Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card is, and more than likely will remain, one of my favorite books of all time. The issues it addresses are timeless to me and I considered it more prophecy and fiction. It is one of two books (the other being Starship Troopers) from the Marine Corps’ Commandant’s Reading List that I read prior to my enlistment in that same military service. For those that haven’t read it it’s very hard to describe it without giving away any spoilers.
The first issue that stands out to me is the recruiting/ conscription of children into military service. Almost universally we, as human beings, are against the utilization of children in front line combat, but when should training begin? Arguably eighteen year olds are still children; I know I was still naive and impressionable at that age, in some cultures adulthood begin much earlier, in few others older. Should the ability to serve coincide with reaching adulthood? Isn’t training reciprocal in effect, and therefore beginning it earlier would result in better trained soldiers, correct?
The second major issue that reaches me is the divide between soldiers and civilians. While one depends on the other, they are not interchangeable. Soldiers not being accepted by those they defend is not a new issue, and certainly not just an American one. Napoleonic soldiers were shunned by their hometowns for going off to war, the Legions of Rome released men primarily only into the lands they conquered, and in many cultures becoming a soldier was a one-way affair, you joined until you died. It’s ironic that picking up arms to defend something completely separates you form that thing.
The final major issue is that of genocide. Mankind has committed it before, we are in the process of committing it, and we will likely commit it again. Not just among subspecies of humanity but of those we share our habitat with. Survival of the fittest is simply a species prospering over all others, but we take it further and completely eliminate species that never, or no longer, threaten our dominance. Will we do this when we encounter alien life… I believe that outcome to be more likely than some peace-mongering “Gene Roddenberry-esque” Star Trek fantasy.
In short, Ender’s Game is one my short-list of “must reads”. It definitely should make even some of the most callous warrior-types think, inform the ivory-tower types, and make everyone in between a little more leery of the world that is, and that which might be. It also serves as a gateway book into a branching and deep book series allowing you to immerse yourself in Card’s vision of a dark and guttural future. Ender’s Game is the only heavily military book of the series so take that either as encouragement or warning.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Opinion Piece: The Second Civil War
The nation stands divided, voting in congress has become almost completely partisan with both sides voting the party-line and hiding behind excuses like “conscience”, despite the question originally asked it has come down to whether or the Federal government has the right to supersede a State’s assumed rights. While this may seem a fairly accurate description of our country right now it is in fact what position we were in right before our civil war. The issue of slavery was the catalyst for the defining of, and later the enforcing of, the Federal government’s right to impose its will on the States.
I hear arguments all the time stating that the Federal government needs to back off and let the State’s have more freedom. That the country started this way, and by such justification we should return to it. One, we tried that, it led to one of the worst losses of American life a war ever has (since both sides were American); two: if we should always return to the way it was, exactly how long until you start demanding we go back to living in caves and restricting us to either hunter or gatherer for employment. The decision was already made, and if we question it again there will be another war.
Our nation’s congress currently is the most polarized in partisan voting it has been since the civil war period. Our Representatives and Senators are voting party-line, period. They’re not voting for what they’re constituents want, they’re voting for what their party wants. This goes for both sides: the agenda has become more important than the people. Democrats are pushing and Republicans are pulling, sometimes seemingly for no reason other than just to oppose one another.
The so called “tea party” claims to want to take the country back. We had the largest voter turnout in history for the 2008 elections, sorry guys but to me that says we finally did take the country back. The theatrics and protesting are ironically the tactics of the “left” and entertainingly enough (to me) for the first time in my life a third party may steal electoral votes from the Republicans instead of the Democrats. While I may personally agree with the message of lower taxes I also acknowledge that there are things I believe the country should be doing and it needs to get the money to do them from somewhere and that somewhere is called “taxes”.
If rapid and decisive change does not happen I see a second American Civil War occurring sooner rather than later. Perhaps our country has become too large and socially diverse to handle as a democratic republic. If such is the case our only two choices remain do we want to stand together and change our executive branch to something closer to a tyranny (only bad word in modern times), or divide our nation into smaller, more easily manageable, and socially and ideologically similar regions? The answer: unknown, but sooner or later the question will be forced again by declaration: either of law, or war.
I hear arguments all the time stating that the Federal government needs to back off and let the State’s have more freedom. That the country started this way, and by such justification we should return to it. One, we tried that, it led to one of the worst losses of American life a war ever has (since both sides were American); two: if we should always return to the way it was, exactly how long until you start demanding we go back to living in caves and restricting us to either hunter or gatherer for employment. The decision was already made, and if we question it again there will be another war.
Our nation’s congress currently is the most polarized in partisan voting it has been since the civil war period. Our Representatives and Senators are voting party-line, period. They’re not voting for what they’re constituents want, they’re voting for what their party wants. This goes for both sides: the agenda has become more important than the people. Democrats are pushing and Republicans are pulling, sometimes seemingly for no reason other than just to oppose one another.
The so called “tea party” claims to want to take the country back. We had the largest voter turnout in history for the 2008 elections, sorry guys but to me that says we finally did take the country back. The theatrics and protesting are ironically the tactics of the “left” and entertainingly enough (to me) for the first time in my life a third party may steal electoral votes from the Republicans instead of the Democrats. While I may personally agree with the message of lower taxes I also acknowledge that there are things I believe the country should be doing and it needs to get the money to do them from somewhere and that somewhere is called “taxes”.
If rapid and decisive change does not happen I see a second American Civil War occurring sooner rather than later. Perhaps our country has become too large and socially diverse to handle as a democratic republic. If such is the case our only two choices remain do we want to stand together and change our executive branch to something closer to a tyranny (only bad word in modern times), or divide our nation into smaller, more easily manageable, and socially and ideologically similar regions? The answer: unknown, but sooner or later the question will be forced again by declaration: either of law, or war.
Opinion Piece: Gender (In)Equality
The recent hubbub about Walmart’s tendency to pay its male employees more than its female raised the point that the inequality between the genders is alive and well in these United States. However I would like to raise the point that this is by no means a one-sided issue and I can speak from personal experience on being treated unfairly by female dominated industries, as well as by traditionally male enterprises. In the following piece I will talk about my personal experiences, perceptions, and even a slightly justified theory as to why it occurs.
The education, developmentally disabled care, and library fields are, to this day heavily female dominated. I have worked in them all, I enjoyed them, I tried to make progress, and seeing an area of mediocrity I have set out to correct it. Every time this has met with severe resistance, either with me being asked to resign, transferred, or “counseled”. I’m told my techniques are “too aggressive” or that that’s “the way things have always been done”. I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that this would not occur in a more gender-balanced, or male dominated, place of employment.
The military, the world’s second oldest profession, and the most heavily dominated by the male persona, and yet I present evidence of discrimination against men, or perhaps favoritism towards women. Especially in the more junior ranks promotions are at least in part dependant on physical fitness score, and yet not only are the requirements for a higher score lessened for women, in some branches of the military they are completely dissimilar. Quick progression through the lower ranks leading to earlier access to the higher ranks leads to easier progression (and higher pay) by women through the military than men.
As for why men get more pay for the same jobs occurs, besides tradition, I have several theories. First the “first date” theory: simply put men are still expected to lead the relationship and also pay for the first, possibly several, dates; thus single men should be compensated for this expectation. Second theory, the “family man” theory: I have yet to meet a woman in Idaho who is not at least willing, if not actively seeking, to have a man “take care of her” (i.e. stay home while he works); thus a married man may very well be required to bring home twice the income.
Is there a solution, yes, and it’s already in place. Federal law already states such disparity between pay based on gender is illegal, hence the class-action lawsuit against Walmart. Is it right? In some cases yes, in other, maybe not. If a person (male or female) is the sole source of income for their family maybe they should earn more, then again why should the company they work for be penalized, de facto, for hiring a married person.
I simply believe the issue is deeper than pay, although that is the most common area we see it representing itself. It has not yet been a century since women were declared equal to men in this country on paper, much less in practice. But in pursuit of this we need to be ensuring balance. The military still argues dissimilarity between the genders on a physical basis and yet we could make that same argument for race and ethnicity; female dominated industries still treat men as poorly as male dominated ones treat women; and it is still expected for the man to pursue the woman, pay for the dates, and support the family. Maybe we should be working on these things first and pay will follow suit?
The education, developmentally disabled care, and library fields are, to this day heavily female dominated. I have worked in them all, I enjoyed them, I tried to make progress, and seeing an area of mediocrity I have set out to correct it. Every time this has met with severe resistance, either with me being asked to resign, transferred, or “counseled”. I’m told my techniques are “too aggressive” or that that’s “the way things have always been done”. I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that this would not occur in a more gender-balanced, or male dominated, place of employment.
The military, the world’s second oldest profession, and the most heavily dominated by the male persona, and yet I present evidence of discrimination against men, or perhaps favoritism towards women. Especially in the more junior ranks promotions are at least in part dependant on physical fitness score, and yet not only are the requirements for a higher score lessened for women, in some branches of the military they are completely dissimilar. Quick progression through the lower ranks leading to earlier access to the higher ranks leads to easier progression (and higher pay) by women through the military than men.
As for why men get more pay for the same jobs occurs, besides tradition, I have several theories. First the “first date” theory: simply put men are still expected to lead the relationship and also pay for the first, possibly several, dates; thus single men should be compensated for this expectation. Second theory, the “family man” theory: I have yet to meet a woman in Idaho who is not at least willing, if not actively seeking, to have a man “take care of her” (i.e. stay home while he works); thus a married man may very well be required to bring home twice the income.
Is there a solution, yes, and it’s already in place. Federal law already states such disparity between pay based on gender is illegal, hence the class-action lawsuit against Walmart. Is it right? In some cases yes, in other, maybe not. If a person (male or female) is the sole source of income for their family maybe they should earn more, then again why should the company they work for be penalized, de facto, for hiring a married person.
I simply believe the issue is deeper than pay, although that is the most common area we see it representing itself. It has not yet been a century since women were declared equal to men in this country on paper, much less in practice. But in pursuit of this we need to be ensuring balance. The military still argues dissimilarity between the genders on a physical basis and yet we could make that same argument for race and ethnicity; female dominated industries still treat men as poorly as male dominated ones treat women; and it is still expected for the man to pursue the woman, pay for the dates, and support the family. Maybe we should be working on these things first and pay will follow suit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)