Consider first the "botched joke" of John Kerry. Everyone has heard about how Mr. Kerry essentially called the military dumb and poor. We wrote about it here. Congressman Charles Rangel has been making waves with his call for a draft and has been even more explicit in his contempt for the troops:
"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq," Mr. Rangel, a Democrat representing Manhattan and Queens, said on "Fox News Sunday."Even our moronic hometown newspaper has picked up on the theme. The liberal elitist worldview reads that only poor, uneducated--mostly minorities--serve in the military. As recent reports about the overall intelligence of our military as compared to the general populace show, this isn't true. But even if it were true, when did it become bad that people surveyed their list of choices, and then decided to join the military? They see opportunities to get ahead--just the same as someone who attends community college. It is typical of liberal condescension that they look down on those who, without a trust fund, do what they can to get educated and get ahead.
"If there's anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment," the congressman said.
Back to Berry.
Mr. Berry's experience, highlighted wonderfully in an article in the Salt Lake Tribune by Patrick Kinahan (hat tip: Matt Lybbert), shows perfectly that even the "advantaged" are joining the military--and for purely virtuous reasons. Just because some liberals don't include patriotism in their list of priorities, doesn't make those who volunteer irrational.
The recently deceased Milton Friedman made a passionate case for an all-volunteer army. He surmised, based on economic research, that an all volunteer army would most effectively and efficiently allocate the nation's manpower. Sure, many would join because it gave them economic opportunities. So what? Others like Mr. Berry join because they are patriots. Whatever the motivation, these young men and women are hardly stupid or ignorant for joining. They aren't being duped.
Mr. Berry lists among his many accomplishments being a former BYU QB who graduated with a degree in history. He even wrote for this blog(!). He was also a co-founder of Consource where he worked with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and others (Justice Scalia) to make primary source documents relating to the creation of the Constitution available online to everyone. After completing basic training and officer candidate's school, Mr. Berry intends to pursue a graduate degree.
And Mr. Berry is hardly an anomaly. There are others like him. When we spoke with him just before leaving for basic, he mentioned that there were several others in his induction group who had families, were older, and had degrees. These volunteers were established. They hardly fit the profile of young, ignorant, uneducated, minorities like Mr. Rangel would like you to believe.
If you have questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
11 comments:
Thanks for the great post on Berry!
Does joining the military when you have other options make you a good guy? Why not write about someone joining the police force or the forest service or the CIA? Why the romanticizing of the soldier/warrior? Jake, do you fantasize about Matt Berry rescuing you from the clutches of an evil terrorist while wearing a BYU helmet and carrying the Constitution?
Jake, why don't you join the military? If they ask, just don't tell.
Raisin,
Thanks for fitting the mold. When conservatives respect the military they are somehow closet-homosexuals? Sure Raisin, that makes sense.
Do you really have that much contempt for the military and those who serve?
Good to see you around again Formerly.
What can I deduce about you? Well, you probably have trouble separating my sarcastic/tongue in cheek comments from my more serious ones. I'll explicitly state things for you in the future so you don't get confused and end up with your panties in an uncomfortable wad putting pressure on your already swollen prostate. Don't worry, you're not alone. Jake still believes Kerry would be so politically inept as to openly call the military stupid and uneducated in a time of war. He also thought my story about Cletus was meant to criticize the military, when in fact it was making a mockery of a ridiculous post he had made. Sometimes people only hear what they want to hear, and have "molds" prepared before they even think to ask for clarification.
Do I really have that much contempt for the military and those who serve? No. My dad was a Major and my Grandfather was a Lieutenant Colonel, both in the Air Force. I just don't buy into the myth of the warrior hero that has existed for so long in our literary and cultural history. Someday I hope to drink some wine with that liberal Jesus Christ and ask him why he didn't have the guts to use force in achieving his objectives. Peacemakers just don't make for very good heroes. Onward Christian soldiers!
Sorry to change the subject, but my opinion of Matt Berry has changed for the better. Any problems he had with his mechanics as a QB I blame on that quarterback coach, Mr. 1984, Bosco.
Here is an article written by the Executive Director of the MIT Center for International Studies. (I know Jake, the fact that he belongs to a highly respected educational institution damages his credibility. Furthermore, the fact that he is the Director would indicate he is orchestrating the liberal brainwashing of his sheep-like wonder students.) Note to Formerly Anonymous: That was sarcasm.
After reading this article I was left wondering, "Is Jake a phalangist blogger?" Take a read:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/44771/
For the record, I don't know what a phalangist is and I've been barred from using Wikipedia for submitting offensive and misleading definitions.
Raisin-
Per wikipedia, a Phalangist is someone who belongs to the Phalange Party. Here is the definition of Phalange:
The Kataeb Social Democratic Party (Arabic: الكتائب اللبنانية), better known as the Phalange, is a right-wing Lebanese political party that was first established as a youth movement in 1936 by Pierre Gemayel; he modeled the Phalange on European fascist movements after his visit to the Berlin Olympic games that year impressed him with Nazi power and unity. Its official name is the Social Democratic Party. It is mainly supported by the Maronite Christians.
Raisin,
You ought to know sarcasm doesn't translate well in print ESPECIALLY when no one knows who you are. Maybe if I knew you I would know when you are being sarcastic.
Kerry's botched joke and Rangel's blatant statements belie the latent attitude of condescension among liberal Democrats that Lybbert describes. Just because you had family in the military doesn't give you a pass. Lots of good soldiers give birth to pacifists who live in an alternate reality. I don't blame them for that. Your dad and grandad served, good for them, I'm grateful for their service. What does that mean for you? Perhaps your contempt for the military or this "warrior myth" is a result of your resentment of the military because of your father and grandfather's service. Who knows?
I don't think religion is germane to this discussion, but your reference to the peace loving Jesus of the New Testament ignores completely the God of the Old Testament.
Unfortunately for us, terrorists don't pay much attention to either one.
Formerly Anon,
First of all, the comment I made that you responded to was directed directly at Jake, who does know me, and does detect my sarcasm. So forgive yourself if you weren't in the loop. But for the thicker skulled among us, I would say that a comment about Matt Berry rescuing Jake from an evil terrorist while wearing a BYU football helmet and carrying the Constitution would be hard to take as anything but sarcastic. Good luck with that reading comprehension deficiency. (Just kidding Formerly, I don't know you either and I'm sure you are an entirely average human being.)
I think you confuse a lot of issues and I wish I had more time to respond right now, but I don't. Let me touch on a few though before I run. First of all, let me remind you that the question you asked is if I really had that much contempt for the military. I responded no, and explained that I had family who had served. I guess I could have gone further and said I respect these men too. I could have also said that I spent four years on a foreign military base as a child and enjoyed my associations, but that seemed unnecessary. You confuse yourself and the issue when you then say that my relatives' service doesn't give me a free pass? A free pass from what? From not having an opinion? From serving in the military myself? From being labeled by you lame ass conservatives as a condescending liberal? What is the pass I am looking for, and pray tell, how do I get one? Then you become even more confused by saying that military men sometimes have pacifists for children and you don't blame them. So are you saying being a pacifist is a bad thing? You really clutter the issue by seemingly drawing an equality between pacifists and those who are condescending to the military. Think harder next time. You then continue to confuse things by classifying me as one having contempt for the military, right after you admit that you don't know me. Are you basing this off of those same sarcastic comments you admitted you didn't understand? Are you sure that you aren't the one who WANTS me to be contemptuous of the military, just so I can fit your narrow minded mold? You made some really good points though. (That was sarcastic- just so you don't get confused again and think I thought there was anything of merit whatsoever in your comments.)
As for Jesus, I love bringing Jesus up to those right wing hybrids who claim to bow to him while ignoring his most basic teachings because it reveals their burning hypocrisy and lies. Some of you would feel that Christianity has fallen into a state of Apostasy, but when it comes to the politics of violent warfare you all share the same bed. Your reference to the God of the Old Testament likely reveals an LDS bias which holds that Christ was the architect of the Old Testament carnage. Then you also would believe that Christ fulfilled that law and presented a higher law. Let me give you a little Sunday school lesson you may have missed. The old law said an eye for an eye. (Or an invasion of a country for two towers it had nothing to do with. Weird.) The new law says turn the other cheek. Nobody really believes that anymore though do they? The neo-con agenda is incompatible with the teachings of Christ, and therein lies the hypocrisy.
Anything else you want to learn? (Now that is condescending.)
Morgan,
Thanks for the definition but I was just joking about being banned from Wikipedia. So, in the strictest sense Jake is not a phalangist blogger. Maybe there is some other meaning implied...
Post a Comment