Reviewing the reviewers
30 July 2004
I envy those who can, and do, spend the time to write smart, witty things on the Internet.
Serving country in armed forces: good.
Not fighting in war you oppose: also good.
Fighting in war you oppose: complex.
Serving country in armed forces and then fighting to end war you oppose: doubleplus good.
Not fighting in war you support: deeply hypocritical.
Not fighting in war you support and then blaming black people for not letting you serve (known to ethicists as “the DeLay conundrum”): hypocrisy so deep it cannot be plumbed by known moral instruments.
Having “other priorities” during war you support: vacuous.
Enlisting in National Guard: good.
Using one’s father’s connections to jump the line waiting to enlist in National Guard, in order to avoid service in Vietnam: bad, but widely practiced and considered merely venial in some cultures.
Using one’s father’s connections etc. and then not fulfilling obligations to National Guard after all: unambiguously bad.
Using one’s father’s connections etc., not fulfilling obligations etc., then serving as commander-in-chief, waging war under false pretenses, and extending reservists’ terms of service in war while cutting veterans’ benefits: kind of like being on Tom DeLay’s moral level, only worse.
I envy them, but then their existence means I don’t feel like I have to try, and then fail, at being smart and witty.
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.