3 posts tagged “republitards”
A friend recently brought an ad to my attention from the New York State Republican Committee. They pointed out how the image below implies if the democrats take power rapists will spawn in every corner and have their way with good, american women.
So not only does the ad imply Democratic control of Congress will cause a dramatic increase in rape, but that those pesky minorities will be the ones doing it.
I really want to know how republicans can eschew virtue and 'family values' and a love for America when they, for the most part, invariably bastardize the principles that make this nation great, both through their 'family values', which apparently are only applicable to white, heterosexual, married persons.
Indeed, this entire election season the GOP has only managed to reaffirm that it is nothing more than a moderate extension of the Klan. Family values are only applicable to white, upper-middle class families living in suburbia; virtue equates with protecting the party image at all costs; and their 'American' values basically translate to anything that'll make the wealthy more money, and by wealthy, they generally mean the upper-class white male. Otherwise why produce such an ad? They're obviously targetting suburban white voters.
Their hypocracy never fails to astound me.
So the Republitards are at it again, deciding to turn all their rhetorical artillery against their favorite flip-flopping foe. I won't cite Kerry's comment, it's all over the news, but the jist of what was said was that overly smart people don't form the bulk of the armed forces, so get an education and stay out of the quagmire in Iraq.
What's wrong with this assessment? American citizens always gasp with terror at any comment against the armed forces as though their own mother has been slighted in the worst way (god forbid a politician points out something with a shread of truth, right?). Will they open up to reason? No. The Army is not made up of the brightest and the best. To think it is is a ridiculously fallacy, one made all the more poignant by the military's current lower standards of recruitment.
News flash: The military is not seeking to forge divisions of Albert Einsteins with M-16s and K-bars ready to gun down the enemy jihadist and revolutionize physics in their spare time. The military does not espouse the virtues that allow intelligence, and especially intellectual development, to flourish. Thinking is not good for the average foot solider. "There is not to ask why, but to do and die." It's that simple. The military does not want average enlisted men questioning the purpose of their mission, why they are in the conflict they are, and whether their orders (and/or commanding officers) are sound in their judgement. The military seeks obedience.
This is where the practicality of training enters the scope. You can train almost anyone set methods of reaction to any number of circumstances. Drills exist to burn responses into a soldier's mind despite fear and panic. Soldiers are trained to think in terms of the boundaries of warfare and obedience to the chain of command. Those who excel, who are intelligent (and can fall in with the obedience demanded of them) will move up the chain of command (some will perhaps choose special forces are a route). But there are far more privates than NCOs or officers. They are the core of the military, and intelligence is not demanded from them--indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't frowned upon to a degree.
What John Kerry said implies a degree of truth: good education, a good understanding mind will keep you out of the Iraq clusterfuck. The simple truth is that smart people are less likely to join the military over a war like this (opposed to something like World War II, where the cause and danger were so very clear and present). The dregs of society will jump on the bandwagon, however. Where else will they go? And I don't think the army feels quite so bad about accepting them. They are, after all, a means to an end for Iraq, and anyone who says Iraq isn't a purely Machiavellian play (although a botched one) is either a neo-con, or signing their enlistment papers.
Now, as for Mr. Bush's demand for an apology, I say this: Isn't it time you apologized to the troops, Mr. Bush? Apologize to them and their families for the brothers, sisters, best friends, sons, daughters they have all lost; for the limbs they have left behind in a country all your stated reasons for invading were false. And apologize to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and their broken, displaced families, Mr. Bush. Maybe then you can demand an apology from John Kerry for a truthful, albeit blunt, statement.
Well, what can I blame Bill Clinton for today? I got paid and found out I'm being ripped off even more being in a higher tax bracket. Yeah, I'll blame that on Bill. I stubbed my toe today. I'll blame that on tricky dicky, too.
Why not?
But in all serious...
Bill Clinton was NOT president for the PAST SIX YEARS. George H. W. Bush WAS President for the past SIX YEARS. When has North Korea been enriching uranium? OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS! You know, during the time El Bush was IGNORING THEM (ya know, because diplomacy works best that way). SO STOP FUCKING BLAMING CLINTON!
/rant
