Letters to the Editor
-
Dems no party for Fems
Not as long as Hilary Clinton is the face of the party. She took "Stand By Your Man" to an all new level never before dreamed of by Ms Wynette herself when Mrs. Clinton not only stood by her man while he raped anything with a pulse (and probably a few without), but also did her best to defend him. Add the Boxer moment and Feminism is now dead with the Dems.
Then again Nancy Pelosi's exemption of Somoa from the Min. Wage increase, and by doing so fucking the entire wage paying USA population, proves she can bend the taxpayers over if the price is right...nothing is more Feminist than that.
-
Can this stupid argument still be coming up????
"...asking President Bush about whether or not he would send his daughters into combat."
WHAT??? Is there any person of normal intelligence who thinks this is a good argument?
What country do you think we live in that parents can "send" their children off to war? No draft anymore, remember? Members of the military ENLIST.
-
Rice's Personal Life
Rice has chosen an unsual lifestyle that few choose-- single, no kids, no partner or significant other, and by all accounts, no sexual or romantic interests for many, many years. More women are choosing to remain single and childless, but most of these also have (or have an interest in) some romantic/emotional relationship (s). And Rice has definitely CHOSEN this lifetsyle. As an attractive, educated, powerful woman, her opportunities would be almost boundless.
So given the influence and power she wields, I think it's fair to question decisions she makes in light of how personally distant she is from the consequences of such decisions. I don't think you NEED to have kids or to have served in the military yourself to make such decisions; but I certainly think such distance makes it more incumbent upon the "decider" to make their case as compelling as possible.
In addition to the military question, when you think about Rice, you should consider what she's doing to the Foreign Service. She is trying to introduce sweeping changes to the personnel system. "Transformational Diplomacy" has become a mantra at State, and Rice is constantly talking about how diplomats under her watch need to get used to serving in an "expeditionary" Foreign Service, and should expect to spend significant portions of their career in de facto war zones, seperated from immediate family for extended periods. Her exhortations to Foreign Service Officers to make sacrifices for this Administration's policies ring hollow to many diplomats since she herself is immune to the consequences; and she has been shockingly clumsy in the way she has packaged this message, and in the slow and half-hearted way that State under her guidance has responded to the needs of affected families.
Finally, Rice is trying to change the longstanding examination and entrance procedures to become a diplomat. The current written exam and day-long oral assessment culls out most applicants and tries to establish an objective measure (imperfect as it is) to select only the very strongest candidates. Among Foreign Service Officers, there is probably often more pride in having simply passed the exams than in anything they may subsequently achieve in their careers.
Rice proposes making this process a guideline, but not a determining factor in the selection process; in addition, the candidate's overall profile and "compatability" for the new "expeditionary" Foreign Service would be considered, even if the candidate fails to measure up to the exams.
There are some good reasons to do this. But many people strongly suspect the chief motivation is to bring in a new generation of diplomats whose politics are correct, according to the current administration; and to bring in younger, single officers without the "baggage" of family, and who will be less inclined to whine about spending years away from loved ones.
So again, her own personal choices and views about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of partners/spouses/kids seems to be reflected in the policy she's pushing. And I think that makes speculation along the lines Boxer suggested a valid thing.
-
for pity's sake
Oh for pity's fucking sake. Boxer said that she herself, with children, was not paying an immediate price too. The distinction drawn was between Boxer and Rice, on the one side, without family of military age, and the families of military personnel on the other side, not between women with children and women without. If anyone in this damn country could follow a line of reasoning, I'd fall over dead from shock.
But then I guess the Republicans probably CAN follow a line of reasoning. They are just lying and saying they can't. It's important to remember that they aren't stupid: they are evil, pretending to be stupid.
-
Drive Through
Any VA hospital parking lot and you'll not find many Mercedes, Volvos or BMWs. Walk through the waiting rooms, as I often do, and you'll not see many Armani shoes and Gucci suits.
All wars are fought by the working classes, while the politicians, drawn from the ruling oligarchies, sit in their air conditioned offices far from the battlefields and make life and death decisions for others.
But we must never mention these class distinctions because to do so will get you condemnation for waging "class warfare."
If this is the point Boxer is trying to raise, all the power to her. It's a discussion long overdue.
-
Condi does not care if the Iraqi people have freedom.
Boxer is 100% correct. Condi will not make sacrifice for this insane war.
-
Painting Condi as a victim.
In watching the media outlets over the last few days, the prevalent spin being sold to us is that B. Boxer was"too harsh?" on Ms. Rice. To the contrary, this administration has been way too hard on the taxpayers's wallets and health via troop injuries/casualties. The incompetent prosecution of a pre-emptive war that our country was pulled into based on false/cherry-picked information dictates that the "tough" questions be put to Bush and his minions.
Furthermore, the White House's manipulation of a Republican controlled legislative branch to circumvent ANY oversight prior to this last week mandates the strong response/dissent that is currently being experienced. It is high time that they face the music with the approapriate consequences being handed out.