John McCain, murder, and sensible emotional reactions

[jake williams]

The more this campaign goes on, the more I hear about John McCain being a "war hero". And the more I hear about John McCain being a "war hero", because I'm a masochist, the more I try to find out about his actual Vietnam War experience. And the more I do this, the more it seems he is extremely proud of killing dozens if not hundreds of Vietnamese people, whom of course he refers to as "gooks" and publicly despises. Many of these were civilians, and the most brutal, the most guilty people were those violently fighting in self-defence against illegal imperialist aggression. I was reading a bit today, apparently he was very frustrated about all the restrictions keeping him to hitting military targets.

This plays very well in the American environment. He is loved and lauded. He is loved and lauded for being a proud, giggly, racist murderer.

What is the emotionally valid way to respond to this?

[Justin CF]

Emotionally valid? I dunno. Emotions are a tricky thing, and they tend to vary quite a bit from person to person. The important thing is to know how to relay your feelings to the general public. People like war heroes, and telling the people that John McCain killed innocent Vietnamese people isn't going to go over very well. Instead, I would take a moderate position, such as the one used by Wesley Clark (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3565), and run with that line of thinking. It may not be as truthful, but it would probably be more effective in at least neutralizing the idea that McCain's long standing record of killing people is somehow beneficial when leading the world's last remaining superpower.

[Decolonize The Left]

This plays very well in the American environment. He is loved and lauded. He is loved and lauded for being a proud, giggly, racist murderer.

What is the emotionally valid way to respond to this?

Firstly, you make a fine point.

Secondly, there is no "emotionally valid" way to respond to this. Emotions are not validated or denied, they are emotions. You feel the way you do and it is fine. I, personally, am disgusted by his racism and complete lack of compassion. But I have come to expect this from my politicians, and so my disgust is toned down by my understanding of reality (which is actually more disgusting, meh).

So, react as you will. I have no issues raising this argument in its full force against whoever is supporting this bastard - none. Better they hear it than live in ignorance believing this man to be a hero. But always judge your situation and react accordingly. Choose your words wisely and be respectful as much as possible.

- August

[Sendo]

First, there is no such word as "firstly"; "first can be either an adjective or an adverb without the need for a suffix.

Second, I suggest telling people what a coward John McCain is. He sang like a canary while in the POW camp. It's like dealing with John Wayne fans--tell people he dodged the draft in WW2. It really disillusions people and opens them up to our ideas. I'm not saying that John Wayne was bad* for not going into WW2, I'm saying it's wrong to glorify murder and war in your movies while avoiding military service in the closest thing we've had to a just war (at times a just cause for the rank and file, but never a just war, especially not with Dresden and Hiroshima). Although McCain is not guilty of the same chicken-hawk statements as guys like Bush since he's had service, he is still a psychotic, insecure coward. I hate delving into psycho-politics, but it works well to undermine hero worship.

[Bakunist]

McCain's glaring racism is also evident in the way he proposes to handle trade issues. 'American prosperity' comes above all else in his attitudes toward economy. The proper emotional response: pure and solid anger. Nobody '08 - Spread the Word

[Cheung Mo]

Emotionally valid? I dunno. Emotions are a tricky thing, and they tend to vary quite a bit from person to person. The important thing is to know how to relay your feelings to the general public. People like war heroes, and telling the people that John McCain killed innocent Vietnamese people isn't going to go over very well. Instead, I would take a moderate position, such as the one used by Wesley Clark (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3565), and run with that line of thinking. It may not be as truthful, but it would probably be more effective in at least neutralizing the idea that McCain's long standing record of killing people is somehow beneficial when leading the world's last remaining superpower.

But in a land where Rush Limbaugh's "Hildebeast" is a "socialist", PokerStars launders money while the likes of Haliburton, Enron, Bechtel run legitimate businesses, and Noam Chomsky is the 2nd Coming of Karl Marx, General Clark's position is painted as so radical as to be treasonous. As much as I despise Clark's connection to the DLC and the other arms of the rotten Clinton Machine, the only thing treasonous is the Democratic Party's to embrace -- at bare minimum -- his position. Obama's dancing La Bamba (I mean seriously, why make Anglo-Spanish bilingualism -- a trivial and losing issue -- a campaign platform while not focusing more on the issues where he can utterly crush the current administration and its closest allies (you know, like civil liberties and worker's rights?)) around the issues and Nancy GOPelosi is driving her own party's Congress into the public opinion shitter at 9% (Somewhere between Richard Nixon and Alejandro Garcia) by refusing to use her influence to expose and destroy the world's biggest fucking war criminal since Suharto. (And every time Chavez or somebody else tells the truth about the Conmander in Cheat, she seems to resemble Monica more so than Marx, if you get my drift.)

[Floyce White]

McCain is a convicted criminal who spent time in prison. Personally, I want to see McCain become president because there just aren't enough criminals represented in politics. Besides, he has a cool nickname ("The Punk").

[Decolonize The Left]

First, there is no such word as "firstly"; "first can be either an adjective or an adverb without the need for a suffix.

Firstly, there is such a word as "firstly." Here's dictionary.com's definiton:
"Firstly (adverb): in the first place; first." :D


Second, I suggest telling people what a coward John McCain is. He sang like a canary while in the POW camp. It's like dealing with John Wayne fans--tell people he dodged the draft in WW2. It really disillusions people and opens them up to our ideas. I'm not saying that John Wayne was bad* for not going into WW2, I'm saying it's wrong to glorify murder and war in your movies while avoiding military service in the closest thing we've had to a just war (at times a just cause for the rank and file, but never a just war, especially not with Dresden and Hiroshima). Although McCain is not guilty of the same chicken-hawk statements as guys like Bush since he's had service, he is still a psychotic, insecure coward. I hate delving into psycho-politics, but it works well to undermine hero worship.

You are correct in advocating speaking the truth. If our position is to expose the destructive and exploitative workings of the capitalist system, it would be intelligent of us to do so with clarity and honesty. This attitude may not be as persuasive as flashy politics and slogans, but it effectively undermines such positions in the long run.

- August

[Sendo]

I've also found that people feel safer with McCain and would be important to dismiss the specters of Islamofascist terrorists lying in the bushes. This part is very tricky since it involves a history lesson on the CIA and mujahedeen and why Iraq is not Iran is not Saudi Arabia is not Afghanistan. McCain-ites work on soundbites, and that is a hard medium in which to argue to left of bourgeois points of view. You have to take care to not fulfill their stereotypes of the left being weak and brainy. It can be good sometimes to just use emotion to your side and pull out the biggest "fun facts" you can.

[English teacher rant]
To August: Dictionary.com is a horrible authority on matters like this. For example, dictionary.com includes an entry for "wonderment", which is impossible since "wonder" is both a verb and a noun in the same way that "swing" is. It is also a native Saxon word, so even if it needed a suffix, it would be "ness", since "ment" is a Latin/French suffix. If we do accept dictionary.com as an authority on this matter, you will notice the entry for "first" lists it as an adjective, an adverb, and a singular noun. Why, then, would we even need the word "firstly"?
[/rant]

[Drace]

I never liked him because of his looks. He looks evil...and I believe looks tells a lot lol.

[Decolonize The Left]

[English teacher rant]
To August: Dictionary.com is a horrible authority on matters like this. For example, dictionary.com includes an entry for "wonderment", which is impossible since "wonder" is both a verb and a noun in the same way that "swing" is. It is also a native Saxon word, so even if it needed a suffix, it would be "ness", since "ment" is a Latin/French suffix. If we do accept dictionary.com as an authority on this matter, you will notice the entry for "first" lists it as an adjective, an adverb, and a singular noun. Why, then, would we even need the word "firstly"?
[/rant]

Because it works with "secondly," and "thirdly." :D

- August

[Justin CF]

AugustWest, Sendo, and Cheung Mo have all expressed the feeling that telling the truth is the best way to combat those on the other side. In some cases this is completely true, and I will concede that under the right circumstances this may be one of them. But I will also say that where I live (the bible-belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_Belt)) it definitely isn't.

First(ly), there's the problem of initial acceptance. The people around here are not what you would call "open-minded". Most of them are creationists, republicans, and general ne'er-do-wells. Saying that serving for the US military is a bad thing would be unheard of, and dismissed just as quickly as it was proposed. People don't care whether or not you can back up your beliefs with logic here. If you can't explain things in very simple, "this is why my idea is good for America" kind of ways, you've already lost them.

Second(ly), once your proposition was rejected you would have to face off against a bunch of redneck vets. I know an old (probably late 60s) man who heads a group here in town called the "Peace Network of the Ozarks". He frequently gets calls late at night from some drunk guy who says he's going to come to his house and kick his ass. I've gotten death-threats before, as have several other people I know. Telling all the redneck idiots that McCain is a bad person because he served in the military would just be asking for trouble.

Now because of the facts that any discouraging statements about the military will be quickly forgotten and that anyone who tells it like it is could quite possibly end up facing a severe beating, I think it would be best - at least where I live - not to be as critical of McCain's military record as would seem fitting. I know that this may not seem like the best thing as far as ideology, but I really do think that it's the most realistic.

-Justin

[Comrade Vasilev]

If America values 'military experience' in politics so much, it's not surprising they haven't become a military junta yet.

[Lost In Translation]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/mccain-angryu.jpg

http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/4795-781060.jpg

Don't you think they look alike???

Anyways, I don't feel that there is an emotionally valid way to respond to this question. Because I am Asian, I would feel inclined on hurting McCain for his quip on "gooks". However, the more rational response would be not to vote for him. With a military background like McCain's, America might just go back to invading everybody they see fit.

[Drace]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/mccain-angryu.jpg

http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_images/4795-781060.jpg

Don't you think they look alike???


Dam lol stupid school computer wont let me on those sites but im sure one of it is mccain and the other a stupid crazy evil monkey or something even uglier and stupider o.o

[Lost In Translation]

Dam lol stupid school computer wont let me on those sites but im sure one of it is mccain and the other a stupid crazy evil monkey or something even uglier and stupider o.o
No, it was an actual comparison of McCain and Khrushchev :$. Sorry, I just had to do that cuz they looked so similar, and I apologize in advance if somebody feels it's wrong to compare a uberconservative with a soviet leader.