Don Kaag (in responding
to Sharon Sullivan's information about the WHOPPING 46% of our tax
dollars currently going to military and defense spending)
wrote:
"...and this is bad why?
Don't you have a
television set? Or a radio, or a newspaper subscription? We are approaching
the anniversary of the worst attack on the United States in our history---much
worse, in terms of casualties than Pearl Harbor in 1941. Thousands of innocent
civilians going about their daily routine in the largest, most important city
in our nation were burned to death, blown to pieces and horribly injured by
suiciding Islamic terrorists in hijacked airliners."
Yes, I've got TVs
and radios and several newspaper subscriptions. I doubt
there's a person in the US over the age of five who doesn't realize what
anniversary is upcoming.
My response to your
question, ". . . and this is bad why?" is to ask *you* why *you* think
it's good? It obviously didn't prevent September 11th, regardless of the
substantial taxation level. It sure didn't protect the Pentagon,
and only the brave actions of *individual* civilians, not the
military, protected the White House that day (assuming
that was the target of Flight 93).
And, exorbitant
taxation for defense sure didn't do anything to protect the thousands
innocent civilians who were killed and injured on that terrible
day.
I'm not entering into a
debate about the good/bad of funding the military at its current level, at a
greater level, or at a lesser level. While there are a great
many instances in which I *don't* agree with defense spending, I
personally appreciate the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, and the
sacrifices of their families, including you and your family, Mr. Kaag. I
don't happen to believe that we do a good job of appreciating those who lay
their lives on the line to defend our freedoms and ways of
life.
However, I don't buy
your apparent argument that throwing money into defense &
military spending provides us greater protection. I think September
11th, *your* example, makes my point :-)
Mr. Kaag
then resorts to insults, including:
"But don't think for a minute, whether you like it or
not, that there are not "rough men" out there somewhere making it possible for
you to exercise your violence-secured First Amendment right to post pacifist
nonsense on Vision 2020."
I don't think insulting
those who disagree with our views if very helpful . . . or
nice. I think you could have made the same point in an honorable manner,
and *not* turned off those who perhaps agree with your ideas, or at least
some of them, but not with your insults.
Have you ever heard of
the saying, "You'll attract more flies with honey than with
vinegar"?
Of course, differing
values are one reason "opt out" theories of taxation won't work. If Mr.
Wilson can opt out of taxes for public education, then Ms. Sullivan
should be able to opt out of taxes for military, and Mr. Huffman should be
able to opt out of taxes for health care and all forms of welfare (including
corporate welfare and farms), and . . . I should be able to opt out of all
taxes that are increased as a result of others' tax exempt status
;-)
There goes our high
standard of living . . . and our quality of life . . . and any notion of
justice and equality I'm interested in for my community.
Respectfully,
Saundra Lund
Moscow, Idaho
The only thing
necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
Edmund
Burke