Letters to the Editor
tempus
Published Letters: 469 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@LWM
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Those missiles in Turkey were came out shortly after the crisis was resolved so America didn't look like it was forced into removing them in the public's mind. Are you suggesting that all the missiles should have remained?
No I was not suggesting the missiles should have remained. I was merely pointing out that even the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't a cut-and-dried example of the evil Soviet Union vs the Good US of A, freedom, and all that is wholesome. It was a bit more complicated and we were far from clean (just as we are far from clean in past dealings in Latin America (propping up convenient dictators, such as in Cuba pre-Castro, etc), dealings in the Middle East (propping up convenient dictators, such as the Shah of Iran pre-Revolution). Call it a nit if you wish, but I don't like to see what appear to be overly simplistic synopses of past adventures that seems to give us a clean bill and our opponent at the time a turd on a plate.
Those missiles we had in Turkey were heading into obsolescence BUT they were not pre-planned to exit Turkey pre-Cuban Missile Crisis. The decision to shit-can them WAS a direct result of the give-and-take of the Cuban Missile Crisis and it WAS quid pro quo for the Soviets pulling missiles out of Cuba.
And while our missiles in Turkey were protecting (deterring) Western Europe, the Soviet missiles in Cuba was protecting Cuba (which we had already tried to invade once before through proxies) and Soviet interests. Sure, it was uncomfortable to have the RIGHT THERE but I assume that it was equally uncomfortable to the Soviets to have our missiles RIGHT THERE too. Just saying.
As far as the core topic of this thread (Paul) however, we have overlapping concerns about his (un)suitability to actually be President but I can also accept and agree with Glenn on Paul's usefulness AND on some of Paul's positions. Just as I take issue with you on the nits of the Cuba Missile goo-gaw, I take issue with the nits of Paul with his robotic supporters too. It doesn't mean that I don't agree with them on a lot of the issues though, just some isolated core issues.
-
@SusanMc
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't expect everyone to have my same priorities; in fact, when it comes to discussing this issue with men, I've found that they almost never rank the right to choose as a top priority. Actually, that very fact is another reason it moved to the top of my list.
There is a very simple and selfish reason for what you observe: it can't happen to us so it is a theoretical issue, a secondary issue, on a personal level. At least until it is someone we love who is in trouble. It is also very easy as an outsider to Monday Morning Quarterback someone else's problem: "Well, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place blah blah". Of course, the tables turn when it is their girlfriend ("Shit! You're pregnant!? Make it go away!") and they don't want to be a father or when it is their girlfriend or wife ("The fetus has Tay Sachs" or anencephaly or any of dozens of other problems OR the economics and emotional world of the relationship is "problematic"), then the ability to abort becomes a top issue.
Myself, though it doesn't affect me directly (a girlfriend had an abortion in earlier life) I know people that it has directly affected and I am fully supportive. Plus it simply is NOT my call. Not as a man, not as a human period. Not even a woman can place herself into a position to dictate on this issue to another woman - she is only qualified to dictate to herself on the issue (and her dictates would like go all plastic when it comes to herself and a "problem pregnancy"). Nonetheless, I place the right to full reproductive freedom at the top of the list of priorities because it ties into much more than simply this or that pregnancy. It is a direct and very very personal issue of autonomy and self-control and ownership. If it is OK to take away YOUR own self-ownership and autonomy, then it is also OK to take away mine - but I vehemently disagree up to and including violent self-defense if I must to vouchsafe my autonomy, so I also place equal importance upon yours.
It is easy for a man to comment that it is better to not be allowed an abortion than to be a prisoner in Gitmo, etc, but it isn't. It is no different and the real problem, as you address it, is that to you and ALL women, it is immediately very much like being a prisoner in Gitmo. YOU are the target, no man is, in this fight. Thus, no person who seeks to legislate away personal autonomy and self-ownership is suitable or acceptable as President: a person that selects judges and sets priorities for the Justice Dept and pushes for laws. A person, as previously argued, that is merely morally opposed to abortion but has no legislative intent in that regard IS OK. Personal beliefs belong personal, not universal by hook or crook.
Your right to control your body is, to me, on equal footing with the need to protect the environment (not just clean air and water - the environment is MUCH bigger than just that). Thus, Paul is an unacceptable President BUT he is an acceptable source for debate and argument about some of his ideas on issues that can be considered universal and even non-partisan in America, or at least the America that was supposed to be.