July 25, 2007
A central thesis of Red Skirt’s essay is, I think, that the ethos of liberalism, feminism, hedonism, feel-goodness, and other “bad” notions so prevalent in the boomer generation, has given way to a sense of responsibility and morality in the generation we have raised. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, the most reasonable response is wow, raising your kids liberally must really work! And while I would love to take total credit for my terrific children, the truth is a little more complicated: as most parents instinctively know, value transmission is a two-way street. We try to inculcate our children with our values, but they also influence and change us. Furthermore, while we do influence our children to a certain extent, our children are far more influenced by their peers. So let’s spread the credit around: it belongs to kids, peers, and parents. In other words, we are all responsible for the way this generation has turned out.
Red Skirt also looks at this notion of morality and responsibility in our children through the prism of September 11. This very dark day made our kids grow up fast, she says, and for many it meant putting their patriotism into action, a patriotism that she says is curiously absent in our generation. About that we might be able to have a reasonable discussion. But she supports her argument through the perpetuation of falsehoods, and extremely offensive ones at that. Case in point: she accuses Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and others of considering our soldiers to be “baby-killers” (at no point in the hypertexted article that she references is Rangel or anyone else quoted as calling our troops “baby-killers.” Taking a quote out of context is bad enough. Inventing one is outrageous. Come on, Red Skirt, you’re smarter than Ann Coulter.) And we certainly do not demean the troops fighting in Iraq, a red herring that conservatives pull out in the vain hope that it will shut us up.
| • Read the Red Skirt entry Alice is responding to. |
The facts are as follows: Charlie Rangel did talk about proposing a military draft during the 2004 election. He did so because he believed, rightly so, that our fighting forces ought to more closely resemble the makeup of the nation (it currently does not). In other words, he thought that the children of wealthy war supporters ought to be exposed to the consequences of their support for said war. Specifically, he said:
"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility,"
Anyone got a problem with that? I wish Red Skirt’s children well as they go to fight our country on distant shores (they ARE going, aren’t they?). And along with my fellow feminists, aging hippies, and liberals, I salute their service to our country.
I wish that the President, who Red Skirt and other conservatives so blindly support, was behind our troops as much as Democrats in Congress are. And I call on Red Skirt, et.al. to write Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) and ask him to support the following, which the White House and other Republicans refuse to support, likely just because it was proposed by Democrats:
• A 3.5 percent pay raise for our military men and women.
• A $40/mo. increase in military survivor benefits
• Additional benefits for survivors of civilians killed in Iraq
• Price controls for prescription drugs under the military health care plan
That, to me, is real support for our troops. Of course, if you REALLY support our troops, if you want to keep them out of harm's way, if you hope that we will only ask our troops to fight necessary wars, you will also support those who think that they ought to start coming home, including “liberal firebrands” like Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and Gordon Smith (R-Oregon).
In the meantime, I’m going to the movies. And I’m going to watch a story about a family, consisting of two parents who love each other, raising three kids the best way they can, in small-town America. I speak, of course, of "The Simpsons".
Comments
LeeNYC (anonymous) says...
I protested the war in Viet Nam, though my boyfriend, now spouse, was serving there in '67-'68. I never thought of our soldiers as babykillers then, and I don't now. I believe that they were and are being sent to fight wars that can't be won to meet the economic and political objectives of a power elite. (Read about the Bush family's connections with the Saudi Royal family.) I raised my children to be honorable, ethical Americans who care about people in every country, and those less fortunate than they are. I'm proud to be an aging hippie, and I'm proud of Charlie Rangel, who never called an American soldier a baby-killer in his life!
July 25, 2007 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.