|Isn't the military in and of itself a political statement?|
IN MY MIND, I already can hear the rants of those people who will take offense to President Barack Obama (just because he’s Obama is their real reason) and the fact that he’s going to make an official visit to Hiroshima in Japan.
That, of course, is one of only two cities that ever actually got “nuked” as U.S. military personnel, at the direction of commander in chief Harry S. Truman, went ahead and used the atomic bomb.
That act brought about the end of the Second World War, and I’m not about to entertain a debate over whether use of the bomb was appropriate. It happened is about all that really matters.
But I’m sure Obama’s critics are going to complain that he shouldn’t be taking part in any ceremony that might view the Japanese residents of Hiroshima or Nagasaki in a favorable light – one that would give credence to the Japanese perspective of the Second World War that they were the ultimate victims because they were the targets of the atomic bomb.
WHICH AS I see it, is about as ridiculous a perspective as those who try to claim the U.S. civil war was solely about the concept of state’s rights and a tyrannical U.S. nation overstepping of bounds against what is mildly referred to as the Southern way of life.
I’m already braced for the hostility that will be spewed, probably all too similar to those people who are complaining about the black female cadets from the military academy at West Point who claim the photograph of them with clenched fists was a statement of solidarity with the subversive elements of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Although if you change “Black Lives Matter” to “Black Panther Party” then it shows the argument hasn’t changed one bit during the past decades. Some people are determined to believe the Anglo approach to our society truly is the only one appropriate.
Which probably also means the rest of us ought to accept that we don’t really belong in this nation and ought to leave. Even though I’m positive I ain’t going nowhere, and I doubt many others are planning to leave as well.
THEN, OF COURSE, there’s the plight of Mel Reynolds, the one-time member of Congress who is being held in jail in Kankakee County because of the pending charges against him that he went several years without filing income tax returns.
That’s the argument federal prosecutors plan to make against him. Although Reynolds says he now plans to plead guilty. Not because he admits he did anything wrong. He wants to view himself as the victim because his incarceration restricts the amount of time he can spend with an attorney preparing his defense.
I’m sure in Mel’s mind, he’s undergoing an ordeal that would make Ghandi or Nelson Mandela sympathize. Although I’m also sure the vast majority of people would not think twice about rooting against Reynolds.
|REYNOLDS: Victim? Or whiner?|
I also couldn’t help but notice news reports where Reynolds claimed he was a target for assassination by gang members because of some of his actions back when he served in Congress – which supposedly was the reason then-President Bill Clinton gave him that pardon back in 2000 before leaving office.
DOES CLINTON NOW wish he could take that act back? Could it be something that comes up during the current presidential campaign for use against wife Hillary?
Or will there now be some people who secretly will wish for the gang members to “finish the job” that Reynolds claims they were given?