Splitting the Baby

I had occasion to employ this metaphor earlier today in connection with another matter altogether; and just as quickly realized that it possessed application to recent discussions here.

For reference, you might want to see my previous posts–and the comments–The Biggest Lie You’ve Ever Heard and The Division of Labor.

You know the Biblical story: King Solomon, in his legendary infinite wisdom, faced with a dispute between two women over the true motherhood of a baby, proposes a resolution: since the dispute can’t be objectively decided on the facts (the testimony of the claimants), the baby should be split in two–divided into equal shares for each woman. One of the women immediately folds. She dismisses her claim and offers the other woman the whole baby. So, who’s the real mother? (aside: Christians, and particularly fundamentalists, ought to pause to reflect that the true power of this metaphor lies not in the perceptual issue of its literal truth–i.e., did it really happen?–but in the conceptual issue of its meaning.)

Applied to the current Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde dispute over whether one may contradictorily "condemn the war" but "support the troops," I propose that we "split that baby." Any takers? Anyone wish to be a "friend to a troop," while morally condemning his mission? Not me, and not a lot of others. So who’s the real patriot, which means: who is most acting in accordance with the nature and moral duties of humanity within the context of American ideals?

Here’s what I think it boils down to, as concretely as I can envision it: the left wishes the military to become unionized. Think about it. How did we go, for example, from cops who filled a valid and valuable role in domestic violence (I mean: a wider concept that "wife-beating") to a situation where very often, they are preying upon non-violent people–often with deadly force? We could argue about it, but I suspect it will come down very close to some point where they realized a significant say in things that went far beyond simply quitting if they didn’t like the way things were, i.e., to the point where they had a collective voice and power: in the form of a labor union.

What we have is a bunch of cops who want the pay, the medical care, the bullet-proof retirement plan, but who don’t what to do the fundamental job of a cop, i.e., risk life and limb against violent people. Only the force of absolute shame–and the availability of cool G.I Joe SWAT gear–keeps them in that game at all, anymore. What do you think the driving force is with The War on Drugs and other such preying upon non-violent people? It’s a low-risk proposition. I’ve smoked pot. Makes me happy, introspective, and annoyingly talkative. Essentially, cops nowadays want all the benefits, but want to criminalize non-violent behavior so they can fake the notion that they’re "doin’ their job" and "servin’ the people."

(Don’t even get me started on the revenue-generating missions.)

What The Left wants, in parallel, is a military of similar "servant-victims." You can see it in their every posture. It irks them to no end that the military is largely conservative, politically, cheers and respects their Commander-in-Chief–when he’s someone worthy of military respect–and is gung-ho towards go-get-’em things that very literally threaten their very lives. It just kills them.

Never be fooled. The "support the troops" mantra is an idiotic deception. They really believe–the morons–that they can make of military guys the same sorts of victims they cultivate and nurture in "the projects" and grow to maturity in the various industrial factories. Except, that doesn’t work anymore. Nowadays, such vegetation must be fertilized and cultivated for "public service." They believe that the military, as true servats of the publik, are ripe. Just you watch.


Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.

7 Comments

  1. Richard Nikoley on March 13, 2006 at 21:56

    "they are communist, but apparently they are also good at capitalism."

    They are communists that happen to be good at using slide rules.

  2. Dusitn Dollar on March 13, 2006 at 21:39

    I fail to understand how the post answers the question. Being an atheist, surely you have a better argument than a bible tale. I also despise the modern union but this misses the point completely.

    Dichotomies do exist in the world. Admittedly, this is something I've struggled with for a long time. They exist in science and they exist in society. The largest and most obvious, in society, should be China. Officially they are communist, but apparently they are also good at capitalism.

    This doesn’t mean I blindly accept all contradictions. I first question them. But, I still don’t see the contradiction in this case. The legislative and executive branch responsible for creating the war is much different then the military apparatus actually fighting in it.

    Simply, it is possible to support the troops in Iraq and still be opposed to the war.

  3. Kyle Bennett on March 14, 2006 at 06:08

    OK, Dustin, define "support" as you see it. What exactly are you supporting in the context of "soldier"?

  4. USELESS MAN on March 14, 2006 at 04:43

    If you want to get out of the Bible, use Bertolt Brecht's Caucasion Chalk Circle wherein the Judge puts a young child into the chalk circle during a dispute of parentage between the caregiver and the mother that left the child behind.

    The judge asks both ladies to grab an arm of the child and pull it out of the circle….

    Wait, I think you know how this is going to end.

    Biblical or not, the principal applies.

    Never really contemplated the bigger picture on this issue; the idea of support the tools of war, but not supporting war. I guess that's why canada only seems to have peacekeepers… ?

    Either way, thanks for sharing.

  5. Jersey McJones on March 14, 2006 at 06:22

    What's going on here? My posts disappeared!

    JMJ

  6. Dusitn Dollar on March 14, 2006 at 10:51

    "Supporting" them is making sure they have all the tools necessary to conduct the war and return safely. I think we all agree, if your going to war you don’t “half ass” it. Which is want we did anyway, but that’s off topic. If your son wants to be an artist, you may not like it, but you can still support him by sending him to the best art school.

    "They are communists that happen to be good at using slide rules"

    I hope that’s not a mockery to math. (I want to say something here but I’ll refrain from it.) Actually its more like manufacturing and engineering they’re good at… One billion Chinese who want the American dream and your job. With plenty of poor people to fuel the factories. If that’s not capitalism than I must be confused. Obviously not democracy, but surely capitalism. Think about that before you go to bed tonight.

  7. Dusitn Dollar on March 14, 2006 at 11:01

    "Distance makes the heart grow fonder"

    "Out of sight out of mind"

    Grandma ever tell you those two? Maybe, even in the same conversation. Apparently they are referencing the same topic, but contradicting one another. Maybe we are just turning this into a battle of who has the best example. Too much abstract thought that misses the point…

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.