...is to not waste the lives already lost. Everyone knows that is not a reason to continue a war. Why lose more people when the war is basically lost.
What I find interesting and far more logical and reasonable is the common plea from survivors, families and friends that have experienced gun violence in the USA. That plea from them to their government, is "...we are alright, but, be sure my son/daughter/husband/wife/mother/father did not experience this or die without a meaningful conclusion to this loss we all own now."
There is a common thread there. Democrats and those that have experienced gun violence / domestic violence want to uphold the dignity of life by seeking change to the laws that are required to protect us all. It is a common thread the Republicans understand when they seek to maintain a military engagement.
Common understanding. One of persons lost because of a military engagement for national defense of persons prepared to survive such a battle. One on the other hand people / person lost due to violence on USA streets. Streets where the equity of life is not the same for all. Some poor, some wealthy, some able to own guns, some not. So, the common thread really is not the same except for the 'feeling' or 'idea.' In fact that common thread is based in inequity. A common understanding of loss of life that sincerely not the same but 'taped into' to find sympathy for a failed war engagement.
What is interesting about that 'common ground' is that the relationship is based in wealth, isn't it? There is no equity in comparing soldiers prepared and armed for war and those citizens on the streets of the USA that soldiers seek to protect.
The real common ground is wealth. The wealth others reap from a military economy. We all know the assessments of the past where the USA economy benefits from the 'war economy.' So, when Republicans state, we need to continue a war for the sake of those lost, they aren't really saying the same thing regardless of the common ground of understanding with victims of gun violence on the streets of the USA. They aren't saying the same thing at all.
Americans facing a 'street' where there are too many guns are sincerely victims. Soldiers are not victims. The families experience similar loss and the feelings are the same for those dead and missing among the love of a family, but, the loss is grossly different. It is different on a societal level. It is. That delineation is there and it is an honest delineation.
So, what I find oddly convenient for Republicans is that they seek to make the family's loss of a soldier a higher order of social structure than that of a victim of gun violence due to the high number of guns on the streets of America. The Republicans literally corrupt the moral content of war. They corrupt the moral content of a country that honor the loss of their soldiers and they do so for the sake of wealth.
In the case of victims of gun violence, the Republicans take a 'line' on the same venue of wealth. They undermine the highest order of the value of life in the USA and honor instead the wealth of those that exploit the safety of a nation. Literally, people in worship of God, people attending a movie, children in an elementary school are DEPERSONALIZED by the very governments that are suppose to protect them.
Is that dangerous to the very society the USA claims to be the pride of the world?
The political problems in the USA are profound. They are so very profound the governments won't protect the very electorate so much as manipulate their loyalties in the voting booth through expenditures of wealth.
So.
Therefore.
That very society of the USA cannot claim to be that shining city on the hill, now can it? Is a Taliban militia that seeks to use examples of citizenry by beheading one here and one there on a former soccer field or hanging an occasional adolescent from a tree in the town square to TEACH lessons any worse than those that turn their backs on Americans slaughtered by the gun lobby / industry? I know what I think. I also believe soul searching needs to be a real value of those that can't commit to make the USA safer rather than a market place.
Oh. Is the analogy too severe? How about that?
BECAUSE...
There is a lesson being taught to the people of the USA by the NRA and the Republican Party and that is; if you don't arm yourselves you will die and we don't give a damn if you do.
What I find interesting and far more logical and reasonable is the common plea from survivors, families and friends that have experienced gun violence in the USA. That plea from them to their government, is "...we are alright, but, be sure my son/daughter/husband/wife/mother/father did not experience this or die without a meaningful conclusion to this loss we all own now."
There is a common thread there. Democrats and those that have experienced gun violence / domestic violence want to uphold the dignity of life by seeking change to the laws that are required to protect us all. It is a common thread the Republicans understand when they seek to maintain a military engagement.
Common understanding. One of persons lost because of a military engagement for national defense of persons prepared to survive such a battle. One on the other hand people / person lost due to violence on USA streets. Streets where the equity of life is not the same for all. Some poor, some wealthy, some able to own guns, some not. So, the common thread really is not the same except for the 'feeling' or 'idea.' In fact that common thread is based in inequity. A common understanding of loss of life that sincerely not the same but 'taped into' to find sympathy for a failed war engagement.
What is interesting about that 'common ground' is that the relationship is based in wealth, isn't it? There is no equity in comparing soldiers prepared and armed for war and those citizens on the streets of the USA that soldiers seek to protect.
The real common ground is wealth. The wealth others reap from a military economy. We all know the assessments of the past where the USA economy benefits from the 'war economy.' So, when Republicans state, we need to continue a war for the sake of those lost, they aren't really saying the same thing regardless of the common ground of understanding with victims of gun violence on the streets of the USA. They aren't saying the same thing at all.
Americans facing a 'street' where there are too many guns are sincerely victims. Soldiers are not victims. The families experience similar loss and the feelings are the same for those dead and missing among the love of a family, but, the loss is grossly different. It is different on a societal level. It is. That delineation is there and it is an honest delineation.
So, what I find oddly convenient for Republicans is that they seek to make the family's loss of a soldier a higher order of social structure than that of a victim of gun violence due to the high number of guns on the streets of America. The Republicans literally corrupt the moral content of war. They corrupt the moral content of a country that honor the loss of their soldiers and they do so for the sake of wealth.
In the case of victims of gun violence, the Republicans take a 'line' on the same venue of wealth. They undermine the highest order of the value of life in the USA and honor instead the wealth of those that exploit the safety of a nation. Literally, people in worship of God, people attending a movie, children in an elementary school are DEPERSONALIZED by the very governments that are suppose to protect them.
Is that dangerous to the very society the USA claims to be the pride of the world?
The political problems in the USA are profound. They are so very profound the governments won't protect the very electorate so much as manipulate their loyalties in the voting booth through expenditures of wealth.
So.
Therefore.
That very society of the USA cannot claim to be that shining city on the hill, now can it? Is a Taliban militia that seeks to use examples of citizenry by beheading one here and one there on a former soccer field or hanging an occasional adolescent from a tree in the town square to TEACH lessons any worse than those that turn their backs on Americans slaughtered by the gun lobby / industry? I know what I think. I also believe soul searching needs to be a real value of those that can't commit to make the USA safer rather than a market place.
Oh. Is the analogy too severe? How about that?
BECAUSE...
There is a lesson being taught to the people of the USA by the NRA and the Republican Party and that is; if you don't arm yourselves you will die and we don't give a damn if you do.
