Kevin,
If a disagreement exists it may be our difference of opinion about the definition of the word “Parasite”. I don’t look at it as a derogatory word. There are many people that would claim I am employed off the wealth and kind actions of others. I have to strongly agree. I know, and am very comfortable with, which side my bread is buttered on.
I think we agree on your definition as stated. “Something living off the blood, work and sacrifice of a life giving body.” Obviously if we’re not on the front lines taking bullets and whatever else, then we’re living off the sacrifices of others who do. That’s not the issue. And, really, the issue of whether the word “parasite” is derogatory doesn’t really come into play, either. The core of the issue is why the concept itself is applied only to those in civil service. Why do you view my dad (and grandfather, and every other non-vet civil servant) as living off the sacrifice of others, but not me? Neither of us ever donned a uniform, and neither are any more or less free than the other as a result.
I think the other problem lies in the fact that your definition doesn’t look at the entire relationship inherent in the concept of “parasite.” The second half of the definition of the word “parasite” is almost universally “without giving anything in return,” which lies at the heart of its derogatory implication. When you look at the contributions the thousands of engineers, scientists, and researchers have made to the common good, I don’t think anyone could argue that they’ve given nothing back to that which supports them. (it was NASA who gave us the microwave, after all.) If you want a direct give-and-take relationship between the military and civil service, look at the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC. I spent a fair amount of time there in high school and college. Most of the folks I encountered there had no military experience, but did (and still do) devote their careers to making sure our military stays on the right side of the water. As a marina operator, you have–undoubtedly–benefitted from their research in one way or another.
So, perhaps it is your use and definition of “parasite” that lies at the heart of the matter. If taken as you define it, the concept cannot be selectively applied to a specific group of non-vets (at least, you’ve yet to give me an explanation as to how it can). It has to be applied to the entire non-vet population as a whole. When taken with the entire definition of the word, the concept has the opposite effect. The very group you wish to include is inherently excluded because the relationship is clearly symbiotic, not parasitic.
Later,
K
Well said, Kevin
Hey I just remembered–Obama’s reverend, jeremiah wright–he’s a vet. A Marine in fact.
Nope. I am sorry to say that he was a US Navy Corpsman assigned to the Marines. Like me.
Sigh.
Ric Golding said:
Kevin,If a disagreement exists it may be our difference of opinion about the definition of the word “Parasite”. I don’t look at it as a derogatory word. There are many people that would claim I am employed off the wealth and kind actions of others. I have to strongly agree. I know, and am very comfortable with, which side my bread is buttered on.
I’m not certain which Kevin you are referring to here but I certainly take offense to the term “Parasite” when referring to scientists, et al. When applied to people, the term is hateful. If you must use a biological term, perhaps simbiotic relationship may be more apt.
As far as I’m concerned, scientists have done far more for the public good and wellbeing than any legion of soldiers. Can you name a military figure that has done anywhere near contributing to the public good as Louis Pasteur (sp?), or Lister, Flory, Salk, etc. Scientists invented the nuclear bomb, but they also put chlorine in the water. The latter has had an incalculable positive effect.
And it’s not just medical research. How many soldiers’ lives were saved in WW2 by coastal geomorphologists? How many Kansas farmers are saved each year by meteorologists? How many airline passengers are saved by metalurgists? How about the chemists and physicists who made our computers possible? And how many of the next generation of scientists are trained by those “parasites” at publicly funded universities?
Many scientists are employed by private enterprise. But in many cases, these people work at what I would call “applied science”. And what is it that is being “applied”? In many cases they are looking for commericial applications of the results of the “pure science” done at universities. Now who’s the parasite?
And then there are the “liberal teachers”. I note there is no mention of conservative teachers. But either way, if you don’t like what they are teaching then blame the curriculum developers, not the teachers. In general, they have to teach what they’re told to teach. When I was 12 I was taught, at length, about the evils of communism. (If anything, it made me curious about communism. Even at 12 I could smell BS when it was piled in front of me. And No. I’m not a communist.))
You’re not going to like this, but when I become king of the world I will abolish the military. No military equals no wars. Most of the trillions saved will go directly into publicly funded pure research. When people are free to study anything and everything, who knows what benefits will flow.
To Kevin Morris,
I was speaking to Kevin Strong. I was unaware that there were conservatives in the teaching profession. 
To Kevin Strong,
It is my opinion that even a scientist could do a better job if he had seen the World through some military time and training. It exposes people to people from all parts of the Country and all income levels. It creates respect for the position of authority and leadership, not the individual and I think it builds character and values that last a life time. My whole argument is that we are all parasites living off those that defend us and allow us to enjoy their sacrifices and I feel this should have high priority when candidates are presented for a position. I feel some companies and organizations follow this because it is the law and the nonveterans in those organizations resent it. I feel some follow it because it is the right thing to do.
Quote:Ah, but that's not what you stated earlier:
... My whole argument is that we are all parasites living off those that defend us and allow us to enjoy their sacrifices and I feel this should have high priority when candidates are presented for a position. ...
Quote:
... Yes, I do feel most of the people on the public payroll are parasites, if they have never served in the military protecting this Country of ours.I do not feel privately funded scientists and scientists working in the private sector are parasites. If they are going for Federal grants, they are pushing the edge.
Your use of the word “all” in your most recent post would indicate a change of position from your earlier statement. In fact, you seem to go a step further, using the phrase “we all,” which–to me–indicates an inclusion of vets and non-vets alike, not just non-vets who are no longer segregated based on their choice of employer. If that is indeed the case–you include all individuals–then your opinion is understandable, if not agreeable.
I still strongly disagree with your use of the word “parasite,” as the relationship is actually symbiotic, especially with regard to those in civil service. (Note the use of the word “service,” used in government along the same vein as it is in “military service.” Whether you carry a gun or design one, you’re doing a service to your country.)
We do agree–and I’ve mentioned this earlier–that military service gives one a broad perspective on the world. I don’t agree that serving is the only way to gain that perspective, but it’s probably the most common way. You and I also agree that a vet’s service should be a consideration when applying for a job. You would probably give it a bit more weight than would I, but such things are individual matters.
I stated earlier that my desire was to be able to respect your opinion. I think–given your recent clarification–that I can understand it enough to respect it.
Later,
K
Kevin,
Thank you for trying to understand my thoughts. I truely appreciate that. I don’t know if I’m right, it’s just what I feel and what I have come up with over the years. I wasn’t knowledable on this subject, until about the last 18 years when I started working so close with the Corps of Engineers and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
I can tell you, I remember being truely shocked when I found out that people worked for either of these organizations and other government agencies, that were not Veterans. I had never thought about it and certainly never considered it and in 20 plus years in the military wasn’t really exposed to it. Almost all the civilians I worked with had prior military experience, most prior Coast Guard. In my opinion, I thought that civil service jobs were what people did that came out of the military and couldn’t adjust to the civilian, competitive world of capitalism. I never thought that somebody would choose working for the government as a choice out of college or high school and a couple of years ago, I learned that people now go to school to be trained to be a government employee. Your statement that you considered a civil service job out of college and under my analysis that would make you less of a person in my eyes. I think you are right. I’m glad you went in to the private industry work force and contribute to the GNP of this Nation, instead of just taking from it.
Does this mean that I have a certain amount of distrust and a little condesending feeling over civil service employees? Yes, I do. I’ve tried to be more opened minded and understanding, but it isn’t working so far. I still feel civil service jobs should be for veterans and disabled veterans and that prior service should be a job requirement to obtain those jobs. I know others feel its okay for those jobs to be filled by affirmative action groups and anybody. I don’t agree. I also think everybody should enjoy Operations in Garden Railroads, I have found other opinions on that idea, also.
Thanks for the conversation and forcing me to clarify my words and thoughts.
I’m truly sorry you feel the way you do. You and I obviously traveled in different circles. I grew up in an environment where civil service is placed on a pedestal, and people aspire to use their education to contribute in that regard just as much as people aspire to contribute in military service. Yes, there are “dime-a-dozen” civil service jobs where one has to wonder if the people in them actually have pulses, but no one enlists in the military as a staff sergeant, either. Every workflow environment needs grunts.
I grew up in an environment where the federal government actively recruited from (and worked closely with) colleges and universities in an effort to get the best and brightest individuals to fill government jobs. The people who have traveled in my circles have made immeasurable contributions to society–contributions that cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents, but lives and lifestyles. My traveling companions will very likely have made far more of an impact on society’s welfare than I would on the GNP over 100 careers. My decision to work for the private sector had nothing to do with working for the government or not, it had to do with the type of work being done. I would have been honored to work for the government, but they were looking for production editors, and I wanted to tell stories. I don’t regret my choice in the least, but I do envy the government researchers whose stories I occasionally get to tell. They’re the ones making the impact, I’m merely the messenger.
The simple fact of the matter, though, is that there is nothing precluding vets from applying for these government jobs. Nothing can be “taken” from a group if that group freely gives it away. The fact that vets choose not to apply for these jobs cannot be held against the individuals who do fill them instead. Likewise, the fact that the government hires non-vets (and actively recruits them) cannot be held against those who get recruited. That “fault” lies with the government, not the individual. The system is what it is because that’s the way the government intended it to be. In truth, there’s no way the civil service jobs could be filled solely by vets anyway. The numbers simply aren’t there–especially when you consider the number of vets who opt into other lines of work.
If you want to harbor a condescending feeling over those in civil service, no amount of preaching from me is going to change that. It is unfortunate that your personal experiences have led you to such a prejudice, but they are your personal experiences. I would only hope that–over time–your experiences would change your opinions and you can see civil servants not for what they “take,” but rather for what they bring.
Later,
K
Kevin,
Thank you for respecting that I have an opinion and allowing me to state it, even if you don’t agree with it. When we started our discussion I certainly didn’t feel I would change your mind, I just wanted clarify my feelings so they could be understood by you and I don’t really imagine you thought you would change my thoughts. We come from different parts of this Country with different views and backgrounds. It doesn’t mean either is really right or wrong, it is different opinions.
It has taken almost 60 years of living, and over 40 years of working, for me to establish my viewpoints or as you call prejudices. I guess some people might be offended that someone might think they are prejudice, I’m certainly not. I’ve been called a lot worse.