The non-political Vietnam Veterans of America have condemned the Purple Hearts band-aids worn as jokes by some Republican delegates.
Vietnam Veterans of America has received reports of delegates at the Republican National Convention disseminating and wearing “Purple Heart” band-aids in mockery of one of nation’s most distinctive honors, the Purple Heart medal…The spirit of the award recognizes the personal sacrifice of our troops without regard to the severity or nature of the wound. It is the wounding itself that merits the honor. To demean the decoration and the sacrifice it symbolizes demeans all veterans and the patriots who honor them.
With our nation’s sons and daughters at war to protect global freedom, demeaning military service in this way is especially hurtful. Vietnam Veterans of America urges all Americans to decry this type of outrageous, disrespectful, and infantile behavior.
(Bitter rant with links to Bush-supporters who thought this was funny deleted)
Good.
Via Oliver Willis
It was making fun of Kerry, not ‘demean[ing] the decoration’. (Don’t throw those grapefruit. Please!)
Creating and passing out the Purple Heart bandaids was, I think, only meant to make fun of Kerry’s minor wounds in Vietnam. It was not meant to reflect badly on other veterans.
It was also irredeemably stupid. How could you NOT think it would insult other veterans, especially those who suffered serious wounds?
I plan to vote for Bush, but I still condemn this kind of nonsense.
Of course it wasn’t meant to apply to any veterans other than Kerry. But how does that matter at all? They’re trying to say that his decoration with a Purple Heart means that he’s a bad person.
If someone were to say that Barack Obama would be a bad Senator because he’s black, do you think that they’d be able to defend themselves by saying they didn’t mean to insult black people? Please.
VVA may be “non political”
but it might have been worth mentioning that
“John Kerry was a co-founder of VVA in 1979 and he is a life member of VVA.”
http://www.vva.org/whatsnew/restricted.htm
And of course John Kerry was an entirely non partisan veteran in 1979 so its hard to see how any of his influence could have rubbed off.
Giles, thank you for providing that necessary disclaimer that Ted for some reason just forgot to mention. ;)
I regret the deletion.
So now that Vietnam Veterans of America is a liberal organization?
Well, if the GOP’s attitude is ‘everyday is sh*t on a wounded veteran day’, I guess it will be.
Thanks, GOP.
I plan to vote for Bush
Why? I mean, the guy’s completely bloody incompetent. Regardless of political position, he doesn’t even meet the minimum knows-what-the-fuck-he’s-doing standard for doing the job of President. Why on Earth would you want to keep him in this critical job which he is clearly incapable of doing?
One effect of having the top policy levels of this campaign all be non- military is that they Just Don’t Get the military attitude toward medals. Wearing a medal that you don’t deserve is one of the nastiest offenses that you can commit in the military. Here’s an example of this attitude.
Of course, Georgie gets a bye on this one too.
I disagree with the individual who said that they are only attacking Kerry and not demeaning purple hearts, in general. The fact is that Kerry did receive a purple heart and he did so by satisfying the rigid standards set with regard to whether such an award was appropriate.
By wearing these band-aids, these individuals are asserting that the standards are too broad, i.e., that Kerry satisfied the standards by receiving wounds that were, in the opinion of “skeptics,” not as disfiguring or serious as, let’s say, a Max Cleland.
But, the fact remains: Kerry was awarded these medals, and such an award was made pursuant to the standards as they existed at that time. In this light, the argument being proferred by those who wear a mocking band-aid can be seen for its actual meaning: that many veterans were awarded purple hearts pursuant to a standard with which they disagree.
Of course, we don’t even reach this issue with regard to Bush, because — by virtue of his own actions and choices — he was never near a situation wherein he might be awarded a purple heart. Accordingly, there are no purple hearts to be challenged. The fact that he has not been forthright with the American people with regard to his use of familial connections to obtain a spot in the National Guard in a division often referred to as the “Champagne Division” raises serious issues concerning his character, credibility (not to mention the question as to whether he actually satisfied his committment), and his constant assertions that he is somehow a typical American.
Frankly, I don’t think this time period is very relevant except in two ways: (i) I think one who knows the cost of war first-hand is more likely to make a prudent, measured decision with respect to whether a situation warrants the deployment of troops; and (ii) Bush has constantly portrayed himself in military paraphenalia, including the infamous flight suit, and this has obviously triggered much curiousity concerning his satisfaction of service (and whether he has been truthful with regard to his representations related to his service).
Personally, I would rather see the debate shift toward honest discourse concerning the serious policy differences that exist between the present administration and the proposed Kerry administration. I think the present administration has made their policies perfectly clear, given that they have had four years to enact them. Kerry has set forth his policies on his web-site. They are markedly different and I think voters should study each so that they can make an informed decision rather than one based on innuendo.
Respectfully,
CT
“Forgot” as in made it the very first link of the post?
Well, Martin, maybe they were using Swift Liars rules - ignore what they said before, ignore the records, ignore all (or the majority) of the eyewitnesses said.
By those standards, Ted is an Evul Librul Flip-Flopping Liar. He probably spit on Vietnam Veterans back in the sixties, when he was shacked up with Hanoi Jane (I’d post a picture, except that I don’t know how to use Photoshop).
Wearing a medal that you don’t deserve is one of the nastiest offenses that you can commit in the military.
This may have got lost in CT’s post, so I’ll say it succinctly—THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT JOHN KERRY DID.
He earned his Purple Hearts according to the standards that were in force at the time—wounds (including “minor wounds”) received in combat, while under hostile fire. The RNC delegates decided that they, not the Armed Services, had the right to determine which medals Kerry deserved. Disgusting.
BTW, I mean “disgusting” to apply to the RNC delegates, not necessarily to lightning.
It was making fun of Kerry, not ‘demean[ing] the decoration’.
I’m not following this. Apparently the fun here is that the military awarded
to Kerry a medal for getting wounded in action and Kerry didn’t deserve the
medal; that is, the military doesn’t know how to award Purple Hearts. This
would, it seems to me, demean the decoration, because now for every recipient,
you have to answer the question “is this legit or did they win the crap
shoot?”.
Not being a combat-wounded war veteran, I can’t say whether or not it
would be demeaning to need to be able to prove - on demand, to anyone - the
legitimacy of my Purple Heart, but I think I can make a pretty good guess. I
also think I can make a pretty good guess as to whether or not it would be
demeaning to have its legitimacy denied, particularly by people who’ve never
been in combat.
Creating and passing out the Purple Heart bandaids was, I think, only meant to
make fun of Kerry’s minor wounds in Vietnam. It was not meant to reflect badly
on other veterans.
You can play the game that way too, but the results are the same. It’s not
that the military’s incompetent; Kerry deserved his Purple Heart. But it’s
just a trivial little (shrapnel) scratch Purple Heart, not a sucking chest
wound Purple Heart. Nevertheless, the military chooses to issue the same
Purple Heart for both; by drawing a distinction that the military doesn’t,
you’re once again questioning the military’s competence in awarding Purple
Hearts and the rightfulness of a recipient’s possession of the medal. Of
course, you might want to counter with “Well, it’s perfectly obvious when a
recipient deserves the Purple Heart; for example, take a veteran in a
wheelchair who lost one arm and both legs in Viet Nam…”.
(And yes, those quotes come from different messages, but they are, to me, of a
piece.)
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review