Wednesday, September 29, 2004
My Son
In July of this year, my son Jeremy joined the Army. He said it was something he always wanted to do. As of today, he is nearing the end of his basic training. In the long run, what ends up happening from here is anyone's guess.
It wasn't my idea that he join, and I let him know in no uncertain terms when he told me of his decision that I did not approve, to put it mildly. I also let him know that he was still my son regardless. So now I have this dilemma.
I've spent the better part of my life protesting almost everything that my son now stands for. So what do you do? Interesting enough, at times like this, sometimes your children turn out to be smarter than you think, and at least smarter than you are.
This past weekend, I visited with Jeremy at Fort Benning. We had some time to sit and talk about life, about how things have turned out, and about a few things that it turns out we didn't know about each other, even though we are and have always been close. I told him how proud I am of him, and the fact that he is doing something that has brought him a sense of pride and satisfaction. I mentioned this to him, and further mentioned that my feelings about his decision were still tempered by my complete disapproval of the way our President has handled world affairs during his term, including events in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We talked about the Republican line spouted so often by the Vice President that critcizing the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan undercuts the morale of the troops. The last thing I would want would be to undercut my son's morale should he find himself over there. Jeremy's response to this was that criticism of the President's decisions, good or bad, is one of the very things that soldiers are there for. There is nothing more American than the freedom we have to voice our dissent. By doing so, we are not undercutting the morale of the troops. We have the right to question our President's decision and motives. As Jeremy says, even if he is there, if I am exercising my right of peaceful dissent, that boosts the troops. It is not a criticism of the troops. It is a peaceful, lawful expression of dissent, the very right President Bush says he is trying to bring to the Iraqi people; therefore, in a way, it does not undercut morale. It only serves to strengthen it.
So in the end, it comes back to me full circle. He's my son. I could not be more proud of him.
And I'm scared to death.
It wasn't my idea that he join, and I let him know in no uncertain terms when he told me of his decision that I did not approve, to put it mildly. I also let him know that he was still my son regardless. So now I have this dilemma.
I've spent the better part of my life protesting almost everything that my son now stands for. So what do you do? Interesting enough, at times like this, sometimes your children turn out to be smarter than you think, and at least smarter than you are.
This past weekend, I visited with Jeremy at Fort Benning. We had some time to sit and talk about life, about how things have turned out, and about a few things that it turns out we didn't know about each other, even though we are and have always been close. I told him how proud I am of him, and the fact that he is doing something that has brought him a sense of pride and satisfaction. I mentioned this to him, and further mentioned that my feelings about his decision were still tempered by my complete disapproval of the way our President has handled world affairs during his term, including events in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We talked about the Republican line spouted so often by the Vice President that critcizing the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan undercuts the morale of the troops. The last thing I would want would be to undercut my son's morale should he find himself over there. Jeremy's response to this was that criticism of the President's decisions, good or bad, is one of the very things that soldiers are there for. There is nothing more American than the freedom we have to voice our dissent. By doing so, we are not undercutting the morale of the troops. We have the right to question our President's decision and motives. As Jeremy says, even if he is there, if I am exercising my right of peaceful dissent, that boosts the troops. It is not a criticism of the troops. It is a peaceful, lawful expression of dissent, the very right President Bush says he is trying to bring to the Iraqi people; therefore, in a way, it does not undercut morale. It only serves to strengthen it.
So in the end, it comes back to me full circle. He's my son. I could not be more proud of him.
And I'm scared to death.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
A Modest Conservative Proposal
All right, I confess. I'm liberal, and I'm biased.
So sue me.
On the other hand, if you're a fan of President Bush, and his solution to almost everything, call one of your corporate buddies, have them do something to me, and then convince your friends in Congress to pass legislation immunizing the corporate suits from my subsequent frivolous lawsuit.
I'm amazed at my Republican friends in conservative parts of the country. I always thought that conservatism trumpeted the individual and individual rights. So why is it that the solution to all matters corporate under President Bush is to pass legislation lowering the taxes of corporations, thereby forcing the rest of us to shoulder the burden, and to further increase corporate profits by denying the rights of legitimate lawsuits to go forward.
If you think that Bush is really concerned about his so called frivolous lawsuit explosion, think again. Note that every one of his proposals to limit damages in personal injury lawsuits concern when a corporate special interest is on the line. Note that there has been no proposal to limit damages in automobile accident cases, in which the most likely defendant is an individual. He has, however, proposed limiting damages in actions against doctors, gun manufacturers, oil companies, tobacco companies and countless other special interest groups. He has also championed easing off on regulations that would keep corporations in line, ensure quality products, ensure that he truly stewards the environment, etc.
On that note, here's a truly conservative proposal, that in the finest conservative tradition, truly champions the rights of the individual, while ensuring in the long run that corporations don't get subject to "frivolous lawsuits".
Let's leave qualilty standards for corporations that have been previously established intact. In fact, let's make product standards more stringent. Let's make environmental standards that corporations must satisfy more stringent. This will force corporations to toe the line and manufacture products that are not dangerous. The better the product, the less likely any lawsuit will be filed. After all, even if a lawsuit is ultimately deemed frivolous, lawsuits don't start unless somebody rightly or wrongly thought they were injured in the first place. If they don't think they were hurt, they don't sue. By making the standards more consumer friendly, rather than the other way around, ultimately, the product becomes more consumer friendly, the individual is protected, and so is the corporation, when less litigation results. Bottom line -- happier individual, more profitable corporation.
How conservative.
So sue me.
On the other hand, if you're a fan of President Bush, and his solution to almost everything, call one of your corporate buddies, have them do something to me, and then convince your friends in Congress to pass legislation immunizing the corporate suits from my subsequent frivolous lawsuit.
I'm amazed at my Republican friends in conservative parts of the country. I always thought that conservatism trumpeted the individual and individual rights. So why is it that the solution to all matters corporate under President Bush is to pass legislation lowering the taxes of corporations, thereby forcing the rest of us to shoulder the burden, and to further increase corporate profits by denying the rights of legitimate lawsuits to go forward.
If you think that Bush is really concerned about his so called frivolous lawsuit explosion, think again. Note that every one of his proposals to limit damages in personal injury lawsuits concern when a corporate special interest is on the line. Note that there has been no proposal to limit damages in automobile accident cases, in which the most likely defendant is an individual. He has, however, proposed limiting damages in actions against doctors, gun manufacturers, oil companies, tobacco companies and countless other special interest groups. He has also championed easing off on regulations that would keep corporations in line, ensure quality products, ensure that he truly stewards the environment, etc.
On that note, here's a truly conservative proposal, that in the finest conservative tradition, truly champions the rights of the individual, while ensuring in the long run that corporations don't get subject to "frivolous lawsuits".
Let's leave qualilty standards for corporations that have been previously established intact. In fact, let's make product standards more stringent. Let's make environmental standards that corporations must satisfy more stringent. This will force corporations to toe the line and manufacture products that are not dangerous. The better the product, the less likely any lawsuit will be filed. After all, even if a lawsuit is ultimately deemed frivolous, lawsuits don't start unless somebody rightly or wrongly thought they were injured in the first place. If they don't think they were hurt, they don't sue. By making the standards more consumer friendly, rather than the other way around, ultimately, the product becomes more consumer friendly, the individual is protected, and so is the corporation, when less litigation results. Bottom line -- happier individual, more profitable corporation.
How conservative.
