"During these three months of Dr. Coburn's hold, Kony's forces have gone on to attack, murder, and abduct innocent civilians across South Sudan, the DR Congo, and Central African Republic."
So I called the Senator's office and spoke with a nice young woman who explained that, yes, "Dr" Coburn has a hold on the LRA legislation, but she assured me he supports the legislation. He simply wants the sponsor (Feingold, evidently) to agree to cut spending in other areas, and that isn't happening.
I asked, as nicely as I could, "The Senator (I won't call him Dr.) knows that people are dying, right? " She said yes, but he supports the legislation. I pointed out that this was abhorrent (assured her that I knew she was just doing her job) and asked that she pass on to MY FUCKING SENATOR THAT FUSSING OVER SPENDING WHILE BLACK PEOPLE DIE IN AFRICA IS IMMORAL.
Though I most likely did not say it quite that way. I am so embarrassed by my representation.
16 comments:
Well, good on you for actually making the call while the rest of us sit here and sigh.
Our Africa policies are dreadful. I can't honestly remember the last President that was decent in that regard. Some, like Bush, have wasted money on stupid escapades, while others like Clinton ignored genocide (Rwanda).
Why is it America's job to keep Africans from killing each other? Why isn't that the responsibility of the Africans?
A.B., you are morally deranged. Leave this blog and go find one where the torturers and racists congregate. It isn't here.
You are the one who thinks the U.S. is the World's Policeman. I'd say that means you are delusional. Are you on medication?
No, I think that any of us have a responsibility to stop genocide and rape if we can. We can make a difference here.
Shouldn't you be on some right wing blog where they joke about killing non-whites for fun? Go away.
Yeah, AB, go ahead and bang the free market and global village drum when it's a matter of U.S. companies extorting African governments with inequitable trade conditions and using their populations for drug tests, but switch back to singing the self sufficiency and responsibility song when it comes to taking responsibility for the conditions we helped create. That doesn't in any way make you look like a blinkered idiot.
leighton,
If African govenments allow U.S. companies to use their people to test drugs, why should that put me under any moral obligation to keep Africans(or insert anyone else) from killing each other? Why isn't it the moral obligation of Africans not to kill each other?
Leighton, I have missed seeing you around here. I think we have an Ayn Rand acolyte here. No moral obligation to help others.
While I agree that we are under no legal, contractual, or fiduciary obligation to help out Africans, I believe we do have an ethical obligation as human beings.
I also believe that Europe and the rest of the other powers have an obligation to do so and I believe that Africans have the primary responsibility. From what I understand about the history of that part of the world and some knowledge of what is happening there now, I think this could be done with a fraction of what we spend now in Iraq.
AB, not that you're likely to care, but U.S. pharmaceutical companies have a history of lying to rural governments about what the drugs they're testing actually are. They say they're dispensing medicine, not untested drugs. And thanks for ignoring the more serious issue of coercive trade practices. If you were wondering, people here dismiss you out of hand not so much because of your opinions, but because you tend not to read things very carefully.
Well, maybe that's not entirely true; your notion that there is exactly one set of people responsible for any given situation is something most people seem to grow out of by about age 20.
Streak, I've been in training for a new job, so it's been keeping me pretty busy. I've moved back into IT. Law was interesting, but I don't have the personality to be a good lawyer, so that was only going to take me so far. I suspect your long-term troll has switched from worshiping Jesus to proclaiming Ron Paul as the messiah, which is kind of a natural development for fundies who are more interested in political than social conservatism.
I wondered, Leighton, and am just glad to see you back online.
I think you might be right about the Jesus to Ron Paul connection. What puzzles me about this is how little Jesus is in this brand of conservatism. In addition, AB's moral sense seems to be open to the following moral conclusions: if a detainee allows himself to be tortured, then that is his own fault. If a person allows themselves to be enslaved, it is their obligation to free themselves, and so on.
One of the things I keep coming back to is the fallacy of this intense belief in the free market. Not only do I not believe that an actual free market would produce anything other than a huge divide between the rich and poor, but the kinds of scenarios Leighton just discussed with pharmaceuticals reveals the lie that they are operating in a free market. It isn't free when you game the system to your benefit.
I don't think it is fair to lump Ron Paul in with AB. While he may favor a more restrained foreign policy, he isn't an obnoxious dick.
steves,
Fuck you.
Steve, fair point. Though if Jesus is any indication, you can't always judge public figures by their fanboys. :)
That is so true. I like Jesus and Ron Paul (for the most part). Some of their followers...not so much.
Post a Comment