Free Republic

Papa - Wow, you have so much to be proud of! Hoooah to you and yours, and congrats on those grandbabies. My two soldiers say that making me a grandma is going to be their first order of business once they are reunited. (Huh? Grandma? Me? I feel like I'm just a kid myself in many ways!)

Thanks for your kind wishes to my two, I return them threefold to yours, God bless and keep them safe every one.

Polygirl

Oh, Capebuffalo, I had such hopes for you from what you wrote in #12. Disrespectful terms like "cafeteria Christian" are exactly the sort of thing responsible for the deep divisions we are experiencing. If that's what I am, then there are an awful lot of us out here.

We will not achieve the reconciliation we badly need in this country unless we recognize that words have tremendous power and choose them very carefully so as to avoid exacerbating the problem. In an attempt to sound witty and "right" we often write more harshly than necessary to make our point - I have been guilty of it at times, but I'm trying to refrain from it now - I invite you to do the same. If we need to vent, we should maybe do it somewhere else.

We really must learn to accept that many, many people see things differently than we do, no matter which "side" we are on, and yet we are all, every one of us, first and foremost Americans. No, we don't all hold the same values, but we don't always have to. Heck, when I was growing up in east Tennessee, even the Baptists and Presbyterians tended to look down their noses at each other in disdain out of disagreement over scriptural interpretation, so it will hardly help to engage in debate over issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. I doubt either of us would be persuaded.

One of our most precious rights is freedom of religion - you believe as you do, and I respect your right to do so. I respectfully request that you return the favor. We may not be able to understand how someone can see things so differently and consider their POV legitimate, but we simply must accept that they do, that they have a right to do so and learn to agree to disagree in ways that are respectful. If we don't, then we will continue on this very destructive path as a society.

Please remember that in my earlier post I wasn't defending either President Bush or Sen. Kerry as to their military service, I was criticizing those who sought to destroy their credibility by attacking their service record. I rarely take at face value what I read in books that are written by people with an ax to grind. The very fact that they have one discredits their words unless they are entirely documented with uncontrovertible proof.

Did Kerry make some big mistakes? Probably, but he had reasons he considered entirely loyal as an American soldier and veteran at the time. I can respect that. Did President Bush do his ivy-league white-bread best to get out of having to serve more than he did? Probably, but maybe he thought he had done his share already. I can respect that, too. Regardless, they served, and that is worth a lot to my mind. They were both much younger at the time, and neither has been in a position to speak candidly about how they really thought and felt at the time and how that might differ from their position today. I know my point of view has matured considerably since I was a young adult, and I imagine theirs have as well. I'm willing to forgive both for that reason.

Polygirl

Ben, some of the problem re the Constitution is that it is not clear on some of the issues of the day that people feel strongly about. So asking whether someone believes in the Constitution isn't very useful - everyone would say yes, but that doesn't mean they agree with conservatives on all the issues. Free enterprise and smaller government - no problem. Personal liberty - yes, but. Many moderates are uncomfortable with the tendency of some conservatives, including our president, to advocate for personal liberty but with strings attached. I will say it again, the same sex marriage issue and the president's support for a constitutional amendment leaves many of them very cold. What is more personal than not having the liberty to marry the person we love? From a rational point of view, gender is and should be irrelevant.

As to deprogramming, ewwww, that's a scary concept indeed.

Thanks for writing.

Polygirl

In general, nicely said. I agree - we're all in this together and the problem can't be solved without everyone's cooperation and participation. And above all, we simply must learn to agree to disagree and respect everyone's right to their opinion. It's the disrespectfulness of it all that is tearing us apart.

Polygirl

Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: fas·cism

1 a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Unlike many extremist liberals, I do not throw the term around in ignorance, though now that I've refreshed my memory of its precise meaning, I will amend my statement and say that I understood you to advocate for supressing the platform from which those whose values with which you disagree speak while advocating that the public platform of the opposition remain intact. No, that is not fascism to the letter, but it is awfully close to fascism in spirit. As you know, our political system, flawed though it certainly is, was established to give everyone a voice. That is literally the American way, right? So advocating for a one-party system would be literally unAmerican, right? It surely sounded like that's what you were advocating, but if not, perhaps you could clarify. As it stands, to me, a political and social moderate, your position is troubling.

Our two party system may not work nearly as well as we would like, but it is *our* system and in the end it works more or less as it was designed to work. As they say, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms. (Smile)

There are lots of people like me who wish very much for a leader who is truly a compassionate moderate who walks his talk about being *everyone's* president. It troubles us that our country is so very deeply divided, and who has more responsibility for being a unifier than the president? More than liberal or conservative values, I believe in objectivity, honesty and truth, which are pretty damn hard to come by these days. Ulterior motives? Not at all.

As to your comments re dems who would have been shot for treason during WWII, surely free speech is a value we can all agree on. I am appalled by your willingness to supress it when it doesn't square with your own beliefs - it is an incredibly dangerous precident to establish. In that regard, see above, my dear. ;-)

Polygirl

Shenandoah - Heavens, now you are pulling the "they're too dumb" line, too. You're no better than the snotty dems who think the rest of America is too dumb to "get it".

Nowhere that I know of are otherwise eligible voters required to take intelligence tests before being permitted to register. It is naive, not to mention racially biased, to disparage an entire group of people based on their race - nothing is ever that cut and dried.

Ah, well, then we do have something special in common, don't we? My story, in short form, is that when my son-in-law got his deployment orders, my daughter, who has a degree in criminal science, decided with her husband's encouragement to enlist and go to OCS as a means of jump-starting her career. (This definitely isn't our father's Army, huh?) It was also intended to keep her busy and her mind off worrying about her husband while deployed, though it hasn't worked out that way. Evenso, she has done extremely well, all things considered, and bless his heart, Drew is very proud of his wife, even if she does outrank him. Besides, he's no fool. As I'm sure you know, the benes are signficantly better when one of them is a commissioned officer.

Despite the fact that it has been a tough year, Drew now has a redeployment date that will have him back in Hawaii by year's end, after which both have orders for nondeployable jobs at Ft. Benning. She spoke to him today, and he says they are busier than ever over there. No wonder considering that a lot of the snakes hiding out in Fallujah have moved to other cities. He is an infantry squad leader with the 25th Infantry Division (light) attached to the 1st ID in the Sunni triangle, SW of Kirkuk.

So are your two still in?

Polygirl.

Nope, not referring to swiftvets, though I dislike their tactics as I dislike it no matter which side takes the character assasination route. Kerry is clearly too much the intellectual for many people's tastes, but as the mom and mom-in-law of two soldiers, I didn't appreciate the swiftvets' disparaging his service any more than I appreciate the dems going on a witchhunt to try to disparage President Bush's service.

Military service is a keenly emotional topic guaranteed to be divisive, and in this respect one was just as guilty as the other in my own view. In both cases their stridency and the fact that they each had a dog in the fight (so to speak) made it very difficult to tell what the truth really was, especially for people without the patience, desire, time, skills and resources to dig very deeply for something objective, if such even existed. What is more outrageous to me is this is precisely the goal, not to be truthful, but to cast reasonable doubt in hopes of swaying voters to their side. The spin docs count on people soon tiring of trying to figure out what is what and deciding to believe what they want to believe. But is it the truth? Maybe so, and maybe no.

No, as far as President Bush is concerned, I think he made a grave error in deciding to support a constitutional amendment on the marriage issue. As he has been quoted recently, he was earning political capital, but at the expense of alienating moderate liberals who see such a stance as lacking in compassion, even hostile toward people who are Americans like anyone else. If that's where it ended, knowing such an amendment has little chance of success would perhaps let him off the hook, but it set off a chain of events where the states hastened to amend their own constitutions, and that's a much bigger issue to those who care about such things. In their view it unjustly denies people who aren't hurting anyone equal rights on, once again, a very personal, highly divisive issue, the right to be a family, if a different sort of family, with the same rights and obligations married people are afforded.

Likewise, announcing an intention to place as many strongly conservative supreme court justices like Justice Reinquist on the bench knowing this will fan the flames of that most emotional of issues, the abortion debate, was also divisive. The president may have good intentions and be following his own conscience, but to many people, his conscience is not all that counts.

It is that kind of step taken while remaining silent about and appearing to be unsympathetic toward what many Americans do want that signals to those who care about such issues that President Bush doesn't truly serve them.

By the way, these are not your ultra liberal progressive fans of Michael Moore. They, too, are middle class people of faith, law abiding citizens who work as hard as any blue collar conservative and love America just as much, who want to give their kids a good upbringing and a good education, who pay their taxes just like the president's more conservative supporters and who help their kids say their prayers at night. They also resent that conservatives have co-opted the concept of morality, as if only republicans have good morals. It's terribly unjust and bound to make enemies of people who might otherwise have been much more receptive.

Many of these same folks believe that freedom of religion is protected by the concept of separation of church and state, and that though abortion is a very serious step they might not choose for themselves, it should ultimately be the woman's right to choose. On these issues I understand their concerns and, frankly, agree with them. (Yes, there is a bit of libertarian in me.) Many of my conservative friends would have me believe that these are not legitimate values, but I value freedom and empowering individuals, as Papasmurf referenced, too much to dismiss them out of hand, as President Bush gives the impression that he does, lacking information and actions to the contrary.

This is not to say that these folks don't respect and appreciate President Bush on other issues, but from what I can see, they are disappointed by what seems to be his tendency to act according to the will of some of the people, but not all of the people. That's surely a fine line to walk, but he is the president, and that is his lot.

YMMV,
Polygirl

I doubt I'm the only one, but for sake of discussion, I do qualify. Do we know each other? Don't tell me you're a southern boy living way up north where it gets really cold!

Polygirl

Ben, I'm afraid you and I may have to agree to disagree on this one. I know many very fine moderate democrats with whom I have spoken at length, some of whom I consider friends, and none resemble in attitude the extreme liberal you describe. Guess what - they don't like Michael Moore either!

The blue state/red state thing, though useful in practical terms, has taken on a life of its own in ways that just makes the division worse than it already is. Yes, myopic passifist liberals who think we can just engage terrorists in dialogue and get them to see the light are thick upon the ground. And yes, extremist Marxian liberals exist who are too naive to recognize how consistent capitalism is with human nature. And yes, there are plenty of schmucks like Michael Moore around to give moderate democrats a bad name. And I agree that slashing tires and so forth is despicable. But these are not the democrats I know, though they *are* the ones the media loves to showcase, just like it likes to sensationalize negative images of the war in Iraq. The media doesn't give a fig as long as it it gets our attention, and extremists do get our attention, don't they? But just like religious extremists make many moderate republicans uncomfortable, so do the extremist liberals make the moderate democrats uncomfortable from what I've seen.

One of the great challenges in uniting our country again is persuading people to stop painting huge groups of people who have some things - but not all things - in common with the same brush. I invite you to join me in setting a good example by resisting that urge. What I see from right to left and left to right is a bell curve, with lots of moderate, moral, good, patriotic Americans making up most of it. Many of the democratic ones are feeling disenfranchised - they held their noses and voted for Kerry because they are still more philosophically, moderately liberal than conservative, but they were less than enthusiastic about the guy and have understandable concerns about the ability to the Democratic party to see that their interests are adequately represented. Lord knows it abandoned them this time.

YMMV

Respectfully,
Polygirl

Though as you can tell from my response to BenLurkin, I don't agree with everything you said, I agree with and thank you for making the main point, i.e. that the divisiveness needs to come to an end and we need to find a way once again be "one nation, indivisible." I am very troubled by the clear escalation of hostilities here at home that we've witnessed this year.

Quite honestly, though I respect him in many ways, I'm disappointed in President Bush for exacerbating the problem by pandering to religious extremists (and I mean extremists, as opposed to moderate Christians like myself, many of whom are turned off by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson). President Bush has given good lip service to being a uniter instead of a divider, but his actions in many instances have said otherwise. On this point history will be the judge as to how he conducts himself in his second term, not having to worry about being re-elected. I dearly hope he does the right thing not just according to his own conscience, but also according to the will of *all* of the people, not just those who voted for him.

I realize that it may be politically incorrect to say this here, but that never stopped me from calling it like I see it, and in my book, the president gets several points off so far for failing to be a president most people can manage to respect, at least moderately. The fact that he is so clearly disliked by so many democrats, not just the extremely liberal ones but the moderate ones as well, makes it hard for me to dismiss the feeling that he really doesn't care all that much what Americans who don't share his views want, and that makes him president of only some of the people instead of all of the people.

Loyalty to the president is important, but I can't in good conscience be blindly loyal. Neither am I disingenuous enough to blast liberals for the slightest perceived slight, as so many in this forum do, while President Bush fails to walk his talk and take clear steps to bring us all together. I hold all presidents accountable on this point, no more, and no less.

Of course, YMMV (Your mileage may vary.)

Polygirl

I'd have to disagree. I'm a moderate, and I'll have to say that never in my 51 years of living can I recall a more contentious, hateful election as the one just passed. The whole process felt torturous to me, and I am profoundly relieved that it is finally over.

From my point of view, both parties are guilty of shameful acts of divisiveness. With every politically motivated shot fired, no matter which party fired it, the pull was extreme, or at least that's how I experienced it. It's all spin spin spin - being disingenuous is the status quo of politics today - keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em BS until they don't know what to believe.

My only comfort is that saying that goes, "Democracy is the worst system of government in the world - except for all those other systems."

Polygirl

Apology accepted, oh gracious one. :)

Polygirl

I'm definitely a Heinlein fan, but not necessarily for his views on military service. It's his views on non-possessive love relationships that resonate for me.

YMMV

Polygirl

You said about the dems: They prove their colors. They are vile, hate-filled people.

----------------------------------------------------

It seems that it takes one to know one. If only such matters were that simple.

Certainly any *individual* who would say such a thing is vile, but to then cast such aspersions on a huge portion of the population whose political point of view matches hers is short sighted, to say the least. I have friends who are moderate liberals, and they would be just as appalled at such a suggestion as you are. Hatefulness has no political affiliation.

From another perspective, I imagine that this person likely didn't really mean to wish Mrs. Cheney ill and was just venting emotions due to disappointment at the outcome of the election.

As someone I respect says, all generalizations are false.

As far as I'm concerned Vioxx was a miracle drug - the morning I woke up to the news it was being removed from the market I said a very bad word indeed. Except for this unfortuate, recently discovered problem, it was an excellent, excellent medication that provided a better quality of life for all who took it - to say that it mattered under whose watch it was approved is ridiculous.

Vioxx kept me moving despite severe arthritis in my lower back for several years. I respect its makers for withdrawing it but hope they find a safer replacement really soon. So far nothing else works as well.

Polygirl

I'll have to say that the general drift of this thread is anything but hysterical as far as I'm concerned. I'm no big anti-smoking crusader by a long shot - my libertarian tendencies would never permit it. But that said, there is uncontrovertable proof that smoking kills thousands and thousands of people every year due to heart disease, lung cancer and emphysema. Let's not bullzhit ourselves (love that more gentile way of spelling it!)

Just in case you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I used to smoke myself and loved it but was forced to give it up by my former husband.

To illustrate my point, my fabulous son-in-law infantry SSG deployed to the sandbox in January. He has always been extremely close to his paternal grandmother, whom he feared he would never see again because she was in very poor health. Fortunately he did get to see her in July when he was home on leave, which is a good thing, because she died two weeks ago - of emphysema. She had smoked all her life. The night she died, another grandson who was caring for her served her a hot toddy, gave her her last cigarette of the day, then tucked her in. She died in her sleep later that night.

She was in her early '70s, and the quality of her life for the last several years was awful - she was in ever increasing pain and couldn't breathe well enough to enjoy her life. She actually wanted to die long before she did.

Now my infantry squad leader son-in-law is grieving the earlier-than-necessary death of his grandmother while he conducts mission after mission with no more than three hours sleep at a time and tries like hell to keep his squad and himself alive. God knows he doesn't need the distraction.

Ironically, both he and my daughter smoke, though both would like to quit. My daughter has smoked for more than ten years, started when she was 16 and today is the first to admit that it was a dumb-ass thing to do. But teenagers often don't have the life experience to anticipate the consequences down the road - hence the danger of romanticizing smoking like is being done here. Before we try to convince anyone that smoking is harmless, let's think about what it might do to those who love us if we are wrong.

Just my opinion, of course. YMMV. (Your mileage may vary.)

Polygirl

JLAGRAYFOX, I'm sure there are many things you and I would see eye-to-eye on, but in this instance, I find the extreme nature of your point of view very unsettling, even, dare I say it, unAmerican. Now before you go off on me, please hear me out and consider the following.

What you advocate is exactly the attitude Saddam Hussein holds and what put thousands of dissenters into mass graves in Iraq on, of all places, a college campus. Their only crime was speaking out in dissent, something Saddam, like yourself, isn't willing to tolerate. It is the freedom of all Americans to express their views and fight for what they believe in that our soldiers are protecting and dieing for, even as I write this. I know you mean to honor them, but with this kind of rhetoric you do exactly the opposite.

A big piece of what makes America great is that it permits dissenting points of view, even those some of us find offensive. This you cannot deny. Hate the democrats if you like, but what you propose isn't freedom, it's fascism.

I know this doesn't square with your resentment and hostility, however well founded. To resolve this conundrum, I recommend investigating the concept of emotional intelligence.

As for me, I may not agree with what other Americans say, but I will be the first to speak out in favor of their right to say it.

YMMV

Polygirl

I'd say it has more to do with the vast majority of them being in their 20s and 30s and reallyreallyreallyreallyreally buff.

Polygirl

Uh, dude, they already did that - The American Soldier is the Time Magazine person of the year for 2003. Check it out:



Polygirl