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

[box_in_the_box]

What if I were to argue that the war was really over Risk vs. Reward, Talk vs. Action, or Freedom vs. Safety?The biggest problem being that the vast majority of people who advocate on behalf of risk are - unlike you (and thank you for your service, by the way) - not taking any risks at all. You put your money where your mouth was by enlisting and serving the types of duty that you did. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and the legions of other fat old white men who are all EMPIRE EMPIRE EMPIRE WAR WAR WAR are risking nothing by doing so, which is why I pray every night that they will contract ass-raping penis-cancer and die like pigs in Hell

[box_in_the_box]

Trading a college degree in order to pursue a highly competitive career where relatively few make to the very top? Sure it is.

What sandwichwarrior was talking out was CHOOSING to take risks, as he did. If you FLUNK out of college, it's not actually a CHOICE to leave college - by your poor academic performance, the choice has already been made FOR you, since you were unable to meet that college's standards. To present it as being anything other than that is like saying that you QUIT your job when in fact you were FIRED. It's simply intellectually dishonest to say that they're the same

[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

[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

[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.

[sandwichwarrior]

were you offended?

No, I've got way thicker skin than that.

You're alos right risk can take many forms, it doesn't have to be physical. Though personally I tend to view it physical terms.

[light_over_me]

I'm glad, none was intended.

And well, a lot of abstract risks (and rewards too) can still boil down to physical consequences, so I guess I see them as overlapping quite a bit too.

[sandwichwarrior]

I get where you're comming from. Don't sell yourself short either, plenty of guys in "Safe" billets still get hurt or killed in the line of duty.

This may sound odd, but the "thank you for your service line" has always made me feel vaguely uncomfortable. I sometimes get the impression that the pundits on both sides are just using the war to stir up sentimentality ('Merica Fuck Yah!" vs. "someone think of the children!") only caring about getting the job done when it suits thier political aims.

That's what pisses me off.

[box_in_the_box]

What's funny is, I'm uncomfortable about being thanked for my service too, but I can't imagine not doing it for someone else who served. And yeah, that's a really good point.