Thursday, August 19, 2004

pinions of buddy don: rootin fer the uniform

i reckon mos folks have dun seen the frunt page articull in the washington post name of Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry; Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire whar the record splains how them swift boat veterans [who will lie] fer truth wuz makin thangs up whenever they claimed kerry's boat wuznt under attack on a counta how they wuz thar n dint member inny enemy fire.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
ifn thatn dont splain thangs a nuff fer ye, thays this story in the la times name of Veterans Battle over Truth that splains how them swift vote veterans [who will lie] fer truth couldnt cum up with no proof. on the contrairy:
What military documentation exists and has been made public generally supports the view put forth by Kerry and most of his crewmates — that he acted courageously and came by his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts honestly. This view of Kerry as war hero is supported by all but one of the surviving veterans who served with him on the two boats he commanded.

None of the critics quoted in the ad actually served on the boats with Kerry. Some of them also have given contradictory accounts and offered conflicting recollections.
whut bothers me bout all this is how it seems to me that at least one side in our divded cuntry dont keer bout whuther whut ye say is true, only ifn it heps thar side win. seems lack it dont even matter whuther thar side is doon inny good, they are a'gone support him, witch twuz innerestin to hear that coleman feller who gut in whenever paul wellstones plane went down splain bout why he had to support alan keyes even ifn he dint agree with much of innythang alan keyes bleeves on a counta how they need thar majority to rule n make thangs better. funny how they gut thar majority but thangs is gittin wurse.

i wudnt never strong one side or tuther till i saw how them publicans wood stop at nuthin to git clinton, even ifn it meant closin the gummint (wudnt that sos we could have a balanced budget? now deficits dont matter?) or accusin the presdint of 'waggin the dog' whenever he wonted to attack osama bin laden. that gut me so disgusted to whar i caint brang myself to vote fer most inny publican.

sad fack is how folks will vote agin thar own intrests jes to support thar side, witch i call rootin fer the uniform. reason i call it this is how in the old days, when ye rooted fer a baseball team, ye could name the players n ye mite even could root fer the team on a counta how ye luved the players. now that ye gut free agency, seems lack thays a differnt baseball team wearin yer uniform ever year. tiz natcherul how ye wood root fer em, but thats only sports.

seems lack in makin votin choices, ye mite wonta cunsidder whuther the players on yer team or the pallsies they support make yer life n the cuntry's well-bein inny better.

i gut a real dose of how this wurks over the weekend. ever since i moved up to new york city back in 1985, i been givin mama a call ever sundy. tiz a way of keepin up with the hole fambly. this past weekend, we wuz discussin thangs. she wuz mad bout the intelligents fail-yers, speshly since daddy wuz a speshul agent with the fbi n wurked in securty all his life. innywho, she wonted to make the point that bad as them publicans are, bad as thar health care pallsies have hurt her, bad as thar tax pallsies have hurt her, aint no way she could vote agin em. so whenever a topick cums up, she tries to splain how the dimcrats is wurser than the publicans.

so the topick wuz intelligents n she gits to splainin thangs a'usin a aneckdote frum when daddy wuz in 'the bureau.' she sed she orta know since he wuz part of the intelligents worl n i give her credit fer havin a informed point of view. then she starts splainin how hoover wuz differnt n wurser whenever them dimcrats wuz in n how they give daddy a hardship transfer back to tennessee, but twuz fer jes a year. she wuz mad as could be bout it n a'gittin wound up a'tellin her story to proov how bad them dimcrats is at runnin u.s. intelligents.

i sed, 'but mama, twuz eisenhower wuz presdint in them days.' she wuz too wound up in her story to notice whut i had sed n anserd, 'eisenhower, whoever, the point is . . . ' n then she splaind how they dint git the hardship transfer increased past jes the one year n daddy dint have no choice but to leave the bureau in 1957. sumhow, this is spozed to show that ye caint trust the dimcrats with the white house. so my own mama is a'gone root fer them publicans on a counta she is rootin fer the uniform.

this kinda thang goes a long way to splainin how thonly voters that matters much is the swang voters on a counta they aint blindly votin fer no uniform: i reckon they must be deecidin who they gone vote fer by lookin at the person a'wearin it.

No comments: