Posted on 02/26/2005 11:07:56 AM PST by RockinRye
By Kalani Leifer
Opinions Columnist
Friday, February 25, 2005
“Dear Mr. Leifer: Too good to fight for your country, huh? Never mind. If need be, I suspect we can make do without you.”
“Dear Mr. Smith: . . . So if you ask if I’m too good to fight for my country, I’d say no. I am, however, too good to blindly follow and not question, the very principle that makes this nation great. I’m extremely sorry you have forgotten this.”
“Sir: You are a silly young man, full of your own self-importance, blinded by your own intellect. Perhaps we can continue this conversation when you’ve grown up. Best of luck to you.”
Thus went my e-mail exchange with a respondent from Granbury, Texas, regarding my previous column (“Selective Service, Feb. 18). This was by far the most civil rejoinder I received. (I stopped responding when I received four additional angry letters within as many minutes.) I began to wonder how I had erred so dramatically as to so deeply offend the characteristically liberal Cardinal community — I mean, these are the people who read The Daily, right?
Later, I discovered that FreeRepublic.com, which describes itself as “the premiere online gathering place for independent, grassroots conservatism on the Web,” had picked up my column, re-titling it “Selective Service (the rarefied air of elite colleges).” Following the text — which taken out of the context of a college newspaper is already vulnerable to misinterpretation — is a message-board dedicated to disparaging a “duplicitous, whining pussy” (me).
At first, as is evident in my initial responses, I felt an intense desire to convince this unexpected conservative readership that just because I oppose registering for the draft doesn’t mean that I’m an uppity egomaniac who considers himself too good to defend his rights. I have come to realize, however, that these people engage in a practice that I myself have often been guilty of: unwillingness to listen to the other side.
“They’ll leave the fighting to the underprivileged patriots in the non-elite universities, community colleges and common high schools. People such as Liefer [sic] are just too good to risk . . . “
That posting, in my opinion, best sums up the attitude of said liberal-bashing message-board. There are other equally telling passages, but they’re not exactly “fit to print.” (See for yourself at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1347418/posts#comment.) It is the specific posting above, however, to which I would like to respond.
Even though FreeRepublic.com likely won’t publish this column — and thus I will not reach the very audience I desire to rebut — I think it’s necessary to restate my position, as it is entirely possible that the exact opposite of what I intended was deduced from last week’s article.
One of my primary reasons for opposing the draft — or needing to register for it — is its inherent inequality. I would be the first to contend that it is privileged young men (not just those in elite colleges) that have historically been able to avoid fighting in foreign wars — as exemplified during the latter half of the 20th century, especially in President George W. Bush’s case. It is indeed the underprivileged, the uneducated and, in many cases, the minorities who end up fighting these wars.
These people, however, are not the ones who will our nation to war — it is the privileged ones in Washington who know full well that their sons will slip through the loopholes. Even though it’s only my personal interpretation of current events, I subscribe to the notion that the disenfranchised would sooner invest $87 billion in their ailing communities than engage in a wild goose hunt in Iraq.
That brings me to my second, equally misinterpreted point — one that permeates socio-economic standing and cuts directly to morality. To be blunt, I am wholly opposed to America’s current war in Iraq, and I refuse to see that as an unpatriotic stance. Is not a true American patriot he who relentlessly questions the actions of his leaders? Don’t take my word for it, though — take Benjamin Franklin’s: “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
Even if the war is precisely what the Bush administration would have the nation believe — namely a fight for the extension of freedom (a convenient back-up after the non-discovery of weapons of mass destruction) — I must dissent. How can we claim to be ambassadors of freedom abroad if 11 states just ratified amendments limiting the freedom of men and women to marry whom they love?
When I say that I am unwilling to fight to defend our freedoms, it is not because I believe that I am “too good to fight for my country.” I am opposed to registering for the draft (even if that draft never sees the light of day) because judging by the war in Iraq, I don’t believe that future wars that may necessitate a draft will actually be fought in defense of our rights. And even if they are, I am less and less convinced that these rights are, in fact, universal within our own nation.
Oh, and by the way, I did register for the draft after all.
Kalani finds it interesting that when his friend tried to participate in “Free” Republic’s message-board, his comments were “Removed by Moderator” and his membership was revoked. E-mail him at kalani08@stanford.edu.
I discovered that FreeRepublic.com, which describes itself as “the premiere online gathering place for independent, grassroots conservatism on the Web,” had picked up my column, re-titling it “Selective Service (the rarefied air of elite colleges).”
I think retitling is a strong word...appended the title would be more accurate. This strikes me as a Michael Moore - gives lip service to democracy, but doesn't want to get down with the unwashed when he sees grassroots democracy in action.
Following the text — which taken out of the context of a college newspaper is already vulnerable to misinterpretation
Can anyone explain what the hell this is supposed to mean? The post indicated what paper it was from. Does it depend on the meaning of the word 'is'?
I felt an intense desire to convince this unexpected conservative readership that just because I oppose registering for the draft doesn’t mean that I’m an uppity egomaniac who considers himself too good to defend his rights.
Judging by his rebuttal column, he failed miserably in that desire.
One of my primary reasons for opposing the draft — or needing to register for it — is its inherent inequality. I would be the first to contend that it is privileged young men (not just those in elite colleges) that have historically been able to avoid fighting in foreign wars — as exemplified during the latter half of the 20th century, especially in President George W. Bush’s case. It is indeed the underprivileged, the uneducated and, in many cases, the minorities who end up fighting these wars.
Earth to Kalani - President Bush served his country flying an extremely dangerous aircraft in the Air National Guard. I think you mean Bill Clinton, who avoided any military service by going to school in Britain.
Let me get this straight - this privileged guy is upset that the privileged are able to avoid serving in wars. So his answer is to...avoid serving and run to Switzerland.
...and I refuse to see that as an unpatriotic stance.
What is with with liberals' inferiority complex about their patriotism? Do they actually believe the Democratic Party press conferences where they tell them their patriotism has been attacked?
How can we claim to be ambassadors of freedom abroad if 11 states just ratified amendments limiting the freedom of men and women to marry whom they love?...I don’t believe that future wars that may necessitate a draft will actually be fought in defense of our rights. And even if they are, I am less and less convinced that these rights are, in fact, universal within our own nation.
Ok, so there's the answer - it's not that he's too good to fight for his country. It's that the country isn't good enough for him to fight for. Complete liberal insanity has set in.
"Typical Coward Clinton sheep"...
wants everyone to do everything HE deems as the "right" way, JUST BECAUSE HE says it should be SO... gay marriage etc........
no guts, no honor, no ethics, no god, so certainly no glory...
these folks have no shame, so you cant shame them into being a patriotic american....they are just clinton cowards...
"...especially in President George W. Bush’s case."
Had this writer also included Bill Clinton I might find him worth reading. As it is, it is clear he is just a leftist shill. He MIGHT be trying to be better than that, but as of right now, he is NOT succeeding.
Inquiring minds want to know what he posted
(not that it takes all that much)
" It's that the country isn't good enough for him to fight for."
Actually, I would say that statement _is_ unpatriotic.
But there's nothing wrong with being unpatriotic. Patriots have to have courage and dedication, and a desire to make their country great (in peace, hopefully, but in war if need be). Many liberals have massive guilt complexes about American greatness anyway.
Here's his previous article's post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1347418/posts
Kalani Leifer is a fool.
All this chattering, by the chattering class, is merely a delaying tactic allowing themselves not to have to acknowledge the cowardice deep within. Keep chattering, we know you for what you are and always have been, and others willingly take up the mantle of freedom which you forsake.
How can you hate this country and what it stands for, oppose our military (to the point of hoping that we get killed, and lose at war), stand for and foment the undermining the moral fabric of our nation -- and still hope to be regarded as patriotic? Their standard rejoinder is that: "I'm just not marching in lockstep; I just have questions". In the first place, yes, you are marching in lockstep -- with the Michael Moores, communists and America-haters of this world. In the second place, the fact that you have questions impresses no one, in light of the fact that you refuse to hear the answers.
Lastly, question away, debate away to your heart's little content -- UNTIL we as a nation decide that war is essential to our survival. After that, STFU, because your dissembling at that point becomes highly UNpatriotic, often going over into treason by giveing aid and comfort to the enemy.
"It is indeed the underprivileged, the undereducated, and in many cases the minorities that end up fighting these wars"
I would love to have the demographics on all of these assumptions. Cynthia tucker from the ajc did a hit peiece using these same assumptions from information from 2000 which I couldn't find to rebut. However, we know a lot of kids currently serving our country and none of them meet even one of this idiots criteria.
Clearly, this is the work of duplicitous, whining pussy.
I guess he didn't get it the first time around.
Hey. College Boy. Yeah. You! THERE IS NO DRAFT!
This buttboy knew we'd pick this up and "publish" (haha) it. The astounding thing to me is that these ignoranimises (thanks Bugs) still shill the GWB ANG service as "dodging the draft". "What a bunch of maroons. What a bunch of ignoranimises! Hahahahaha!". (Thanks again Bugs)
FMCDH(BITS)
"Clearly, this is the work of duplicitous, whining pussy."
LOL!
*snort*!
[disclaimer: non-liberal at work, please don't ban me]
The only two posts removed from the original thread were:
(41) And I hope we never NEED a draft.and
(42) Whereas conservatives prefer to skew and possibly fabricate facts?
Good one!
Kalani Leifer imitates Keanu Burge. The resemblance is hilariously striking!
Every time I see or hear this statement I want to puke.
No one cares if anyone questions the wisdom or judgment of our elected leaders.It is when some sniveling cretin hides behind this sentiment to disparage this country that we take note.
We have all read the goings on at DU and listened to the libs.
Wherefore,by their fruits ye shall know them.(Matthew 7:20)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.