Posted by
Catmman on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:25:53 AM
I
read this posting on Hot Air about something Eason Jordan said.
I know this has been a subject before, but after reading this, I can't take it anymore!
I've never eaten a s**t sandwich, but I can speak with relative authority on the fact that there would be negative consequences if one did eat a s**t sandwich. It is not going to taste real well, it's not going to be very nutritious and may very well make you gravely ill. Now does my lack of experience in the s**t sandwich arena disqualify me from making an informed opinion on the effects of eating one?
I've been in the military for almost 20 years. I have never been to Iraq. I
have been to Saudi Arabia. I've also been involved in operations in Panama and the Philippines and other places throughout the world. I've been shot at and I've been involved in other less than glamerous situations throughout my career. But does the fact that I've never been to Iraq disqualify me from having a reasoned opinion on what is happening?
Whenever I hear from anyone the "haven't been there, done that" argument and therefore don't understand the issues is ridiculous. You
may not understand the intense emotional or physchological aspects of what's going on, that's a given. But there are other ways for one to be able to make an informed opinion. Personal experinece in other areas, reading and other research avenues, understanding historical perspective, etc. are all ways one may learn about a certain issue.
One thing I never understood was this. I carried a sidearm or other type of firearm (including less than lethal) for many years of my career. When we first began to carry pepper spray, we were told by our chain of command that we needed to undergo training. This is both understandable and reasonable. However, part of the training was the culmination, where we were required to be sprayed by the agent. This was so we would be able to "feel" what it was like. Ostensibly, this would make us less likely to use this avenue of protection, or use it in a more discretionary fashion since we had felt the pain ourselves. (This same nonsense is done with tasers today.)
This logic never made any sense to me. Why would I need to feel what it was like? Then I turned the argument around on the chain of command. I carry a firearm right? I may have to use this one day to kill someone or stop the commision of a crime right? Well then, why don't we shoot ourselves? Same logical reasoning right?
You see the absurdity of this argument? I can be reasonably sure that if I have to shoot someone, it's going to hurt or kill them. I can come to that conclusion by studying, research and common sense.
Anyone can have an informed opinion and present an argument (there is a term for this, but I forget what it is.). Anyone who uses this line of reasoning, such as Eason Jordan, can't debate the substance of the issue.
BTW - I never did get sprayed.