Join 3,495 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Genetic discrimination
August 20, 2007 2:10 PM   Subscribe

U.S. military practices genetic discrimination in denying benefits. "Those medically discharged with genetic diseases are left without disability or retirement benefits. Some are fighting back."
posted by homunculus (43 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Could your DNA get turned against you?

Note that even if the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act becomes law, it will not apply to military personnel.
posted by homunculus at 2:12 PM on August 20, 2007


For all that the US military and politicians talk about "protecting, and taking care of, their own" it seems like there is a long long history of being awfully parsimonious wrt medical care after the fact.
posted by edgeways at 2:15 PM on August 20, 2007


Ahh fuck those genies anyway.
posted by Mister_A at 2:17 PM on August 20, 2007


I don't know...I think it's a fair question to ask...why should the gov't foot the bill for things brought upon ourselves?

(And I ask as someone with a family history of skin cancer, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension.)
posted by Mach3avelli at 2:26 PM on August 20, 2007


This is genius. Soldiers are born with a congenital condition we call 'mortality.' The military can't be held responsible for that, either. Why should they pay out benefits for humanity's increased vulnerability to environmental factors like bullets or bombs?
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:27 PM on August 20, 2007


Because, unless you had a time machine and a way to do genetic assays upon the sperm and ova that went into your creation, then somehow manage the whole process so the right two combined during your conception, it isn't something you bring upon yourself.

Call me wacky.
posted by adipocere at 2:29 PM on August 20, 2007


The message I'm taking away from the last seven years is "Republicans fucking hate soldiers."
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:31 PM on August 20, 2007 [8 favorites]


adipocere writes "Because, unless you had a time machine and a way to do genetic assays upon the sperm and ova that went into your creation, then somehow manage the whole process so the right two combined during your conception, it isn't something you bring upon yourself."

Exactly. Plus, if I had a time machine, after I went back in time to buy stock after the Great Depression and into the future to buy ray-guns, you'd all be calling me "President For Life Mullingitover"
posted by mullingitover at 2:33 PM on August 20, 2007


This is tragic and horrible and also, frankly, hilarious. Why would any one who does not have a frank psychosis ever join this Army of ours? Because of stuff like this, Albania can probably kick our ass in a fight.

This statute has been standing for 20 years, per the article, meaning it dates from the good old days of Ron Reagan's Evil Empire. Morning in America means pulling your diseased wrack onto a cart to go begging in front of the Pottery Barn, you filthy genie!
posted by Mister_A at 2:39 PM on August 20, 2007


Yes it is frank day in case you're wondering...
posted by Mister_A at 2:40 PM on August 20, 2007


I use to regret not having joined the army when 18 or so. For the past 5 years, that's gone away.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:46 PM on August 20, 2007


As I continue to read about the substandard armor; the prioritization of glamorous, Star Wars weaponry over decent food; the neglectful and often hideous medical care; the way lives are spent like tokens over mere talking points; and the frightening levels of propaganda, I think the best way to support our troops is to get in the aforementioned time machine and just convince these eighteen year old kids not to join in the first place.
posted by adipocere at 2:54 PM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Surely it's in the contracts the soldiers sign, yeah?

(I know, I know-- a contract shouldn't be legally binding unless the outcome is something desirable to the person currently judging it.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:00 PM on August 20, 2007


The message I'm taking away from the last seven years is "Republicans fucking hate soldiers."

Republicans live in an Orwellian world where freedom is slavery and "supporting the troops" means sending them to die and kicking the survivors in the face.

Surely it's in the contracts the soldiers sign, yeah?

No, it isn't.
posted by grouse at 3:36 PM on August 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


That's up there with "Feminism is about choice."
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:20 PM on August 20, 2007


Surely it's in the contracts the soldiers sign, yeah?

That's up there with "feminism is about choice."
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:23 PM on August 20, 2007


think the best way to support our troops is to get in the aforementioned time machine and just convince these eighteen year old kids not to join in the first place.

There is a time machine , called "telling the next batch of youngsters why it's is foolish" and expecially how the previous batch was convinced that "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
posted by elpapacito at 4:35 PM on August 20, 2007


Hold on -- please don't paint the entire US military with a broad brush based on this. The vast majority of us get excellent medical care, adequate compensation, good "quality of life" (when not deployed, duh), etc.
posted by davidmsc at 4:49 PM on August 20, 2007


I think the issue is with those who don't get "excellent medical care" through no fault of their own.
posted by MikeKD at 5:01 PM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Joining the army (any army) is sort of nominating yourself for a Darwin Award.
posted by signal at 5:01 PM on August 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


Service members can only get disability for service related ailments. It goes downhill from there.

This is a crap shoot. But I wish them luck.

Maybe it's time to privatize the VA. Since this particular case is really just a bureaucratic snafu, someone should step up and set up a fund for the guy.

(Trying really hard to keep from ranting about the effing GOV/GOP.)
posted by snsranch at 5:02 PM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Joining the army (any army) is sort of nominating yourself for a Darwin Award.
posted by signal


I take issue with this. While the United States Army, and in fact the entire Armed Forces, is now an instrument of evil, or at least, a terrible career choice, joining an Army is not always the nadir of stupidity & desperateness.

I fully support the idea of a standing army for the explicit purpose of defending the United States. Not to invade sovereign nations for no good reason and to bankrupt the nation for ideology.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 5:33 PM on August 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Which is to say, dying in the defense of your country is noble, while dying in a pointless war is not.
posted by synaesthetichaze at 5:34 PM on August 20, 2007


>Surely it's in the contracts the soldiers sign, yeah?

No, it isn't.


Care to back up that assertion with a cite?
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:38 PM on August 20, 2007


Joining the army (any army) is sort of nominating yourself for a Darwin Award.

You know very well that the people whose profits are in danger can't do all the work themselves. Who's going to burn villages to keep gasoline cheap if no one joins the army?

Them boys is heee-roes, commie!
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:50 PM on August 20, 2007


Mayor Curley, I can't cite anything, but I work with a former Army recruiter. He's a MAJOR SCUMBAG, and he's pretty representative of recruiters as a group. It's very difficult not beating the shit out of the guy when he starts telling stories of how he took advantage of dozens of young girls who were looking for a "leg up" and his pride in lying to and cheating young recruits. (I could go into more detail, but you probably get the point.)

Which is to say, dying in the defense of your country is noble, while dying in a pointless war is not.
posted by synaesthetichaze.


I beg to differ. Soldier choose to serve. They do NOT choose the wars they happen to find themselves in. Their deaths while in service are all noble. (Quit playin' the pawns, anyone?)
posted by snsranch at 5:53 PM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


You know very well that the people whose profits are in danger can't do all the work themselves. Who's going to burn villages to keep gasoline cheap if no one joins the army?

Them boys is heee-roes, commie!


Well, at least you're here to play the role of the selfish, sanctimonious fat-ass.
posted by Snyder at 5:58 PM on August 20, 2007


To a certain extent you are correct, snsranch. However, anyone who joins up now should harbor no illusions as far as the current uh... character of the Armed Forces, and the purposes to which they are put. Most of them are still kids when they join, though, and don't usually have very good reasons for doing anything at all (I know I didn't, even only five years ago).
posted by synaesthetichaze at 6:02 PM on August 20, 2007


I don't know...I think it's a fair question to ask...why should the gov't foot the bill for things brought upon ourselves?

Last time I checked, I didn't bring a single genetic disease upon myself. In fact, these things are surprisingly involuntary.

Also, welcome to fucking Gattaca, people.
posted by Avenger at 6:04 PM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Also, welcome to fucking Gattaca, people.

That was one of the first things I thought of when I read this. It remains to be seen what happens on the civilian side with the GINA legislation I mentioned up thread.
posted by homunculus at 6:14 PM on August 20, 2007


snsranch Maybe it's time to privatize the VA.

Putting people in charge who then have a personal financial incentive to deny claims is a really good way of making sure more claims get denied. Go see "Sicko". The fact that US Army operations have been increasingly privatized since WWII is the source of this problem.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:31 PM on August 20, 2007


[a few comments removed. dial it back a litte. just because the government are being assholes doens't mean you need to be. metatalk, if you disagree.]
posted by jessamyn at 6:56 PM on August 20, 2007


Mayor Curley writes: I just did what you suggested, and the "enlistment contract" doesn't cover medical benefits at all.

That's right, there's nothing that specifies medical benefits at all, the details of which are unilaterally decided by the government. It isn't a matter of two parties deciding to make a contract, it is a matter of the country deciding to grant veterans what is fair and right. Which isn't being done.

They deserve whatever they get anyway because it's a case of chickens coming home to roost.

If it's just a matter of "chickens coming home to roost" there's no reason to limit the face-kicking to those with genetic defects. The U.S. might as well just stop giving health benefits to any veteran, or even active duty military.
posted by grouse at 7:01 PM on August 20, 2007


Jesus. As if Walter Reed wasn't enough.
posted by Anduruna at 7:26 PM on August 20, 2007


I was struck by the sentence that said they could face a court=martial if they sought treatment outside the military. What is the logic to that?
posted by etaoin at 8:18 PM on August 20, 2007


You know what folks, it's apparent that "voting your conscious" isn't good enough to create change. But we already knew that. I'll purchase a sock-puppet account for anyone willing to put their own money where their mouth is. Ya want change? Great! How so? I'm game, so bring it on.

I've been frustrated since Reagan. But 9/11 set me off. I've been dealing with "terrorism" since early 1980 when I lived as a Navy brat in Italy. It was pretty fucking real. But we got "training to deal with a terrorist threat" instead of "Oh shit, everyone panic!"

I would like to see "change" as much as the next guy. If anyone has any ideas, bring 'em to the table. But I imagine that you and I both are too wrapped up in our everyday shit, and imagine that some other guy is gonna do the work for us.

I'm trying here. Right here in my home, working to build a foundation so that someday I or my kids can make a difference. In the meantime, STFU, unless you have any real ideas.
posted by snsranch at 8:26 PM on August 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Look at it the other way - health benefits denied government employees based on genetic discrimination.
If this happened in the private sector the outcry would be even worse. Soldiers are however a part of society that we allow to get hosed in the ass on a regular basis.
If it's not the industrialists trying to exploit the military to get rich (with - currently - republican politicians as front men) it's the pseudo-pacifists demanding the end to all war everywhere for all time with 1/2 assed "peace" initiatives (really a front for - currently - democratic politicians) that really only rain turds on the rank and file, not the defense industry scumbags and their media lapdogs who keeping the nation ignorant and whipped into a "patriotic" frenzy and afraid of anyone even marginally non-conformist.
Meantime, since next to no one has actually served the country in wartime, no one really knows just how lousy a proposition it is, and hey, it's not their sibling or child so it's all a kind of conceptual identity thing full of jingoism and fanaticism. And because there is no actual sacrifice required and nothing at stake (except the right to say "I told you so") then no actual work has to be done for the peace process. You can just hoist a sign, shout at some vet for being a gestapo prick tool of whatever element of government or party you're against and go on your merry way thinking you've done something.
And the fissures and loopholes in the system that let Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics that we pour billions into just rolls along untouched with domestic access to spy satallites booming, more than $31 billion dollars expected to be spent - IN SECRET - (record high) next year on black ops, with Pakistan and India getting about $3.5 million and $6.4 million respectively in arms shipments in 2001, boosted (just after 9/11) to $1.3 billion for Pakistan and $78 million to India - that's just arms, and that's just one year later, the United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts ALREADY under way in 1999, that's your tax dollars at work.
The United States military has often had to face troops previously trained by its own military or supplied with U.S. weaponry in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and now in Afghanistan. Due to the advanced capabilities these militaries have acquired from past U.S. training and sales, the U.S. had to invest much more money and manpower in these conflicts than would have otherwise been needed.
But that's the game isn't it? Hell, this administration is still looking for money for Earth penetrating nuclear warheads for "Deep Targets" (yet another red herring defense contractor spawned b.s. weapon with no real need). All that goes on without a peep from candy ass protesters with their signs saying "no blood for oil" whenever the war gets on t.v. (and there's always shooting going on, it's just that it's mostly not large numbers of ground pounders - which, really, isn't who's lives those folks - certain types, Cindy Sheehan, etc., excepted - are trying to save, if indeed, there is anything beyond the rhetoric) certainly the chickenhawk pundits with their false bravado and homoerotic/phobic machismo don't give two craps about the dead, they're just shills for the industry, looking for a handout because they speak well of their betters. Been those kinds of bootlickers since the dawn of time (Ogg not such bad guy. Ogg try protect you. Ogg make war. Tribe safe. Ogg big. Ogg strong. You listen Ogg.)

If this happened to air traffic controllers or guys in the forest service or the guys down in the farm bureau - any other federal job but the military - there's no way this would happen.
But you can piss all over the troops and since they have to take it, many people do.
Oh certainly not in lip service. A guy bought me a beer once. I've gotten lots of handshakes after popular wars. Typically from the kind of people I wouldn't want to shake hands with. Plenty of bunting and yellow ribbons and folks saying how much they love the troops.
But so far as maybe giving you adequite health coverage?
Screw that noise, cuts into the amount we have to plug into foreign "aid" so we can train people to fight with us.
And really, that's such a big and complex machine. And they are powerful. They could probably take your house and your job away if you became any kind of real problem, or even your life if you were as much a pain as, say, Silkwood. But those toops? Much easier targets, with very little exposure to reprisals.
Hell, they don't even have adequite health coverage.

Any other federal employee this isn't even an issue.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:35 PM on August 20, 2007


(Everyone quotes "War is Peace" from Orwell as the big lie. It's not. It's absolutely true. Destruction on a national scale in material and people - ongoing - leads to a kind of economic stability and profit. Only catch is, you need a disposible segment of society. Used to be slaves. Currently it's the troops and illegal immigrants, bombs planes, mostly mass-killing weaponry.
The State Department decided to suspend the export of long-range .50 caliber sniper rifles to individuals or commercial dealers - you think that was because they suddenly decided to show restraint?
If I can hit (purely for example, b/c he sponsored the request a bit back) Rep. Henry Hyde from 2000 yards, or take out the engine of his plane, that could be a problem. But me wanting to ice 500 odd people with a aerial bomb? No problem. They're little people. And they can charge so much more for bombs. And bombs require a huge infrastructure. Hell, you can load your own rifle shells)
posted by Smedleyman at 8:46 PM on August 20, 2007


Which is to say, dying in the defense of your country is noble
posted by synaesthetichaze at 9:34 PM on August 20 [+] [!]


It might be noble, but it's still Darwin-worthy.
posted by signal at 5:54 AM on August 21, 2007


Everyone quotes "War is Peace" from Orwell as the big lie. It's not. It's absolutely true. Destruction on a national scale in material and people - ongoing - leads to a kind of economic stability and profit. Only catch is, you need a disposible segment of society. Used to be slaves. Currently it's the troops and illegal immigrants, bombs planes, mostly mass-killing weaponry.

And the point that Orwell's making is that if you can perceive that as peace, you're mental. It's not peace, and calling it peace doesn't make it so.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:20 AM on August 21, 2007


In other health care news: Rules May Limit Health Program Aiding Children
posted by homunculus at 10:33 AM on August 21, 2007


“And the point that Orwell's making is that if you can perceive that as peace, you're mental.”

Well, in fact since the state dictates what sanity is, it is Winston who is insane.
I grant the shorthand view of it is that yes, it’s a lie.

But the insight is that this is indeed - for the state devoid of any humanity and aiming at man’s inhumanity to man as an objective - peace.
State power in 1984 - and to a greater and greater degree modern society - rests on not only the stability of war with nothing changing within the borders as a result (despite war damage - quite possibly prosecuted by the government upon it’s own citizens, but Orwell keeps this possibility shadowy to mirror the reality) but the constant ongoing nature of it which allows the government to make demands upon life and liberty without questions from it’s citizenry (the proles) and the ability to denounce any opposition (likely from the outer party).

The perversity is that it is peace in that it is not chaotic violence (emphasis on chaotic).
The term ‘war’ in 1984 also has (aptly considering doublespeak) the double meaning of lack of stability and chaotic violence as well as the lack of chaotic violence.
Well today when we speak of war, we speak of chaotic violence - horror and destruction.
Seen any?
Chicago seems pretty peaceful. Don’t know if there are any bombs dropping elsewhere, but I haven’t seen anyone asked to give up one iota of material comfort or make one sacrifice for the war effort (other than of course civil liberties).
In fact, I’ll be damned if I can find evidence that our country is at ‘war’ in any old-world sense of the term.
This state of affairs, in my estimation, exactly mirrors what Orwell was talking about. Not merely the state lying that while a war is going on there is peace, but the co-option of all meaning of both terms to the service of the power hierarchy.

And indeed, for the most part there has been little impact upon anything from what we’d consider the proles (some noise, not much impact).
The outer party members (democrats, some republicans, et.al.) haven’t had the guts for direct confrontation and (per Orwell and Goebbels tactics) are denounced and called unpatriotic when they do, which seems to shut them down, and the inner party members (defense contractors, higher up republicans, “shadow goverment” folks) are too busy making money hand over fist to care and anyway enjoying applying the boot to the human face.
Dichotomization from a political perspective no matter which role your playing (or thoughtless because one is focused on minutiae like a prole) cuts you loose from your humanity.
Even sex, for Winston, is a political act.
The point being - ‘war’ ‘peace’ all now have certain connotations and are viewed first through a political perspective.
And indeed, considering the topic - the first thing considered is the ‘soldier’ aspect of this guy. Not that it’s some guy getting hosed. Not that he’s a fellow human being oppressed by the same government that is lying about so many other things (but suddenly is ok when it’s hosing someone we disagree with).
The first thought is how he fits into a political perspective - good, bad, wrong, right, etc. only then is his position and the nature of his oppression considered.

Me, I give gift food cards to homeless folks whether they “deserve” it or not. It’s entirely immaterial to me whether they drink or voted for Bush or hate blacks, whatever - they’re hungry. The system isn’t helping. I feed them ‘cos they’re human like me - other considerations we can hash out when their belly is full.
I know I wouldn’t want some schmuck trying to fit me into his moral schema before he can decide to hand me a sandwich (is he a ‘christian’? does he believe in the spaghetti monster? Oooh, I can’t feed him unless he’s a secular humanist, because all that mumbo jumbo is evil).

Same deal here. Injustice anywhere is a threat to everyone everywhere (’cept those creating it) - which is the meaning of “War is Peace.” Peace for who? War for who?
It’s not just the big lie - it’s the tacit approval by participation in it - even in opposition - because as soon as you buy into it you’ve dichotomized yourself.
If it’s wrong for the government to do something it’s wrong no matter who they do it too. E.g. Padilla.
Furthermore, if something is wrong to do, it’s wrong for anyone to do either as a collective or an individual.
Metaphysics. O’Brian was a bit of a Kantian.
Unfortunately Winston was willing to throw acid in a child’s face to overthrow Big Brother. That’s the inverse relationship there that allows us to kick a hand into the gutter and go on with our lives “opposing evil” while supporting the system that breeds it because we want to ‘win’.
No, thanks.
Calling any given state of affairs peace is meaningless when war has lost it’s sting, been deprived of all horror except for those in the midst of the violence - and that itself has been marginalized along with the people suffering it.

What were doing right now in the U.S. is not war. And there hasn’t been peace in any real sense for some time.
Hell, we got tax cuts. Granted some more than others. But most Americans are still fat, dumb and happy.
Only thing most people are looking to do is hang the “right” judas goat so they can have a clear conscience. Make war on the “right” people - whether it’s soldiers, nazis, liberals, conservatives, just looking for a way to legitimize the hate and the struggle - so yes, that struggle, that war is peace.

This is just one more facet of it. And instead of simply recognizing that no one should be discriminated on the basis of there genetic structure many many people will try to find exceptions, ways to justify whatever their beliefs are, ways to make money, etc. etc. etc.
“But THIS guy is a - whatever - soldier, tinker, nazi, drug dealer, whatever, ad nauseum.”
Doesn’t matter. Shouldn’t enter into it at all, is what I’m saying. But people try to make it so, whether they support or oppose whatever position.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:06 AM on August 21, 2007


“And the point that Orwell's making is that if you can perceive that as peace, you're mental.”

Well, in fact since the state dictates what sanity is, it is Winston who is insane.
I grant the shorthand view of it is that yes, it’s a lie.

But the insight is that this is indeed - for the state devoid of any humanity and aiming at man’s inhumanity to man as an objective - peace.
State power in 1984 - and to a greater and greater degree modern society - rests on not only the stability of war with nothing changing within the borders as a result (despite war damage - quite possibly prosecuted by the government upon it’s own citizens, but Orwell keeps this possibility shadowy to mirror the reality) but the constant ongoing nature of it which allows the government to make demands upon life and liberty without questions from it’s citizenry (the proles) and the ability to denounce any opposition (likely from the outer party).

The perversity is that it is peace in that it is not chaotic violence (emphasis on chaotic).
The term ‘war’ in 1984 also has (aptly considering doublespeak) the double meaning of lack of stability and chaotic violence as well as the lack of chaotic violence.
Well today when we speak of war, we speak of chaotic violence - horror and destruction.
Seen any?
Chicago seems pretty peaceful. Don’t know if there are any bombs dropping elsewhere, but I haven’t seen anyone asked to give up one iota of material comfort or make one sacrifice for the war effort (other than of course civil liberties).
In fact, I’ll be damned if I can find evidence that our country is at ‘war’ in any old-world sense of the term.
This state of affairs, in my estimation, exactly mirrors what Orwell was talking about. Not merely the state lying that while a war is going on there is peace, but the co-option of all meaning of both terms to the service of the power hierarchy.

And indeed, for the most part there has been little impact upon anything from what we’d consider the proles (some noise, not much impact).
The outer party members (democrats, some republicans, et.al.) haven’t had the guts for direct confrontation and (per Orwell and Goebbels tactics) are denounced and called unpatriotic when they do, which seems to shut them down, and the inner party members (defense contractors, higher up republicans, “shadow goverment” folks) are too busy making money hand over fist to care and anyway enjoying applying the boot to the human face.
Dichotomization from a political perspective no matter which role your playing (or thoughtless because one is focused on minutiae like a prole) cuts you loose from your humanity.
Even sex, for Winston, is a political act.
The point being - ‘war’ ‘peace’ all now have certain connotations and are viewed first through a political perspective.
And indeed, considering the topic - the first thing considered is the ‘soldier’ aspect of this guy. Not that it’s some guy getting hosed. Not that he’s a fellow human being oppressed by the same government that is lying about so many other things (but suddenly is ok when it’s hosing someone we disagree with).
The first thought is how he fits into a political perspective - good, bad, wrong, right, etc. only then is his position and the nature of his oppression considered.

Me, I give gift food cards to homeless folks whether they “deserve” it or not. It’s entirely immaterial to me whether they drink or voted for Bush or hate blacks, whatever - they’re hungry. The system isn’t helping. I feed them ‘cos they’re human like me - other considerations we can hash out when their belly is full.
I know I wouldn’t want some schmuck trying to fit me into his moral schema before he can decide to hand me a sandwich (is he a ‘christian’? does he believe in the spaghetti monster? Oooh, I can’t feed him unless he’s a secular humanist, because all that mumbo jumbo is evil).

Same deal here. Injustice anywhere is a threat to everyone everywhere (’cept those creating it) - which is the meaning of “War is Peace.” Peace for who? War for who?
It’s not just the big lie - it’s the tacit approval by participation in it - even in opposition - because as soon as you buy into it you’ve dichotomized yourself.
If it’s wrong for the government to do something it’s wrong no matter who they do it too. E.g. Padilla.
Furthermore, if something is wrong to do, it’s wrong for anyone to do either as a collective or an individual.
Metaphysics. O’Brian was a bit of a Kantian.
Unfortunately Winston was willing to throw acid in a child’s face to overthrow Big Brother. That’s the inverse relationship there that allows us to kick a hand into the gutter and go on with our lives “opposing evil” while supporting the system that breeds it because we want to ‘win’.
No, thanks.
Calling any given state of affairs peace is meaningless when war has lost it’s sting, been deprived of all horror except for those in the midst of the violence - and that itself has been marginalized along with the people suffering it.

What were doing right now in the U.S. is not war. And there hasn’t been peace in any real sense for some time.
Hell, we got tax cuts. Granted some more than others. But most Americans are still fat, dumb and happy.
Only thing most people are looking to do is hang the “right” judas goat so they can have a clear conscience. Make war on the “right” people - whether it’s soldiers, nazis, liberals, conservatives, just looking for a way to legitimize the hate and the struggle - so yes, that struggle, that war is peace.

This is just one more facet of it. And instead of simply recognizing that no one should be discriminated on the basis of there genetic structure many many people will try to find exceptions, ways to justify whatever their beliefs are, ways to make money, etc. etc. etc.
“But THIS guy is a - whatever - soldier, tinker, nazi, drug dealer, whatever, ad nauseum.”
Doesn’t matter. Shouldn’t enter into it at all, is what I’m saying. But people try to make it so, whether they support or oppose whatever position.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:52 PM on August 21, 2007


« Older The Invisible Manuscript....  |  Blood Money... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments