[TexasVet]

There is a disgusting editorial in todays Houston Chronicle about "throwaway vets" here (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1853281)
Here is my response:

----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Shield's editorial in this Sunday's paper is a new low in the Chronicle's editorial section. Starting with his basic premise, the entire piece is full of half truths and blatant lies.

First, the word "grunt" does NOT have the meaning stated by Mr. Shields at all. It is not "a word intended to dehumanize the combat soldier by implying that he is incapable of speaking beyond grunts..". It is a word of praise and honor describing the people at the "sharp end of the stick" who do the "grunt work" required by our nation whenever we go to war.

Second, he seems to have reached back into the past to dredge up an old, discredited quote from the "National Coalition for Homeless Veterans" about the 275,000 veterans who are homeless at any one time. This group made up this "statistic" to justify their fundraising at the time. It has been continually proven false but every social worker who needs more funds to pay their salaries seems to drag it out into the light when needed.

The "galling tragedy" is that articles like this ignore the truth that there are multiple services available for discharged veterans through the VA and the multitude of Veterans Organizations such as the VFW when they have need of them.

The numbers of veterans in jails and prisons are mentioned as if they are alarming. The truth is that Viet Nam veterans are locked away at lower percentage numbers than the public at large.

The hatred of the military shown by this piece is disgusting and the article is below the standards a major paper should have for it's editorial pages, both in truth and accuracy and in tone.

I would send Mr. Shields a copy of the book "Stolen Valor" by Dallas writer B. G. Burkette, but I doubt the truth would interest him, as he is one of those Mr. Burkette attacks so well.

From one of the majority of (disabled) Grunts who have had a fine life after the service with the excellent help of the VA and Veterans Service Organizations.

"TexasVet" (named changed to protect the guilty, or something)
-------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it does any good to respond to this trash, but I got :cuss: angry and that's not good for my heart so I wrote to cool down. Didn't work. I'm still mad.

[swampgator]

Jim Shield's editorial in this Sunday's paper is a new low in the Chronicle's editorial section.

I take that the Houston Chronicle is a liberal paper?


While I agree that combat is unpleasant for all involved, far too many people fail to realize it is indeed a nessecary evil.

[PsyWarrior]

Some times it is necessary to go to war in order to protect the peace. The "grunt" is the man that has the balls to put his life on the line in order to make sure your life and your rights are protected. Several times I have volunteered, through my membership in the DAV, and worked at Operation Stand Down. It is an annual activity in which we take homeless vets, get them bathed, shaved, hair cut, fed, new clothes, places of shelter and try to get them employment. Over the years, due to the low (relative) number of the homeless vets, it has expanded to include non veterans. Veterans are jailed at a much lower percentage than the general population because the veterans (post draft primarily) are the ones that care enough about others to put themselves on the line to protect those others.

Liberal reporters telling their half truths and revisionist history really torque my nuts. Thanks for sending that reply to the paper.

[Blackhawk]

Sheila Jackson Lee's CD, right? :rolleyes:

[Sir Galahad]

Most of the perception that vets are "disturbed" comes from fictional movies like Billy Jack and First Blood. I also see that the author referred to a Marine as "man/child". And that is exactly what is wrong with this society: the Peter Pan refusal to grow up or let others grow up.

In ancient societies, when a boy became a man, he was inducted into the society of warriors. From that point on, he was expected to be a man. He had obligations to his people and his kin that he had to fulfil. If he did not, he lost face and honor and could be shunned by his clan or worse. When a boy became a man, there were rituals to mark that occasion. This is found from the ancient Greeks, to the Celts, to Native American tribes.

Now, in most pre-European Native American tribes, there existed a constant state of warfare between tribes. Not total warfare, but mostly series of raids, slave-taking, and ambushes. Now, when a boy became a warrior, he was expected to participate in these battles in order to receive honor and status within the tribe. Wthout "face" and plunder from raids, he could not even expect to marry. A bride's father would want gifts often obtainable only through war, and he would want the suitor to be a warrior able to bring status to his family and rear his grandchildren as proper warriors. The entire tribe expected the warriors to defend the tribe, as well, from raiding trbes as well as bring back plunder from their own raids. But when do we start seeing the types of problems the author of the article sees as inherant in war vets: homelessness, alcoholism, mental problems? Among Native American tribes, this started happening when they were shoved on to reservations and not allowed to hunt or war with other tribes. Once they were "civilized", then the social problems began.

Why is this? Among Native tribes, the warrior was honored by his people. Today, lots of vets are ridiculed, dishonored, and made to feel they did something "wrong". (Of course, because "killing" is always "wrong", right?) In ancient societies, killing in war was not seen as wrong. In some cases, there were rituals to banish any "evil spirits" that might have come from the killing of an enemy. But the act itself was not looked upon with the same horror as today. Further, a warrior gained status and face only through warfare. So, the killing was a necessity. In many cases, killing by close combat with a knife of club led to more prestige than killing with a projectile weapon. The shaming of the vet is seen in that article: killing is wrong all the time, so the vets must be mentally ill for having done so. That's basically what the author said. This is wrong.

We need to, as a society, seek to reclaim the honor and dignity for our warriors. What they have done was necessary for the people. It's time to stop 50 years of psychoanalyzing every human act under the sun and get back to being honorable people once more and not constant victims.

[foghornl]

There used to be 2 papers in Houston, the Post (far left leaning) and the Chronicle (middlin' to conservative). I think those have merged/Post bought out by Chronicle, or something like that. Not what I would have expected to see on the pages of the Chronicle, though. Since I haven't been in the Houston area for 15+ years, perhaps someone currently from there can enlighten us