It’s not easy these days to carry the President’s water up on Capitol Hill. Most incumbent Democrats successfully campaigned against him, and most Republican hopefuls are trying to generate daylight between themselves and his record as he moves into his lame duck period. I give Condi Rice credit for at least trying, but an unrepentant California Senator Barbara Boxer says that, given that Rice never married and doesn’t have children, she’s got no skin in the game:
Boxer, during her questioning of Rice, said she wanted to focus attention on the human consequences of the decision.
“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young,” to serve, Boxer told Rice. “You’re not going to pay a price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families.”
You don’t get to have an opinion apparently unless – like me – you have military-aged children. Which is a strange position for the senator to take, given that most military folks generally support the idea of winning the wars we choose to fight, and all of us pretty much support the notion of civilians living their lives the way they choose.
It’s hard to imagine a political figure being more wrong-headedly condescending but I suppose we can all be grateful that at least that she didn’t congratulate the first female, African American Secretary of State on her eloquence.
Thus, feminism.
Now, don’t get all catty, Lex! The junior senatrix from Kali is not as dangerous as the other one, not being as smart.
This makes me terribly sad because, having a son in the U.S. military, presumably my opinion trumps the Sec. of State. The problem with this is that I voted for her political ticket so she could speak for me!
Would Ms. Boxer like me to come up to her committee hearing and give her an earfull? I assure you that I would not be anywhere as polite… Waiting for my invitation… After all, I have “absolute moral authority!”
Lex
I know you’re an Airedale, however you just used Blackshoe Battleship methods and fired off one helluva broadside, in more ways than one.
Excellent.
SJBill
This is just a lame Democratic “chicken-hawk like” argument from their pissant playbook, re-packaged to fit the circumstances. They even used it during the Cold War-”if you’re not against Nucs, you must be for them”. Bizzare ain’t in it.
And in every election since 2000, they have used it at every opportunity.
The technique is weak, and IMO, immoral. Anyone who buys into it is simply stupid.
b2
b2
There’s more than enough stupid flying around these days. The dynamics of government and powers change with the whims and emotions of the uniformed, not by changes in folks that truly bone up on the issues. It’s all about hair, botox, and getting the most unwarranted shot in on your adversary. I take consolation that Secretary Rice had class.
Vr-
SJBill
B2,
I’m not so sure its immoral, it is just unnecessary. There are plenty of factual things that one can challenge Secretary Rice on without having to go the route that she did. That’s why I was so suprised when she said it. As several commentators on TV pointed out, there are a hell of a lot better ways to make the same point.
To quote a line from a movie: “Stupid is as stupid does”. Or somethin’ like that.
Skippy,
I prefaced my “immoral” tag with “IMO”.
I am quite certain our personal views on morality vary tremendously. I have read your views over the last 2 years quite extensively. Your blog, listed on the right, provides all the documentation anyone could need.
That all being said, I am quite pleased you agree that the chicken-hawk argument, and all it’s permutations, is just plain stupid.
Personally, I don’t need TV commentators (non-analytical journalism majors-at best) to tell me what are specious and stupid arguments…
sjbill- Amen brother
B2
Since when does someone’s “status” as a parent or not, dictate what opinions they can have? I thought it was about education…
Boxer’s comment is the most idiotic thing I’ve heard in a very long time. And that’s SAYIN’ something in this day and age.
I don’t have any children, so I should have no say? Screw that. Oh man oh man oh man.
And what really scares me even more? There are actually people out there that agree with her……
Well, following the Senator’s own reasoning, the matter shouldn’t conern her at all, she should just mind her own busines, because as she said her kids are too old and her grandchildren too young. So … what’s it to her?
I suppose all those non-breeding constituents in Speaker Pelosi’s district have no say either. That should be the headline– Boxer: Gays’ Opinions on War Irrelevant.
Although the question was not stated very well, it is, none the less, a valid one.
Who pays? Not just in terms of sending your children off to war, but the financial costs as well. Republicans always charge the Democrates with being the “tax and spend” party. With the Bush tax cuts, the Republicans are the “spend and spend” party, with no plan to pay for all this debt, other than to pass it off to the next person, who ever that may be. I always though republicans are supposed to be about smaller government, less taxes, and fiscal responsibility.
So, regardless of whether or not you have children, or children of military age, etc, somebody is going to have to start ponying up the cash for this military adventure.
As far as the Democratic play book, yes, it does seem scripted, just like the republican response.
SJ Bill,
You said:
The dynamics of government and powers change with the whims and emotions of the uniformed, not by changes in folks that truly bone up on the issues.
Did you by any chance mean “uninformed?” or were you trying to pick a fight with all of us whimsical, emotional uniformed people?
Best
Nose
Nose, Sir,
You are correct. My apologies for not properly proofreading.
Sir, I have absolutely no quarrel with those wearing the cloth of our nation. I could not be closer to them.
SJBill
Paul,
You prove my point…twice:
- First off, regarding Pelosi’s demand- “who pays the price?”. The question Pelosi posed was in regards to the “human cost”. Did you read the testimony the Q&A was about???
- Secondly, making equivalency of “playbooks” re the chicken-hawk tactic.
I rest my case Sir.
B2
Hey, I like this plan. I get a vote (male offspring age 25 & 18 – with the 18 year on familiar terms with the local Marine recruiter) and Sen. Boxer doesn’t….works for me. My staff will put out my policy paper shortly.
Seriously, this whole hearing was nonsense. Sen. Hagel was yelling over Dr. Rice’s answers to his own questions and Sen. Biden wasn’t keeping order.
B2,
Your judments on my morality I’ll ignore since my morality is my business alone. Just like Secretray Rice’s marital status I’m not so sure what bearing it has on anything.
While we are in agreement on this particular issue, I actually believe that the chicken-hawk issue has some merit. In particular there are too many people in both parties who have not fufilled their obligations as men and served the nation in their youth. I find it really interesting when one goes to the AEI web site and look at the cast of characters there ( since they are the primary authors of this change) and see how many people there have not served.
As I have stated elsewhere I am strongly in favor of a program of national service. The number of people without miltary service working in government is the highest its ever been and that should trouble everyone as a disturbing demographic, particularly as we enter a 20 year period of war without end.
Sadly national service will never get the debate that it needs. Since you have been reading my blog to gain insights into how immoral I may or may not be, you have probably read my commentary on this issue too.
I’ve seen Skippy on liberty and I can attest to his immorality!!
SJBill- Just joshing you sir. Glad noone corrects my grammar/spelling here!
N
Thanks Nose, thanks a lot. I’ve seen you on liberty too my friend……….(This also known as the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction…).
Did I say immorality? I meant irresponsibility, uh, I meant irreverence er I meant irresponsiveness, er I meant iridescence.
Durnit!
Skippy,
Who’s discussing YOUR morality or immorality? “Jud-ments”? Go back to my comments and read again what I said. I said, IMO, it (C-H argument) is immoral (IMO again) and then pointed out a link to why we differ morally (your own words at your own blob). You disagreed and went off.
I believe the chicken-hawk argument is “immoral” because it is a thinly veiled ad hominem attack meant to personally denigrate the attackee while simultaneously raising doubts in the “minds of the stupid” over their ability to make decisions.
I was simply making the point that you (I mistakenly thought) could actually see the fallacy of the chicken-hawk argument in all it’s seemingly infinite forms.
Obviously not.
Glad you cleared it up for me that the C-H argument, in YOUR opinion, has merit. Therefore IMO, the S-word comes to mind.
Let’s personalize this and see how silly the argument is- Does an E-2 Hawkeye carry bombs? Shoot rockets? Harpoon? HARM? A-A cannon? Sindwinders? Don’t tell me you can order action over a radio or sending a link track. All that doesn’t count unless you have a stores release or a trigger.
Therefore, it follows that the C-H premise dictates that your opinions and ideas on the conduct of clash of arms (War) must be INVALID.
Don’t agree? See what I mean? I don’t.
Just like the convoluted idea Babs Boxer argued, in that Condi Rice has no authority to make security decisions because she is not a stakeholder who happens to have children.
As citizens- military and civilian, we are all stakeholders. Chicken-hawk arguments must be cut off at the knees each and every time one rears up.
b2
The Sociology and Politics of Sympathy…
I haven’t written about the Boxer-Rice dust-up because it was an ugly bit of political theatre, and others have covered it so well. But the other day I got a very sweet comment that revived it for me:…
Regarding Skippy’s note that the number of people in government without military service is the highest ever, I’m not certain that is necessarially a bad thing. Let us assume that legislators are a fairly random sample of the population at large with respect to military service.
First, it means that for at least a generation we’ve not had a war that required a draft to provide the manpower needed, so we’ve been at relative peace in that time.
Second, it means a volunteer force has met our manpower needs over the past generation and that implies the threats against us were not so great as to require the entire nation meet them. By this I mean we didn’t have to stop producing cars to produce tanks or ships, or give engineers and teachers rifles and send them into battle rather than have them build bridges and educate our citizens, so economically we’re much better off.
Finally, we have a potential reserve force of just over two million souls in state and federal prisons at present. If we assume a 50% aceptance rate, we could offer them freedom and time served for enlistment and within two months have an additional million members of the armed services. Yet we’ve never been so desperate for soldiers that we’ve gone to that length, perhaps because it would do more harm to our military than good.
Thus it seems to me this statistic is the result of living in good times rather than bad, and hence I cannot fault an individual for not having served when there was no pressing call to that duty. I too have long thought that the experience and bonds forged between men who have served would make them better governors of those who had not such experience (as an example, Joe Foss *genuflect* is still considered South Dakota’s best governor to date) and would provide much-needed perspective, but would Bill Gates or Ted Kennedy spending two years in the Peace Corps or Marines have been of benefit to the country as a whole given their other talents? For that matter, did the military service of the two President Bush’s and President Carter provide them with some benefit compared to President Clinton or even the relatively mild military service of President Reagan?
Taken as a whole, I’m sure the responsibility of the CIC rested equally heavy on Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. I’m also equally sure that Bill Gates has done more for the country running Microsoft than he would have as a soldier. Thus, I think it safe to say mandatory service would not help the country as a whole, nor the military, nor give us better leaders. In terms of equality the idea has merit, but life is full of inequalities.
Not to rain on your parade, Skippy, I’m just calling it the way I see it.
– Max
You have to take a number to rain on my parade. There are plenty of others lining up for that opportunity.
I’m not so sure I follow your arguement. Could it not be that Bill Gates would make even more contribution had he had miltary service under his belt? Why could he not do both? Serve then go on to run Microsoft.
Actually at its heart, my feelings on this issue is more emotional than any thing else. I simply resent the fact that there are large numbers of young men and women who get to go through their lives, go to their jobs, have their fun without the the threat of being shipped off to (fill in the blank) hanging over them. Yet people who I respect who have IMO the same right to the same things have that always in the background..and will for many years to come.
“Ah but they volunteered for that.” Yes they did. And most did so based on the premise that the benefits (and this not just money but discipline and structure and values in their lives) they would recieve in return-tangible and intangible-would out weight the potential costs. So I cannot resolve the inequality, except to state that just because inequality exists does not somehow make it right.
Lets also remember that Americans pride themselves on not having a mercenary Army-rather one that is a cross section of the society at large. Its part of why we believe that we are better than other nations in the world. Despite what some have argued, I remain committed to the belief that there is a disconnect between society at large and its military , and its not good in the long run.
B2, Actually your very line of arguement has been used before to explain why as an E-2 guy I could not do certain things. You were around for the old debate about “strike lead” quals. Now that one has become OBE IMHO because both the E-2 and strike warfare have evolved beyond where the Navy was in those days. However, its vestige remains. There are still people who believe it. Just like there are people who feel neo-cons are way too free with advocating military force as a prescription for everything wrong in the world order.
To borrow a quote from a movie, “Sometimes Travis, its the way you say things- I swear to God.” Guess you could say that about my perceptions of what you said. Then again you could probably say the same thing about me.
As for anything that happened on liberty with Nose……I think the statue of limitations has run out. And honest your honor, she told Nose she was 18!
Gee Skippy, if all you can take away from my analogous E-2 TACAIR? chicken-hawk argument example was to discuss being a Strike Lead then you still don’t acknowledge my point.
Perhaps it’s my lousy writing skills, but you sure deflected the core questions on the chicken-hawk argument by a diversion down the old volunteer military vs draft, etc. issue. Heck you even sucked max damage into your vortices.
b2
Suggest you GOMERS take a deep breath, lighten the f..k up and consider, in the spirit of MLK Day, the following bit of frivolity:
Is Senator Barbara Boxer’s fashion statement, a frazzzled, rumpled-up old Hobbit like* crone in a ill fitting, if I only was a man suit, an appropriate one to make for a United States Senator from the great State of California ? Best
*not intended in any way to be confused with or applied to Lex’s sainted SO.
Hey Skippy,
I was a strike lead. If you were not, maybe you should have studied more (or behaved better on liberty.)
Nose (E-2 Guy)
Nose,
What can I say? A man has to make choices.
.
In response to Skippy, I wasn’t saying that Bill Gates would not have made a more effective leader if he had military service, nor am I saying that he is a better leader because he did not have it. We can never truly know. What we do know is that there’s only so many years in a man’s life and time spent doing what he’s not adept at is time spent away from what he is good at. We also know that a military wants motivated, self-confident people, not people punching a clock or looking at their obligation as time to serve before moving on. Likewise with the Peace Corps, Americorps, Red Cross, or any other organization.
Perhaps the ancient Greeks had a good idea in that if you didn’t serve and provide your hoplong, you didn’t get the full benefits of citizenship. It seemed to serve them, in any event. I would posit that we’ve likely adopted the best of both worlds with a professional armed forces and the highly-trained militia force to be found in the various National Guard services, the best balance between mercenary (nowadays professional) and militia with all being volunteer so you know they signed up because this job wasn’t the lesser of two evils.
Granted, we may not be using the militia in the manner originally thought of, but the basic structure is sound.
And if I can’t make the grade due to bad vision or flat feet, do I not still serve this nation through my contributions in other ways? Can I not weld Liberty ships or design guidance systems or keep the water and gas running for your family left behind, or dare I say it run the mutual fund that their retirement is based upon?
It seems to me we each have a role to play. I may not contribute as much or as directly as Lex has, but then again perhaps the Navy is better off without one such as me? As in most hypothetical things we’ll never know for sure, but it sure seems to me that we’ve a good system in place now and large-scale changes would introduce a lot of unforseen consequences.
I’m not saying your idea wouldn’t have certain benefits, laudable ones even. I’m merely noting that Lex did a part that he could do, and I do a part quite different, and maybe since we’ve so few soldiers and so many civilians this division of labor is more optimal than mandatory service would be to the country as a whole.
– Max
Max,
All good points. I’ve tried to come up with a response here and I don’t have one. All I know is that service in the military was good for me and I am better off for having the experience than not having had it. That’s all I really know for sure.
with no plan to pay for all this debt,
Have you checked the state of tax revenues and the deficit lately? Apparently not.
somebody is going to have to start ponying up the cash for this military adventure.
That would be at least partially me, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars annually. Frankly, I’d rather spend it on our “military adventure” that on more of the same neo-Socialist redistribution schemes that have trapped a large portion of our citizenry in a gov’t dependency. But, having never been on welfare, I don’t suppose I’m allowed to hold that opinion either.
DAve
Having never been on welfare, perhaps you should consider yourself lucky and count your blessings. However, I will grant your your opinion.
Lucky? Well, I’ll grant you that I have no dire health issues or other impediments to working, and that is truly a blessing. But that was neither necessary or sufficient – a great deal of work was still requires. And work I have. I’ve had one form of job or another since I was 12 years old. I did 5 years enlisted active duty in the military, where I had voluntarily had $100/month withheld in a tuition matching program rather than spend it as quickly as I made it. $100 per month of enlisted pay is a significant chunk (or it was back then, anyway) of money.
It wasn’t enough to get me through college, so I did another six years in the National Guard. That still wasn’t enough, so I took a low-paying fulltime job that offered tuition reimbursement for two classes at a time. It took me 9 years of both working full time and meeting the demands of Engineering College to finish my degree.
Lucky? Yes, I suppose, in that I was capable of meeting the military’s enlistment standards, but not “lucky” in the way those suffering from class envy define the word. Nothing was given to me but an opportunity, and that same opportunity was offered to all takers.
While I do count my blessings for the opportunities I saw and took, one of the blessings I include is that I was given the drive to succeed on my own.
My comment wasn’t meant to imply that you didn’t work hard to get to where you are today. I agree, you were blessed to possess the necessary drive to succeed. And you are to be commended for following thorugh with it. And no, I am not all being condescending with that comment. Just to be clear, I’m not much into class envy, at least I don’t think I am; I first became familiar with the term here.
But my point was, well maybe I have the opposite of class envy, for many of those on welfare. I am not saying that there aren’t those who abuse the system, but I consider myself lucky (because we are not able to choose either our physical or mental health or the twist of some circumstances) to have never had to rely on welfare, for either myself or my family.
See, its funny how life works out sometimes – for what its worth, I can give myself credit for having the drive and ambition of being the first one in my family to go go university, let alone make it through a professional degree. But then life strikes – health issues for myself and both health and developmental issues for one of my children – and suddenly I find I am not doing what I “planned”, not even able to work full-time in my chosen profession. So I have made the best of it, finding a way to work part-time in my field, while still meeting my family obligations. So, good for me. Good for us. But, if for example, my marriage were to end, what then? At least on a temporary basis, we would be suffering big time. And of cousre I would do my dammedest to rearrange my life yet again, to try to support myself and my kids. But only time would tell how succesful that would be.
So I see a fine line between those who are given or can seek out opportuniites and those who can’t. My one child for example, will be in receipt of social assistance for her entire adult life. Is that her “fault”? Do I like the idea? Of course not. And we work very hard, along with the school, to ensure she learns as much as she can in the area of life skills and other practical things so she will be as independent as possible as an adult. But that still doesn’t change the very likley reality for her future.
So that’s where I come from, my “bias” if you will, and that’s why comments regarding “neo-Socialist redistribution schemes” and the auditicy of the tax system being used to mitigate inequality really get to me.