What is this "hypocrisy" you speak of?
Fact: The military blatently discriminates against non-heterosexuals, and cheerfully engages in some things that some people find morally questionable, such as torture and murdering innocent people.
Fact: The federal government demands that any colleges and universities recieving any federal funding give the military a free pass to try to recruit students.
Fact: The federal government claims that they are within their right to revoke all federal funding if a school is so bold as to slightly limit recruiters' access to students.
My opinions: This looks, to me, to be dangerously close to the military getting too snuggly with the legislature. Because of that, it also looks to me like the federal government explicitly condoning discrimination. I'm no fan of the military, and would like to think that anyone smart enough to be in law school is smart enough to see the major problems with the military: a law student is likely capable of going out and getting a real job that doesn't involve mindlessly following orders to murder people and embracing bigotry. But seriously: what the hell makes the military so special? Why do they get such bonuses such as complete control over educational funding?
As we're constantly reminded, it's an all-volunteer force. People can try to argue against this but they've yet to convince me: Anyone who joins the military is in some way accepting their policies as 'right'. This means you obviously don't have a problem with, say, a president deciding to go and invade large sandy countries who happen to have a massive supply of oil. And you don't have a problem with bigotry and intolerance, to say nothing of killing people.
So...my sympathy is limited for the military, both the brass and the peons. They signed up for it entirely willingly, therefore, they deserve whatever they get.
posted by NinjaGeek @ 5:04 PM
2 Comments:
ouroboros said: "And "cheerfully" murdering innocent people? When? "
seriously. you need to get off your high horse about this topic. there are plenty of people in the military who would have nothing to do with almost all of what you mentioned. doctors, para-rescue troops, pilots (flying more humanitarian missions than otherwise), even NOAA and the Coast Guard are in the uniformed service of the country and their members 'military'
Torture (from here): Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
I say 'cheerfully' because I have no evidence otherwise. Perhaps it would be better phrased that they do their jobs cheerfully in the way that many people "cheerfully" go to work: you don't particularly want to, but you do it anyway and don't particularly regret it. If that job involves bombing a city (which will have innocent people in it), then I think the conclusion is clear.
And by joining the military, someone is expressing acceptance of the militaries policies. I personally feel these policies are morally wrong, but there's no question that they are discrimantory. I don't care if they're a saintly doctor who nurses sick children back to health for free in the civilian world: if they join the military they're accepting the military way of thinking.
NOAA is run by the Department of Commerce, btw, not the Dept. of Defense.
Post a Comment
<< Home