Skip to main content

If an untreated medical condition killed your child, what explanation would make it OK? (Kyle Willis and others)

If a homeless child goes hungry in the freezing streets, what explanation would make it OK? (NY Times homeless children series)

If a child is killed by another child in an accidental shooting, what explanation would make it OK? (dKos gun violence diaries)

If a child is killed by another child in a school shooting, what explanation would make it OK? (Columbine)

If a child is killed by a young person with inappropriate access to guns, what explanation would make it OK? (Newtown)

If a child is killed by a wealthy drunk child whose money buys separate justice, what explanation would make it OK? (affluenza)

If a child is raped by other children / young people and the rapists are supported, what explanation would make it OK? (Steubenville)

If a child is killed by a community patrol vigilante, what explanation would make it OK? (Treyvon Martin)

If a child is killed by a police officer, what explanation would make it OK? (Andy Lopez Cruz)

(I didn't include links because these are all well-known and easily googlable, but will do so upon request.)

What I am saying with the above is that we live in times which do so much damage to children, and to all of us -- that the focus on drones doesn't resonate with me.

I absolutely agree that all the ramifications of war are completely unacceptable, and would never (you can check my comment history for those who are wont to do so) support any type of war, including drones.

But what about the above atrocities? I realize it's not oppression Olympics. No one can address everything, but this laser-like focus on the drone issue divides us right in time for an important election -- one that can baby step us to something better than the House Repubs have to offer.

The responses that resonated with me in the Drone Thread were those who agreed that these things are being done in our name as a democracy. I agree absolutely-- that means we are all responsible for ALL of the above. In a democracy we take responsibility with our votes. I'll be burning holes in my shoes helping people navigate voter suppression.

Lastly, I think all war -- all of it -- is a disgrace. I can't find it within myself to choose between drones or bombs or bullets or any of it. I have no concrete policy advice that would get us to a world of peace. But I'm pretty sure Republicans aren't doing any better than me. Thank you for reading.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't get it (8+ / 0-)

    All of these things are horrific. Child rape, homeless children, murdered children.

    It is okay if the atrocity of drone warefare doesn't resonate with you. Sadly, it doesn't resonate with many. But to pull out all of these other things as though people who are opposed to drones are so laser-focused on it that they don't even know other atrocities happen is a strawman.

    I'm opposed to drones. I also feed the hungry. One can be passionate about more issue that one. I'm passionate about a lot of things.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 15, 2013 at 11:54:09 AM PST

    •  I knew strawmen would be invoked (0+ / 0-)

      ... I tried to head it off a bit by saying that I wasn't comparing / competing. As I CLEARLY said in my diary "I'm opposed to drones. I also ___insert here."

      Never said people can't be passionate about many things. never said "you don't know other atrocities happen".

      I'm saying that if we take responsibility as a democracy for atrocities -- these are diary worthy as well. If, on the other hand we place all the responsibility on the White House for drones, why the full stop?

      •  There's a chain of command over drones. (6+ / 0-)

        You and I aren't ordering their use.  We enable it, certainly, by voting for those who do order it, but that takes us in a direction I'm not sure you wanted to go.

      •  You're the one who said it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD
        this laser-like focus on the drone issue divides us right in time for an important election
        emphasis mine.

        A laser-like focus generally precludes being able to focus on anything else.

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Sun Dec 15, 2013 at 01:20:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're right, I'm wrong (0+ / 0-)

          No need to understand my full context when a block quote can be utilized. I wrote this diary in Word and perused, corrected, walked back, took care, softened language etc. to the point I could barely publish it.

          That's the "laser like" atmosphere around some topics here that I glean from daily reading and that I knew I would be called to task for. Here you go, walking on eggshells edit:

          the focus on the drone issue, when there are so many domestic (and some foreign policy) issues that resonate with voters, divides us right in time for an important election.

          •  And in this case (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD

            the people we elected are the ones doing the killing.
            It's entirely within our and the future deceased's best interest to express our strong feelings about that and try to find a way to not have it happen going forward.

            Using our collective voice is our only hope to change policy.

          •  regina - what election? (0+ / 0-)

            The midterms are 10+ months away. In the context of elections, each month is like a year in terms of what new issues can change the dynamics.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Sun Dec 15, 2013 at 04:41:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  regina - I thought the teen in Sonama (0+ / 0-)

        who was killed by the Deputy Sheriff was Andy Lopez. Is his real name Andy Lopez Cruz?

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Sun Dec 15, 2013 at 04:39:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The huge difference between almost (8+ / 0-)

    of those situations are that they are tragic consequences of day to day life of an "average" American

    Drone deaths are not only COMPLETELY avoidable but are part of a terroristic strategy being carried out on the behalf of many Americans, like myself, who greatly resent my tax dollars being used that way.

    •  I often disagree with your stances... (6+ / 0-)

      But there certainly is a distinct divide between our domestic problems and foreign adventurism.  I also don't think we have to choose.  The fact that one person put together a diary about why the drone violence is unacceptable does nothing to say we must ignore all of the other unacceptable issues, all of which have received far more DK diaries over time.

      •  Yeah, plus there have been any number of (6+ / 0-)

        outraged diaries about just about everything mentioned in the diary (and in most cases, rightly so).

      •  Again, I didn't say that... (0+ / 0-)

        one shouldn't put together a drone diary. (Not sure regarding your assertion that these issues have been covered more than drones, I don't do that kind of digging.)

        I never said anyone had to choose. I said that I was moved by those who said we drone in "our name" and realized that we do all of these things in our name too. How do we refuse to do ANY of these things in our name? Voting? organzing? Criticizing drone strikes?

        •  The specific wording you used had the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          reginahny, PhilJD

          clear appearance of "calling out" a drone diary.

          And we (at least myself) thought it is noteworthy that most of the things you mention are essentially unsolvable, the drone issue is not only easy solvable, but takes a lot of effort to keep in place.  So from the banal point of logistics alone there is a huge difference.  Without even mentioning the aspect that the drone program essentially turns each tax paying American into a terrorist.  I don't like that much.

          •  You are right... (0+ / 0-)

            ...the wording of my diary was a response to the other diary that I read and participated in. If I crossed a line between responding and "calling out" I didn't intend to -- I wanted to add my thoughts in "longer than a comment" form.

            Where we disagree is that I don't see the drone issue as easily solvable -- but that is something I'm not an expert in. I also don't like being made a terrorist by taxes.

            My musings were about our responsibility for all atrocities in our name and how we address those -- not sure "no drones" is an inspiring call to action, when sadly there are so many to choose from.

            •  Perhaps " a clear reference to" would (0+ / 0-)

              have been a better way to word that than "calling out" (that's why it's in quotation marks - it wasn't meant to imply any site norms had been violated or anything like that).  

              How is the drone issue not easily solvable? In this case, a single order from the POTUS could put an end to it (heck, most of the military old guard don't like the drones anyways).  

              That is quite like situations like guns and poverty that are at the root of virtually all the other issues listed, which even if society as a whole wanted to fix (which they don't) it is not clear that anything meaningful could be done at this stage in the game.

    •  I agree 100% (0+ / 0-)

      I resent the so-called war on terror "strategy" and hate that it is being done in my name.

      But I'm not convinced that dividing those who are against Republicans in whatever sad and dreary form they may take (Landreiu) is productive. I get that this is a place to air and share ideas, and that's why I diaried my thoughts.

  •  Are we at war with Yemen? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BoiseBlue, SoCaliana, quill, PhilJD
    Lastly, I think all war -- all of it -- is a disgrace. I can't find it within myself to choose between drones or bombs or bullets or any of it. I have no concrete policy advice that would get us to a world of peace. But I'm pretty sure Republicans aren't doing any better than me. Thank you for reading.
    We are not at war with Yemen.

    So you agree that the US alone among all nations is allowed to kill people across the globe even in nations where we haven't declared war against?

    It seems to me that this is the policy that allows for innocent children to be killed by our drones in Yemen.

  •  Well (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reginahny, quill, PhilJD, Oh Mary Oh

    Anyone that reads this website on a regular basis knows that most of the issues you mention in your diary are covered as well as, if not more than drones.
    So I'm kind of left scratching my head.

    I could say that drones not resonating with some people who care about children being harmed or killed is because of Obama/Dems, full stop. But that would be assuming something from a strong anti drone angle, without taking a whole bunch of other obvious stuff into consideration and I wouldn't want to do that.

    •  I read the website daily. (0+ / 0-)

      as I said, I dont' want to audit how many or how few posts on this and that and engage in opression olympics -- I wrote the diary because of a balance I didn't see -- YMMV.

      You say: Drones don't resonate with people who care about children being harmed or killed is because of Obama / Dems? You are right, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

      I said the focus on drones didn't resonate with ME (not other people). I said the concerns of all children were our responsibility collectively and that the focus on drones specifically doesn't help us advance policies to help children IMO.

  •  Laser-like focus on drones? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SpecialKinFlag, PhilJD

    I posted the diary I posted because there weren't any others. None. At the time. There have been repeated collateral damage-resulting attacks where no note of the mayhem was made.

    That's a pretty weak laser.

    What troubles me, and kind of repulses me actually, is the acceptance by learned helplessness that this is the best we can do. Or framing having such a discussion as enabling Republicans or crippling Democrats before an important election cycle. Or that this has to be the way things are. And raising any other kind of counter-point or opposing narrative is what is the really troubling thing, not the thing being questioned itself.

    Archie Bunker's "Would it make you feel any better if they was pushed outta windows?" rebuttal to Gloria over gun control comes to mind.  

    I honor your opinion. I respect it. I just don't find it remotely convincing or compelling or even much of a foundation to build up from.

    I didn't post my diary blaming Obama, or denouncing him as a failure, evil, or a liar. There was no cruel and malicious swipe at the soldiers who are tasked to carry out their orders. I never claimed drone strikes were the single most important issue or event that should be driving us at the expense of all things. I never claimed that a clusterbomb or a bullet was more humane or proper in expressing my concerns about the horrific number of civilian casualties that is a sustained part of these operations be they mistakes or wins.

    I merely asked people to consider something, several actually.

    This is not working the way it was/is advertised. It's a bad policy regime. The spin is acrid at this point as each new body count of people just waiting for a bus or living in the apartment upstairs or people going to a wedding grows.

    I asked the question I asked for a reason.

    Because, in my experience, the only way to get through the wall is to ask 'take the exact same situation, and put you there in the rubble'.

    What is tragic is that you have to ask somebody you know to put their own six year old in pieces to get them out of the fog of seeing the dead six year old as being a factor on a list and not a ticking time bomb of a disaster built-in to the policy.

    1. This is not a successful policy if innocent people being slaughtered occurs in both mistakes and successes.
    2. The mayhem, the counterproductive and corrosively undermining mayhem, is not rare nor new.
    3. All the most rigorous defenses involve painting the objectors as some flavor of naive, callous about other horrors and injustices, distracted, Pollyanna-ish, or being a skunk in the Democratic/liberal/progressive tent undermining other good efforts for the benefit of the worst actors on the American stage.

    I realize it's not oppression Olympics.

    Really?

    I question that. You certainly set up a podium to do so.

    Why else the list that opens this diary?

    Or the modification of the original diary title?

    It wasn't to make people think the original discussion was a worthy one to invest your time in.

    Because that seems to be a big part of the reason to wave it away in this fashion, of the issue being raised at all. To frame it as trivial. Or fatuous. Or overblown. Or just another awful thing to be stacked and compared and rated to other awful things to reduce it to something to be shrugged at. To reduce complicated and nuanced questions into the most absurdly simplistic unseriousness to be brought to the table. To find the outlier comment and make it the norm, the baseline for everybody else's discussion.

    I never, ever, for a single moment argued that the only injustice in the world was drone strikes. Or that only the injustices that occurred via drone strikes was an outrage. Or worth addressing and trying to rectify.

    I just raised the point that this is not doing us any favors, that it is absurd that even daring to question such a profoundly flawed way of trying to bring peace, order, and stability to the world is being treated as if it has little or no merit.

    But what about the above atrocities?

    What about them? Legions of people who are concerned about income inequality, homelessness, social justice, racism, and voter disenfranchisement can also see that a policy that has killed innocents is bad policy, is a mistake to downplay or dismiss, and is not made a good idea by reasoning that there is a homeless man in the streets, so, you are doing the homeless man an injustice by not ignoring the mayhem, perversely, in his name.

    Lastly, I think all war -- all of it -- is a disgrace. I can't find it within myself to choose between drones or bombs or bullets or any of it. I have no concrete policy advice that would get us to a world of peace. But I'm pretty sure Republicans aren't doing any better than me. Thank you for reading.

    I hate war. All war. So. Discussing a really bad land mine policy or cluster bombs or depleted uranium or drone strikes being used in a way that undermines the US and its cause, highlighting how a specific use of them is having dire results people are not seeing for a reason and for a cause, is, what? Irresponsible? Silly? Selfish? A distraction? Unnecessary? I don't have any answers. But I'm sure Dick Cheney would eat a baby, so, epic win for flying death robots under the banner of at-least-it's not-Dick Cheney-eating-a-baby?

    It's a cop out. A cop out disguised as trying to claim to be vastly more reasonable and profoundly more focused on the really important prize at stake by framing huge swaths of the discussion that annoys and dismays you as if it is unreasonable or a distraction from more important things.

    Also, Jesus, you are quick to point out that this or that is strawmanning in response to you.

    What is the foundation of this diary?

    You are shoehorning lots of people into unserious places to justify lamenting the parts of the discussion that you don't agree with. And then turning around and playing the victim if they point out that you are playing reindeer games to define the parameters and possible outcomes here.

    What is the point of the opening of your diary except to cue up the people who disagree with you as not investing themselves equally, and in far more important other issues, in order to spend precious time that could be used more constructively or effectively for the cause on some sorry drone discussion or debate? Or frame discussing drone strikes having a downside as not caring that shelling or carpetbombing also has a downside so why spend so much time on drone strikes?

    I'm sorry, you are clearly framing the previous discussion in this diary as if it is being given disproportionate and distracting consideration, or are somehow aiding the GOP or harming the Democrats or diluting the focus on other issues by having the discussion.

    'All these various other things are bad too, no one can address everything, I hate war, this election cycle is important, I have no policy fix or change of direction, Republicans are worse/bad, highlighting the downside of drone strikes don't resonate with me' is a central foundation of your pushback.

    But I'm not convinced that dividing those who are against Republicans in whatever sad and dreary form they may take (Landreiu) is productive.
    If that is where you are, that is where you are.

    I would argue that Movement Conservatism is more dominant now that it has ever been in American history because 'Well, what are you gonna do, clearly we have to accept the suck' is how they are met.  

    And as far as elections are concerned, Democrats are depending on demographics to make them a dominant governing body. The sustained poisoned fruits of our drone policy, and the apathy to great misery that comes with, make a strong impression on the young looking for somebody or someone to believe in. You might wake up one day and discover that, rather than more Democrats, you are hobbled by a generation you were counting on being disgusted with all players because of a lack of an argument and a tolerance for vile things because, shoulder shrug, what are you going to do, we have to accept x, y, and z, embrace the suck.  

    But I'm not convinced that dividing those who are against Republicans in whatever sad and dreary form they may take (Landreiu) is productive.
    I'm not there. I'm glad that isn't where I am when I hear that people are being killed by the score. In both successes and failures for a policy that is framed as being something that is both making us safe, bringing stability to the region it is being carried out in, and better than the other military alternatives as if military alternatives are the only options on the table and you just have to pick one. No other choices.

    I'm not convinced that this is the most dominating and likely outcome. Actually, I think assuming as a benchmark that talking about something noxious is equally or even more politically troublesome and corrosive than the thing that is being discussed is more undermining of the greater mission as a whole.

    I'm done.

    I am a Loco-Foco. I am from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.

    by LeftHandedMan on Sun Dec 15, 2013 at 01:11:07 PM PST

    •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sandav

      I genuinely can't respond to a 1500 word comment that is four or five times as long as my diary. If that is a requisite for publishing diaries to dailyKos, I'll stop doing so. I both tried to write and respond respectfully but can't respond to what comes across as a Gish Gallop. I'll stop.

  •  It's called a Democracy, not support a political (0+ / 0-)

    party no matter what:

    No one can address everything, but this laser-like focus on the drone issue divides us right in time for an important election

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site