Taken in its entirety from Task And Purpose:
Normally, Thanksgiving is synonymous with food, family, friends, and giving thanks. For @TheEconomist,
Thanksgiving apparently means taking a turkey-sized dump on disabled
veterans. The other day I had the unfortunate opportunity to read an
unattributed article on The Economist titled, “American veterans now
receive absurdly generous benefits” and it left me with a lot of
thoughts. (You can read it for yourself here: https://econ.st/3D0Nk87, just be ready to sign up for a subscription.)
The piece on The Economist has no
author and reads like it was poorly run through ChatGPT. And the title
of the piece is insultingly stupid. The definition of absurd is “wildly
unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.” I’d challenge the anonymous
cowards at The Economist to illuminate us on which parts of veterans’
healthcare and benefits are inappropriate, illogical, or wildly
unreasonable?
I am a disabled veteran. I had my
right leg blown to pieces on September 4, 2006, in Fallujah, Iraq. Since
that time, I have had to walk with an above the knee prosthetic and I
have not had an easy day physically for as long as I can remember. Hey,
The Economist, which portion of my healthcare or benefits are wildly
unreasonable?
Service to our country can be an
incredibly uplifting and positive experience for many who wore the
uniform, but that service can also involve hazards. Some disabled
veterans struggle physically or mentally with the effects of their
service. Bullet wounds, Traumatic Brain Injuries, Post Traumatic Stress,
and other effects of a service can sometimes cause chronic issues for
veterans, and providing care and benefits for those issues is certainly
not inappropriate or illogical.
While the AI assisted
“journalists” at The Economist boldly chose not to put their name on
this piece, they did attribute a quote to another non-expert in veteran
benefits, Mark Duggan from Stanford University. Mark foolishly stated
about VA Disability and Compensation, “Once you qualify you have an
incentive not to get better.” An incentive not to get better?!?!? Hey
Mark, any clue how I can get my right leg back? I’d gladly give back the
money I’ve received so I can get up out of bed without the assistance
of a wheelchair or a prosthetic.
The meandering poorly structured
article in The Economist highlighted a lot of increased numbers and
statistics, many of these figures quoted began back in 2001. It
highlighted the increased number of veterans with high disability
ratings beginning to increase in 2001. However, nowhere in the article
does it state what else began back in 2001. These dopes conveniently
left out the Global War on Terror that began in 2001 lasted for TWENTY
YEARS! A full 20 years of the same all-volunteer force serving over and
over, and over again in the same toxic hellholes fighting the same
brutal terrorists. Gee, I wonder why today’s veterans are presenting
with more chronic ailments than generations that came before us.
Ivy League elitists like Mark
Duggan and the pretentious wankers at the Economist clearly didn’t
bother to do much research on veteran disability or bother to speak to
one of the millions of disabled veterans like me. We would have told
these arrogant snobs that certain injuries and illnesses are with us for
life, and no disability rating is worth the difficulties that come with
some of the aftereffects of service.
The real cherry on top of this turd sundae was the lazy suggestion (possibly lifted from the fools at the @washingtonpost
Editorial Board) that VA should means test veterans before receiving
benefits. As in, if you make enough money after service, you won’t be
taken care of for the costs of war. If The Economist had bothered to
attribute a name to this drivel, I would ask that idiot, “how would you
means test my inability to teach my son to ride a bike?” It’s a pretty
routine joy that most parents get the privilege of taking part in.
However, my prosthetic leg doesn’t really function in a way that allows
normal bike riding. So that is a simple joy I won’t get. How exactly do
buffoons like Mark Duggan and the dollar store journalists at The
Economist suggest factoring in that loss?
The last paragraph of this loosely
compiled puddle of garbage juice included the statement, “Reducing
payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise.
America’s veteran obsession has gone too far.” — TOO FAR?!?!? Holy
hell, this sounds like it was written by a jealous also-ran who every
veteran has probably met. The guy or girl who “totally would’ve
joined…but I didn’t because I would’ve told-off a Drill Instructor if
they got in my face”. Losers…
In the future, if any major
publication wants to embarrass themselves by anonymously taking shots at
disabled veterans, I’d like to offer my services. I can start by
helping you research this subject to learn about the actual effects of
service-connected injuries and illness. I can also connect you with
other disabled veterans so you can hear first-hand accounts of some of
the difficulties veterans face. I could even help google image search
pictures of actual veterans, instead of the stock photo of firefighters
The Economist used at the top of its trash piece on veterans. Then
finally, if you are still intent on disparaging disabled veterans, I can
assist you in removing your head from your ass…free of charge.
Patrick Murray, national legislative service director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars office in Washington, D.C.
I can't find a lot (or anything) to disagree with here. Spending on veterans is among the first things DC nukes when they go towards balancing budgets.
I was there when Clinton was spending the peace dividend and noticing that a homeless people got better care from a for-profit hospital than a veteran got from the supposed-to-be-dedicated-to-them hospital.
I cannot help but wonder if there'd been proper care and therapy for my legs if I would be spared the constant pain from neuropathy.
I'm sure that FuzzyGeff and Technomad can relate stories about how bad I was hurting and what a charming fellow it made me.
But too many people think that because veterans will stoically suffer that we SHOULD.
I won't even get into the weeds of talking about how the same people talking about cutting off support for veterans are the same assholes that tie the military's hands and prolong conflicts and assure there be no victory, lasting or fleeting.