Search This Blog

Friday, October 31, 2008

Betrayal

I electronically wrote to a man:

Alan Williams
Pace Island Home Owners Association
1545 Royal Fern LaneOrange Park, FL 32003
(904) 278-6560
awilliams2413@hotmail.com

and told him this:

"I am a vet from the Viet era. I remember walking through the airport in San Francisco to jeers and hatred instead of appreciation. You are one very lucky man that people like me, my dad and my son have all stepped forward and willingly put aside our lives and plans to defend our great country. My father-in-law was shot out of the sky and beaten and stabbed by the Nazis on the way to prison camp. My dad fought in Korea, my son in Afghanistan. And you? You fight to keep the subdivision free from welcome home signs for a returning veteran! Aren't you proud of yourself?"

Why? Because of this story from October 13th, 2008.
revealed in this blog...

"ORANGE PARK, FL -- It was supposed to be a very special homecoming. After being in Iraq 15 months, SPC Lauren Boitet was going to see her family.

"I'm just glad to be home," says SPC Lauren Boitet.

The family was rolling out the red carpet, so to speak, but the homecoming was dampened by the homeowner association rules.

"They removed the welcome home signs and balloons and flags," says Natalie Boitet.

Boitet says when they tried to recover the signs it turned into a confrontation with the association manager.

The Boitet family says the signs could have stayed up for a couple of hours. They say in the past the association had ignored other signs.

"There have been signs for birthdays and parties and they've never taken them down," says Dyan Boitet.

Boitet says there has to be exceptions to the rules.

Alan Williams is President of the Pace Island Homeowners Association. He said the problem is the signs and where they were located. Williams says flags are exempt from HOA rules.

Williams says the signs were in common areas and a resident complained that they could be viewed as political and supporting the war. Williams says that's why the signs were removed.

The association president says there are exceptions.

Williams says any resident can pick up the phone and call any board member for prior approval.

Williams says that did not happen.

Dyan Boitet says he will propose changes to the association rules at its next meeting."

Some people make it hard to like people. I was at Fort Benjamin Harrison when they began housing draft dodgers who were trying to return to the states. They were coming from Canada primarily, being housed in the barracks on the East side of the post. I had been drafted right out of college but I went anyway. They ran and now were slinking back.

I told myself some of them just didn't have the fortitude to stay and stand up as against fighting and therefore consciencious objectors. Maybe some left for their beliefs but I think most left out of cowardice and it was hard to be on the post with them.

When I was drafted, I screamed out in rage! I had a scholarship, I had a career path, no one had been drafted out of college before this particular year (and no one would any subsequent year as the collective rage of Americans made the politicians realize it was political suicide to support) and doggone it, it wasn't right! I had a Mustang convertible, a job that fit in with my class schedule, a girlfriend, a bright future.

My dad told me he would move the whole family to Canada if I thought I should evade being drafted. I don't know if he meant it or if he simply wanted me to consider how big the decision was and how much he supported me, his only son, no matter what I did. You know the story if you've read my blog for too long. Even as a teenager I realized there was more to life than just me. I decided that my country meant more to me than my distaste for the War.

As for the draft-dodging returnees, I realized that it was their problem, not mine. Thirty some years later, I can be proud that I served and they still have to live with what they did. I've forgiven, forgotten, and if you were one of them I don't even want to know. Truth is, as a young man you sometimes make decisions you regret terribly. I am sure plenty of the deserters have become wonderful men and worthwhile citizens. That one mistake has been forgiven by society and also by me.

But a grown man who goes and tears down welcome home signs for a returning veteran, a young person who gave up a big chunk of her life and risked that very life to serve every one of us? Not just crass, not just stupid, not simply unpatriotic and not just craven but symbolic of a greater truth: When "they" say they are against the war but they support the troops? Hogwash! More often than not, they don't support either one but don't have the guts to say it. Actions speak louder than words!

So I emailed the guy. He will probably just delete it. Made me feel better anyway.

Update! Yes, the Democrats did illegally access records on Joe the Plumber. Cover-up has already begun!

An Iraqi Veteran speaks to Barack Obama

6 comments:

yankeemom said...

Thank you and your family for all the service (wow!) you all have given this country. And I'm glad you stopped by so I discovered your blog!
Adding it to my links, if you wouldn't mind.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you here Radar. This guy seems pretty awful.

If you want to keep talking about socialism, please read this article:

Here are a couple good quotes from it:

"A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist."

"But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:


YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

"The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent. The latter is what it would be under Obama’s proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bush’s tax cuts expire on schedule. Obama would use some of the added revenue to give a break to pretty much everybody who nets less than a quarter of a million dollars a year. The total tax burden on the private economy would be somewhat lighter than it is now—a bit of elementary Keynesianism that renders doubly untrue the Republican claim that Obama “will raise your taxes.”

lava

Anonymous said...

here is the link:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg

radar said...

Thanks, Yankeemom. I am going to fix my personal bloglist after the election and you will be on it for sure! Now you are there as the last blog on the Proctor/Iraq list.

Wealth-sharing is what is happening in Alaska. There are resources in Alaska that are being accessed and sold. The government is sharing the resources of Alaska with the residents of Alaska. It has nothing at all to do with redistributing wealth from one pocket to another. It is capitalism in action. Alaska is like a business and the citizens are the shareholders in that business who receive income and dividends from their stock holdings.

Socialism is wealth redistribution. Obama would take money from the most prosperous Americans and from businesses both large and small in order to give to people who don't have as much. It is a standard Democratic practice to be free with OPM (other people's money) and Washington is already hooked like crack cocaine on that idea. Obama intends to ramp that up.

Welfare reform has eliminated most of the wealth redistribution enacted by the Democrats in the 1960's that simply hurt the economy as well as the populace that received the free money. Right now the Democrats have been taking money to fund programs and services. Barack just wants to take money from some Americans to simply give to other Americans.

You know the old saw about giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish. Barack wants to give the poor money by taking it from the very people most responsible for creating jobs. McCain wants to make the economy run strong so that more jobs are created and the poor can have a paycheck rather than a handout.

Socialism failed miserably behind the Iron Curtain, a group of societies that had to build walls to keep people IN. We are building walls to keep people OUT who want to enter the country illegally. Why would you vote for a guy who wants to make us more like those failed states?

The economy needs the federal government to only take what is needed to run efficiently, make the business climate friendly for businesses large and small and then more jobs can be created and everyone will benefit.

George Bush became used to spending like a Democrat. He has not pushed hard to crack down on earmarks. However, the economy took a huge hit from 9/11 and bounced back and was actually growing until oil prices began to dampen growth. Then the Democratic disaster of Fannie/Freddie hit us and the markets and several bank/loan institutions failed. Neither of these situations were because of a failure of capitalism. One was the fault of the ACORN/Democrat/liberal alliance that brought about the mortgage disaster and the oil crisis would not be a big problem had we been doing the drilling needed to access our own resources and been building nuclear plants and clean-burning coal plants.

Liberals using the guise of environmental concerns have blocked the accessing of resources and building of power plants needed to make us free from dependence on foreign powers for our energy needs. Barack's pie-in-the-sky throw-money-at-unproven-energy-sources policies are plain stupid. You use the things that work for now while allowing new energy ideas a chance to be developed and improved.

radar said...

Hey, anonymous, there won't be any comments or articled dated 11/3/2008 yet. LOL

radar said...

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/
comment/2008/11/03/
081103taco_talk_
hertzberg?yrail

Okay, here it is. As I thought, the article is pointed at those unfamiliar with socialism and not up on political science in general. I was an A+ student in PolySci in college. My representation of the Alaska situation is correct. The article is slanted, but then, it is the New Yorker. Ever take a good look at the logo of the New Yorker? It is for elites, by elites. Elites who feel they know better than you and I. Elites who are so rich they can afford tax attorneys that will allow them to avoid the higher taxes they themselves will impose on you. Elites who claim they wish to help the poor but then, on their federal income taxes, list very tiny amounts in the charitable giving columns.