posted on April 22, 2003 09:44:11 AM new
Rachel Loy wrote "The Same Man" for her friend Matthew Brake, a US Marinefighting in Iraq. Rachel, a 19 year old student at the Berklee College of Music in Boston, was home in Austin, TX on spring break in mid-March when she performed the song acoustically live on KLBJ-FM Austin's morning show. The phones immediately began to ring off the hook. The show's producers sent the music via email to several other stations who saw the same instant reaction from their listeners. Epic has just signed Rachel, who has now recorded a studio version of the song with Grammy Award winning producer Clif Magness (Avril Lavigne,
Kelly Clarkson). In addition to playing acoustic guitar and writing, Rachel also plays bass and sings for the all female pop/rock band Mass Ave. Rachel also continues to write her own solo material for a forthcoming solo project.
The Same Man (for Matthew)
by Rachel Loy
This is for you my friend
I'm waiting on the other end
checkin' every day to see if you wrote me
a letter
This is 'cause I miss my friend
off fighting with the other men
but you know I couldn't be more proud
even if I felt better
'Cause the same man who held me so close that night
is the same man who is sleeping with his gun
And the same man who would never ever start a fight
is the same man who would never ever run
I thought of you again last night
Thought of you in a brand new light
Head high with your proud stare
never looking back
I know you'll fight bravely
I know it 'cause you promised me
soon you'll be home with your short hair
and your funny little laugh
'Cause the same man who left me speechless with his eyes
is the same man now squinting in the sun
And the same man who would never ever start a fight
is the same man who would never ever run
And the same man who left my heart all big and sore
is the same man now facing his death
And the same man who would never ever start a war
is the same man who would always protect
posted on April 22, 2003 10:53:55 AM new
That's a beautiful song.
I do have one problem with the last line though [surprise, surprise ] And the same man who would never ever start a war is the same man who would always protect
Reason being that most people who elect to join the military aren't pacifists nor anti-war. They know the reason FOR our nation having a military and aren't going in blinded to what they maybe called upon to do.
And as the old saying goes....never say never. You don't know what circumstances might make one change their outlook on when it might be necessary to do [start a war].
Matthew has a good 'friend' there, in Rachel.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 22, 2003 11:48:48 AM new
Linda, there are a lot of reasons that people enlist and very few have anything to do with a desire to fight.
For some it is to avoid jail, for some it is seen as an the only out from negative personal or home situations, for others it is for financial reasons.
You know, when the bottom fell out of the stock market their was a lot of emphasis put on the older people that lost their retirement funds but their were also a lot of college funds that were wiped out too. There are a lot kids out there that don't have the money for college and who don't qualify for loans because althougth their savings may be gone, their parents have a current income that rules them out. For a lot of those kids, a military stint is the only way they see to fund their future.
To give it a personal spin, when I was 18, broke, jobless, on the verge of homelessness, and completely lacking in options I turned to the military. I went thru all of recruiting, the testing, the counseling etc. I was told about all of the amazing possibilities and opportunities that the Air Force could offer me. It wasn't until I looked back on everything a couple weeks later after I had failed the physical due to a bad knee that I realized that never once did anyone mention combat. Lots of talk about training in whatever I choose to pursue, a definate emphasis on the comraderie, one big family aspect and of course the educational funding but not once did someone say, "now you realize that you could be sent to participate in a war".
Also, I know more than one member of the military that didn't agree with the war but accepted that they had made a commitment and this was part of the deal.
posted on April 22, 2003 12:44:18 PM newLinda, there are a lot of reasons that people enlist Agreed, but one would certainly think they'd be VERY aware of the purpose of them joining up and what consequences this might involve.
and very few have anything to do with a desire to fight. The first thing the military does is teach soldiers how to fight. I'd agree that many might hope they don't have to be put in a situation to do so, but to pretend those who have joined don't know they WILL be trained to fight is silly.
For some it is to avoid jail, for some it is seen as an the only out from negative personal or home situations, for others it is for financial reasons. While I'm sure there have been/are some that fit this criteria, you make it sound [with your obvious bias] that the only people who VOLUNTEER are societies rejects. This is the most educated armed force we've ever had. The reasons you claim some enlist make them sound desparate...like they couldn't make it in the outside world.
On college funds - yes the military offers great educational benefits. But these people KNOW what they're signing on to do...and it wasn't to go to school. That is just a side benefit. Millions of people have put themself through school WITHOUT joining the service.
that I realized that never once did anyone mention combat. Lots of talk about training in whatever I choose to pursue, a definate emphasis on the comraderie, one big family aspect and of course the educational funding but not once did someone say, "now you realize that you could be sent to participate in a war". LOL....that surprises that you would say that. Anyone that doesn't know what the job of our nations military is.....well...what can I say?
I know more than one member of the military that didn't agree with the war but accepted that they had made a commitment and this was part of the deal. That's NOT unusual and it IS part of the deal. They [the people you mention] aren't special...no one wants to go to war even IF they agree with the war being necessary. They all made a commitment and are expected to do as ordered. If they wanted to be 'free spirits' they shouldn't have joined up.
Not trying to be sarcastic here, please understand that, but your view of those who serve their country appears VERY distorted to me. They feel they have a mission and when the decision comes down to go to war, they're very positive about the outcome. They go into it believing they're going to accomplish the mission/task and come back home. They have personal pride in what they are called on to do. And they do it with pride.
posted on April 22, 2003 05:32:09 PM new
Linda - You misunderstood the entire spirit of the post. I was not tearing down the military. You are so quick to defend and apparently sure I would be making indictments you assumed the worst.
I did not say that those were the only reasons that people join but I think that sometimes, especially now when there are so many friends and family members of military members that have died saying "He just wanted to serve his country" that it's easy to forget that some are there because it was their best option and sometimes only option.
::While I'm sure there have been/are some that fit this criteria, you make it sound [with your obvious bias] that the only people who VOLUNTEER are societies rejects.::
Um .... WOW! - Are you sure I am the one with the biase here?
As soon as you read "to avoid jail" you must have gone into defense mode because I have a hard time believing that you think that an 18 year old kid that turns to the military to find a more stable situation than their homelife or that cannot afford college but wants to go badly enough to make a miltary commitment tto accomplish that for him or herself should be classified as "Societies Rejects." I sure as hell don't. On the contrary, I respect them all the more. It is easy to sit back and play victim at that age, especially when others your age are heading off to college and all of the rosy promises of a bright future. It takes a strong and determined person to not to succum to that, and to take control of their lives. I'm curious as where you found this "obvious biase" you have credited me with.
::Anyone that doesn't know what the job of our nations military is.....well...what can I say? ::
Totally missed my point. Don't you think that at some point in time during three days of dealing with a recruit, someone should make sure they are fully aware of what they are signing up for? Shouldn't that have been a a bigger priority than selling future career opportunites, financial benefits, etc. I guess my point is that the recruiting process was a sales pitch, not a screening process. It was all about what they could do for me. That's was hell of an investment they were prepared to make, shouldn't there have been a point in the process where someone said, OK now that you know what we are offering... THIS is what we expect from you and THIS is what are going to have to sacrifice.
You also have to remember that there has not been a WAR in these kids lifetime. Hell, by the time they were old enough to really be aware of the world around them we didn't really even have an enemy anymore. My generation is the last one that really had that reality. That grew up knowing that there was another country out the with the capability and quite possibly the desire to be a real and credible threat. The only time the current generation has seen troop deployments they were going as "Peace Keepers" Even the Gulf War hardly seems to have been a "war" as history tells it. Six days long and all you hear about are the massive surrenders.
You had actual wars and thousands of soldiers dying.
I had the threat of nuclear combat.
This generation had Peace Keeping Missions
::Not trying to be sarcastic here, please understand that, but your view of those who serve their country appears VERY distorted to me. ::
Actually it was very distorted BY you. I don't think you meant to, I think you expected me to be negative and so assigned negative connotations to benign statements. Hopefully that has now been cleared up.
posted on April 22, 2003 06:33:27 PM new
I believe that one strong 'cause' of joining the armed forces, for young people, is now JROTC.
I understand there is a popular new trend of these Military Academies to pop up in ‘proletariat’ class, predominantly racial minority group, neighbourhoods.
Apparently part of Bush’s new education for all act requires all schools to permit Military recruiters access to students or face cuts from government funding.
Perhaps the “same man” is also the one who feels the pinch of economic plight.
Certainly not the Republicans or their ‘demographic target’.
posted on April 22, 2003 06:56:41 PM new
Sorry you didn't like the way I took what you said, but that's how I see/view your post. And yes, I get defensive at times....a flaw of mine that I try and work on. Obviously I need to work harder on it and try to say what I want to get across without sounding so defensive.
You're always referring to the soldiers as 'kids'. Take a look at the list hibbertst posted on the 'What a Beautiful Picture' thread, of those who have died/gone missing in this war. The average age is around 27. That's not 'kids'. I know the word 'kids' can be relative....like when comparing our ages to theirs. But I have noticed that you refer to the soldiers as 'kids' often and then when you're also sounding [to me] like you don't think they know that they might be sent off to war when they enlist....to me that makes a statement of how you see their intelligence. Lacking to some degree....not knowing what they're doing, etc. Not understanding the possibilities.
I know you support our troops, even though you didn't support going to war. I've seen you post your support for them, I didn't mean to imply that at all. Maybe you're being just a little defensive too?
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 23, 2003 06:59:53 AM new
Don't worry about it Linda K, 99% of what Neon posts is either not what she meant or has a different meaning than its common interpretation and usage.
She should start each post with- "This is not what I mean, but".
posted on April 23, 2003 10:37:05 AM new
thank you, Reamond
---------
Apparently part of Bush's new education for all act requires all schools to permit Military recruiters access to students or face cuts from government funding. I don't see anything wrong with this practice. I don't see why ALL recruiters shouldn't be allowed equal access to the young people. American needs to have a military to protect and serve and since other types of recruiters have access to these young people, it wouldn't be 'equal' to deny the same opportunity to our military recruiters.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 23, 2003 10:46:30 AM new
Banning the recuiters from High School is an old bloody shirt that the left still waves from the 1960s.
If a young man or woman dies from an illegal drug overdose it is their freedom and right to use illegal drugs, but if they die serving their country and liberating a nation it is a terrible act and a waste of a human being.
Serving in the US military is an honorable mission, even when it means using deadly force.
[ edited by REAMOND on Apr 23, 2003 11:19 AM ]
posted on April 23, 2003 11:54:57 AM new
Excuse Me Linda,
But, my son signed up for money for college. So, in your opinion, my son is one of society's rejects? You amaze me with your one sided views of the world.
My son also does not believe in this war. He went anyway, because he was supposed to. He not only signed up for college money, but to DEFEND America. This war is not defending, but offending.
posted on April 23, 2003 12:54:44 PM new
So your son never considered that the US military might send him into a war he may not agree with ? He never considered that the President and Joint Chiefs of Staff might not take into consideration his personal position on an armed conflict he may be ordered into ?
So military service is seen by your son as college tuition money and only carrying out missions that he agrees with ?
posted on April 23, 2003 12:56:36 PM new
Nope, wrong. And, even if he doesn't agree, he still went anyway. And, before 9-11, there wasn't all this war talk going on.
posted on April 23, 2003 12:58:46 PM new
reamond, you are adding statements to mine. You are making up what your ideas are. Don't take my words and twist them.
posted on April 23, 2003 01:31:37 PM new
Her point is that Linda classified her son among "Societies Rejects"
You are quick to insult everyone else and pick them apart Reamond - where is your quick wit and editorial comments on classifing people that enter the military to aid them thru college or to escape a negative homelife a Reject.... or did you agree?
posted on April 23, 2003 01:43:22 PM new
Well how could that be her point when Linda K said:
While I'm sure there have been/are some that fit this criteria, you make it sound [with your obvious bias] that the only people who VOLUNTEER are societies rejects. This is the most educated armed force we've ever had. The reasons you claim some enlist make them sound desparate...like they couldn't make it in the outside world
In point of fact neon, you were the one that Linda was referring to about claims of "rejects" going into the military. Linda quite aptly and clearly said otherwise.
But neon, I guess we should first ask, Is what you posted really what you meant?
posted on April 23, 2003 01:51:07 PM new
YEs Reamond I REALLY MEANT that LIndas impliction is that anyone who volunteers for the military to avoid jail, avoid a negative home or person life or for financial reasons is one of Rejects. That is EXACTLY what that statement implies.
posted on April 23, 2003 01:56:32 PM new
Sure, my son knew what he was getting into when he signed up. That doesn't mean he has to like what they are doing. He going through with his responsibilites.
Where did you read, reamond, that my son would only carry out missions that he agrees with? Please show me where I stated that.
posted on April 23, 2003 03:03:11 PM new
::You're always referring to the soldiers as 'kids'. ::
That would be because living here in San Diego with its local Naval and MArine base, that's the vast majority of what I see. A friend of mine owns a local barbershop. There are 6 other shops within a 3 block radius of of hers. Vast majority of her customers are military and the vast majority of them are under 22-23 years old.
::.to me that makes a statement of how you see their intelligence. Lacking to some degree....not knowing what they're doing, etc. ::
If that is how you wish to interpret it there is no point in me argueing- you seem to gravitate toward finding the lowest possible implication in my statement and quite frankly I'm tired of justifying myself because you keep getting defensive.
posted on April 23, 2003 03:19:16 PM new
Helen, once again you ask/tell someone NOT to do something you yourself do all the time. LOL
Thank you Reamond, once again, for understanding my post the way it was meant.
sweetee and neonmania. You both appear to need to take a DEEP breath. If'd you re-read what I posted I said I took neonmania's statements to mean it sounded like that's what she was saying about our soldiers. That's why I responded defensively as she rightly accused me of responding. I felt what neonmania was saying was derogatory towards the intelligence of our soldiers....that they were so slow they might not have realized when they 'signed on' that they might be sent to war.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 23, 2003 03:29:47 PM new
neonmania - Since you reject the average age of those who have lost their lives fighting in this war as being 27.....what can I say when you won't accept facts. Even taking your ages of 22 - 23 they're grown men. Young compared to our age, but grown men non-the-less. They aren't 'kids'.
My point was that if a man/woman at the average age of 26 - 27 doesn't understand what they're doing/committing to when they sign up to join the military ....then they the are slow.
posted on April 23, 2003 03:37:00 PM new
I want to clarify my statement a little further. Then they are slow. But I don't think they don't understand FULLY what they are agreeing to when they enlist.....it's you who doesn't believe they do.
posted on April 23, 2003 04:22:35 PM new
Linda - just once please read what I actually say because this is getting redundant.
I did not argue with anything. Did not say your were wrong or anything along those lines.
You mentioned my trend towards the use of the word kids and I gave you the reason for it - nothing more nothing less.
As for your reading some implication that I was insulting anyone by stating three alternative reasons that young people enlist. You pulled that one out of thin air. Their was not a single derogatory comment conncerning military enlistees anywhere in that post.. Anything along those lines that you found came from your own preconcieved notions.
Oh, and BTW - while I realize that you have a very nobal and romanticised version of all military members but take the San Diego Trolley back from Tijuana some Friday night at 2am and tell me that the blind drunk and puking marines and sailors are grown men. Many of them are simply kids in adult situations.
::My point was that if a man/woman at the average age of 26 - 27 doesn't understand what they're doing/committing to when they sign up to join the military ....then they the are slow. ::
True, but then that is not the average age of an enlistee. Most ENLISTEES are much younger than that .
posted on April 23, 2003 04:47:43 PM newand tell me that the blind drunk and puking marines and sailors are grown men. They ARE grown men and at that age men also do the same thing when they're not in the military....most likely in the same numbers. Some do some don't.
They are declared adults when they reach the age of majority. So if you want to argue this point - take it up with the law of the land...not me. This MEN and women defend our country. They put their lives on the line. And if they want to go get drunk....they're entitled, imo.
The question is not what a man can scorn, or disparage, or find fault with, but what he can love, and value, and appreciate. J. Ruskin
posted on April 23, 2003 04:57:54 PM new
The age distribution of FY 2000 active duty NPS accessions is shown in Table 2.4. The average age of enlisted accessions is 19.3 years, ranging from 18.5 for the Marine Corps to 19.7 for the Army. Approximately 87 percent of new recruits are 18- to 24-year-olds, compared to about 36 percent of the comparable civilian population. The Marine Corps enlists the greatest percentage of 17- and 18-year-old recruits (51 percent) and the smallest percentage of those over age 21 (19 percent). The Army has the greatest proportion of recruits older than age 21 (23 percent) and the smallest proportion of 17- and 18-year-old recruits (37 percent).
] And the same man who would never ever start a war is the same man who would always protect
This is the most educated armed force we've ever had. The reasons you claim some enlist make them sound desparate...like they couldn't make it in the outside world.
