Hi Deb,
I've never been able to quite let go of the things you said it seems. It sounded so uncivilized. I have a sense that between feminism, your son, a failed marriage, a modern Ph.D., liberal Manhattan, and your natural maternal exuberance about a successful career, that you've gotten yourself all confused. As I recall you said, essentially, relationships should not be viewed as permanent; that one might legitimately leave to study cooking in France or religion in the Far East. This simply means that you consider cooking a value equal to love. If one defines things this way then we'd have a world far different that the one we have wouldn't we? We'd have a marriage ceremony which said, not, "until death do you part," but instead, "until cooking do you part; which may well happen tomorrow." I don't imagine that many people would find that a plausible basis for civilization. I think you chose cooking and religion over another sexual partner because that would have sounded cold even by your standards, although surely it must be included in your definition of the things that might legitimately end a relationship? I wonder if the tenuous connection you describe between a mother and father should be extended to other relationships. For example, might I say to my dying mother: I'm going to cooking school in France and you'll just have to soldier on here until you die sick, alone and poor. Perhaps the State will take care of you unless they too decide they have other more important priorities? Or I wonder if I can say to my son, "sorry I'm going to Japan to study religion and yes its going to cost a lot so you'll just have to work out the whole college thing by yourself. A bank loan might work but then again there aren't many long term contracts around of any kind anymore because people need to be free of such things so its not good business and besides, why start a long term commitment to college anyway when you may change your mind." Or, might I say to a business partner. "I'm leaving and I want half the assets to finance my cooking study? Who would make the better son, husband, father, bureaucrat, business partner: the flake or the person who knew where he was going? It seems to me that love obviously implies permanence; at the very least because kids want to be and need to be loved permanently. What meaning would I love have if a wife or a child worried that Dad might not come home that night. Love means that you're going home I'm afraid. If its just an option then it means nothing. A desirable woman would just move on until she found a man for whom love genuinely meant that he was coming home to support her and her child for as long as she needed them. This is the course of human evolution and perhaps is the main reason why we have evolved so far beyond our animal competitors. I hope that's helpful :-)ted
8.30.2004
Swift Boat Controversy Simplified
Swift Boat Controversy Simplified
Unfit for Command: Swift boat veterans against Kerry
This is a great book the context of which must be understood:
1) Kerry has refused to release his military records surrounding the incidents in question
2) Kerry has refused to allow his own book "The New Soldier" to be printed
3) According to the swift boat veterans and common sense Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam were at worst, fictionalized, and, at best, far less heroic than his medals would imply.
4) Kerry spent the immediate post war period making vicious statements against: the US, the military, its soldiers (baby killers, etc.) , and anti-communism.
5) Kerry spent the remaining 25 years as one of the most liberal politicians in the country voting against the military more so than almost any other politician.
6) As a presidential candidate and prospective commander-in-chief during war he had little or no credibility given this history. The polls continue to show this.
7) Kerry, despite being a presidential candidate, has taken no position on the current War on Terror
8) Kerry's deceptive strategy given the above history is to pretend that he is now "reporting for duty" as if he is well qualified and eager to be commander-in-chief.
9) Something like 65% of Americans don't believe he would be a willing or effective commander-in-chief given his history and despite their huge dissatisfaction with Bush.
10) Kerry's response in addition to silence, refusal to release his records or book, or state a war policy, has been to accuse the Bush campaign of sponsoring the swift boat veterans. Some vague connections have been demonstrated but this is no surprise given that they all seem to hate Kerry having served with him. But certainly the idea that the Bush campaign somehow made all 250 of them lie is purely absurd.
My personal point of view is that Kerry's ultra liberal 25 years after the war, when he could not have been elected to dog catcher anywhere in America, except Massachusetts, is far more important than the 4 months in Vietnam. But still, when 250 of the guys who served with him and under him in Vietnam write a book saying he largely falsified his entire Vietnam experience you have to consider that even that tiny 4 month period is a meaningful indictment of a prospective commander-in-chief in time of war.
Unfit for Command: Swift boat veterans against Kerry
This is a great book the context of which must be understood:
1) Kerry has refused to release his military records surrounding the incidents in question
2) Kerry has refused to allow his own book "The New Soldier" to be printed
3) According to the swift boat veterans and common sense Kerry's 4 months in Vietnam were at worst, fictionalized, and, at best, far less heroic than his medals would imply.
4) Kerry spent the immediate post war period making vicious statements against: the US, the military, its soldiers (baby killers, etc.) , and anti-communism.
5) Kerry spent the remaining 25 years as one of the most liberal politicians in the country voting against the military more so than almost any other politician.
6) As a presidential candidate and prospective commander-in-chief during war he had little or no credibility given this history. The polls continue to show this.
7) Kerry, despite being a presidential candidate, has taken no position on the current War on Terror
8) Kerry's deceptive strategy given the above history is to pretend that he is now "reporting for duty" as if he is well qualified and eager to be commander-in-chief.
9) Something like 65% of Americans don't believe he would be a willing or effective commander-in-chief given his history and despite their huge dissatisfaction with Bush.
10) Kerry's response in addition to silence, refusal to release his records or book, or state a war policy, has been to accuse the Bush campaign of sponsoring the swift boat veterans. Some vague connections have been demonstrated but this is no surprise given that they all seem to hate Kerry having served with him. But certainly the idea that the Bush campaign somehow made all 250 of them lie is purely absurd.
My personal point of view is that Kerry's ultra liberal 25 years after the war, when he could not have been elected to dog catcher anywhere in America, except Massachusetts, is far more important than the 4 months in Vietnam. But still, when 250 of the guys who served with him and under him in Vietnam write a book saying he largely falsified his entire Vietnam experience you have to consider that even that tiny 4 month period is a meaningful indictment of a prospective commander-in-chief in time of war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)