Respecting the Soldiers

I have noticed an interesting, yet inconsistent attitude toward the soldiers by comparing the attitudes of today with the attitudes during the Vietnam era.

Now both the Vietnam War and the current War in Iraq are unpopular wars.  But let’s look at how the soldiers were portrayed.

In Vietnam, the soldiers were treated horribly.  When they came home, they were considered traitors to the country and that they did something dishonorable.  People spat at them when they came home and you were treated as if you were unpatriotic and un-American.

In Iraq, it’s a different story. Even if you disagree with the war, people always treat the soldiers with respect and usually thanking them for serving our country. They are seen with respect, diligence, honor, and courage. Vietnam soldiers, on the other hand, are the antithesis of Iraq soldiers.

Now here’s where it gets interesting: the Vietnam soldiers had no choice in the matter.  They had to fight based on conscription.  So if they had no choice, then why were they treated with such disrespect?

At the same time, the Iraq soldiers went in voluntarily so they had a choice.  Yet they get the honors, support, and gratitude.  But the Vietnam War is as unpopular as the Iraq war.  So why is there a discongruency?

Here’s my guess.  I’m not a scholar in history but my guess is that since the Vietnam war was a drafted war, the protesters knew this and so they saw anything governmental with contempt.  The soldiers were part of the governmental program (even though the soldiers themselves had no say).  Thus, the protesters saw the soldiers with contempt.  Whereas the Iraq soldiers aren’t really “seen” as part of the governmental program (because they had a choice), thus they get the respect whereas the government itself gets the contempt.  The more I think about it, it seems like a stretch.  After all, the Iraq soldiers choose to get involved and so based on my theory, the Iraq soldiers should get even more contempt than the government itself.  So why the discongruency?

24-Hour News Network: Where’s the News?

I enjoy Steven Colbert at The Colbert Report, and he said some interesting things to say about the 24-hour news programs when he was interviewed in Entertainment Weekly:

There’s not more news now than there was when we were kids. There’s the same amount from when it was just Cronkite. And the easiest way to fill it is to have someone’s opinion on it. Then you have an opposite opinion, and then you have a mishmash of fact and opinion, and you leave it the least informed you can possibly be.

That’s exactly how I see these 24-hour news networks which is why I can’t stand watching them.  I mainly get my news from little blurbs online like Google or the BBC.  News, nowadays, has lost the function or respectibility of being news.  It’s mainly opinions, breaking news, or stories that isn’t worth to be called news (remember when Anna Nicole Smith died and everyone had to talk about it for a week.  That’s not news!).  To get another glimpse at what I’m saying, check this out.  This is what’s happening to news and what’s sad is that people are believing that it is news.

People now think of news as opinions from commentators and take that as a source of information, or the facts of the case.  But that’s not news, it’s opinion.  Example: on FoxNews, their motto is “We Report, You Decide.”  How convenient!  Not only do I hear the news, but I get to decide if what I heard is true or not.  But how can I tell if it’s true or not?  Well, I have to investigate and the only way to do that is go to. . . the news.  We’re at a loop here and it’s no wonder that post-modernism is looking at this and taking it into validating consideration.  When I hear the news, I don’t want to decide if it’s true or not.  The point of the news is that it’s supposed to be true.  News gives us the facts: tell us what Congress is saying about the bailout (I don’t want to hear what the host thinks is a good idea).  Tell us about the debates (not that the same “I hate McCain/Obama rhetoric”).  Tell us what’s happening in the nation, give us the facts that’s newsworthy (not some lame scoop like some guy invented a way to mow the lawn 30 seconds faster).  Give me the news, facts, the truth!

The X Chromosome: Why Monogamy is Cultural and not Natural

A recent study came out which you can see here. It turns out the the offspring gets more of the mother’s genes than the father’s, a ratio of about 2:1.  Why so?  It’s because our ancestors long ago were not monogamous, at least the males weren’t.  Because the father’s didn’t have a concern to father children, it was to the advantage of later generations to instill monogamy.  Here’s a quote from the article:

Researchers report genetic evidence bolstering the socially contentious idea that polygyny—the mating practice where some males dominate reproduction by fathering children with several women—was the norm for sexual behavior throughout human history and prehistory. Because polygyny means other men father few or no children, the study, published today in PLoS Genetics, also shows that, on average, women bequeath more genes to their offspring than men do.

Interesting stuff.

Election 2008

With the first debates over, I’m letting this post be open to discuss anything about the upcoming 2008 election.  You can discuss economics, foreign policy, health care, whatever.

If you want, you can even discuss upcoming local and state issues as well.  The only thing I ask is no bashing!

UPDATE: I’m keeping this on the front page until the election is over.  This post is getting a lot of views so I thought it would be easier to keep it on the first page.

Jefferson on Epicurus

Thomas Jefferson took his political writings from John Locke.  Locke said that we have natural rights to life, liberty, and property.  Well Jefferson liked that but he changed it to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Where did he get this “pursuit of happiness” from?  He got it from Epicurus.  Indeed, Epicurus has influenced Jefferson so much that you can see the influence in Jefferson’s other writings like documents and letters.  Jefferson has also said that if the world reads Epicurus, the world would be in a much better place.

Contract vs. Communicative Sexuality

I’m re-reading Lois Pineau’s article entitled “Date Rape: A Feminist Analysis.”  It talks about date rape and the legalities of the procedure.  The thing that really interested me was the end of the article where Pineau describes the difference between Contract and Communicative Sexuality.  Pineau says that contract sexuality is biased towards females, especially in the context of date rape, but I’ll focus on these two models since that’s what my interest is.  What’s the difference?

Contract Model of Sexuality: When a woman behaves in a sexually teasing, tempting or open way, she is implicitly committing herself to having sex with the man she is with. She is entering into a non-verbal contract to have sex, which she is not entitled to break. The reason this contract is binding is that it is unreasonable to expect a man who has been sufficiently aroused, to respect any subsequent verbal or even physical protestations.   Now this doesn’t have to be during foreplay either.  It can be in the middle of the sex act.  So if the individuals involved are having sex and one decides to change her mind, under the contract model, the other individual has been “cheated” because there was some contract that suggested that there’s a plan of action and that action hasn’t been completed yet.  The one who changed her mind broke the contract, in other words. The idea is that if a woman is acting in a certain way, then she is making an implicit contract and she must fulfill her duties under the contract.  And so the argument has these premises

1.   People should keep their agreements.

2.  Sexually provocative behavior is making an agreement.

You can think of it in a silly way from this website that one of my students, Jory, has provided for me here.  If you look at the contract, we obviously don’t do sex this way.  But in a way, we implicitly do this by looking at the body language (or perhaps verbal language) of the partner and from that language, that’s a signal for the “go ahead” signal and you are aloud to do that activity under that contract.  With this, this is the model we’re in right now according to Pineau.

Communicative Sexuality: Both people are responding to the other.  They don’t overwhelm each other with desires.  They will treat the negative emotions such as boredom, anger, or fear as a sign that something needs to be cleared up first before they continue.  It’s an ongoing state of concern instead of a “let’s make a deal” mentality.  There’s no talk of duties, rights, or consent, but merely an awareness of mutual desire.  An analogy is friendship.  We don’t call upon our friends based on duties, rights, but merely fostering an interaction and the quality of the relationship.  After all, there’s a significant difference between our friends and our business contacts.   Likewise, we should look at our sexual encounters like that. So this isn’t a “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” that’s a contract.  It’s more of a mutual satisfaction.  We respect the dialectic of desire.

Ok, so then under the communicative model, all that is needed to show that it was indeed rape is that the woman can show a lack of interest, indifference.  So even when a woman acquiesces to aggressive noncommunicative sex under pressure, she should not be seen as having consented to it. Pineau is saying that even when a woman goes though with sex without explicit protest and refusal, she may not have consented to it. So on her view, even that would count as rape.  This is because there was no communication going on. Thus, if there was no communicative sex, this is already a presumption that there was no consent; whereas in the older, traditional view (the contract view), there was consent.  Thus, consent is an ongoing process, an ongoing cooperation instead of a one-shot deal like the contract view. So in the end, the woman would not consent to certain sexual acts (or even sex at all) because it can be aggressive, non-communicative, and unpleasurable; the man is pushy, and silence replaces the discussion, she feels no desire towards him.

When I first read this, I was thinking “interesting, but I don’t think it’s feasible.”  But then as I was doing more research, it turns out that a university has adopted this model, Antioch University which you can read here.  I will give a summary of their policy below, (the quotations are their actual policies, without quotations means it’s my take on that policy):

1.  “Consent must be obtained verbally before there is any sexual contact.”  This means no implicit body language.  You must say “yes.”

2.  “Obtaining consent is an on-going process in any sexual interaction.”  This means you must consistently say “yes” to each sexual interaction.  As you progress to a different move sexually, you must still obtain consent.

3.  “If the level of sexual intimacy increases during an interaction. . . the people involved need to express their clear verbal consent before moving to that new level.”  Any new interaction (removing of clothes, new positions, etc.) need verbal consent before hand.

4.  “The request for consent must be specific to each act.”  You must verbally say what you’re going to do and you must request a “yes” from the other person.

5.  “If you have had a particular level of sexual intimacy before with someone, you must still ask each and every time.”  So even if you’ve had sex with the other person and you’re expecting some sexual relationship, you must still verbally obtain consent from numbers 1-4.  This may also apply to married people as well but I didn’t have time to look into that, but I’m sure it still counts.

6.  “If someone has initially consented but then stops consenting during a seuxal interaction, she/he should communicate withdrawal verbally and/or through physical resistance.  The other individual(s) must stop immediately.”  If someone wants to stop, everyone stops because communication has stopped.  If it continues, there has been no consent which means it counts as rape.

7.  “Don’t ever make any assumptions about consent.”  A drunk girl passed out isn’t consenting.  Pressuring someone isn’t consenting.  And even if they’re “into it” during the sexual encounter, you must still ask verbal consent if you want to increase sexual intimacy.  Passive acquiescense does not count as consent (whereas in the contract model, it does).

This policy has been put in place since 1996 and it’s still in place.  So against what I thought, it actually is working.

I’m more interested in the differences between the two models and not much about the feminist applications (although that is interesting as well, I’m more interested in the models themselves).   Can the communicative model be applied elsewhere?  It’s indeed a paradigm shift in thinking of sexuality.

On Discovering Nietzsche’s Values

One of my professors from Utah State University has come up with an interesting thought experiment of discovering Nietzsche’s values.  I think it’s pretty good.  If you want to read go to the site to see other comments made on it, go here.  I will post what he wrote below:

This distinction, between the life-affirming and the life-denying, is the basis for Nietzsche’s revaluation of values. To get a sense of how this revaluation works, imagine somehow being put in charge of some intergalactic zoo filled with all kinds of animals, including human beings. It is your job not just to provide natural habitats for the animals, but to showcase each species’ abilities and talents. Your employers, for whatever reason, want to see the most powerful specimens of all the species. When it comes to human beings, what will you do? You will have to examine what capacities for strength each human being has. Your concern is not simply physical strength, but intellectual and emotional as well. You will try to cultivate humans who are cunning, brave, unpredictable, stealthy, creative, tough, patient, and unrestrained by “dos” and “don’ts”. They will be at times violent and mocking. If the exhibit is to showcase all strengths, your humans should be artists as well, creating works that stand as emblems for the species. In all, you will want to know all the capacities humans can have, and find ways to strengthen those capacities in your specimens as much as possible. You will want to diminish and eliminate any signs of weakness, timidity, fear, stupidity, and passivity. Your sole standard will not be “Is this what God or the Church would approve?”, but instead: “Is this a strength?”

Compensating for Evil

An interesting article is at the Philosophers’ Carnival deals with compensating evil which you can read here.  The idea is this: if you’re working for an institution that makes you evil, are you aloud to get compensation because that institution made you worse off?  The example in the article is suppose you’re a police officer and because of that job, you now become racist.  Are you aloud to be paid in damages because you’ve been harmed?  Interesting topic.

Working out at the Office

It’s a desk that’s fitted onto a treadmill.  Interesting concept.

You can see the article here.

If only this advice could work. . .

Just STOP IT already!