I don't think one tweet from some online nobody, which gets liked by some other online nobodies, means that there is a "trend" within some large body called "the Right" to turn against military members.
I served in the USMC reserve from 1999-2006 and deployed twice to Iraq/Kuwait. I second the comments from reader "Rich" above - Semper Fidelis - and I'd add two things:
1. There's a fairly significant divide between veterans who signed up for a 4 to 8 year commitment and those who served past the 20 years necessary to qualify for retirement, in that the former don't necessarily get any money from the US government in the present day.
2. Since we're rethinking all of the post-WWII institutions, pensions have to be part of that reconsideration. At the very least it's not clear to me that 1) generous pay with a very long vesting period is necessary to motivate a sufficient number of people to serve in the military or 2) the people for whom a pension is highly attractive are necessarily those you want to attract.
1. There's always abuse in any program involving so many service members.
2. Service disability is not limited to conditions that arise merely from combat operations. While I served in combat, my two shoulder dislocations, knee problems, and eyesight issues were not directly attributable to combat. The basis is whether or not a disability is connected to military service. I'm a career Marine and, thankfully, do not have debilitating back or knee pain from many years of heavy loads and fitness. The physical preparation for operations is often more grueling and long-term than the period in a combat zone. Some issues take a toll that don't arise until later in life. Anyone over 40 knows how old sports injuries affect the body. Military service for many takes a toll on the body.
3. There are potentially some questionable disabilities. I knew a person who claimed PTSD because he worked for a demanding boss at Quantico. He received a fairly substantial rating from that and I wish there were a way to grade certain things.
4. There's always been a thing in the military comparing the front line with those who are "in the rear with the gear". There are military personnel who are flight attendants for Air Force One as an example. One might think that it seems odd to grant a disability payment if someone was injured in remaining fit for service or during a mishap on the job, but it is not a scam for a service member to be rated for a disability that is service-connected no matter how "easy" we imagine their life was in comparison to others who were being shot at downrange. I will say that it's interesting that in 2 Samuel, King David had to keep his own men from claiming that, because some didn't make it to a battle, that they had no part in the victory. It's a well-established principle that we value all those who contribute to the mission and the ability to get the job done.
5. That all said, I don't see a general trend against servicemen from this as much as the idea that only those who deserve that kind of help should receive it If there was backlash against the military, then it would be movements against paying disability for the military. As it is, I think it demonstrates that people care that the deserving receive disability payments.
"At Life Tabernacle, Shaye says its mission to help boys become better men is meant to serve women, too, as many complain about a lack of viable suitors."
Yes, like empathy and compassion, the evangelical world has taken a perfectly useful idea — servant leadership — and redirected it away from God's commands.
Congrats to American Reformer and CAFF. I’m impressed by the work in this college guide. I’ve recommended it to many people at church with high schoolers. Some, whom I know for a fact aren’t readers, already knew about it. So anecdotally word is spreading. Hopefully that bears out in its success.
The porn article shows the root of the problem in the first paragraphs. Christians in our culture have accepted nudity as ok, i.e. not porn. All public nudity is shameful and God gives us many examples in the Bible of that.
A while ago I heard a discussion on pints with Aquinas about pornography and it was fine as far as it goes but something was bugging me that there was something wrong.
What occurred to me was the problem wasn’t pornography (bear with me), it was lust. No lust, no pornography. Lust was the prime problem.
Next, we are deeply confused about what lust is and we don’t inform men and women about it. By conflating it with the sexual instinct that’s where we got a lot of the sexual problems; they think they’re being asked to not have the sexual instinct, that’s functionally impossible, so they try to make sure they’re “not that bad”.
Lust is a conscious deliberate choice to misuse the sexual instinct and its essence is internal to external, not external to internal. Your lust doesn’t come from a screen or page, it drove your choice to open up that site or book. By focusing on the external to internal and not having a clear distinction about when the sin occurs we flip back and forth between harsh condemnation of pornography and functionally wildly liberal attitudes about bastardy and divorce.
Just because I live there and don't want my city portrayed as a place of Rogues: it's Baton ROUGE (means "red stick" in French).
I don't think one tweet from some online nobody, which gets liked by some other online nobodies, means that there is a "trend" within some large body called "the Right" to turn against military members.
I see it not infrequently on X these days.
I served in the USMC reserve from 1999-2006 and deployed twice to Iraq/Kuwait. I second the comments from reader "Rich" above - Semper Fidelis - and I'd add two things:
1. There's a fairly significant divide between veterans who signed up for a 4 to 8 year commitment and those who served past the 20 years necessary to qualify for retirement, in that the former don't necessarily get any money from the US government in the present day.
2. Since we're rethinking all of the post-WWII institutions, pensions have to be part of that reconsideration. At the very least it's not clear to me that 1) generous pay with a very long vesting period is necessary to motivate a sufficient number of people to serve in the military or 2) the people for whom a pension is highly attractive are necessarily those you want to attract.
Regarding VA Disability:
1. There's always abuse in any program involving so many service members.
2. Service disability is not limited to conditions that arise merely from combat operations. While I served in combat, my two shoulder dislocations, knee problems, and eyesight issues were not directly attributable to combat. The basis is whether or not a disability is connected to military service. I'm a career Marine and, thankfully, do not have debilitating back or knee pain from many years of heavy loads and fitness. The physical preparation for operations is often more grueling and long-term than the period in a combat zone. Some issues take a toll that don't arise until later in life. Anyone over 40 knows how old sports injuries affect the body. Military service for many takes a toll on the body.
3. There are potentially some questionable disabilities. I knew a person who claimed PTSD because he worked for a demanding boss at Quantico. He received a fairly substantial rating from that and I wish there were a way to grade certain things.
4. There's always been a thing in the military comparing the front line with those who are "in the rear with the gear". There are military personnel who are flight attendants for Air Force One as an example. One might think that it seems odd to grant a disability payment if someone was injured in remaining fit for service or during a mishap on the job, but it is not a scam for a service member to be rated for a disability that is service-connected no matter how "easy" we imagine their life was in comparison to others who were being shot at downrange. I will say that it's interesting that in 2 Samuel, King David had to keep his own men from claiming that, because some didn't make it to a battle, that they had no part in the victory. It's a well-established principle that we value all those who contribute to the mission and the ability to get the job done.
5. That all said, I don't see a general trend against servicemen from this as much as the idea that only those who deserve that kind of help should receive it If there was backlash against the military, then it would be movements against paying disability for the military. As it is, I think it demonstrates that people care that the deserving receive disability payments.
Great point about King David, it’s one of the forgotten Bible passages and shows his wisdom.
"At Life Tabernacle, Shaye says its mission to help boys become better men is meant to serve women, too, as many complain about a lack of viable suitors."
This says a lot about how the church views men.
Yes, like empathy and compassion, the evangelical world has taken a perfectly useful idea — servant leadership — and redirected it away from God's commands.
Congrats to American Reformer and CAFF. I’m impressed by the work in this college guide. I’ve recommended it to many people at church with high schoolers. Some, whom I know for a fact aren’t readers, already knew about it. So anecdotally word is spreading. Hopefully that bears out in its success.
The porn article shows the root of the problem in the first paragraphs. Christians in our culture have accepted nudity as ok, i.e. not porn. All public nudity is shameful and God gives us many examples in the Bible of that.
Just as an aside for a minor point.
A while ago I heard a discussion on pints with Aquinas about pornography and it was fine as far as it goes but something was bugging me that there was something wrong.
What occurred to me was the problem wasn’t pornography (bear with me), it was lust. No lust, no pornography. Lust was the prime problem.
Next, we are deeply confused about what lust is and we don’t inform men and women about it. By conflating it with the sexual instinct that’s where we got a lot of the sexual problems; they think they’re being asked to not have the sexual instinct, that’s functionally impossible, so they try to make sure they’re “not that bad”.
Lust is a conscious deliberate choice to misuse the sexual instinct and its essence is internal to external, not external to internal. Your lust doesn’t come from a screen or page, it drove your choice to open up that site or book. By focusing on the external to internal and not having a clear distinction about when the sin occurs we flip back and forth between harsh condemnation of pornography and functionally wildly liberal attitudes about bastardy and divorce.