Hi fifty-two!
I think Vietnam was still looked at as a war that would never happen in 1963. We know different now.
Pete and Don were more interested in the buisness details of North American Aviation.

I think it shows their innocent naivete ...

Back in '63, Vietnam was just one of many countries we sent military advisors. And sold military equipment to, all vetted and used by the Pentagon. To curb the spread of communism, something that was really big and really scary in those days.

Remember, the Cuban Missile Crisis was less than a year earlier. In 1961, if I recall correctly, the Soviet Union had exploded a hydrogen bomb in the multi-megaton range. One of those could destroy New York City as well as your whole day. So stopping the spread of communism was seen as important.

So if you could make a buck while being patriotic, more power to you.

Now, if you want to talk about destruction, use of napalm and body counts, check out the bombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities during WWII. As well as Dresden and every other German city.

How exactly is Sterling Cooper involved in selling fighter jets to the Pentagon? Ads in trade magazines? Wining and dining generals? Inviting Robert McNamara to Sterling's yachting party?

I would imagine the advertising and PR strategy offered to NNA is akin to the low-key advertising done today by companies like Northrup, Lockheed and Boeing. They run print ads in newsmagazines and newspapers, and air ads on shows like Meet The Press, to attract the attention of policymakers and to get the attention of public shareholders or prospective shareholders.

@fifty-two: What's wrong with conducting business in the workplace? If a client asks SC to handle its interests in this area, what is wrong with providing the company advice? SC is a business first and foremost, as Bert and Roger continually reminded us this past week. The primary objective of any corporation is to make profits for the shareholders. Failure to seek profit for the shareholders may result in personal liability of the Directors. Should the management employees at SC not look after their owners' best interests? That would kind of work against the most basic purpose of the company.

But isn't selling death and destruction is a bit different from selling popsicles to kiddies? Pete complains to Peggy about Lucky Strike being a huge account, but having to dodge the FTC. Why would a civilian enterprise want to involve itself in marketing a war? If Britain wasn't backing the US effort, why would PPL want to get involved in weapons manufacturing build-ups?

Bob Dylan's prophetic song, from the 1962 album "Freewheelin'", talks about the "builders of big guns" and asks "is your money that good, will it buy you forgiveness?" Robert McNamara sought to assuage his conscience after Viet Nam up until the time of his death last year. He was always known as the "architect" of the Viet Nam war. Jackie Kennedy begged him to stop the killing. Here is a list of his related works:

* (1968) The Essence of Security: Reflections in Office. New York, Harper & Row, 1968; London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1968. ISBN 0-340-10950-5.
* (1986) Blundering into disaster: surviving the first century of the nuclear age. New York: Pantheon Books, 1986. ISBN 0-394-55850-2 (hardcover); ISBN 0-394-74987-1 (pbk.).
* (1989) Out of the cold: new thinking for American foreign and defense policy in the 21st century. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989. ISBN 0-671-68983-5.
* (1992) The changing nature of global security and its impact on South Asia. Washington, DC: Washington Council on Non-Proliferation, 1992.
* (1995) In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. (with Brian VanDeMark.) New York: Times Books, 1995. ISBN 0-8129-2523-8; New York: Vintage Books, 1996. ISBN 0-679-76749-5.
* (1999) Argument without end: in search of answers to the Vietnam tragedy. (Robert S. McNamara, James G. Blight, and Robert K. Brigham.) New York: Public Affairs, 1999. ISBN 1-891620-22-3 (hc).
* (2001) Wilson’s ghost: reducing the risk of conflict, killing, and catastrophe in the 21st century. (Robert S. McNamara and James G. Blight.) New York: Public Affairs, 2001. ISBN 1-891620-89-4.

The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara is a 2003 Errol Morris documentary consisting mostly of interviews with Robert McNamara and archival footage. It went on to win the Academy Award for Documentary Feature. The particular structure of this personal account is accomplished with the characteristics of an intimate dialogue. As McNamara explains, it is a process of examining the experiences of his long and controversial period as the United States Secretary of Defense, as well as other periods of his personal and public life. In this documentary in lesson 8 he referred to the Vietnam war and he said " None of our allies supported us. Not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."

Mea culpa-- McNamara died in July of this year.

@Fifty two: A sample of advertising aviation during war time.
http://madmenfootnotes.com/post/199803523/northern-american-aviation-ad-from-1944-you-may

Thanks, Zabadu. Glad I'm not the only one asking questions about that scene with Don and Pete. But what would an ad look like in 1963? I'm sure they weren't pushing the same kind of WWII propaganda then.

@fifty two: I'd have to do some research to see if they were pushing the same kind of propaganda in the 60s, but I'm sure, before the escalation, that the thinking was the same. You have to remember that we did not see the horrors of WWII. It wasn't until the news started carrying footage from Vietnam that people understood the true horrors. And that wasn't happening in 1963.

I feel that you are looking at a perspective from after we knew. You have to look at the virtual innocence before Americans were exposed to the atrocities.

Just for fun, check this blog where folks from the 1960s tried to predict what life in the 21st century, particularly the year 2000:http://paleo-future.blogspot.com/search/label/1960s

I found a Popular Science mag cover from 1966 with a cover story on the "forgotton" F-5s of the Vietnam era:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-10/march-1966

Well, you can call me a cock-eyed optimist, but unless the US is under attack, I just don't see how anyone can justify military build-ups for profit. Regardless if you're looking forward or backward, war is bad. Every generation has the opportunity, if not the ability, to look back and learn from previous wars. It's why we study history in school, but it doesn't seem to prevent us buying into the next Big Necessary Conflict. Yes, Hitler had to be stopped, but we just traded him for Joseph Stalin. And Mao. And Castro. And Khrushchev. Bin Laden. And Hussein. World War I was called "the war to end all wars". It was actually the war which started the bigger war, if you look at the harm the Treaty of Versailles caused. Must there always be wars?

We got guns, they got guns, all God's chillun got guns!

"As I raced for that Wall, with the bomb in my hand,
I noticed that every last Yook in our land
was obeying our Chief Yookeroo's grim command.
They were all bravely marching,
with banners aflutter,
down a hole! For their country!
And Right-Side-Up Butter!"

from "The Butter Battle" by Dr. Seuss

FiftyTwo.... thanks for the post about what we know is coming (and I've been dreading because inevitable -like VN- because it makes me so so profoundly sad, even after all these years. You are a brave and "right on" gal

"Masters of War" indeed. Bob Dylan got it, as did a number of others... but the bulk of the country did not. And I know it is fair to say that the country was lied to....hugely and pervasively, for a number of reasons, way too many to post here. And thanks for the bibliography of Mr McNamara... very much to the point. The Master of the "Masters"

That said, DDesq makes two fair points about its being a business riff...SC/PPL was one of many agencies that would have had clients with their paws somewhere in the military machine-as big and pervasive as it was. And I do not mean to diminish how nasty and horrible that is, especially from our vantage point of knowing the carnage and sorrow visited on so many, throughout the world -- and not just from "visible" wounds.

60scChild makes the valid point that it was not really on the "civilian" country's "radar" yet. (It was, however, large on the DoD agenda...but we weren't to know that)

Ritt makes a a parallel with WWII and destruction.. but- forgive me Ritt- its a very narrow comparison... leaves out all sorts of causes, effects,. etc. Ritt also make the point that communism was big and scary... true. But equally there were those in government who knew how to exaggerate a perceived threat to their advantage. And they did.

I've said it elsewhere and will repeat it here becasue it is on point: there were those who were Asia experts in the State Dept. who knew that the "domino theory" was crap... but they were shouted down.

It has taken me a long time to write this because I am sad, and am a very poor typist to boot. So if I missed a lot, my apologies. (I submit just after Zab at 12:42)

Even I, pretty darn anti-war, think there are rarely occasions for a country to have to go to war to defend itself. WWII being the main one I think of, but there are occasionally others in the long annals of unnecessary war history.

But it's the "business" of war, the lobbying for war, particularly unilateral invasions under some spectre of stopping communism or terrorism, just so big corporations can build planes, tanks, guns, etc., and make MONEY, that I'll never understand how we allow that to happen.

Vietnam was a Madison Avenue creation in part...the marketing of war by General Dynamics, Lockheed, etc.

WWII was a "justifiable" war, but the growth of large corporations in the business of supplying the war soon became "the military industrial complex" that Eisenhower warned us against continuing to feed. Later wars resulted from these companies influence and desire to make more and more profits.

Indeed, on a related note, our agricultural policy and methods of growing crops all changed after WWII, and even more so after Vietnam, b/c Monsanto, Dow and other chemical companies wanted to continue to market their chemical weapons, but they merely converted them into pesticides and herbicides. Much of our current industrial farming and food system is a product of that business decision.

Thank you Zab, for the search and recovery of that pertinent ad!

Melba, your words are a comfort. I feel like Weiner has us sitting at the tip top of a horrible abyss, and we're about to start sliding down into its deadly depths. I have to go with him, but I go unwillingly!

It will be especially hard if they don't give equal voice to both sides of the story. So far, I feel the younger generation has had an unflattering light shining on it. The beatniks were silly, the poets and folksingers quaint, and now we get some youthful drifters who are violent thieves. Has Don not learned from the mess in Korea? How can he sit there and nonchalantly speak about profiting from another ugly conflict in the making?

Hi all..wow, there was a lot in the interval. (Maybe someday I'll figure out how to be more timely without losing by "place" so to speak, or my computer doing funny things etc.)

After a flurry of attention around the Tonkin Gulf fiasco- (engineeed on orders form DoD) and Popular Science notwithstanding (thanks Zabadu) VN was very low on the national popular radar until 1966 when the Marines landed. That is when it started to get really serious and when began the trickle of TV coverage that turned into a deluge 2 years later.

Once again, didn't see your posts whilst writing...

Betty, brilliant and spot on as ever. Was is ever with us as we humans struggle to evolve. And thanks for ref to Eisenhower.... I was thinking of it too...

Fifty two...how perfectly put.. the top of a very nasty abyss... Exactly. The show has occasioned a tear or two from time to time.

@MelbaToast: While I agree that VN was very low on the national radar in 1963, in advertising terms, aviation (military or not) was high. Every time a new plane emerged, advertising. Almost every commercial carrier was advertised. Boeing/Douglas...all advertised. So it isn't a far cry for an advertising agency to be all over an aviation company to get their business.

(PS, the Popular Science mag was from 1966!)

All before my time, and yet, so much like my time. hmmm...

Excellent supposition about the one-sided view on MM. It had not occurred to me until you brought it out that the hippies, anti-war protesters and the younger generation overall might have been looked down upon and considered buffoons in the 60s. I grew up with the distinct impression [read: drilled into my head so much that I began to resent having missed the 60's] that the counter culture of the 60s was the best thing to happen in that decade and those kids were held up as heroes. Not coincidentally, some of our parents were those kids. ;-) Funny how I see the Vietnam war and its protesters from the opposite side.

For me, the song that comes to mind regarding our more recent useless wars is Neil Young's "Let's Impeach The President".

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/letsimpeachthepresident.html

Betty-- I felt sure you would have something germane to say on this subject! Thank you for putting it so concisely. I don't usually participate in political discussions outside my own family, but I felt deeply shocked by this scene from the last episode. Funny, how some small thing can make us look at those big things from which we would prefer to hide.

I almost refrained from participating, lest we devolved into the Anti-Jon Hamm anti-liberal hatefest thread (for his insurance company satire), but this isn't really political as much as war/business history. I mean, it's just true, rather than a political opinion. If that makes sense.

Zab... I see... and it makes perfect sense - not a far cry at all. Thanks for the info and the update. I love Maddicts!

MMJunkie... "yet so much like my time"... I know. Some of us "olds" are still shell-shocked at the idea of "How COULD this happen again -?" Yet, here is Neil Young - in a way bridging the gap.... from "Ohio" and other songs to "Lets impeach.." Makes me happy.

I won't mind seeing the "one-sided" view per se, because that would be exactly what would be going on inside Sterling Cooper at that time, though I would like to see a few more positive youth examples than robbers and dilettantes. But for story telling purposes, using the lens of the waning power elite sometimes can show us how inevitable their decline was and how flawed their life choices were. As much as I have trouble doing this in my own life, sometimes just letting someone talk and show their true colors is far more discrediting to their views than just bashing the viewer over the head with a moral or overly contrary message.

I mean, do we really have to respond to Sarah Palin or isn't it just more fun--and effective--to let her speak or even better, just let Tina Fey repeat her words? (Oops, I went all rogue and political, didn't I?).

MMJunkie-- you're right to question what you've heard about the sixties. I have yet to see any recent true representation on TV or read a balanced article which portrays all sides of all the issues of that time. They exist, but you'd have to go farther than cable news or current magazines to find them. There was a wrenching generational war being fought then, as well as political, racial and sexual ones.

@fifty-two: I think you mentioned in another thread that your dad was a military officer and possibly DIA? That was a big deal back then, as it would be now, and obviously you may be privy to some things that I would not be. That said, these things really aren't beyond comprehension. There is a real human element to this industry, not just profits. These companies were investing in important technological advances that have served all humankind, not just warfare. Advances in jet engine technology have obviously assisted all of us in our mobility. Better guns, bullets, mortars and so forth kill enemy combatants to be sure, but they also prevent those enemy combatants from killing our soldiers. These are advances in ensuring the safety of our service men and women. I don't see that as all that difficult to sell, frankly.

No offense, but McNamara's belated hand-wringing never served any real purpose but to prop up his own conscience and ensure he continued to receive Christmas cards from certain individuals. Jackie's crying on his suit certainly didn't help anything. I respect your opinion to the contrary, but McNamara's Monday morning quarterbacking was never in the national interest. McNamara was a slick GM executive who was labeled as one of "the best and the brightest" chosen to Kennedy's cabinet. If that were so, maybe he could have exercised all that wisdom at the time he was actually serving instead of 30 years after the fact. The point is, McNamara made decisions at the highest level to the best of his abilities based on the information that was available to him. I see no reason to take fault with that.

There are very simple reasons as to why we need to continually prepare for war: we never know when it will come, but come it will. We were unprepared for war in 1941, and as a result our entire Pacific fleet was wiped out in a matter of minutes. We then spent years rebuilding it. Like it or not, the fact is that our nation has attained a rare level of responsibility in the world, largely as a result of our leadership during WWII and the Cold War. That responsibility requires preparedness, and prerparedness means investment in machines and devices that will ensure the dominance and safety of our troops around the world. Preparedness also serves as a great deterrent. No one will mess with us if we are ready to fight. There is no crime in being ready; it would be a crime not to be ready and not to do all we can to protect our people.

DDEsq-- Yes, but when does readiness become impatience and even hunger for the Real Thing? How do you keep soldiers ready without a real battle to test them? How does the military know how weapons will work without ever using them in conjunction with various military strategies? There's the rub, as far as I see it.

My father, a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel with DIA, never divulged anything regarding inside info he may have had. I never knew what he was working on, except that it involved the Soviets. But early in the seventies, he changed his position on Viet Nam and told me he was proud of my generation for pressuring the powers that be to end to the war. I never thought I'd ever hear such a thing from his lips. And I'll never forget it.

There's ready and and there's overkill, if you will. We are quite ready, (actually, no we aren't anymore b/c we shot a big load of ready on another unnecessary quagmire, but we could have been ready for a necessary war).

We haven't really NEEDED to go to war since 1941. We don't have to keep making up reasons to go to war just to make new war machines. Again, I trust General and President Eisenhower's assessment of our reasons to fear a corporate industrial military complex.

And it is not a healthy way to run a country to tie our economy and our foreign policy to the constant need to protect against scary enemies and invade countries unilaterally. We can have a healthy defense system without making it this industrial complex that calls the shots in Washington. Fairly compensate companies for their technology, their production, sure, but don't let corporate america (actually multinational corporations) drive our foreign policy or defense priorities.

I am sure you are aware that we went a long time without any major conflagrations. Outside Vietnam, we had Grenada, Libya, Panama, Somalia, and then the former Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc.). We also had Iraq 1, which was a major mobilization in terms of expense, but minor in the category of casualties. Those would not qualify as major conflicts. The Cold War and its arms race actually accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union because they could not keep up with us economically and eventually its people rebeled. It is entirely helpful, not just possible, to continually prepare for war without having one.

Sorry, I left our our shelling of Beirut, and the attack on our Marine baracks there, in the 1980s, and Clinton's missile strikes on Baghdad in the 1990s. Both still minor conflagrations but necessary engagements.

I just had this "eloquent" post all written and despite showing me as signed in, when I hit submit, it went to error and my post disappeared...I HATE this site's lack of technology with a passion.

I can't respond all over again...

DDesq point taken about no "Major" conflagrations... there are literally dozens of arguments for and against each of the campaigns/incidents you mention, and they are too involved etc to be appropriate here. (This is all apart of course, from what is currently on our plate, and I'll say no more about that insanity.)

BC... I so second your point ( re DDesqs "readiness important") saying "there is ready, and there's overkill". Your post is on target and so well said.

Fiftytwo makes the huge point "when does readiness become hunger for the real thing ?"... and that speaks to a critical razors edge. One of the reasons that elements in the DoD pushed so hard (in ways overt and covert) for involvement in VN was "real time" testing of new weapons systems.

And McNamara did in fact exercise his "wisdom" when he was actually serving, (and I think you probably know that).. In late '66 or early' 67 He briefed LBJ and his mates on the problem... LBJ said "no war will be 'lost' on my watch". McNamara resigned, etc etc. YoIur Christmas Cards remark is particularly "cute"... pardon me if I don't think it appropriate or funny.

I don't know who you worked for in DC or when, but I'll confess I am curious.

@melba: It happens again because an attempt has been made during political campaigns (read 2004) to re-write history. Any generation not alive/aware and there to experience it first hand was left with the impression that the only reason we "lost" the VN war was because of those "dirty hippies protesting".

@Betty: LOL regarding Silly Sara. nuff said.

And I agree with you in terms of war not being necessary since 1941.

Betty, that error sheet after writing a pretty well thought out post happens to me all the time. This is positively the worst site ever.

Bipolar....Yes, and thanks for posting that. For me and plenty of other "olds", and youngs for that matter - its been like watching a slo mo train wreck. With a very big train.

Betty... I'm sorry for your frustration, and sorrier still that we miss your post. You are so savvy and such a good writer.

Fortunately, we will never know whether there would have been any additional "necessary" wars (whatever that term may mean to you all) because policymakers have taken a proactive stance since 1941 and we have always been prepared. You cannot now say that our preparation was all for naught just because, in your judgment, no "necessary" wars ever surfaced in that time. I assure you that, had we allowed our defenses to lapse to the point when Pearl Harbor occurred, additional "necessary" wars would have arrived sooner than you think. Enemies attack on signs of weakness, not strength. Project strength, and wars are avoided.

This may offend your peaceful sensibilities, but it's just the facts. Washington long ago set on this course and it has remained policy regardless of which party is in charge. Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and now Obama have all been on board with ongoing war preparation; it's not just a Republican thing. It's just the way it has to be.

Again, strong defense is one thing, feeding the industrial military complex and going to war for the sake of corporate profits is another altogether. I'm not talking flowers and tambourines here.

I have to defer to General Eisenhower over an anonymous man on the Internet. I think his admonition proved quite true. And this from the leader during the height of the Cold War no less. If anyone thought we needed to be "ready" it was him. And even he saw it was too much and too dangerous.

In case someone out there hasn't noticed, our enemies have found ways to attack us in ways we can't possibly be ready for. Where does that leave us? Looking for diplomatic, peaceful, saner solutions. American brains rather than American brawn.

And if it's not about profits, how does one explain how we pick and choose our conflicts? Why do we stand on the sidelines in situations like Bosnia and Darfur?

@Fifty two: 'cuz their ain't no oil in Bosnia and Darfur.

@BC: Eisenhower's admonition came nearly 50 years ago. We have had 10 presidents, including five Democrats, since he left office with that speech. Do you really believe that things have not changed a bit since then? The military has seen many expansions and contractions since 1960; it really has no connection to today's world in the context that it was made back then.

Unfortunately, the "military-industrial complex," to the extent it still exits, is rooted in Congress, which is where spending bills originate. No president is ever going to change that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092803862.html

@fifty-two: As far as Bosnia and Darfur: we have not "stood on the sidelines." We got involved in Bosnia, albeit far too late. Bosnia should have been Europe's problem; it's their backyard, they should have taken care of it. We did our best to push Europe to handle it, but they fiddled while Sarajevo burned. Russia wanted to let the Serbs run all over the place. It is Europe's (really Russia's) perpetual paralysis and indifference that still threatens all other hot spots in the world right now. The UN finally agreed to do something about the Balkans, but the damage was largely done at that point.

Darfur also should have received more of our help, but that is also a situation that African states could have helped police themselves. The UN tried to do something about this, but had been blocked by China, which has significant economic ties there, until recently. President Bush engaged in substantial diplomacy for years to try to get the Sudanese leader to accept a UN force, to no avail.

The common denominator in both of those instances of forbearance is this: neither of those situations amounted to a threat against Israel, which has been our chief foreign policy concern since WWII. Iran and Iraq do/did.

To paraphrase the warden in "Cool Hand Luke," "Some men you just can't reach." Diplomacy doesn't work unless you have a credible military threat to back up the cajoling. If you don't have the biggest, baddest military on the planet, people won't take you seriously when you make a request. Which was the point of Vietnam: that Communism was a serious threat to our national interests and we took that threat seriously. It set out our international credibility for the future on the issue, notwithstanding McNamara's expressed regret on his management of it.

This constitutes the end of my perpetuation of this bad digression.

Sorry, I can't help it, one more:

@zabadu: Actually, there is a ton of oil in Darfur. The inaction to date has been driven by China, which owns the drilling rights and pays royalties to the existing Sudanese government.

Indeed, true enough Don, not all greed and cynicism comes from the U.S., but at this point, with multinational corporations driving the world economy and a lot of foreign policy with NO loyalty to any country, there really isn't a United States or China anymore per se. I mean, sure there is in a way, but from an economic and political lobbying and influence perspective, megacorporations, who are amply represented in our Congress, only care about their profits. Not the well-being of any particular country or group of people.

And with enough flag-waving and fear-mongering, the fiercely loyal American will follow them up a hundred blind alleys. Especially the xenophobes and those who need to feel superior to an entire race of people.

Yeah, I mean, I do love my country, but there is certainly nothing better about us as people than say, Italians. Truly.

I would never put my country above moral principles, the health of the environment or the life of another person, (who has not attacked me or my country) based on fear-mongering or side-choosing hoopla. I'm not a religious person, but if there is a god, I guarantee you she wouldn't look favorably on that.

But back to MM, ad men and other media or political spinners often do just that. Which is a fascinating and often dastardly talent to watch (like Karl Rove).

E.g. "It's toasted." You don't get much more brilliantly dastardly or obfuscating than that! And that really happened--the tobacco industry used its advertising and political muscle to kill millions for profit.

To say nothing of the hard liquor distillers, who now have the right to hawk their wares on TV-- even during family viewed events like baseball games. This game brought to you by Jack Daniels please drink responsibly. MADD is now trying to fight the "family" restaurants which push alcohol and put drunks on the road because it's both profitable to sell more liquor and to turn the tables quickly.

Hey, I love me a Vodka Tonic or a Cosmo! Now you're getting personal, lol!

BC and Fifty two...Bless you ladies for your wit, intelligence and way with words.

DDesq: replies in no particular order: In addition to the fact that McNamara warned LBJ that the war was "unwinnable" and more, then resigned when LBJ decided to continue anyway (a domestic political decision.. corporate constituencies, "no loss on my watch" etc.) McNamaras allegedly useless "handwringing" (your word) at least served as a cautionary note the future to be careful about relying solely on ones technical superiority. (A lesson that might have been useful recently had it been heeded)

You mention the "military complex to the extent it still exists"... ye gods! do you imply it has diminished?? I wish it had, but don't think so. And yes... it is rooted in Congress for sure.... the tap root being joined at the hip with DoD. And it will not be different until we (society) address our disgusting mess of campaign finance rules, and effective regulation (hah) of lobbying organizations.

You state that the point of VN was the serious communist threat. That is a half truth and like all half truths, way more deceptive than an outright lie. Communism was the "poster-boy" reason... the justification, the selling point, the scary monster that was employed to get the country behind what the DoD had already been gearing up to do. I spoke of this in previous posts...DoD wanted "real time" testing of their newest weaponry. Then there was the issue of off shore oil. ETC.

A bio note: I am 66, and among other vol work, I've been with a veterans advocacy group (VVA) for 20+ years. I literally know thousands of vets... and our Fifty-two's dad is very far from alone in his views about VN. As I've already said and will repeat, I agree that we need to be prepared. Just not with how we've used our treasure. Also have exper. on an AIT post '64-'66

Finally, you said it in your paraphrase of "Luke" ---"some men you just can't reach." Perhaps you are one.

No one else may even read this post, but I am happy that at least I have written it- in the memory of all the suffering I have witnessed, and that is but a mote compared to the unknowable whole. It was not easy - wish I were as erudite as our BC and 52 and Ritt, and even you.

Well, Melba-- I read your words, and feel gratitude for them. Sometimes, things just gotta get said. I admire you so much for the work you've done, and we should all feel grateful for that. :-)

Betty-- my sons both wait tables while going to school. It's a tough thing when your livelihood conflicts with your sense of right and wrong. They have Muslim friends whose parents won't allow their kids to work in a place that serves alcohol. I'm not saying buying/drinking booze should be illegal, but advertising on TV was prohibited for so long, and now it isn't. What's next, cigarettes again? And why no condom ads?

AMC-- we really are discussing advertising as it relates to Mad Men!

I am not quite ready to equate alcohol in moderation with cigarettes, or working at a restaurant that serves adults who drink wine with their food as tantamount to drug dealing. There are some health benefits in moderation; indeed in Europe, even children enjoy wine with their food without creating as much havoc and health problems as we have here for some reason. And while it's true some religions bar alcohol, others rely on it as part of their ritual.

Though I do agree about the selling/advertising to kids, as you are saying. That is why Joe Camel ads are now illegal, and as you said, before 2000-2008, no alcohol ads on TV. The FCC should go back to that policy for network and basic cable. (With an obvious exception for Mad Men, lol!).

If it is adult television on premium cable, many of which have parental control defaults that require codes, that is a bit different.

I agree completely with you about adults drinking responsibly, moderately etc. The problem is when a restaurant advertises as a family place but pushes drinks, usually with pictures of sweet colorful concoctions on every table. The servers are trained to ask several times if anyone wants a drink or a refill. Then they are trained to turn the table quickly so they can make enough tips to live on, considering they only earn a couple of bucks/hr in wages. That puts inebriated folks out on the road in suburban areas where everyone drives everywhere. Two drinks in an hour is over the legal limit in my area. My son says his place has a three drink limit, but if you're only there for an hour, that spells trouble.

By the way, the Tanqueray ad shown during Mad Men is beaucoup classy! ;-)

WOW, 52! That's scary...

Maybe it's a good thing being such an elitist and culinary snob! I NEVER go to those family restaurants, like Appleby's or such. I am either ethnic cuisine, even dives, or fine dining/"yuppie" boites...

I must apologize for spelling Vietnam wrong! I've seen the word ten thousand times-- don't know how I managed to type it wrong so consistently. :-(

@Melba Toast: Did you by any chance attend a discussion in Oct 2007 at the First Congregational Church in Berkeley when Daniel Ellsberg and Naomi Wolf were the speakers? Just wondering...

I really want to have that coffee and nosh with you and Melba if I ever get in town to visit my sister again soon! Perhaps visit the People's Republic of Berkeley and enjoy great coffee...And what's the name of that famous market there?

NNT...No, I did not have that pleasure, but would have loved it.... both speakers are heroes of mine. And I was almost hopping up and down at the thought of meeting up with you and BC.... for any beverage, any nosh, anytime! That would be cool! and here is BC right behind you...

Hey BC... I hope your visit will be soon!... Berserkley is still Berserkley thank the gods & goddesses of our legends. I think the market is perhaps the Berkeley Bowl?? I believe they have another branch now.

Fifty-two... can you come too?? And your post about "spelling" brought a rueful smile...it is so OK--we all know what you meant... and how well you mean it too... if that is clear, which it may not be - but I live in hope. This was a great and cleansing thread. You and your writing mate BC have me bowing in awe, and in gratitude. Like I've said and will repeat Valiant.. VALIANT, and brilliant.

Melba-- You are one gracious lady, and I appreciate your kind words more than you know. I'm stuck on the Right Coast but would dearly love to visit Berkeley someday, also SF and up the coast to Portland.

Betty-- you remind me very much of my college roommate. She was progressive, determined and brainy, and went on to become an attorney. The girl never backed down in the face of some very ugly opposition during political discussions. She always kept her rational demeanor, and could talk the hind leg off a donkey! Sounds like someone who would be called names by misogynists, right? Well, she was lovely to look at too, and married a real great guy, also an attorney. I was proud to call her my friend.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to post remarks on this thread. I've been pretty depressed over recent developments in the news, and when I started this topic, I didn't even realize how much I needed to talk it out. You all made my burden lighter.

@Melba Toast: If you have the time one weekend I'd like to get together for coffee. Maybe Starbuck's on Fourth St. (near the Rafael) or in SA at Marin Coffee Roasters. No pressure: if and when it's convenient.

Hey guys, invite me too!

Okay you're invited. I was thinking about a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday morning around 10-10:30 am.

NNT... I'd love to do that! I'm guessing my schedule is more open.. so I'll look to you for the best timing, and either spot is great for me... I know them well!

I wondered if we could approach Zabadu (through her website) to find a way to communicate personally about details. What do you think??

I'm so glad I checked back here!!

Lawks a mercy...I didn't see Zabs post in the posting gap (that drives me mad on my computer)

Oh - excellent, brilliant, way cool etc !

I have to go and drive a friend to Sunnyvale.. will be back tonight and will go to Zabs website to see about connections...