The EOY death issue is always fascinating. I love reading obits anyway. So many interesting people I'll never know.
The end of the Stockdale piece summed up his definition of heroism: "And he came to see that heroes not as people who had carried out their duty with distinction but as individuals who had, like himself, done something no reasonable person would ever have felt justified in asking them to do."
I think this is a very interesting definition of heroism (and what is not heroism) and speaks to the current use of the term post-9/11.
All I'd known of Stockdale was my memory of his haplessness as Perot's running mate. He provides an illuminating contrast with Dubya, who is anything but courageous (he dodged the Vietnam war despite his support of it, and fled in terror on 9/11), but is happy to send other people to their deaths, and who has long delighted in torturing people, both frat-house initiates at Yale, and alleged "enemy combatants" today.
You know, I'm not sure how much control Bush had over his whereabouts on 9/11. I can't imagine the Secret Service would have let him go back to Washington just to look calm and in charge if they weren't certain it was secure.
Same with the 'My Pet Goat' thing. At the time, news reports were praising the president's calm demeanor, and now it's fashionable to suggest he should have immediately left the room to wait bravely in the hallway or in the car while the Secret Service figured out what to do.
There's plenty to criticize this dweeb over, and for the life of me, I don't understand why this has become so important.
(Was hard not to say that Bush wasn't in control of his movements, but why make it easy for you guys?)
Cala, the President absolutely has to be in control of his own movements, especially in time of crisis. That's a real test of that much-invoked but rarely seen quality, leadership.
FL:Stockdale wrote a bit about Epictetus' influence on his experience as a POW in Vietnam.*
[...]He casts aside the error of involving himself with externals, of depending on "what is not up to him," on another's sympathy, gullibility, or price for making a "deal."[...] He has arrived at the point where the "strategic" side of Stoicism, the accommodation to fate and mind over matter, can bring him peace.
If you need it dressed up in spiffy verbage, ok. "You can die on your feet or you can die on your knees" [but you're going to die!] works pretty well for me.
Cala:There's plenty to criticize this dweeb over, and for the life of me, I don't understand why this has become so important.
I don't neccessarily agree with it, but I can understand the attacks. A very very very big deal was made during the time period about how Bush had flown to a base in Louisiana instead of flying to New York as he demanded, about how Bush had heroically visited New York three days, and so on.
This was put off on the Secret Service. I did not buy this at the time, since the President is Commander-in-Chief. If he wants to go to New York, he can go to fucking New York. He did not go to New York, ergo, he was not heroic enough in his demands.
The visit to New York occasioned a speech that was magnificent and brilliant according to many commentators. Which is funny, since the speech I heard was awful, lame, bland and could have been delivered just as easily (and probably better) by the animatronic Lincoln from Disneyland.
For the record, I don't think Bush 'ran away' from the scene so much, as they spent the three days trying to figure out the PR strategy they were going to use to make the administration look good. The Bush administration is all about the sizzle. Which is good, since they cannot even find the steak.
Stev Benen is almost always good. His own website, the Carpetbagger, is a great place to visit.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:32 AM
I saw that Times piece on Sunday and was moved.
The Citadel thing I remember reading about in Susan Faludi's Stiffed, where she talks about the Citadel at length.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 9:49 AM
The EOY death issue is always fascinating. I love reading obits anyway. So many interesting people I'll never know.
The end of the Stockdale piece summed up his definition of heroism: "And he came to see that heroes not as people who had carried out their duty with distinction but as individuals who had, like himself, done something no reasonable person would ever have felt justified in asking them to do."
I think this is a very interesting definition of heroism (and what is not heroism) and speaks to the current use of the term post-9/11.
Posted by md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 12:08 PM
All I'd known of Stockdale was my memory of his haplessness as Perot's running mate. He provides an illuminating contrast with Dubya, who is anything but courageous (he dodged the Vietnam war despite his support of it, and fled in terror on 9/11), but is happy to send other people to their deaths, and who has long delighted in torturing people, both frat-house initiates at Yale, and alleged "enemy combatants" today.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 1:14 PM
You know, I'm not sure how much control Bush had over his whereabouts on 9/11. I can't imagine the Secret Service would have let him go back to Washington just to look calm and in charge if they weren't certain it was secure.
Same with the 'My Pet Goat' thing. At the time, news reports were praising the president's calm demeanor, and now it's fashionable to suggest he should have immediately left the room to wait bravely in the hallway or in the car while the Secret Service figured out what to do.
There's plenty to criticize this dweeb over, and for the life of me, I don't understand why this has become so important.
(Was hard not to say that Bush wasn't in control of his movements, but why make it easy for you guys?)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 4:20 PM
Cala, the President absolutely has to be in control of his own movements, especially in time of crisis. That's a real test of that much-invoked but rarely seen quality, leadership.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 4:22 PM
I thought that was due to a strong colon.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 4:59 PM
I thought that was due to a strong colon.
No, controlling one's movements is about a strong sphincter.
Did I really just sully this thread about a deceased American hero before the tenth comment? I'll shut up now.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 5:07 PM
FL:Stockdale wrote a bit about Epictetus' influence on his experience as a POW in Vietnam.*
[...]He casts aside the error of involving himself with externals, of depending on "what is not up to him," on another's sympathy, gullibility, or price for making a "deal."[...] He has arrived at the point where the "strategic" side of Stoicism, the accommodation to fate and mind over matter, can bring him peace.
If you need it dressed up in spiffy verbage, ok. "You can die on your feet or you can die on your knees" [but you're going to die!] works pretty well for me.
Cala:There's plenty to criticize this dweeb over, and for the life of me, I don't understand why this has become so important.
I don't neccessarily agree with it, but I can understand the attacks. A very very very big deal was made during the time period about how Bush had flown to a base in Louisiana instead of flying to New York as he demanded, about how Bush had heroically visited New York three days, and so on.
This was put off on the Secret Service. I did not buy this at the time, since the President is Commander-in-Chief. If he wants to go to New York, he can go to fucking New York. He did not go to New York, ergo, he was not heroic enough in his demands.
The visit to New York occasioned a speech that was magnificent and brilliant according to many commentators. Which is funny, since the speech I heard was awful, lame, bland and could have been delivered just as easily (and probably better) by the animatronic Lincoln from Disneyland.
For the record, I don't think Bush 'ran away' from the scene so much, as they spent the three days trying to figure out the PR strategy they were going to use to make the administration look good. The Bush administration is all about the sizzle. Which is good, since they cannot even find the steak.
ash
['Where did that come from?, he asked himself.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12-29-05 5:28 PM
So much for high-minded, thoughtful thread topics.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 6:15 AM
So much for high-minded, thoughtful thread topics.
Are you attaching some significance to the fact that the sex-related threads get 30-40 times as many comments as this one?
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 1:43 PM