|
rush_osavage
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Rush
Country: United States
Birthday: 7/4/1952
Gender: Male
Interests: Bringing Common Sense to Political Discussion
Expertise: Reading Between the Lines and Never Underestimating the Human Propensity to Screw the Other Guy
Occupation: Legal
Industry: Nonprofit
Message: message meEmail: email me
Member Since:
11/13/2003
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Kevin Garnett is either an idiot, or he just doesn't give a shit. I'm betting on just not giving a shit. Anyone who would say the things he said to members of the national media would have to either not care how people crucified them on the airwaves, or just be plain stupid. I think KG is just supremely comfortable with the fact that no matter what people think of him, no matter what he says to the national media, no matter how much the NBA fines him, he's still going to be a multi-millionare, who will have the opportunity to make many more millions in the immediate future.
All the people who are offended about what he said: Get over it. This was markedly different than when Kellen Winslow Jr. called himself a soldier at war. Kevin Garnett was just using a metaphor - I'm not saying it was the brightest, or most eloquent one he could have used - but it remains a metaphor. Winslor Jr. made a direct analogy between his role on the football field and a soldier's role in battle. KG never mentioned soldiers, or war, he just used weaponry as a metaphor for his game. The difference is intent. KG was just making it clear that he was going to play with 110% effort. Kellen Winslow Jr. was saying he was going to treat his opponent as if they were the enemy in a war. Clearly not synoymous. | | |
| The mistreatment of Iraqi soldiers. Go.
First, if you're "shocked" that such things are going on over there, grow up. The word "shocked" is getting thrown around a lot. "Apalled" I can handle, because it should apall you. Being "shocked" is being naive. It's war. Never underestimate on human's ability and willingness to hurt another.
Second, they should throw the book at these people that did this. They were wrong, and they should be put out of the military. If they were ordered to do it, then the superiors that ordered it should be court-marshalled as well.
Third, I seriously doubt that knowledge and consent for these actions went all the way up to the secretary of Defense. If it did, he should be fired. But as of yet, there's no evidence to even suggest that possibility. So why is Rumsfeld suddenly the center of all this scrutiny? I think it's just because people don't like him, because he doesn't give a shit what people think of him, nationally or internationally.
Fourth, President Bush should have never hedged the war in Iraq in moral terms, because that's bullshit. Instead of making it about good versus evil, he should have just said, "This guy wants to screw us, and he controls a lot of oil, which is valuable. So, we're going to take him out, and get control of all that oil. Which puts us into a better position with these other guys who want to screw us, OPEC, and also puts a base in the middle of this region from which the vast majority of world terrorism springs. So, it's just in our best interests all around." Simple math. By hedging it in moral terms, it makes stuff like this prisoner treatment a lot worse. I'm not saying that what these soldiers did wasn't a big deal, because it was. What I'm saying is that it happens in any war, because people are, deep down, pieces of shit. Our mistake was trying to act like we're morally better than the rest of the world.
Fifth, I don't think you can make a case against the use of torture in general. Use of torture for a reason, say, saving lives, is understandable. What these soldiers did wasn't for a purpose, though, it was for fun and cruelty. So, they're wrong, and they should be punished in the same way they tortured those guys. | | |
| Why are all southern whites asked to feel guilty and ashamed of where they come from? Why can academia not acknowledge any of the great contributions the South has made to this nation? Read this, and be proud to be a Southerner, as well as spurred to improve our region. | | |
| Why is there no difference between news and entertainment in this country? Read this book and find out. | | |
| After reading the article in the DM about the panel discussion on Homosexual marriage/civil union, I thought it was time for me to post some thoughts on the subject.
My first thoughts about the issue were along the lines of "Just take the government out of the issue in the first place," as I am wont to do. After thinking about that for a couple of seconds, I realized it was a stupid statement. The civil government must be involved in the issue of marriage, otherwise what about divorce trials, custody suits, etc. etc. etc. What about taxes? What about estate transfer? The government must have an opinion.
So, what must the government's opinion be? I have no idea. I don't want to belong to the same group as those that are die-hard in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman. They lack compassion, and love. But I agree with them in principle.
I'd like to see every so-called Christian that beats the shit out of a homosexual, or shoots an abortion clinic doctor, have the action returned to him in spades.
My problem is one of naivete. I just want to believe that it's possible to have good interpersonal relations with homosexuals, and stand for what is right. It is on a certain level; one of my best friends in high school was and is gay. We still greet each other with a big hug, although we run with much different crowds now. Having that meld of love and righteousness at the national level seems impossible, though, because the vast majority of our country believes that it's a contradiction to oppose the lifestyle and love the life.
I have no idea what to do, on a political level. I would probably vote for any anti-homosexual marriage legislation, because it might put off a bit the total collapse of our nation - which I sincerely believe my children will see, if I don't. However, I don't want to see the sex police, going around looking for sodomizers. I don't want to see the marginalization of homosexuals, to see them reduced to an abused and neglected minority. I don't want to see all hetero lunch counters and gay lynchings. I don't really believe it will come to that, persay, but we're already close in our feelings and attitudes. | | |
|
