Senator Coburn’s “Support the Troops”
Nov 16th, 2009 | 48 responses
Some feel that those who did not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq do not support the troops. It is my conviction that supporting the troops is more than just supporting a war.
There are millions of Americans who do not support this or that war, but certainly respect, honor, love, and, yes, support the troops—not just through bumper stickers or yellow ribbons, but through concrete acts of charity, volunteerism and support for legislation beneficial to our troops and veterans.
Some may still disagree, which is fine. However, what I find totally unacceptable is how some politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, who claim to support the troops, use the troops, or legislation benefitting the troops, as a political football to achieve their political objectives or to make a political statement.
The most recent example is the obstruction by Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma of urgently needed legislation intended to help wounded veterans and their families.
The legislation that “consolidates more than a dozen improvements in veterans’ health care — most notably a new assistance program for family members who wind up providing lifelong home nursing to severely disabled veterans” and which also “expands benefits for women veterans who suffered sexual trauma on duty, extends veterans’ care in rural areas, tightens quality control at V.A. hospitals, and ensures that catastrophically disabled veterans will not be charged for emergency services in community hospitals,” is now stalled on the floor of the Senate thanks to Senator Coburn.
According to the New York Times:
The omnibus legislation drew unanimous committee approval. But Senator Coburn objected to quick floor passage, demanding that the five-year, $3.7 billion cost be offset with immediate budget cuts. The senator’s argument rings hollow in the face of veterans’ suffering and the world of deficit budgeting brought on by his party’s tax cuts and zealous war investments.
Now he is demanding balanced books for wounded vets? Sheer embarrassment should drive the senator into retreat as he trifles with veterans’ needs and burnishes his petty role as Dr. No.
Some may say that the end justifies the means, that such “procedural tactics” to balance the budget, to neuter “misguided spending” are justified.
However, when our troops are used as the “means,” I strongly disagree.
Some will say that such deplorable tactics have been used by Democrats, too. Probably so. However, that doesn’t make it right and, yes, those Democrats are shameless, too.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
48 Responses to “Senator Coburn’s “Support the Troops””
Good article Dorian. Now, let's see what the “right of center” crowd that were rooting for more troops in Afghanistan in the David Broder to Obama thread have to say in defense of Senator Colburn in their effort to “prove” him right… and you wrong.
“Support our Troops” has been a campaign slogan for too many politicians (from both sides) for too long.
I seem to remember few “left of center” wars also. It's time to reign in presidential war powers, without the finger pointing.
Is that your defense of Senator Coburn or a distracting segue? I'll assume it's the latter because there is no defense of the good Senators action.
Perhaps there is a federal program in Oklahoma that Senator Coburn would like to suggest be terminated to offset the costs of the Veteran's Bill.
But Senator Coburn objected to quick floor passage, demanding that the five-year, $3.7 billion cost be offset with immediate budget cuts.
This would be in line with Democrats demands that Pay-Go guidelines be followed, would it not?
Are you saying that Coburn wants PayGo legislation to move forward? If so his request would make total sense, otherwise it just sounds like the same old same old. We will create money to start wars but can never find the money to correctly take care of the vets once they are home of course while they create yet more money for a new war to create whole new vets that they ignore. Those that choose to defend this nation do a very honorable thing because they go in knowing that they will be ignored if all does not come up peaches and cream and that is a sad state of affairs.
Are you saying that Coburn wants PayGo legislation to move forward?
My understanding is that it's already a rule in the House, and there's a similar rule in the Senate. If I remember correctly they had to waive the rule for the stimulus act.
“Is that your defense of Senator Coburn or a distracting segue?”
“Now, let's see what the “right of center” crowd that were rooting for more troops in Afghanistan”
You're original post implies that everyone who is “right of center” is also pushing for more troops. If that's a distracting segue, it's yours.
“But Senator Coburn objected to quick floor passage, demanding that the five-year, $3.7 billion cost be offset with immediate budget cuts.
This would be in line with Democrats demands that Pay-Go guidelines be followed, would it not?”
I am not sure if (a form of) Pay-Go legislation has been approved in the Senate.
However, I do know that budget/deficit conscious Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., called pay/go “a farce.”
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0809/080709cdpm…
However, I do know that budget/deficit conscious Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., called pay/go “a farce.”
So as usual both the GOP and Democrats are being hypocritical.
Here goes, Steve.
I think “supporting the troops” is a matter of perspective of the troops. Let me clarify.
If you are protesting the war. That's fine.
If you are protesting the war at the airport where soldiers/sailors are returning. That is not.
When a military member sees protests on television, it hits them in the back of the mind. It effects the morale and could add to fatigue and depression. Does that mean you should not use your Constitutional right to protest? No. But the citizenry could be a bit less “showy” about it, and the media should also be a bit less ignorant – during times of war.
I think that's where blogs come in so handy. Protesting the war here gets your point across, without damaging the morale of those deployed overseas. Calling your representatives is also a nice way. Does that make sense?
My point was mainly that the “troops” will ultimately be the judge as to whether you support them – not politicians and the media.
Let me add one more thing…..
As a vet…. I do not expect anything from the government.
For the younger ones in the military…..just give them a whack at the GI Bill and help them with an education. They already have preferrence points for employment. Give them a buy-in on the same health plan Congress enjoys as well. The first two are already there.
A returning warrior could use a hand up – not a hand out.
comments read
“If you are protesting the war at the airport where soldiers/sailors are returning. That is not.”
As I mentioned in several posts, such things were done to our Vietnam returnees and veterans and were disgraceful.
Fortunately, such is not the case today. (Of course, my friend, you may find an exception from some fringe group)
“A returning warrior could use a hand up – not a hand out.”
I do not consider the benefits contained in the legislation being obstructed by Coburn “handouts,” and perhaps you did not have those in mind.
But that's just a personal opinion.
I do not think it wise to start drawing lines in the sand of what is and is not acceptable protest behavior, leave it to Fox News and partisan hacks since they both(Dem and Rep) do a good job of it. It is also a matter of perspective, those protestors are the best line of defense those soldiers have of not being sent into an Iraq type situation. Meaning sent into war on a lie or a whim for that matter. Maybe if we would have listened to them in say 2003 instead of balancing panels with those that wanted to invade against those that wanted to carpet bomb and send in the special forces we would have known that we as a nation were being distracted. But of course we decided yet again that the protestors were the problem “they hate our troops”, no they hate the BS lies the MSM shoved down the nations throat in the best financial interests of those that own the MSM via their investments in the military industrial project. How many corporations, how many reporters in the MSM were fighting to keep us out of Iraq now considered possibly the largest military blunder in American History. Thats right not one but yea those freakin peaceniks are the enemy, lets kick some hippies and that will make this nation a much better place. What everyone seems to miss is that those protestors were right all along, it was a war for profit and they did not want to send our children to fight and die in it, how dare they.
No my comment to you was regarding how your comment didn't address the topic of this thread… Senator Coburn. Your first comment ignored Senator Coburn's action completely and you tried to segue the thread into a “left of center” “right of center” are both wrong.
All of the other regular “right of center” posters here at TMV today have either ignored this thread or tried to change the subject which was the point of my original comment:
Sorry if my remark wasn't clear to you but none of the “right of center” comments in this thread have even mentioned the good Senator's name you and DaGoat have answer my comment.
No # 2 – Nowhere in my comment did I imply that everyone who is “right of center” is also pushing for more troops. If you reread my comment you will see that I was inviting the ones who are… You know the “right of center” commenters that were pushing for more troops in the David Broder to Obama thread.
Sorry if my remark wasn't clear to you but none of the “right of center” comments in this thread have even mentioned the good Senator's name so thank you ProfElwood, you and DaGoat have answer my question.
Here's the way I see this, SteveK. Coburn was probably just being an obstructive jerk with what he did, which was the point of the original post. I agree with that.
On the other hand when I see someone being criticized for encouraging fiscal discipline, even if his motives weren't exactly pure, I tend to defend him. In this case I think Coburn is asking Democrats to follow the rules they themselves put into place when they won back the Congress.
I don't agree with DE's implication that budgetary guidelines should not be followed just because this is a veteran's issue.
Veterans issues to me equal war issues. Therefore vote for the war vote for the vets. Go in debt for the war go in debt for the vets. Pay as you go for the war pay as you go for the vets. Otherwise you get what we have had in most US wars with the exception of WWII, the gov promises the men join and then have to force the government to carry through. It is disgusting and vile but it is our history, see WWI vets.
“I don't agree with DE's implication that budgetary guidelines should not be followed just because this is a veteran's issue.”
I didn't imply anything.
I said:
“Some may say that the end justifies the means, that such “procedural tactics” to balance the budget, to neuter “misguided spending” are justified.
However, when our troops are used as the “means,” I strongly disagree.”
You can agree wirh me, or disagree. But don't say that I implied something I didn't imply.
Thanks
Let me reply to myself, and clarify myself:
I didn't “imply” that when out troops are used as the means to some political end, even if it is to balance the budget or to “neuter” misguided spending, that is wrong. I wrote it, I said it, and I stand by it.
“I do not think it wise to start drawing lines in the sand of what is and is not acceptable protest behavior”
I totally agree with you, in theory, MSF (and in principle, sort of)….
The right to protest was afforded us toward our government – not toward one another. I can assemble, protest, and petition grievances to my government. I am not guaranteed that right towards fellow citizens. The military is a branch of the executive, I understand that. However, it is similar to protesting the IRS for high taxes. They just carry out policy – whereas the Executive branch calls the shots.
With that said, in the true “spirit” of the Constitution….protesting troops, in my opinion, is wrong.
And I agree about the reasons we went to war in 2003. We “could have” listened. But the nation was still in a vengeance mode after 9/11. That's when congress and the president took advantage of a good situation and pushed going in while the “patriotism” shadow lingered. They could point at people and say, “you don't want us to attack Iraq? You must be unpatriotic”. Similar tactics were used by McCarthy in the Senate, if you remember.
Regardless, we should protest the President and/or Congress to get our grievances heard….I'm just saying that it WILL have an affect on the troops morale – whether intended or not.
Obviously, I'm for veteran's benefits, Dorian. We have come a long long way since I joined. Thanks to Bush, the pay is much better and sailors and soldiers can actually live above the poverty line. Congress also deserves Kudo's for the new GI Bill and extended health benefits following deployments. That's great, and I'm not belittling it.
My point was that this bill includes a bunch of pork. In addition, there is a point where you can possibly say “enough is enough” with veteran's benefits – when they reach an acceptable level. I'm not sure what that level is, but we have to draw a line when our nation is so far in debt. I'd be willing to go without for a while. Troop benefits ranks lower, to me, than our sky-rocketing national debt – and that includes healthcare legislation. Call me old fashioned.
It's hard to take seriously the arguments that “right of center” really cares doodley-squat about budgetary guidelines on this issue. If that were the case they'd have praised President Obama for correcting eight years of a Republican Administration funding the Iraq War ($800B+) with off the books tactics… Tactics that were approved by Senator Coburn and his cohorts.
The fact that Veterans' Health Care Funding isn't part of the Defense Budget is a national disgrace.
One of Coburn's cohorts, the good Senator Cornyn – R TX, has quite a history regarding veteran issues, too. Here's an article on the subject from today's San Marcos Mercury, a San Marcos, TX newspaper:
Sen. Cornyn continues to lie about his ’support’ for veterans
Republican concern for and support of our troops is obscene.
“Troop benefits ranks lower, to me, than our sky-rocketing national debt – and that includes healthcare legislation. Call me old fashioned.”
I don't agree with you, but your frankness is appreciated.
“My point was that this bill includes a bunch of pork.”
I am curious to know exactly which active duty and veterans benefits in this legislation you consider “a bunch of pork.”
Thanks
If that were the case they'd have praised President Obama for correcting eight years of a Republican Administration funding the Iraq War ($800B+) with off the books tactics…
I do applaud Obama for correcting Bush's off-the-books tactics, but note that Obama is supporting the Democrats own off-the-books tactics regarding correcting the Medicare physician payment SGR. I know you want this to be a partisan issue, but really I would just like honest fiscal responsibility.
If you want to get into a “who's worse” argument with me, my feeling is that neither party deserves respect when it comes to fiscal responsibility, at least since the Clinton/Gingrich days.
My comments:
“My point was that this bill includes a bunch of pork.”
I am curious to know exactly which active duty and veterans benefits in this legislation you consider “a bunch of pork.”
Thanks”"
J.D. I have re-read your comments and I see now you are talking about pork in the entire omnibus legislation.
Noted,
Dorian
Dorian,
It's not your typical “pork”, but there are many earmarks for the Veterans Administration iteself in the “Other Matters Title”.
I have read the legislation. It has a lot of well-meaning things in it. Iraq veterans are the focus of most of this bill. Most of these items are already provided in one extent or another. This bill merely bureauacracizes (is that a word) them into the VA. It is not needed. It provides for countless studies that are heavy in cost and light in substance. This is a waste. There are also many “taylored” Titles for Women veterans which is vague. If I didn't know any better, it allows a loophole for VA covered abortions. Don't quote me on that one YET. I'm still diggin.
I will say that I liked the Title that allows for financing of entities for Homeless Veterans. That's awesome. Bout time.
Hi JD _
Well, actually you are guaranteed the right to protest against other citizens. It's different from the right to make grievances to the government. It's the right of free speech and expression.
Having said that, I appreciate your perspective on protesting returning troops. It is rude, disrespectful and inconsiderate, even if it is constitutionally protected.
One of the benefits of having someone like you post comments here is that there is educational value to your experiences and observations. Perhaps some of that education will become knowledge that can be passed on so that those who wish to protest will be less inclined to confront troops in a manner that might be considered insulting to their service.
To those who do not learn or insist on being inconsiderate I would repeat the wise man's remark that “I despise what you are saying (or how you are expressing it), but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Your insight is valuable, and should be highly regarded, but within the context of the Constitutional guarantees that you and many others have given their service for.
returning troops/ protest. then tidbits, there's the ongoing pestilence of Pastor Fred and his ghouls who do their protests at vets funerals. And the motorcycle brigades that have come to drown him the heck out revving their hogs, thankfully.
Senator Coburn of OK, likewise will earn the eternal opprobrium of some vets and their families who will see him as unable to deliver the meat just because there appears to be too much lettuce in the sandwich. You and I and other commenters here have had this discussion before. Obstructionists creat the party of 'No” trope over and over. Timely problem solvers. despite party affiliation… those who differentiate clearly too and effectively, usefully, quickly, are the breed we're holding out for. In our time. Like now would not be too soon.
The fact that Veterans' Health Care Funding isn't part of the Defense Budget is a national disgrace.
It may shock you, Steve, but I agree with most of your comments here (if not the tone) and particularly with that line. Veteran's benefits, including healthcare, should be generously funded and part of the overall defense budget.
Now, where you and Dorian are wrong though is in criticizing Coburn as a hypocrite on the funding issues. He's been a pretty consistent fiscal hawk, and he opposed Bush on both the Medicare expansion (since it was an unfunded mandate that added to the deficit) and on the use of emergency supplemental bills for Iraq War funding. And that article that Dorian cited where Coburn called PAY-GO a farce, it was precisely because of what he's pointing out in this current debate- it's a farce because the rule is passed but then there are constant bills being put through that are said to be an exception to the rule.
I think it's both wrong and impolitic for him to choose this particular battle to raise the funding issue, but he has been consistent and he was one of the few to speak out against some budgetary improprieties when Bush was president.
“Now, where you and Dorian are wrong though is in criticizing Coburn as a hypocrite on the funding issues.”
CS:
I don't think I have called Coburn a hypocrite on the veterans' funding issue. I call him “shameless” (as I call Democrats who do likewise) for obstructing passage of a bill that includes badly needed veterans benefits to make his political, budgetrary, deficits point.
In this case, I do not believe that the end justifies the means.
That's all. And that's my opinion. Others obvioulsy disagree.
Thank you for yours
JD:
These are the main provisions of the S. 1963: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009
The remainder are administrative, reporting, facilities, research, personnel matters.
Yes, perhaps some are “pork?”, bureaucracy, studies,etc. (e.g. Title VIII, IX). But, please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater
And, where do you see “a loophole for VA covered abortions”?.
TITLE I–CAREGIVER SUPPORT
Sec. 101. Waiver of charges for humanitarian care provided to family members accompanying certain severely injured veterans as they receive medical care.
Sec. 102. Family caregiver assistance.
Sec. 103. Lodging and subsistence for attendants.
Sec. 104. Survey of informal caregivers.
TITLE II–WOMEN VETERANS HEALTH CARE MATTERS
Sec. 201. Report on barriers to receipt of health care for women veterans.
Sec. 202. Plan to improve provision of health care services to women veterans.
Sec. 203. Independent study on health consequences of women veterans of military service in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sec. 204. Training and certification for mental health care providers on care for veterans suffering from sexual trauma.
Sec. 205. Pilot program on counseling in retreat settings for women veterans newly separated from service in the Armed Forces.
Sec. 206. Report on full-time women veterans program managers at medical centers.
Sec. 207. Service on certain advisory committees of women recently separated from service in the Armed Forces.
Sec. 208. Pilot program on subsidies for child care for certain veterans receiving health care.
Sec. 209. Care for newborn children of women veterans receiving maternity care.
TITLE III–RURAL HEALTH IMPROVEMENTS
Sec. 301. Enhancement of Department of Veterans Affairs Education Debt Reduction Program.
Sec. 302. Visual impairment and orientation and mobility professionals education assistance program.
Sec. 303. Inclusion of Department of Veterans Affairs facilities in list of facilities eligible for assignment of participants in National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program.
Sec. 304. Teleconsultation and telemedicine.
Sec. 305. Demonstration projects on alternatives for expanding care for veterans in rural areas.
Sec. 306. Program on provision of readjustment and mental health care services to veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sec. 307. Improvement of care of American Indian veterans.
Sec. 308. Travel reimbursement for veterans receiving treatment at facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 309. Office of Rural Health five-year strategic plan.
Sec. 310. Oversight of contract and fee-basis care.
Sec. 311. Enhancement of Vet Centers to meet needs of veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Sec. 312. Centers of excellence for rural health research, education, and clinical activities.
Sec. 313. Pilot program on incentives for physicians who assume inpatient responsibilities at community hospitals in health professional shortage areas.
Sec. 314. Annual report on matters related to care for veterans who live in rural areas.
Sec. 315. Transportation grants for rural veterans service organizations.
Sec. 316. Modification of eligibility for participation in pilot program of enhanced contract care authority for health care needs of certain veterans.
TITLE IV–MENTAL HEALTH CARE MATTERS
Sec. 401. Eligibility of members of the Armed Forces who serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom for counseling and services through Readjustment Counseling Service.
Sec. 402. Restoration of authority of Readjustment Counseling Service to provide referral and other assistance upon request to former members of the Armed Forces not authorized counseling.
Sec. 403. Study on suicides among veterans.
Sec. 404. Transfer of funds to Secretary of Health and Human Services for Graduate Psychology Education program.
TITLE V–OTHER HEALTH CARE MATTERS
Sec. 501. Repeal of certain annual reporting requirements.
Sec. 502. Modifications to annual Gulf War research report.
Sec. 503. Payment for care furnished to CHAMPVA beneficiaries.
Sec. 504. Disclosures from certain medical records.
Sec. 505. Disclosure to Secretary of health-plan contract information and social security number of certain veterans receiving care.
Sec. 506. Enhancement of quality management.
Sec. 507. Reports on improvements to Department health care quality management.
Sec. 508. Pilot program on use of community-based organizations and local and State government entities to ensure that veterans receive care and benefits for which they are eligible.
Sec. 509. Specialized residential care and rehabilitation for certain veterans.
Sec. 510. Expanded study on the health impact of Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense.
Sec. 511. Use of non-Department facilities for rehabilitation of individuals with traumatic brain injury.
Sec. 512. Inclusion of federally recognized tribal organizations in certain programs for State veterans homes.
Sec. 513. Pilot program on provision of dental insurance plans to veterans and survivors and dependents of veterans.
Sec. 514. Expansion of veteran eligibility for reimbursement by Secretary of Veterans Affairs for emergency treatment furnished in a non-Department facility.
Sec. 515. Prohibition on collection of copayments from veterans who are catastrophically disabled.
TITLE VI–DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL MATTERS
Sec. 601. Enhancement of authorities for retention of medical professionals.
Sec. 602. Limitations on overtime duty, weekend duty, and alternative work schedules for nurses.
Sec. 603. Improvements to certain educational assistance programs.
Sec. 604. Standards for appointment and practice of physicians in Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities.
TITLE VII–HOMELESS VETERANS MATTERS
Sec. 701. Pilot program on financial support for entities that coordinate the provision of supportive services to formerly homeless veterans residing on certain military property.
Sec. 702. Pilot program on financial support of entities that coordinate the provision of supportive services to formerly homeless veterans residing in permanent housing.
Sec. 703. Pilot program on financial support of entities that provide outreach to inform certain veterans about pension benefits.
Sec. 704. Assessment of pilot programs.
TITLE IX–CONSTRUCTION AND NAMING MATTERS
Sec. 901. Authorization of medical facility projects.
Sec. 902. Designation of Robley Rex Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
Sec. 903. Merril Lundman Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.
Sec. 904. Modification on restriction of alienation of certain real property in Gulf Port, Mississippi.
It's nice to hear we almost agree on something now and again.
Regarding “tone” – It seems to be one of those things that we hear in others long before (if ever?) we hear it in ourselves… and it seems to be the tone in those we disagree with that we notice first and that bother us the most.
Hi Archangel.
“there's the ongoing pestilence of Pastor Fred and his ghouls who do their protests at vets funerals. And the motorcycle brigades that have come to drown him the heck out revving their hogs, thankfully.”
No argument. Freedom is a pain in the butt and you have cited the worst of the worst. On a lesser, but still inexcusably offensive scale, I would add naked women in cages (PETA), depictions of an African American president as a monkey, or any president as Hitler, armed protestors carrying implicitly threatening messages like the Tree of Liberty quote, environmentalists spiking trees resulting in death or injury to loggers as their chainsaws kick back on contact with the spikes. The list goes on as you well know. Many for worthy causes and truly held beliefs, but without caution or restraint or understanding of consequences or respect for others. Where freedom exists nothing is sacred but freedom itself. But, where freedom does not exist subservience is boundless. Guess I'll take the former with all its loutish and disrespectful, and sometimes dangerous, ramifications.
“Timely problem solvers. despite party affiliation… those who differentiate clearly too and effectively, usefully, quickly, are the breed we're holding out for. In our time. Like now would not be too soon.”
Yes.
As for the bill itself, I haven't read it. It probably does contain some pork, and I would prefer my meat, to use your analogy, leaner than what comes from Washington. But, I would say to JD, believing he would agree, and as you already know from your years in the trenches, their are many vets for whom a “hand up” is not an option and who need more.
On Coburn: he is consistent as CS points out, but he is a horse's patoot for picking this piece of legislation to make his stand…as everyone is pointing out.
Fair enough, D. E….I do apologize, I didn't mean to misrepresent your statements. I was reading and responding quickly and thought you had written something about him supporting the prior administrations unfunded mandates and off budget military spending. I see now that that wasn't the case.
No problem CS, and no apology needed.
Sometimes it is I (me?) who gets too thin-skinned with innocent, well-meant remarks by commenters.
Dorian
It's nice to hear we almost agree on something now and again.
Regarding “tone” – It seems to be one of those things that we hear in others long before (if ever?) we hear it in ourselves… and it seems to be the tone in those we disagree with that we notice first and that bother us the most.
We agree again!
Hi, tidbits…..
Exceptions established by the courts to the First Amendment protections include the following:
Defamation | Causing panic | Fighting words | Incitement to crime | Sedition | Obscenity
The main point I was making is that some protesting can cause harm to the troops and literally endanger their lives. Under the “fighting words” subcategory….. If you were to call a soldier a “baby killer”, it is unlawful according to the Supreme Court and does not fall within your Constitutional rights (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).
So to peacably protest is one thing….To verbally assault is another. As was mentioned with the Pastor Fred clown…… He is using “fighting words” against the families of fallen soldiers IMHO. Thus, he and his followers should be banned from those situations.
from: http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C
I saw all of the provisions. There is MUCH bureaucracy in it and many studies – just look at the number of times the words “Pilot Program” are used.. As I stated… A lot of work is being done to provide services that are already available to servicemen. Other than the homeless veterans provisions, I don't see much in the bill that is “new”, per se. That alone gets my suspicion up.
JD -
Never cite cases to a lawyer.
Did my research. Short law school tutorial. It is not only what a case purports to say, but how it is interpreted in subsequent cases. Particularly true with old cases.
Chaplinsky v. NH was a 1942 case (old in legal terms). It has since been considerably narrowed and the more appropriate case for the current state of the law would be Gooding v. Wilson (SCt, 1972), though Chaplinsky has never been expressly overturned. Gooding found that opproprious (meant to convey disgrace) and abusive language do not constitute fighting words…Georgia statute overturned as unconstitutional.
See also, Purtell v. Mason (7th Cir. Ct of Appeals, 2008) noting that Chaplinsky never held that the government could regulate or punish speech that causes emotional harm.
There is also a line of legal thinking, alluded to in the Gooding case but not expressly adopted, that the Chaplinsky ruling can only be applied to words spoken to a specific individual as opposed to a group.
I understand, and to some extent sympathize with your perspective, but a lot of vile speech occurs and the courts protect it more often than not. Btw, I believe though haven't researched, the fighting words/incitement to violence exception was tried with regard to flag burning statutes and was rejected. Not suggesting you should agree with that; it's just the current state of the law.
PS. There is very little left of the defamation exception and even less left of the obscenity/pornography exceptions to free speech (except for regulated airways re: obscenity and child porn re: pornography).
Caregiver assistance to our most wounded veterans, who often need assistance to do some of the smallest tasks; Funding for such issues as mental health care for women who suffered military sexual trauma, women’s health care needs and medical services for newborn children; Aid for rural veteran health care issues; Mental health care; and, Programs to help ease the burden of veteran homelessness
“.too much bueaucracy” “no much in this bill” “gets your suspicion up”
A matter of perspective. But you have the last word.
Wow, Tidbits! Thanks for the review/education! (that's sincere, by the way).
I didn't know you were a lawyer! Cool. That was my first career choice (with an undergrad in Political Science) before my wife and I started having children.
I understand the protection of all speech – be it vile or pleasant. If a Nazi is down the road saying that Jews are scum, it's protected. If a Christian is preaching the Gospel on a corner, it's protected. And if Al Gore is on a movie screen saying that we are causing the temperature fluxuations that result from cycles of the earth and sun, that's protected too. (just had to put that in there for the neo-libs).
My main beef is when that speech is directed directly at a specific gathering or individual in front of them. As is the case with Pastor Fred, he's not on some corner – he's going to INDIVIDUAL vet funerals and aiming hateful speech toward those gathered there. If nothing else, it's disturbing the peace.
Hey Dorian….. I've got one more statement on the bill.
Why are women singled out in this bill? The mental health of women and men are both handled presently within the system, as is women's health care needs. Why does this particular title need to be addressed? As a supervisor my people are my people. They are all sailors – not men and women. I understand that women have different medical needs than men, but as I stated, they are addressed now already. Now the worst case scenario on this one could be that “women's health care needs” could be a thinly veiled attempt at funding abortion. I'm not saying that is the case, but it has been “subtly” referred to like that in the past.
In addition to the extensive treatment available to them on active duty, there is also extensive care available to them via the VA right now. What is this bill giving us?
Yes, the homeless vets and rural health care issues are top notch and should have been in place long ago; but much of the rest of the bill seems to be useless or, at best, redundant.
And you, my brother, can have the last word.
Can not let this one slide by, as it is the secod time that you make such insinuations without a shred of evidence:
“Now the worst case scenario on this one could be that “women's health care needs” could be a thinly veiled attempt at funding abortion. I'm not saying that is the case, but it has been “subtly” referred to like that in the past.”
If you are “not saying that is the case,” then why say it in the first place.
That'll be my last post on this
You're probably right, Dorian.
The reason I say “things like that” is because it has happened in the past, where conservatives and liberals add vague language to a bill that can be further “clarified” by the bench. It's where we get the terms “reinvestment” when it really means “corporate welfare; and where we get “womens' heath concerns” when it really could mean something else entirely. Both parties do this, Dorian. It's called spin. In the case of legislation, it's called preemptive post-legislation.