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.
http://antiwar.com/past/20050221.html
Spending his time getting indoctrinated at Antiwar.com.
Well said.
The author uses 2 main argument to support his stance:
1) "....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. "
---
Answer: What you are really saying is that you subscribe to the notion that humanity is essentially a sad selfish lot who would rather take money from their fellow taxpayers to prop up their own failures and laziness than become a self sufficient, selfless individual who gives to save his fellow man who cannot save themselves.
---
2) "...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.”
---
Answer) This is an interesting self-serving plucking of a quote for amximum impact. No one is saying that questioning is wrong. Questioning is quite good if your goal is to improve the system. The author however offers no alternatives nor does he offer any solution for this supposed "problem".
We can all play the game of plucking quotes, how about trying Socrates on for size. When asked why he would not flee to save himself from the sentence of death he knew faced him, he used his unassailable logic to point out that he had worked within the framework of his society and flourished his entire life. He questioned what gave him the right to turn against that same system when it wasn't working in his favor. His argument used the example of a soldier and the draft. I wonder if Stanford teaches the classics? (Sorry, but he actual text with Socrates argument as relayed by Plato is way too much for me to type in this forum)
This person is still scum. More than willing to let someoneelse defend his freedoms for him.
"So here I am sitting in front of what turns out to be a dismally small 12-inch PowerBook screen, trying my best to figure out what makes me the authority on anything. I've been sitting here for hours. And then, as often happens when the what-the-hell-did-I-get-myself-into-this-time feeling enters my head, my oral fixation rears its ugly head."
Enough said. Makes you wonder where they get them.
In his first argument, the author points to percieved inequalities (either real or imagined) in the current system as a reason for rejecting it completely.
How many parents have had to tell their children that life itself is not fair, period?
Our system rewards those who work hard to succeed. We have the ability in our society to maximize our inherent traits and use them to allow us to make of ourselves anything we have the ability and stamina to achieve.
In our society, people have a chance to be rewarded for achievement. This is not true in most countries around the world. One exemption of the draft exemplifies this by allowing students in college who are achieving to continue to pursue their education. This exemption is applied regardless of the individuals economic roots, yet is often the very same exemption cited by those who claim that privileged people have an advantage. This sounds like an excuse by under achievers to me.
nothing
Funny.
He says he "questions everything", but he is obviously steamed about the fact that people are questioning him.
What a pretentious little hypocrit. Suck it up.
It's a seasonal, pagan thing. Everybody meets on campus at Stanford during autumnal equinox to mack down, cuz it's hip. Cuz it's OK, dig? Yeah, I've copped a good feel there....
But you know what? You can get an STD from a rich chick, too.
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.