|
cheerfullydrab posted:This article basically says "Greene made a claim", then adds in some pointless innuendo about Greene to muddy up the waters, then has a pointless paragraph that states nothing. How is that in any way a criticism of the things that are in Greene's book? The criticism applied to the spitting claims that had the same almost exact same story and conditions. Which you find in urban legends and stuff such as when people claim something happened on tv when it was actually not shown or applied to several celeberities when no such footage has ever been found.
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
notcreativeenough posted:The criticism applied to the spitting claims that had the same almost exact same story and conditions. Which you find in urban legends and stuff such as when people claim something happened on tv when it was actually not shown or applied to several celeberities when no such footage has ever been found. It's a pretty bad article. It's poorly written, poorly sourced, presents rumor as fact, and cites a Cheech and Chong movie. Very few of the stories in the book have much in common with each other. It's not a book supportive of the war in any way, shape, or form. Its message is mostly "The Vietnam War sucked and most people on both sides of the political spectrum treated veterans poorly."
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:It's a pretty bad article. It's poorly written, poorly sourced, presents rumor as fact, and cites a Cheech and Chong movie. http://www.slate.com/id/1005224/ Lembcke uncovered a whole lot of spitting from the war years, but the published accounts always put the antiwar protester on the receiving side of a blast from a pro-Vietnam counterprotester. Surely, he contends, the news pages would have given equal treatment to a story about serviceman getting the treatment. Then why no stories in the newspaper morgues, he asks? In most urban myths, the details morph slightly from telling to telling, but at least one element survives unchanged. In the tale of the spitting protester, the signature element is the location: The protester almost always ambushes the serviceman at the airport--not in a park, or at a bar, or on Main Street. Also, it's not uncommon for the insulted serviceman to have flown directly in from Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
notcreativeenough posted:In most urban myths, the details morph slightly from telling to telling, but at least one element survives unchanged. In the tale of the spitting protester, the signature element is the location: The protester almost always ambushes the serviceman at the airport--not in a park, or at a bar, or on Main Street. Also, it's not uncommon for the insulted serviceman to have flown directly in from Vietnam. Here are some transcribed sentences from letters in the book. I've taken out all their context and left only the bare facts, which rarely fit into the pattern you've described. page 31, M. Tierny of Las Vegas, Nevada quote:I attended a military reunion in New York in 1968. I was standing in front of the Waldorf waiting for a cab when a young girl walked up to me and spat. She said something and walked away. page 46/7, Dennis Jackson of Loveland, Colorado quote:I was spit on while in full dress uniform in Memphis, Tennessee. This happened before I went to Vietnam -- not after. page 48, Ernest R. Huerta of Chicago, Illinois quote:I was spit at, while in uniform, in Chicago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
"On Killing" is another one that dealt with the spitting thing a little bit (specifically referencing Homecoming), and post-war treatment of Vietnam vets in general. To hear the guy tell it, between how the war was waged (terribly) and how we treated the soldiers during and after (also terribly), it's a wonder we didn't end up with a few hundred thousand real-life Rambos blowing our poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Edit: I dun hosed up and didn't read.
Swashy fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Mar 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 02:29
|
|
|
notcreativeenough posted:In most urban myths, the details morph slightly from telling to telling, but at least one element survives unchanged. In the tale of the spitting protester, the signature element is the location: The protester almost always ambushes the serviceman at the airport--not in a park, or at a bar, or on Main Street. Also, it's not uncommon for the insulted serviceman to have flown directly in from Vietnam. I'm not clear on why you are focused on spitting or why you or anyone else would convince themselves it never happened but I'm sure at some point it did happen and I seriously doubt it was some conservative conspiracy by the American Legion and WWII vets to disparage hippies. I also have no doubt that stories about spitting were exaggerated and that some stories just weren't true, such is life. These days we live with cameras everywhere, on street posts, in cop cars, in parking lots and in your pocket, but 40 years ago this wasn't the case and if we go around assuming that anything that wasn't caught on camera never happened we are going to be questioning an awful lot of history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 02:58
|
|
|
wormil posted:I'm not clear on why you are focused on spitting or why you or anyone else would convince themselves it never happened but I'm sure at some point it did happen and I seriously doubt it was some conservative conspiracy by the American Legion and WWII vets to disparage hippies. I also have no doubt that stories about spitting were exaggerated and that some stories just weren't true, such is life. These days we live with cameras everywhere, on street posts, in cop cars, in parking lots and in your pocket, but 40 years ago this wasn't the case and if we go around assuming that anything that wasn't caught on camera never happened we are going to be questioning an awful lot of history. The point is most of the spitting stories were crap tales that came from someone's uncle or friend. The spitting on vietnam vets that were reported on had the vietnam vets being part of the anti-war protestors that were spat on by the pro-war protestors. This spitting on the anti-war protestors has been largely forgotten. Why was there no press reports of pro-war protestors or vietnam vets among the pro-war protestors being spat upon by hippies? Why no viets coming forward to the press when this was supposedly happening. The tales came years afterward and seemed largely influenced by movies not real life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
notcreativeenough posted:The point is most of the spitting stories were crap tales that came from someone's uncle or friend. The spitting on vietnam vets that were reported on had the vietnam vets being part of the anti-war protestors that were spat on by the pro-war protestors. This spitting on the anti-war protestors has been largely forgotten. So you're largely convincing yourself it didn't happen because you don't want to believe it happened? Look, I never saw a soldier spit on but I can tell you first hand that there was a lot of hostility towards soldiers in general well into the 80's. I wrote this up before and deleted it because I didn't want to derail further but it seems we're going down this path anyway... I joined the Army in the mid 80's and I could tell you some first hand stories of the hostility I faced even then, no spitting that I remember but neighbors and friends of the family who decided I was no longer welcome in their home, who no longer wanted to speak to me. My girlfriend's family had asked me to stay with her while they went on vacation then a few days later when they learned I had enlisted, banned me from their home. Not to mention some vile things that were said. So now 40 years later some guy on the internet decides that it never happened because it wasn't all over the six-o'clock news, I'm siding with the vets because I have no reason to doubt them. I do have reason to doubt all the people who want to pretend the hostility was exaggerated. I will add that the people who were nice to me when I enlisted and afterward, were veterans, especially WWII era vets and people from that generation and oddly enough, bikers. All this hostility changed with Reagan, who despite his faults and failed economic policies, restored our military to fighting form and restored our country's faith in it's armed forces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
My dad actually did some research into this, and he concludes that spitting wasn't uncommon. He's actually a pretty smart guy - despite being a  LIBERTARIAN - and I think that the evidence is on his side. He protested the war when he was in college in the 70s. He found a guy who admitted to spitting on soldiers at the Denver Airport in the early 70's (this guy is also known for inventing the word "blogosphere"), and also some people who worked at the San Francisco airport and reported many cases of spitting on servicemen, including amputees.He further tells me there's lots of contemporaneous complains about spitting in newspapers and government documents, even in the pro-hippie government report the 1968 Democratic Convention. He says that Lembcke's research methods sucked because he used Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis to find his articles, even though those databases only started indexing newspapers around 1980. Finally, Dad concludes that almost every one of Lembcke's major claims are demonstrably false - soldiers did land at civilian airports, some of them did fight back, the stories don't all fit the same pattern, etc., etc. Oh, and he can beat up your dad. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 07:16
|
|
|
notcreativeenough posted:The point is most of the spitting stories were crap tales that came from someone's uncle or friend. The spitting on vietnam vets that were reported on had the vietnam vets being part of the anti-war protestors that were spat on by the pro-war protestors. This spitting on the anti-war protestors has been largely forgotten. From page 14, an excerpt from the letter of David McTamaney of Newburgh, New York: quote:As I entered the bathroom, a young guy, about twenty or so, wearing a headband and a leather vest, stepped back and looked at me. My transcription from Homecoming. Who would make this poo poo up? Why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 07:41
|
|
|
Of course some people got spit on. Some portion of people are uncouth assholes. They spit on people that make their emotions rise because they can't deal with it. You could probably find a hundred stories from the Afghan/Iraqi wars going on now of rear end in a top hat kids spitting on troops. It's the same people that would spit on cops trying to give them a ticket because they walked up and the parking meter was expired. It can certainly be documented to have happened many times, what the myth that has been built up around it is that is was ever a systemic problem, or that people went out of their way to do it, or people that are civilized enough to not spit on others were just really peeved by this and decided this would be the time they went out of their way to express their discontent. quote:These days we live with cameras everywhere, on street posts, in cop cars, in parking lots and in your pocket, but 40 years ago this wasn't the case and if we go around assuming that anything that wasn't caught on camera never happened we are going to be questioning an awful lot of history. Right... but cameras were widespread enough that if we don't have pictures or footage, we can assume it never got to be enough of a problem or occurred frequently enough that people wanted to document it for posterity (like what eventually happened to people keeping track of the Vietnam protests, or the civil rights movements, the early incidents were missed, spread by word-of-mouth, and then we get to the point where they made drat sure cameras were on hand for any chance of getting a picture like the Kent State one or the MLK assassination one) The fact that there isn't some sort of evidence beyond people's stories tells me it was just a "dealing with common assholes" problem like getting cut off in traffic or having your car keyed in the parking lot and not something more like Forrest Gump wants us to believe. SpergyGirl posted:My dad actually did some research into this, and he concludes that spitting wasn't uncommon. He's actually a pretty smart guy - despite being a Did he do research more in depth than "confirming it happened?" (not meant as questioning your father at all) I'm interested if anyone has ever examined the volunteers/pre-enlisteds recollections and draftees/"what the gently caress happened to me" guys recollections as discrete units Tape Speed fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Mar 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
Tape Speed posted:The fact that there isn't some sort of evidence beyond people's stories tells me it was just a "dealing with common assholes" problem like getting cut off in traffic or having your car keyed in the parking lot and not something more like Forrest Gump wants us to believe. What kind of story would you like, specifically? What point do you want to have proven to you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 07:54
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:What kind of story would you like, specifically? What point do you want to have proven to you? Its not something that could be done with one, or two, or ten stories. That would just be anecdotal. I'd just like to see the whole corpus and read how many stories have the offender as like, a typical young person one would never expect to be so disrespectful/rude doing it to a soldier in uniform vs. the stories where: quote:wearing a headband and a leather vest
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 08:04
|
|
|
Tape Speed posted:Did he do research more in depth than "confirming it happened?" (not meant as questioning your father at all) I'm interested if anyone has ever examined the volunteers/pre-enlisteds recollections and draftees/"what the gently caress happened to me" guys recollections as discrete units As I said, he did find that stories varied in terms of who was doing the spitting (it wasn't all hippie types), where and when spitting occurred, how servicemen reacted, etc. He even did some statistical analysis of the accounts in order to challenge Lembcke's argument that women didn't spit. He found that the phrase "she spat" showed up more frequently than the phrase "he spat," while the phrase "he punched" was more common than "she punched." This makes sense: because women are socialized not to be physically violent, they tend to express their hostilities in ways that don't involve force, such as verbal insults and spitting. I'll have to ask Dad some more about his research. He'll be happy to answer - he loves to argue his positions - but he's gone to bed already like a sane person, and I should too. See you tomorrow, thread! Edit: Grammar. Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Mar 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 09:36
|
|
|
Lembecke also questioned people. The people who claimed the spitting by hippies happened admitted it didn't happen to them they heard about it from a friend of a friend. Also the news reports about spitting from pro war people were from newspaper archives. Sorry most people that did fact checking meaning talk to people and question them the stories of the spitting fell apart. Many people outright lied about it. You have people claiming to be Vietnam vets all the time in emails, forums but they had never served.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 11:12
|
|
|
What about the spitter? Surely, if soldiers being spat upon was not uncommon, there would be some number of those who spat on soldiers who are willing to admit doing so, and who are remorseful enough about it to apologize? I can only find this: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/guestbook/id/122857/ quote:...I asked him if I could give him a hug and when I did, I apologized. I apologized for not knowing about the horror for our soldiers. I apologized for spitting on his comrades; I apologized for not being a better American by being able to separate the soldier from the war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 11:40
|
|
|
My dad is Vietnam Vet. He was in the signal corps and fixed teletypes in Vietnam. He was called a baby killer to his face after he got back.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 12:52
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:My dad is Vietnam Vet. He was in the signal corps and fixed teletypes in Vietnam. He was called a baby killer to his face after he got back. He didn't happen to be voting on health care reform at the time, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
I haven't talked to Dad about his research yet, but I did want to answer this one question:Megiddo posted:What about the spitter? Surely, if soldiers being spat upon was not uncommon, there would be some number of those who spat on soldiers who are willing to admit doing so, and who are remorseful enough about it to apologize? As I posted before, Bill Quick of Daily Pundit admitted that he spat on servicemen when he was a wild-eyed hippie: Bill Quick posted:I was a red-hot leftist (marxist) revolutionary back then, and I did spit on a couple of returning vets. From the safety of a crowd, behind a barricade and a police line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
SpergyGirl posted:I haven't talked to Dad about his research yet, but I did want to answer this one question: Daily Pundit isn't that part of the Pam Gellersphere? Yep it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Pundit this guy has pretty much always been a conservative. His claim demands skepictism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
quote:Right... but cameras were widespread enough that if we don't have pictures or footage, we can assume it never got to be enough of a problem or occurred frequently enough that people wanted to document it for posterity (like what eventually happened to people keeping track of the Vietnam protests, or the civil rights movements, the early incidents were missed, spread by word-of-mouth, and then we get to the point where they made drat sure cameras were on hand for any chance of getting a picture like the Kent State one or the MLK assassination one) I don't remember what happened in Forrest Gump but yes, it's a dealing with common assholes problem. I don't think anyone is saying that there was some sort of underground spitting brigade running around having organized spitting protests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 20:11
|
|
|
notcreativeenough posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Pundit this guy has pretty much always been a conservative. His claim demands skepictism.  Note that Quick's post doesn't just express his regret over spitting on soldiers, but also expresses his regret over being a filthy hippie. He had a lot of liberal, optimistic ideas in his youth, but then he got disillusioned with those ideas and came to reject them. I believe the same thing happened to most of his generation - it certainly happened to my parents. Edit: Dad said that he listened to Texas Tech’s “great” collection of oral histories, which you can listen to at the Vietnam Center and Archive website. I won't elaborate any further about his stuff: he may or may not publish something, and, you know, Net privacy and all that. Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 23:10
|
|
|
SpergyGirl posted:He had a lot of liberal, optimistic ideas in his youth, but then he got disillusioned with those ideas and came to reject them. I believe the same thing happened to most of his generation - it certainly happened to my parents. I fear for my own political sanity when a person can be swayed away from a mindset with a basic tenet being "gently caress all the time".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
THIS WILL CURDLE YOUR BLOOD AND CURL YOUR HAIR [PIC OF OBAMA WITH BOOK] The name of the book Obama is reading is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim. "Post" America means the world After America ! Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America !
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
Wiles posted:THIS WILL CURDLE YOUR BLOOD AND CURL YOUR HAIR "This is not a book about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else." So begins Fareed Zakaria's important new work on the era we are now entering. Following on the success of his best-selling The Future of Freedom, Zakaria describes with equal prescience a world in which the United States will no longer dominate the global economy, orchestrate geopolitics, or overwhelm cultures. He sees the "rise of the rest"—the growth of countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia, and many others—as the great story of our time, and one that will reshape the world. The tallest buildings, biggest dams, largest-selling movies, and most advanced cell phones are all being built outside the United States. This economic growth is producing political confidence, national pride, and potentially international problems. How should the United States understand and thrive in this rapidly changing international climate? What does it mean to live in a truly global era? Zakaria answers these questions with his customary lucidity, insight, and imagination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
I love it that they had to explain what "post" means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
Anyone seen this one before? It looks like someone just cherry-picked numbers to set up a worst-case scenario, but does anyone with more knowledge of the specifics of the healthcare bill know whether this could pass a fact check? "An employer (Mr. X) has 75 employees...he currently pays $450,00 for insurance benefits per year for his employees. If he drops them, he will be "fined" $2000 for each employee, minus the first 30, bringing him to $90,000 that he is to pay in to the government. This is a saving of $360,000 to Mr. X. Now the employees no longer have healthcare, and will be "fined" for not obtaining it." Thanks. VVVVVV Esplanade fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Mar 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 04:52
|
|
|
Esplanade posted:Anyone seen this one before? It looks like someone just cherry-picked numbers to set up a worst-case scenario, but does anyone with more knowledge of the specifics of the healthcare bill know whether this could pass a fact check? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/08/nancy-pelosi/pelosi-claims-health-care-reform-will-create-thous/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/18/top-10-facts-know-about-health-care-reform/ The fines could be quite significant and cost the employer a lot more. The employer isn't paying into the gov't at all for the health insurance. The fines occur when the employees have to buy the insurance from the exchange and qualify for a low income tax credit. The thing is most studies show this will actually create more jobs then is lost especially since the majority of people are hired by small businesses who cannot afford to provide healthcare to their employees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
dad on facebook posted:it's not that forcing employers/families to buy into insurance companies that destroy the industry. But when you make a mandate to not allow insurers to deny pre-existing conditions and make the penalty for not carrying insurance 1/10th the coast of the plan then why would you buy insurance at all until you need it. If I break my leg I head to the hospital and on the way call Group Health and demand my coverage. Oh by the way the bill also mandates pre-existing conditions not cost any more, so that s what will happen. I will predict that in the next several months families will start to drop coverage for children (mandate for children is immediate upon signing). That along with flooding the market with demand (30+ million) but not increasing supply you will increase cost. No way around that. Economics 101. These were not mistakes or over sites by this administration. it was designed to as i said "destroy" the insurance companies with the end game being single payer. then we are all F-ed. love you. love you Talking to dads on facebook is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 09:19
|
|
|
dat one portagee's papa posted:These were not mistakes or over sites by this administration. it was designed to as i said "destroy" the insurance companies... Ask your Dad what he thinks about the insurance industry lobbyists who had their hand in this bill, and if he thinks they're trying to destroy their own industry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 15:02
|
|
|
tek79 posted:Ask your Dad what he thinks about the insurance industry lobbyists who had their hand in this bill, and if he thinks they're trying to destroy their own industry. Socialist spies. Destroy the institute from the inside. McCarthy was right...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 15:15
|
|
|
quote:If – we look at history – and obviously our Hussein and Congress do not – but if we did – we would see how the same actions now being taken by our government turned a recession into a “Great Depression”. I’ve got news for you – expecting history to repeat itself here might actually prove to be far too sanguine. That’s because once established, the “New Deal” brought forward unprecedented federal spending that could never be reversed as bureaucracies and entitlements rarely end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 16:56
|
|
|
quote:That’s great NFL & CBS. I remember the good old days when I was a child and could watch an NFL football game with my family - without being violated. Yes, back in the good old days where I wasn't RAPED in the rear end LITERALLY while sitting down to watch a football game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
Wait...is this implying that the Great Depression was after/caused by the New Deal  ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 17:18
|
|
|
EnsGDT posted:The NFL is run like a typical left winged organization... Dorito's girl eats a chip and gives a sexy-chick wink to the camera --> Man covers boy's eyes, for such a wholesome child shall see no evil --> Man ponders how such a thing could be shown in God's America (where has our innocence gone?). He weeps... --> Comes to the conclusion that this must be the work of the devil! --> The devil! He thinks, only manifests himself in this world in the form of liberalism! --> LIBERALS!!!!! ---> Proceeds to write diatribe of everything he see's as wrong in the world and links it all to hippies ---> Forwards it to everyone he knows ---> And America has been saved, yet again, by one man who "gets it". It's also hilarious that he's railing against the free market for being, the free market (decency requirements and all.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
He has a point about end-zone dances though. As if that's more offensive to the spirit of sportsmanship than a myriad of things wrong with modern sports.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
I actually agreed with him in the beginning - our bureaucracy is really bloated - but then he started in on the Communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids and I ... I just ...
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
13Pandora13 posted:Wait...is this implying that the Great Depression was after/caused by the New Deal Naw. It's still mostly wrong but what hes saying is federal spending DID put an end to the great depression but caused problems down the road with expensive programs and people are expecting lightning to strike twice with this by adding more "bloated" programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Got a couple good ones guys. Now we can stop talking about who got spit on when.quote:
I especially like this: "if not, just delete." Please don't email me back. It may interfere with my world view as I have it now and I'm trying to live in an echo chamber. quote:This is chilling
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2010 19:58
|
|
