Joel Stein: I Don't Get It

It appears most of the right wing blogs are all on about Joel Stein today. Sorry, I don't get it and passed over the story last night or this morning, whenever I saw it break on Drudge. In the first place, it struck me something like sensationalism. Obviously when a columnist writes something like that, it's almost designed to draw a response.

But, more importantly, at least the man is being honest. That's more than I can say for most of the liberal politicians who claim to support the troops, just not the war. People who read here know, or should know I am a strong supporter of the war and the troops, even having one family member who served in Iraq. But people should also know their history as regards America.

We've had Quakers and other pacifists of many stripes who don't believe in war, or feel obliged to the military for their noble service. Now, if they started barricading recruitment stations, or sabotaging aircraft, they'd be traitors and I'd just as soon see them shot. But I am not going to fall into what I think is a pitiful trap of pronouncing someone scum or slime because they simply and honestly speak their mind.

Now you can call him dumb, short-sighted, even perhaps unpatriotic, I suppose. But simply hurling insults like scum, or slime and suggesting he leave the country for stating his position has no place in the traditions or history of America, at least not the ones that I admire most.

LOS ANGELES, Jan 24 (Reuters) - A Los Angeles Times columnist who infuriated conservatives by writing that he does not support American troops fighting in Iraq -- and calling those who do "wusses" -- stood by the article on Tuesday.

Joel Stein said he has been "bombarded" by hate mail over the incendiary article -- which was headlined "Warriors and Wusses" and held that U.S. soldiers in Iraq were "ignoring their morality" -- but does not regret writing it and stands by the premise.

"I don't support what they are doing, and I don't the see point of putting a big yellow magnet on your car if you don't," Stein told Reuters in an interview. "I don't think (soldiers) are necessarily bad people. I do plenty of things that are wrong too. But I don't agree with what they are doing so I don't see the logic of supporting it."

Comments

[SallyVee]

You make a very good point Dan. I wish I was mature enough to fully embrace it. Even though I know darn well his comments were designed to get under my skin, I let Stein get under my skin. I kept seeing the infamous pull quote everywhere, all day long. I still haven't read the entire column but I am enraged nonetheless. Joke's on me. The jackasss -- whose name I didn't know until today -- got into my head, with a helpful push from the blogosphere.

[ViVi]

Sally, forget him. He's just a little attention grabbing imp. Not worth spending more than a half-thought on.

[Kelly3]

If Stein didn't think he was going to a get reaction to his column he is a dimmer bulb than I thought. Now that was putting it mildy how I really feel.

[Phoenix]

Language itself shapes a man's basic ideas. Joel Stein is not just a small man. He is a small man with a huge platform and a huge audience who will read his language and imbibe not their own basic ideas but his. Therein lies the problem. It is one thing to laud him as being honest, but entirely another to let his version of honesty affect the teeming masses who will absorb his ideas.

He had one moment of honesty. To hit the send button or the delete button. Had he been honest with himself and acknowledged the power of his position, he would have hit the delete button.

It's that simple.

[James T]

Hey Dan go to his bio... The opening sentence is Joe is desperate for attention!

[Bitsey]

Considering the fact that we have a volunteer military, the guy isn't at risk of being forced to fight a war he doesn't support. Hurling insults at those who have chosen to be there really is a wussie thing to do.

[ViVi]

Hugh Hewitt tore Joel apart today in radio interview after Joel made the 'I dont support our troops' comment. Read the transcript at Radio Blogger. You'll feel better about this whole thing.

[Dan]

Hugh Hewitt tore Joel apart today in radio interview after Joel made the 'I dont support our troops' comment. Read the transcript at Radio Blogger

I read it before I posted, that's part of why I did. I didn't hear him hurling any insults at the troops, he said he didn't support them but was sort of in an awe that they could do what they do, as he never could. And, Phoenix, come on, girl, that's a total lefty argument - people can't think for themselves, so he shouldnt be able to say what he thinks.

If anything, more people support our troops after hearing guys like that. The only people he influences are already gone. You know I dont abide people calling the President a terrorist, or some such. And I wouldnt abide it if he called our troops baby killers, or some such. From what I saw and read, he never did.

I'm not afraid of his expressing his views. And I'm not afraid of him influencing a bulk of the good people of this country who can think for themselves.

[shonane]

Considering the fact that we have a volunteer military, the guy isn't at risk of being forced to fight a war he doesn't support. Hurling insults at those who have chosen to be there really is a wussie thing to do.

Posted by: Bitsey |
----------------------
This is an inaccurate statement. The majority of troops who served in Iraq did not sign up AFTER we invaded or even when the invasion was being discussed. They were already in the military and a huge percent of them were in the National Guard, never expecting to be shipped off to a combat zone, rather thinking they had a stateside role.

There also has been a backdoor draft where some had served their term of enlistment and not allowed to be discharged. I know several who have served in Iraq and national guardsmen/women who were unexpectedly shipped off (one man I supervise who is in his 50s and in the local national guard was deployed army infantry full time - stateside in his case.) Not all of these people were supportive of this war, even though some were.

[mulder]

I don't agree with the war - I think all Americans should be ashamed at what their country is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I think it takes guts to speak out against it. I also think a lot of people wuss out and side with it.

However, no matter how I feel about the war, I will always give 100% support to the troops that are there. They are in tough and they need everyone's support.

[James T]

Mulder,

Perhaps you should travel to those countries before you make a statement you can't defend. You haved NO IDEA what their life was like before the war and you have NO idea what their real view is of what the US has done for them. The media here does not even come close to telling the truth nor all the good that has happened or has been done since.

This country and the solders have every right to be proud of what they have accomplished. It's not easy over there, its not been perfect, and their have been mistakes. But there have been many many successes as well far more than failures. Where there have been failures adjustments have been made and continue to be made to get it right.

[Phoenix]

"Phoenix, come on, girl, that's a total lefty argument - people can't think for themselves, so he shouldnt be able to say what he thinks."

Dan,

You're right. I do sound patronizing with the 'teeming masses'. But, you know...tough. Stein's remarks didn't just touch those who don't bother to think for themselves; they touched god knows how many people who have sons and daughters who are soldiers. Those who have lost a son or daughter? "Wusses?" Sheesh. It's not as if some anti-war activist on the street spouted off. Millions have read this, and now, millions more with the blogs taking hold of it. If I were a soldier or a parent, family member of a soldier, this immense exposure would probably enrage me first and then make me crumble.

Oh, sigh. It's all about personal responsibility and ethics. WHY did Stein feel the need to write this? Self-aggrandizement? Surely he had no 'greater good' in mind when he wrote it. We are a fractured country right now, and just maybe he could have thought to himself - what good will this serve and done the right thing by not adding to the soul-sucking that champions itself as free speech these days.

I'm not for censorship at all. I guess I am just really really tired of people hurting others. How's that for simple?

[callmeBetty]

> WHY did Stein feel the need to write this?

I can't speak for mr. stein, but I recently had the same thought myself so i can tell you why it came up for me.......

After years of being anti-Iraq war and terribly conflicted regarding the troops overseas...always thinking positively regarding their activities and the danger they face, I've become very cynical from reading how hypocritical the Left is for supporting the troops but not the war. It has been pounded into my head, by the conservatives, so often, that I am actually convinced that mr stein is right.....

Unfortunately, I don't think that that's what the Neocons had in mind when this "you can't support the troops and hate the war" campaign was launched.

The door swings both ways. I guess I was supposed to love the war. D'oh........

[Sgt. York]

ANYONE HERE ACTUALLY READ IT?
Here it is:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

EXCERPT
And I've got no problem with other people — the ones who were for the Iraq war — supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.

=================

[callmeBetty]

I feel this is a more important topic than the logical, cerebral reconciliation gymnastics of mr. stein......

Since my son is of an age where I need to worry about conscription, I pay more attention to the big picture. Again, this comes from the 'wrong' source but why aren't these issues first and foremost in the news..... I'd be happy to listen to the rebuttal arguement, if there was one. But I don't want to hear "remember 9/11 and Al-Qaida" repeated over and over again as justification.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military24jan24,0,706286.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Irish Whistle]

I have mixed feelings.

A) It is okay for Stein to say he doesn't support the troops, and I think people should settle down.

B) I disagree emphatically, however, with Stein's statement that "they all know what they are doing when they enlist". When I enlisted at the dumb age of 18 I did it for the job skills and because I didn't know what else to do with my life. I couldn't have showed you the difference between New York and Baghdad on a map! Oh, sure, I knew that the "Russians" were bad, and would have probably kicked your ass if you said something bad about the US, but it didn't come from anything deep. I guarantee you I didn't do it for patriotic reasons or that I knew the risks. Now I am a "real" patriot, and I understand that criticizing government is not the same as criticizing country. Everywhere I traveled in the military, I learned that people hated their gov't., loved their country.

3) I hope to HELL that when Stein says that he doesn't "support" the troops, that he still cares about their well-being. Wishing that American soldiers died or got injured just because you disagree with the war WOULD make him scum, and even Cindy Sheehan would probably disagree.

4) I also agree with Dan that Stein was not bright for making these remarks. OF COURSE you're going to piss some good people off when you make that sort of attention-getting statement.

[Bitsey]

This is an inaccurate statement. The majority of troops who served in Iraq did not sign up AFTER we invaded or even when the invasion was being discussed.
Posted by: shonane | Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 03:02 AM

They still are volunteers. Nobody forced them to sign up and they continue to sign up.

[cpakc1]

I absolutely do not understand the arguement people are trying to make when they say "well they volunteered for it" Are you seriously trying to imply the soldiers signed-up to fight in Iraq??? You think you could walk-up to one soldier in Iraq not in the view of any leadership, and they'd say "yeah I signed-up to come fight in Iraq"? Look at the economy jack, the big three laying off thousands and every major corporation outsourcing or shutting down north american operations is what is bolstering the enlistment numbers. Not the willingness to fight in the armpit of civilization. Ever heard the saying "Hey the army is always hiring?"

[cpakc1]

I absolutely do not understand the arguement people are trying to make when they say "well they volunteered for it" Are you seriously trying to imply the soldiers signed-up to fight in Iraq??? You think you could walk-up to one soldier in Iraq not in the view of any leadership, and they'd say "yeah I signed-up to come fight in Iraq"? Look at the economy jack, the big three laying off thousands and every major corporation outsourcing or shutting down north american operations is what is bolstering the enlistment numbers. Not the willingness to fight in the armpit of civilization. Ever heard the saying "Hey the army is always hiring?"