Politics: J'accuse! - Page 151

Not Me · 04-21-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm not sure you are adequately grasping the analogy of the tax code and volunteering etc....

The tax code part of my post was a joke. See I am a former quixotic libertarian sock turned into a predictible too-conservative-for-Ty sock. But who isn't?

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Volunteering is having a choice and taking it. In my example, the military would be a choice. Perhaps one choice among many. So, in that sense, you'd presumably get the same set of kids as you do now who would "volunteer" for th military. Particularly if you continued to pay them the same benefits (and paid volunteers in other programs less).

No, you are using a fucked up definition of choice. Having a choice is the system we have now. You can chose the Peace Corp or the military or Americorps or some other sort of volunteer work/service. Or you can chose not to. That is choice.

Bad_Rich_Chic · 04-21-2004, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I watched a military guy debate this draft/no draft issue a while ago. (Like, three, four months.) His main point was that the incoming ranks were generally much more intelligent, trained, educated, and amenable to supervision when there is no draft. His main characterization of a drafted army revolves around the "frag the officers" theme.

Oh, yup. My point was just that a draft today would hit the middle + classes a lot more than it did through most of Vietnam, because the nice "college" dodge was already legislated away in the early '70s. The new college-boy draftees would still almost certainly be resentful and unproductive, probably even moreso.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 04-21-2004, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
So I whiffed. I think I missed your point when I first replied. (But, maybe not - is this no-deferment rule a very new thing?)

I thought they ditched no deferment after the Vietnam war (or whenever they reinstated the draft after the vietnam war--Reagan, right?). Congress kind of got the clue that maybe the extended deferments created problems of equitability.

Bad_Rich_Chic · 04-21-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I thought they ditched no deferment after the Vietnam war (or whenever they reinstated the draft after the vietnam war--Reagan, right?). Congress kind of got the clue that maybe the extended deferments created problems of equitability.

College deferment rules were changed in '71.

Carter is the Prez who reinstated draft registration in '80.

Interestingly, about 2/3 of the states now have laws tying eligibility for a driver's license to draft registration.

BR(for board purposes, can we all agree never to refer to Selective Service as "SS" to avoid confusion with Social Security?)C

eta: yes, I'm bored and a google monster today.

Tyrone Slothrop · 04-21-2004, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I think that's a standard MT template.

Maybe so, but Marshall points out:

Actually, a quick look under the hood of each site shows that either the CPA or Brookings snagged the other outfit's website and remodeled it as their own.

The presence of this line ("submenu name="Brookings Review" id="brs" url="/press/review/rev_des.htm") buried in the code of both websites seems to give a pretty good sign of who did the deed.

notcasesensitive · 04-21-2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
BR(for board purposes, can we all agree never to refer to Selective Service as "SS" to avoid confusion with Social Security?)C

I know someone here who might be offended by either such abbreviation. And here he thought it was all about the lizard.

Not Me · 04-21-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
College deferment rules were changed in '71.

Under Nixon.

Say_hello_for_me · 04-21-2004, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Berry Hunter

On the draft issue, reinstatement of a draft (with or without the national service alternative) will significantly impact the economy, and not just through a sizable rise in government spending. If McDonald's, Pizza Hut, KFC et al can't hire 18-19 year olds at dirt cheap wages, either (a) there should be a massive surge in illegal immigration, or (b) measurable wage inflation would result as service industries compete for a depleted pool of potential workers.

Those immigrants would probably be competing with the deer shit picker-uppers atc. who would be affected by my plan. And probably a lot of laid-off construction workers.

Not Me · 04-21-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
A friend's brother joined the navy. What was his job? Cooking on an aircraft carrier. I have no idea if the ship ever got near battle, but I'm quite sure that he was not exposed to hostile fire and was probably safer there than stirring the same glop back at his local mcdonalds.

Or his local microwave popcorn factory:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5116a2.htm

But probably not as lucrative:

http://www.wtvo.com/Global/story.asp...0&nav=7k8DLYsk

bilmore · 04-21-2004, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The presence of this line ("submenu name="Brookings Review" id="brs" url="/press/review/rev_des.htm") buried in the code of both websites seems to give a pretty good sign of who did the deed.

Ha! Missed that.

So many pirates get caught that way.

etft -- T.S.

Say_hello_for_me · 04-21-2004, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me

No, you are using a fucked up definition of choice. Having a choice is the system we have now. You can chose the Peace Corp or the military or Americorps or some other sort of volunteer work/service. Or you can chose not to. That is choice.

Why is my definition fucked up? Does a governmental framework take all choice out of it for you? If so, these kids were already in trouble.

Not Me · 04-21-2004, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
By all means, talk about it. If 2,500 ironic "Islam is a religion of peace" posts prevents even one Arab woman from being beaten, it will have been worth it.

You cannot condemn a religious belief (even when it is just misogyny that is labeled sanctioned by allah) IRL without someone screaming racist fuck at you. We need to talk about it IRL to stop this. When you label your hatred a religious belief, the PC fuckers won't let anyone condemn it. It is fucked up.

bilmore · 04-21-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
No, you are using a fucked up definition of choice. Having a choice is the system we have now. You can chose the Peace Corp or the military or Americorps or some other sort of volunteer work/service. Or you can chose not to. That is choice.

You are dealing with a divisive standard for "choice". If you can afford a Bentley, and I cannot, you have "choice", and I am coerced.

Not Me · 04-21-2004, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Why is my definition fucked up? Does a governmental framework take all choice out of it for you? If so, these kids were already in trouble.

It is not a choice if you are forced to do something or go to jail. They would be forced to chose either military or civilian service or they would go to jail. That is not a choice. That is mandatory service.

bilmore · 04-21-2004, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
You cannot condemn a religious belief (even when it is just misogyny that is labeled sanctioned by allah) IRL without someone screaming racist fuck at you.

That's not true. I, an atheist, can ridicule christianity all I want. When I do, I get knowing and agreeing nods from the most surprising of sources.

(But, damn, when I say something against the others . . . )