It's good for people to get out of their paradigms and see the world, see life, from a different angle.
The military has permitted me to do it and I'm better for it.
politics of iron man
- Thread starter stj
- Start date
It's good for people to get out of their paradigms and see the world, see life, from a different angle.
The military has permitted me to do it and I'm better for it.
I'm very dubious about schemes like this. I feel that if such a program were to be implemented, the compulsory period should be before the individuals are legally adults. After all, forcing people to into some kind of national service is not treating people as adults at all. It is very much treating them as children saying that they don't know "good" without some compulsory national organization directing their lives for 2 years.
Citizenship should be dependant on service. Would you like to know more?
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Sarcasm aside, I've always thought that wasn't all that bad an idea...
So long as we're quoting,
"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Well, ideally, there wouldn't be any fear... but I agree with the gist of this...
The main thing I object to in that comment is the implication that "government" is a person or group of persons. It's not. Government is a STRUCTURE. Government employees are people.
The idea of treating government... or corporations for that matter... as "people" in the legal sense is one of the worst ideas we've ever had in this country (and it's now become pretty much global).
The government is a structure... and the only people involved are your, and my, employees. The Constitution is their "employee handbook." And HELL YEAH, those PEOPLE who are supposed to be our employees damned well should worry about us if they stop doing the jobs their supposed to do... or if they forget that they work for us... or if they try to change things so they RULE us instead!
That's really a huge part of why I'm in favor of the idea of universal service. Because people who've never been involved think of "The Government" as some vague, "parent-like" structure, rather than what it is. So, I'm saying I think everyone needs to be one of those "employees."
I found it shocking that a poster, above, thought that I was treating people like children by suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is the best way to help people stop being children... ie, having that "depending on Mommy and Daddy Government to take care of me" attitude. THAT is the "childlike" attitude... and it's one held by a great many "adults" these days.
I've served... and been wounded in the process. That doesn't mean I'm better... but it sure does give me a different perspective on who "they" are... having been one of "them" myself. Which takes us back to the point I was originally making - in response to the "video game/superhero" impression mentioned in a post which was attributed, as I read it, to "people who are in favor of the war" which I countered by stating that MY impression is that most people who've got a clear sense of what's really going on, through personal experience, have much more realistic attitudes towards the people.
I know that's true with me and with everyone I know. That's not hard evidence that it's true for EVERYONE... but the logic stands up pretty well I think.
As someone who went to war several times... I HATE the idea of war. It's ugly, unpleasant, and potentially pretty damned lethal... not to mention persistently "not fun."
I just happen to believe that there are times that it's better than the alternative... that there are times, and circumstances, when "turning the other cheek" isn't really an option.
The trick is to pick your fights wisely. We can dispute whether Iraq is "wise" or not... or if Kennedy's Vietnam escalation was wise... or any of the other wars (declared or undeclared) we've been involved in. But I consider the whole "Middle East" thing to be "World War IV" (I think of the so-called "Cold War" as "World War III") and I believe that it started in 1979, and the OTHER side has been fighting it consistently ever since... while OUR side just keeps playing ostrich.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Add "law abiding" in front of both uses of the word "people", and I would agree.
Criminals, terrorists, and other scum SHOULD fear the government, and the government SHOULD fear them (and act to expose and eliminate them).
Bah. I have worked for government, albeit briefly and in a clerical function. It was a fairly negative experience overall and I left feeling screwed over (fired for being efficient), but then again pretty much the same thing happened again in the private sector, so I suppose I shouldn't blame the specific employer but the overall callous abusiveness of the job market.
What really worries me about the whole compulsory service thing is ideology. If one could find a government without one, I wouldn't be so strongly opposed to the idea, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Oblige people to serve government for any amount of time, and you're basically giving the government more time to put people through indoctrinarian boot camp, a captive audience for the propaganda du jour--and there's enough of that in schools already. Just look at Israel, which does have compulsory service: it gives them such an ideological hard-on for their military that they're willing to make nonsensical deals with their foes, trading live terrorists for dead bodies. In my opinion, a healthy society should have a distance between government and the general public; entwine the two too closely, and you begin to lose a required, critical perspective--on both sides.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
What really worries me about the whole compulsory service thing is ideology. If one could find a government without one, I wouldn't be so strongly opposed to the idea, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Oblige people to serve government for any amount of time, and you're basically giving the government more time to put people through indoctrinarian boot camp, a captive audience for the propaganda du jour--and there's enough of that in schools already. Just look at Israel, which does have compulsory service: it gives them such an ideological hard-on for their military that they're willing to make nonsensical deals with their foes, trading live terrorists for dead bodies. In my opinion, a healthy society should have a distance between government and the general public; entwine the two too closely, and you begin to lose a required, critical perspective--on both sides.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Amen to that.
Is that really the best way to run a government that is ostensibly of, by and for the people, to regard it as an alien entity, distant, rather than something that is a part of your society that you SHOULD be involved in?
In fact, a free society is DEPENDENT on the participation of the population, in staying engaged, informed and willing to engage in service.
For people to do that, they need to be aware of the wider world outside their surrounding, as well as very engaged with their immediate surroundings.
Further, they need to give a damn.
Having the government as this distant entity that you only glance at with distrust when you think about it at all is not the healthiest arrangement for a democratic system.
In fact, a free society is DEPENDENT on the participation of the population, in staying engaged, informed and willing to engage in service.
For people to do that, they need to be aware of the wider world outside their surrounding, as well as very engaged with their immediate surroundings.
Further, they need to give a damn.
Having the government as this distant entity that you only glance at with distrust when you think about it at all is not the healthiest arrangement for a democratic system.
I've heard people talk about being "fired for being too efficient" but I've never seen this myself. I'd be curious to learn more about that, in your case. So, if you feel like it, share please!
Ah, you're at the crux of my whole point there. Remember, the government isn't a PERSON. It's a structure. And that structure is dictated by the Constitution, at least here in the USA. The structure is "ideology free" and is really quite confining in terms of what the EMPLOYEES are allowed to do and what they're not.
That's what's fundamental to my being what I call a "Constitutional Conservative" and why those I describe as being "Constitutional Liberal" are always so much more frightened of what happens if someone with "the wrong ideology" gets into an elected position.
The "Constitutional Conservative" (or "strict constructionalist") perspective says that the Constitution is pretty much good the way it is (ie, in that it limits the powers which can be exercised by our employees working within its structure). It can be changed, but ONLY through the process of "amendment" (allowed for in the Constitution).
The "Constitutional Liberal" (or "progressive") perspective is that the restraints built into the original meaning (which is quite clear and unambiguous) is "overly restrictive" and prevents all variety of things from being done (ie, Federal governmental involvement in education or art, the Federal government having any say - pro OR con - over abortion, etc, etc) and so it has to be "modified" regularly.
The problem is, the "modifications" seen under that whole "living document" argument (which is NOT "original intent"... except insofar as the amendment process is allowed for) always result in more power over more aspects of our lives being seized by the PEOPLE who are supposed to be our EMPLOYEES working within the Federal government.
And the less restrictions on action there are on those people, the more dangerous any individual person's ideology becomes. It's great to have that much power with those people... assuming you're ONE of them, or you agreed 100% with them. But if the people in those positions are "on the other team," well, then, it's kind of scary to think of "those guys" having the same unrestrained power, huh?
Ah... but you're showing the part you're missing from my original point. It's not about SERVING THE GOVERNMENT. It's about SERVING THE PEOPLE.. THE COUNTRY. You become part of the government... but the government isn't an INDIVIDUAL, it's not an ENTITY.
The question is... are you "in the service" of the President, or of Congress... or are you "in the service" of the People of the United States?
Are our leaders our SERVANTS, or our RULERS?
If things keep going as they've been going for a while, we'll be permanently stuck in the latter. What I'm suggesting is actually the best, and maybe ONLY, solution I can see to prevent that from happening.
If everyone has been one of those "employees" it'll be far less likely to think of the guys we have in Washington, who are supposedly "our employees" as well, as though they're somehow ABOVE US.
Thinking of them as BEING "the Government" and then thinking of "the Government" as being "the person who gives me an allowance and takes care of all of my needs" is the surest way to end up living under tyranny.
Well, I'm not sure I see the logical path between those two points. Maybe you can clarify what you mean... what the path from "being pro-military" to "making stupid deals with people sworn to destroy their nation and kill every last one of them" is.
Israel is in a bad position... if you don't believe in God (and specifically in the Judao-Christian idea of who and what God is) then there's no way that you can believe that Israel will even exist in fifty years... or that more than a handful of those jewish people living there won't be slaughtered. Of course, if you DO believe in the Judeo-Christian God, then you believe that things are going to get worse for Israel soon, but they'll get a lot worse for the rest of the world first... and then God'll put everything right and whatever's left of humanity will be headquartered right there. Take your pick... but in neither case can I see any justification for the "stupid deals" you mentioned above... much less am I able to see those connected to the necessity (based upon being surrounded on all sides, and even internally, with people sworn to kill every last one of them and wipe all memory of their nation from the face of the earth!)
See, that's exactly OPPOSITE of the original intention of the founders of this country. "Of the people, by the people, for the people." Sound familiar?
The further "we the people" are from our government, the less involved every one of us is, the closer we are to living under a dictatorship.
We've seen government grow bigger and bigger, and for Government employees to take more and more powers (powers either specifically or overtly implicitely DENIED to them within their "employee handbook," the Constitution) over time. As a result... are we more, or less, free today?
I'm not suggesting the creation of "Hitler Youth" for cryin' out loud. Hitler's National Socialist Party, during their rise to power, was all about increasing the power of the Government... of "taking care of the needs of the people" but divorcing them from any actual INVOLVEMENT in their governance. Hitler's National Socialist Party was VERY effective in "looking out for the needs of the people," too... they implemented gun control, first registering then confiscating weapons (to "keep the streets safe" of course... the fact that it prevented a popular uprising against them later was, I'm sure, PURELY coincidental!), they instituted public health programs (after all, Hitler was a teatotaller, rabidly anti-smoking, big on health-food... a near-vegetarian, actually)... and a rabid eugenicist (which is a whole 'nother topic, but let it be said that eugenics is alive and well today, just not under that name!).
I'm NOT drawing any parallels between any individual today and him, or any of the other Nationalist Socialists, International Socialists, or even the (now largely defunct) Socio-Religious Socialists of that period. I'm just sayin... separating "the people" and "the government" is a BAD idea. Yes, it gives a "sense of perspective." That perspective is "we are the ruled, and they are our rulers." NOT a "perspective" I ever want to see in my homeland.
Well, alright. I was hired for a temporary posting to last N number of weeks transfering several file cabinets of paperwork onto a newly created and far more user friendly database. A monkish task, but since it was goverment work the pay was decent. I finished do so a week before my contract was up. Told the folks who hired me, they said it was impressive and told me not to bother coming in the next day. If I had goofed off, I would have gotten that extra week I was contracted for and the associated pay. To make matters work, a friend I made there who was doing library cataloguing told me her team didn't finish by their deadline, and actually got paid extensions in order to finish. Of course, they might simply have had more work in the first place, but it still cheeses me off.
For the private sector thing, it's more a case that I innovated myself out of a job. The gig was basically order entry - customer orders came in usign one database, orders were shipped usign another, and I was the guy who manually transfered the information from one system to another. Seems redundant, right? Well, I thought so too, so in lulls between orders I designed a macro in Word that reorganized the data from one layout to another, such that my job essentially became glorified copy/paste. Made the same mistake of telling my supervisors, who were pleased that I had all but eliminated a step in the process. Specifically, mine, as I was then shown the door. If I'd not had said anything, I would have had the most effortless job around, but I loathe inactivity and wanted something else to do. Again a case of being too good a worker.
Um, bull. Government is run by people, not machines, and they always bring their own biases; but more important, the people at the top dictate the ideology on which the government is run through allocation of funds and policy measures, etc. The United States is no more immune to that than any other nation, as a brief glance at the current administration reveals.
Nor do I really believe in the idea of fixed constitutions, but then over here our constitution is an assembly of over a dozen documents, the last of which is only as old as I am. The concerns of a bunch of rich, white men in particular historical circumstance cannot possibly fully reflect the concerns of latter time periods.
I don't agree. Government is a corporate entity, which is to say that it's hierarchical and takes time to get to the top slots. Even if you have, say, two years of compulsory service, most of those employees are never going to progress beyond the most basic, entry-level positions in the infrastructure. You're no more likely to see the government as part of your collective identity, and the guy at the top an employee rather than a boos, than the guy working in the mail room at some company sees that corporation as part of himself, or the CEO as his employee even if he's a shareholder. In fact, I think this would be a more perilous scenario that the small percentage of people currently living on welfare: here, everybody would be dependant on the government to make a living for a period of time, and so more likely to see government in a parental fashion. Here, government aren't just your leaders, they're also your boss. And as I said before, that's proximity I'm not comfortable with. The only way to achieve what you want is, I think, getting genuinely self-sacrificing politicians into the top offices, people who believe as you do regarding the government's role... and good luck finding any of those.
As it's been explained to me, the level of commitment the Israelis hold towards their armed forces, even dead, stems from having a citizen soldiery. People want assurances that the government will bend over backwards for them in exchange for the compulsory term of service... and that can, and has, backfired.
One can say things like 'of the people, by the people, for the people' all one wants; that's a strictly theoretical entity with little relation to the reality on the ground, which is more along the lines 'of a monied elite, by the self-serving, for corporate interests'. And unless and until you can enact radical reform that would change that, there will always necessarily be a gap between government and the people, and it's the government that wants you to forget that gap, to make you think these shills are somehow 'one of the guys (or gals)', an average Joe (or Jane). It's important to remember that government is control. It's necessary, but it must never be allowed to exist without oversight, and that requires distance. Allow the people to become too closely entwined with their government, and you loose the the ability to resist that control psychologically. It's goals become your goals. That's why I think a healthy distrust of government is part and parcel of a strong democracy, part of a broader, societal-level method of checks and balances.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Trent, I get your point... but I think you're totally missing mine. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, I can't say.
Where we differ, I think, is that you believe that "government is a bunch of people" and I think "government is a structure... not the people who are working under that structure."
I may be missing something, but I get the impression you're not in the USA... probably in Europe SOMEPLACE... right?
Well, the ... whatever today's term-of-the-week for the centralized Eurpean government is... let's just keep calling it the EU for now... The EU is definitely on the path to dictatorship. Europe has a lot of history of dictatorships.
The thing is, those "old obsolete guys living in a different world" who wrote the US Constitution had a great resource for seeing what to AVOID. They looked at Europe, mainly, to determine what to avoid. Some European dictatorships were more benign than others (Britain in particular).
The point is, they were able to see what tyrants do to establish their tyranny. And so they wrote a document which is the "highest law of the land" (superseding EVERY other law, without exception). And instead of doing it like most European countries do... stating that it's the Government "granting rights to the citizens," they stated outright that it's CITIZENS who grant rights to their EMPLOYEES.
Ever since, would-be tin-plated dictators have been trying to pick away at that... at the LIMITATIONS on their quest for personal power. And there's been quite a bit of "progress" in that area, under the "progressive" banner. The result is, we're far less free and far less secure and far worse off than we'd otherwise be.
I track my finances closely... looking at every tax I directly pay (not just income tax). The fact is, more than half of every dollar I earn is taken away in taxes. Some of it is spent on things that are AUTHORIZED... under the Constitution. But much more is spent on things that the Federal Government has no authority to do in the first place (and thus are in fact ILLEGAL). The "Colonies" rebelled against England, by comparison, over a 5% tax on TEA!
We have a group of would-be-dictators (regardless of political party affiliation!) who have forgotten that they WORK FOR US, not vice-versa. And every day, Republican and Democrat alike, they keep trying to collect more and more power for themselves "so that they can do more for us."
"Bread and Circuses"... (being a literary-minded fellow I'm sure you know the source of that reference, don't you?)
Where we differ, I think, is that you believe that "government is a bunch of people" and I think "government is a structure... not the people who are working under that structure."
I may be missing something, but I get the impression you're not in the USA... probably in Europe SOMEPLACE... right?
Well, the ... whatever today's term-of-the-week for the centralized Eurpean government is... let's just keep calling it the EU for now... The EU is definitely on the path to dictatorship. Europe has a lot of history of dictatorships.
The thing is, those "old obsolete guys living in a different world" who wrote the US Constitution had a great resource for seeing what to AVOID. They looked at Europe, mainly, to determine what to avoid. Some European dictatorships were more benign than others (Britain in particular).
The point is, they were able to see what tyrants do to establish their tyranny. And so they wrote a document which is the "highest law of the land" (superseding EVERY other law, without exception). And instead of doing it like most European countries do... stating that it's the Government "granting rights to the citizens," they stated outright that it's CITIZENS who grant rights to their EMPLOYEES.
Ever since, would-be tin-plated dictators have been trying to pick away at that... at the LIMITATIONS on their quest for personal power. And there's been quite a bit of "progress" in that area, under the "progressive" banner. The result is, we're far less free and far less secure and far worse off than we'd otherwise be.
I track my finances closely... looking at every tax I directly pay (not just income tax). The fact is, more than half of every dollar I earn is taken away in taxes. Some of it is spent on things that are AUTHORIZED... under the Constitution. But much more is spent on things that the Federal Government has no authority to do in the first place (and thus are in fact ILLEGAL). The "Colonies" rebelled against England, by comparison, over a 5% tax on TEA!
We have a group of would-be-dictators (regardless of political party affiliation!) who have forgotten that they WORK FOR US, not vice-versa. And every day, Republican and Democrat alike, they keep trying to collect more and more power for themselves "so that they can do more for us."
"Bread and Circuses"... (being a literary-minded fellow I'm sure you know the source of that reference, don't you?)
Again, I think you're missing the historical context here--in the late 50s and early 60s, anti-Communism wasn't political, it was national. JFK, one of the staunchest anti-Communist leaders in history, was a liberal. It wasn't something that defined whether you were a Republican or Democrat.
But, a hero who's an arms merchant at the same time that the Vietnam conflict was escalating, and the antiwar movement was growing? Yeah, that's a storytelling challenge.
Sorry to dig this up but didn't have time before, yet I can't help but point out that anti-Communism is most certainly political. Calling it "national" doesn't really mean anything, except to hint that Communists are foreign somehow. Even if they were (which they're not,) Communism is obviously political and therefore opposing it is political. Given that the current Republican party is full of Culture Warriors, certainly everyone is familiar with the notion that there are politics which are not just about Democrats and Republicans. The implication that the only options are to be either a Democrat or a Republican might appeal to the ghost of Martin Van Buren. But it is kind of narrow. I still don't see how anti-Communist politics made Iron Man a hard sell.
But it is more interesting how the historical context has been distorted. Iron Man started in 1963.
The antiwar movement did not become a major force outside college campuses till after the Tet Offensive of 1968. And the votes for Nixon and Wallace, as well as the nomination of Humphrey (Johnson's Vice President,) showed that even then there was extremely widespread support for the war against Vietnam.
Mostly the anitwar movement was dismissed as evil subversives/sex maniac degenerate hippies and such like. Honest journalism about the war was always just one element in media coverage, which mostly repeated government/military briefings from beginning to end, despite lame excuses about being stabbed in the back by the lliberal press spread by the losing military.
Student organizations which moved beyond antiwar activity to a generally anti-imperialist or Communist politics never received unbiased coverage but were always demoized.
In the end, the demoralization of the conscript army in Vietnam which resulted in mutinies, fragging of officers and widespread drug use, corruption and racial tension played a far greater role in ending US military attacks on Vietnam.
In the historical context, in 1963 Stark's anti-Communism was not a negative except perhaps for members of Youth Against War and Fascism. (Most people then didn't know who they were either.) Even by 1969, Stark's anti-Communism was a big negative more for members of Progressive Labor than for wide sections of the population. (Most people then didn't know who they were either.)
The historical context of the early Sixties was marked by rising popularity of the civil rights movement, and early intimations of easing of sexual mores, not antiwar or Communist politics.
As stj already indicated, this would make sense if Iron Man came out a few years later, but the anti-war movement wasn't nearly as strong in March of 1963. The two incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin (later revealed to be only one) didn't happen until August of 1964, and the major escalation of the American War in Vietnam by LBJ's lead following the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution didn't happen until after that.
I'm a bit confused by that point as well, but I haven't read the Stan Lee comments about Iron Man's creation that have been mentioned a few times in this thread. Was he specifically addressing Iron Man's anti-communism? If so it might be a bit of revisionist history.
I haven't read very many comics at all (I seem to emphasize this point over and over again), but even from looking at a few comic book issues from my father's childhood collection (1955-1965, roughly) communist villains (when even easier to use Nazi villains weren't being dredged up from the past) were pretty common.
All that aside, stj, you never really followed through on this statement:
I would like to debate that idea some more. Iron Man the comic certainly seemed to revel in beating up on Soviets, but I don't see a similar ideology on film. I think the point would be more reasonable if Iron Man had rescued a group of westerners from the Afghani terrorists as opposed to the Afghani villagers, or if all the villains had been Afghani in origin, but neither of those statements are true. Harping on the ignorance of other posters towards the middle east doesn't prove your point, even if it is incredibly annoying.
Well, no, that's exactly my point: It didn't. It wasn't the fact that he was anti-Communist, but that he was an arrogant, carousing weapons merchant who made his millions as part of the military-industrial complex.
For what it's worth, Wikipedia lists the Vietnam antiwar effort as beginning in 1962, two years after JFK began the Vietnam conflict escalation and a year before Lee & Kirby created Iron Man. (And, has been pointed out many times, both were closely in touch with the younger generation's interests, which is one reason that Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer became so popular on college campuses.)
In fact, Country Joe and the Fish's "Feel Like I'm Fixin' To Die Rag", an antiwar anthem, was released in 1965--well before the Tet Offensive and the 1968 election.
Similar threads
