How DO These People Sleep At Night!?

[filkertom]

By way of Washington Monthly, we learn of the great compassion of yet another Republican lawmaker:

You'll have a parent or two here, as you know, whose tragic grief from the tragic loss of a loved one, of a child, causes their mental thinking to be a little destabilized. That's understandable.

-- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) at a news conference Thursday, discussing parents of slain soldiers who turned antiwar.

So, literally, a parent who turns anti-war because their child was killed is mentally unstable.

Oh, and, at least one Texas legislator can't compose a sentence to save his ass.

Comments

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Flip it right back on the bastards. "Parents who lose children also lose perspective. That's why some of those parents argue that more people should die to continue an unnecessary and unwinnable war."

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

A-fucking-men. Heard a Gold-Star Mother* call into Sean Hannity recently and proclaim that there should be a draft. On the one hand, someone who's lost a son is just about the only person I could take that suggestion seriously from...on the other hand, someone who demands that other mothers have their sons TAKEN from them by the U.S. government (instead of volunteering, as her boy did)...that's just sick.



* "Gold Star"? Isn't that what they'd give you in kindergarten for not wetting yourself?

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Anti-war people who say there should be a draft are arguing that if there were a draft the children of the politically powerful would have to serve in the military and would have to die if the politically powerful decided that a war would be fun this week. Unfortunately, a look back at the experience when we did have a draft shows that the children of the politically powerful usually weren't drafted and if they served, they served safer duty than the ordinary grunt. A little thought shows it can't work. If every person of military age served, we'd have an army bigger than even the craziest war-mongers want and no possible way to pay for it. As soon as there are any exemptions at all, there's wiggle room for the politically powerful to turn into loopholes for their own children.

Heinlein had it right: a country that can't raise enough volunteers to defend itself isn't worth defending.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Except that we're not defending ourselves here. Iraq didn't attack us. Iraq, until we were over there, posed no legitimate threat to us.

So, perhaps:
A government that cannot raise enough troops to wage a purely political war on multiple fronts isn't worth losing family to.

And yes, historically speaking, the draft was always something that happened to Other People.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I never claimed we were defending ourselves. The relevance of the Heinlein paraphrase is that the legitimate reason for having a military in the first place is to defend the country, not to be a toy for the rulers.

I'd have to say that a government that CAN raise enough volunteer troops to wage bogus political wars isn't worth losing family to, or supporting any other way.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

hitchkitty's point being that lots of people stand ready to defend this country against legitimate threats, but Iraq never was one. And they keep saying we're defending ourselves, and a sizable percentage of the population (though thankfully nowhere near as it used to be) still believe it.

Serious debates involving the truth tend to lead to surprising and often innovative solutions for problems. Lying about it just screws things up. And that's where we are. I don't think even Heinlein ever imagined how badly and consistently and self-servingly this government has lied to its own people.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

I assume, Tom, that you're referring to Texas' new constitutional amendment -- the one that prohibits the state from recognizing any status "similar or identical to marriage" AFTER defining marriage specifically as man-woman?

Yeah, that was amusing. We're gonna see anti-gay-marriage advocates now proclaiming that it's "similar to marriage", which is, I suppose, a step up from "evil lust-fondling fornication".

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Strange side-effect, though: Texas cannot recognize marriages between a man and a woman, either -- that's a status "identical to marriage", and their constitution now forbids them to recognize such.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Heh. Morons. No, I hadn't heard that. But then, I've never heard yet exactly how two men kissing or two women kissing (or any poly combination you care to name) "threatens" marriage. And I expect I never will.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm gonna get in trouble for this, but I'm not sure how I feel about polygamy gaining legal marriage status. Already it's being used as a "this WILL happen if you legalize gay marriage" scare tactic.

(Irony time: One of my least-favorite Bush apologists has commented, on record, "You want me to explain why gay marriage would be bad. Do I have to tell you why murder is bad?" Yet despite claims that homonogamy would destroy marriage and society, he has no issues with polyamory. Go fig.)

As to exactly how two guys getting it on with benefit of clergy would threaten marriage: Same way letting those damned darkies vote wound up destroying democracy -- suddenly, it was no longer an Our Kind Only club.

[dragonscholar.livejournal.com]

I also suppose supporting a war that's an utter disaster and having to tell everyone that things are OK leads to some destabilized thinking too.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

"Mental thinking"? As opposed to what, Representative? What process do YOU use to form thoughts?

On second thought, don't answer that.

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much where I went with that. But then, I don't think mental thinking is the sort of thinking that most of those folks are doing nowadays.

"Destabilized" grieving parents

[markiv1111.livejournal.com]

Despite my own lifelong history as a Good Little Liberal, I have been trying to give war supporters (in and out of elected office) a break, trying to pretend they are honestly misguided and doing the best they can. I am no longer able to do this. That comment was insane.

Nate

Re: "Destabilized" grieving parents

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Why, ol' buddy? I mean, why give them the benefit of the doubt? There is nothing to support about this war unless you work for an oil company. They've been dishonestly misguided... and, having been shown reams of evidence of how they were misguided, some of 'em are still buying into it anyway. And calling anyone who opposes them on any level a liar and a traitor.

One of the great things about liberalism is that we want to save the world for everybody. This occasionally means knocking some goof out for his own damn good, hogtying him, and leaving him in the back of the boat so that he doesn't hurt anybody.

Re: "Destabilized" grieving parents

[jss]

"Back of the boat" my eye. Try "strapped to an anchor and released overside."