When O'Reilly's guest, radio host Ed Schultz, said of Edwards that "he's got tremendous conviction," O'Reilly replied jovially, "We're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. So if you find anybody, let us know. ... If you know where one is ... you call me immediately and we will make sure that man does not do it."
Keith Olbermann asked Paul Rieckhoff of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America to comment on O'Reilly's remarks, saying, "Well, we know what we want to say here, and it involves suggesting Mr. O'Reilly should go and do something anatomically impossible to himself with that attitude." However Rieckhoff appeared far more interested in reaching out for support on the issue, even to Bill O'Reilly, than in offering crude insults.
Bill O'Reilly: "There are no homeless vets."
Bill O'Reilly: "There are no homeless vets."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Olbermann ... _0117.html
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
I was actually listening to Bill O when he first made the point about the homeless veterans (part of my studying the enemy project) and all he really said was that he didn't think that the ratio of homeless veterans to non-homeless veterans was any higher than the ratio for the rest of the population.
I'm still skeptical about even that statement, but I'm far too lazy to run the numbers because I don't really care.
I'm still skeptical about even that statement, but I'm far too lazy to run the numbers because I don't really care.
In part I didn't even want to look at this thread, cuz, well, yes Alan, we all know that BillO is lying scum and, in reality, hates America. (I'm not kidding.)Shamis wrote:I was actually listening to Bill O when he first made the point about the homeless veterans (part of my studying the enemy project) and all he really said was that he didn't think that the ratio of homeless veterans to non-homeless veterans was any higher than the ratio for the rest of the population.
But on Shamis' point - WTF?!?! Even by BillO standards, arguing that if the proportion of homeless vets is the same as for the general population, so what? Talk about diminished expectations! I'm an anti-fan of the military-industrial complex and certainly oppose fuckwit crap like the current invasion of Iraq, and while we're at it, I'm a bit skeptical of giving too many fringe benefits to veterans, but WHAT THE FUCK!
We, as a democracy, asked these people to do dangerous, soul crushing, brain frying things to 'defend us'. (We can debate whether that's what was really happening, but my point is that the 'democratically elected' government asked and they obeyed, which is how the military should work). They volunteered, followed orders, and risked their lives - we owe them better than just 'about the same as the general population'! And particularly for the men who were drafted, we really, really owe them. Treating the mental illness combined with substance abuse that is at the root of most homelessness is expensive, but can't the motherfuckin' United States of America get it's shit together and deal with it?
How can even scum like BillO argue that point?
Bacon is meat candy.
He's appealing to the ego of the successful post-military people who probably think that people who went through the military are too tough to be homeless or some crap.
The funny thing is that Bill knows he can safely get away with such statements because the homeless veterans aren't listening to his show, and they don't have cellphones to call in to his show and tell him he's wrong.
I don't think it is unreasonable that their ratio is the same as the general population, but bill was trying to say that being in the military didn't hurt them....but I'd say that is also false because most homeless people have severe mental problems, and most military people (when they sign up), don't have severe mental problems or they probably wouldn't be accepted. Its pretty clear that the horrors of war create serious mental problems for a significant portion of the population.
The funny thing is that Bill knows he can safely get away with such statements because the homeless veterans aren't listening to his show, and they don't have cellphones to call in to his show and tell him he's wrong.
I don't think it is unreasonable that their ratio is the same as the general population, but bill was trying to say that being in the military didn't hurt them....but I'd say that is also false because most homeless people have severe mental problems, and most military people (when they sign up), don't have severe mental problems or they probably wouldn't be accepted. Its pretty clear that the horrors of war create serious mental problems for a significant portion of the population.
Hmm... well. Not sure what I should say, but feel I should say something. A few months ago, the Army Times, an Army periodical, says that at least a quarter of all homeless are vets. I don't know what the ratio of service members to the population is, but I'm certain it's not that high.
A lot of people join the military straight from highschool. We have a different life. This is all conjecture, but I imagine that a kid coming straight from highschool, straight into the regimented and strict discipline of the military, being told everything to do (I do mean everything), but at the same time we're taken care of. Theoretically, anyway. Soldiers still have parents, their NCOs and officers. But the thing is, they never have to think for themselves, and many times are encouraged not to. So my thought, completely conjecture, is that they are trained to not take care of themselves in issues that are vital to success in the "real world." On the other hand, the military does seem to recognize this, and nowadays there are tons of classes and information and such that are designed to reintegrate soldiers into society. Of course, though these classes are for everyone, in practice they're only available to people in "the rear." Us front line grunts, well, we don't get classes. We don't have time for them, because we constantly train on the real life skills we need immediately, how to stay alive, keep our friends alive, and destroy the enemies of the United States. And during deployments, well... that brings us to the mental problems.
I'm in an Infantry Company. At least 75% of my company have issues right now. We have been constantly under fire since May, when we got in country. No one has any idea what it is like here. They made an ABC special about us, Sebastian Junger wrote an article about us for Vanity Fair (he's back here doing more research, btw), and still you can't understand. The first day I wasn't shot at was eerie. It scared the shit out of us, we were wondering what they were planning. I personally haven't had a bullet go by my head in three weeks. The higher-ups think we've killed enough to give us breathing space, but most of us just think it's because it's too damned cold. Which doesn't stop our patrolling. We do not get days off. Excpet for one mid-tour leave, 15 days. Which comes from our vacation time. Why do we have mental problems? Who the fuck wouldn't after 15 months straight of any work? If you're sitting at a desk, and have to work every damned day, you're gonna stress. After 50 fire fights we quit counting, except for your dead friends, that's the only number that fucking matters anymore. I'm afraid I'm ranting now, but I hope everyone can forgive me that. Even in Vietnam they could go to the rear for a few days at a time. Not us. And 15 months? What the hell? Anyway, the bitches of the infantry. I could go on, it's what we do, but I'll leave it at that.
A lot of people join the military straight from highschool. We have a different life. This is all conjecture, but I imagine that a kid coming straight from highschool, straight into the regimented and strict discipline of the military, being told everything to do (I do mean everything), but at the same time we're taken care of. Theoretically, anyway. Soldiers still have parents, their NCOs and officers. But the thing is, they never have to think for themselves, and many times are encouraged not to. So my thought, completely conjecture, is that they are trained to not take care of themselves in issues that are vital to success in the "real world." On the other hand, the military does seem to recognize this, and nowadays there are tons of classes and information and such that are designed to reintegrate soldiers into society. Of course, though these classes are for everyone, in practice they're only available to people in "the rear." Us front line grunts, well, we don't get classes. We don't have time for them, because we constantly train on the real life skills we need immediately, how to stay alive, keep our friends alive, and destroy the enemies of the United States. And during deployments, well... that brings us to the mental problems.
I'm in an Infantry Company. At least 75% of my company have issues right now. We have been constantly under fire since May, when we got in country. No one has any idea what it is like here. They made an ABC special about us, Sebastian Junger wrote an article about us for Vanity Fair (he's back here doing more research, btw), and still you can't understand. The first day I wasn't shot at was eerie. It scared the shit out of us, we were wondering what they were planning. I personally haven't had a bullet go by my head in three weeks. The higher-ups think we've killed enough to give us breathing space, but most of us just think it's because it's too damned cold. Which doesn't stop our patrolling. We do not get days off. Excpet for one mid-tour leave, 15 days. Which comes from our vacation time. Why do we have mental problems? Who the fuck wouldn't after 15 months straight of any work? If you're sitting at a desk, and have to work every damned day, you're gonna stress. After 50 fire fights we quit counting, except for your dead friends, that's the only number that fucking matters anymore. I'm afraid I'm ranting now, but I hope everyone can forgive me that. Even in Vietnam they could go to the rear for a few days at a time. Not us. And 15 months? What the hell? Anyway, the bitches of the infantry. I could go on, it's what we do, but I'll leave it at that.
"Yeah, it sucks. But then, everything does."
It should be counted as part of the direct cost of fighting wars, but in reality, all those "I support the troops" politicians aren't going to do what they need to do (raise our taxes) and spend the money that's needed to provide the support that these folks deserve. Case in point - the VA is a totally separate budget item from the DoD. (While I'm at it, the VA hospital in Marion, IL is in deep shit because a bunch of vets died there in large part because the hospital hired some totally unqualified, incompetent 'doctors'.)Saxman wrote:Think how much the lifetime psychiatric care of our military is going to add to the cost of this war (financial and human suffering).
I don't know that most vets will need "a lifetime of psychiatric care". Dink has a great point that the transition is tough from life in the military where there is a structure and rules for every part of your life back into 'the real world' where you've got to bs your way through everything on your own. (Not to mention that transition from being shot at pretty regularly to 'normal' life here in the US) Some vets will need lifetime care - a lot of mental illness has an underlying genetic component, but that predisposition may never manifest itself, unless life stressors (like getting shot at a lot!) will bring it out.
My non-professional understanding is that most vets can be treated for the mental trauma of combat (just like PT will help you recover from physical trauma) and will pretty much recover for 'normal' life (assuming that they are diagnosed and treated - a big assumption!). But just like some vets have amputations and paralysis, some vets really will be 'scrambled' for the rest of their lives. We owe it to all vets to help them with the 'life skills' and other mental issues, and we really owe it to the vets who are permanently physically and mentally injured as a result of what we've asked them to do.
It seems like right now, we try to give lifetime benefits to all vets, but the result is that it's pretty half-assed. Maybe it would be better to give all vets a limited term (10? 15 years?) of serious, full-on assistance with health care and education, and lifetime care only for the folks who are really permanently injured? Does that sound crazy?
Bacon is meat candy.