November 21, 2003

MISSING YOUR OWN POINT:

Setting The Bar: When our standards don't live up to our standards (Cullen Murphy, December 2003, The Atlantic Monthly)

Some standards aren't worthy of the name in the first place, and in any event standards will always be in flux. But surely there are a handful on which we might all agree to hold the line—this far and no further, unto the end of days. To start this long-overdue public conversation, I'll propose ten.

I. "EMPLOYEES MUST WASH HANDS BEFORE RETURNING TO WORK" ("Los empleados deben lavarse las manos antes de regresar al trabajo").

II. "Women and children first" (except maybe Ann Coulter). [...]

IX. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."—the Golden Rule (worth a try?)


Mr. Murphy is a terrific essayist and the rest of the column pretty good, which makes it all the more disconcerting that in the middle of a discussion of the need to restore social standards he plunks a gratuitous shot at Ann Coulter.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 21, 2003 7:48 PM
Comments

Surely he could have chosen Helen Thomas first.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 21, 2003 9:32 PM

When considering # VII: "First, do no harm" - Hippocrates, it becomes clear that since society, (not to mention the posters to this blog), cannot agree on what "harm" encompasses, this cannot be a standard.
It's more of a goal.

Mr. Murphy also mentions deserters from the US military, (5,000 in '01), and fat people discharged from various US military services, (about 1,500 in '02).
Mr. Murphy writes that nobody's been shot for desertion since '45, with the military adopting a "good riddence" position. This is exactly the right note to strike, with an all-volunteer force. It's not as though there are no consequences to desertion, and if they REALLY don't want to be in, we don't want 'em.
I don't want to be in a fighting position with a guy/gal who's only going to be huddled in the corner, hoping not to get shot.

As for being kicked out of the military for being overweight, Mr. Murphy characterizes it as a harsh measure. However, nobody gets discharged for weight without getting counseling on weight control and nutrition, and doing extra physical fitness work, sometimes for up to 18 months.
Anyone who leaves the service for being too fat either has an extremely rare glandular condition, or, far more likely, doesn't want to stay in, but also doesn't want a bad conduct discharge.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 22, 2003 3:42 AM

Michael:

Society does agree--obviously not unanimously--most of the divergence from norms comes from secular intellectual elites. They need not be tolerated.

Posted by: oj at November 22, 2003 7:49 AM

The overweight would not get a bad-conduct discharge, those are pretty rare, and would require serious breaches of military discipline. Most likely it would be a medical or administrative discharge. In the early 80's, the Marines got serious about drug users. We held many surprise urinalysis screenings, and discharged the positives on administrative discharges, which does not require hearings or court-martial. Just ship them out. There may have been a few false positives, but overall it worked quite effectively.

OJ, a lot of your secular intellectual elites are quite religious. Ever hear of the religious left?

I don't think Ann Coulter would take offense, it seems the worst insult she can throw at someone is to call them a girl.

Posted by: Robert D at November 22, 2003 8:37 AM
« WOULD IT STILL BE A WEDGE WAR IF JFK WERE WAGING IT?: | Main | OUR OWN CARGO CULT: »