Thursday, March 15, 2007
Should we bring back the draft?
If you watched "60 Minutes" on Sunday, you heard Andy Rooney say something that's undoubtedly brought him a ton of abuse; that, although he never thought he'd be saying it, since in order to fill our quotas for new troops we're having to "lower the bar" and accept those with criminal records or without high school degrees, we should bring back the draft in order to have a higher quality of soldier. He based this opinion on his own military service, and his bad memories of men of these "lower types" who served with him; he considered them to be poor soldiers, and even poorer examples of Americans for foreigners to base their ideas of what we're like on.
Should American military personnel provide a positive example of what Americans are like? Ideally, yes, absolutely, and many of them DO, but that's not part of their job description; their job is to kill people and destroy things, not to be masters of etiquette. It's a moot point, though, because every country has already formed an opinion of us from American tourists, who are legendary for being loud, rude, pushy, badly dressed, and disrespectful of locals and their customs; imagine what lengths a soldier would have to go to to make a WORSE impression... and the average tourist tends to be educated, as those are the folks who can afford to travel abroad, which disproves the idea that an educated person is a superior representative of America.
Plus, call me crazy, but I'd RATHER have the less educated, less productive members of society being used as cannon fodder... especially since they're OFFERING to do it. And what other choices do these folks have? What kinds of jobs will they have to work for their entire lives without high school diplomas? Why should they be denied the opportunity to, not only serve their country, which should be EVERY able-bodied person's right if they so choose, but to do more with their lives than wash dishes or push a broom? They can get free education and training, and they and their families can receive all sorts of benefits, if they join up, and that may well be the only way they can find a better life for themselves and their kids; if they're willing to go into a war zone to earn those things, why should we refuse them?
I'm of a similar mind where those with criminal records are concerned, assuming we can trust that serial killers and child molesters aren't being allowed to enlist; if they've got the patriotic urge to serve their country rather than continue being scumbags, shouldn't we ENCOURAGE that? Same thing goes for if they're trying to rejoin decent society, have discovered that no one will hire them, and go to the military recruitment office as their only chance to make a living honestly; should we tell them to go back to the streets and sell some more drugs or rob some more liquor stores rather than cheering their willingness to risk DEATH in order to live honorable lives and provide for their families? I'm not suggesting that they let anyone DANGEROUS join up, for the obvious reasons, but it's not like they think that their criminal careers will be enhanced if they enlist, so unless they're raving lunatics their intentions are likely to be as good as anyone else's... and I'd sure rather THEY were cannon fodder than draftees.
Besides, didn't they at least USED to give people convicted of certain sorts of offenses the choice between prison and the army in some states? Wasn't the idea that military service would square them away, build character, and make them into good citizens... and that boot camp is so rough that it's punishment enough? It seems like you could make a case for, not just LETTING people with certain sorts of criminal records into the military, but adopting a nationwide policy of offering the army as an alternative to prison for a wide range of offenses; it'd probably be cheaper for the taxpayer (it's expensive to keep someone locked up), we'd be GETTING something for our $, prison crowding would be reduced, and the erstwhile criminals would be getting straightened out rather than meeting up with worse criminals in jail and becoming more hardened and anti-social.
Would you get a better quality of soldier with the draft than by letting those from the "lower echelons" enlist? Of course. Is that the highest goal, the best choice for America? No... and to my mind, that's gotta be the deciding factor. With all due respect to Andy Rooney, I think we should give those at the bottom of the heap a chance to improve themselves (or die with honor) before we yank productive citizens from their lives and force them to go to war.
I'll leave you with a little humor: 1st, there's a crazy calf in India that's been killing and eating chickens, possibly to alleviate a mineral deficiency:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070307/od_nm/india_cow_dc
2nd, here's one you'll have to see to believe; a dog who masturbates like a man, standing on 2 legs and pulling his erection with his paws... and he's ignoring the little female he was supposed to be mating with to do it!! I don't know if this counts as pornographic, or if it's safe for work, but it's a jaw-dropper:
http://www.uselessjunk.com/article_full.php?id=18703
Sunday, March 11, 2007
What do we mean when we say someone's "nice"?
John might be a liar, always keep people waiting, tell ugly racial jokes, cheat on his girlfriends, and shoplift the occasional candy bar, but if you ask anyone who knows him, and knows he does those things, what he's like, they'll say, "He's nice." Heck, John could be a serial killer, and when they interviewed the people in his life after his arrest, and asked them what sort of person he was, they'd STILL say "He was nice"; haven't you seen folks do just that a hundred times?
We call virtually everyone who doesn't perform anti-social acts on US, or on others right in front of us, "nice"; what does calling someone "nice" MEAN, then? We pretend that it means what it's SUPPOSED TO, that the person thus labeled is almost always kind, considerate, etc, but what it ACTUALLY means in most cases is:
1) I love/like them (and if you think that everyone YOU care about is nice, you're either applying unusually stringent guidelines to who you allow in your life or fooling yourself).
2) I've known them a long time... and the longer I've known them, the worse they're allowed to behave and still be called "nice."
3) I'm attracted to them... and either am too blinded by hormones to gauge their niceness or realize they're sorta scummy but don't want my friends to know I'm offering my body to someone like that.
4) I'm NOT attracted to them, but want to say something positive about them so I don't feel like a mean, shallow person for declining to date them.
5) They're a doormat who doesn't argue, stand up for themselves or get in anyone's way.
6) They're shy or quiet.
7) They're charming (charm is meant to manipulate you into liking a person more than they've earned, and manipulation is the opposite of niceness).
8) They're polite (every evil type who isn't a raving lunatic can be as polite as the next person when it suits them).
9) I met them once, and the 2 lines they said to me were polite.
10) They're an acquaintance that hasn't murdered anyone in front of me yet.
I know those last 2 sound facetious, but they're accurate; no one's willing to say "I don't know that person well enough to be sure what they're like." Are we so insecure that we have to pretend that we know everyone well, or that our judgment's so magnificent that we can get accurate readings on people instantly, or maybe that we're so holy that everyone acts like saints around us?
And what about those we see as NOT nice? How often is that based on patterns of bad behavior from them, and how often does it just mean that we don't LIKE them... with that dislike based on pitiful things like their not loving the same sports team or music as we do, or their being fat, unusually dressed or a little too "loud"? And here's a quote from the March 2007 issue of Vogue that stopped me in my tracks:
"I wouldn't call him nice, exactly-he was far too clever for that."
WHAAAAAAAAAAAT?!! In what way could intelligence prevent or counteract niceness? Lemme guess; unlike with every other talent, if you're smart you're supposed to tone it down so that others don't feel inadequate, and if you don't that's insensitive and therefore not nice? Besides; aren't the smart kids always disliked no matter how utterly innocuous they are? Why should ADULTS be any more rational and fair in their judgments than kids? {sigh}
So; what can we do about all this? The sooner we stop calling everyone who isn't running around covered in blood with a victim's severed head in their hands "nice" the better off we'll all be, so we should resolve to use "nice" only for those people who objectively deserve it, which can be determined via a simple analysis; if someone's nice, you'll be able to come up with a bunch of things they've done that indicate that they're sweet and warm-hearted, with few or no bad behaviors to cancel them out... and if they're NOT nice, the opposite will be true. Once you figure that out, you'll want to adjust your relationships to correspond to how nice each person is, shunning the un-nice even if they're entertaining, and making every effort to get closer to the nice even if there are things about them that put you off... right?
We call virtually everyone who doesn't perform anti-social acts on US, or on others right in front of us, "nice"; what does calling someone "nice" MEAN, then? We pretend that it means what it's SUPPOSED TO, that the person thus labeled is almost always kind, considerate, etc, but what it ACTUALLY means in most cases is:
1) I love/like them (and if you think that everyone YOU care about is nice, you're either applying unusually stringent guidelines to who you allow in your life or fooling yourself).
2) I've known them a long time... and the longer I've known them, the worse they're allowed to behave and still be called "nice."
3) I'm attracted to them... and either am too blinded by hormones to gauge their niceness or realize they're sorta scummy but don't want my friends to know I'm offering my body to someone like that.
4) I'm NOT attracted to them, but want to say something positive about them so I don't feel like a mean, shallow person for declining to date them.
5) They're a doormat who doesn't argue, stand up for themselves or get in anyone's way.
6) They're shy or quiet.
7) They're charming (charm is meant to manipulate you into liking a person more than they've earned, and manipulation is the opposite of niceness).
8) They're polite (every evil type who isn't a raving lunatic can be as polite as the next person when it suits them).
9) I met them once, and the 2 lines they said to me were polite.
10) They're an acquaintance that hasn't murdered anyone in front of me yet.
I know those last 2 sound facetious, but they're accurate; no one's willing to say "I don't know that person well enough to be sure what they're like." Are we so insecure that we have to pretend that we know everyone well, or that our judgment's so magnificent that we can get accurate readings on people instantly, or maybe that we're so holy that everyone acts like saints around us?
And what about those we see as NOT nice? How often is that based on patterns of bad behavior from them, and how often does it just mean that we don't LIKE them... with that dislike based on pitiful things like their not loving the same sports team or music as we do, or their being fat, unusually dressed or a little too "loud"? And here's a quote from the March 2007 issue of Vogue that stopped me in my tracks:
"I wouldn't call him nice, exactly-he was far too clever for that."
WHAAAAAAAAAAAT?!! In what way could intelligence prevent or counteract niceness? Lemme guess; unlike with every other talent, if you're smart you're supposed to tone it down so that others don't feel inadequate, and if you don't that's insensitive and therefore not nice? Besides; aren't the smart kids always disliked no matter how utterly innocuous they are? Why should ADULTS be any more rational and fair in their judgments than kids? {sigh}
So; what can we do about all this? The sooner we stop calling everyone who isn't running around covered in blood with a victim's severed head in their hands "nice" the better off we'll all be, so we should resolve to use "nice" only for those people who objectively deserve it, which can be determined via a simple analysis; if someone's nice, you'll be able to come up with a bunch of things they've done that indicate that they're sweet and warm-hearted, with few or no bad behaviors to cancel them out... and if they're NOT nice, the opposite will be true. Once you figure that out, you'll want to adjust your relationships to correspond to how nice each person is, shunning the un-nice even if they're entertaining, and making every effort to get closer to the nice even if there are things about them that put you off... right?
