State Senator answers call to duty
39 year old Ohio State Senator Steve Stivers, a Republican, has been deployed to Iraq - and he's going, despite being eligible for a "lawmaker's deferment."
Stivers said he never considered taking the deferment:
"I always knew that mobilization was a possibility, and now the time has come," Stiver said.
In other words, of course he's going - he made a promise 19 years ago, and he's a man of his word. I wonder, though, is Stivers a rare find in this day and age of lacking personal responsibility and double-talk patriotism, or is he responding to the call the way most Americans would? I'd like to think that Senator Stivers is the norm, not the exception, but after looking at some of comments about this story on this thread on Fark, I'm not so sure. There are a fair number of people that are genuinely surprised that he wouldn't "take the deferment."
I wonder, out of the people who are surprised, are they suprised that he didn't take the deferment because they think that any person, given the chance, would skirt their duty, or is it that they think that any lawmaker, when given the opportunity, would take the dishonorable way out? Is it that they themselves would jump at the chance to avoid meeting their obligation, or is it that while they would personally answer the call, they feel that most others wouldn't? Is it possible that the answers to these questions lead to something more profound, revealing a fundamental difference in the way that half of us view the world?
I don't know the answers to these questions, but whatever they are, I do know that they aren't flattering to the current state of morality and humankind.
Posted by jkhat at September 8, 2004 09:02 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/382
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
I'm actually somewhat suprised that a 39 year old Senator is willing to answer the call of duty... 39 years old strikes me as kind of old for the job, as early to mid 20's is the age of the tpyical soldier, is it not? |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
I think perhaps Fark isn't the best representative forum to use. We live in cynical times and there are plenty of cynical people out there. However, I think the actions of typical Americans speak for themselves. I'm sure that for every Sen. Stiver or Pat Tillman there are hundreds and thousands of men and women doing their duty even though they "don't have to" or they could get out of it, but they're not famous so we don't hear about them. |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
dave, he isn't being called up as a foot soldier, he's going as a commander of a unit that does logistical operations. which highlights or brings up an interesting point - in today's military, age may be less of a concern as so many positions are "skill" oriented. this raises the specter of a "skills draft," in which the military would draft people based not on their age but instead on their technological skills. in such a setting, it could well be that a 40 year old with 15 years of experience is the most desireable draftee. kris, didn't we write something about a skills related draft at some point? or was that conversation on email? |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
yeah, i haven't really heard much about a 'skills related draft' or anything like that. makes me feel proud though that a senator of our country is doing his duty. how many other countries have people that participate in their governments that would do what he is doing?? |