Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(32,019 posts)
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:18 AM May 2012

Civil rights attorney Leo Terrell is disgusted with Chris Hayes

Terrell is filling in now for Peter Tilden on KABC Los Angeles till midnight pacific. He may be hosting the lone liberal show on the station (the local Cumulus owned talk station that carries Hannity and Levin). But Terrell commented that Hayes was misguided and even insulting for not wanting to call soldiers heroes and recommended Hayes "hide" a the media will put him on blast for breaking the taboo of criticizing the troops. (Don't DU rules also ban soldier-blaming?)

You can call in at 1 800 222 KABC. Streaming audio at http://kabc.com/

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Civil rights attorney Leo Terrell is disgusted with Chris Hayes (Original Post) alp227 May 2012 OP
Terrell's message, summarized: alp227 May 2012 #1
Even if it is the politicians fault that the wars are unjust, how can he turn around and say that Puregonzo1188 May 2012 #8
Another fool who hasn't seen what Hayes actually said tularetom May 2012 #2
I am glad somebody else called him a fool ashling May 2012 #3
Oh horseshit. GeorgeGist May 2012 #17
Thanks. TOO MANY fools around, elleng May 2012 #5
The first caller to the show actually said that! alp227 May 2012 #9
What do you mean "also"? Hayes didn't blame the troops at all. n/t EFerrari May 2012 #4
Right, no blaming at all. elleng May 2012 #7
DU no longer explicitly says so, but... alp227 May 2012 #10
His comments didn't seem poorly thought out to me. EFerrari May 2012 #11
Sounds like Hayes' thoughts went over his head. DirkGently May 2012 #6
breaking through rhetorical armlock.... loyalsister May 2012 #25
He had nothing to apologize for. We can't afford to wait for everyone to catch up DirkGently May 2012 #28
The implication of "glorious war" is in your head loyalsister May 2012 #29
A grossly dishonest interpretation of my post. "Glorious war" is not even in there. DirkGently May 2012 #30
Not really loyalsister May 2012 #33
No one directed this at individual soldiers. You made that up dishonestly. DirkGently May 2012 #37
Do individuals not make up the group spoken of? loyalsister May 2012 #38
You are struggling to find an angle to take issue with. DirkGently May 2012 #39
No, I have a personal stake loyalsister May 2012 #40
there is nothing heroic about joining the military. there may some incidents of specifically heroic msongs May 2012 #12
It is, after all, a job. Not one that everyone wants to do, but a job. GoneOffShore May 2012 #19
Chris Hayes showed guts, unlike Leo Terrell's knee-jerk pandering. SunSeeker May 2012 #13
Bill Maher took the same sort of shit after 9-11 for refusing to go coalition_unwilling May 2012 #14
Yes, that ran across my mind as well. SunSeeker May 2012 #15
bullshit Skittles May 2012 #16
So you believe all those surprise attacks that killed so many women and children Bandit May 2012 #18
if the goal is to kill innocent people Skittles May 2012 #27
Oh, snap! - n/t coalition_unwilling May 2012 #35
OK, but Maher's point is that the hijackers were willing to die for their beliefs. It's the coalition_unwilling May 2012 #20
that is religious fanaticism, not bravery Skittles May 2012 #26
Question for you: who is more 'cowardly,' hijackers coalition_unwilling May 2012 #34
??????? Skittles May 2012 #36
The conservative frame of patriotism it's so much like religion it's sickening. alp227 May 2012 #21
I'm sorry, but I do not share your opinion of Leo Terrell. SunSeeker May 2012 #22
Thank you for expressing that so eloquently I couldn't agree with you or what Chris was saying more. jp11 May 2012 #23
It's perverse to suggest we honor soldiers by assenting to bad wars DirkGently May 2012 #31
Yes. They didn't just die. They died in vain. That is the real horror. nt SunSeeker May 2012 #32
what crap. fuck Terrell. So now not calling soldiers heroes is soldier-blaming cali May 2012 #24

alp227

(32,019 posts)
1. Terrell's message, summarized:
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:31 AM
May 2012

Hayes should have attacked politicians (who MAKE orders) instead of soldiers (who follow orders), thus should be fired for insulting Americans. It's not a partisan issue. Hayes should THANK soldiers for sacrificing and protecting his freedoms.

The second caller to this program was a veteran who was also sickened by Hayes' words.

Puregonzo1188

(1,948 posts)
8. Even if it is the politicians fault that the wars are unjust, how can he turn around and say that
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:47 AM
May 2012

soldiers are sacrificing themselves for our freedom? It's one thing to say that the policy is bad and we should blame those who made it not people who got stuck carrying it out, but when we turn around and mention "defending freedom" we are in fact justifying those policies.

I know this isn't a popular message, but it's honest.

ashling

(25,771 posts)
3. I am glad somebody else called him a fool
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:42 AM
May 2012

I hate to be the first.

Chris Hayes is the least disrespectful person in the media.

elleng

(130,865 posts)
5. Thanks. TOO MANY fools around,
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:44 AM
May 2012

of all stripes. And not much of an attorney, imo, if Chris' words escaped him so.

alp227

(32,019 posts)
9. The first caller to the show actually said that!
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:50 AM
May 2012


Much of the outrage circles around the "uncomfortable" remark and downplay his explanation. Still, I doubt an argument is strong if you have to attach "I don't mean to insult..."

alp227

(32,019 posts)
10. DU no longer explicitly says so, but...
Tue May 29, 2012, 01:07 AM
May 2012

"Do not post broad-brush smears against US service people. Do not blame the troops for the mistakes of their officers or their Commander-in-Chief. Show the appropriate level of respect to those individuals who have put their own lives on the line to defend this country."

DU rules 2006-11

http://web.archive.org/web/20110515081517/http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

I posted the video of Hayes comments in a reply. His comments were so poorly thought out that many would see them as blaming the troops for bad politics. At least Hayes apologized.

EFerrari

(163,986 posts)
11. His comments didn't seem poorly thought out to me.
Tue May 29, 2012, 01:09 AM
May 2012

Reflexively attacking him, though, takes no thought at all.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
6. Sounds like Hayes' thoughts went over his head.
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:44 AM
May 2012

Chris Hayes was just trying to break through rhetorical armlock the notion of "heroes" has on America's discussion of war. These wars aren't heroic. Volunteering for service is admirable, but if we keep saying everyone who participates in needless, destructive, amoral wars is a "hero," we are lying to ourselves and patronizing the participants.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
25. breaking through rhetorical armlock....
Tue May 29, 2012, 04:08 PM
May 2012

Is a great exercise in a classroom. But, he is in the business of speaking too more people than who would take an interest in that kind of exercise.
Language is used carelessly for the most part, and in some contexts linguistic shorthand should be respected.

To the family members of soldiers the word 'hero" has a meaning that goes beyond "valor" in the pursuit of a morally admirable cause.
I think that it is possible for a person to take part in military actions for reasons outside of the militaristic goals.
Maybe they fought so they could feed their families, or to get an education so that they would be able to contribute more to their families and society in general. To other soldiers it may refer to a specific incident. To our government maybe it refers to risking their lives on behalf of the voters who supported the war. It was a bad idea. They shouldn't have been there, but if they weren't maybe there would have been a draft.

I like Chris Hayes, but I do think that this professorial analysis of language on a nationally broadcast television show was not wise and to some extent arrogant.

To limit the meaning of the word to one's own interpretation is fine.
But, we all know that people widely apply this word in circumstances that are painful. To challenge the meaning of an emotionally charged word that is used and understood with specific personal contexts was a mistake.
I'm glad he apologized.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
28. He had nothing to apologize for. We can't afford to wait for everyone to catch up
Tue May 29, 2012, 11:37 PM
May 2012

with a concept as basic as this. Wars are not per se heroic. We have people killing in vain, dying in vain. Being crippled and maimed and psychologically destroyed in vain.

If we don't have the courage to say these wars are not glorious, not heroic, and not in defense of "our freedoms," then we are also saying we should keep doing it.

I'd rather we offend a few flag-waving simpletons than condemn another generation to die for nothing.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
29. The implication of "glorious war" is in your head
Tue May 29, 2012, 11:54 PM
May 2012

and others who choose to extend the word hero to that. Chris Hayes made a reasonable argument for discussion among people who study philosophy or language, but at least it wasn't condescending.

Accusing people of being stupid because of how they feel about their friends and loved ones comes across as degrading and downright hateful.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
30. A grossly dishonest interpretation of my post. "Glorious war" is not even in there.
Wed May 30, 2012, 12:02 AM
May 2012

And whitewashing bad wars, whatever the motivation, is far worse than stupid. It's despicable and murderous.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
33. Not really
Wed May 30, 2012, 01:59 AM
May 2012

Your interpretation in reference to today's military extends the word "hero" in relation to individuals who are identified as such to "bad wars, whatever the motivation."

You are obviously free to hold your opinion. To try to force it on others by challenging the language that validates people who did jobs that surely terrified and horrified them at times is not fair.

I don't think they should have been there. And I don't think many who signed up to be in the reserves or national guard expected to go to war. But, I assume that they had a good reason for their initial participation and fulfilled their fine print obligations.

Some enlisted believing they were taking part in something that would have a positive effect on the country and even the world. Who am I to tell them different if they get misty over the pledge of allegiance and maintain a brand of patriotism that is different from mine?

It is unnecessary to create a controversy over a label that carries a personal meaning for individual soldiers and their families. A word that they may accept or reject themselves.

There are certainly cases in which the word hero can not possibly be reasonably be applied. But, it is used as a shorthand directed toward the majority who did the dirtiest of dirty work in fulfillment of an obligation.
Others may have been drafted without their participation.

The individual soldiers do not deserve the contempt of this controversy. That should be directed at the US government for creating the situation in the first place.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
38. Do individuals not make up the group spoken of?
Wed May 30, 2012, 08:39 PM
May 2012

Or was the discussion not about a word that has been used to describe real people?

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
39. You are struggling to find an angle to take issue with.
Wed May 30, 2012, 09:18 PM
May 2012

I'm not going to help. The wars in question are pointless and destructive. We all know this. We also know that the dishonest argument used since Vietnam is that you cannot attack the war without attacking the soldiers. That is false.

As for the nitty gritty of words like "hero," yes, when they are used to whitewash the wars and to imply that reasons existed that were never there, or that goals that were invented where real, it is misapplied and should be rejected. If your suggestion is that is simply too offensive to those who have suffered and lost to ever question or discuss these words, you're picking a fight for the sake of conflict.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
40. No, I have a personal stake
Wed May 30, 2012, 10:15 PM
May 2012

My dad is a Vietnam vet who explained it to me. He had to go against what he had learned was right in order to do a job that many of his friends died doing. He lived and his friend died more than once. He has felt guilty since.
Aside from that, he feels shame for the content of the job he did. There are a few things that he can find some value and he takes pride in some things he well while hating himself. Some of his friends did survive because of his actions. But, most of the experience still prevents him from getting a good night's sleep.

From my observation, the one thing offered him has been a little pat on the back on Veterans and Memorial Day when he feels some sense that people don't hate him as much as he thinks they would to align with his guilt and shame.

According to the response to this controversy, my dad is not the only person who feels a sense of relief when some time is devoted to honoring the friends he couldn't help. And maybe a little nudge that says he didn't lose his hearing and get shot for nothing.
Criticizing a gesture with personal meaning is implicitly and mistakenly misdirected toward the vets and soldiers. It was not malicious, but it caused pain. It matters.

msongs

(67,395 posts)
12. there is nothing heroic about joining the military. there may some incidents of specifically heroic
Tue May 29, 2012, 03:09 AM
May 2012

actions by some members of the military at some specific times, but joining up is not one of them IMO.

GoneOffShore

(17,339 posts)
19. It is, after all, a job. Not one that everyone wants to do, but a job.
Tue May 29, 2012, 10:24 AM
May 2012

Dirty and dangerous, but so is being a steelworker or a miner.

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
13. Chris Hayes showed guts, unlike Leo Terrell's knee-jerk pandering.
Tue May 29, 2012, 03:35 AM
May 2012

Chris Hayes is not blaming the soldiers for bad policy. He is not blaming them for anything. He is just stating the awful truth that most people don't have the guts to say... that dying in Iraq, in and of itself, does not make that soldier a hero. That soldier did not die for our freedom. Iraq had nothing to do with our freedom. In fact, the Iraq War made us less free and less safe. That soldier was a tragic victim of a senseless war, not a hero, absent some other circumstances such as valiantly saving his buddies in battle, or other "above and beyond" type action. The problem with calling all soldiers heroes is that it implies all of them are doing heroic things. That was Chris Hayes' point. There's nothing heroic about dropping bombs on civilians from 10,000 feet, or invading a country that did not attack us. The Iraq vets were not defending us from anyone.

Yes, you should always thank a vet for their service. Yes, vets did volunteer to serve their country and they are brave. But many did so because the bottom has dropped out from under the middle class. A lot of these kids had no other opportunities, no ability to go to college. All they had to look forward to, at best, is a minimum wage job with no benefits. So they took their chances in hopes that a "career" in the military will at least give them dignity, medical benefits and a pension. Unfortunately, those benefits are often woefully inadequate if you are wounded, especially when it comes to brain injuries.

Which also underscores that most Americans appear to agree with Chris Hayes. Most Americans may pay lip service to vets by calling them heroes, but they appear to not believe it since they do not treat vets as such. They forget them when they are over there fighting, and ignore them when they come home. Vets are left to beg for help and treatment, often ending up homeless or victims of suicide. Vets can't get hired because these same American's who call them heroes won't hire them for fear of PTSD issues.

I am sick of the faux outrage. I am even more sick of the inadequate care our vets get. If those outraged people really gave a darn about these vets, they would reserve their anger for the war mongers who wasted these brave kids on a senseless war, then left them with an inadequate safety net--if they were lucky enough to make it back home at all.

I will grant you that Memorial Day is not the best time to pick for airing such thoughts. If my loved one died in Iraq, I would like to think he or she died a hero, actually defending our country, like our grandfathers did in WWII. Believing that may be what it takes to keep from falling apart, and I can see how it may be insensitive to raise these issues under certain circumstances.

However, there are those who can handle the truth, and try to change things so no more kids are sent to die needlessly. Cindy Sheehan comes to mind. Yes, the truth hurts. But the truth will also set you free.

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
14. Bill Maher took the same sort of shit after 9-11 for refusing to go
Tue May 29, 2012, 03:42 AM
May 2012

along with the popular narrative that the hijackers were 'cowards.'

Whatever else the hijackers were, they were willing to die for their beliefs. By definition, anyone willing to die for his or her beliefs is not a 'coward.'

IIRC, the patriotic yahoos managed to drive Maher off the air for a couple years, even though he was 100% correct in his assessment.

Skittles

(153,150 posts)
16. bullshit
Tue May 29, 2012, 05:25 AM
May 2012

surprise attacks on innocent people is extreme cowardice, regardless of whether or not they did it for their BELIEFS

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
18. So you believe all those surprise attacks that killed so many women and children
Tue May 29, 2012, 09:25 AM
May 2012

in Afghanistan and Iraq by US soldiers were actually carried out by cowards and not heroes?

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
20. OK, but Maher's point is that the hijackers were willing to die for their beliefs. It's the
Tue May 29, 2012, 12:10 PM
May 2012

willingness to die that brings the 'cowardice' label into question.

People act on their beliefs all the time, often heroically.

But are you going to call someone willing to die for his or her beliefs a 'coward'?

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
34. Question for you: who is more 'cowardly,' hijackers
Wed May 30, 2012, 11:36 AM
May 2012

who willingly sacrifice their lives in the service of their beliefs or a man who would become Vice President eventually who received 5 draft deferments during the Vietnam War b/c he had 'other priorities'?

Look deep into your heart before you answer that question. You may surprise yourself with the answer you come up with.

Skittles

(153,150 posts)
36. ???????
Wed May 30, 2012, 05:43 PM
May 2012

they are all THOROUGHLY DESPICABLE COWARDS and NO I am NOT surprised by my answer. DONE HERE!!!!

alp227

(32,019 posts)
21. The conservative frame of patriotism it's so much like religion it's sickening.
Tue May 29, 2012, 02:58 PM
May 2012

They make us worship the flag. They make us label ALL soldiers as heroes. Any dissenter=commie pinko.

I should still note though that Terrell is far from a Sean Hannity. Yet maybe the fact that Cumulus Media owns his station KABC, Terrell is trying not to be fired for standing with Hayes. In fact he said he was so anti war he didn't even vote either candidate in 08.

SunSeeker

(51,550 posts)
22. I'm sorry, but I do not share your opinion of Leo Terrell.
Tue May 29, 2012, 03:08 PM
May 2012

He is not what he appears. I speak from personal knowledge...going way back.

jp11

(2,104 posts)
23. Thank you for expressing that so eloquently I couldn't agree with you or what Chris was saying more.
Tue May 29, 2012, 03:18 PM
May 2012

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
31. It's perverse to suggest we honor soldiers by assenting to bad wars
Wed May 30, 2012, 12:34 AM
May 2012

The idea that opposing pointless conflicts like Iraq is taboo because it implies an attack on the service people who have no say-so is one of the cruelest and most destructive lies in society. The same mouths that threw "Support the troops" out as a response to what turned out to be entirely justified criticism of Iraq vote against veteran's benefits. And yet somehow this thinking gets away with calling itself "patriotism?"

If it's too horrible to contemplate that we may have sent brave, decent people to their destruction for insufficient reasons, the answer isn't to pretend there were sufficient reasons.

It can be handled carefully, but there is pretty bright line between despising specific wars and despising the people who volunteered to do whatever was asked of them. WE ALL KNOW THIS.

And if we don't start talking about it somewhere, we agree to more Vietnams, more Iraqs, forever. How many Americans will we throw on the fire to spare ourselves the pain of calling a thing what it is?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
24. what crap. fuck Terrell. So now not calling soldiers heroes is soldier-blaming
Tue May 29, 2012, 03:20 PM
May 2012

dog shit. The are largely NOT heroes. They're just people.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Civil rights attorney Le...