Posted on 02/25/2005 3:37:17 PM PST by pissant
“Dear Mr. Leifer: Too good to fight for your country, huh? Never mind. If need be, I suspect we can make do without you.” “Dear Mr. Smith: . . . So if you ask if I’m too good to fight for my country, I’d say no. I am, however, too good to blindly follow and not question, the very principle that makes this nation great. I’m extremely sorry you have forgotten this.”
“Sir: You are a silly young man, full of your own self-importance, blinded by your own intellect. Perhaps we can continue this conversation when you’ve grown up. Best of luck to you.”
Thus went my e-mail exchange with a respondent from Granbury, Texas, regarding my previous column (“Selective Service, Feb. 18). This was by far the most civil rejoinder I received. (I stopped responding when I received four additional angry letters within as many minutes.) I began to wonder how I had erred so dramatically as to so deeply offend the characteristically liberal Cardinal community — I mean, these are the people who read The Daily, right?
Later, I discovered that FreeRepublic.com, which describes itself as “the premiere online gathering place for independent, grassroots conservatism on the Web,” had picked up my column, re-titling it “Selective Service (the rarefied air of elite colleges).” Following the text — which taken out of the context of a college newspaper is already vulnerable to misinterpretation — is a message-board dedicated to disparaging a “duplicitous, whining pussy” (me).
At first, as is evident in my initial responses, I felt an intense desire to convince this unexpected conservative readership that just because I oppose registering for the draft doesn’t mean that I’m an uppity egomaniac who considers himself too good to defend his rights. I have come to realize, however, that these people engage in a practice that I myself have often been guilty of: unwillingness to listen to the other side.
“They’ll leave the fighting to the underprivileged patriots in the non-elite universities, community colleges and common high schools. People such as Liefer [sic] are just too good to risk . . . “
That posting, in my opinion, best sums up the attitude of said liberal-bashing message-board. There are other equally telling passages, but they’re not exactly “fit to print.” (See for yourself at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1347418/posts#comment.) It is the specific posting above, however, to which I would like to respond.
Even though FreeRepublic.com likely won’t publish this column — and thus I will not reach the very audience I desire to rebut — I think it’s necessary to restate my position, as it is entirely possible that the exact opposite of what I intended was deduced from last week’s article.
One of my primary reasons for opposing the draft — or needing to register for it — is its inherent inequality. I would be the first to contend that it is privileged young men (not just those in elite colleges) that have historically been able to avoid fighting in foreign wars — as exemplified during the latter half of the 20th century, especially in President George W. Bush’s case. It is indeed the underprivileged, the uneducated and, in many cases, the minorities who end up fighting these wars.
These people, however, are not the ones who will our nation to war — it is the privileged ones in Washington who know full well that their sons will slip through the loopholes. Even though it’s only my personal interpretation of current events, I subscribe to the notion that the disenfranchised would sooner invest $87 billion in their ailing communities than engage in a wild goose hunt in Iraq.
That brings me to my second, equally misinterpreted point — one that permeates socio-economic standing and cuts directly to morality. To be blunt, I am wholly opposed to America’s current war in Iraq, and I refuse to see that as an unpatriotic stance. Is not a true American patriot he who relentlessly questions the actions of his leaders? Don’t take my word for it, though — take Benjamin Franklin’s: “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
Even if the war is precisely what the Bush administration would have the nation believe — namely a fight for the extension of freedom (a convenient back-up after the non-discovery of weapons of mass destruction) — I must dissent. How can we claim to be ambassadors of freedom abroad if 11 states just ratified amendments limiting the freedom of men and women to marry whom they love?
When I say that I am unwilling to fight to defend our freedoms, it is not because I believe that I am “too good to fight for my country.” I am opposed to registering for the draft (even if that draft never sees the light of day) because judging by the war in Iraq, I don’t believe that future wars that may necessitate a draft will actually be fought in defense of our rights. And even if they are, I am less and less convinced that these rights are, in fact, universal within our own nation.
Oh, and by the way, I did register for the draft after all.
Kalani finds it interesting that when his friend tried to participate in “Free” Republic’s message-board, his comments were “Removed by Moderator” and his membership was revoked. E-mail him at kalani08@stanford.edu.
_____________________________________
Your wish is granted.
Who are the guilty freepers here?
I wasn't, but I'm about to become one.
Yep, old privileged Dubya managed to avoid fighting by TRYING TO GO TO VIETNAM. There's a plan.
I'm sorry I missed this morons previous bashing, so well deserved. Some people are born idiots, some have to work hard and go to college to become idiots.
I take it from your screen name you got a double yolker!
I admit to being one of the guilty parties. Here is my letter to the errant young man in its totality:
For a Stanford boy you are not very bright.
All Swiss are subject to compulsory military service.
For you to enjoy the freedom of this country and not sign up to fight for it says a lot about you.
Regards,
I agree with the "whining pussy" part.
I don't. He gives pussy a bad name.
As is always the case with the shallowness of the pathetic commie/fascist/socialist/Dums they believe their own simpleminded rhetoric. First of all the "privileged" ones he refers to got off their lazy butts and raised money went out and met the people, told them their ideas and garnered enough VOTES to go to Washington. I always love to hear these poor little cretins promote the idea that the WASHINGTON ELITE just beamed themselves there on a whim. And ofcourse it NEVER applies to the likes to Teddie (I'll drive) Kennedy.
They are so shortsighted and lack the intellecual depth to be taken seriously, then cry when some Freeper tells them the truth.
This is just another way to try and scare our young people about the draft. Writing an article for a college newspaper, talking about something that is not happening, is a continuation of the draft talk during the campaign by the dims.
http://daily.stanford.edu/tempo?page=content&id=16324&repository=0001_article
Six months, 17 days. That’s how long I’ve been 18 years old. $250,000 and five years in prison. As of now, that’s what I owe the federal government for evading the draft. I am a hardnosed liberal, aren’t I?
What a loser!
He gives George Bush as an example of privileged people who didnt get drafted or who had good assignments. He forgot his own hero John Kerry who did.. How about John Kennedy and brother Joe.I seem to remember those privileged men served. Like any other system some slip through and some dont. I really dont hink his story holds water.
Sounds like this little darling is eaten up with liberal, progressive 'education' -- "If gays can't marry, and women can't abort babies until the 9th month, then America is not free, and not worth fighting for!!!"
Selective service registration has been around since 1980 (or so) and until this year, I had never heard of anyone refer to it as "signing up for the draft". Perhaps it had something to do with the Viacom-driven draft scare propaganda they were pushing with the 'Rock the Vote' nonesense.
This 'writer' is a thrall to the leftist propaganda he has been fed, and he has no idea at all how much of a 'free thinker' he really isn't.
Let us hope this young fellow's major isn't logic. This is a raging non sequitur.
The fact of the matter is that 25 million people are now free of murderous, tyrannical despotisms and are scratching to build new countries and new lives for their children and he's bitching because John can't marry Ralph in Nebraska? This is not a set of priorities that any adult should be proud of. This is a very young man who has never felt real poverty, seen real oppression, or smelled the stink of death in the street.
It may amuse him, therefore, to learn that I, an ex-serviceman and very proud of it, also oppose the draft. The principal reason I do so is that I think that it makes the military much less motivated and effective because it populates it with people like himself. This is not a theoretical consideration; I served both in times of a draft and in times of an all-volunteer force. There simply is no comparison.
You say in your latest column:
'... Even though FreeRepublic.com likely won’t publish this column — and thus I will not reach the very audience I desire to rebut — I think it’s necessary to restate my position, as it is entirely possible that the exact opposite of what I intended was deduced from last week’s article.'
Strike 1, Mr. Leifer. Here you are again inciting a fresh FreeRepublic thread.
Further in your latest screed you say,
'One of my primary reasons for opposing the draft — or needing to register for it — is its inherent inequality. I would be the first to contend that it is privileged young men (not just those in elite colleges) that have historically been able to avoid fighting in foreign wars — as exemplified during the latter half of the 20th century, especially in President George W. Bush’s case.'
Foul ball! Steeerike TWO! Nice try, but as noted above it is documented (though no liberal would even acknowledge hearing it) that GW Bush had offered to serve in Viet Nam. Of course if he HAD served, then - as a full-fledged liberal - you'd be damning him for that very service. On the other had BJ Clinton, idol of the left, cleverly managed to avoid any service whatsoever... and in fact acted dishonorably by going abroad and participating in anti-American activities; wouldn't Mr. Clinton provide a much better example for the point you were trying to make?
Want to go for strike three?
Your lot are perfectly willing to reap the benefits that living in America offers. But, when push comes to shove, you are unwilling to potentially pay the price that may be incurred in her defense.
As the Big Giant pointed out earlier, the truth is just the opposite of Liefer stated position. I don't think Liefer is stupid though. He more than likely suffers the same condition a lot of DUmmies do, willful ignorance. It's frustrating having a discussion with most libs, becasue they all suffer varying degrees of it. I'll wager anyone that he'll merrily go his way, continuing to write columns restating the same lie over and over. That's why Ann Coulter suggests using a baseball bat while talking to libs, an occasional whack to their head can really help alleviate this problem.
It is indeed the underprivileged, the uneducated and, in many cases, the minorities who end up fighting these wars.
Bet he opposes US Military recruiters on campus too. If we do, we are going to have more and more of the upper crust joining the military for the same reasons most do, love of country. Can't have any of the privileged class serving the country in the military out of love.
Kalani finds it interesting that when his friend tried to participate in “Free” Republic’s message-board, his comments were “Removed by Moderator” and his membership was revoked.
Typical rude lib is my guess as to why. "Hey buddy this ain't DU, you can't sprinkle four letter words in your posts like they're grass seed." We've got the next generation of Americas leaders learning here (homeschoolers) and we make sure that we protect them.
Since the word "free" is in the title of the forum, I assume that you think that that is supposed to mean it gives every troll a license to come here and spew. Of course, if this alleged "friend" bothered to read the mission statement, it clearly states that the FR is not a debating society.
It is a means of spreading news that happens to allow conservative commentary after the article. Believe it or not, Mr. Smarty Pants Writer Guy, "freedom" is not the power to do whatever you want whenever you want to do it. It isn't the right to post whatever come into your mind on a privately funded server. "Freedom" is not a smiley thumbs up rubber stamp on a gay marriage or the mandate to Hoover the womb on a whim. As another reader stated, "freedom" is not self indulgent, impulse driven nihilism.
I don't participate in that discussion, but I have to agree with the majority on this one. You, sir, are a pansy.
APf
You know what? They're total fa*s and NO ONE likes them; very "Perfumed Prince" attitude, not very smart, and totally off-putting.
Stanford is full of moneyed punks who lavish in freedom, and snatch it away from others in half a second --just like this guy.
They're SUCH wusses they just got their asses beat big time --by BERKELEY.
How's that for OPENNESS? Yeah.
It was in front of that tower thing on top of the Hoover Institution, next to the biz school.
Stanford --where you go if you're TOO LAME to figure out how to get around paying $40k in tuition in order to be instructed to despise your forebears.
Ditto.
This airhead needs several things 'splained to him.
LVM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.