Pentagon Party Planner

Great stuff, Sue (4.00 / 3)

I especially liked: "Will the 75th (anniversary) bring a full scale reenactment of the battle?" because, you know, reenacting WWII battles could become a bigger deal than those guys who do the Civil War reenactments--they don't use live ammo.

Ah yes, the Good Ole Days.  In five days--March 8&9, we have the 65th anniversary of Curt LeMay's great fire-bombing of Tokyo.  The low-end death toll for that was 77,000; the high-end, over 100,000.  And then, in April, we have Okinawa--complete with kamikasis and over 100,000 civilian dead.  Or reenact Normandy in June.  And hold on, folks--tune in for our August special on Fat Man & Little boy.  Boy oh Boy.  Have we got CSIs beat!  Tune in and ENJOY.  Yeah, never would think of doing a reenactment of the Kennedy murder three years from now--some of them CIA spooks are still alive.

---

by: PeteySweety @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:24:46 PM CST

Isolationism is the wrong road (0.00 / 0)

Isolationism based on fiscal concerns is just a plain poor argument, it does long term damage in the name of a short term emergency.  Growing stronger relationships with our allies and with regional powers ultimately benefits this nation in pretty much every way, from stronger security to increased dialogue to increased trade.  
You can of course decry the method, but the current reality is that the US military is the only agency able and willing to make a significant contribution to the frequent events that improve long term relationships anywhere in the world, and most of the ground level diplomacy of this nation is being conducted by 20-25 year old enlisted men and women interacting with their counterparts and local populations.  Events such as this are hardly off-the-cuff boondoggles, international events and exercises are nested within each region's Theater Security Cooperation Plan, a plan developed jointly by the DOD and DOS in recognition of the importance of cooperative military engagements.
Instead of bemoaning the cost you should be celebrating that after a hiatus of several years driven by the demands of back to back combat deployments the US is once again reaching out to allies, in this case allies who within less than a single lifetime were implacable enemies.

---

by: patrick cashman @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 16:04:19 PM CST

You forgot your Snark tag for extreme sarcasm (4.00 / 5)

the US military is the only agency able and willing to make a significant contribution to the frequent events that improve long term relationships anywhere in the world, and most of the ground level diplomacy of this nation is being conducted by 20-25 year old [recruited] men and women interacting with their counterparts and local populations.

Someone forgot to turn off your geopolitical militaristic pornography filter.

DOD is ". . . only agency able and willing to make a significant contribution to . . . events that improve long term relationships anywhere"  Seriously Buddy, time to put the Hookah away for a while.

Try "The Dep't of Defense is the least appropriate entity to entrust with the improvement of long-term relationships with other countries in the world."

Engaging the U.S. military makes us less secure, less prosperous, less liked & less able to "improve" any "long-term relationship" with any country. It has badly damaged us as a country on every front and it continues to do so.

The military's purpose is to defend the U.S., not make the world more hostile toward us and not to be used by incompetent neocons to kill brown people or to obtain oil contracts. That has been the primary mission given to the U.S. military since it fell into neocon hands in 2001, and the mop up is not going very well even with those jokers out of the White House.  U.S. allies, U.S. diplomats, U.S. commerce, U.S. culture and especially the U.S. taxpayer will spend generations repairing the strategic, political, economic and overall national-security damage our conservative political leaders have committed by engaging the U.S. military in places such as the middle east.

Instead of bemoaning the cost you should be celebrating that after a hiatus of several years driven by the demands of back to back combat deployments the US is once again reaching out to allies, in this case allies who within less than a single lifetime were implacable enemies.

I celebrate peaceful and respectful relations with any country and strive toward having them will all.  However, I recognize the peace that we've have worked hard to achieve and/or maintain despite our militarism and militaristic folly NOT because of it.

most of the ground level diplomacy of this nation is being conducted by 20-25 year old [recruited] men and women interacting with their counterparts and local populations.

While I agree with you, you point out a serious problem, rather than something that should make any of us proud or feel safer or feel better about the U.S.  

Recruited service men and women are not trained to build long-standing relationships with other countries and it is horribly wrong of us to impose that responsibility on people who have neither the training nor the skill set to accomplish that goal. In the aberrant situation where these kids do accomplish a "long-term favorable impression" it is a matter of luck and their own non-military talent.  It is most certainly not a result of planning by the U.S. Gov't, an ability by the DOD, or training that we have invested in these service people.

A 20-year-old infantryman's job is to protect the U.S. if genuinely threatened and to do so at the end of a long chain of command. It is not to teach a Afghan farmer, for instance, how to transition from a poppy crop that pays him 20,000.00 Euros a year, to a cucumber crop that will pay him 80.00 Euros a year.  That is a job that the U.S. Taxpayer needs to convince the civilian leadership of the U.S. to tell the State Dep't to do.

Sure, I agree that voters have asked for dumber or less realistic results from government. And politicians have been more than willing to promise "Afghan Cucumbers" to (*cough*conservative*cough*) voters. These matters, nonetheless, remain a non-military policy discussion and a non-military policy failure option.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 17:26:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If wishes were fishes (0.00 / 0)

You would prefer the military not engage in diplomacy, got it.  And the alternative is........?????? Nothing.  The DOS doesn't maintain the capability with a grand total of 6,500 Foreign Service Officers around the world, USAID is a great organization but tiny and inappropriate for engagement with peer nations who hardly require our aid, Commerce has less than 300 FSO's, etc. etc.  Not to mention that cooperative military engagements are generally what our allies and potential allies are looking for, every year the DOD turns down more exercise requests than it executes.  While it might be nice if our allies requested a tour by a cutting edge interpretive dance troupe or some real paradigm changing marionette theater, the fact is they are looking for professional security engagements.  Your wailing and gnashing of teeth that we "should" do this or "should" do that doesn't change reality, nor does it excuse doing nothing while we wait for an alternative.
As to your assessment of the US military, well, you're wrong. I assume it's ignorance based on too many crappy cliche war movies and a complete lack of exposure to today's service members.  The vast majority of young men and women that join the military are the cream of their age group and excel at ground level engagement because of their energy, enthusiasm, but above all their professionalism and sheer competence.  They perform the missions they are given by our elected leaders and do them exceptionally well.  
Now it would be great if other agencies were able to weigh in to the same degree. And perhaps if the Deputy Undersecretary for Policy, Ms. Flournoy, is able to push through the vision she described in her work "Beyond Goldwater-Nichols" for an integrated approach across the elements of national power we might reach the point where we have a balanced approach under a unified leadership incorporating efforts by DOS, DOD, USAID, etc.  But that is not the case now, and until we do those young enlisted men and women will continue to conduct events such as the one described above to ensure we fulfill our international obligations, and they will continue to do so in an exceptional manner.

On a side note: where in the world did you hear an Afghan farmer makes 20k Euros a year off poppy?  That's absolutely crazy, they make a few hundred dollars.  They don't grow poppies for the money, they grow it when there is no viable alternative crop with an accessible market.  In fact, most that I have spoken to profess to hate it as a crop; it's water intensive, the price for paste fluctuates wildly, it's value intensive so they can lose an entire year's harvest in a two minute stick-up job, and it is extremely labor intensive requiring them to hire crowds of young men during harvest who are generally not local, live in their compounds with their families, and are of suspect motivations.  Most would grow wheat, corn, saffron, etc. if they had the roads and security to get it to a reliable market.

---

by: patrick cashman @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 18:50:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what? (4.00 / 4)

Sue's piece was about a ridiculous party on the other side of the world having NOTHING to do with security or military exercises

your attempt to frame it as "isolationism" is just the kind of BS dodge we've come to expect from Fox and friends; apparently, DOD just spent enough money to feed thousands of Haitians; and we're supposed to cheer about "improving long-term relationships"?

what a crock

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 21:49:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mr. Hoffer (0.00 / 0)

Just what do you think foreign engagement looks like?  Active forces, government officials and veterans of two former enemies meet on a shared battlefield to memorialize their collective fallen and celebrate their peaceful alliance.  Sounds like a victory for peaceful diplomacy and relationship building.  As for it being a "party", I've been to Iwo Jima and I assure you the liberty sucks.    
As to the cost, I haven't been able to find anything regarding the overall cost and kind of funding.  Perhaps you could share the figure you appear to have?  Or were you just giving voice to an unsupported but deeply felt belief that the US military is an intrinsically evil and corrupt organization?

---

by: patrick cashman @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 23:15:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Though it's a real shame (0.00 / 0)

... Japan hasn't figured out how to make food, provide potable water, or make trucks in the last 65 years.  The taxpayers might not have had to fly all those things more than 6,700 miles across the globe, otherwise.

You seem awfully determined to defend what seems like quite a waste of money at a time when the government is cash-strapped. Hmmmm... given your location, there's a good chance you're in one of the refueling locations for the transport flights. Are you, by any chance, part of the party project team?

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 00:12:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope (0.00 / 0)

No, no connection.  More that I am weary of people with no knowledge making snap judgments based on comforting but unsupported preconceptions and bias.
It would be convenient, however, to be connected to the event because it would be useful to know what the Japanese contribution to the event was (since neither of us actually have the slightest idea).   I'll personally give them the benefit of the doubt as literally the only thing on the smoking miserable excuse of an island is the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force base, airstrip, and garrison.

---

by: patrick cashman @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:17:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

foreign engagement?! (4.00 / 2)

I'm pretty sure they could have celebrated our peaceful alliance in a more subdued and inexpensive way; arranging for 1,000 people to go half way round the world is absurd and your unwillingness to acknowledge that bespeaks a rather odd sense of priorities

"two former enemies"?!

right; it's critical for the U.S. and Japan to cement those shaky relations

"peaceful diplomacy"?!

what exactly are the issues that are dividing our two countries that require diplomacy?

your last sentence is the most telling; to suggest that those who challenge the appropriateness of this expenditure view the "US military is an intrinsically evil and corrupt organization" is exactly why the public discourse has become so poisoned

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:52:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Mr. Hoffer (0.00 / 0)

Yes, maintaining strong governmental and military to military relations with allies, especially such a critical regional security partner, is essential.

In regards to my last sentence, so no figures then?  It's just that the surety and immediacy of your condemnation implied you had some actual figures. You see it is hardly "poisoning the public discourse" to insist those spouting a ridiculous opinion have some idea of what they are talking about.  Along that same vein let me point out that your statement of "flying 1,000 people half-way around the world" is, again, based on your preconceptions and innate bias vice any evidence.  The participating headquarters, III MEF, is from Okinawa.  The participating personnel, the 31st MEU, are also based out of Okinawa but currently afloat covering your nation's interests in the Southwest Pacific during their spring patrol.  I realize that it is probably much more empowering for you to believe that the military is a corrupt and bumbling organization of sociopaths and social misfits like you see in movies, so why let any actual knowledge mess up a satisfying delusion.

---

by: patrick cashman @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:30:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I really have to wonder (4.00 / 6)

and worry about your anger and preconceptions

you use such interesting language: ridiculous, innate bias, corrupt, bumbling, sociopaths, delusion

I repeat, it's this type of discourse that has diminished our civic relationships; I don't recall saying (or implying) anything about the legitimate role of the military (although I might have a different opinion than you about what that role should be); yet you insist on putting everything in this odd sort of Vietnam era framework (the other guys must hate the military and everyone in it); lighten up and get over it

I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack those who raise important issues or disagree with you

as for the cost, an AP report stated that "Hundreds of Marines landed on Iwo Jima, now known as Iwo To, to prepare for the 65th anniversary of one of World War II's bloodiest and most iconic battles."

the Marines may well have been in the region (although we don't know that) but the point is it costs money to plan and execute an event like this; and of course there is the opportunity cost because they could have (should have?) been doing something else actually related to our security

oh by the way, the AP piece said nothing about a friendly diplomatic pow-wow with our Japanese allies; it appears that the whole thing may have been part of an effort to support & honor living Iwo Jima vets; under other circumstances, I might support that; but - as was stated at the very outset, in times like these, the DOD should make the "tough choices" just like so many insist we do in cutting funding for people without food, homes, or health care (to say nothing of Haiti)

I hardly think it's disrespectful to say to the vets that the money is needed elsewhere

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 14:35:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pat, meant to ask you, (4.00 / 1)

How's the weather there in Kenya?

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 17:49:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

Kenya?  I'm afraid you're being a bit obscure, I have no idea what you're talking about.  Currently I'm in Hawaii and it is 72 deg and hazy with a nice onshore breeze.

---

by: patrick cashman @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 18:54:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I was referring to Hawaii, & I apologize for my assumptions (4.00 / 2)

Pat, looks like I owe you an apology.

I thought all oxygen deprived conservatives referred to Kaneohe Bay as "Kenya." I've been hearing that from conservatives for months now, and I wrongly assumed you were a "Faux News" type.

I admit to wrongly assuming that you adhered to prevailing conservative geographical dogma that places Hawaii either (1) inside of Kenya; or holds that (2) the Island(s) magically flew out of the Pacific Ocean and landed inside Kenyan borders for a least one day in 1961.

Please accept my apologies and enjoy the breeze.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 19:25:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

SNAP! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: farjas @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 19:32:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

Sure thing.  Enjoy the snow.

---

by: patrick cashman @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 19:54:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On behalf of Vermonters everywhere (0.00 / 0)

I thank you for your good wishes on snow enjoyment. Sadly, the new winter-free Vermont is shaping up to rival Hawaii for lack of snow.

Last week, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its monthly "State of the Climate Global Analysis" for January.

We see blowout warming in the satellite temperature record, which is so beloved of the anti-science crowd since they think - incorrectly - it doesn't show warming.  Note that in UAH, we crushed the previous record.

Beware the Everyday Brutality of the Averted Gaze

---

by: mataliandy @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 22:52:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sir, you have taken my point completely off-course (4.00 / 3)

and to a place of utter-silliness that makes me think you cannot be a serious man. I gather that you are secure and your needs are fully met by the same entrenched system of self-perpetuating military entitlement that threw this shindig on what you yourself describe as a "smoking miserable excuse of an island"  Yes, I said "entitlement"and I am not referring to that segment of the military on active duty who pull soldier's pay and do the fighting.  I am referring to the vast engine of waste that has been created over the decades of military expansion, shielded from public criticism and budgetary nit-picking by a mantle of supposed urgency, creative secrecy and scripted nobility of purpose.

There is real pain for a lot of your fellow citizens in the twenty-first century, not just on the battlefields but in homeless shelters, unemployment lines, bread lines and among the poor who die when they could have been saved by simple medical intervention.  I let you carry on from your hobby-horse for quite a while now, juggling jargon and attempting to make some point about "isolationism"(where'd that come from?) and the "diplomatic" function of the military (??!!!)  I know it's none of my business, but since you hijacked the conversation, may I just suggest that you need to leave the comforting arms of Papa Pentagon and come back for a reality check among "we the people."

---

by: Sue Prent @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:28:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes (4.00 / 3)

I think Patrick, like me, and a lot of guys, has a 'let's think of our military in WWII terms' syndrome.  This syndrome is oft times incurrable, resulting in the 'death by proxy' of others out there.  Yes, the Post was about 'waste' and what our priorities have become.  I think Hollywood spends enough on special effects in WWII movies--probably less than the Pentagon would if they were making movies.  Clint Eastwood covered Iwo from both ends.
Ever see a good 'peace' movie?  No car chases.

---

by: PeteySweety @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 09:32:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ms. Prent (0.00 / 0)

You "gather"?  That's a very sharp sense of perception you have there.  Or perhaps you could have just asked, or seen the post above that refers to my being at a Marine Corps Base?  Or seen any of the other diaries in which I have been referred to as "Generalissimo" etc? (Seriously, on a site that has a hard and fast rule against discussing someone's livelihood it is really amazing how often mine comes up).  
Generally I don't bring it up because it usually isn't relevant, and on posts in which I do explicitly state that I am in the military I'm obligated to include the little disclaimer below which can be a pain.  However I guess at this point it is relevant in order to make the point; you have no idea what you are talking about.  In that vein while it is sweet that you think I am on a staff at the Pentagon, the idea that you are equipped to divide the military population into "good" and "bad" is laughable.  It is like a catholic priest rating sexual positions, you have zero idea what you are classifying.  So let me help you out:

1.  The US military is nothing like what you saw on Dr. Strangelove.

2.  The US military is continuously engaged in diplomacy around the globe, in many cases a young servicemember is the only US representative a particular populace will see.  Fortunately they are exceptionally good ambassadors for our country and never fail to amaze.  Instead of bemoaning the fact try being proud that our nation's young men and women are doing incredible, important things that improve peoples' lives.  

3.  The event described in the original post is just such an opportunity for some personal, ground level diplomacy to cement governmental and security partner relationships.  Advocating the cessation of diplomatic functions with foreign powers is part and parcel of isolationism.

4.  I am also part of "we the people", it's that whole citizen soldier thing.  I suspect I see where you are going with this so let me head that off; military subservience to citizen control means I obey the lawful orders given by those civilian officials in my chain of command (there are three, see if you can figure out who they are),elected representatives own the military's budget, elected representatives approve military promotions, and elected representatives establish elements of policy particularly related to Title 10 of US Code.  In no way does it place me or any other service member in a separate population of restricted or altered citizenship.  

While we are making helpful suggestion may I suggest that instead of viewing everything through an internal lens formed by years of unceasing propaganda swallowed eagerly, you form and express opinions based on available facts and actual knowledge.  

In accordance with DoD Directive 1344.10 the opinions expressed here are wholly my own and in no way represent policy or position of the Department of Defense or any other agency.

---

by: patrick cashman @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 12:41:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Whatever you do, you apparently have more time on your hands than I do. (4.00 / 2)

I've already written everything I have to say, so be my guest and flail away.  

---

by: Sue Prent @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 13:21:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Boy Oh Boy Oh Boy, Sue (4.00 / 3)

You got the word now.  Yeah, me too.  I forgot how the U.S. military won all those hearts and minds in the Nam.  And Lebanon.  And...................

I'm so glad our military is in Haiti to make sure them folks are really gonna get their $3.09 a day.

Remember Pearl Harbor!

And maybe, Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, the Philippine Insurrection, United Fruit in the 'Banana Wars', and on and on and on....

Where was our benign and 'effective' military might when it came to Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia and.............?

Oh, but I forgot, this is only for 'show'--no live ammo, please; just the American military doing things in a 'kinder, gentler' way.  Sort of like...what are the words?...lock and load and lobotomy.  

Ah, Peace In Our Time.  May I please introduce my friend Adolf and his corporate entourage.  Hey, we're back to the Olympics!  Sue--maybe in 2014, they'll have War events.  I see GOLD.

---

by: PeteySweety @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 17:23:20 PM CST

Euphemism (4.00 / 4)

interacting with their counterparts and local populations

Well, that is a pretty good euphemism.  I'll have to remember it.

---

by: Michael Inners @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 20:10:20 PM CST

No euphamism. (0.00 / 0)

Merely an accurate description of what they do.  Even in Iraq and Afghanistan the US military has done a heck of a lot more providing humanitarian aid, infrastructure development, medical and dental engagements, foreign security and internal defense training, essential services provision, etc. than combat.  Only when necessary controlled violence is applied to establish security, creating the conditions necessary to address the essential needs of the populace.  The idea that US servicemembers are wantonly rampaging through streets in an orgy of bloodlust is a sick fantasy of the deluded.  

---

by: patrick cashman @ Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 21:00:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mr. Hoffer (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Hoffer,
I usually hate that thing people do where they divide a post into sections and repost the comments but I can't see a way around it on this one so you will have to forgive me.

- "I really have to wonder and worry about your anger and preconceptions"
Thanks, your concern is touching.  The only issue I have right now is I will probably need a chiropractor after all the stretching necessary to fit into the two separate categories you and Ms. Prent are trying to bin me in for convenience.  You, slyly implying I'm off the rails, presumably from a wicked case of PTSD.  She, that I'm a pampered bureaucrat having all my needs met in the comforting arms of Papa Pentagon.  I can understand one or the other, but both simultaneously seems contradictory.

- "I don't recall saying (or implying) anything about the legitimate role of the military"
Sure you did, you actually did in this very post.  Let's recap:
"because they could have (should have?) been doing something else "
"a ridiculous party on the other side of the world having NOTHING to do with security or military exercises"
"DOD just spent enough money to feed thousands of Haitians"
"what a crock"

- "putting everything in this odd sort of Vietnam era framework."
That's a strange one, actually it is what I am trying to do my small part to avoid.  Unfortunately post Vietnam certain groups were allowed to seize the narrative and establish a common but largely false view of the war and the military.  This led to myths such as the "crazed Vietnam vet" that denigrated and diminished the sacrifice of a generation of service members.  Allowing flat out lies and inaccurate statements about the military to stand unchallenged only encourages more fantasies to become accepted parts of the national outlook.  If you repeat a lie often enough, especially to an audience that is unequipped to judge its veracity, and no one challenges it the risk is it will be accepted as fact.

- "the Marines may well have been in the region (although we don't know that)"
Sure we do.  From the same article "The Marines who arrived Tuesday from the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force on the island of Okinawa..."

You generally hop-to when someone on this site starts discussing cost, reserving special condemnation for those who make judgments about expenditures with little to no knowledge of actual cost or consideration of actual benefit.  In this particular case you made snap judgments having no idea of the size or shape of the expenditure (cost, types of funding), nor any basis to judge the ultimate value of the event.  In the absence of knowledge you could arbitrarily decide to place the event anywhere on a scale between "best value ever" to "insanely corrupt waste of cash".  You defaulted to the latter extreme.  What, other than the bias and preconceptions you deny, could be the reason?

---

by: patrick cashman @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 17:02:13 PM CST

I would remind everyone (4.00 / 4)

That Mr. Cashman is the author of this letter at the Times Argus:

The listing of Green Mountain Daily by The Times Argus as Best Political Web site raises an important question: to what extent are elected officials responsible for the groups they support?

GMD is stridently left of center, to such an extent that its "editors" and commentators expend great effort trying to outdo each other in demonizing, denigrating or marginalizing those Vermonters who disagree with or question their opinions. If this were merely individual citizens having an online discussion about people they revile, it would be just another easily ignored extremist hate site.

The problem stems from those elected officials who are expected to serve all Vermonters yet support GMD by donating the one currency that really matters, access. Sen. Sanders provided a one-on-one interview, as has U.S. House Rep. Welch. Burlington state representative and possible lieutenant governor candidate David Zuckerman frequently posts unsolicited content, and if even a portion of the chest thumping by the contributors regarding "capitol sources" is true, they appear to have unfettered access to numerous state employees.

GMD makes frequent reference to the fact that they are not journalists, which is certainly a true statement. As "not-journalists" they have no responsibility to be balanced, unbiased or even factual, yet they are accorded access to our representatives and public servants as if they were. With professional Vermont news organizations readily available, why would any official who truly is representing his constituents' best interests choose to support a group that demeans so many of those he serves? If you consider yourself a moderate or conservative, your senator has donated his time to a group whose editors refer to you as a "mouthbreather," "nutter" and much worse.

If you live in Hardwick, Barre or Eden, your elected officials have supported a site on which you are classified as a "Redneck" and all Americans as a "pretty ignorant lot."

With a critical governor's campaign ahead, it is more important than ever to insist that those who would represent all Vermonters play an active role in taking back the political dialogue from the extremists on either end of the spectrum. Please contact your representatives, and those who seek to be your representatives, and demand they and their staff members demonstrate higher standards by denying access to those sites or groups such as GMD who revel in extremism and intolerance.

Patrick Cashman

Shelburne

He is not here to engage in debate constructively or honestly. His only intent is to disrupt discussion and insult those who frequent this site. I daresay a bit obsessively so.

He is the old-school definition of a "troll" and is therefore not worth engaging with. His comments should only serve to remind us all that there are obsessive, enraged wingnuts out there hyperventaliting over everything "the libs" say.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 19:12:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks for breaking out the fire hose, Odom! (0.00 / 0)

Sometimes we need that!

---

by: Sue Prent @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 19:32:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not to Mention ... (4.00 / 1)

His other primary aim which is to waste everyone's time.

NanuqFC
The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. ~ Hannah Arendt

---

by: NanuqFC @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 21:09:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hmmm, (0.00 / 1)

You must be using a highly personalized dictionary if I fit the definition of "troll".  Since you are flipping through anyway, see if "ad hominem" is in there.

---

by: patrick cashman @ Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 21:29:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Please respect the site rules (0.00 / 0)

From the "about" page:

"'troll rating.' ...is a rating reserved for comments
which are not designed to add to the discussion, but
serve to disrupt or derail it... Excessive troll
ratings on multiple comments indicates a desire to
disrupt conversation, and can also be grounds for
banning."

---

by: GMD @ Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:57:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmm... (4.00 / 1)

The mouthbreathing nutter still holds true, apparently. God Bless Amurrica.

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 08:22:57 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Strangelove (4.00 / 4)

Well, I liked the comment from Patrick about the US Military not being anything like what was portrayed in Dr. Strangelove.  Because Gen. Jack D. Ripper, while puffing on a big cigar, and talking about the Commie plot through fluoridation of our precious bodily fluids, sure as shit reminded me of a certain 4-star lunatic in the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Jack Kennedy, advocating for the invasion of Cuba and an all out nuclear slugging match with the Russkies.  We also have to watch out for that 'mutiny of pre-verts' mentioned in that movie.  Pre-verts with WMDs.  Backed up by Blackwater:

"Oh, we'll meet again
don't know where
don't know when
but I know..."

Everybody Sing!  You too, Patrick.

KA-BOOOOOMMMMM!!!!

---

by: PeteySweety @ Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 09:52:39 AM CST