Archive for military

Luchar para la Ciudadanía norteamericana

Posted in current events with tags , , on August 23, 2010 by Kyle Fleming

In Friday’s blog, I talked about how the greatest idea to solve the illegal immigration is to repeal the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, the one that states that anyone born in the United States is automatically a United States citizen. In that post, I briefly mentioned the option of granting US citizenship to those who volunteer for military service. It’s a position I’ve held since the idea was brought up about three years ago, and I truly believe that it is the way to go.

I say this because it actually solves two problems. One problem that is solves is the military recruiting problem. Over the years, less and less people have been volunteering to go into the service, and even though the military can boast over 100% recruitment in all branches, it’s only because they have been lowering their goals. There is a great distrust of the military for a variety of reasons. Some feel that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on too long and don’t want to be a part of it. Others feel that all war is wrong, and they will not participate in any form.

The requirements for military enlistment has changed, also. It used to be that only men between a certain age and of certain physical fitness were allowed to enlist. Now that list has expanded: women are now allowed, the maximum age limit has been raised, and the physical condition has been relaxed slightly. And with the approaching repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, they will soon be adding openly gay servicepeople as well.

In fact, the military is already close to enacting an amnesty condition: “Noncitizens may enlist but cannot re-enlist (extend their enlistment beyond their first term of service) unless they become naturalized U.S. citizens. However, after three years of service, additional residency requirements for citizenship can be waived.” Technically, illegal immigrants can enlist in the military.

“The Military does not assist in the immigration naturalization process.” They should.

Those who come here illegally are coming for a reason, and by risking their lives to get here, they are showing that they would do anything to get here and stay here. Why not extend them the option of citizenship if they can prove their love of the country by risking their lives for it?

Obviously, there would need to be some conditions: illegal immigrants would have to serve in the military for a certain number of years, and the question of whether or not they should see active service can be discussed as well. Personally, I would even go so far as to grant citizenship to those who are injured in action. If you are willing to risk your health and your life for a country, you deserve to be a citizen of that country.

Apparently, this is a controversial position to hold, but I don’t see why. We see an increase in military recruitment, and we also see a decrease in undocumented workers. Five years of service for a green card, ten years of service for citizenship. Is that really asking too much?

Advertisements

Hypocrisy and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Posted in current events with tags , , , , , , on February 3, 2010 by Kyle Fleming

Hypocrisy runs rampant in the world. There is not one person in the world that isnt’ a hypocrite, and if you claim that you are not, then you are just digging yourself into a hole. Parents can be hypocrites when they tell their children not to drink or smoke, while in the same breath, they tell stories about how they would get people older than them to buy them alcohol and cigarettes. Politicians are hypocrites when they claim to be all about family values, and later are caught cheating on their spouses with another woman (or man, in some cases).

Even some pastors are hypocrites. I was listening to a podcast recently of a megachurch, and the pastor said that when he was in college, he did the stereotypical college things: he drank, he smoked, he had sex, and was generally a nuisance. But then he “came to the Light,” and completely changed his behavior. He claims that because he was converted, he is able to see and learn from his mistakes, but the way he presented it definitely seemed like he was making up for his mistakes, and that by preaching so adamantly against those behaviors, he is absolving his past sins.

But the biggest form of hypocrisy that is in the news today is the attempt at eliminating the archaic “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the military. Quite literally one of the last remaining forms of discrimination that is completely unwarranted, it forces gays and lesbians that are serving in the military to “keep their gayness to themselves.” It’s honestly shocking and apalling that this sort of behavior is still acceptable in the military, but it’s the sort of thing that is allowed to happen, because it isn’t “outright discrimination,” as I like to call it.

“Outright discrimintaion” is a form of discrimination where it is obvious why the discrimination is happening. If Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, or any other racial demographic were discriminated against in the military, those specific groups would be up and arms, because no matter how the government or the military words it, it is obvious that the discrimination is based on race.

On the other hand, if gays and lesbians are discriminated against, there are other possible reasons for the discrimination, such as low morale, insubordinate attitude, and so on. Because there is no reason to believe that the discrimination is purely on sexual orientation alone, it is allowed to happen. And so, gays and lesbians are forced to be untrue to themselves in order to protect their country.

Absolutely unacceptable.

There is no way that this should be allowed to happen, and both parties need to realize that it is wrong. The problem is, the “family values” Republicans with their mistresses and their young male pages refuse to accept that homosexuality is completely normal and natural, while at the same time, “progressive” Democrats with their “free love” mentality and their inability to be forceful can’t step up to the challenge.

If President Obama really wants “Don’t ask, don’t tell” eliminated, he’s going to have to quit being a moderator and start being a leader. Change needs to be done on so many fronts, but by trying to be bipartisan, Congress and the Senate are just dragging out a process that could easily be quick and easy.

I know I’m going to be a hypocrite in saying this, because I believe that all church services should be like old country Lutheran churches, with pipe organs and traditional liturgy, and with no such thing as a praise band doing contemporary music, but there are plenty of people out there who need to embrace change, and just need that little extra shove into the modern age.

James Cameron’s “Avatar”: An Equal-Opportunity Offender

Posted in pop culture with tags , , , , , , , on January 20, 2010 by Kyle Fleming

Before I begin, let me just clarify: I don’t get out much, which means that when huge blockbuster movies come around, I rarely get out to see them. I make a big effort to go out and see the “Saw” series (though I missed Saw VI) and the Harry Potter series. I’ve seen all three Lord of the Rings in theatres. But for some reason, despite it’s technological mastery and fantastic visual imagery, I have no desire to see “Avatar”, James Cameron’s latest epic about the friendly blue giants called Na’vi.

And from the looks of it, it’s probably a good thing, as this movie (that has already made over $1 billion dollars, I might add) has set out to offend everyone. James Cameron, what have you done to the world?

Special interest groups everywhere are up in arms about this movie because it has offended them. The Vatican claims that “Avatar” is offensive because it promotes nature worship over religion. The military claims that “Avatar” portrays soldiers as “fanatical crazed killers who have joined a military mercenary force to destroy a civilization so that corporations can capitalize on some rare commodity”.

But it gets stranger than that: anti-smoking groups claim that the movie promotes smoking as a positive trait. Left-wing groups claim that the movie is racist because an exotic culture needs to be saved by a white human. Disability groups are upset twice: first, because the synopsis for the movie describes Jake Sully, a disabled Marine, as “confined to a wheelchair”, and secondly because Commander Quaritch promises that Jake will “get [his] real legs back”.

But what is really mind-numbing is that LGBT groups are protesting “Avatar” because it depicts heterosexuality as continuing to be the sexual norm in the future. And what’s even worse that that mental health experts claim that the movie is causing depression in many who see the movie, because the world of Pandora is the perfect Utopian society, and as one man was quoted as saying, “I can’t stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all the tears and shivers I got from it. I even contemplated suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora.”

Really? All this over a sci-fi movie?

Of course, this isn’t the first time that special interest groups have rallied together to protest movies. A short list of movies that have been boycotted in recent years include:

  • Bruce Almighty,” which shows a human using God’s powers, despite being a lesson in letting God do God’s thing.
  • The Harry Potter series, which indoctrinates children into becoming witches and wizards, despite the fact that both the movies and books say that wizardry is hereditary.
  • “The Ringer,” which makes fun of disabled people, despite the fact that producers worked directly with the Special Olympics to avoid being offensive. And,
  • Tropic Thunder,” which uses the term “retard.” To be fair, it was used as a commentary on special needs roles as compared to Oscar wins–if you go “half-retard,” like Dustin Hoffman in “Rainman,” you win; if you go “full-retard,” like Sean Penn in “I Am Sam,” you lose.

The only problem with all of these arguments against James Cameron and his nifty little movie is one that nobody seems to see: the movie is science fiction. The key word in that last statement is fiction, a word that means, “It’s not real.”

The real issue behind all of this “controversy” is that people love to be offended, and nobody does it quite as well as Americans. The fact that we’re being offended by works of fiction, and quotes taken outside of the context of situation, character, among other factors, is disgusting.

Then again, look at the world around us: we’re recovering from a horrific economy. America is fighting two wars. Haiti is still recovering from that horrific earthquake. The world is an absolute mess, so maybe it’s great that we can escape to the perfect world of Pandora, and all the peace and harmony that it stands for.

But being offended by nearly every aspect of the movie? That’s ridiculous and unacceptable.

My suggestion to the world: snap out of it. Not everything has a hidden political agenda, and if you’d open your mind and stop trying to make everything politically correct, you might be able to enjoy yourself every once in a while.