Posted on 07/01/08 in Media, Communication, Politics

Get Smart

JACK
It suddenly occurs to me that everything seems to be done differently than in the past. I feel that we are constantly being dumbed down, and I know that I had a much better feeling of what was happening politically in former days. Now bills are passing through Congress under what seems like a cloak of secrecy. I am not sure whether I can tie the two together, but the information on Television seem to be addressed to a lower intelligence level. Do you, as a young person, have any feeling about this? I feel a much lower threshold of real information. I also feel that we are very sensitive in arenas where it should not be that important, while also displaying a lack of feeling for truly important issues. I feel desperately sad for the thousands of veterans in Iraq who have suffered terrible injuries, or for the families of those who have been killed. I find this recent flap about Senator McCain’s qualifications as a military expert very disturbing. No one denies his years of service and his heroism, but General Clark was very legitimate in questioning what he has learned as a result of these terrible experiences that qualifies him to be Commander in Chief. Despite the fact that he used his own experiences as an example, I could not believe the anguished roar of resentment for daring to ask the question. Are my eyes too jaded to understand, or is my brain too aged to understand truth?

HILLARY
Young eyes can be jaded too, which might explain your television watching experience over the past few years. During the 1940’s there were a lot of musical films, were there not?

JACK
Yes, absolutely. Many.

Hillary
In film class this is called “escapism.” I think the same phenomenon might be responsible. Those of us who watch the news every day, or get online, or read the paper, can get easily bogged down in the shear amount of suffering and corruption that exists in the world. Sometimes it must be easier to watch somebody doing something stupid on TV, or on Youtube. The difference today is, there is a lot more frivolity from which to choose.

JACK
The question really is, how does this all come together and make sense? The public is outraged if we question the ability of a hero. I can only turn to my own experience. I flew 27 combat missions over Japan in a B-29. I was decorated for my service, above and beyond. But none of it qualified me to determine who should be bombed, what kind of bombs we should carry, when the raid should be executed, or even if it was time to negotiate. I feel no insult if someone tells me I am not qualified, and it in no way detracts from the services I performed for my country. So what’s all the fuss about? And why should a statement of fact defile another recognized war hero, like General Clark?

Hillary
I think it’s all a distraction. I think it’s meant to keep us out of the process. If we are obsessed with minutia, we won’t look for the real issues. So, it is our responsibility to look past all of the fluff, and arm ourselves with information to present to our leaders with the hope of bringing about meaningful change.

Communication is inspiration! Share your thoughts below.

2 Comments


  1. On what basis is General Clark a heroic and admirable man if John McCain isn’t? Clark says that McCain was just a guy who “rode in planes and got captured.” But Clark is just an incompetent general who was fired by President Clinton. Why do you lend him credibility?

    Furthermore, just four years ago, Clark said quite adamantly that John Kerry was eminently qualified to be president on the precise grounds that he now dismisses in McCain, i.e., that Kerry was a “decorated war hero” (despite Kerry’s obviously having had a far less impressive military career than McCain, and then coming home and trashing our veterans as genocidal maniacs on the level of Ghengis Khan).

    What is really going on is that Obama’s surrogates are trying to undermine McCain’s real achievements in order to obscure the fact that Obama has none. After all, we are about to elect a man president whose only life achievement is having been a professional community agitiator and writing a mediocre book about his personal psychodrama.

    Curious George

  2. Curious George,

    Your criticism of General Wesley Clark’s statement is a perfect example of obscuring the facts of the truth of his statement. I saw and heard the original comment on the Sunday talking heads and then the next day on Good Morning America. I was totally surprised by the insulted reaction by you and the way the stories are spun by the politicians and press.

    The only thing I heard the General say was that being a naval pilot and being in prison for 51/2 years did not give Senator McCain tremendous qualifications for being Commander in Chief. This has nothing to do with the debt that all Americans owe to Senator McCain for his heroic services to his country.

    Long before I heard General Clark make the statement, I was telling my friends in jest that with the publicity on Senator McCain, I should also be qualified to be Commander in Chief since I flew 27 combat missions over Japan in a B-29. I had the good fortune not to be shot down. This experience does not equip me to be an expert on tactical bombing. My job was to get the airplane to the target and dropping the bombs as ordered.
    I did not have a grasp of the big picture….we all did our job as did Senator McCain for whom I have the greatest admiration.

    Why do you obscure the facts by demeaning the character and/or the experience of Senator Obama and General Wesley Clark?

    jack nadel

Leave a reply

Manage your subscriptions

© 2006-2008 Jack Nadel. All Rights Reserved. DianeV. Web Design Studio
21 queries. 0.127 seconds.