The Weekend Rant
There is almost no reason in a civilized society to attack the parent of a member of the military who died in service to their country. I don't care if you supported or opposed the action by the political leaders that put the member of the military at risk. Your politics don't excuse the total lack of social conscience involved in such an attack. If you can't understand and respect the pain and grief of a mother who has lost a child, you are without any redeeming social value.
Political leaders may waste the sacrifices of the military, but the individuals who make those sacrifices are doing their duty and nothing the political leaders do can alter that reality. You honor them by providing for their family, not by mouthing platitudes.
The deaths in Southeast Asia did not win a war, but they changed the thinking of the American government for a very long time. That may not have been the "goal" of those who started the war, but that was the result. The deaths had meaning. If the war had been won, would those people be any less dead, would the parents have less grief?
I want someone who claims that soldiers can die in vain to find a Virginian who had an ancestor die in Pickett's Charge and who thinks that the ancestor's death wasn't honorable and worthy, that it was in vain.
The NARAL ad incident is indicative of a major misunderstanding among people who should know better.
NARAL is a single issue organization and would be unfaithful to their membership if they failed to give their support to politicians who support their views without regard to party. They would also fail if they didn't vigorously attack those who oppose their views.
Asking NARAL to automatically support one party over any other makes them part of that party, subject to the whims of that party's leadership. They have no such obligation, and given the recent decisions of the leadership of the party seeking orthodoxy, NARAL would be failing in their basic responsibility to do it.
Lost in this episode is the right to privacy. Reproductive choice is not the only issue that is tied to the right to privacy, and the easiest way to limit reproductive choice is by limiting the right to privacy. You can't give ground on Roe v. Wade
without weakening the right to privacy.
Folks, there is no compromise to be found on the other side of the political spectrum, so stop wasting credibility looking for it. You don't give up basic rights to please the views of others. It's time people understood that the other side wants people to give up the Bill of Rights. They want to limit speech, bring religion into the government, and put the government in your doctor's office and your bedroom. This isn't about accommodating their values; it's about giving away your rights.
If you have a problem with choice, you need to understand that you don't support the right to privacy.
Just because you didn't read the signs properly and supported the invasion of Iraq is no reason to continue to support it now that you have ample proof that you were lied to and the Busheviks "fixed" the intelligence to justify their actions.
There is no reason to stay in Iraq. It isn't going to get any better.
The Shi'ia are going to align with Iran, as should have been obvious. They were screwed over by the US after Gulf War I, so they don't feel they owe us anything.
Most of the damage and deaths were in the Sunni areas, so they certainly hate the US more than any of the other groups.
The Kurds have been screwed over by every Republican administration from Nixon forward, so they don't acknowledge any obligation to us.
The Iraqi women are about to be set back about a millennium with the imposition of Sharia law, so there is no support there.
Turkey and Syria are looking at the emergence of a Kurdish state, so we can forget any help from them, even if we weren't constantly trying to pick a fight with Syria.
The biggest hoot I've heard are the people who claim they couldn't believe that the Bush administration would be this incompetent. Excuse me, but where, exactly, in Bush's Curriculum Vitae
do you find any indication of competence in any field other than slimy political campaigns?