In article , (The
Watcher) wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:33:26 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
Oh? How many Welcome Home parades were there for the veterans when
they came
home from Vietnam?

Well, I participated in quite a long parade of cars with their lights on
as we took my childhood neighbor & first sweet crush Jimmy Shrieves to the
cemetery, the first of several on our block to be brought home, in the
words of Country Joe, "in a box." Didn't live long enough to ever vote or
get LEGALLY drunk. And we honored him not only that day, but just about
every day since, because it isn't something that ever really heals.

So if such grief-stricken homecoming parades as that count, at the time
there seemed to be no end to them in poorer neighborhoods like mine. If
what you hoped for was jingoistic pride in a baseless & unjust war that
couldn't even be won, then hey, you're just gonna love the next GOP
convention.

I doubt it, since I'm not a member of either party. If you'll go back and read
my post again, you may notice that I didn't suggest a Great War Parade. I
suggested a Welcome Home Parade for the returning veterans.

How many memorials have been erected to the men who served in
Vietnam?

God I hope that was asked tongue in cheek.

Nope. Dead serious. I know about the ONE erected in Washington, DC to the men
who DIED in Vietnam. What about all the other men who survived Vietnam? They
sacrificed a bit, too. I'd think their sacrifice would be worth at least one
memorial or something from a "grateful" country. :/

Hooboy, I gave you a resource for dozens of Vietnam war memorials, few of
which are for the dead only, except the cemetery memorials which weren't
on the resource list I linked you to. If you actually gave a fat dog's ass
about honors paid to vets you'd've at least looked at the link. Your heart
might be in the right place, but when you spout off without even an ounce
of knowledge, you sound like a nut. When the information is before you &
quite easy to check, & you say you SERIOUSLY can't see that any of these
many memorials exist, it shows you're reacting from a position of
blindness & distaste for the facts, justifying your position by remaining
unaware of reality, rather than basing your positions in sound reason &
factual information. So just try to believe it. There is NO SHORTAGE of
Vietnam war memorials. Who knows, you might even bite the bullet & vote
for Kerry if you'd replace kneejerkism with knowledge. There are plenty of
things vets have every reason to be righteous about; lack of memorials is
hardly one of them.

-paggers

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

wrote:

I didnt see any of it, and I went to school with vets. How much of this did you
actually see in NY?
-snip-

Just as a datapoint-- I came home from Vietnam in July of 1970 to
rural upstate New York.

I was *never* disrespected, and was even thanked a few times. I also
drank for free for 30 days until I reported to first North Carolina,
then Virginia---- Nobody ever gave me shit about my service.


Maybe because I was a pretty lean mean 6'3"--- maybe I just never ran
into any idjits. There were a couple VVAW guys in the barracks in
VA. We all worked together during the week & went our separate ways
on the weekends.

Jim

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 04:13:14 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

I disagree with this. I think if a country has the guts to send soldiers to
fight a war, it OWES them at the least a welcome home of some sort. The welcome
they got from Vietnam was a disgrace.

We agree on this point. I make it my business when I see a Vet wearing a hat,
or any indication of his having served in Vietnam and I welcome him home. On
several occasions, over the years, men shook my hand with tears in their eyes
and thanked me for saying that. It was disgusting the way Vets were treated. I
had a boyfriend who was there and to this day (we're still in touch) he can't
talk about what happened in Vietnam. I recall many times if he heard a backfire
from a truck or car, he'd hit the deck in total fear. He absolutely has PTSD
and he's in his 50s now.

It might not be a cure, but treating veterans like pariahs probably doesn't help
them get any better, either.

Agreed...

V


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 04:39:45 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

One of his biggest whoppers was his little cartoon of anti-gun propaganda.
During the cartoon(and elsewhere in the movie) he insinuated that people buy
guns because of fear. Some people do, but that's not the ONLY reason. Of course,
he didn't mention any other reasons, since other reasons might interfere with
his "mission". I own plenty of guns, and I didn't buy them out of fear.

While you have no way to determine why people other than you buy guns, this is
not a lie. It's a fact we have the highest mortality rate in the world as a
direct result of all the guns we have laying around. That is not propaganda,
it's a fact. I had a neighbor, a cop in Austin tell me to go out and buy a shot
gun and a 38 in case. In case of what? Someone is going to storm my house?
Why would he be driven to recommend that? He said it's for protection.
Protection from what? I live in an upper middle class, bedroom community in a
rural area. There's that, and I don't remember a cartoon about guns. I do
remember his factual reporting about how the NRA held their rally's in Columbine
the days after the shooting...and at other parts of the country. I saw the
leader of the NRA say something like, (paraphrase) you will have to take it from
my cold dead hand...when making reference to his rights to own a weapon.

Right, but the World Trade Center attack was planned for several years, probably
begun during the Clinton years, at least. Also, other terrorist attacks have
happened under other presidents, so this one isn't unique.

Have you read Richard Clark's book, or heard or saw him on the myriad interviews
he gave? This current administration was aware of it and did nothing. Rice
said in her testimony that info was regarded as "historical information." When
President Clinton went after Osama and started bombing, the political right
insisted it was wagging the dog because of the Lewinsky scandal.

Did you know your current president has drastically cut funds for Vets
hospitals, stateside? That some Vets have to drive four hours to see a doctor
and it takes about 4 months to get an appointment?

It doesn't look like they liked us much before George Bush became president.
They were attacking us before he became president, so it's quite a stretch to
claim his words "caused" more terrorist attacks.

So you don't think Bush's use of the term "crusade" was poor judgment? You
don't think Bush's mantra "God told me I'd be president so I could do this." It
doesn't tweak you at all that a man who doesn't believe in evolution is running
our country? That he is insisting Christianity be brought into these Muslim
nations? Sure terror attacks happened before. Nothing like the terrorist
attack we have launched on a country, Iraq, which has nothing to do with 9-11.
That, and the way this administration protects the Saudi's by having six secret
service officers guarding their embassy. What other embassy do we guard? None.

Nope, I was just answering what YOU had posted. You had just denied that they
had not found a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that there were WMD'S IN IRAQ. I was pointing
out that they had. Don't you want to be shown when you make a false statement?
Would you prefer to continue to go around making a false statement?

The amount of chemical weapons found was hardly a reason to invade a country.
That should also be pointed out to you who didn't say they found so little it
wasn't considered.


Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I was a recruiter. That's why I'm familiar with
the fact that there are more reasons for joining the military besides getting a
college education.

I know that, but the emphasis is not placed on the more reasons. The emphasis
is based on all sweetness and light. Very little, if any war discussion came up
at the recruitment of my neighbors son, who served 16 months in Iraq. Don't you
think that's a rather long tour for an 18 year old to endure?

Those weren't the ONLY places I travelled to. Those were only the places I was
assigned. While I was in the Army I also visited many states in the United
States. Somewhere around 20 or so, I'd guess, after a quick count. While I was
in Europe(6 years total) I also went to Spain, England, Italy, France,
Czechoslovakia, and Austria. I also saw a LOT of Germany while I was there. In
fact, I'd bet I saw much more of Germany than many tourists get to see. Too bad
much of it was seen from the top of a tank, but even that can be attractive if
you appreciate it.
Heavy enough for you?
BTW, when I joined the Army my total amount of "world travel" involved one
state(which I hadn't even seen very much of).

Look, you are retired military. I'm not trying to undermined your service, as a
matter of fact, thank you. However, this whole occupation still seems wrong.
Very wrong. I still strongly dislike our current administration, and I felt
that way on Election Day in 2000. I felt doomed way back before the Towers
fell. I rode the elevator in those Towers many times. I have family who live
down there in Tribecca. I'm a native New Yorker. The magnitude of that event
was so much bigger than anyone can imagine. Two buildings which covered 16 acre
footprints.

We will probably disagree on many things, but we agree on one thing, the
soldiers should never, ever be harmed or put down or shunned for any reason.
They are doing their job, and that is torture enough.

Victoria


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 04:44:33 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:04:02 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
It's amazing to me that dewy-eyed right-wing naifs see Michael's
understatements as over-the-top. It makes me wonder if such ignorance is
self-imposed in order to remain deluded about the merits of George Dubya
Bush, or if such naivity & stupidity is truly inate to rightwingers.

I'm kind of curious, since this was posted in response to my post, am I being
lumped in with the "rightwingers"? Just curious, since I've never been able to
squeeze into that particular pigeonhole.
Those rightwingers always seem to have problems with those of us who think women
should have the right to choose an abortion if she wants one, and gays should be
as free to marry each other as heteros.
They often object to my religious affiliation, too, since I carry a Life Member
card in American Atheists.

Okay, so here are more things we agree on. I am also an atheist, but I am a
practicing Buddhist. Buddhists do not believe in creation or creator, so it can
be considered atheist. It's a lot more complicated than that, but basically we
believe in taking control of our actions and creating conditions.

Victoria


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

they found decades old CONTAINERS with traces of things. BTW, do you know when and
what sarin was originally developed for? what are the tests and how specific are the
tests for various compounds?
Ingrid

(The Watcher) wrote:
Uh, weren't you paying attention to the news? They found Sarin and Mustard Gas
in Irag.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:07:28 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:57:02 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

That's only one of the many Flip Flops Kerry is quoted on.

Not a flip flop. He, with many others were duped.

Maybe he shouldn't be president, then, if he's so easily duped.

Lied to by Collin Powell,
Rumsfeld and Bush/Cheney.

Something tells me you wouldn't accept that excuse from Bush if he tried to use
it.
(snip)

http://www.thewall-usa.com/

the three soldiers .... now, I always thought memorials were to those who died so
how many memorials are there to those who served in WWII?

(The Watcher) wrote:
How many memorials have been erected to the men who served in
Vietnam?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

In article ,
wrote:

wrote:

I didnt see any of it, and I went to school with vets. How much of
this did you
actually see in NY?
-snip-

Just as a datapoint-- I came home from Vietnam in July of 1970 to
rural upstate New York.

I was *never* disrespected, and was even thanked a few times. I also
drank for free for 30 days until I reported to first North Carolina,
then Virginia---- Nobody ever gave me shit about my service.

This seems the realistic history. Not entirely, but to a surprising
extent, the "spit on & called baby killers" cliche is urban folklore;
making it "hippies" who did it heightens the fantasy element of folklore
memory. Rather like other bits of urban folklore, the stories are always
re-told as "this happened to me" or "this happened to my best friend,"
when it is just a tale retold, that if it happened rarely didn't happen
the way it was told or to as many people who retell the folk tale. Where
are the photographs of hippies at airports & shipyards & train stations
with "Baby killer!" signs waving at all the soldiers they magically knew
they'd be seeing arrive all sorts of places. There is a derth of
contemporary editorials & photographs & film footage proving this
preposterous widespread youth-culture assult on fellow youths ever
happened.

If some dorkpizzle of a highshool dropout once followed a soldier through
the streets of Manhattan yapping at him as a baby-killer, that hardly
reflected the behavior of hippies, let along the peacenik
make-love-not-war hippies who'd be more apt to annoyingly give a soldier a
flower with all the endearing qualities of a Jew for Jesus harrassing
Jews.

It happened rarely to few, but in hindsight, everyone thinks or pretends
they saw it happen personally. All the boys in my social class went to
Vietnam; some never returned; some returned heroin addicts or otherwise
messed up in the head; some were so antisocial from their experience they
literally had to go live in the woods for ten to twenty years. Others
became activists & advocates for vets who were injured by their experience
in Vietnam. Some let their hair grow out or otherwise joined (or returned
to) the mainstream of youth culture, & some few became & remain to this
day antiwar activists; others got themselves a Harley & a pot belly & a
wooly beard & preferred THAT subculture. Most just returned to their
lives, a little older & a lot different than they would've been without
the experience of losing an unjust war, & bonded best with fellow vets who
knew what it all meant, & were often a little quiet about it all around
others, unless it was dragged out of them as I would often drag it.

But most returned to families & friends, who loved them & were proud of
them, & interacted in a completely healthy manner with an extensive social
circle, among whom everyone had a brother, cousin, or friend who'd been to
Vietnam, & never disrespected soldiers in the least.

One of my great friends was a navy sea in vietnam, afterward a professor
of navigation in the NROTC program at the University of Washington, where
I worked. Grant never imposed his experiences on anyone, but if you were
interested, & asked why he limped, or what he did in the war, hooboy was
he a bundle of tales, most of them heroic. He never suffered the guilty
syndromes of so many vets because his job was essentially to drop behind
enemy lines & bring back downed or captured soldiers -- that's an
experience you live through, if you live through it, with a good
self-image. He was also not afraid to admit the war was pointless &
unjust. And one of his experiences was the discovery of a Me Lai-like
village where every inhabitant had been killed from a helicopter -- the
only survivor was a kitten, which Grant put in his jacket, & when a
helicopter came for a pick up, the kitten remembering what the previous
helicopter had done, filled Grant's jacket full of liquid catshit. The cat
remained a base pet to the end of the war, a reminder to everyone that
there were indeed baby killers among them, atrocities being one of the
universal facts of war.

So vets as well as peaceniks knew all too well that the baby killers were
real, & that even if anyone did get put on trial for their crimes, the
worst they faced was a short time of house arrest, or so the very public
case of Lieutenant Caulie indicated. So yes "baby killer" was a term that
was abroad. But I was not unique in that era in having nearly all the boys
of my family, & in my neighborhood, drafted; most of them came back okay,
but not all of them did; & nobody loved them less or dishonored them in
any manner, we were just glad that the ones who were all right were with
us again, & grief stricken over the ones who were not all right.

People posting on UseNet "I was a vietnam vet, & where was my welcomne
home parade" or "those drug-addict hippies spat on me & called me a baby
killer" sound like delusional guys with some justified anger still
festering but entirely misplaced, since it was the government & not their
fellow youths of the era who ****ed up so many lives. Some indeed came
home so damaged by the war their own families turned away from their
crippled personalities. I personally never met a vet who thought he should
have a D-Day style parade, but I knew plenty who were eager to be again
present within the warm regard of family & friends, including peacenik
family & friends.

But just as often, even those who were indeed damaged by their experience
returned to face the love & caring of friends. I am thinking of Cliff (not
his real name, as he could easily be reading this), who before his Vietnam
experience was a pretty normal outgoing hippy sort of a guy who could
party with the best of us, laughed easily, loved to get high, & was an
admirable artist. The guy who came back never laughed, never spoke above a
whisper, & his artwork had shrunk to the size of postage stamps. He would
never tell any of us what happened, leaving us to this day to wonder if he
was damaged by experiences he can never reveal, or just by going overboard
in his eagerness to be high & causing some physical damage. But when Cliff
went into another of his suicidal depressions, we peacenik hippies would
scour the neighborhood to find where he was holding up this time, bring
him back to the group house on Capitol Hill, & sit with him all through
the night until the black clouds left. Never for a moment was he a spat on
babykiller -- he was our friend who saw a little too much action, & we
still encouraged his artwork, strangely tiny though it had become.

A great many of my generation were harmed by that war one way or another.
The villification of some imaginary style of hippies is an easy scapegoat
for people with seriously mistargeted anger issues. But it was NOT a
generation of dopefiend draft dodgers vs baby killers. It was just our
generation, & the real division were the Haves who could get out of having
to go all or could go as officers, & the Have-nots who had no choice. We
were all hurt by that war, to one degree or another, & if some damaged
people need to invent soothing lies about how the worst thing about it was
the hippies, well, if that soothes them so be it. In the real world, of
course, even so-called hippies served.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

This is untrue. Many of us had our education funded by the VA. If he
didn't get any, perhaps he waited too long, or had a bad discharge.

wrote:
it really is a line of bullshit too, cause my teaching assistants boyfriend went into
the military so he could get money for college and they trained him to be a mechanic
and when he got out there WAS NO MONEY FOR COLLEGE. it is a lie. Ingrid

escapee wrote:

You don't consider 17 to be a kid? Geesh, I sure hope you don't have kids. The
problem is, the military sells a line of bullshit to kids in very poor areas of
the country. Areas where college is only a thought, not a goal. They are told
they will travel all over the world and get college for free. All this while we
all know that anyone can get a student loan or grant for college in this
country.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

--
SPAMBLOCK NOTICE! To reply to me, delete the h from apkh.net, if it is
there.

In article , (The
Watcher) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism
is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume,
that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for
you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness
-- not your forte either.

The Dalai Lama should stick to the Buddhism and leave the atheism to the
atheists.

He'd probably like to, but the Beijing atheists attempting cultural
genocide are busily oppressing Tibetans, imprisoning them if they are
caught with even a photograph of the Dalai Lama, banning his return home,
& giving free land to any Chinese who will move into Tibet to eradicate
Tibetan culture. From which we learn, at least, that not all evils in this
world are inspired by religious fanatics, even atheists can suck bigtime.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

In article ,
wrote:

http://www.thewall-usa.com/

the three soldiers .... now, I always thought memorials were to those
who died so
how many memorials are there to those who served in WWII?

War Memorials honor all veterans, & the Wall specificlaly is officially
the Veteran's Memorial Wall. There may be a vietnam vet somewhere who
doesn't feel an affinity for the Wall, who does not believe it has
diddly-shit to do with the living, but I've yet to meet him.

As for WWII, the National WWII Memorial is specifically defined as
honoring the 16 million who served as well as the 400,000 thousand who
died AND the millions who supported the war from home.

On the Pittsburg Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the plaque reads in part:

"Welcome home to proud men and women.

Those who served, served
Those who gave all, live in our hearts
Those who are left, continue to give.

As long as we remember
There is still some love left."

Memorial Day itself honors all who served. It may be a special time to
visit the gravesides, but the day is for all who served, but also for all
who supported those who served, living or dead.

The real answser to Watcher's ridiculous assertion that such
commemorations don't exist for Vietnam vets I already corrected with this
long list of Vietnam war memorials:

http://www.vietvet.org/vietmems.htm

And that long list is but a small percentage of the memorials that exist;
this book lists many more, & the book is bargain-priced:
http://www.sandystrait.8k.com/memorial-info.html

There are nearly 400 listed in that book, & no state lacks such memorials.
If you've not time, energy, or physical ability to visit even the nearest
ones, do at least take an e-journey to some of the web pages linked from
the vietvet.org page I provided. If each of us will honor vets even to
that small degree, arguments about how they've never been honored won't
have to sound so damned silly.

So yes, even us peacenik lefties of the Vietnam & Hippy era, who've been
charged with spitting on vets & calling them baby killers, in reality care
a great deal. If only the ****ers & moaners would make an effort beyond
merely assuming!

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

William Brown wrote:
This is untrue. Many of us had our education funded by the VA. If he
didn't get any, perhaps he waited too long, or had a bad discharge.

AHHHHAAAAA http://www.objector.org/before-you-enlist/gi-bill.html
"The Montgomery GI Bill -- Plenty of Promises, Little Education Money
We've all seen the advertisements, "Join the Army and earn up to $40,000 for
college." The ads seem to say that if you join the military, college is all but paid
for. But only 35% of recruits receive any education benefits from the military. Most
that do get money receive far less than $40,000.
To find out why it's so hard to obtain the education benefits the military
advertises, read on.
Read the Fine Print

Advertisements that offer money for college if you join the military are advertising
two programs, the Montgomery GI Bill and the Army College Fund or Navy College Fund.
Almost all enlistees join the Montgomery GI Bill on entering the military. Far fewer
enlistees (1 in 20) qualify for the higher benefit Army College Fund, or Navy College
Fund, and they must also participate in the Montgomery GI Bill.

In order to receive any education benefit there are several conditions that must be
met. First, you must contribute $100 per month for the first twelve months of your
tour. Those payments must be made for all twelve months and can't be canceled once
they're begun. There is no refund of that $1200, ever. Additionally, you must receive
an honorable discharge, something that 20% of all veterans don't get.

The maximum benefit you can qualify for under the Montgomery GI Bill is $31,200. To
earn a larger benefit, like the $50,000 the military is so fond of advertising, you
must qualify for the Army/Navy College Fund. To do this you must score in the top
half of the military entry tests and be willing to enter a designated job specialty.
These designated Military Occupational Specialties are the most unpopular in the
military. The military has a hard time filling them because they have no skills that
are transferable to the civilian job market.
More Obstacles

Even after you've been honorably discharged, you're still a long way from getting
that money. Even though you've earned your tuition benefit you probably won't get it
all. The military has still more requirements for you to fulfill before you get all
of your money. Of course, you must be attending an accredited school. The military's
payment plan is based on a four-year college schedule: they'll pay you equal portions
of your money over 36 months (the equivalent of four academic years of nine months
each). This schedule is not flexible! If you, like 56% of veterans using the
Montgomery GI Bill, attend a two-year school or vocational school you can not receive
larger payments over a shorter period of time. That means a two year college graduate
will receive only half of the money they have earned!

Even though you earned that money, the Montgomery GI Bill doesn't let you decide how
to use it in the way that's best for you. But your argument will fall on deaf ears.
The military advertises large amounts of education money but the program is designed
so the money is hard to get and harder to use. The inflexibility of the Montgomery GI
Bill shows that the military wants to use it to recruit you, not to send you to
college.
It Isn't Enough

Even if you qualify for and receive the full $50,000, it isn't worth as much as you
might think. While World War II GI Bill participants were able to attend 90% of all
schools (public, private, two-year and four-year) with their tuition grant, $50,000
will cover just over one year at some private schools today.

Even state universities cost an average of about $9,000 per year. Your benefits
probably won't increase while you're in the military (benefits have been raised 3
times since the program was begun in 1985). But the cost of education will continue
to rise at a rate of 5-10% per year. By the time you finish your tour, your education
benefit will be worth a quarter less than when you signed up. If you don't go to
school right after the military, which many people don't, your benefit will become
worth less and less.

You need to ask yourself in a serious and realistic way, do you intend to go to
college? If yes, you need to have a plan. That plan may include joining the military,
but you can see that will work for only a few people. If your plans for going to
college seem to be more dream than reality, you need to take a long look at what is
really possible. If you're hoping that the military can make an unplanned dream come
true, it's not going to happen. Don't forget, you're risking your own money in the
Montgomery GI Bill as well.
Education in the Military?

Recruiters also like to talk about educational opportunities while you're in the
military. According to recruiters, not only will you learn skill in your job
specialty but you also have the chance to take college courses on-base or close by.
In theory, this may be true. But when the military commissioned a study to see what
soldiers thought of military recruiting, an overwhelming number responded that they
thought military advertisements' promises of education were "lies...false" or "not
the truth to me." Rather than working with the helicopters you see in slick
advertisements, they found themselves "buffin' floors and pickin' up cigarette
butts."

Your decision about whether to join the military, with or without the Montgomery GI
Bill, is not an easy one. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as weighing the pros and
cons of this or that benefit. Other jobs may be hard to come by, but they don't
demand what the military demands. You give up your freedom when you join the
military, entering a different world with different laws, where others can control
your life 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
The Military Mission

Above all else, the military is an institution with one overriding purpose: to
prepare for and fight wars. You literally sign your life over to the military. For
some who joined the military before the Gulf War, they didn't fully realize this
until they were faced with an actual war in Saudi Arabia against Iraq. Don't make the
same mistake they made. If you're going to join the military be prepared to fight a
war, even a war you may not agree with. It could be a war we lose, like Vietnam. Or,
it could be a war we win, like in Kuwait. Either way, people are killed and you might
be the one who kills them. As much as the war in Iraq has been celebrated, you can
find US veterans who can't forget some of the awful things they saw there. Is that
the kind of risk you want to take to finance your college education?
Be A Smart Consumer

The Montgomery GI Bill was not created to send you, or anyone else, to school. It was
designed to recruit soldiers. It may be all the same to you, as long as you end up
with money for college. But why the program was created affects its design and how
well it is funded. The Montgomery GI Bill is designed to attract you with a large
sounding amount of money with lots of strings attached. The maximum benefit of
$50,000 quickly dwindles to $31,200 or $6588 for an alarming number of recruits. Many
don't find that out until after they've joined! By then it's much too late...

Nobody else can make decisions about what is best for you, not the recruiter and not
us. But your decisions should be based on more than slick ads and a recruiter's sales
pitch. The military promises but often it does not deliver."



wrote:
it really is a line of bullshit too, cause my teaching assistants boyfriend went into
the military so he could get money for college and they trained him to be a mechanic
and when he got out there WAS NO MONEY FOR COLLEGE. it is a lie. Ingrid

escapee wrote:

You don't consider 17 to be a kid? Geesh, I sure hope you don't have kids. The
problem is, the military sells a line of bullshit to kids in very poor areas of
the country. Areas where college is only a thought, not a goal. They are told
they will travel all over the world and get college for free. All this while we
all know that anyone can get a student loan or grant for college in this
country.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:42:04 -0700, (paghat)
opined:

What you said exactly was "Buddhism can be considered atheist." You never
mentioned Mahayana, which in any case is not unique among buddhism in
assuming the gods came after the ultimate reality, but which most
certainly does preserve a gigantic role for the gods -- that is hardly
atheism which is what you claimed buddhism to be. The Dalai Lama believes
in many gods & says Tara oversees the doings of all Buddhas. Tara,
Savioress, Deity, is the most important of many goddesses of Mahayana
buddhism.

You bolstered your false claim with a made-up quote from the Dalai Lama.
That you're not well versed in Buddhism is fine; most christians don't
know squat about christianity, but they love Jesus & that's enough. And
for you to be a good Mahayana buddhist requires no specific knowledge
(fortunately for you) but does require that you practice kindness.
Although even that generally evades you, you could start now!

I said nothing of any deities.

Oh just stop with the fibbery. First of all, an atheist is NOT someone
believes in all gods but doesn't believe they created the world; an
atheist is someone who believes there is no God or gods. You followed up
with your original dumb statement "Buddhists can be considered atheists"
-- vis, nonbelievers in god or gods -- with the even dumber statement
"Deities are bodhisattvas." Well, not all deities are bodhisattvas by any
means, but if saints & bodhisattvas ARE regarded as no different than
gods, then Tibetan buddhism is rampant at several levels with every
conceivable sort of god from Kali as originator of Time right on down to
bodhisattvas who hold themselves back from the ultimate enlightenment to
remain & assist the unenlightened. All of which puts buddhism about as far
away from "Atheism" as arch-theism ever gets.

Even the limited issue of how the universe was created is not as you
represent it, since in Mahayana buddhism creation issued from out of Kali
as a manifestation of Time, & will someday be restored to Kali putting an
end to this bad universe.

She is not Creator precisely but is the greatest power by which the
universe came into being, & by the same power is sustained. It was spun
out of her radiant trangle before the beginning, & will be devoured by her
at the end of time, & beyhond both ends of that calander is the One
Supreme Reality -- which is to say, Kali. That is the basis of Mahayana
creation & uncreation myth, which developed directly into Tantricism which
increases the importance of Kali as the One Reality (Nirvana). It is a
word-game to say she brought the universe into existance but did not
create it, for the universe is of herself & not separate from her; that
what she seemingly created doesn't actually exist but is an illusion so
she created nothing; & it is that nothingness which we through faith,
kindness, & knowledge may eventually recover.

But as the Dalai Lama interprets Mahayana, all that is required is simple
human kindness, therefore it focuses more on the role of Tara as ultimate
compassion, the Goddess born into this world from a teardrop. Such gods &
goddesses as that came along long after the universe was manifest. When
Mahayana became Tantricism Kali's role was more of a focus, but the fact
that Mahayana focuses more on Tara does not really diminish the Kali.

Before Mahayanism, Siddhartha's original teachings more greatly restricted
the significance of the Hindu gods, even Kali, real though they could be,
they had no serious purpose in the path of enlightenment. Mahayanismn, or
Northern Buddhism, restored the Hindu divinities to their former
significance, & added mew divinities. The Mahayana position for Kali is
closest to that for hindu saktism, which likewise believes no god actually
created because only Mahakali as Ultimate Reality is real, & anything any
god believes he achieved was actually the result of the existance of an
Ultimate Power, which is Mahakali.

The Dalai Lama is not the
living god, has never once said that, nor has anyone else said that who is
Buddhist. He repeatedly says he's a simple Buddhist monk. He is not god,
living or dead.

The Dalai Lama is the living embodiment of all Tibetan gods, & is a
double-incarnation of two specific gods.

The humble beauty of a God manifesting as a simple monk is the point, kiddo.

He also never says he is a teacher; he is instead an example. Ask him if
he's an important man. He will smile & say he is an unimportant man.

Though the Dalai Lama embodies all Gods, he is in particular a
manifestation of two divine beings: First he is Amitabha, God of the
Western Paradise, & a sun-god. Because Amitabha cannot descend to the
world of matter as anything but light, in order to manifest physically he
first descended into the bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara (the male twin of
female Tara), & it is Avalokiteshvara who descends into every incarnated
Dalai Lama.

So the Dalai Lama is Two Gods, Two Gods, Two Gods In One. This is the
Double-Incarnation of the Living God.

In Mahayana buddhism Amitabha is definitely a God, though not in the sense
of an Almighty God, since he repre3sents a level of godhead all
enlightened beings can achieve. Whether Avalokiteshvara as "mere"
bodhisattva is also a god is more questionable, but you're not the first
one to assume indeed that bodhisattvas are gods. Even of bodhisattvas are
more like saints, Amitabha certainly is a god, & he is visible to all as
the Sun, is present in all heat energy, is ruler of all meditations, whose
warmth is kindness, & who receives prayers from Mahayana buddhists who
address him as Shining Lord, Unbounded Light, Opulent Sun, the Infinite
Revelation.

In other forms of buddhism it is denied that Amitabha is a god at all, but
in the form you mention, Northern Buddhism, Amitabha is the tutelary God
of Lamism, & most assuredly a sun-god & addressed as one. In Mahayana
portraits he is usually red, dressed in layers of monks robes. So when the
Dalai Lama says "humbly" he's a monk, that's because he is a manifestation
of the god of monks.

To some extent he duplicates or supplants Kali as the chief authority &
energizing power of the physical universe, but where her power is
devouring, his is gentleness, though even the Shining Lord can devour
illusions & flesh & materiality with his fire of knowledge. (I take much
of this from THE SHADOW OF THE DALAI LAMA. It would be possible to play
word-games that Dalai Lama is not a manifestation of the Gods, but Victor
& Victoria Trimondi are the western authorities on this, & barring an
ability to read both Tibetan language & Sanskrit, will stand as better
authorities than you or I -- & they are clear, the Dalai Lama is
worshipped as a manifestation of the Tibetan gods. Is he really? Of course
not -- unless you share that faith -- & that you can claim to be a
Mahayanist denying every basic tenant of that faith is oh so Zen).

Paghat loves to know everything.

I'm perfectly aware that knowing more than you know doesn't mean I know a
great deal at all. But really, that you persist in abhoring a love of
knowledge is very unbuddhist of you.

I feel sorry for her. She's a very angry woman.

Don't project your anger on others. I rarely engage you in anything
because you're nuts. I really thought that in my first factual correction
you'd have no reason to lose your marbles again, but as you like to be
rude while you repeat & justify your errors, I can play it your rude way
too. A civil conversation being impossible with you, then a heated one
will do.

If you weren't so damned angry it wouldn't bother you so much to have such
a big error corrected. You could have as easily laughed at yourself &
said, Oh I know, I don't know where I got that dumb statement, but oh
well. You may well have good reasons in your life to be angry instead of
amused, sure, so when you project that on me, ninety-nine times out of a
hundred I overlook it. And will probably overlook it the next ninety-nine
times you pull that one out.

But the only real correction I intended before you got so ****y was when
you call this sort of stuff Atheism which is simply silly. You heap lies
on silliness pretend the Dalai Lama personally told you so. That you can't
even now admit to posting outrageous nonsense is almost comical. Sticking
to the entirely incorrect idea that buddhists are atheists is your
stubbornness, not mine; your response to the correction is your anger, not
mine. I will own up to my own failure at kindness similar to yours, but
then I'm not pretending to be a follower of mahayana northern buddhism. I
like to discuss this stuff because I loved my mom whose faith it was, &
because I find human capacity for myth-making to be fascinating stuff, NOT
because I think you're ignorant though you respond as though that's the
whole point. Yet when in the past I've attempted to be kind to you, you've
just gotten ****ier. But I will even so close with as kind a thought as I
can muster in your behalf:

It's not important that you know so little; it's more important, for your
own well being, that you cease to get so peevish & defensive about your
own mistakes.

-paggers

You win.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

In article ,
wrote:

it is a dirty little secret our leaders and especially all the
chickenhawks want to
ignore is that any normal mentally healthy person goes to war is going
to come home
changed and not for the better.

I know many, many, many vets. Some are damaged human beings either
physically or emotionally. The majority are healthy-minded productive
intelligent. Yes, all were changed by the war. But some came home with a
heroic sense of self, with greater wisdom about the meaning & nature of
war than those of us who were never in one can ever quite grasp. I believe
Kerry was changed for the better by his experience right down to the
war-wounds. I think Bush was changed for the worse by having been a
draft-dodger.

War changes everyone, but your "and not for the better" is just wrong.
I've seen people far more messed up by the loss of a pet cat than by
having been soldiers. Some people were just born to be victimized by
existing. Others transcend even the most horrific things, whether ongoing
childhood rape, or getting their legs blown off jumping out of a
helicopter. The greatest of our species tend to have revealed their
greatness BECAUSE of such traumas; while those whose mettle was never
tested never had to find out if they were capable of greatness.

War even changes who stays behind: Mothers whose sons were killed, or
whose sons returned less than they once were, how changed is she? I
stopped freeway traffic in peace marches when I was a kid, but the thing
that haunts me most is not the peace rallies, but my memories of friends I
played with in early childhood who died in Vietnam still teenagers. When
Bush gleaned my neighborhood & sent so many of the able-bodied men & a few
of the women off to Iran, I fell into a depression remembering the last
time this happened, when I lost friends forever -- & for as little
justification.

I have corresponded since the 1970s with a friend in Canada. He was a
Black Panther activist who could not come home from Canada evem when his
grandmother died. At the time, even though Carter gave amnesty to many who
went to Canada, he did not do so for those who did so AFTER they were
called up; & so that heroic fellow who jackasses will call a draft-dodging
****** locked himself in a bathroom & slit his wrists during grief over
the loss of that old woman who had raised him, whose last wish in this
world was to see him before she died. Someone found him before he bled to
death thank god, & he recovered from the depression of losing his entire
family & having the entire course of his life changed, merely for refusing
to fight in an unjust war. He became a successful author & screenwriter &
college professor, but I've no doubt he'll always be gloomily haunted by
the events of his youth, even as am I.

I spoke in another post of a friend who left for Vietnam a happy-go-lucky
sort of guy, & returned a broken man who never again spoke above a
whisper. On the opposite extreme, before my cousin Ralph went to Vietnam,
he was a kind, gentle, sweet, intelligent young man. When he returned, he
was STILL a kind, gentle, sweet, intelligent young man -- with a depth of
experience that made him even greater than he had been.

Life IS change. Even horrors can change some of us for the better.

-paghat the ratgirl


it is a service that is going to be life long for
each individual. like all species we have a big built in inhibition
against killing
those of our own species. training and having people break that
inhibition does
lasting damage. Ingrid

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com