|
This statement will come as no surprise to Open Left readers: People with power tend to use it for their own benefit. Of course, the explanations given for various actions are almost never: "We're doing because it's good for us and our friends." Instead, a variety of rationalizations are given which often seem to "make sense" if one doesn't ponder things for too long. How does this play out when considering policies affecting our youngest voting citizens, those aged 18, 19 and 20 years old? Keep in mind that policy makers are, generally, old. The average U.S. Senator is 63. Representatives average a few years younger. Recent Presidents range from late 40s to about 70 with a mean in the late 50s. These older (wiser?) men and women (a few) think it's just fine to send the youngest citizens to die in wars. In fact, 76.5 percent of U.S. casualties in Iraq have been soldiers younger than 30. The percentage for Afghanistan is 66.5. Rationalization: soldiers need to be in top physical condition, so the young must bear this burden. But the greatest hypocrisy concerns 18-20 year olds. So far, 850 have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this decade; 748 in Iraq and 102 in Afghanistan. Another 600 just turned 21 before they died in those countries. And yet, we prohibit 18-20 year olds from drinking alcohol. Why is this? It's because old people would prefer that young people don't drink. Young people are, obviously, too irresponsible to drink. Give them an assault weapon or a tank but not a beer. It's a simple power play: we'd prefer you not drink so we won't let you and we'd prefer you go and die in wars but not us. This is the point in the argument where the call for changing the drinking age is supposed to come but I'm not going to do that. Doesn't really matter that much. Instead, I'll call for this: change the age for combat to 40-65. Educate the young and let them start careers and families. Send the older citizens to die in war. Added benefit: war policies might begin to change.
|
STATE BLOGS
