Esoteric Diatribe
Welcome to E*D!
Feel free to look around
and share your opinion.
Yahoo News
Google News
Drudge Report
Fox News
WSJ Opinion Journal
News My Way
The White House: Current News
Waffles Campaign
Esoteric Diatribe
What is the Waffles Campaign?
Read about it:
USA Today
The Pittsburgh Tribune Review
Wired News
Guardian Unlimited
The Mercury News
San Diego Union-Tribune or check out
The Archives

The Waffles Campaign was a huge success. Thanks to all who participated!!!
Learn more about Google Bombs.
Russ Vaughn Submissions
The Russ Vaughn Collection
Site Feed
Site Feed
Sunday, February 05, 2006

Going to the Dogs (edited)

Editor's Note: I took some editorial liberties with this post. This is not a true representation of Russ Vaughn's work. Click here to see the original post or you can view it at the American Thinker
Going to the Dogs

In response to the Toles’ cartoon published by the ***Tasteless Unpatriotic Rag, depicting a grievously wounded, quadruple amputee soldier being designated by a “Dr. Rumsfeld” as “battle-hardened” and fit for return to duty, I wrote a poem, venting my anger at the cartoonist and the Post entitled “WaPo Weasels.” In my usual way, I employed strong language and terms, not uncommon among military types, to convey the intense feelings that this contemptible cartoon had evoked in me.

Not unexpectedly, Thomas Lifson, editor of The American Thinker, my home on the Internet, declined to post my poem for its depiction of implied violence directed at the cartoonist; that is, delivering upon him an old fashioned, lesson-teaching, butt whippin’ which would leave him chastised and unconscious in that literary sewer in which this particular example of his art most definitely belongs. Thomas rightfully pointed out that while my poem is indeed filled with righteous passion, he could not endorse my images of violence while simultaneously posting numerous articles decrying the violence being advocated by Islamists around the world towards Danish and other European press institutions for their cartoon depictions of Mohammed. I agreed with this wisdom and said I would go to the milblogs where I expected a better reception.
I disagree. To equate the images of Muslim extremests rallying in the streets screaming for blood, praying for jihad, calling for war with the west and 'death to the infidels'... to equate that with a poem.... A POEM that reads

You wanna draw pictures of fighting men?
Just tell me where and tell me when.
I’ll give you a pose to impress any viewer,
Your punk arty ass comatose in the sewer.

I am sorry, but that is just rediculous. I will concede that there is an element of violence is both; however, I do not for a second believe Russ was actually threatening Toles. Poets attack with the pen, not the sword. Now I have conceded the element of violence, now lets look how they are different.

First, Russ was not actually threatening Toles. He used the image of violence in a figurative sense to convey his disdain for Tole's cartoon. This differs from the Muslims rallying in the streets because they literally want to commit acts of violence against the west. So the fact that one image of violence is figurative and the other is literal immediately disqualifies any form of equivalence between the two.

Second, Russ's figurative image of violence targets a single man with a non-lethal attack. Russ did NOT leave the image of the cartoonist dead in a sewer. The Muslims rallying in the streets of the Arab world are targeting the entire Western culture with a literal threat of lethal violence.

Seriously, the two images of violence are not equivalent; in fact, they are more different than they are the same. Shame on the American Thinker.

Enough with my rant, back to Russ:
Sure enough, Blackfive and several others picked it up and the ensuing comments were generally in the tone of, “Hooahh, Russ, you gave ‘em a can a whoopass, boy! Keep it up!” I received many emails expressing these sentiments.
I believe my comment went something like:

Thank you, Russ. You made my day. This is one of your best.

I stand by that.
I had to remind some of the more excitable that these were merely literary blows being rained upon this insensitive cartoonist and in no way was I endorsing actual retribution, much as I am sure Toles would not advocate the actual return of a quadruple amputee to combat duty. His purpose had been to incite outrage at what he sees as an inept war effort; mine had been to incite a countering outrage against his clueless, insensitive cartoon.

However, there were also replies from those of a liberal bent who responded with their own outrage at my typical, militarily simplistic, primitive savagery, my condoning of violence against an artist, my desire to suppress free speech, artistic expression, etc.
A liberal emailed me the following: There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Washington Post cartoon of the quadruple amputee in which Rumsfeld called his condition 'battle-hardened.' In fact, had I written it, I would have had Rumsfeld say something like; 'Y'know with the G.I.Bill, we can train you for a new life as a 'Teddy Bear'... I'd considered a post on that email, but that just encourges them
The diametric differences in the responses from military readers and liberal readers made me, once again, all too aware of the curious relationship that exists between those who protect and defend and those who are defended.

The seminal description of this relationship, at least for those of us on the warriors’ side, is in an essay I first read on the Blackfive site, “On Sheep, Sheepdogs and Wolves,” by LTC, Ret. Dave Grossman, USA, in which the author described the inherent differences and the problematic relationships between those docile, woolly members of the flock and the domestic canines who protect them from those other, feral canines, who would, left unchallenged, gratuitously slaughter the entire flock.

What Grossman makes clear is that, while it is the ability of the normally placid sheepdogs to match the violence of the wolves that enables them to successfully defend the flock, that selfsame flock will never cease to be dismayed by this capacity for mayhem and bloodshed that secures their well being. Knowing the dogs’ aptitude for lethal ferocity, many members of the flock are forever fretting about these fighting canines in their midst. LTC Grossman’s essay so moved me that I wrote a poem, “The Sheepdogs,” which was widely disseminated on milblogs and is my own personal favorite. Much to my delight, the good colonel, himself, liked it, high praise indeed.

Toles’ cartoon, the responding letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the responses to my own clumsy poetic contribution serve to demonstrate how keenly insightful the colonel truly is. To those liberal members of the flock, the letter from the Joint Chiefs was an ominous, intimidating growl from the biggest of the sheepdogs, delivered not to the wolves but to members of their flock, threatening them, not any would-be attackers. And to the few liberals who read my poem, I was the typically rabid canine defender who had turned and viciously attacked a member of the flock, snarling and biting, attempting to destroy that which I was sworn by oath to protect: free speech.

What the liberals fail to understand is that the Chiefs, the milbloggers and old soldiers like me all detect a fetid, lupine odor emanating from the shabby wool coat of the ***Tasteless Unpatriotic Rag. If there isn’t a wolf under that smelly rag, there damned sure is a critter sympathetic to ‘em and this time he seemed to be reveling in the wounding of our pups. To milbloggers and their readers, the Chiefs’ letter is recognized, just as it correctly is by the liberals, as a warning growl from the biggest dogs. But it is the difference in perceptions that evidences the validity of Grossman’s sheepdog thesis: while the liberals are baa, baaing in fear of losing their rights, the milbloggers welcome those growls, recognizing that the big dogs are showing their distinct displeasure with a tasteless representation of their wounded, a despicable depiction that has no other purpose than political gain for the liberal side. A further difference between sheepdogs and the flock they guard is the dogs know that even though they may occasionally growl at a suspect member of the flock, warning them back into communal safety, the dogs will never falter in their mission to defend the flock. The liberals in the flock are always fearful that the dogs will turn on them.

And finally, I want to thank all the milblog readers who cheered my more prosaic and far less authoritative, (but vastly more satisfying to one with sheepdog instincts) impetuous attempts to nip at the haunches of those wolf-smelling muttonheads at the ***Tasteless Unpatriotic Rag. I’m still licking my chops and savoring the strange taste of whatever that critter is hiding under that rag; you know, it tastes a lot like chicken to this old dog.

To paraphrase another wise, retired Army lieutenant colonel, columnist Ralph Peters,

“You don’t dogfight big dogs; you poison them.”

Perhaps that’s what Toles, the ***Tasteless Unpatriotic Rag and their ilk are trying to do.
Russ Vaughn
*** Original test read: Washington Post.

Web Esoteric * Diatribe
Great Americans
Ronald Reagan
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Frederick Douglas
This list will continue to grow.
Suggest a Great American.
See rules.
Have something to say?
email me

Proud to have been assciated with:

RightNation.US America's #1 Conservative Community


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Listed on BlogShares
Blog Roll
(some of this is reciprocal, others are sites I just like to read)
Evangelical Outpost
A Perfect Contradiction
Discerning Texan
Incessant Rant
Conservative Eyes
Jeff Blanco
Tom Metzger Family
Boston Brat
Secure Liberty
Big White Hat
The View From The Core

line em up.... knock em down