Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A second opinion

Retired Navy Warrant Officer Jim Wright weighs in on the latest tempest in a teacup.



( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 29th, 2008 09:42 pm (UTC)
Is he seriously arguing that the fight is over the votes of service(wo)men? I think that's plainly wrong. Political language about the utility/disutility accruing to troops from policy decisions is much more about leveraging civilian voters, who can attach themselves to the politician in question as a way of signaling how strongly they value the good/harm reputedly resulting to the troops. Expecting active duty military personnel to consider the immediate personal consequences of their vote seems perfectly legitimate as a consequence of the oath-based argument he's making, but any sane democracy has a public discussion about the sacrifice of service. Policy decisions by the electorate as a whole entirely appropriately include those costs, making it inevitably in-bounds for the political arena.
Jul. 30th, 2008 02:08 am (UTC)
I merely pass the comments along - you can click through and discuss it there.
Jul. 30th, 2008 03:07 am (UTC)
Not Really
Old gutter mouth does not tolerate polite disparagement of his dictats. A trait common to the blogosphere sinsister.
Jul. 30th, 2008 03:15 am (UTC)

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

Jul. 30th, 2008 05:01 pm (UTC)
Rodney, I tolerate those who disagree with me all the time. I have stood corrected on numerous occasions. There are a number of examples on my blog and elsewhere. What I won't tolerate is your passive/aggressive blowhard nonsense, you speak to hear yourself talk and nothing more.

pyropyga, reading your comment and then going back to reread my post I can immediately see how you came to that conclusion. I should have been more clear and I agree with the gist of your comment. No, I didn't mean that the fight is over veteran voters per se. What I take exception to, is the implication (by both candidates) that the course of action they advocate is somehow driven by sympathy for those in harm's way. I take exception to manipulation of the public through the use of veterans. If these men were truly concerned about us, well, as Senators they'd have made dammed sure that the National Guard troops from their own states were properly equipped and trained prior to deployment, for example.

I do agree that there should be public discussion of the conflict, and our commitment to it, however holding veterans up as poster children in order to manipulate that discussion offends me. Obama may not understand this, but McCain dammed sure ought to.

/Jim Wright

Jul. 30th, 2008 09:03 pm (UTC)
Old Gutter Mouth Replies
you speak to hear yourself talk and nothing more.

Project much?
Jul. 30th, 2008 09:48 pm (UTC)
Re: Old Gutter Mouth Replies
Hey, Jim and Rodney - you both have your own blogs. Please take this argument elsewhere.
Jul. 30th, 2008 09:50 pm (UTC)
R, Copy All
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Comment Policy

This is the personal blog of Chris Gerrib, and all opinions expressed here are solely his own. Commenters are welcome; however please be polite to me and my other readers. I reserve the right to delete comments that are rude, inappropriate or otherwise objectionable at my sole discretion. The opinions expressed in a comment are not necessarily mine, and if I do not delete a comment that should not be construed as my agreement with the commenter.

Latest Month

August 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Terri McAllister