View Full Version : Democrats want the draft????
jfrenaye
11-19-2006, 05:05 PM
I remember back on the 04 presidential race, the democrats were using the fear of a draft to swing the votes. Bush said there would be no draft and so far, I have not seen it.
Well, now it seems that a top democrat in the house--Charlie Rangel of New York--is looking to reinstate the draft as early as next year.
Rangel wants draft! (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/congressman-rangel-will-seek-to/20061119133009990016?cid=2194)
I am curious what else might come up in this session. Hang on fellas!
I remember back on the 04 presidential race, the democrats were using the fear of a draft to swing the votes. Bush said there would be no draft and so far, I have not seen it.
Well, now it seems that a top democrat in the house--Charlie Rangel of New York--is looking to reinstate the draft as early as next year....
...I am curious what else might come up in this session. Hang on fellas!
I don't think Nancy Pelosi is self destructive enough to allow the bill to come out of committe to the floor, but then again, what do I know.
I agree with Rangel about some things, but in this case, is he out of his mind or what?!?
Rangel said recently, "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way." This man needs a psychiatrist!
bodega
11-19-2006, 07:46 PM
This is not what Democrats want, this is what this one man thinks our country should do and I hope to he$$ it fails. We are already so divided as a country, a draft would bring us even futher apart. The wounds of Viet Nam haven't been healed and this would be a BIG mistake.
I said this in the 70's and I say it now; I will not give the government my children for any war. If they wanted to serve, it would be very hard for me, but it would be their decision. I think the men and women who are currently serving are a much better military than those who are made to do something they do not want to do. BTW, when will the Bush girls be going to boot camp????
B., to use an expression from the time of the Vietnam War, "Right On!"
jimtbay
11-19-2006, 09:43 PM
Bodega, you are correct! I did not have a child so he could be shipped off to Iraq or some other place against his will. He decide to serves, then so be it, I will find a way to deal and support the decision.
deangreenhoe
11-19-2006, 09:57 PM
This is not what Democrats want, this is what this one man thinks our country should do and I hope to he$$ it fails.
Um...yea-ahhh!!! How does this get so messed up all the time?
But it's the same thing on both sides. One party member makes a controversial statement and then the media and the uneducated public attributes it to the entire party.
Of course, I'm surprised that McCain didn't suggest this first. :cool:
Those of us who grew up in the era of watching the Vietnam war play out in front of our impressionable young eyes while we ate Campbell's tomato soup and grilled cheese sandwiches will never let that happen again.
clarkef
11-20-2006, 12:19 AM
But it's the same thing on both sides. One party member makes a controversial statement and then the media and the uneducated public attributes it to the entire party.
Rangel is a senior democrat and unless other dems, preferable other senior dems, refute him, his words are properly attributed to the dems.
deangreenhoe
11-20-2006, 01:50 AM
Rangel is a senior democrat and unless other dems, preferable other senior dems, refute him, his words are properly attributed to the dems.
Don't confuse politico rhetoric and party positioning (because nobody in the system yet has the kahunas to loudly express dissent) with the will of the Democratic party at large. The movement on both sides goes well beyond what the attention seeking talking heads spew into the media bucket.
I'm fairly confident the statement will eventually be cut down, just as soon as the handlers figure out a way to do so without alienating so much as a frightened, confused mouse in the corner.
And we all know that any controversial statement on the fringes of the party line is nothing more than a litmus test for the constituancy. McCain just did the same thing with his declaration that we should load up Iraq with a massive amount of additional troops.
I personally think Rangel is a bloated, reactionary blowhard. He's too acustomed to pushing the envelope on the far left and has yet to figure out that the power of moderation is finally turning the tide in this country. You do realize that his comment was meant to inflame rather than propose a solution the Democratic believes in, right?
Shock politics is about to become passe. I hope. :)
Rangel is a senior democrat and unless other dems, preferable other senior dems, refute him, his words are properly attributed to the dems.
Then I assume the same is true for Senator John McCain, not only a senior elephant, but a front-running GOP presidential hopeful for 2008, who yesterday said "the U.S. must send an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq."
Rangel may be a senior dem, since he's held his seat for so long, but he's also clearly been out of the mainstream of dems for sometime. He's been pushing this proposal to bring back the draft for years, and been shot down by dems and the gop each time. He'll be shot down again.
In 2003, he proposed a draft covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42. Next year he'll probably offer a plan for men and women 18 to 52.
I've got a question. Why does the press, or any thinking person, for that matter, consider Charlie Rangel as a spokesman for anyone other than Charlie Rangel? The answer is they don't, but the headline is so outrageous and provocative, that it will probably sell a few more newspapers, and get a few more hits on the news websites, so they print it, and post it, as if it's the position of the dems as a whole.
missalf
11-20-2006, 08:00 AM
I've got a question. Why does the press, or any thinking person, for that matter, consider Charlie Rangel as a spokesman for anyone other than Charlie Rangel? The answer is they don't, but the headline is so outrageous and provocative, that it will probably sell a few more newspapers, and get a few more hits on the news websites, so they print it, and post it, as if it's the position of the dems as a whole.
Ned, you've hit the nail on the head -- and it's why we're innundated with "reality" programming, celebrity goings-on and other trash. The more outrageous, the more it's likely to attract attention. The sad truth is that people will react to these shocker statements in predictable fashion and support them by web hits, tabloid purchases or tv viewing. So sad.
I personally think Rangel is a bloated, reactionary blowhard. :)
Oh, Dean, Honey, I like the way you talk :D -- and agree with your assessment!
mercwyn
11-20-2006, 12:52 PM
When Charlie Rangel first proposed this idea several years ago I was in favor of it with some key provisions designed to make it as painful as possible to those who vote in favor of it. Namely, no waivers, no exceptions, no get out of jail free cards, everyone's child would be at equal risk, including the Bush twins, the Kennedy brood, along with all of the rest of our children. No exemption for being in school or being married or anything else. This is the only way to make a draft truly fair to all and insure that all members of our society get to contribute to this.
I suspect that this is more politcial posturing then anything else and that Charlie Rangel is doing nothing more then trying to position himself to go out on the speaking tours.
I am probably one of the few members of this board that really believes that everyone should serve a two year stint in the military or other public service, much like the Swiss, the Israelis, the Turks and many other countires do. I believe that this has many benefits for a society ranging from helping immigrants to assimilate more quickly, to creating a greater sense of unity and allowing all to gain from the shared experience of service. It also has the benefit of helping some individuals to learn discipline and self respect.
So, now that Nancy Pelosi has squashed Rangel's draft proposal, where's the headline news about it. At CNN, Rangel's comments were the top headline until this afternoon, even after Pelosi squashed it.
It took me quite some time to find Pelosi's comments this afternoon, although right now they are somewhat prominently shown in an article in the Politics section. Even so, it's not, nor has it been on CNN's front page.
I continue to contend this was Rangel being Rangel, and the news media doing what they do best, blowing things out of all proportion and significance, to make a few cents more.
Eileen Sellers
11-20-2006, 07:32 PM
I've got a question. Why does the press, or any thinking person, for that matter, consider Charlie Rangel as a spokesman for anyone other than Charlie Rangel?
Because he is elected to public office. Thinking people voted for him, he must be speaking for them.
As for McCain's idea that we need more troops on the ground, it's not a bad idea. In fact if all the coalition forces were to be tripled, you wouldn't have the level of incidents going on now. That would give the citizens of Iraq and the goverment a chance to get a hold of the situation.
There is safety in numbers, and if you want the troops to patrol with a level of safety then you have to increase the numbers.
clarkef
11-22-2006, 09:57 AM
Of course I know that Rangel is posturing. But the point remains, when people in power speak, and their constituents don't challenge them, the outrageous posture becomes accepted over time. This is not a Dems v. Repub issue.
We see the same thing in the Christian community. When Pat Robertson says something stupid, which is more often than not, more moderate Republicans and Christians need to refute, challenge, or distance themselves, else everyone is tainted with the same brush.
Its one of the reasons why Americans see Islam as one big monolithic religion. Crazy mullah says something, no one repuduates it, bam, crazy mullah speaks for all Islam
weblet
11-22-2006, 10:26 AM
I am probably one of the few members of this board that really believes that everyone should serve a two year stint in the military or other public service, much like the Swiss, the Israelis, the Turks and many other countires do. I believe that this has many benefits for a society ranging from helping immigrants to assimilate more quickly, to creating a greater sense of unity and allowing all to gain from the shared experience of service. It also has the benefit of helping some individuals to learn discipline and self respect.
I hear you, mercwyn....
Of course I know that Rangel is posturing. But the point remains, when people in power speak, and their constituents don't challenge them, the outrageous posture becomes accepted over time. This is not a Dems v. Repub issue.
We see the same thing in the Christian community. When Pat Robertson says something stupid, which is more often than not, more moderate Republicans and Christians need to refute, challenge, or distance themselves, else everyone is tainted with the same brush.
Its one of the reasons why Americans see Islam as one big monolithic religion. Crazy mullah says something, no one repuduates it, bam, crazy mullah speaks for all Islam
All excellent points as usual Clarke.
trojan
11-23-2006, 01:35 AM
Rangel will be the single most powerful committee chair in the next congress. He will head Ways and Means. By definition, his views are to be taken with great seriousness and deference. There are those who would learnedly argue that the W&M Chair is actually the most infuential member of the entire House.
If he wants to severely alter the funding of the Pentagon, he can and nobody can stop him. Not the Speaker, not the Leader, not the Whip. No funding for anything gets through without his say so.
I have little doubt as to his sincerity and integrity on this issue. He has been steadfast and articulate. This is no trial ballon, nor is it a political ploy. He means to coerce the citizenry and the military into implementing a mandatory service for all.
Take him and this idea lightly at your peril.
Eileen Sellers
11-26-2006, 08:56 PM
Its one of the reasons why Americans see Islam as one big monolithic religion. Crazy mullah says something, no one repuduates it, bam, crazy mullah speaks for all Islam
No one repudiates Islamic leaders because if they do they die. Whereas for Pat Robertson if anyone/everyone repudiates him, they go to hell.
The difference is freedom of speech.We have it, they don't.
It's not one big monolithic religion, it's one big brutal hatred, and they love their hate, all of them. And they love killing each other, it makes them feel good. It will take generations to change, and the upcoming generations have to be free in order to accept differences and allow peace.
That is in a nut shell, why we have to prevail in Iraq. If we quit, the cycle of violence will prevail, instead of the cycle of peace. Which do you prefer?
clarkef
11-30-2006, 07:11 AM
No one repudiates Islamic leaders because if they do they die. Whereas for Pat Robertson if anyone/everyone repudiates him, they go to hell.
The difference is freedom of speech.We have it, they don't.
? I'm not prepared to give the Islamic world such an easy pass. The lack of freedom of speech may exists in parts of the Middle East, but the Islamic folks in the US have freedom of speech and they have by and large chosen not to exercise their rights as Americans to condemn their brethren and stand up for what is right.
Eileen Sellers
11-30-2006, 07:52 PM
The lack of freedom of speech may exists in parts of the Middle East, but the Islamic folks in the US have freedom of speech and they have by and large chosen not to exercise their rights as Americans to condemn their brethren and stand up for what is right.
Well that may be because the Islamics in America aren't citizens, they are just people who live here. There are black American Islamics who don't relate at all to middle eastern Islamics. The conflict in Iraq isn't a conflict of religion, it is a conflict of pent of hatred. The Shia and Sunni hate each other and it's been pent up for the past 50 years especially under the reigh of SH.
This conflict in Iraq is between 2 rival gangs. Let them kill each other, when they get tired of it, or when the women get tired of seeing their children get killed, the killing will stop. It is the freedom of the women that will change Iraq, not the men.
clarkef
12-01-2006, 02:39 AM
Well that may be because the Islamics in America aren't citizens, they are just people who live here.
That is simply not true. There are plenty of Islamic people who live in the US. Go to the west side of Los Angeles or the San Fernando Valley. I used to work for a Persian law firm. Nearly all of the clients were Iranian Americans. The problem is that culturally, Islam is still in the middle ages in many places, where the values of free speech, independent thought, and critical dialogue have not yet been realized.
There are black American Islamics who don't relate at all to middle eastern Islamics. . Agreed. But they represent an infinitesimal number. They get press converage, but they are truly tiny.
The conflict in Iraq isn't a conflict of religion, it is a conflict of pent of hatred. The Shia and Sunni hate each other and it's been pent up for the past 50 years especially under the reigh of SH.. No, it is exactly that. Hate and anger are considered secondary emotions. They cannot exist in a void. There must be a reason behind them. In this case its a combination of race, religion, and tribalism, a truly deadly mix.
This conflict in Iraq is between 2 rival gangs. Let them kill each other, when they get tired of it, or when the women get tired of seeing their children get killed, the killing will stop. It is the freedom of the women that will change Iraq, not the men.:huh:
Kairho
12-01-2006, 08:12 AM
... There are plenty of Islamic people who live in the US. ... Agreed. But they represent an infinitesimal number. They get press converage, but they are truly tiny...
It's difficult to find definitive statistics, but after scanning several apparently-reputable online sources (such as here (http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html)) it seems most people agree with approximations:
Total US muslim population is 3 to 5 million (1% - 2% of the total).
Ethnic breakdown is roughly 42% African-American, 30% Asian, 12% Arab.
I've not been able to find any breakdown of UScitizens by religion and as that was Eileen's primary contention there's no support for her statement, "...the Islamics in America aren't citizens..." although I fail to see how citizenship relates to any issues here. However, I don't believe any to-be-found statistics will support that statement (since I personally know, as Clark probably does, several).
For your information:
US by Religion (2002) (Rounded to the nearest percent.)
Christian 78%
Protestant 52%
Roman Catholic 24%
Mormon 2%
Other 10%
None 10%
Jewish 1%
Muslim 1%
Kairho
12-01-2006, 08:35 AM
There we go..... Correlates nicely with the 3MM - 5 MM number.
Eileen Sellers
12-02-2006, 10:09 AM
Islamic folks in the US have freedom of speech and they have by and large chosen not to exercise their rights as Americans
Ethnic breakdown is roughly 42% African-American,
Islamic folks living in America and American Citizens are two different people. 42% of the breakdown has nothing to do with Iraq or any history of middle east, and are categorized as African even though they have nothing in common with Africans. I guess the term "african american" will take a long time to get rid of.
A long time ago the rift between Shia and Sunni was a religious one. Down thru time it just became a political difference. For the past 50 years the Sunni minority under SH has ruled mercilessly on the Shia. So now there is retaliation, coupled with the Shia who moved to Iran and can now come back in to fight. And of course the Shia would like to have control of the country so they can dictate in like kind.
While, they fight, there are orphanages with women and children who will raise their children to never be like the others, they are free of men to raise their children in love instead of hate. They will be the Phoenix that rise up from the ashes. It is not the women who perpetuate the hate, it is the men.
clarkef
12-02-2006, 10:45 PM
While, they fight, there are orphanages with women and children who will raise their children to never be like the others, they are free of men to raise their children in love instead of hate. They will be the Phoenix that rise up from the ashes. It is not the women who perpetuate the hate, it is the men.
Good God what nonsense.:eek: I know I am going to regret this, but what is the basis for that statement.
Eileen Sellers
12-03-2006, 05:09 PM
Good God what nonsense.:eek: I know I am going to regret this, but what is the basis for that statement.
What is the basis for your doubt?
What is the basis for your doubt?
Eileen, if you actually have some courage of your conviction, then answer the question, rather obfuscate. You've spouted all kinds of statements and offered little or no backup from what I can tell. It's time to prove some of it.
I have not engaged you in discussion in a long time because of this. Instead I have ignored your posts. So lets see if you can stand up to the plate and tell us, "What is the basis for your your statement?"
clarkef
12-04-2006, 01:45 AM
Here are the stats that I got on the American muslim demographics
8 Million Muslims in North America
Four Even Quadrants
National Average1
African American
24%
Arab Americans
26%
South Asian
26%
All Other
24%
Total
100%
I suspect that the difference is that there are a fair number of American Muslims who are recent African immigrants. Whether to count these folks as African American or nor could be an open debate. I would say no, in the same way that blacks from Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Cuba, etc. are not counted as African Americans by the Census.
Eileen Sellers
12-04-2006, 08:08 PM
Eileen, if you actually have some courage of your conviction, then answer the question, rather obfuscate. You've spouted all kinds of statements and offered little or no backup from what I can tell. It's time to prove some of it.
You would want me to prove a future event? It's nothing more than common sense. All the violence in Iraq is being caused by men, that is a fact. Women have no rights except that which those same men would allow them,that is a fact. The children are taught to hate Americans and who knows what else, that is a fact.Given the fact that the orphaned children and women will be raised with absence of these same men, the chances are excellent they will grow up without those same prejudices.
The women are free at last unless democracy fails and then they will have to go back to the dungeon.
The world can see first hand the disaster of dictatorships and hate fill rulers and cave men. The women and children can be saved, and it is just as simple as removing them from the men. War does that naturally.
"What is the basis for your your statement?"
This is a fact of every day life, so I will ask you again, what is the basis of your doubt? Is it just that you can't see any positive result of war?
The fact is that wars have made many positive changes in life. It's unfortunate that the changes couldn't be otherwise made, but the result works.
Eileen, I can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't answer the question, but reverts to rhetoric. I won't fall into your enticement of the unreal again. Zei gazink, Zei gezunt Eileen.
weblet
12-04-2006, 09:42 PM
I don't have facts and figures to back this up, but following Eileen's train of thought, wouldn't Iran be a much more tolerant and open society today if what she said is true? After all, an enormous percentage of adult Iranian men were killed during the Iran/Iraq border fighting in the 80's.
clarkef
12-05-2006, 02:31 AM
I'm following Ned's lead and bowing out of this one. Basically, I do not believe that I can add anything of use or further the discussion on that particular thread.
Eileen Sellers
12-05-2006, 08:07 PM
Eileen, I can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't answer the question, but reverts to rhetoric.
Rhetoric? You waste my time. I answered your question but you back out when I ask you the same question. If the world thought as little of the conflict in World War II where would you be today?
You couldn't care less about saving anyone. You care about the what sells to cheap politicians. Your opinion is like your judgement, weak, short and lacking in substance, and cheap.
Go ahead, have the last word, condemn the women and children of Iraq because you just can't get it, and because you support others who can't get it as well.
Bonehead
12-06-2006, 07:29 PM
WOW-you guys are gonna be wrasslin in the mud pretty soon! Kinda harsh wouldn;t ya say?
weblet
12-07-2006, 09:19 AM
Unlike some other boards some of us participate in, we like to "agree to disagree" before the wrasslin' starts... ;)
Inconvenience
12-10-2006, 01:09 PM
A little late on this one, but I just joined these forums...
Obviously Rangle was pulling a political move with his statement. I don't believe for 5 seconds that the Dems want a draft. They might as well ask Democrats to vote Republican in 08.
But, if we are to continue our position as world police, we need a draft. Soon enough alot of our guys in Iraq are going to start hiting their 8 year service mark. For those who don't know, every military enlistment is at least 8 years. Generally it is 4 years active duty and another 4 years inactive reserves. I know a large number of our guys over there are now into the second part of their commitment. Once they hit 8 years they cannot be forced to serve any more- war or no war. Unless something has changed since I served.
I'm for compulsory military service for all 18 year olds not currently in High School. Of course I'm a former Marine and extremely Right-minded when it comes to military issues.
I don't believe it was wise to remove Saddam without a post war plan. We are almost guaranteed to have an elected theocracy replace an atheist dictatorship. But we are now committed to Iraq, and I don't think our international reputation can stand up to losing to one more third world country.
clarkef
12-11-2006, 02:16 PM
I'm for compulsory military service for all 18 year olds not currently in High School. Of course I'm a former Marine and extremely Right-minded when it comes to military issues.
I'm curious. Why do you want a draft? At 18 I was a sophmore in college. Seemed like a better use of my time.
I'm curious. Why do you want a draft? At 18 I was a sophmore in college. Seemed like a better use of my time.
Thanks Clarke, you asked the question before I had a chance.
I would add the question, would you consider compulsory public service, instead of compulsory military service? Would you also consider changing to all 18 year olds not in school, or enrolled in school, including college?
I add that, to try to drill down to the essence of your thoughts on this.
mercwyn
12-12-2006, 12:26 PM
Thanks Clarke, you asked the question before I had a chance.
I would add the question, would you consider compulsory public service, instead of compulsory military service? Would you also consider changing to all 18 year olds not in school, or enrolled in school, including college?
I add that, to try to drill down to the essence of your thoughts on this.
As I have stated before I am in favor of compulsory public service, no exceptions, although I would prefer it start at 19 since this will give most folks a chance to finish high school.
To my way of thinking everyone benefits from this egalitarian approach, we all are citizens of this country and we all should be giving something to this country. Two years at that point in someone's life is a short time and the chance to learn self discipline, see the country or the world, to build a sense of pride and of unity will not only benefit the individual but the country as a whole.
As I have stated before I am in favor of compulsory public service, no exceptions, although I would prefer it start at 19 since this will give most folks a chance to finish high school.
To my way of thinking everyone benefits from this egalitarian approach, we all are citizens of this country and we all should be giving something to this country. Two years at that point in someone's life is a short time and the chance to learn self discipline, see the country or the world, to build a sense of pride and of unity will not only benefit the individual but the country as a whole.
I think your approach is fraught with problems. Two years at that point in someone's life might be an eternity, but regardless to have no exceptions, such as in the case of disease (mental or physical), for example, makes little sense to me. Even the draft during (WWI, through Vietnam) had reasonable exceptions. (I'm only talking about the exceptions, not the fact that some people just weren't called.)
Furthermore, to require this of someone, which postpones continued education, be it college, vocational, etc. also makes little sense. Wouldn't the country be better off with service from someone after they completed college as opposed to high school. I had completed my first year of college by the time I was 19. My older son was one month from completing his 2nd year of college, by the time he was 19.
What about someone who has completed their undergraduate degree and is moving on to a graduate degree or perhaps medical school or law school. Wouldn't the country be better off with a doctor or lawyer serving the country than a kid fresh out of high school.
The idea of compulsory public service is most interesting, however, the "devil's in the details" as they say. I would not want a program as rigid as you propose.
mercwyn
12-12-2006, 06:12 PM
I think your approach is fraught with problems. Two years at that point in someone's life might be an eternity, but regardless to have no exceptions, such as in the case of disease (mental or physical), for example, makes little sense to me. Even the draft during (WWI, through Vietnam) had reasonable exceptions. (I'm only talking about the exceptions, not the fact that some people just weren't called.)
Furthermore, to require this of someone, which postpones continued education, be it college, vocational, etc. also makes little sense. Wouldn't the country be better off with service from someone after they completed college as opposed to high school. I had completed my first year of college by the time I was 19. My older son was one month from completing his 2nd year of college, by the time he was 19.
What about someone who has completed their undergraduate degree and is moving on to a graduate degree or perhaps medical school or law school. Wouldn't the country be better off with a doctor or lawyer serving the country than a kid fresh out of high school.
The idea of compulsory public service is most interesting, however, the "devil's in the details" as they say. I would not want a program as rigid as you propose.
Would you prefer a system that allowed the children of the rich and powerful to avoid public service? A system that allows exceptions based on wealth and power is far more damaging to our society then one that requires all to perform public service. College is no reason to avoid public service. If the issue is that some people have completed some college by the time they are 19, then we can adjust it to be upon graduation of High School.
If someone is ill, let them be inducted and checked out by a panel of doctors who are specifically there for that purpose, not the "family" doctor who may be doing a favor for some well connected individual. If they are ill, they can then be discharged. The determination should not be made by someone in private practice or you get back to excusing those who have the means to get out of it. Much like the rich in 1860 paying others to fulfill their service when called upon to defend their nation.
While two years may seem like a long time at 18 or 19, it is much longer at 22 or 23 (or 30 depending on when you finish school) when you are wanting to start your career. Yes, it would be nice to have doctors and nurses, etc. serve however that would be a larger disruption in their lives at graduation from med school, then at graduation from high school. They have just spent years getting through school, some have married and had children and all have huge amounts of debt to pay back in the form of student loans.
Our culture has moved from one where public service was performed, not for self enrichment but to serve the community at large. We have moved away from that ideal. Complusory service would have the benefit of restoring the idea that we are all part of the community and that we all have a vested interest in public service and by not allowing exceptions to be made for school, etc, we insure that all citizens reap the benefits. We can tear down preconceptions about people based on race, creed, gender, ethnic background, wealth, etc.
In order to be fair it is necessary to have all that can serve to do so and it is less disruptive to do it early rather then late. I think the majority of people who have served in the military will tell you that service to one's country is an honor. I don't think that all people are cut out to be in the military however I do think all people can perform public service of one form or another.
clarkef
12-12-2006, 07:43 PM
Call me a selfish, individualistic, S.O.B. I don't see the point of compulsory public service. I would opine that what makes this country great is individuals making the best choices for themselves, not what some 3rd party thinks is best for the country. (Think Google boys, Bill Gates, etc., Yahoo Boys)
Complusory service would have the benefit of restoring the idea that we are all part of the community and that we all have a vested interest in public service and by not allowing exceptions to be made for school, etc, we insure that all citizens reap the benefits. We can tear down preconceptions about people based on race, creed, gender, ethnic background, wealth, etc.
Sounds like indoctrination.
First, I do not accept that we all have a vested interest in public service nor that this service needs to be performed by me. Let those who have a passion for public service perform it. I am quite willing to write a check.
Second, this sounds like more of that one size fits all stuff. At age 19, I was beginning my junior year in college studying quantum phenomenon. Yet, you would have me leave school to perform services for which I have neither the desire nor temperment.
It never ceases to amaze me how former miltary people seem to have a singular belief that military service is generally appropriate for most people.
There is a quote which says, "There are two incontrovertible truths in this world; there is a god, and I'm not him." I would say there is another incontrovertible truth in the world. That is, the world is a complex place, and is colored not just with black and white, but with an unlimited number of shades in between.
Your solution, while having merit, in my opinion, is far too rigid. A system which promotes mediocrity from our young men and women is a failed system. That's what I believe a system as rigid as your proposed public service system would do. It is a system which doesn't take into account the potential and individuality of our young people, and as such sells our young people short by undervalueing them and our country.
I think your underestimation of our young is out of step with what's happening in today's society, at least where I live. Our young people in Pennsylvania have in both their private and public school education an important public service component. My own children volunteered in a variety of non-profits as part of their service for school. While the service component was required, how they fulfilled the requirement was up to them. Does it reach every child, in every place? No it doesn't, but I think if you take off your rose colored glasses when looking back into history you will see that it didn't when you grew up, nor when your parents grew up too.
If you think that fully compulsory "public" (not necessarily military) service will instill cultural reform toward public service, I believe you are sadly mistaken. Compulsory anything, breeds contempt and anger toward the authority more than anything else. Public service is a calling. It has to come from the heart.
I have great admiration for the men and women who have volunteered to serve our country in the military. I also have great admiration for the men and women who have served our country in the Public Health Service, and in other occupations, which serve our nation so well. You don't have to be in the military to serve one's nation, nor to have honor.
My teen years were in the '60s. I graduated from high school as our country was escalating the Vietnam War, and from college at its height. I believed that war was immoral, and unnecessary, then as I do now, nevertheless I hold the men and women that served in that war in high regard. I lost my best friend in Vietnam. He graduated from Penn State, Magna Cum Laude. He had been accepted to Harvard Medical School, but instead was sent to Vietnam as a medic, where he was KIA. It would have been better for this country, if he had been sent to Harvard. He would have served his country far better saving lives as a doctor. He died with honor. Better he would have lived with honor. Our government wasted him.
Upon graduation from college, I went to work for three and a half years in the Health Department, as a Public Health Engineer. I worked in the area of industrial pollution control. In the words of my boss at my separation ceremony, when I left the government to go to the private sector, "You have directly contributed to the health and welfare of the citizens of your community, and you are commended for your tireless work, which bettered and extended the lives of so many today and yet to come." I say this, not to pat myself on the back, but to say, that wouldn't have happened if I hadn't gone to college, prior to serving my country in Public Health Services.
CruiseExpert
12-12-2006, 09:03 PM
As one the first 18 year olds to have to register in 1980, after the 5 year suspension post Vietnam. I was shaken up at the prospect of having to serve, should the U.S. be engaged in conflict. I respect and admire the Military, however, I would have never volunteered. I did note on my registration card, I was a Conscientious Objector. My reasoning was if I forced to serve, I could avoid killing another, possibly in a non-combat position. I'm glad my services were not needed. I hope my 13 year old Son will have the to choice to join if he feels so inclined and not be drafted.
clarkef
12-13-2006, 03:04 AM
I should state for the record that I hold military service in the highest esteem. I strongly support the US military. I also support public service. I think both are noble callings, but callings nonetheless.
One of my reasons against compulsory public service, even in schools is that we find that the definition of public service is ideologically driven. I worked for a year and a half as an unpaid volunteer at a free legal clinic in Los Angeles, eventually being elected as Treasurer. I learned that in the public sector legal world, tenants and debtors are good people, landlords and creditors are always bad people, the public defenders office is noble, the district attorneys office is evil, etc.
Another example: the Public Interest Law Foundation at UCLA gave money to students for summer interns. To the best of my knowledge, only one student ever got money to work at a conservative legal organization. We believe he slipped through the cracks because he peppered his application with the usual buzzwords, e.g. disenfranchised, unfair, freedom, etc.
mercwyn
12-13-2006, 02:49 PM
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I do disagree with some of your points, especially the idea that this instills mediocrity. I look around the world where many nations have mandatory military service and I don't see where those create mediocrity nor do I see where that service creates anger and resentment.
As for my rose colored glasses, well, I wish they were. It is true that there more schools encourage service projects these are rather limited in scope and execution. Most of these projects are not full time year round but rather limited to a few hours a week for the duration of a term or perhaps even the school year. I know that not everyone will pitch in and help out voluntarily. That is a given, hence the compulsory aspect of my proposal. As an aside, if one looks at compulsory things in our society at this time, the only one that seems to hit everyone at some point is education. No one seems to worry that compulsory education is going to create anger and resentment among the students. I would say taxes however it is in theory possible to get through life without paying them but everyone has to go to school by law.
The nice thing about making the service requirement include nonmilitary service is that it allows for COs. Rather then demonizing and criminalizing objectors this proposal would give them options to serve their country without forcing them to choose between their beliefs and their duty to their country.
No disrespect intend but the idea that the government wasted your best friend's life is speculation at best. Do you know for certain that your friend would have finished med school and become a doctor? You don't know what would have happened if he hadn't gone to Vietnam, perhaps he would have been killed in a mugging or a car accident or discovered that he couldn't stand med school. Who can predict the future with any surety? His dying is a loss, surely and a tragic one, as is the loss of each soldier, marine, sailor or airman. Each had potential to do great things if he or she hadn't died serving the country. However all went forward to do their duty as they saw it and to say that in doing so they wasted their lives seems to belittle their judgment and their sacrifice. I can guarantee you that each man that he helped to save was thankful that your friend was there. I wasn't old enough to lose close friends in Vietnam, I knew people who did die in Vietnam and I had good friends die in Desert Storm and I knew people who died in Panama and regretfully I know people who had died in Iraq, so I know the pain that comes from having a friend die in combat and it is one that I would love to see abolished from humanity.
As to the notion that rugged individualism is what makes this country great and that public service is a calling and that some should answer while others write a check is interesting on the surface but somewhat like saying not in my backyard. Yes, individuals are different and some do something better then others however most do not rise to the level of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the other great individuals. Everyone is called to perform public service but few anwer the phone. It has been put forward by pundits that the reason we get who we get in political office is that the best people opt not to serve the public because so many ask "what's in it for me?" and when the answer is about doing good, the satisfaction in serving others and isn't about money, many turn away. If you just want to write a check then you are just a spectator.
Perhaps the reason those who have served in various capacity feel like service is a good thing is because it is a good thing. Perhaps it the feeling you get by doing for others rather then focusing on oneself or perhaps its because we look around and we see so many people who are just living day to day and have given up on themselves and then we look at what we gained from our service.
I know that this proposal will never see the light of day however I would hope that if it doesn't accomplish anything else that it will spark a thoughtful discussion of public service and the costs and benefits to our society.
clarkef
12-14-2006, 11:51 AM
As to the notion that rugged individualism is what makes this country great and that public service is a calling and that some should answer while others write a check is interesting on the surface but somewhat like saying not in my backyard. I would really have to disagree. Let each person do what they are good at. One person donotes time, another labor, another money. The supposition is that time and labor count for more than money which is of course absurd.
Everyone is called to perform public service... What is the basis for that comment? I was opine that that is a purely philosophical posiiton that is not subject to critical examination.
If you just want to write a check then you are just a spectator. Horsecrap. Its about giving something the costs you. If I write a check for $5.00, that means nothing to me, yes I am a spectator. If I write a check that causes a decrease in my standard of living, then I am as much a participant as anyone else. Bill Gates and Warrent Buffet are each donating the bulk of their money to charities. Even in death, they will not be spectators.
Perhaps the reason those who have served in various capacity feel like service is a good thing is because it is a good thing. Perhaps it the feeling you get by doing for others rather then focusing on oneself or perhaps its because we look around and we see so many people who are just living day to day and have given up on themselves and then we look at what we gained from our service. I have been debating this issue for decades. I have realized that there is an arrogance in the position of the proponents. They generally belief that they honestly know what is best for other folks. Usually this is a liberal infirmity, but some conservatives, particularly Evangelical Chrsitians, have exhibited symptoms of this malaise. With the liberals its the false dichotomy that private enterprise is about self, while public/government service is about others. Forgetting that private enterprise is the best way to help others. With the conservative Evangelical Christians, the false dichotomy is between church work and secular work, i.e. if you work for the church you are a better Christian.
I know that this proposal will never see the light of day however I would hope that if it doesn't accomplish anything else that it will spark a thoughtful discussion of public service and the costs and benefits to our society. I don't disagree. I would actually encourage people to explore volunteering and see where in the scheme of things you fit it.
I have been debating this issue for decades. I have realized that there is an arrogance in the position of the proponents. They generally belief that they honestly know what is best for other folks. Usually this is a liberal infirmity, but some conservatives, particularly Evangelical Chrsitians, have exhibited symptoms of this malaise. With the liberals its the false dichotomy that private enterprise is about self, while public/government service is about others. Forgetting that private enterprise is the best way to help others. With the conservative Evangelical Christians, the false dichotomy is between church work and secular work, i.e. if you work for the church you are a better Christian.
Clarke, from getting to know you exclusively from your writings here at Tripso, I have no doubt that your are an articulate, highly intelligent, person. And while I may not agree with your positions all the time, I can respect them and your thoughtful conviction of those positions.
On this subject, I was with you, until I got to the above paragraph. That paragraph was really upsetting, because all of a sudden, instead of discussion of the subject, we got labels.
It is absolute bunk that this is primarily a liberal thing. That is as silly as conservatives calling all liberals "tax and spenders," and thereby attempting to brand them evil. (As an aside, I'd rather have a "tax and spender" than our current Whitehouse and Congress "mortgage" and spenders" any day.) Believe it or not, "liberals" are not a monolithic group, just like conservatives aren't as well.
When it comes down to it, what does being a liberal or a conservative have to do with this? For that matter, what does faith have to do with it? While you pontificate in this paragraph, it sounds to me you're saying that only true conservatives have the answers. Now that is arrogance in my humble opinion.
I know some liberals and conservatives and Christians and Jews and atheists who are for compulsory public service, and some who are against it.
Why can't we just leave the labels out of it, and discuss the issues?
mercwyn
12-14-2006, 12:36 PM
Clarke, I'm sorry to say but you seem to be getting worked up about this discussion and I'm not going to fan the flames.
Let's just leave it at we agree to disagree.
stacynan
12-14-2006, 12:46 PM
I haven't been keeping up with this post (too much to read). I just know that over 70,000 service members who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan are suffereing from PTSD - post-traumatic stress disorder. Not only are they risking their lives during their deployments, it is ruining their lives upon their return. And this is from our military who have chosen to serve their country.
clarkef
12-15-2006, 10:13 AM
On this subject, I was with you, until I got to the above paragraph. That paragraph was really upsetting, because all of a sudden, instead of discussion of the subject, we got labels.
It is absolute bunk that this is primarily a liberal thing. That is as silly as conservatives calling all liberals "tax and spenders," and thereby attempting to brand them evil. (As an aside, I'd rather have a "tax and spender" than our current Whitehouse and Congress "mortgage" and spenders" any day.) Believe it or not, "liberals" are not a monolithic group, just like conservatives aren't as well...
Why can't we just leave the labels out of it, and discuss the issues?
Ned,
Your interpretation is orthogonal to my point. That will happen in these types of forums. So let me be clear. I believe that answers are within the individual, not some big brother, I know better than you, let me tell you what you should do. It doesn't matter whether big brother is liberal not conservative.
To further illustrate, I used examples from both sides of the political spectrum to illustrate, I slammed both liberals and conservatives. If you re-read, you will see that no group comes off well in my posts; neither liberals not conservatives. In fact, support for the draft, which I have been constantly criticizing, has generally comes from the right not the left.
As far as liberals being more likely to want to engage in social engineering, that is my observation. I make it with no more prejudice or passion that in discussing the weather. Social engineering is neither good nor bad in itself. It is merely a tool like fire. Some times social engineering results in good things (Civil Rights, Clean Air, schools), sometimes it results in bad things (Eugenics, forced sterilization, 70s style gas lines). The flip side is that conservatives, particular economic conservatives like former presidential candidate Peter Forbes, are less likely to engage in social engineering, prefering that market resolve social issues. This approach has both good and bad elements.
As far as the use of labels, I would opine that the normal use and custom of this board has been the very free use of labels, even ad hominens, especially as it relates to the "mortgage and spend" congress and Bush adminstration.
Just my $0.02
---------
M,
The term arrogance was not directed at you, and I see how you easily might think that. It was directed at the overall paradigm of big brother-ism. I apologize for not making that clearer originally
Thanks Clarke. Your observations are always worthwhile as they get us all thinking.
Ned,
Your interpretation is orthogonal to my point. That will happen in these types of forums. So let me be clear. I believe that answers are within the individual, not some big brother, I know better than you, let me tell you what you should do. It doesn't matter whether big brother is liberal not conservative.
To further illustrate, I used examples from both sides of the political spectrum to illustrate, I slammed both liberals and conservatives. If you re-read, you will see that no group comes off well in my posts; neither liberals not conservatives. In fact, support for the draft, which I have been constantly criticizing, has generally comes from the right not the left.
As far as liberals being more likely to want to engage in social engineering, that is my observation. I make it with no more prejudice or passion that in discussing the weather. Social engineering is neither good nor bad in itself. It is merely a tool like fire. Some times social engineering results in good things (Civil Rights, Clean Air, schools), sometimes it results in bad things (Eugenics, forced sterilization, 70s style gas lines). The flip side is that conservatives, particular economic conservatives like former presidential candidate Peter Forbes, are less likely to engage in social engineering, prefering that market resolve social issues. This approach has both good and bad elements.
As far as the use of labels, I would opine that the normal use and custom of this board has been the very free use of labels, even ad hominens, especially as it relates to the "mortgage and spend" congress and Bush adminstration.
Just my $0.02
---------
M,
The term arrogance was not directed at you, and I see how you easily might think that. It was directed at the overall paradigm of big brother-ism. I apologize for not making that clearer originally