Saturday, July 07, 2012

The LuLac Edition #2117, July 7th, 2012

The Supreme Court seal. 


We were so taken with the Supreme Court decision on Health Care, we forgot to mention the other one the Court ruled on. The Military Medal Controversy: The Court ruled that people who say they received military medals but did not are protected by free speech. By a 6-3 vote, justices decided that making it illegal to say something just because it is false violates the constitutional right to free speech. Some forms of lying are illegal, they said, but only ones that cause some harm to individuals or society, like perjury, impersonating a police officer, or lying to perpetrate a crime. But the justices in the minority argued that even if lying about your own military service doesn’t directly harm anyone else, the lie still harms society by cheapening the achievements of those who legitimately received the Medal of Honor. For that reason, they argued, Congress should have a right to ban that sort of speech. I have to agree with the minority on this one. There is something very sacred about military service. And while free speech should be protected at all costs, there are exceptions. And this is one of the most important exceptions there is. Can you imagine a family that has lost a loved one in combat having to endure some lout or clown passing himself off as a military hero? It is bad enough that some people in the military embellish their service but at least they served. They might not have been in Vietnam but if they were in the Pacific they were at least somewhere doing something. This decision is wrong because it says that free speech of a wannabe trumps a true hero putting their life on the line in combat. It is salt in the wounds of a grieving family. This decision stems from when Congress passed the Stolen Valor Act. That law made it illegal to falsely claim to have won a military medal or decoration, with even stricter penalties for those who claim to have received the Congressional Medal of Honor. Now that the law is struck down, let me offer some advice with a cautionary tale. Years ago, a female friend of mine who was crazy then and is even more so now claimed she was dating a New York Mafioso. She regaled us with stories of how “dangerous” and “tough” he was. One evening, one of her old boyfriends was released from the Lackawanna County prison and of course the first place he went was her Swoyersville home. He started banging on the door and scaring the hell out of everyone residing there. She didn’t call the police because she still cared for him, (I told you she was nuts) but was legitimately afraid for herself and three kids. The jailbird was scared off by a 68 year old neighbor wielding a shotgun. And Mr. Mafia? He was hiding in a closet. Turns out the closest thing he was to a mafia member was that he waited tables at a restaurant near Sparks Steakhouse where John Gotti had Paul Castellani offed. My point is this, if you have to tell someone you’re a hero, you’re usually not. Military men who have seen war never brag about the horrors of it. Only jerk offs who have no idea how bad it is tell you how brave they were. It’s unfortunate they now are protected from free speech. But the saving grace is this: you can usually see them coming. And if you press them on details, they’ll back off. Like cowards and bull shitters usually do. I’m sorry the majority of the Court couldn’t see that. The six who voted yes were Chief Justice Roberts, Kennedy (who wrote the opinion), Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Briar. The three who voted no were Scalia, Alito and Thomas.


The Times Leader had a story about another ruling which said teen who were given a life sentence now are entitled to a life sentence. The story goes on to recount how a convicted killer will get a new sentence  because he was 15 at the time he shot two campers who befriended him and another scumbag. Murdered for their kindness were Diane Algar and Jose Molina. Public Defender Al Flora says said scumbag has to be granted a new hearing. Good. Grant him the hearing. I say commute the sentence and let him go. Have him get as far as the courthouse steps and then shoot him dead. One bullet. He got his hearing. The Supreme Court is happy. The survivors of Molina and Algar are happy and said scumbag won’t be feeding off of the public money for the rest of his sorry ass life. He showed no mercy at the age of 15, what makes any Court, even the highest in the land, think he’s going to show it again.


At 8:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As long as real Veterans are allowed to beat the shit out of these assholes when exposed,
I'm OK with the ruling!
Most of the guys who saw combat dont have much to say about it. It would be impossible for people to understand anyway. Its a wussy ruling in my opinion. At least they got the big one right!

the Old Sarge

At 11:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Yonki
Although this post is not on the topic you have written about today I thought it important for your readers to consider, especially the Professor and Aggie95. As of today the United States has spent over 1/2 trillion taxpayer dollars on the war in Afghanistan. Over 2000 members of our military have died and countless more wounded and disabled fighting there. Our country has truly sacrificed greatly for this war. This is something we can all agree on. I ask what have we accomplished? Last week in a village just 40 miles from Kabul the Taliban executed a woman for adultery. She was shot 5 times while 150 men watched and cheered. The execution was filmed and sent to other areas of the country.
I wonder if our great sacrifice is worth it or even appreciated by the people of Afghanstan, a country that we will never understand nor will they understand us.
The loss of life sacrificed and money wasted,that will never be returned by an ungrateful nation, is never criticized by the likes of the Professor or Aggie 95. They would rather criticize our President, want his policies to fail and demean others with different opinions instead.
Something to think about this evening.

At 8:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

David, I feel inclined to respond to the Supreme Court's "other" ruling on the wearing of unearned military medals. I spent four years on active duty in the US Coast Guard and when discharged, my DD214 (official military record) did not show a single medal, not even the Good Conduct medal. A year or so ago, a former shipmate of mine mentioned his military medals. Having served with him on board the CG Cutter Half Moon for approximately 3 years, I knew there was very little difference in our 4 years of service. Following his advise, I contacted the USCG head quarters in Wash. DC and they had a representative do some background work and bottom line, I was awarded 5 official military medals, one of which qualified me for full membership in the VFW. I wear a mini set of my medals on my CG ball cap and I'm very proud of them. I wear them as a sign of pride not a form of braggadocio. Personally, I do find it offensive that our government would allow individuals to wear unearned medals and cover it under the freedom of speech. Doing so is an insult to those who served and most especially to those who made the ultimate sacrifice. During this past year, I have learned a little about the process of seeking medals earned during active duty and have helped other veteran's obtain medals they are entitled to. Wil Toole

At 7:54 PM, Anonymous Bluto said...

Read the Constitution, people. It's now about how the speech makes you feel, but what the thing says: "Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech."

Interpret THAT.

At 6:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Bluto, apparently you agree that it is ok for a draft dodger to wear medals he did not earn? Where does the freedom of speech come into wearing unearned military medals? Is there fraud in there someplace? Is freedom of speech covered in the court room if a lie is told? Doesn't te lier have the right to say what he wants? God save us from ourselves.


Post a Comment

<< Home