********* e-mails and apparently didn't check out the notice to the left. I'll publish any damn e-mail I want.
***** wants me to know that Corey Glass is "inactive, not discharged," that ABC News was "working with the Pentagon," and wants to lecture me about research.
My job isn't to do whatever you want, however you want.
I'm getting real sick of the ineffective Canadian 'helpers' to begin with. For instance, a wife of a war resister could have become a citizen years ago. If she had, she, her children and her husband would be safe -- all of them. But somehow no one bothered to explain that to her, no 'helper.' I don't know if it's ignorance or a desire to 'see it through' on the part of the left in Canada. But someone should have told her, "The minute you become a citizen, no one is going to deport your husband. The minute you're a citizen, they can't touch ___. If they try to deport him, it will be, 'Canadian government breaking up home.'" But that was never conveyed. Now why is that?
Considering all the CRAP the bulk of you put out when you speak to the media and ALL the DAMAGE it does, **** needs to take his criticism back across the border, *****, and shove it up his ass.
How many times are 'helpful' Canadians going to speak to the press and LIE that Canada, during Vietnam, "took in draft dodgers so we should take in today's war resisters"?
How about you focus on patrolling your own 'movement' in Canada because, from the United States, you're not doing a great deal that qualifies as 'helping'.
Flipping through the April through June 1969 volume of my journal, what do I see? I see a New York Times article I clipped and pasted in all those years ago. The date of it is May 23, 1969. The reporter is Jay Walz, the title is "Canada to Admit Any U.S. Deserter." (Subtitle "Border Officials No Longer to Decide on Entries.") Do you get it, *****?
Do you need the first ____ing paragaraph?
OTTAWA, May 22 -- The Government decided today to allow United States military deserters to enter Canada and, unless they are otherwise ineligible, to let them stay.
"Let them stay." Gee, *****, the title of a recent documentary.
And here's the thing, you rude ass, all the 'helpful' ones saying, "Draft dodgers were let in!"? They're not doing to a damn thing to help today.
There is no draft today.
Canada allowed US deserters to enter the country, to have landed immigrant status and they were not at risk of deportation.
Instead of addressing that historical reality, the 'helpers' in Canada can be found in one damn article after another saying, "Well we let draft dodgers stay."
A meme's taken hold that hurts today's war resisters. The battle today would be SO MUCH easier if people could stick to historical facts. There would be no need to play the crap-ass game of, "We let draft dodgers stay then so now we should let deserters."
Canada welcomed US war resisters -- whether they were evading the draft or whether they were deserting. The draft wasn't an issue for the Canadian government, Canada had no draft. The argument should have been -- all along -- "We let deserters stay during Vietnam, it's time to do the same today." Instead, because 'helpers' refuse to do that, all the right-wing outlets in Canada toss out the meme of "The difference is that back then there was a draft and we were just welcoming draft dodgers."
The draft didn't matter at all. Not in terms of what the Canadian government did. Draft evader, deserter, you could receive landed immigrant status. If you were a deserter, there was no Q&A to determine whether you were deserting after being drafted or if you enlisted, there was no statement you had to swear to that you were drafted.
So why don't you work on getting out the truth in Canada and leave me the ___ alone?
I've watched this process unfold since the start of the illegal war and watched in shock as history was rewritten. The bulk of the people I've helped go to Canada in this illegal war stay underground. And the reason is because I've stated repeatedly, "I don't know what they're doing and I don't think they know what they're doing." "They" meaning the 'helpers.'
But I've bit my tongue here on the 'helpers' and figured, "That's the Canadians job to worry about." I'm not going to bite my tongue when some rude 'helper' wants to sound off about things he knows nothing about. (Go back and read those entries, you dumb ass, I stated we would be addressing the spin at Third on Sunday.) Want to fire back across the border, let's have at it.
And let's tell the truth about one of the reasons Canadians aren't being honest. There was a huge split in the war resister movement back in the day. Not usually among the war resisters themselves, but among the 'helpers.' Prior to the policy of 1969, there were a lot of 'helpers' who didn't want to do a damn thing to help deserters. They wanted to focus on draft evaders because (a) they saw themselves as taking down a US military policy and (b) draft resisters were judged to be more 'sympathetic.'
As someone involved in the underground railroad back then, I damn well know who was a draft evader and who was a deserter. I can flip through any volume of the journal and find names, presented in the press today as 'draft dodgers,' who were in fact deserters.
I don't know why that is. Maybe some think it makes them more 'respectable.' (Some I'm still in touch with tell me they're told to, quote, "cool it.") But I know that those of us helping people get into Canada back then think today that some of the deserters need to come out of the damn closet already and quit posing as 'draft dodgers.'
I know that anyone with half a brain would have grasped that -- with no draft today -- you don't waste time talking about some stupid draft. I know that anyone with half a brain would have gathered Vietnam deserters in Toronto for a press conference where they stated, "We deserted and we were allowed to stay." That's the only thing that would have put a rest to this LIE that Canada only accepted draft dodgers.
Once that press conference took place, it would no longer be a question of asking Canada (wrongly) to expand the welcome they gave during Vietnam to 'include' deserters. (Canada also took in deserters in the eighties. Does today's movement know a damn thing about that or what country the deserters came from? From this side of the border, it doesn't appear that they do.) By telling the historical truth, the argument would be: We took in deserters then and we need to do so now.
If you can't grasp the difference, then you're an idiot. As it's argued today, you're asking people to add-on to what they did before -- to add the category of 'deserter' to what Canada has welcomed in the past. The reality is Canada welcomed deserters during Vietnam. Instead of making the strongest case possible, you start from a position of weakness and beg Canadians to 'expand' a category -- a category that already exists.
Pierre Trudeau's son is trotted out for a press conference and he doesn't even know what his father did? How the hell does that happen? Exactly how are the 'helpers' helping anyone? There's Junior going on about how his father allowed 'draft dodgers' to stay in Canada. When he did that weeks ago, I didn't call him out. My mouth dropped in shock -- at his words and at the failure of any 'helper' to correct him. But I took the attitude of, "Oh, well, that's their problem, that's their issue." But you want to e-mail and slam me when you don't even know what I've written?
Canadian 'helpers' have had five years to get their act together and they still can't do it. They can't even tell the basic truths such as "We welcomed deserters during Vietnam."
It reminds me a great deal of the 'help' the 'helpers' provided in the early seventies (on through 1978) which was no help to deserters. Deserters were basically forming their own collective/union (Amex-Canada was one of the locales) and they were repeatedly told (by 'helpers') that they were 'hurting the cause' and that they needed to take 'a lower profile.' How did that work out?
It worked out that deserters got no amnesty from the US. (Ford's program was a joke. Carter ignored them.) It worked out that some deserters now pass themselves off as draft evaders because we must not have any 'conflict' in the movement. It's time to stop 'smoothing' over the truth for the egos of the 'helpers.'
You want to help, *****? You start calling out everyone who lies and denies that Canada welcomed deserters during Vietnam.
You want to help, ******? Stage a symposium in which 'helpers' examine how they didn't help war resisters in the seventies. 1969 was the change that found deserters and draft dodgers officially and legally welcomed in Canada. What happened after that?
A lot of tsk-tsking at deserters who took their grievances with the US public. A lot of telling them they were hurting the 'movement' (what ___ing movement?). Telling them that demanding amnesty [from the US government] was hurting the 'movement.' Making them feel that they were damaging something (there was nothing to damage -- at that point the 'movement' was nothing but a way to bump up the local economy and boost tourism). And bit by bit, 'helpers' succeeded in clamping down. As a result, a Vietnam deserter going into the US today faces likely imprisonment. Way to go, Canadian 'helpers,' you were so 'smart,' you were so 'wise,' and so very damn 'helpful.'
Nixon had been pardoned. After that, there was no reason anyone couldn't have been. But it would have required real resistance, real work and real demonstrations. But deserters trying to do just that were repeatedly told to 'pipe down' and warned that they were 'hurting' the movement. This went on well past the end of the war in Vietnam.
Now I call out the 'movement' in the US regularly and bite my tongue on Canada but not when I get some 'video artiste' ranting at me (for something I didn't do) in an e-mail. When that happens, biting my tongue ends.
The ABC News report was a report. If you didn't like it, hold a press conference and we'll cover that. Are the 'helpers' in Canada today so stupid that they don't even know how to get press?
Calling out an American broadcast network gets media attention (in Canada and it travels back to the US). My goodness, what idiots. Is it true, it is false? Go back to what I wrote and trying reading it, you dumb ass.
But in terms of publicity, ABC News reported something. Call it out and get publicity. Don't waste my time with your insulting private e-mails. How pathetic. If you're symbolic of the 'best' of the 'helpers,' no wonder nothing's been accomplished.
The media's not interested in "I refuse to serve in the illegal war." They were never overly interested in that topic to begin with. In the US, by the time Camilo Mejia was first being reported on, they'd lost interest in the topic. They want conflict. A father and son who support one another but have differences over a stand? It's conflict. The media will report that. They'll do it as a human interest story but it will get the story out at a time when NO stories are getting out. A war resister is reported on falsely? That would be conflict.
The media does not exist to tell the same story over and over. That's why the 'campaign' reporters 'invent' details regularly. They drum up the conflict (creating it when it's not there). Instead of e-mailing me, dumb ass, try grasping what the media situation/environment is and figuring out that your let-me-make-charges-and-hide-in-private-in-an-e-mail is a waste of time.
You want attention to war resisters (which I've already given)? Make some damn news. All the MSM is interested in at this point is human interest stories. They want family conflicts. They want families ripped apart. That's the only way they're covering war resisters unless there is some actual news. Such as? Asserting that a major American broadcast network got the story wrong will get media attention. No wonder you 'helpers' fail repeatedly while trying to get attention to the cause of war resisters -- you don't even grasp the media situation or how to use it to get the stories out.
And when your own 'movement' can't get the facts straight on how Canada welcomed deserters during Vietnam -- can't get that well reported in real time, historical fact into the conversation today -- why don't you work on that and stop e-mailing me your whines and carping?
If you think you're 'helping' anyone, you're kidding yourself. Because after five years the 'movement' in Canada will not demand that their media get the facts right. But ***** wants to gripe at me for noting an ABC report -- while ignoring what I actually wrote including that we'd be addressing it at Third on Sunday. (Only now, I'm so pised, I don't think we will.)
I supported war resisters during Vietnam. It didn't matter whether they were avoiding the draft or leaving the service. (Then, as now, I never advised anyone to leave. That is a huge decision with lifelong implications and only the resister can make that decision. If they've made that decision, I'm happy to help -- then and now.) That's true of a very small few actually helping today (you could put Lee, Gerry and Shirley on that small list).
ABC reported on Corey Glass which is a hell of a lot more than most did -- in Canada or the US. (Especially in the US.) It resulted in more attention to war resisters than we've seen in recent months. Is ABC right or wrong? One thing ABC is not, on this story, is working with the Pentagon. I don't know the reporter but I got a call from a friend at ABC that they were about to post that online. While I was writing that, I was just waiting for the URL and for it to go up at ABC News. If the report's wrong (and read the entries that covered it because I'm noting spin in those, ****), it's not because someone was "working with the Pentagon." ABC went after that story, they weren't fed it. The report may or may not be correct (again -- we were going to address that at Third -- as I noted repeatedly in those entries, but now, I don't think so) but the reporter was not 'in the tank.' That's a bunch of paranoid crap. You can call the story out without pinning motives on the reporter credited.
But, ****, you don't want to call the story out. Not publicly. You just want to rant at me in an e-mail.
Why don't you police things on your side of the border?
***, I'm not in the mood for your garbage, don't dump it on me. I'm not in the mood for your paranoid ravings that ABC deliberately set out to lie for the Pentagon. That's a flat out lie and you're just making insane claims that you can't back up.
You've got more than enough to police in Canada, why don't you focus on that?
And why don't you try learning what the hell you're talking about before you e-mail me? I didn't report a damn thing. This is a resource/review. If you Google "The Common Ills" and "resource/review," you'll see at least 58 search results turn up. If I wanted to be a reporter, I would've done that years ago, you dumb ass.
Forget that you don't know a damn thing about me, you don't know a damn thing about this site. So why don't you do your research before boring people with your conspiracy theories, your crackpot 'facts' and your whines and insults?
This is a private conversation in a public square (as Gina long ago noted). We didn't ask for your input, we don't need it. You're just another person failing a supposed 'movement' and wanting to pretend you've done a damn thing. In the words of Stevie Wonder, "You Ain't Done Nothing." I'm being kind and putting "***" where you name should be. Whine to me again, I'll call your ass out publicly. That's what the note to the left means, TRY READING.
In the time you wasted trying to abuse me privately ("Do not publish this e-mail"), you could have actually done something. Equally true is unlike yourself, I haven't tried to make a buck off this illegal war or make a 'name' for myself. While I will never hurt for money, you can't deny that you've advanced yourself as much as you've 'advanced' the cause of war resisters. Lot of people making bucks off the illegal war and they're not all in the defense industries.
If you don't like ABC's report, you take it up with them. I'm sure they'll laugh their asses off at your claim that the they're in the tank with the Pentagon on that story. I guess from Canada, you can peer into the offices of ABC News and also hear all conversations taking place?
Again, for community members, the Third story is now killed. I'm killing it. I'm not going to take *****'s abuse -- for something I didn't even do -- and turn around and waste my time on this story. In my own work (off-line), I've always been happy to go into an unknown situation. But I've always refused to work again with people who've burned me. Going into an unknown situation is one thing, going into a known bad situation is another. One thing is common sense, the other is stupidity. I am many things but I am not willfully stupid. The one thing I've always been able to do is learn from my mistakes.
It's not that a 'video artiste,' piss-ant wanted to criticize what I did, it's that he wanted to slam me for something I never did. There's a big difference and I'm not in the mood for that crap. I will gladly own any mistake I make. I will apologize. I have no problem saying "I was wrong" and anyone who knows me can tell you that. But criticize me for what I did and I will ponder it, I will apologize, I will examine it at length. Invent things that I didn't do, and that's another story.
Reporters who are mentioned here write in all the time and I read it. I don't get my 'little feelings' hurt if they're cursing. I've dished it out, they can have their say and I will consider it and mull it over. But that's about something I did. I will not be someone's sin eater for something I never did. I will not read an e-mail of charges against me for something I never did and play 'fair.' If **** bothers me again with more of his abuse, I won't only name him here (he's not a reporter, but he is a public person), I will call out his 'work.' I'm not in the mood for it. I'm not in the mood for crackpot theories about what ABC News did and I'm not in the mood for lies about what I supposedly did. (And he's so historically ignorant that he doesn't even know what's going on. How typical. It should be flashback time, circa 1977, for anyone paying attention.)
I have no respect for someone who not only lies and insults me but then wants to end his e-mail with "just asking you to look into this more." As a very good friend said years ago, when Rex Reed wrote her a letter of apology after doing a piece trashing her, "I had more respect for him when he hated me." What a little kiss ass.
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.
the new york times