A reminder of the fact that it truly does takes a village to raise an idiot.

One ponders the rationale for allowing such a person to have such a large forum for these remarks. He obviously hopes that when a black man (I refuse to use the term "African-American" because it represents a duality of nationality that does not exist) makes a reference to "slavery" that the immediate reaction by the masses will be to abolish this horrible establishment--in this case, the American military.

Please don't misinterpret my comments, but when an individual obviously uses his race as a lever, his inferences of "racism" tend to ring quite hollow.

I have followed this thread all over the place, and I have to agree that the term slave was poorly chosen and yes, stupid. There are a couple of points worth considering though. SOME, and I say some of the soldiers who have sacraficed for over a year away from their families, and then were prevented from rotating out, have suffered what I feel is unreasonably. I am sure some of them took it in stride, with the same amount of dedication and commitment that they did the original terms of their service, but I am equaly sure that for those who lost marriages, businesses and job opportunities (I am thinking more in terms of guardsmen here), that the sacrafice probably was not worth it.
It makes me respect and admire these young men and women even more, becuase very few have openly criticized the decisions (in terms of planning), that cost them so dearly. In any case, the guy is an ex-football player, not a commentator of any note, so I would not even waste my time and emotional energy debating him. We are all entitled to our opinions, however poorly framed they may be. Bo, I think you are on the wrong track though on your race comments, for a variety of reasons. But I will focus on one. In my mind, I am an African American, but I am also an Irish American, and a Native American, as my ancestory covers all three. Long story, and perhaps one for another discussion but people should be allowed to define their ancestory as they see fit. How you choose to define them is not terribly relevant.

I don't think that anyone would argue that the extended service and tours are not a heavy price to pay (in all the ways David listed) for our soldiers. It's the jump to equating military service to slavery were people rightly criticize the author.

You are right Kevin. My point was the guy has probably taken too many hits to the head. Who cares? LOL! Now if Kerry said something that stupid, all the folks on the right would be up in arms, and I would likely join them. In fact as an African American who's ancestors were slaves, I have a major problem with the comparison... Eh, last time I checked Slaves did not carry guns, or wear body armor (wink). If they had the civil war likely would not have been necessary.

David, I sincerely hope you don't take my comments to strike against your (or anyone else's) heritage. I sincerely have a high respect for those who maintain respect for their heritage, regardless of their ancestors' nationality. However, when the phrase "African-American" is used to separate, not to honor, there is a problem. Example: In our own state legislature, there was recently an accusation of racism made by the black caucus leaders over the issue of tort reform. For a gentleman of African-American heritage to honor his ancestors by respecting their trials and suffering through slavery and the battle for civil rights is truly commendable. For Reggie Rivers to make this analogy, however, is an insult both to his ancestors who endured true slavery, and to the men and women who have willingly dedicated so much of their lives to service to their country.

Absolutely Agreed Bo. As you can see in my last post, I made the exact same analogy.