Good golly yes, the Bush Administration loves our boys in uniform. That's why they've been dismissing them in greater numbers* than before (often sans benefits), because they dont want army units to be tainted by crazy people. That's got to be it, right? How else would you explain the rise? Is it the lowered standards for getting into the military in the first place that has resulted in over 28,000 soldiers being kicked out since the war began? Would it be fair to say that this number is about how many people got in who wouldnt have before? If so, then what was the point? (Huh, what was the point, indeed?)
I've got a suggestion: let's go back to the way it was during the Viet Nam War. You know, instead of "supporting the troops" by cutting their funding, denying them mental care for combat-derived craziness, farming out their services to lowest-bidders making a buck off of them, and generally sending them into harms way for anther barrel-full of petro-profits, let's just spit at them when they come home and call them baby-killers, but give them the services, care, equipment and institutional respect they deserve, no, have earned.
Sure it's a lousy choice, but words hurt far less than the "support" that this nation, in the guise of the government, has shown to those who do (and die) it's bidding. If it was me, I'd take the words and the services. After all, I'd rather wish that a bunch of hippies (or whatever) go fuck themselves than that the government I was fighting for did so.
* Dont give me any bullshit about it being the army rather than the administration. Middling army brass dont give a shit about whether some fuck-up soldier gets benefits or not, just so long as he gits. Benefit denial is almost exclusively a Republican trait.
4 comments:
i think you were too kind to the democrats, but spot on otherwise. you know damn well not a one of those clowns inside the beltway gives a rat's ass about us, and where do you think the troops come from?
us.
at least i think you do.
Funny you should say that, 'cause I've been thinking that what we've been calling a two-party system has in fact become a one-party system with two factions vying for power, neither of which have any interest in those who "put" them into that power.
In the past I've speculated on the usefullness of a third, centrist party to temper the extreme stances on either side of the aisle. But that view is wrong.
What we need is a third party that actually represents the needs of The People (capital "T", capital "P"). We need a Vicente Fox (so to speak) or ten to rise up and wrest power from the current crop of "leaders". The party doesnt have to be large, just large enough to ensure that neither the Dems or the Repubs have a majority, at which point it can wield considerable influence (hopefully representative of those who voted for it) supporting bills from either side that are actually good for ordinary Americans, and helping to kill bills that are not.
Actually, this ought to be a post all by itself.
i think several new parties combined with a complete rollover by voters every term would improve things, but i still think that you either gotta use business (thru boycotts) to control the government, or rewrite the loopholes in the law. good luck on the latter, as there ain't no level playing field.
would love tom see that post dave.
Patience. I'm on vacation this week, so blogging may be iffy.
Post a Comment