So I woke up this morning filled with regret over somethign I'd done the night before. Filled with regrets and second-thoughts. And my internet access was down so I couldn't see how bad it was, but I had a feeling that I'd written a rash and overly saucy theological rant the night before. Anyway I finally got around to looking it (in the computer lab) and its not as bad as I'd feared, so I'm going to go ahead and make some more saucy comments.

   But first to reemphasize from last night, and on further contemplation since then, I think the single most underrated misunderstanding in the history of theology is whether or not it sounds like it would be a pleasant arrangement has absolutely no bearing on whether or not something is theologically true.


   But now to cause controversy in another area. Military recruitment at universities. For the past two weeks or more the letters to the editor in the California Aggie have been filled with arguments back and forth on this subject. In particular I'd like to single todays letter by one Leah Sicat out for ridicule. Her thesis statement: "alternative information about the military is rarely provided to students. Usually the good side about the military, rather than its connection to war, is presented.   So, what does she want, a warning label similarly to the "caution: hot" found on coffee cups? Caution: military duty may involve war? I mean I try to think of the alternatives when someone argues against something and two occur to me on this subject: (1) as Sicat advocates, have them deliver a stern disclaimer to potential recruits, or (2) the more commonly advocated removal of them from universities. As to point one, I can hardly imagine it being anything other than just that, a stern warning that joining the military isn't a decision to be taken lightly and may bring the participant under hostile fire in a foreign war. I must say however, that I think they should already know that and it seems like a silly solution, though easily implemented if one feels its really prudent.
   And as to point two, this implies there are better places for recruiters to hang out ... like high schools?? If one's believes, as Licat and many others seem to, that military recruiters exploit those who don't see any other opportunities for themselves, it seems like this solution would have the opposite of the intended affect. In conclusion on this point, I think university students are probably much better prepared to intelligently consider the offers of military recruiters than potential other audiences, and more likely to have other opportunities and thus not be compelled to join through "lack of other opportunities."
   And for a grande finale of ruining my sensitivity credentials, two more bonus points. Firstly I'd like to note that Licat refers to herself and others as "students of colour" throughout her article, a term which I personally find racist as it describes persons of european descent as being "colourless" and inherently different from everyone else. But moreover, I'd like to mention the perpetual argument that people join the military for the "opportunities" and are then exploited when they are sent into military operations. There is one reason and one reason only people are paid to be in the military: to fight, or to be prepared to fight. During peace time, military personnel are maintained and paid beyond their necessity because they are being paid to be PREPARED to fight when needed. If one joins the military for the opportunities, but is not prepared to fight, one is being paid for something they are representing to have but in fact do not -- they are committing nothing short of fraud. The military is not a welfare organization whose purpose is simply to provide jobs.

   In other news, my little brother is currently on his second tour of duty in Iraq. Apparently he'd injured his hand before heading out there again, but didn't tell anyone lest it cause him not to be sent to Iraq. I must say that his courage and honest desire to fulfill his duties makes me very proud.