[lbo-talk] Who knew? John McCain on disability, gets checks

[John Thornton]

Carrol Cox wrote:
> John Thornton wrote:
>   
>> Because I didn't for one moment truly imagine you really gave greater
>> credibility to Air Force Magazine over the writings of a Spanish
>> Psychologists and wished to demonstrate the absurdity of that position
>> to anyone else who imagines that McCain's disability is proved to be the
>> result of torture.
>> This cannot be known with any certainty in spite of what some have posted.
>>     
>
> My view of any disability claim (regardless of the person or the reason
> given) is that it ought to be valid unless proven invalid beyond any
> doubt, reasonable or unreasonable. This is the only standard which will
> provide decent services for those who are really disabled.
>
> So McCain should get his pension or whatever; to deny it on special
> circumstances or his character is cruel to the 100s of thousands who
> need such aid. It is really piggish to make a fuss about some particular
> case. In my mind it discredits the political judgment of those who do
> quibble over it.
>
> Now as to the matter of torture. Rare is the prison system in which some
> prisoners  get handled roughly. Clearly it is more dangerous to live in
> a state prison in the U.S. than it was to live in the Hotel Hilton, but
> undoubtedly guards in the latter on various occasions misused their
> power. That or injuries in landing or received from those who captured
> him probably caused damage to McCain.
>
> That systemati torture occured there is almost certainly false, and the
> sources denying it are much much more reliable than Air Force Magazine
> or McCain personally. The conditions under which most Vietnamese (and
> especially NVA or NLF personnel) lived ordinarily would have struck many
> an American as deliberate torture, so at times charges of torture could
> be both sincere and false.
>
> Carrol

All of which means McCain's claim of being tortured is plausible and 
absent compelling reasons to do otherwise we should believe him.
This is not the same as considering his and his doctors claim as proof 
that it happened however.
His disability claim should have nothing to do with how he became 
disabled either.
Considering some reasons for being disabled valid and other less valid 
would be a divisive idea.
Best not to concern ourselves with how one becomes disabled and focus on 
providing decent disability benefits instead.

John Thornton