Day: March 19, 2001

Are Americans Becoming Military Illiterate? Good For Them

Are Americans “military illiterate?” Gannett columnist John Omicinski thinks so and he endorses a “solution” to the problem recently proposed by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James L. Jones — force every American to spend several years in the armed forces.

It is always a bit surreal to read these sorts of defenses of empire. Why should we try compulsory military service and why should the United States abandon its namby pamby aversion to serious wars? Because too many people have already died in America’s previous wars to give up now. In a recent speech, Jones said,

As the pendulum swings between two centuries, a major question is whether our nation will continue to accept its leadership role on the global playing field, as it was bequeathed to us by our ancestors.

Huh? The same ancestors such as Thomas Jefferson who warned Americans against the dangers of a standing army during peace time? Where in the Constitution exactly does it say that the world is simply the United States’ “global playing field”?

Has Jones surveyed what this global game has wrought on the world? Does the United States really want to spend the next century supporting petty dictatorships and looking the other way at state-sanctioned murder, torture and other sundry crimes simply to satisfy Jones’ and Omicinski’s need to have a “global playing field”?

Omicinski laments that if we don’t have compulsory military service, and the accompanying love for war that this would presumably bring, we risk all sorts of unspeakable horrors.

Americans’ low tolerance for taking casualties was part of Saddam Hussein’s strategic thinking in his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. He didn’t think we would fight. He almost was right.

God forbid that Americans come to think of war casualties as a bad thing (much less that they wonder exactly what was accomplished or resolved by the Persian Gulf War, aside from the massive amount of taxpayer money dropped over Iraq for several weeks).

If the military is having problem meeting its recruiting goals, there is a much simpler solution than compulsory service. Listen to Jefferson and his contemporaries and drastically shrink the size of the military and re-focus the military’s mission exclusively to protecting the borders of the United States from hostile military attack. The United States should also end all foreign aid to the various combatant parties around the world.

The 20th century proved pretty clearly that U.S. military force is definitely not a solution. For the 21st century, the United States could at least choose to not be part of the problem.

Sources:

In non-draft era, citizens becoming military illiterate. USA Today, March 15, 2001.

XFL Finally Hits Its Stride

Finally it happened — the XFL went where no sports broadcast (or any other broadcast) had gone before. Saturday night’s game between the Orlando Rage and the Los Angeles Xtreme was apparently the lowest rated prime time show in television history.

Game 3 of the 2000 Stanley Cup finals was the previous marker of futility, garnering only a 2.3 share. Overnight ratings suggest the XFL broadcast could beat that soundly with a 2.1 share.

Vince McMahon still keeps saying the league is going to be a success in the long term, but NBC will almost certainly bail on the experiment sooner rather than later. Meanwhile WWF stock is down 35 percent since the league’s debut.

PETA: Stop "Hunting in the Water"

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter last week demanding that the Boy Scouts of America eliminate its “Fishing” and “Fish and Wildlife Management” merit badges, since they require Scouts to engage in violent acts that are training young men to enjoy violence. Specifically, both badges involve Fishing — or as PETA calls it, “hunting in the water.”

According to PETA’s letter,

Fishing is no longer considered a benign activity. It is hunting in the water, and the idea of a scout armed with a gun or rod, setting out to actively attack animals who were minding their own business, is not in keeping with the image of scouting, now or in the past.

…

Promoting fishing teaches young people that hooking, maiming, suffocating, and killing is acceptable. We call on you to help break the cycle of cruelty by promoting activities that teach only compassion, rather than indifference and violence.

In case any reporters missed the point, in a news release, PETA said,

Desensitizing children to the suffering of others is a dangerous lesson. According to FBI profilers, the American Psychiatric Association, law enforcement officials, and child advocacy organizations, cruelty to animals is a warning sign commonly seen in people who eventually direct violence toward humans.

“In an era of school shootings and hate crimes, it is folly to encourage young boys to harm innocent animals,” says PETA’s Dawn Carr. “The Boy Scouts are supposed to be compassionate role models, not bloodthirsty fish killers.”

Source:

PETA’s letter to Milton H. Ward, president of the Boy Scouts of America. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Press Release, March 15, 2001.

Confessions of a killing machine. Terry Tomalin, St. Petersburg Times, March 18, 2001.

PETA Asks Boy Scouts To “De-Merit” Badges Promoting Cruelty To Animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Press Release, March 15, 2001.

South Carolina’s Home Invasion Policy

South Carolina’s Attorney General, Charlie Condon, has made national headlines for leading his state’s controversial anti-abortion efforts. Condon’s actions have made him enemy number one among some feminists. In January, however, Condon announced a new policy that should help women (and in fact already has in one case), and yet the media is raking him over the coals for it.

After hearing several reports of home invasions in South Carolina, Condon announced that the state would not prosecute individuals who killed intruders in their home. At the time Condon said,

The message needs to be sent loudly and clearly that the state is going to back the homeowner if their home is invaded. I’m putting home invaders on notice that if an occupant chooses to use deadly force, there will be no prosecution.

Apparently many in South Carolina thought Condon’s statement was a gimmick for public consumption — Condon made his announcement less than two weeks before beginning his campaign for Governor. But then a woman in South Carolina killed her boyfriend, and Condon stayed true to his word.

The case seems pretty straightforward. On February 17, Lisa Gant, 36, had an argument with the father of her child, William Brock, Jr., 39. Brock lived about 20 miles from Gant, but occasionally stayed at her house and had clothes and other possession in her apartment. Gant told police she argued with Brock and that he slapped her and put her in a headlock after she told him she wanted to end their relationship. She managed to get Brock to leave the apartment, slamming the door behind him and locking it.

Brock then proceeded to break down the locked door. When Brock entered the kitchen, Gant stabbed him in the chest with a filet knife. Brock staggered out to his car, and was found dead by police who arrived shortly thereafter.

Should Gant face prosecution?

Condon said no, and essentially ordered prosecutors, who had charged Gant with murder, to drop all charges. Local prosecutors and police would have preferred to place Gant on trial and let a judge and jury sort out whether or not she committed justifiable homicide.

In the absence of any evidence that Gant was untruthful about the events that transpired on February 17, 2001, what could possibly be served by putting her on trial. What is the point of asserting that people have a right to defend themselves only to put them before a jury to decide if Gant was really scared when her boyfriend broke down her door to get at her?

Condon nicely summed up the problem with viewing Gant and others like her as criminals who have to undergo an expensive trial to assert their right to defend themselves from intruders in their own homes,

You don’t want to put the homeowner in the position of saying, ‘If I use deadly force, I might be cleared after a trial.’ That’s tantamount to saying that people have rights, but there’s a huge cross attached to it. Most courts have a laissez-faire attitude about these things, figuring that everything will come out fine after a trial. But I think we need to send the messages that the home is sacred ground, period.

Source:

Home-invasion policy ignites South Carolina. David Firestone, The New York Times, March 16, 2001.