The New York Times, which has no equal when it comes to supporting the military or our veterans, published an op-ed by a disgruntled veteran who feels very offended when people thank him for his service.

Veteran Hunter Garth, who is now a guard for a marijuana company in Colorado, says that when people thank him for his service:

... it can feel self-serving for the thankers, suggesting that he did it for them, and that they somehow understand the sacrifice, night terrors, feelings of loss and bewilderment. Or don’t think about it at all.

So when you thank veterans for their service, you are being self-serving.  You are suggesting that this person put his life on the line to defend you, which of course is obviously not the case, unless you are an American.  Also, if you do not fully understand the full details of that particular vet's combat deployment, there is no way you can sincerely thank him for his service.

“I pulled the trigger,” he said. “You didn’t. Don’t take that away from me.”

This is another good point from the New York Times.  By thanking veterans, the well-wishers are trying to take their trigger-pulling experiences away from the veterans.  Don't you veteran well-wishers have any shame?

To some recent vets -- by no stretch all of them -- the thanks comes across as shallow, disconnected, a reflexive offering from people who, while meaning well, have no clue what soldiers did over there or what motivated them to go, 

What cynical, shallow, callous behavior!  Just look at all the dark, selfish motives people have for thanking veterans!

To these vets, thanking soldiers for their service symbolizes the ease of sending a volunteer army to wage war at great distance -- physically, spiritually, economically. 

When you thank a veteran, you're not thanking him for defending you; you're thanking him for conveniently being available to defend you!  Perhaps, as the NYT suggests, just a little too convenient...

The idea of giving thanks while not participating themselves is one of the core vet quibbles, said Mr. Freedman, the Green Beret.

Another good point!  If you yourself are not a veteran, how can you sincerely thank a veteran?

But doesn’t their sacrifice merit thanks? “Patriotic gloss,” responded Mr. O’Brien, an unofficial poet laureate of war.

It's superficial patriotism!  I'm glad we have the comprehensive veteran’s view of this, from one veteran who is a guard for drug dealers and other who is a poet.

So what is really going on here?  Is the Times demonstrating some newfound concern for respect for the military?

Just the opposite, I think.  The Times goes the extra mile to devalue the military, and this is basically a ruse to get people to do the same.  Most normal veterans who are not guarding marijuana convoys appreciate being thanked and say it means the world for them; it's why they do what they do.  The Times is trying to remove that support base to further demoralize the military, under the guise of "avoiding superficial appreciation."

But it's funny how they go about it – you can genuinely support the military only if you don't say anything about supporting the military.

I have an idea: why don't we keep thanking veterans for their service, but also thank other people for their disservice?  See an illegal alien?  Thank him for his disservice!  See a race-monger?  Thank him for his disservice!  Just be sure to be sincere about it.

Pedro Gonzales is the editor of Newsmachete.com, the conservative news site.