So the free market is sufficient in protecting us against the Chinese poison-tainted toothpaste, cough syrup, seafood, gluten, lead- and mercury-laced products? If the free market is a few babies/people too late, does that matter to you?
What about monopolies? Do you believe the free market forces are enough to tackle monopoly abuse (like the current oligopolic media industry)? Have you read “The Jungle?” How about when the sausages contain parts of workers’ fingers? Would you like to have little protection from candle wax in your chocolate and tainted meat dyed to look better and, for that matter, industrially-produced e coli spinach?
Would you be in favor or opposed to government-funded scientific research?
Interestingly, I’m in between on the Al queada (b/c of 9-11) issue. I’d support all of what some want and more (choking financing -- #1, energy independence, much more propaganda, winning hearts and minds, diplomacy/reassurance/respect statements – for Arabs and beyond including Russia, N. Korea, and China, allied alliance initiatives through EU and UN, education against the young Arab “entitlement” attitude, outreach, business “boot camp” for “at-risk” young male Arabs, exchange programs, Arabic-speaking secret agent infiltrators, rewards for rats, increasing opportunity for Muslim women, boosting local police – but not Janjaweed --) but I’d also go a step farther with targeted strikes based on GOOD intel. (Sorry Colin Powell. You looked like a total goofball.) That would also mean a better intel infrastructure and with better checks and balances between agencies.
And I’d stop short of say, a war against a country, regime change, establishing democracy from the outside in, destabilizing countries for their oil, loving up to Saudi Arabia, economic hit-men, contracts to friends, babysitting civil wars, looking like imperialist bullies to our allies (and our enemies), denying Geneva conventions, spying on Americans, and ignoring the US Constitution to usurp more Executive powers. I would stop short of these things b/c these activities made/make us the bully that Al queada wanted to punch in the nose on 9-11. I’m ashamed of these American legacies. They are ignorant and embarrassing.
End the war, you spineless Congress. Our kids are put over there and left in the meat grinder. It grinds and it grinds. They are too young and naïve (idealistic) to make a fully conscious decision about their deaths. This fact is shown in brain research. A better alternative would be to increase recruiting the best and brightest into Arabic training at CIA, etc.
Does this sound like a “liberal” position? Do republicans like labels? Do republicans call those who disagree names? Does the President imply that if one disagrees with the war on Iraq that that person not only does not support the troops, but also is weak and naïve to believe the terrorist threat is not great? Does the right claim that if you don’t agree with the Iraq war that you are in “la-la” land, not realizing that the terrorists really want to kill us? Does Fox News perpetrate this lie?
Who in their right mind believes that jihadists don’t want us all dead? The jihadists kill democrats and republicans alike. “Liberals” and “DEMS” know that jihadists want us all dead. Duh. Whether someone agrees with babysitting the Iraq war has NOTHING to do with whether they are nutty enough think that 9-11 wouldn’t happen again.
I’m beginning to think that the psychology of a right-wing, pro-war republican is very different from the average person. They must have a “might makes right,” “I need to get mine,” “there isn’t enough to go around,” “strangers are bad,” “bully or be bullied” kind of mindset, perhaps dating back to their childhoods. They are proven to be more subject to fundamentalist religions, ironically.
My hypothesis: People supported the Iraq War in the beginning b/c they got confused between the Arabic NAMES of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Sad, but I believe, true…
-A.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment