LA’s GONE MORAL?

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20187968.post-1139288314172294542006-02-06T21:03:00.000-06:002006-02-06T22:58:34.290-06:00LA’s GONE MORAL?Well, well, well. We’ve got a new moral majority. In Los Angeles of all places. A newspaper out there and its little boy columnist are suffering angst over the moral question of our military and the question of their bearing arms in Iraq—and whether we should support them there and on their return. He doesn’t advocate “spitting on them,” he says. But he seems to wonder if they should obey orders over there. Sounds to me like he’s advocating mutiny with that treasonous little suggestion. I wonder what closet these guys have been living in that they think there’s a moral issue about ousting a wild animal of a military dictator and his regime, when Saddam butchered his own people, using poison gas against them, and routinely sent terror squads out against a defenseless population. There’s a moral issue about keeping your eyes and your doors shut while your neighbor gets raped, if you ask me – and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if we just ignored Iraq and Afghanistan – especially after 9/11. After all, Saddam wrote checks to reward suicide bombers, didn’t he? Is there anyone who disputes that fact? Is there anybody who TRULY believes there’s a better form of government than ours? Or a better place to live? Or that it’s really WRONG to help others who WANT this FREEDOM to get it IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY? No, I don’t think the newspaper or the columnist really believes the bull they’re putting out. A six-year-old child can think more logically than that. For example, following the thought to its conclusion, if one of those gangs out there in LA decided to call on the little columnist with their AK’s, and he really believed that shooting folks is morally wrong, could he actually call on the gun-tottin' police force to protect him? Or would he just die for his moral values? Or is it only morally wrong when someone else is being protected with guns? Would it be OK for someone to protect HIM with a gun? Is it just morally wrong for us to help protect our neighbors in Iraq? [And there is some inconsistency with the liberal calls for us to dive into the Sudan and clean up that problem. How come there’s no moral problem there?] What’s happening here is simple. These guys are out to get some PR, some attention, just like when the nasty little guys used to write dirty words on the walls at school. Now, there’s a moral issue for you: it seems to me that it is very wrong to use an issue [support for the military] of such vital importance to the nation’s continued existence for a matter of personal gain, for a personal agenda like power mongering, and circulation growth, and political party lines--and to give aid and support to our enemies. Then, of course, there’s the moral issue of the impact on each and every person out on the sharp edge fighting to protect us from those who would rather be fighting on American soil, and on their families. My personal idea is that we don’t mention the name of the newspaper or the columnist. But I don’t think either of them offers anything we can’t find on the web, or on Fox – or somewhere that supports the values we support – so I suggest that subscribers who disagree with their columnist call ‘em up and drop your subscriptions to that newspaper, and tell ‘em it’s because they can’t fully support our troops – and our country---and that you feel it’s a moral issue. That’ll bring it home. Then write a letter to a soldier, and tell him or her what you did. That might help bring that soldier home. You never can tell what a lift in morale will do. [To write to a service member: http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/]MaggieChurchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14126424014161615574noreply@blogger.com