My Culture war...

[sandwichwarrior]

On january 29th 2002, I enlisted in the US Navy. Despite being solidly left-leaning children of the 60s my parents were supportive. "At least he didn't join the Marines." My mother was heard to say. "You should be a computer tech or an air traffic controller, that way you can stay in the US and make good money once your 4 years are up." was also

Comments

[light_over_me]

What sandwichwarrior was talking out was CHOOSING to take risks, as he did.

Yes, I know. I was challenging your comment that people like Rush or Beck are "pampered". Sure they are quite successful now that they are old and have spent their lives working up to this point in their career. But I wouldn't say they got where they are now because it just fell in their lap. Especially Beck, as it sounds like he had a pretty rough childhood. So I thought that was kind of a cheap shot.

If you FLUNK out of college, it's not actually a CHOICE to leave college - by your poor academic performance

Rush has said he dropped out because he felt college was holding him back-- that sounds like a choice to me. But yes, if you are choosing not to apply yourself, even that is a choice. When you go to college, you have two options within your control: to apply yourself or not apply yourself. When you don't do your job and your boss fires you, is that your fault or the boss? That is the consequence of your choice.

a bunch of pampered old men who have never served in the military are appointing themselves authorities on how the young people who actually serve in the military should be deployed and put at risk.

Do you believe it should be a requirement for the President of the United States to have served? How about other government officials?

Rush may repeatedly self appoint himself an authority on liberals, but remember people like Rush and Beck aren't in any kind of real position of authority over anything, they are just media guys. Even if they wanted to "self appoint" themselves as something, who cares?

And this is why I say that it's wrong to even talk about "risk taking in general," because certain risks are so far removed from other types of risks that it is indeed wrong to suggest that you can sum them up in the same category.

I wasn't suggesting that.

I guess my understanding of the OP's post is a little different from yours. By bringing up the box and the snake metaphor, I didn't think he was only speaking literally about military service-- but more about types of people: those who take risks and those who don't. Maybe I'm incorrect, but that's the overarching theme I took away from it.

[box_in_the_box]

Do you believe it should be a requirement for the President of the United States to have served? How about other government officials?

I don't think that it's a requirement that they serve in the military in order to hold elective office, but I do think it's a requirement that they serve in the military in order to deploy troops in combat operations, whether they're officially called "wars" or not. If, as is the case with Obama (and was the case with Clinton) the president has not served, then the post of Commander-in-Chief should be de-linked from the presidency - the president can propose entry into combat, but it should require military approval. Conversely, the military would not be able to unilaterally enter into combat without the president's approval.

[light_over_me]

Fair enough and good answer, I was just curious.

[box_in_the_box]

By bringing up the box and the snake metaphor, I didn't think he was only speaking literally about military service-- but more about types of people: those who take risks and those who don't.

And I say that's a false distinction, because if we define "risk" as broadly as you've done in an attempt to define Beck and Limbaugh as "risk-takers," then there is literally no one on Earth who does not qualify as a "risk-taker," which is precisely why one MUST distinguish between the types of risks that one takes, because one type of risk has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with another type of risk, so saying "one's a risk-taker and the other is not" is an absurdly wrong-headed, meaningless statement to make, and yes, it DOES make all risks seem equivalent.

Rush may repeatedly self appoint himself an authority on liberals, but remember people like Rush and Beck aren't in any kind of real position of authority over anything [...]

Except for the millions of people who pressure the Republican Party to do everything that Glenn and Rush tell them to.

But I wouldn't say they got where they are now because it just fell in their lap. Especially Beck, as it sounds like he had a pretty rough childhood.

Given the fact that I consider them both to be talentless hacks whose only traits distinguishing them from millions of other aspiring morning zoo DJs is the fact that they've capitalized very successfully on a specific subset of the audience that wants to be told that everything it believes is already true, I'd consider them remarkably lucky. And I'm not about to pity Glenn Beck, a man whose radio stunts have included calling up the wife of a competing DJ and making fun of her for her miscarriage LIVE ON THE AIR. According to no less than Glenn and Rush themselves, people are not entitled to compassion or any "special considerations" due to any misfortunes they might have suffered, so let's not falsely brand them "risk-takers" for their own hard luck, especially since, as was the case with Rush, it was hard luck that was intentionally self-created.

[light_over_me]

That's because my position is that most everyone does take risks. Personally I view it as more of a spectrum. That is to say, everyone takes some risks. Some people would take many...some people much fewer, and there's a whole lot people in between. The sweet spot is finding things which reap the greatest reward for the least amount of risk. Of course you will find people on either end of the extreme who will take the bigger risks for the greater reward, and those who are change adverse or who are comfortable with a more modest return on their efforts.

Now I'm not suggesting Rush and Beck are national heroes here, on par with someone who gave their life defending the country. But I wouldn't agree they have made their fortune on pure dumb luck alone. A combination of risk taking, hard work, luck, and skill at what they do.

Actually that would be an interesting question too, and another possible take on the box--luck of the draw versus free will.