I see how they came up with idea... bunch of high ranked generals get together and light up a joint... They start talking about The Avangers movie while chewing on some cheetos and all of the sudden Commander of Airforce says "fug it, lets build one". "Lets, do it!" Says another high ranked official. Third high ranked official says "How much it will cost?" Airforce director say "Who gives a fug, it's not like we paying for it!" Everyone laughs.
Not yet, Arsen. Weed legalization still has to pass through the new Mayor's office. Won't go into effect until March at the very earliest, or 2016 at the most likely.
Besides, it's already legal to possess and grow in DC (short of distributable amounts).
Between this - which is completely bad ass - and the Mars rover I am completely convinced that a well funded NASA would have space tourism, a permanent base on the moon, and we would be well on our way to a maned mission to Mars.
But then radical Islam happened, so we made death-raining robots instead.
they sure as hell weren't drafted and uhhh they never actually had to go in the first place. american society cries "personal responsibility" up until it comes to things like fighting unjust wars at which point i guess we can only blame the shadowy faceless government man and continue to SUPPORT ARE TROOPS because it somehow wasn't their choice to enlist, to fail to protest their deployment, or to go on to carry out an unjust war of aggression.
when exactly are individuals responsible for the harm they cause others? keep in mind that not everyone is an authoritarian who believes that "just following orders" can excuse an individual's actions. for example:
but at least back then ppl were drafted. there's pretty much no excuse for an american to participate in, say, iraq or afghanistan
This is what my girlfriend always says; they agreed to enlist, therefore they are responsible for the unjust wars. And I kind of get it. But you can't just stop there. You have to follow that premise to it's logical conclusion. Which would be, "We should have no standing army."
Because if you are blaming soldiers for enlisting and being deployed in unjust wars, which they can't control, then the only thing they can control is to not enlist to begin with. And because, as we've established by this premise of personal responsibility, all soldiers are culpable for the flawed foreign policy of the US, then NO ONE should enlist EVARR!!!
So if no one enlists, there is not Army, there is no Air Force, there is no Navy and there are no Marines. So because you disagree with some wars started by lying politicians, the US should have no armed forces?
Its a question because you and I probably have a different definition of what constitutes glorification. Fwiw, I think a lot of unemployed vets would question it. There is sometimes a push to treat the military members better and at least some of this is a response/reaction to the way some were treated after Vietnam. But imo, its mostly just lip service. How many parents will say thanks for your service while telling their own kids not to serve. Do college graduates flock to recruiters (except perhaps during hard economic times)? One would think that if the military was truly glorified, then they would have to turn away recruits by the hundreds of thousands.
Have you seen the movies that come out of Hollywood these days about the modern military? There are a few that portray them in a more realistic light, but for the most part they are shown as mindless order following robots, or corrupt leaders. Movies like Blackhawk Down are few and far between.
Fwiw, maybe calling them all heroes is probably glorifying them a little to much. But not to the extent the author seems to believe.
This. The hero worship that people seem to be referring to is largely a creation of a leftist agenda (and as a Democrat, it hurts to write that scathingly) aimed at the policies of legislators and the corporate magnates who control them. The evidence this article fails to acknowledge is this. A US Veteran kills himself/herself every 65 minutes in this country. The backlog of claims for post 9/11 GI Bill veterans still keeps these heroes from bettering themselves through education, becoming gainfully employed, or even receiving medical treatment. And one in 4 homeless people is a veteran. Does that sound like a Heinleinian nation that blindly rallies behind our hero soldiers?
The real victims of military hero worship are the veterans themselves. Because rather than actually see to the betterment of their lives, Americans can say, "I hung a flag out my window, and shook the hand of a guy in fatigues, I did my good deed for the day!"
Instead of addressing the true costs of a gleefully militaristic nation, the author wrote an opinion article that is tantamount to "I didn't like the last two wars. Wah wah wah." Jingoism. Racism. Imperialism. Expansionism. All the soldiers' fault!
Again, in regard to the article, it's intentionally controversial click bait.
The "conversation" can be had six months from now...or anytime really. But just before Veteran's day? Want a snazzy analogy to show the short-sightedness of this?
Agreed. I might have taken this seriously if it wasn't on Veteran's Day. But then it wouldn't have gotten the clicks! Would it have?
Veteran's Day is just the day in which the service of our armed services members is thrown into the spotlight. Some use it to blindly salute the troops, all the troops (even the rapists, profiteers, and child-killers), and others use it to take a swipe at the troops (ignoring the honorable, the courageous, and the noble). But the most insidious group is the one that seeks to greedily spin the day into an opportunity to grab attention. Worse still, pretending this action is some sort of paradigm shifting social commentary.
If you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, what better day to call the families of the victims liars and claim that no one was on United 93 and it was all a hoax, than on 9/11 when it's on everyone's mind?
If you're thesis had any legs, you could release it any of the other 364 days in a year. But when you choose to launch your fiery rhetorical missile on the one day people actually are paying attention to something (in an eerily Boston Bomber-esque fashion) then it speaks to the dearth of significance your argument holds.
I disagree and agree with some of the concepts in that article, but I won't be drawn into this debate because ultimately this was a marketing ploy masquerading as news.
"Be sure to share this article with all your friends on Veterans Day! We want Salon to be trending on Twitter."
If one were inclined to believe that the organization was hanging Cam out to dry and tanking the season as part of a elaborate conspiracy to drive down Cam's market value to make him more affordable to resign, not saying that's the case, but just suggesting it as a possibility, would this report that said player is mopey and too weak-willed to be a franchise QB not be exactly the kind of news "leaked" from an organization with such intentions?