true. Handouts don't work. Opportunity is the answer to ending poverty. It is providing opportunity where our efforts should be targeted. And that effort is seriously lacking in my opinion.
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/11/2006 @ 10:11am
Lived next to one for years....I see what you are talking about. But, as LOVELOKI pointed out, there is alot more under the surface than initially apparent.
Absolutely...opportunies,, not handouts. Suggestions? I'm sure todd would buy them a bible and think he fixed it. What would you do? Ignore them?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/11/2006 @ 12:28pm
Maclontent3,
"Yours is a hollow (self-centered) argument."
Oh I'm sorry, were you under the impression that your opinion of the self-centeredness of my argument mattered to me?
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 12:31pm
don't you dare think that I would ever sacrifice the holiness of my marriage OR change the value system I instill in my children by allowing my children to receive very confusing mixed messages, one from the law that says being gay is "o.k."
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/11/2006 @ 12:20am
Heaven forbid your children be exposed to ideas that differ from yours...ones not documented in the bible.
Good thing your religion is a logically strong basis to form a rational worldview. Now, it doesn't matter what they are exposed to, they will retain your "values" (of bigotry and intolorance)...so why worry?
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/11/2006 @ 12:34pm
DYCEL
Before you get TOO self-righteous....as to conservatives, you said- "They are the ones who insist that we as a society must adhere to their values".
So you have no values you wish to "insist society adhere to"?
What of the "values" of "fairness", "compassion", "equality", etc?
Posted by MASK 01/11/2006 @ 11:58am
Sorry I was not rying to be selfrightious but simple point out that we all have the right of free speech and free beliefs. It is our individual freedoms that make our country what it is these protections of our rights are defined in the constitution and are systematicly being usurped by those who what everyone to believe as they do.
As to my values I believe that you have a right to your opinion, your values are yours and my values are my and we both have a right to believe in them as we each see fit but we do not have a right to insist that we each have to live the others values. I don't particularly like gays but they have their rights just like you or I, as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves it is not my place to scourge them from the earth because our constituion says we all have equal rights and that also means the same freedom to believe as they wish.
As to values have you looked at yours lately is it more important to control others to vindicate your existance or stand up for the rights of everyone even though you don't agree with them.
Posted by dycel8r at 01/11/2006 @ 12:36pm
Some of us don't want our children recieving hate and bigotry filled mixed messages from our laws either...and we intend to fix that.
For all of the children and the future of our country.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 01/11/2006 @ 12:36pm
blab the word "manifesto" and then sit bag and count how many conservative minds immediately begin insinuating communist sympathies/duping by whoever scribbled/uttered that marxism evoking word. stale stale stale...
apparantly any level of govenrment spending on anything other than the military is considered some form of comernism.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/11/2006 @ 1:10pm
todd, there are a lot of people here in montana that publicly proclaim that they were "driven to vote" for the first time in 50 or so years because of the issue of gay marriage. you have company here as well.
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 1:11pm
legba
you are the one who talked me into staying here and tolerating people like LL, remember?
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 1:16pm
DYCEL
My point was that BOTH sides have their "values" and many on both sides want societ to "adher to theirs"....whether the Religious Right who want their neo-fundamentalist Protestant morality....or the Hard Left who want their neo-Marxist, hyperegalitarian morality.
Posted by Mask at 01/11/2006 @ 2:47pm
Loveloki,
"todd, there are a lot of people here in montana that publicly proclaim that they were "driven to vote" for the first time in 50 or so years because of the issue of gay marriage. you have company here as well."
Yes I know we do. And you have to give it to the republicans; it was a brilliant political move to add the issue of marriage referendums onto the same ballot that we were voting for the President on.
I know that helped drive people to the polls that would normally not vote.
Many Christians take the "render unto Caesar" verse to mean that Christians shouldn't care about their local or federal government and thus they normally don't vote.
I don't buy that interpretation of that scripture and thus am very politically active.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 3:38pm
Eric,
"Some of us don't want our children recieving hate and bigotry filled mixed messages from our laws either...and we intend to fix that."
Well you aren't "fixing that" here in Oklahoma, if anything our state laws are becoming more conservative not progressive.
I don't understand why we can't all grasp onto the idea of federalism.
If you view our religion as bigoted and don't want your children learning our laws then don't move to our state.
Likewise, if your state allows homo's to marry, and I wouldn't want my children to be influenced by secularism like that, then I wouldn't move to your state.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 3:41pm
I like the way people who have never been homeless pronounce on the condition. Typical liberals. Typical conservatives. Typical chickenshit nonsense.
Posted by bkarloff at 01/11/2006 @ 3:56pm
johannesrolf, thank you for always keeping the voice of reason and integrity on this site!
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 4:04pm
I respect the right of American right to promote in their own country those beliefs they hold dear. What is unacceptable is the promotion of those views abroad in a way that destabilises the planet for the remainder of us.
Launching oil wars to grab what isn't yours and exporting a flawed brand of so-called democracy to countries that don't want it simply denies the rest of the planet its fair share of resources and stirs up unwanted trouble.
If the brave new world seen by the GOP was so seductive, they wouldn't have to spend half the world's military budget trying to promote it.
Posted by inveresk at 01/11/2006 @ 4:35pm
freheit, that wasn't legba, it was me.
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 6:32pm
so freheit, are you against investing in infrastructure and safety systems like police and firefighters?
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 6:34pm
i think your ideas about making loans available to the poor is a great idea. but i think we also need to invest in a safety net for the poor of society. i agree that handouts have sometimes had detrimental effects on people. i'm sure using food stamps would hurt most people's self-esteem but getting rid of all of these safety nets would be shameful and disastrous.
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 6:37pm
Frei, these are rhetorical insults not personal ones. you may have personal compassion but your posts don't. and there we disagree in the most fundamental way, I have repeatedly apologized for any personal insults, and usually upon further reflection they have saddened me, as I pointed out to you. as far as your stance goes, it lacks compassion and I will continue to point that out
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 6:43pm
Loveloki, that was a lovely, pun intended, thing to say, and I am moved. thank you also Frei for agreeing with that, I do appreciate your civil attitude towards me, and I'm sorry I have not always been able to reciprocate
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 6:45pm
Frei, let's talk about ,for instance the GI bill, a huge financial investment in the higher education of the millions of men who were returning from the war. now you might argue that higher education and the cost are the individual's responsibility and not the governments, but you would be wrong. that investment has payed back innumerable dividends, creating a middle class in this country. now let's extend that to the poor and the homeless, New Orleans for example, wouldn't it be wise to follow a similar prescription?
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 6:51pm
"don't you dare think that I would ever sacrifice the holiness of my marriage"
those who claim holiness, have none. that's pretty much the gist of christ's teaching
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 6:55pm
Sidebar
I think I ruined Alan Colmes (Hannity and Colmes) day this afternoon. I was enterting the R train (W are ya listening - I live in New York) traveling to my lunch with the rights person from Doubleday (Publisher of A Million Little Lies) when I had my demi-political celebrity sighting.
I mentioned to him that he might want to consider getting a new job -- cause being second banana to Hannity as the token cross-eyed liberal must have been debilitating to his self-esteem. (Embellished slightly for dramatic effect.)
To which he responded that he would quit his job when I quit mine. To which I retorted, "I already had." Which is true. We sat silent until he exited the train at 34th Street, wishing me a "Good Day."
And I wished him "Good Luck", but I don't think either of us was sincere about it.
Oh by the way, Feed the children, clothe the naked, uplift the poor It's what Jesus did?
Posted by audiojoebob at 01/11/2006 @ 8:01pm
Johanne,
"those who claim holiness, have none. that's pretty much the gist of christ's teaching"
According to your interpretation right?
Not mine....
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 8:16pm
Frei, you mention your time on an indian reservation, but make no point and give no examples. also you mention getting a helping hand some time in the past. what if that time you had read some of the stingy posts you have been writing, how would you have felt then?
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 8:30pm
joebob, I have found Colmes a cardboard liberal, and you have nothing to apologize for.
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 8:36pm
Does anyone think the Nation will advocate a special prosecuter to investigate the leaking of classified information from the NSA program??
Does anyone else find it strange that two LEFTIST Cuban agents were found working as professors at universities?
Does anyone else find it hilarious that TEDDY Kennedy has the audacity to question ANYONE in regards to ethics?
Posted by CPT at 01/11/2006 @ 8:40pm
Mask per your 2:47 post the point I was trying to make was that we should all meet in the middle and let everyone live as they please aint nobodys business but your own to quote a wise cajon. This issue of control is going to be the death of our personal independence.
Posted by dycel8r at 01/11/2006 @ 8:54pm
Compassion is not redistributing other peoples wealth to those considered more needy.
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/11/2006 @ 6:07pm
Compassion is also not redistributing other people's wealth to those who don't need or want for anything.
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:12pm
Or for that matter is compassion redistributing the tax dollars of blue states to their cheap skate red state neighbors.
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:12pm
I wonder how long the hamsterland fantasy would exist if the hamsters actually had to fund it for themselves?
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:12pm
Does anyone else find it hilarious that TEDDY Kennedy has the audacity to question ANYONE in regards to ethics?
Posted by CPT 01/11/2006 @ 8:40pm
I don't
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:14pm
will, what does hamsterland fantasy mean?
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 9:16pm
does anyone know why mrs alito was crying today? i caught the tail end of a mention of it on npr.
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 9:28pm
Loki
The hamsterland fantasy is named in honor of Tom "The Hamster" Delay, who got this particular moniker from his unique brand of political corruption best summed up in the following statement:
"If you want to ride the wheel, you gotta pay the Hamster"
But in the larger political arena it's the idea that all things will come to you and someone else will pay for it.
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:29pm
Party of Nixon Conservatism
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:30pm
or was that Party of Reagan Conservatism?
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:30pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/11/2006 @ 9:28pm |
people were being mean to her husband
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:31pm
it doesn't seem like too much of a fantasy then, that's exactly what happened. do you happen to know which senator, which question or comment got to her?
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 9:35pm
i should have paid attention but i watched it too much yesterday and had nightmares about alito!
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 9:36pm
do you happen to know which senator, which question or comment got to her?
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/11/2006 @ 9:35pm
Various senators through their questioning were insinuating that Alito was a closet racist because of his affiliation with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton.
Then Lindsey Graham came to the rescue and Alito's wife broke out in tears
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:41pm
it doesn't seem like too much of a fantasy then, that's exactly what happened.
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/11/2006 @ 9:35pm
It a fantasy because your average base republican believes that credit card conservatism is sustainable.
Or that we will just grow our way out of debt
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:43pm
i should have paid attention but i watched it too much yesterday and had nightmares about alito!
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/11/2006 @ 9:36pm
I try not to think about it
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:45pm
CPT,
"Does anyone else find it hilarious that TEDDY Kennedy has the audacity to question ANYONE in regards to ethics?"
Yes, this is very analogous to an unwed pregnant prostitute with HIV preaching a sermon to teenagers on the virtue of keeping your body Holy as a temple and a living sacrifice to God.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 9:48pm
Yes, this is very analogous to an unwed pregnant prostitute with HIV preaching a sermon to teenagers on the virtue of keeping your body Holy as a temple and a living sacrifice to God.
Todd
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/11/2006 @ 9:48pm
Experience is the best tacher
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:50pm
sorry... teacher
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:50pm
"Or for that matter is compassion redistributing the tax dollars of blue states to their cheap skate red state neighbors."
Keep your money, we don't need or want it.
I fully agree with your point, federal distribution of governmental funds such as highway superfund's for infrastructure, education etc. should stop and all of these things should be handled by the individual states.
I don't think our founding fathers ever had any intention of the federal government ballooning to the point it has to where it is involved in all of the actions, laws and issues in every state.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 9:51pm
Keep your money, we don't need or want it.
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/11/2006 @ 9:51pm
I be expecting your check
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:53pm
I'll
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 9:53pm
"I be expecting your check"
It wouldn't be coming to you personally you nitwit, it would be going to your state (assuming you live in California, New York or one of the other wealthier states)
Posted by Oksportsguy at 01/11/2006 @ 10:01pm
It wouldn't be coming to you personally you nitwit, it would be going to your state (assuming you live in California, New York or one of the other wealthier states)
Posted by OKSPORTSGUY 01/11/2006 @ 10:01pm
I'll make sure to hold my breath
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 10:03pm
or better yet you could amend your constituition so that it affirms that Oklahoma will refuse all federal tax dollars above what your state pays out as federal taxes
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 10:06pm
that way it would come right after your gay marriage amendment
Posted by Will C. at 01/11/2006 @ 10:07pm
Frei, no the point is not that your dad worked hard, it is that the gov't paid for his education and that this investment paid great dividends. and this business of hand up and hand outs is semantics only.
you will have to make up your mind as to which side you're on. when our present regime cuts aid to college students, and then turns around and gives tax breaks to the wealthy that is immoral bordering on criminal.
when we decide that health care is a right, we will save both money and lives. when we give foodstamps to someone of the working poor, we assure that their children have a better future to become productive members of society.
we can even as a society decide to be charitable. you will have to get beyond your slogans about involuntary transfer and all that other anti tax crap.the money we spend on the poor is not the problem.
it is the corporate snouts at the public through and our pouring money down that rat hole of the military, 40% increase under Bush. and don't tell me that money goes to protect us from our enemies, it does no such thing, as 9/11 demonstrated.
and that little military adventure, two trillion, how many families would that feed, how many kids would that send to college and yes, that would insure and pay for the health care of all of american citizens.
you seem to be a supporter of the administration, perhaps you can tell me why?
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 10:57pm
Frei:"I believe the government is well positioned for the helping hand and support that. It is the hand-out that is wrong and in the long run detrimental to the recipient.
do you feel qualified to judge which is the helping hand and which is the hand out? and on what basis?
under Bush, poverty increased, wages stagnated, uninsureds increased, are you cool with that?
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/11/2006 @ 11:02pm
JOHANNE
"Frei, no the point is not that your dad worked hard, it is that the gov't paid for his education"
NO! FREI's dad EARNED that G.I. Bill, he rendered honorable service, hence he got what he had rightfully EARNED.
I think that is what FREI is saying.
Its the same today, I used it myself, it was a God send. Today in its current configuration, an enlistee pays in $1200, the govt the rest. The amount is deducted from the paycheck of a new enlistee, about a $100 a month, after the year is up, he /she doesnt have to pay anymore. Put in $1200, get back an additional $35,000, not too bad.
Posted by CPT at 01/11/2006 @ 11:40pm
no cpt it wasn't a god send. that money came from somewhere of this world. how do you feel about this administration cutting the veteran's money. go fight for your country-then you're on your own.
Posted by loveloki at 01/11/2006 @ 11:54pm
LOVELOKI
Yes it was, I lived it and used it, to me it was....vet benefits were are these cuts that everyone keeps talking about?
I am active duty, so I really dont see any cuts, I do know that VA underwrote my house.
Its fairly explanatory, especially it todays army, you do 20yrs you get a pension, med and dental covered, px and commissary priviliges and Life insurance.
Thats it, you do not do 20yrs, you get whats in your contract, the GI Bill, unless you are wounded and it is determined by a med board, how much disability you are entitled to. And a home loan underworte by the VA. What other benefits are we suppossed to get? BC short of doing 20 yrs and or wounded, most KNOW not to EXPECT a whole lot.
Posted by CPT at 01/12/2006 @ 12:05am
the article i saw about the cuts was published by the dav. the address is http://www.dav.org/news/documents/news_20050208.pdf
Posted by loveloki at 01/12/2006 @ 12:10am
will, thanks for the info on the alito hearings.
Posted by loveloki at 01/12/2006 @ 12:18am
Cheap skate COMPASSION is Red States NOT cutting off all Red State produced Oil, Natural gas, Refined oil products (heating oil & gasoline), AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (read food) to Blue States and sealing off our Red State borders with our dominating in state military strength! (our state actually did seal a border once in the past century for other reasons)
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/12/2006 @ 03:27am
It's interesting how with all that commerce and military might the cheap skate red staters need the blue staters to pay their way for them.
Please feel free to cut yourself off from us anytime it's good for you.
We won't even notice.
Posted by Will C. at 01/12/2006 @ 04:02am
Somebody hoist the Stars and Bars and lets have at it!!!!!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/12/2006 @ 03:42am
Ah yes, the flag of treason.
Thanks RIO
I always pegged you for a traitor
Posted by Will C. at 01/12/2006 @ 04:05am
Somebody hoist the Stars and Bars and lets have at it!!!!!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 01/12/2006 @ 03:42am
Ah yes, the flag of treason.
Thanks RIO
I always pegged you for a traitor
Posted by WILL C. 01/12/2006 @ 04:05am | ignore this person
Or even more important, the flag of a racist, plutocratic rube.
Posted by jorcheim at 01/12/2006 @ 07:22am
CPT:
You asked where the cuts are.
My father was in the Rangers, 50th Bat., in Korea. He no longer is allowed to visit the VA. They said they just don't have the money.
Posted by jorcheim at 01/12/2006 @ 07:24am
Jorchy, that is stunning news, but no longer surprising, in Bush's amerika corporations are allowed to walk away from promises made to their retirees, shame on us, but more shame on those who voterd for this guy, twice
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/12/2006 @ 08:11am
JORCHIEM
Was he wounded in Korea? Did he retire from the Army? While, I have no doubt as to his honorable service. As I was saying earlier,unless one is a retiree or wounded while serving on active-duty, I know the VA benefits one is allowed to access is minimal.
I served in Afghan from Sep 03- Jun 04, was not wounded, but I understand that if I leave the military before 20 yrs, my benefits are going to be more limited than if I stay in for 20.
I do know of one VA benefit, that I used, you automatically qualify for a house loan thru the VA. Now that was nice, better rate than average.
And while no doubt they could probably do better, I simply dont know if any POST-War on Terror vets that are having excessive difficulites w/the VA.
Posted by CPT at 01/12/2006 @ 08:39am
JOHANNESROLF/CPT:
My dad was not injured physically in Korea, nor did he retire from the military. However, I know of many men who are in the same boat in that regard, but fought in WWII instead. Most of them are clients of mine. They still get the full battery of care that they were told they would get. I have a sneaking suspicion that the reason for the discrepancy may have something to do with the nature of Korea (and Viet Nam), as these were "executive policing actions", not formal declarations of war. But that's just a theory. What do you think?
Posted by jorcheim at 01/12/2006 @ 11:33am
Jorchy, I don't know enough about this subject, as if that everstopped me before, but I'll snoop around and am always glad to listen to you on this or any other topic
Posted by johannesrolf at 01/12/2006 @ 10:34pm