Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Thank you for your service!
#1
Yes, thank you nurses; garbage men; minimum wage grocery store employees; sub-minimum wage farm workers; etc.
Thank you.

What wrankles my ass, big time, is the mandatory "Thank you for your service" that even the most lefty media personalities are obligated to say, when speaking to a veteran of our obscene wars in America.

How about this:

Fuck you for that dis-service.
What exactly, was this service we must thank you for?
Being a chump?
Being a macho idiot that had no options other than to join "the service"?

Did you have to kill some little brown people in a strange country because they were a threat to our swollen way of life?
Please explain to me: What service did you provide?
How did you protect me?
Or anyone?

In America, this is our most sacred cow.
Our young cannon fodder, doing the bidding of sociopathic business interests. 
And taking pride in that.

Fuck off with that shit.

(I could get death threats for a post like this.)

That's how sacred the service of our young heroes is.

This is the crux of the greatest delusion ever perpetrated on the psyche of a nation.

I know these people. They have no clue what they're doing; zero knowledge of politics or history; generally speaking, they're idiots with few options. In many cases, they're petty criminals that are given an option to avoid jail time:
You could be a hero!

Just fuck-off, please!
With this load of unhappy horse shit.

A more proper response, when meeting a veteran of our military offense, is:
"Dude...what the fuck were you thinking? How were you able to be conned into such shameless shit? And you had to kill some little brown kids? Why, brother? Why?"

Like i said, it's our most sacred cow in America.

It's not only idiotic, it's fucking devastating.
Nothing destroys more souls than pointless wars.

Why do we insist on thanking them for the service?
And what was the 'service'?

Fuck these assholes.

(I'm somewhat pissed-off by this phenomena. And that no one has the balls to address it for what it is.)
Reply
#2
Creeps me out a bit to hear that said down here in respect of military service, we pay our respects to them in differently nuanced way on ANZAC Day. We respect them not so much from the 'hero' aspect, but from the 'sacrificial' aspect. Sacrificed to politics and power plays.
I fear that the original, bitter, mourning of waste of young lives meaning of the Day will be lost, and turned into a jingoistic patriotic farce of turning those sacrifices into willing heroes. They weren't there for glory, they were conned and coerced and gulled there. ... but our ceremonies centre on WW One primarily. Whereas America seems to see WWII as their glory moment for some reason.

WW One was anything but glorious for us. We lost our best to other people's war on the other side of the planet and we mourn that, we don't celebrate it.
We had our arses handed to us and the greatest feat was getting as many survivors out as we did from Gallipoli.
We tried to invade Turkey! And they said 'No!' ... and to this day we respect them for that. We take a very different view of 'military service' than in America. ...or used to.

So we hold respect for those who fought together at what was really the birth of our two nations, the time we emerged from being mere colonies. It's a more historically based 'remembrance' day of connecting with origins, not the heart punching full on pride thing as in America.

We also 'used to be' Countries who respected and thanked everyone in a job for their 'service'.
We were very egalitarian countries. I've been to many parties where it was common for millionaires and railway workers, plumbers, and bankers, miners and landed gentry to be rubbing shoulders and getting each other drinks and having a good laugh about life in general.

It didn't occur to anyone to 'discriminate' against a bloke hard on his luck, nor would it be mentioned any more than would someone's new Bentley other than, "got a new car Frank? what's she get to the gallon?" ...and Frank would hang his head and shrug, embarrassed to come up with such a low mileage figure. ... we just thought about what mattered differently than we seem to today. The efficiency of the vehicle rated far far higher than cost of it.
If old Jim's banged up ute got better mileage then it was a superior vehicle to Frank's Bentley. No brainer.

Frank would blame 'the wife' for wanting a "flash town car". He didn't see it as a status symbol, it was 'her' fault. Pretty funnily odd to think back on it, wealth was embarrassing to good hearted people back then.
They still valued their old mates more than the money. ...siiigh, ... different world.

There wasn't a class barrier so much as a character barrier back then.
Reply
#3
Thanks for your response, sweetums.

You're a character yourself.
And i guess i might be.

My issue with myself, and everyone I know, is this:
We like to focus on the train wreck.

It's more fun than focusing on the repairs.
Reply
#4
Quote:Stanky wrote:

We like to focus on the train wreck.

It's more fun than focusing on the repairs.


That's a very pertinent observation, especially apt for the current global viral clusterfuck.

Everyone's an expert on what someone else shouldn't have done without any submission on exactly what they would have done instead.   Easier to poke at someone's else mess than contemplate doing something about mitigating it, or preventing it happening again.

Everyone's chucking the wreckage at each other but nobody is doing much to weld the pieces back together. 
Down here everyone's so busy arguing about redesigning a better locomotive that the whole bloody train is still in the dirt!

Nobody wants to put it back on the tracks in case it falls over again.  "The damage will be even worse if we have a second wave/trainwreck."    Well while it's lying there with it's wheels in air the damage is not going to ever get any less either is it?

Sorry, bit pissy about the way this lock down crap is being played around with in Oz at the moment.

We've had a whole 97 deaths.  They have come at a price of well over one billion dollars each ... so far!

Those billions will be paid for by the next 2 generations. All those young lives essentially ruined on the premise that 97 people over the age of 68 were more valuable than all of those entire 2 generations coming on.   wow. That's quite a train wreck.
Reply
#5
(05-12-2020, 06:12 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  We've had a whole 97 deaths.  They have come at a price of well over one billion dollars each ... so far!

Those billions will be paid for by the next 2 generations. All those young lives essentially ruined on the premise that 97 people over the age of 68 were more valuable than all of those entire 2 generations coming on.   wow. That's quite a train wreck.

As usual, your maths isn't even on the same planet as reality.

They haven't paid for the deaths of 97, but saving 97,400 people who would have died, plus at least as many whose health would be impacted for the rest of their lives.

Let's be generous and say only 150,000 lives have been saved, or saved from serious harm.

The cost of those lives is just about spot on $1 million each

Seems pretty cheap to me.

If you don't think it's saved 97,400 lives, please feel free to explain how many lives you think would have been lost. The maths is extremely simple: 60-70% of the population get Covid (going in the middle for 16 million people) at a mortality rate of 0.6%, which is supported by all the facts known, giving 97,500, less the 100 already dead.

And my numbers are very, very conservative.

I have to admit, one thing I find most unusual about this disease is how many people in high-risk categories are acting like you. Is it a death wish? I'd estimate you're probably in the 25% or greater chances of dying if you get Covid-19 and would have thought you'd be dead keen not to be dead.

It's also not going to impact you negatively financially, whatever happens.

Why are you so keen to see Aussie let it go, as UK has?
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#6
Money is a bit of a joke.
According to some economic maths, we can no longer afford to exist.
Reply
#7
You're forgetting - money is infinite.

Ever since banks were allowed to create money on their own, there's no impediment to just making more of it.

I'm more interested in the economic fallout from Covid than the disease at this stage. I think the disease itself is a deal done outside of a very few countries - NZ/Aussie/Taiwan, etc - and around 20 million people will be dead at the end of it. That's assuming two things:

1 - we come up with a vaccine or treatment, neither of which is guarantee, in which case, it will become endemic and will knock over a couple of million every year.
2 - the virus doesn't mutate and come back in a second wave like H1H1 did in 1918/19.

Economically, the central banks have printed off ~$20T to combat the financial effects of the virus, and that should lead to hyper-inflation.

Fortunately, the rich have had ten years of "quantitative easing" as a euphemism for creating ~$10T in cash since the GFC. Did we see inflation? Did we fuck - what we saw was massive investment by the rich in two assets that don't count towards inflation rates: property & shares.

Accordingly, I'd expect to see most of that $20T printed in the last 6 weeks to end up in those same investments, and it seems to be well under way, with the Dow up half its losses on the back of that money. All of the money spent in sending cheques to people, or paying wages, will end up in the hands of the 1% and they'll be better off than they were pre-Covid, so at least we can be thankful our oligarchs aren't going to lose anything.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#8
Tuesday is Soylent Green day. Eat the rich.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#9
The poor are more nutritious. Less fatty. More organic.

I'm talking the Honduran poor...not the Mississippi poor.
Reply
#10
Trump's version of "Thank you for your service".

Trump Screws National Guard Troops Helping With Pandemic Like Common Hotel Subcontractors


Quote:The Trump administration did a good thing, or at least a thing you'd expect any president in any national crisis to do: Back in late March, Donald Trump signed a federal order to deploy more than 40,000 members of the National Guard so the federal government, not the states, would pay for the troops to help with the COVID-19 pandemic. They've been aiding states with all kinds of public health needs, from testing and contact tracing, to doing "deep cleaning" of nursing homes where there have been outbreaks, to helping distribute supplies to hospitals and food banks. That's the sort of increased boots-on-the-ground work the Guard really excels at in a disaster.

The order was originally set to expire at the end of May, but states desperately needed the help, so governors and members of Congress from both parties asked for the order to be extended. Some requests asked for the order to go to the end of the year, others until the fall. Instead, Trump only extended the federal deployment until June 24, a pretty weird date that isn't the end of a month or even a week. And as Politico reports, there's a very simple reason for that: It marks exactly 89 days since the original order. That means the emergency deployment won't reach 90 days, the point at which deployed National Guard members would qualify for early retirement and GI Bill educational benefits. Hell of a thing, huh? Trump couldn't find a way to not pay the troops at all, but his administration at least found a way to make sure they didn't earn any benefits for putting their health at risk for America.

Maybe they'll get a chance to march in a parade for the Great Leader instead.
"when you think you've lost everything... you find out you can always lose a little bit more." - President Bush
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)