Col. Tom Moe, whose small group Ohio Veterans United endorsed Kasich in his gubernatorial race, told an audience of around 200 people in Ohio University’s Baker Center Ballroom that before a person can improve the lives of others, he has to improve himself.
He compared this to the message flight attendants share with airline passengers before liftoff, regarding the oxygen masks above their seats.
“Who do they tell you to put the mask on first? Yourself,” Moe noted.
Moe’s appearance was in connection with a visit to OU by a replica of the Vietnam Veteran Memorial Wall. The actual wall, which was designed by OU alum Maya Lin, is in Washington, D.C., and bears the names of more than 58,000 U.S. military service people who died in the Vietnam conflict.
Moe, who was held as a P.O.W. for five years in Hanoi during the war, said the American spirit of self-help and private charity thrives best when power is decentralized, leaving citizens “free of monolithic big government.”
He quoted approvingly the words of a writer who predicted that “a country with this much going for it is not going to be dragged down by the naysayers,” nor by those who take advantage of public assistance rather than helping themselves, and are “talented at turning a social safety net into a hammock.”
Recalling a time when, according to him, returning Vietnam veterans were “cursed” by members of “so-called progressive movements,” Moe contrasted this with the respect for veterans he sees displayed in events like Tuesday’s.
“The spirit of gratitude toward veterans is as strong as ever,” he concluded.
In his entire 30 minute speech, that's what you took away from it? You might at least have mentioned that he spoke about the debt we owe those whose names are on the wall - those who sacrificed their lives to protect our freedoms. The fact that you don't believe that to be true is apparent, but most in attendance "at a ceremony advertised as honoring local veterans" believe that with all their heart.
It's too bad that all you heard were the comments that offended you. Imagine, someone having the gall to discuss self-reliance and self-sacrifice while paying tribute to our fallen soldiers.
Is there any chance the News could have someone who is not an "anti-war" zealot cover such an event? No, I guess not. Perhaps you don't have such a person among your reporters. Thanks for the unbiased reporting...
That was clearly a political speech, rather than something intended for the wider audience who came to honor our fallen soldiers. Take off your blinders, Eagle. TS
Oh, were you there? I didn't see you. If not, whose word are you taking for your declaration that it was a political speech?
It was clearly a speech that included his personal views (philosophy) on freedom and self-reliance, but I didn't hear a call to vote for his boss (Kasich) or against a liberal (progressive) candidate like Jim's wife, so what was "political" about it?
And my point, without blinders, was that the speech was to honor those whose names were on the wall behind him, which it did. Jim might have mentioned that in his article. But no, he was so offended that someone didn't agree with his view of liberal positions, that the only things he reported on were those that offended him.
Did it occur to him that the speech wasn't "all about him?" Jim, oddly enough, was not the target audience of the speech. So readers of your paper who might have benefited from reading an objective report of what happened, were instead treated to Jim's obvious disdain for the speaker and some of his message. Is that what your paper is all about?
So, Eagle, exactly which artcle did you read? Apparently not the one headlined, "New vets' service chief touts self-reliance at Vietnam Wall event," or that he led with the fact that he delivered a speech "praising self-reliance and slamming the nanny state, or that the the report didn't otherwise get into the ideological content till the third to last and second to last paragraphs. In other words, you're focusing on the minority of the article that reported on part of what transpired at the speech. You obvously would prefer that we didn't mention those aspects of what Moe said, but then that would be inaccurately reporting what happened.
You're so right Terry. One doesn't get a sense from his "at a ceremony advertised as honoring local veterans" or "He quoted approvingly" or "Recalling a time when, according to him," the reporter's opinion of the speech (wink, wink). Please stop insulting our intelligence,
Apparently you think your headline makes up for his reporting. And, apparently you think this is actually an objective reporting of the event. Tell me, do your articles about, I don't know, EVERY liberal speaker you've ever covered, include comments like ""at a ceremony advertised as" and preface the speaker's remarks with " according to him"? No, they don't. Why, because you and your "objective" reporter agree with what they say. Thus, it would never occur to you to include words like those.
And the fact that you can't, or won't, admit it in such an obvious example speaks volumes.