Two More Things People Think But Won't Say

[David Sklansky]

1. Once it was shown that Iraq had no WMDs and Sadam wasn't helping terrorists, we don't care anymore. The fact that Sadam was a ruthless dictator who supressed rights and killed tens of thosands of innocents doesn't begin to make spending billions and losing thousands of Americans worth it. The issue isn't that we don't think the US should be the world's policeman imposing our values on others. That's actually fine. As long as we can pull that off cheaply. But if it isn't cheap, who cares about the plight of the Iraqi's?

2. As long as even a small fraction of woman suffer PMS to the point where it occasionaly affects their decisions, that one fact is highly relevant as far as voting for a woman president is concerned. At least until she is of the age that doctors agree the syndrome no longer occurs. If after taking the risk into account, someone wants to vote for her anyway, because she is otherwise so good, or the opponent is so bad, fine. But if the decison is close, no one can be faulted for voting against the woman even if the great majority are not affected by PMS. That might not be fair to woman in general but as a voter with kids who doesn't want an increased risk of war,it is perfectly fine for me to change my vote if a statistical, "unfair" fact is good reason to do so.

Again, how come nobody says this stuff?