I had a nice laugh this morning when I pulled up behind a silver SUV and saw a bumper sticker on the back of it that read: “DEMOCRATS – Change that matters.” I saw another one of these over the weekend (though I was too far away to read the second line, which is in smaller, lighter print–a hint of shame maybe?). Must be the latest slogan for the upcoming WWE Donkey vs. Elephant smackdown.
The last U.S. combat brigade has left Iraq, says NPR:
The U.S. military presence in Iraq took a symbolic turn Thursday as the last full Army combat brigade left the country, ahead of President Obama’s end-of-the-month deadline for ending combat operations.
So that means no more fighting in Iraq, right? Well, not exactly:
The departure doesn’t mark the end of the U.S. military presence, however: About 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq through the end of next year. The troops are officially there in an advisory role, but will carry weapons to defend themselves and will join Iraqi troops on missions if requested.
So even though there are no more combat troops in Iraq the U.S. military will most likely still be involved in combat operations in Iraq? Kinda, yes:
“‘Combat operations’ is sort of a relative term,” [Marine Reserve Capt. Peter Brooks] said. “I think some troops who remain after this date are going to see things that look kind of like combat.”
Symbolic, indeed. Of course, for some Obamanoids, no amount of blatant manipulation is enough to diminish the total awesomeness of the “prez” for living up to a meaningless campaign promise.
There was a story on NPR this morning about a woman who, in the 1980s, began sending money to the U.S. government in an effort to help pay down the national debt. She even started an organization the purpose of which was to convince other people to do the same. My first response to this was: Are you fucking kidding me?!?! It’s not enough to have part of your salary taken without your consent and used by congressmen to buy votes or create jobs secure campaign contributions by funneling cash to their politically connected friends in the “private sector,” or used to bail out banks, or build more prisons, or to continue to wage endless war on unsuspecting villagers in Afghanistan, etc., etc. No, what you have to do is give these criminal scumbags more of your money, voluntarily.
The article portrayed the woman as a somewhat kooky idealist, fighting a noble though losing battle against the inevitable expansion of government, rather than as a fool or an inveterate sucker. I have to wonder, though, what if she had been an employee of, say, WalMart, and decided to help the company’s sagging bottom line by volunteering to work overtime and weekends for free? How would she have been portrayed in that case?
If you want to give your money away, give it to a charity or some kind of organization that does something useful. But if you’re just going to give it to the government, you might as well scatter it in the wind, or flush it down the toilet, or set it on fire.