Susan Luzzaro 9 p.m., Aug. 20
- Community Blog
- Waves of Time Distortion
Slugging women is good for the environment
Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a liberal Democrat who served with Obama in Illinois, doubts that tonight’s speech by Obama will change her mind on Afghanistan; and her mind is made up that we should get out of that country. She believes, as most people do in the world, the Karzai regime is flawed and corrupt and not worth saving. I actually agree with her, though we have come to this conclusion from different ends of the spectrum.
I served in the armed forces. I was over in the Middle East a couple times, and was, the first time I went, utterly floored with the treatment of women. I saw women pulled by leashes, including their daughters, one by one behind them, by their husbands, along the roads. I saw one man yelling at his wife in front of a market we were at, and it was sad, very sad. I saw this man hitting his wife with what I think was a bamboo stick. Repulsive, to say the least, and yet they hide behind their customs, and that makes it okay for us.
The treatment of women, the most oppressed people on this world, has been part of humanity for thousand of years. And the Democrats lose me every time when I point out that the goal of saving women in America, and only in America, is short sighted, and when you come down to it, very selfish. I mean, we are willing to push climate-change to save the world, after we ruined it first by the way, but we are willing to force the growing third-world nations to curtail this or that so as to save the ozone; yet we couldn’t care at all about the people we are saving.
What would I have us do? Would I have us invade the entire third-world to free the oppressed women? I know some woman will apply with “what about saving the oppressed women in America first?” To which I would say; let’s let the rest of the world catch-up, then we’ll finish it. It reminds me of a sign on a homeless man I saw once. It read he’d rather be homeless in some third-world nation, I won’t say which one (Nigeria). Well, this may anger some of the left on this site, I don’t care; but the homeless here, especially here in San Diego, have it good. I have seen homeless people in Calcutta, during monsoon season. The homeless here, in sunny San Diego, have a lot of nerve wearing signs that read “I’d rather be homeless in Nigeria.” Then go.
Anyway; back to women. I read a statistic that something like 55% of the homeless people in this world are women. That is a very telling stat, but not too surprising considering how women, especially in certain parts of this world, are treated. Again, some woman here on this board may chirp up with “what about the oppressed women in San Diego?” Like the homeless man wanting to move to Nigeria, all I can say is, I would rather let the rest of the world catch up first, then finish the job.
So would I favor invading nations, like China, India and Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, so as to save the oppressed women? Don’t these other nations have the right to follow their own customs and beliefs, even if it means the women can be treated as cattle?
Well, they used to have the right to burn their coal, and cut down their forest; we’re taking care of that problem pretty soon. I guess saving trees and dolphins is far more important than saving women. I mean, they are humans; they are part of the reason why polar bears are almost extinct. Maybe battering our women makes up for our raping of the world’s resources. In fact, we should fine that bastard for hitting her with a bamboo stick!