This is a blog entry that I did for the The People's Campaign for the Constitution.
http://bit.ly/aefe6L
- Posted using BlogPress from my iTouch
Friday, March 26, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The difference that isn't
There has been a lot hysterical wind blowing recently about what a raging liberal (cum socialist) Barack Obama is.
If there was ever a negation of that rhetoric it is here: Obama to sign executive order on abortion limits Wednesday. Clearly there are agenda items that are shared by both parties. One of them is the willingness to negotiate women's sovereignty over their bodies. Clearly Obama shares the religious and conservative view that a woman's body is merely a vessel in which the state has a compelling interest.
I suppose, or at the very least hope, that there will come a time when women's bodies and rights are no longer pawns on the political chess board for men to play with as they will; a time when men - who would bristle at any thought that their bodies and their personal integrity are not inviolable - will recognize in woman an identical perspective; a time when Christian religious doctrine will not trump the rights of women, regardless of their own personal religious or moral beliefs
My sister - who is a devout Christian - claims that I do not believe in God. This is not true, I simply see no compelling reason to posit one. What I do not believe in, what enrages me beyond reason at times, is religion. Or rather, the man (and the gender reference is used advisedly in this case) made construct of rules intending to regulate what people believe.
There has been much written of late of the evolutionary psychological roots of religion and the role that it played in the formation of civilization. And I take no issue with the past, what was useful to my ancestors, what may or may not have helped the human race move forward - if forward is in fact how we have moved (we are more "civilized" only in our level of sophistication, from a behavioral perspective we are the same old animals we ever were) - what I take issue with is the idea that it is all still relevant.
Understand, I am not talking about this from a personal perspective - worship Santa Claus if you want (something we do starting right after Halloween and ending around January 15th) - what I object to is the regulation of belief, the politics of spirituality if you will.
I object to the idea that someone - anyone - needs someone else to tell them what to believe, or not to believe. I particularly object to the idea that I must regulate my behavior - or in this case my wife or daughter must - because of what some other people believe that their deity has said must be done - or not done; because most of religious doctrine concerns itself with what not to do.
Despite Christ's exhortations that the restrictions of the Pharisees were preventing people from having a personal relationship with God, the man made infrastructure that was used to recapture the people from Christ's populism has concerned itself primarily with authority - with telling people what they were "allowed" by God to do.
And so we end up here - with the politics of sprituality making deals with the politics of secularity to repress women (the favorite whipping-girl of religion since the suppression of the goddess cults.) To own their reproductive capacity and treat them as vessels for the designs of (religious) men.
The only upside of all of that we can now rest assured that Obama really is no different than most other men.
If there was ever a negation of that rhetoric it is here: Obama to sign executive order on abortion limits Wednesday. Clearly there are agenda items that are shared by both parties. One of them is the willingness to negotiate women's sovereignty over their bodies. Clearly Obama shares the religious and conservative view that a woman's body is merely a vessel in which the state has a compelling interest.
I suppose, or at the very least hope, that there will come a time when women's bodies and rights are no longer pawns on the political chess board for men to play with as they will; a time when men - who would bristle at any thought that their bodies and their personal integrity are not inviolable - will recognize in woman an identical perspective; a time when Christian religious doctrine will not trump the rights of women, regardless of their own personal religious or moral beliefs
My sister - who is a devout Christian - claims that I do not believe in God. This is not true, I simply see no compelling reason to posit one. What I do not believe in, what enrages me beyond reason at times, is religion. Or rather, the man (and the gender reference is used advisedly in this case) made construct of rules intending to regulate what people believe.
There has been much written of late of the evolutionary psychological roots of religion and the role that it played in the formation of civilization. And I take no issue with the past, what was useful to my ancestors, what may or may not have helped the human race move forward - if forward is in fact how we have moved (we are more "civilized" only in our level of sophistication, from a behavioral perspective we are the same old animals we ever were) - what I take issue with is the idea that it is all still relevant.
Understand, I am not talking about this from a personal perspective - worship Santa Claus if you want (something we do starting right after Halloween and ending around January 15th) - what I object to is the regulation of belief, the politics of spirituality if you will.
I object to the idea that someone - anyone - needs someone else to tell them what to believe, or not to believe. I particularly object to the idea that I must regulate my behavior - or in this case my wife or daughter must - because of what some other people believe that their deity has said must be done - or not done; because most of religious doctrine concerns itself with what not to do.
Despite Christ's exhortations that the restrictions of the Pharisees were preventing people from having a personal relationship with God, the man made infrastructure that was used to recapture the people from Christ's populism has concerned itself primarily with authority - with telling people what they were "allowed" by God to do.
And so we end up here - with the politics of sprituality making deals with the politics of secularity to repress women (the favorite whipping-girl of religion since the suppression of the goddess cults.) To own their reproductive capacity and treat them as vessels for the designs of (religious) men.
The only upside of all of that we can now rest assured that Obama really is no different than most other men.
Powered by Qumana
Monday, March 22, 2010
Who is right?
On Friday I got two bits of email in my mailbox.
One was this: Virginia killer who sent taunting letter executed about the execution of a man by electrocution at the hands of the State of Virginia.
The second was this, from the Dali Lama:
In the interest of full disclosure, let say straight out that, if someone harmed my daughter in the way this man did, or in any of the other horrible ways that humans can inflict suffering on each other, I would want to murder them. Slowly, painfully. I would want to look into their eyes while they died.
But here's the thing. I live in the society of others as a buffer against my my, and others, baser instincts. I want the people around me to encourage me to higher ground, to help me to see what I already understand: that no amount of suffering inflicted on someone who has done me or mine damage, "pays" for the damage done. It simple increases the sum total of suffering in the world.
I want people like the Dali Lama to encourage me back to the basic rules of humanity.
What I don't want, need nor benefit from is institutionalization of revenge by the state. Do we really think that this state sponsored taking the life has lessened the pain or suffering of this family?
What I know is my heart of hearts - that part of me that is roughed over by reason and intellect - is that if I indulged my desire for revenge it would damage me. It would lessen me. It would make me, in many ways, indistinguishable from the person whose suffering I "enjoyed."
What this man did was horrible, inconceivably painful both to the victims and those left living. But it cannot be unforgivable.
If what we do is kill killers, all we are saying is that there are "good" reasons to take a human life. Once we have done that, we are then free, as individuals, to appropriate that reasoning and make it our own. And so we have this man that saw his racial hatred as a "good" reason to do what he did to his victims. And I think killing him for what he has done is a "good" reason.
And on it goes.
One was this: Virginia killer who sent taunting letter executed about the execution of a man by electrocution at the hands of the State of Virginia.
The second was this, from the Dali Lama:
We should not seek revenge on those who have committed crimes against us, or reply to their crimes with other crimes. We should reflect that by the law of karma, they are in danger of lowly and miserable lives to come, and that our duty to them, as to every being, is to help them to rise towards Nirvana, rather than let them sink to lower levels of rebirth.Now, I am not a believer in the supernatural - the Buddhist version, the Christian version, the Santa Claus version - none of it. I also do not believe that things always work out to the end of justice. Nice guys do finish last and bad guys do die in splendor and comfort. But I have to go with the Dali Lama on this one.
In the interest of full disclosure, let say straight out that, if someone harmed my daughter in the way this man did, or in any of the other horrible ways that humans can inflict suffering on each other, I would want to murder them. Slowly, painfully. I would want to look into their eyes while they died.
But here's the thing. I live in the society of others as a buffer against my my, and others, baser instincts. I want the people around me to encourage me to higher ground, to help me to see what I already understand: that no amount of suffering inflicted on someone who has done me or mine damage, "pays" for the damage done. It simple increases the sum total of suffering in the world.
I want people like the Dali Lama to encourage me back to the basic rules of humanity.
What I don't want, need nor benefit from is institutionalization of revenge by the state. Do we really think that this state sponsored taking the life has lessened the pain or suffering of this family?
What I know is my heart of hearts - that part of me that is roughed over by reason and intellect - is that if I indulged my desire for revenge it would damage me. It would lessen me. It would make me, in many ways, indistinguishable from the person whose suffering I "enjoyed."
What this man did was horrible, inconceivably painful both to the victims and those left living. But it cannot be unforgivable.
If what we do is kill killers, all we are saying is that there are "good" reasons to take a human life. Once we have done that, we are then free, as individuals, to appropriate that reasoning and make it our own. And so we have this man that saw his racial hatred as a "good" reason to do what he did to his victims. And I think killing him for what he has done is a "good" reason.
And on it goes.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Now who's lying?
I am in the process of reading conservative entertainer Michael Medved's book 5 Big Lies about American Business. I am not far into it admittedly, but it got me thnking.
In the intro section of the book Medved says this: "Ever since FDR's New Deal in the 1930's, and perhaps since the Progressive Era of thirty years before, the public has expressed queasiness and uncertainty regarding the profit motive."
Now, maybe it's me, but I think that human's uncomfortableness with wealth and "the profit motive" has been around a hell of a lot longer than 110 years. For instance, here is chapter 53 from the Tao te Ching, written 500 years before Christ:
The great Way is easy,
yet people prefer the side paths.
Be aware when things are out of balance.
Stay centered within the Tao.
When rich speculators prosper
While farmers lose their land;
when government officials spend money
on weapons instead of cures;
when the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible
while the poor have nowhere to turn-
all this is robbery and chaos.
It is not in keeping with the Tao.
And here is Christ himself speaking, Matthew 19:24: And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
The Catholic Church had rules against usary (i.e. interest) and forbade those who engaged in it from taking the sacraments (thereby consigning the business of moneylending to the Jews and establishing the pattern of pogroms when ever times got bad.)
Essentially everyone from Plato and Aristotle to Cato and Seneca, condemed the practice of charging people money for the use of money.
Even John Calvin, the spiritual father of Capitalism considered profit making to be only for the glory of God, as a show of mercy to those who lack.
So I am hereby proposing a 6th Big Lie for Mr. Medved: Progressives and liberals are the only people who are uncomfortable with the excesses of our gratuitously consumptive society. It seems pretty clear from a historical perspective that, if there is any being who is uncomfortable with the profit motive, it it is God (Jesus, the Tao, the Universe, etc. etc. etc.)
Powered by Qumana
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The time is now
The Purists - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com
A great commentary. Kucinich, it appears (the vote hasn't happened yet), has decided forgo righteousness in the name of compassion for his constituents. What a novel idea!
Here's the deal: If this congress cannot pass health care reform - any health care reform - then health care will join abortion and guns as a third rail in American politics. No one will touch it again for years, maybe even decades. These days it appears that Obama is the only person who gets that.
A good compromise is when everyone walks away unhappy. Given the hysterical rhetoric, seems like we are close to a good compromise.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Update: What part of "fuck no" didn't you understand?
Do You Miss Him Yet? - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com
This guy starts off from the point where we last left off in this asinine perspective: with a reference to the sign some numbnuts (or several of them) put up in Minnesota. He goes from bad to worse however, by implying that he gets "I told you so" rights. He thinks this is the case because, in the words of the Newsweek article he is basing his perspective on:
“now almost seven hellish years later . . . something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq”; and, they add (eerily echoing Bush’s words in 2003), this development “most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.”He believes his prediction is right because Iraq is having an "election," because there has been a drop in Obama's popularity (a standard post election slide, Bush's poll numbers were in the high 40's prior to 9/11/01) and because of Obama's endorsement of Bushesque policies:
Guantanamo hasn’t been closed. No Child Left Behind is being revised and perhaps improved, but not repealed. The banks are still engaging in their bad practices. Partisanship is worse than ever. Obama seems about to back away from the decision to try 9/11 defendants in civilian courts, a prospect that led the ACLU to run an ad in Sunday’s Times with the subheading “Change or more of the same?” Above that question is a series of photographs that shows Obama morphing into guess who — yes, that’s right, George W. Bush.In other words, since his inauguration a little more than a year ago, Barack Obama has not fixed America or the world. Tsk. Tsk.
We have much to question in Obama's presidency and it is difficult to swallow some of the decisions that he has made, but there are many more decisions to admire.
- He has confronted partisanship head-on, in both his party and the other one. And do you really need to be reminded that the reason partisanship is as bad as it is is because the Republicans continue to practice the Atwater/Rove strategy of winning elections through scorched earth, fear driven and disparate minority coalition tactics that are focused on winning elections at all costs - even the good of the country or their own constituents?
- His budget has made an effort to address the crisis that we now face as well as to resolve two wars, and rehabilitate important structures that were allowed to wither on the vine by the Bush administration. One other minor point: one of the reasons Obama's budget looks the way it does is that he is actually including the cost of those two wars in the budget - something Bush administration never did.
- His foreign policy has gone a long way to repairing the damage done buy the Bush administration.
- Obama has appointed a largely honorable and effective cabinet of workers (including the retention of Robert Gates who has worked to end the antiquated cold war policies of the Bush administration) - as opposed to Bush's cabinet of CEOs.
- He has called for the end of the horrible "war on drugs"and has promised to end the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military.
And there will be revisionism about the Bush administration, the cited essay serves only to document the beginning of it. It will be used as a way of promoting the myths of Republican leadership, just as Reagan revisionism was used in the 2008 campaign.There is revisionism about every major historical person or event. Harry Truman was bad, but was "rehabilitated" by the administration of Bush 41.
The American public has a long history of ignorance about their own history and are easily deluded by a vast media array of almost continuous input. So I have no expectation but that W revisionism will be bought by the voters - this is what the whole Tea Party "movement" is about.
There is no doubt that people are unhappy, but what they are unhappy about is basically that Obama has not been able to undo the damage done by the Bush administration. The idea that people would want Bush back, or look back fondly on his administration is akin to the belief of a child seeking to escape the care of her stern grandmother by going back to her abusive father. It may seem like a good idea from a distance, but the reality would be far less than better.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Come On!
Mississippi school sued for canceling prom over lesbian student - CNN.com
Okay, I'm sorry, but aren't we to the point where we are just happy that someone has a date to the prom?
Well, no, wait. Fact is, I don't care two fucks about the prom, but do care that people in this world love and are loved by someone. Isn't that enough?
Christ, I am tired of this senseless struggle to get every one to conform to the ravings of some 2000 year old ascetic from the deserts of the Middle East. Aren't we civilized enough to recognize that love - any love - improves the world?
I mean really, is there something, anything, bad that can be associated with love? Well, I mean other than my first two marriages.
Okay, I'm sorry, but aren't we to the point where we are just happy that someone has a date to the prom?
Well, no, wait. Fact is, I don't care two fucks about the prom, but do care that people in this world love and are loved by someone. Isn't that enough?
Christ, I am tired of this senseless struggle to get every one to conform to the ravings of some 2000 year old ascetic from the deserts of the Middle East. Aren't we civilized enough to recognize that love - any love - improves the world?
I mean really, is there something, anything, bad that can be associated with love? Well, I mean other than my first two marriages.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Update - Wingnuts are persecuted
Judge in Memphis Grants Asylum to German Home Schoolers - NYTimes.com
This is an issue I commented on earlier. My question remains - and to date no one has answered it: How does the US grant "asylum" to people from a country whose government is democratically elected and who is a major leader in the area of human rights - even to the point of being ahead of the US on the issue?
It is particularly interesting that while our courts are doing this, they continue to support violations of human rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and a host of other countries.
Clearly this is a case of the right hand washing the right and nothing more.
This is an issue I commented on earlier. My question remains - and to date no one has answered it: How does the US grant "asylum" to people from a country whose government is democratically elected and who is a major leader in the area of human rights - even to the point of being ahead of the US on the issue?
It is particularly interesting that while our courts are doing this, they continue to support violations of human rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt and a host of other countries.
Clearly this is a case of the right hand washing the right and nothing more.
Powered by ScribeFire.
The politics of stupid
I am not a big fan of Roland Martin - his style of commentary is a little to melodramatic for my taste - but this column is right on the money.
The recent spate of protests by students has highlighted a crisis in higher education. This is something that has been brewing for quite some time and has now reached the explosive point in its fermentation. Martin points to this as a crisis arising from the Banking industry - a favorite whipping boy of the Obama administration (not that I am defending them.) Banks, it seems, make a great deal of profit from fees for processing loans insured by the government. Since there is virtually no risk to the banks, these fees are viewed as exorbitant. The nine or so billion that could be saved by eliminating these middle men seems large, but amounts to less than .10% of the current budget deficit and would likely be grabbed by some greater need even if it were saved.
While I agree with him about fixing the banking windfall, what Martin as well as Obama and other people who defend the "free market" approach to higher education seem not to be getting is that the problems are inherent in the system. Complaining about it is like complaining that your broken leg hurts. Of course it does, that's what it means to be broken. Likewise, our broken education system is feeling pain because its basis - the "free market" myth - is broken.
It is not that I am suggesting that capitalism or its potential benefits are mythological - though clearly there is a wealth of mythology surrounding capitalism. What I am suggesting is that capitalism - the free market and the invisible hand - is also capricious and cruel and that the role of government - at least the government put into place by the US Constitution - is to "promote the general welfare." Which, to my mind, means that there is a role for government both in in supporting a system that takes advantage of the potentials of capitalism and ameliorating the impact of capitalism on the population.
There are some who argue that the primary reform of education should consist in eliminating government's involvement in it altogether. I take the opposite view. There is a such broad and beneficial effect of an educated populace that, not only should government be involved, one of its primary functions should be to assure the existence of an educated populace.
As it is, we place a premium on stupid and seem to revile those who use their brains for something other than soaking up Jerry Springer (sorry, I will not provide a link to Jerry Springer. I. Just. Can't. Do it!)
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress on February 24, 2009, President Obama said "...tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training." Well Mr. President, going to school in the US takes a hell of a lot more than commitment. Since 1993 college tuition, in both public and private institutions, has trended up at a rate that is more than 45% above rate of increase for inflation. For most Americans - particularly that group caught in the middle class trap of making too much for aid but not enough to pay the bill - college costs have become prohibitive.
To me this is a simple thing: every citizen of the United States should have a free opportunity to gain the skills necessary to be competitive in their current labor market. Why? Well, one could go on about quality of life, etc. but the simple fact is that it would make America highly competitive. Don't believe me? Look at what happened in Ireland as a result of their totally free education system (including college.) This is the model for American success.
Unfortunately we are slaves to capitalism, which strikes me as not much different than being slaves to communism. If your ideology gets in your way - that is, it causes more problems than it solves - it is time to change the ideology. Sadly, as John Kenneth Galbraith once said, "When faced with the choice between changing and proving there is no need to do so, most people get busy with the proof."
Sounds like America to me.
The recent spate of protests by students has highlighted a crisis in higher education. This is something that has been brewing for quite some time and has now reached the explosive point in its fermentation. Martin points to this as a crisis arising from the Banking industry - a favorite whipping boy of the Obama administration (not that I am defending them.) Banks, it seems, make a great deal of profit from fees for processing loans insured by the government. Since there is virtually no risk to the banks, these fees are viewed as exorbitant. The nine or so billion that could be saved by eliminating these middle men seems large, but amounts to less than .10% of the current budget deficit and would likely be grabbed by some greater need even if it were saved.
While I agree with him about fixing the banking windfall, what Martin as well as Obama and other people who defend the "free market" approach to higher education seem not to be getting is that the problems are inherent in the system. Complaining about it is like complaining that your broken leg hurts. Of course it does, that's what it means to be broken. Likewise, our broken education system is feeling pain because its basis - the "free market" myth - is broken.
It is not that I am suggesting that capitalism or its potential benefits are mythological - though clearly there is a wealth of mythology surrounding capitalism. What I am suggesting is that capitalism - the free market and the invisible hand - is also capricious and cruel and that the role of government - at least the government put into place by the US Constitution - is to "promote the general welfare." Which, to my mind, means that there is a role for government both in in supporting a system that takes advantage of the potentials of capitalism and ameliorating the impact of capitalism on the population.
There are some who argue that the primary reform of education should consist in eliminating government's involvement in it altogether. I take the opposite view. There is a such broad and beneficial effect of an educated populace that, not only should government be involved, one of its primary functions should be to assure the existence of an educated populace.
As it is, we place a premium on stupid and seem to revile those who use their brains for something other than soaking up Jerry Springer (sorry, I will not provide a link to Jerry Springer. I. Just. Can't. Do it!)
In his first speech to a joint session of Congress on February 24, 2009, President Obama said "...tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training." Well Mr. President, going to school in the US takes a hell of a lot more than commitment. Since 1993 college tuition, in both public and private institutions, has trended up at a rate that is more than 45% above rate of increase for inflation. For most Americans - particularly that group caught in the middle class trap of making too much for aid but not enough to pay the bill - college costs have become prohibitive.
To me this is a simple thing: every citizen of the United States should have a free opportunity to gain the skills necessary to be competitive in their current labor market. Why? Well, one could go on about quality of life, etc. but the simple fact is that it would make America highly competitive. Don't believe me? Look at what happened in Ireland as a result of their totally free education system (including college.) This is the model for American success.
Unfortunately we are slaves to capitalism, which strikes me as not much different than being slaves to communism. If your ideology gets in your way - that is, it causes more problems than it solves - it is time to change the ideology. Sadly, as John Kenneth Galbraith once said, "When faced with the choice between changing and proving there is no need to do so, most people get busy with the proof."
Sounds like America to me.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Invisible warriors
It has always struck me as strange that, for a country as preoccupied with war as America is (between actual wars and clandestine wars America has been involved in some kind of conflict since the beginning of the 20th century), we do such a lousy job of taking care of our Veterans. Although the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict first brought the issue to the attention of the American public in some detail, every war America has engaged in has resulted in refugee warriors whose capacity to re-enter society was negatively affected by their experience in the theater of conflict. This has only been increased by the use of guerrilla warfare - now referred to as asynchronous warfare. The tactics used in this type of war - traps, roadside explosives, ambush and targeting of civilians - has made it far more difficult to adjust to the return to "normal" (as if civilian life were somehow a benchmark of normality) life.
As a result of this, suicides are up, homicides are up, domestic violence (also look here, and here and here) is up and drug and alcohol use is up. These things are, of course, inter-related, but the simple fact is that the conflicts were are involved in today are doing great damage to people. In particular the multiple deployments - something new and specific to these conflicts - are quite devastating to servicepeople and their families.
The tragedy is that these veterans - and regardless of how you feel about the conflicts, they are people who served their country at great personal cost - are not getting what they need (example, another and another - I could go on.) This, to me is simply immoral. I am not a supporter of war - particularly the aggressive wars of political adventurism that are at the basis of the conflicts this country has engaged in over the last 50 years. But, my god, if we are going to send these people into harm's way, we should at least have the decency to support them when they come home.
In the military there is a creed that "you never leave a soldier behind." But we are - not our leaders, not our government, not the military - we are. In America we have a civilian controlled military. That means it is "we the people" who are responsible for this travesty - quite simply, we don't want to spend the money on veteran care
This is an excellent story by Brian Mockenhaupt, an Iraq vet, in this month's Esquire Magazine. Read it. And then think about it when you are warm and safe and comfortable in your bed at night.
As a result of this, suicides are up, homicides are up, domestic violence (also look here, and here and here) is up and drug and alcohol use is up. These things are, of course, inter-related, but the simple fact is that the conflicts were are involved in today are doing great damage to people. In particular the multiple deployments - something new and specific to these conflicts - are quite devastating to servicepeople and their families.
The tragedy is that these veterans - and regardless of how you feel about the conflicts, they are people who served their country at great personal cost - are not getting what they need (example, another and another - I could go on.) This, to me is simply immoral. I am not a supporter of war - particularly the aggressive wars of political adventurism that are at the basis of the conflicts this country has engaged in over the last 50 years. But, my god, if we are going to send these people into harm's way, we should at least have the decency to support them when they come home.
In the military there is a creed that "you never leave a soldier behind." But we are - not our leaders, not our government, not the military - we are. In America we have a civilian controlled military. That means it is "we the people" who are responsible for this travesty - quite simply, we don't want to spend the money on veteran care
This is an excellent story by Brian Mockenhaupt, an Iraq vet, in this month's Esquire Magazine. Read it. And then think about it when you are warm and safe and comfortable in your bed at night.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
