Three Faced

That truly deplorable harridan, Jane Fonda, was a hottie when she was young ... many think she still is. But she also was and still is a traitor ... a traitor who supported her country's enemy in time of war ... and has justifiably earned the animus of much of America, including this writer.

Back in 1972 while the US was at war she traveled to Hanoi, North Vietnam where she was pictured womaning an anti-aircraft gun ... smiling from ear to ear. She also said that American pilots held as POWs nearby were war criminals and should be put on trial and, presumably, executed ... see: The Lily Story.

After living under this cloud for 44 years, she finally seemed to rue this youthful indiscretion and, in particular this photo, saying "I was wrong. It was a huge, huge mistake." ... which also helped push her just-released book ... see: Hollywood Reporter Story and  Fox News Story

But now, after seeing herself on the Ken Burns documentary on this subject, and in a rethinking of her rethinking, Hanoi Jane now says, "I do not regret going to Vietnam" -- "I'm proud of it" ... see: Breitbart Story.

What a three-faced hottie hag!

Have you now figured out that I am not fonda Fonda?

Nam

After watching three out of four episodes of Ken Burns' "The Vietnam War" on PBS I am chagrined to confess that there was much about this war that I didn't know. But I have still drawn a few conclusions from what I have seen so far. I know not whether these conclusions are what Ken Burns had in mind for his audience, but I do feel that his treatment of this very contraversial subject seems, so far, to be even-handed. (But I haven't seen Jane Fonda on  the anti-aircraft gun yet.)

First, I must start by stating I was never in the armed forces nor, obviously, in Vietnam although I was of an eligible age. I have two metal rods holding my spine in shape as testament to why this is so. I had actually been called for my pre-induction physical in 1963 but was, to my lasting gratitude, rejected. So I spent those war years working on Wall Street, getting remarried and having another family. And, to my shame, I was barely aware of what was happening in Southeast Asia or why there was unrest at home. All this gnashing of teeth was like chirping  crickets to my busy life.

Anyway, to my few thoughts inspired by  this TV documentary special:

- Much of the angst coming out of this conflict was due, IMHO, to the gradualism exhibited by both JFK and then mostly Lyndon Johnson. I now strongly feel that getting into this quagmire was a mistake, but, once committed. I think someone very wise said, "if you go to war, go to war." Don't pussyfoot around like we have done so many times since WWII. Our painfully slow escalation of this conflict allowed the Viet Cong and North Viernam time to react to each incremental increase of commitment ... and America's youth to organize an effective domestic resistance ... the legacy of which we are experiencing even unto today.

- "A resolute army will almost always defeat a reluctant army." This is just another way of saying that, unless there is a real threat to one's homeland, your soldiers are not quite as motivated as the enemy. However bravely Americans fought in Nam, we were really not being pulled by patriotism, but rather pushed by fear and platitudes. ("Hell no, I won't go!) LBJ never really made the case that the "domino theory" was a big enough threat to Peoria. And history has shown that it wasn't. Matter of fact, I am astounded at the friendly reception American tourists recieve when they visit Vietnam (even the North) today ... given what this program showed us doing over there in the 1960s.

- And lastly, resistance to the war taught a generation of America's youth that it was OK to love one another but hate your country. This "hippie" culture was the genesis of much of our national divide today. It is a price that we will be paying for many years to come.

A Silk Purse

Ho Chi Minh, when he became North Vitnam's leader, made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. He rounded up all the prostitutes in Hanoi and turned them into public nurses ... not a bad idea. So how come our political leaders can't be equally innovative? For instance, every year a too large portion of rural California burns down ... primarily because the officials there won't spend the money to cut back the scrub brush that grows in the public spaces and along the roads ... see: CNBC Story.

Then, during the dry season, when lightning strikes and/or a powerline falls, it takes millions of dollars to subdue the resulting conflagrations ... often with the loss of life and personal property. The cost to put out these fires is probably much larger than what it would have been to remove the dangerous overgrown underbrush to begin with.

And how about a little icing on this cake? Why don't the California authorities use convict labor, welfare recipients and their myriad homeless people performing this clean up duty as a condition for their parole, welfare payments or shelter? This gratis exchange seems very much like a Ho Chi Minh silk-purse solution ... one that would save this state lots of money and grief every dry season.

Afterward: Over six years ago I wrote a similar, albeit better post, California is Burning, in which I made many of these same points. In the interim, California has done nothing to reduce this fire hazard ...