The Current Events/Issues Thread - Read the First Post

[justin]

I was going to make a detailed response to that email, till I realised that that moronic rubbish doesn't deserve one. Except for 2 points



1: yes it would be great to hear George Bush give a speech like that since, one hopes, it'd kill his chances of being reelected.



2: Can the UK please be moved to list 2? I mean I know we made the mistake of sending troops to Iraq but the thought that the sender of that email wants to thank the UK for it makes me want to

"To mess up a Linux box you need to work at it; to mess up a Windows box you just need to work on it."

[Triscuit7]

The saddest thing is that if Dubya were to give that speech today a frightening number of Americans would cheer.

These are the same folks who think Tony Blair is the UK's greatest Prime Minister since Churchill. Of course these are also the folks who would be hard pressed to come up with a 3rd PM; some might come up with Thatcher....



I'm tired and disgusted and ashamed. Heh, three things I never expected to feel about the US.



Ciao, Melissa

******************



Do something totally irrational and let the enemy think himself to death. (Pyanfar Chanur)

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I was going to make a detailed response to that email, till I realised that that moronic rubbish doesn't deserve one.

---

Agreed, justin. What I found disturbing was that this was forwarded by a friend (and I now use this term loosely as he got a piece of my mind soon after I received this simple-minded missive)

Quote:

---

The saddest thing is that if Dubya were to give that speech today a frightening number of Americans would cheer. These are the same folks who think Tony Blair is the UK's greatest Prime Minister since Churchill. Of course these are also the folks who would be hard pressed to come up with a 3rd PM; some might come up with Thatcher....

---

Oddly, I didn't think Margaret was all that bad. She could've been much worse and I think, as a female PM, she had a lot of obstacles to overcome. Sadly, she started losing that certain something toward the end of her term. I was listening to a BBC special about her recently (XM radio is a wonderful thing) and they bashed her pretty good whilst making dear Tony seem almost a saint. I found that strange....maybe it was because she was a woman and, somehow, having a woman PM seemed so very wrong to the commentator and those he chose to interview. Who knows?

Quote:

---

I'm tired and disgusted and ashamed. Heh, three things I never expected to feel about the US.

---

I hear you. I never thought that I'd be seriously contemplating packing up, leaving the land of my birth, and moving to Europe to be treating like a human being who deserves to be happy. Most people leave their countries to live free in the US not the other way around. Go figure. We're severely depressed and that just sucks. So much for the goddamned Constitution and the Land of the Free and all that crap.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[justin]

Quote:

---

These are the same folks who think Tony Blair is the UK's greatest Prime Minister since Churchill. Of course these are also the folks who would be hard pressed to come up with a 3rd PM; some might come up with Thatcher....

---

Yeah, well I'm English and I couldn't tell you who was prime minister before Thatcher, though that's largely down to the fact that I don't really care.

Quote:

---

Oddly, I didn't think Margaret was all that bad. She could've been much worse and I think, as a female PM, she had a lot of obstacles to overcome. Sadly, she started losing that certain something toward the end of her term. I was listening to a BBC special about her recently (XM radio is a wonderful thing) and they bashed her pretty good whilst making dear Tony seem almost a saint. I found that strange....maybe it was because she was a woman and, somehow, having a woman PM seemed so very wrong to the commentator and those he chose to interview. Who knows?

---

Yes, well no offence but you didn't have spend twelve years with her as your prime minister. The only way she could have been worse is if her name was George Walker Bush.



Her legacies were the privatisation of the utilities, and transport systems, and she would have privatised health care and education if she could. She brought in things like student loans and the poll tax. And of course there's the whole matter of the Falklands war.



So yeah, in this socialist's opinion she was very bad.

"To mess up a Linux box you need to work at it; to mess up a Windows box you just need to work on it."

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

Yes, well no offence but you didn't have spend twelve years with her as your prime minister. The only way she could have been worse is if her name was George Walker Bush.



Her legacies were the privatisation of the utilities, and transport systems, and she would have privatised health care and education if she could. She brought in things like student loans and the poll tax. And of course there's the whole matter of the Falklands war.



So yeah, in this socialist's opinion she was very bad.

---

No offence taken. I'm not a socialist so my POV (well that and I'm not a citizen of the UK) is from afar (as is yours on Bush). Sadly, it doesn't require a PhD in rocket science for anyone in the world to see that America is following the hairballs down the proverbial drain. Many of the things you mention that Thatcher did have already happened here in the US. Guess that's why I didn't really bat an eyelash. Sad isn't it?



On a lighter note:Brits with a sense of humour: Going for the Naked Roller Coaster Rider World Record in England

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 5/24/04 10:41 am

[Ben Varkentine]

Quote:

---

Acknowledging mistakes would be sign of strength

---

www.workingforchange.com/...emid=16987

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[maudmac]

Seems like a whole lot of politicians have a difficult time acknowledging mistakes.



Am I correct that many of the communication problems that existed prior to 9/11 still exist right now today? If nothing else, the equipment is still lacking, is it not? Therefore, we could expect many of the same problems today that were experienced on 9/11. And it's been years now.



That's the kind of thing this commission is supposed to be doing, really getting to the bottom of things. As long as politicians have that never-admit-fault disease, nothing will change.



I have soooo much hope for the future.



Not.

---

and i don't really care if you think i'm strange   /   i ain't gonna change

[Kieli]

Unfortunately, it's not a problem that lies simply with politicians....the "Pass the Buck" Syndrome and "It is better to ask forgiveness than ask permission" Disease seems to have spread to any person in office, from the Vatican down to your ombudsman. It's becoming an epidemic that, I fear, severly undermines any trust or faith that one can have in a person who holds a position of authority.



I've very little hope for our future, which, in and of itself, is very telling, even for me.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Judge: Bush Abortion Ban Unconstitutional



By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer





SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge Tuesday declared the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional, saying the measure infringes on a woman's right to choose.



The ruling applies to the nation's 900 or so Planned Parenthood clinics and their doctors, who perform roughly half of all abortions in the United States.



U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton's ruling came in one of three lawsuits challenging the legislation President Bush signed last year.



"The act poses an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion," she wrote.



Federal judges in New York and Nebraska also heard challenges to the law earlier this year but have yet to rule.



Planned Parenthood lawyer Beth Parker welcomed the ruling, saying it sends a "strong message" to Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration "that the government should not be intruding on very sensitive and private medical decisions."



Government attorneys did not immediately return calls for comment.



Bush signed the law in November, saying "a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth while the law looked the other way."



The law represented the first substantial federal legislation limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion, and abortion rights activists said it ran counter to three decades of Supreme Court precedent.



In the banned procedure — known as intact dilation and extraction to doctors, but called partial-birth abortion by opponents — the living fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed.



Justice Department attorneys argued that the procedure is inhumane, causes pain to the fetus and is never medically necessary.



Abortion proponents, however, argued that a woman's health during an abortion is more important than how the fetus is terminated, and that the banned method is often a safer solution that a conventional abortion, in which the fetus is dismembered in the womb and then removed in pieces.



The measure, which President Clinton had twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. It shifted the debate from a woman's right to choose and focused on the plight of the fetus.



Abortion advocates said the law was the government's first step toward outlawing abortion. Violating the law carries a two-year prison term.



Late last year, Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, and federal judges in New York and Lincoln, Neb., blocked the act from being enforced pending the outcome of the court challenges. They began hearing testimony March 29.



Doctors have construed the Supreme Court's decision in Roe. v. Wade to mean they can perform abortions usually until the 24th to 28th week after conception, or until the "point of viability," when a healthy fetus is thought to be able to survive outside the womb. Generally, abortions after the "point of viability" are performed only to preserve the mother's health.



Doctors at about 900 abortion clinics practice under the Planned Parenthood umbrella, performing about half the nation's 1.3 million annual abortions.



The Nebraska and New York cases are expected to conclude within weeks. The outcomes, which may conflict with one another, will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court.



The New York case was brought by the National Abortion Federation, which represents nearly half the nation's abortion providers. The Nebraska case was brought by a few abortion doctors.



The U.S. Supreme Court had overturned a Nebraska partial-birth abortion law because it did not allow the banned procedure even when a doctor believes the method is the best way to preserve the woman's health.



To get around the decision, Congress simply declared that the procedure is never medically necessary — and during weeks of testimony, doctors testifying for the government stressed that same point — claiming that there are better alternatives to the method, and that it may even be harmful to women.



Witnesses for the abortion providers, however, testified in all three trials that the banned method is often preferred and sometimes necessary to preserve a woman's health.



Congressional sponsors said the ban would outlaw only 2,200 or so abortions a year. But abortion providers testified the banned method can happen even at times when doctors try to avoid it, such as when they attempt to remove the fetus from the womb in pieces.



Because of the possibility that the fetus may partially exit a woman during an otherwise legal procedure, abortion rights advocates said the law could ban almost all second-trimester abortions, which account for about 10 percent of all abortions in the United States.

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

[Gatito Grande]

God bless the Ninth Circuit Court. Can we please just transplant them, en masse, to be the Supreme Court?



GG Well aware that, in much of the country, "San Francisco" is a slur. Out

[justin]

I wonder how long it will be before Bush starts pushing a constitutional amendment to get around this.



Bush's election slogan -"Don't like the constitution? Then we'll amend it for you. Constitutional amendments at low, low prices."

"To mess up a Linux box you need to work at it; to mess up a Windows box you just need to work on it."

[maudmac]

Well, the White House released a statement saying:

Quote:

---

Partial-birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that must be ended once and for all.... The president strongly disagrees with today's California court ruling…. The president is committed to building a culture of life in America, and the administration will take every necessary step to defend this law in the courts.

---

"Culture of life"?



Oh, oh, riiiiiight, a culture of life, I get it now. That's why so many American kids have been sent to die in Iraq without adequate equipment and supplies. That's why the Bush Administration has gutted funding for social programs that once-upon-a-time helped feed and house people who needed help. Because, well, it's all part of the culture of life he wants so badly for America.

---

and i don't really care if you think i'm strange   /   i ain't gonna change

[urnofosiris]

Today I read in my newspaper that Bush wants to spend 250 million dollars in the next few years on programs/campaigns to promote abstinence among young people. This means there will be less money for programs about birth control and safe sex.



Apparently young teens can sign a form to promise to abstain from sex before marriage. The result being that they will have sex anyway and the girls get pregnant because the boys have not used condoms. Isn´t that neat? More unwanted pregnancies will mean more abortions and if Bush has his way, illegal unsafe abortions, like the good old days, which will mean a higher morbidity and mortality among women. Culture of life indeed. Vicious cycle, thy name is George Bush.

Edited by: DrG at: 6/2/04 3:18 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

The president strongly disagrees with today's California court ruling….

---

See what I mean? (Dubya actually dissed the whole State, and not just San Fran: proving, once again, that he's written off California's massive # of Electoral Votes)



GG It's like only the furkin' Bible Belt/"Red States" are considered the legit US of A. God forbid the "Left Coast" establish policy or Ye Gods! culture for the nation as a whole. Out

[emma peel]

California has 55 electoral votes and Republican governor Ahnold.

Let's hope that Dubya keeps putting his foot in his mouth (or falls off his bike )so much that he pisses off everyone and loses by a landslide.

I can hope, can't I???

[Webberific]

"The president is committed to building a culture of life in America"



I agree totally with your assessment of the above, maudmac. WTF indeed.



I also find it ironic that this "culture of life" attitude is coming from an ex-governor who is responsible for the highest number of executions in modern U.S. history.

[emma peel]

George Tenet, CIA Director, has submitted his resignation and Dubya has accepted the resignation.

Wow! Will more rats jump ship!!!

[Triscuit7]

Actually, I think this is kinda sad since he was was one of the few Clinton admin holdovers. I also have a suspicion that a lot of crap will be pinned on him, some perhaps deservedly - luckily I don't believe more than 3% of what the current administration says. I have to wonder what the "personal reasons" were....



Ciao, Melissa

******************



Do something totally irrational and let the enemy think himself to death. (Pyanfar Chanur)

[Gatito Grande]

Since one shouldn't speak ill of the dead, I just note his passing.



GG I never thought there could be a worse President, but when I see who's in the White House now . . . Out

[BohemianKitten]

Amen, GG. Of course, I live in a household where Reagan is refered to as "Renaldus Maximus" and almost got disowned for saying I thought Clinton did better But it's always sad when someone dies, so I, too, note his passing.



and Forever

[skittles]

having seen someone die of an Alzheimer like disease, even though I don't agree with many of the things he did, I'm glad he's gone... no one should have to suffer/live/die like that. I feel for his family at this time.

skittles



In vino veritas

[drlloyd11]

My first reaction to the news was to shudder at the thought of the endless praise I expect in the media for this phoney. He lived by demonizing the weak , ratting on his friends, fear mongering, and screwing up . But I'm sure all we will hear this week is "Morning in America".

[tkheaven]

I'm not sure about the validity of this BUT...





Congress.org

---

www.congress.org/congress...ongressorg



Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005

The Draft will Start in June 2005



There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.



$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.



The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.



Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, www.hslda.org/legislation...efault.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.



Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.



College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.



Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a

shelter and includes women in the draft.



The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.



Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!



Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

---

Tk's new and improved "GrrArgg"...Crazy? Crazy?? I do not talk to myself...it's called thinking aloud...

---

Tara ate her, devoured her from beneath. -The Edge of Silence giving new meaning to season seven's catch phrase.

bulldog: (gesturing to tk)"Can she get a Sloe Comfortable Screw Against the Wall?" female bartender: (laughing)"Honey, you're living in a fantasy world."

[cattwoman98111]

You know TK, I have been following this a little from when I first heard about it a few months ago. This is a very disturbing thing in the fact that these bills can conceivably pass with little or no public scrutiny. In my estimation, 80% of Americans have no knowledge of these bills, or the ramifications if they are passed. Of course this is just my opinion. This article was printed in a little local weekly paper from,



www.thestranger.com/current/











UNCLE SAM WANTS ME?

by Meg van Huygen







How I Learned to Start Worrying & Fear the Draft



In 1949, my dad, age five, was playing a game of marbles with some neighborhood kids when someone's favorite marble rolled into the sewer. Being the youngest and smallest, he was elected to crawl in after it. He found it, and as he was emerging, the manhole cover somehow slipped or fell or was dragged over his hand, slicing his ring finger clean off at the first knuckle. Things couldn't be reattached in 1949 like they can now, so that was that.



It worked out in Dad's favor--when he became old enough to draft in 1962, he was deemed unfit for military service. But his best friend and bandmate, Ray, had all of his digits and was eligible for the draft, and on Ray's 18th birthday, he got completely trashed and begged my dad to cut his finger off with a kitchen knife. Dad refused, and Ray was drafted and shipped off to Vietnam soon after, despite his effort to convince the draft board he was gay by bleaching his hair.



- - -



I don't read news. The bulk of my knowledge of current events is gathered from links people send me and from Q13 Fox News at 10, and only because it's on after American Idol or The Swan or some other brainless, jaw-droppingly immoral train-wreck television show. I've never voted. I've never met a Republican or a soldier. I don't know anyone who's been to Iraq, much less anyone who was killed there. My friends are also largely uninformed--maybe they read the odd news article that they've been linked to, but it's almost always a piece about a four-eared kitten or Michael Jackson or which bands are going to play at which outdoor music festival. If it's about the government or the war, there's a chance that we'll discuss it for a few minutes, whereupon we may say, "Dude, that's fucked up," and then we're back on to what color we're totally going to dye our hair next.



But we sure do sit up straight when the news might get us killed. Which is why an article that I accidentally read on vancouver.indymedia.org hit me like a garbage truck dropped off the Empire State Building. In January 2004, Adam Stutz had posted a call to arms to inform the nation about a potential military draft--compulsory military service--although I didn't stumble over it until March. "Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin as early as Spring 2005," wrote Stutz, "conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately."



The bills, submitted on January 7, 2003, by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) respectively, are intended "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." Rangel, a black rep from Harlem, is coming at the issue from a decidedly leftist position. "Increasingly, we will be a nation in which the poor fight our wars while the affluent stay at home," Rangel says. He thinks a draft will "correct the disparity among those who serve." Rangel told the New York Times, "[T]he Congress that voted overwhelmingly to allow the use of force in Iraq includes only one member who has a child in the enlisted ranks of the military.. If those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve, there would be more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq." To date, Rangel's bill has garnered 13 sponsors (including Washington State Congressman Jim McDermott), while Hollings' has none.



Although neither bill has passed yet, the Selective Service System (SSS) recently received an extra $28 million from the Bush administration for its 2004 budget, and the Pentagon has kicked off a low-key campaign to fill the 10,000-plus open positions on the nation's draft boards. (Granted, these posts are required by law to be filled, but haven't been for decades.) The SSS is scheduled to report to the president on March 31, 2005, on the readiness of the draft system, and the system could be up and running as early as June 15, 2005. The draft proposal includes both women and college students this time, and the Smart Border Declaration signed between the U.S. and Canada in 2001, requiring a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country, would hypothetically prevent today's draft-dodgers from fleeing to Canada.



Oh, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently reported on some riveting new details. After filing a Freedom of Information Act request, the P-I obtained a copy of SSS acting director Lewis Brodsky's proposal to the Pentagon, submitted on February 11, 2003, just before the U.S. invaded Iraq. In addition to making women and students eligible for the draft, the proposal required that all draft-aged Americans report to the government on their "critical skills," so that niche specialties could be filled. It also seeks to extend the age bracket to 34 years, up from 26.



- - -



After flipping out over the indymedia.org piece back in March, I posted an excerpt from it in an online forum, and got minimal response from my e-friends. The people who responded did so only to snicker because they were over 26, so a potential draft wasn't their problem. Then, last week, I posted a chunk from the P-I's article about the updated draft proposal, and my friends came absolutely fucking unglued.



Homosexuality still seems like the handiest escape hatch. One friend announced that, if push came to shove, he would "happily turn gay" to avoid a "bullshit draft." "Zero to cocksucker in 30 seconds," he wrote. Another friend said that she was going to begin researching established lesbians to pose as her girlfriend, assuming that the government would research her brand-new girlfriend's background as well. One girl was sure that she wouldn't be drafted as long as she stayed in law school, then realized that she would probably be targeted, in fact, because she's fluent in several languages. A good friend was disappointed to hear that his poor vision wasn't going to get him passed over, and considered trying to prove that his ex would be an unfit guardian for their children. Another declared that he just plain wouldn't register, like he didn't when he turned 18, because, like, fuck those guys. My best friend told me that if the draft was reinstated, we would be pooling our savings and hauling off to Mexico posthaste.



But the standard response was that it wouldn't happen. It would be political suicide on Bush's part, people insisted, and the protest rallies would rival Vietnam. Things would have to escalate to dramatic proportions to necessitate a draft, and we're turning Iraq over at the end of June anyhow, before the election, so why worry? But the U.S. attacked Iraq after millions protested. And if Bush lands the office again, he won't have any more elections to lose. Or steal. So the draft could certainly come back. All of this seems stupidly clear.



My boyfriend, meanwhile, calmly rebuffs every hysterical word out of my mouth. He'd already known about the draft proposal for months when I found out, and he's been contradicting me with arguments he's picked up from streaming Air America Radio, the brand-new (and faltering) liberal radio network that features Al Franken. "It'll never happen," Sean says--"reinstating the draft would be an act of Congress and they'll never approve it. And even if they might, I have nothing to worry about because there's no way Bush is going to get reelected. The president's approval ratings are lower now than Clinton's ever were, and an incumbent has never been reelected with such low marks. And those torture photos coming out of Iraq have sealed Bush's fate. And they're not going to draft women until they run out of men, and that's never going to happen. So why do I care?" He doesn't.



Seeing as the draft revival is Bush's brainchild, and as Bush's war is making it seem more and more likely every day, the obvious solution would be to vote for John Kerry. But wait, then there's another rumor. Even if Kerry is elected, he may need to utilize the Selective Service System. Kerry not only voted for the war--he's also been running around the country promising to increase the number of American troops in Iraq by at least 40,000 if he's elected. As the Bloomberg news service reported: "The added troops would help 'relieve over-extended' National Guard and reservists in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kerry spokesman David Wade said. Half of the additional 40,000 troops would be used as military police and for civil affairs, tasks now mainly carried out by reservists; the other 20,000 would be combat troops. The U.S. now has about 138,000 troops in Iraq."



Every other news story about Iraq mentions how thin the armed forces are stretched, and how the Pentagon can't go on calling up reservists indefinitely. So where is Kerry going to get all those additional troops without a draft?



Kerry will fix what Bush royally screwed up in Iraq, my boyfriend promises me, and he'll do it without a draft. He assures me that Kerry will plead with the UN to help us, and that his first item of business will be to apologize to every country that Bush has alienated. Sean insists that Kerry will save us. He wears Kerry T-shirts; he put big blue Kerry signs in our windows.



When I try to counter my boyfriend's Kerry arguments, I'm invariably met with, "Well, shyeah, you've been talking to Naderites." When I get frustrated and confused and say that America is a stupid game and I want to quit playing and let's immigrate to England while we can, he says things like, "But it's our country. We need to fix it, not let assholes drive us away." The difference could be that he was raised on military bases while I was raised by nine-fingered hippies, but we both hate the same things about the government and the war. Sean isn't worried about a draft because he isn't worried that Bush will be around in a year, and he's convinced that the man who opposes Bush is the opposite of Bush. But I'm suspicious of Kerry and his military medals. And I worry about Bush cheating again, and I worry about the Bible belt. After growing up in Seattle, it's easy to imagine that the whole country hates Bush, seeing as everyone here does, but the rest of the country just can't be trusted. I know that there are places where Kerry is seen as some pro-abortion/anti-God/anti-family/taking-orders-from-shadowy-foreign-governments/flip-flopping commie liberal who is bound and determined to let homosexuals get married in children's classrooms.



- - -



If the draft does come back, what then? There's a dearth of escape routes this time--after voting for Kerry and crossing your fingers, the most viable options to avoid getting drafted are converting to homosexuality, marrying a foreigner and fleeing the country, or begging a friend to chop your finger off. But a switch to sucking cock or eating pussy, as the case may be, could be a waste of time, as those who are drafted aren't necessarily being sent to their bloody limbless deaths. If the war continues, there will be plenty of non-killing-people jobs made available, and many will likely be within the U.S. The "niche specialties" mentioned in the SSS's proposal would pertain by and large to tech people, linguists, folks with broadcasting skills, et cetera. Of course, there's nothing in the proposal that says that only people with niche skills would be drafted, but provided that you have a military-desired skill, a job in, say, translating radio transmissions might be a step up from what you're doing now.



But for those who oppose the draft, it's the principle that they're incensed and terrified by--the gut-wrenching irony of being forced to invade yet another country (Iran? Syria?) under the pretense of teaching its people about democracy. I'm also profoundly upset by the idea of being instructed in the art of killing humans, and of spending part of my young adulthood doing something other than what I want, even if the odds of being killed are relatively remote. And, for right now, the odds of being drafted at all do seem relatively remote. The current American death toll in Iraq is around 800 after a year of fighting. During WWII, 400,000 Americans were killed of the 16 million who served. In Vietnam, the death toll was 58,000 out of the 2.5 million. (Of the total servicemen for both wars, about 66% were draftees.)



But let's not kid ourselves: The catastrophe unfolding in Iraq could be spectacularly worse a year from now--tensions could explode even further, the death rate of American troops could skyrocket, Bush could get reelected. Shit, a year from now we could be fighting on American soil. But, again, being drafted and sent off to war isn't quite the death sentence all my friends seem to think it is (not for Americans, anyway). In a bloody war that the U.S. ultimately lost, my dad's friend Ray came home alive. Maybe you will, too.

The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.

Edited by: cattwoman98111 at: 6/6/04 10:38 am

[Gatito Grande]

I have profoundly mixed feelings about the draft. On the one hand, I'm a pacifist, so I think that all "service" in the military is an abomination (those are my principles: I respect the bravery, and sometimes the intentions, of those who choose to participate). Furthermore, when it comes to "civilian service," I have about zero trust for the government to establish where I (or any other civilian: it's academic for me at 42 . . . I think!) should best serve.



However . . .



This whole "ghetto-ized" military of those either 1) too poor or 2) too stup-- um, "misinformed" or 3) both, to do something else, is just not working. They are simultaneously expendable but, at the same time, exert (along w/ their predecessors, veterans) a disproportionate influence on American politics (see how vigorously both Bush and Kerry are courting their votes).



[Sore point for me: I've never called a soldier or veteran "baby-killer"---either to their face, or behind their backs. At the same time, as a peace activist, when demonstrating I get invectives hurled in my face *all the time* (I've come close to being assaulted by counter-demonstrators, to say nothing of the brutality that cops have done to my co-protesting friends).



IMHO, by choosing not to kill---and working to see that no other Americans are put in a kill-or-be-killed position either (i.e. "Bring the troops home now!")---I think that I've served my . . . planet, as nobly as anyone who chooses to put on a uniform and pick up a gun (a belief which has received scorn from at least one veteran I've spoken to: my father ).



But who the hell, in a general election, courts my (peace activist) vote? Where's my parade, my holiday twice a year, plus shindigs like D-Day anniversaries? The TV commercials calling me a "hero"? ("To those brave enough to tell the U.S. government to Go to Hell---who do all their fighting w/o guns and violence: we, the non-annihilated masses, say Thank You!" "My opponent may have the votes of the {snort!} armed forces and veterans, but I'm proud to stand w/ you, who protest for peace!" OK, they're just pipedreams. )]



But I digress!



At any rate, I agree w/ Charlie Rangel that having the military being so separate from the lives of too many Americans, makes deploying them in "wars of choice" far too easy. Something must be done to make the sacrifice be shared more equally (and, in so doing, hopefully lessen the sacrifice---to say nothing of killing others!---overall). Maybe, just discussing bringing back the draft will help serve this purpose (as Rangel believes it will). I realize that, if this discussion is accompanied by legislation, it becomes essentially a game of political "chicken."



GG But something needs to change. And on this D-Day anniversary, let us remember and honor the true service of those like the late activist/Chicago 7 member Dave Dellinger (who died last week) who, sixty years ago, was in jail, because he *wouldn't* participate in the slaughter. !Dave Dellinger Presente! Out



On my favorite radio program, This American Life, this week they did a profile on the "civilian contractors" in Iraq. There's Big Money to be made there: sounds so sweet to Unemployed Me. Hey, I'd just have to participate in an illegal occupation . . . and oh yeah, that kill-or-be-killed thang!

[dekalog]

There are apparently Americans still coming to Canada to avoid service: story.news.yahoo.com/news..._resisters



How this will play out in the long term depends greatly on the outcome of our federal election. I can't imagine being forced into service - so much for liberty I guess.

[Triscuit7]

While I can't attest the validity of this report or that of this site www.capitolhillblue.com/, I've sort of suspected this sort of scenario for some time.



Ciao, Melissa



------

From Capitol Hill Blue



Bush Leagues

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

By DOUG THOMPSON

Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue

Jun 4, 2004, 06:15







President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.



In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”



Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.



“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”



In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.



“We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.”



Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.



“This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items.”



Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush’s inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration’s war against Iraq.



The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.



"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."



Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."



God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”



“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”



But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “fucking assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”



“The mood here is that we’re under siege, there’s no doubt about it,” says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. “In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”



The White House did not respond to requests for comment on the record.



© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue

******************



Do something totally irrational and let the enemy think himself to death. (Pyanfar Chanur)

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I have profoundly mixed feelings about the draft. On the one hand, I'm a pacifist, so I think that all "service" in the military is an abomination (those are my principles: I respect the bravery, and sometimes the intentions, of those who choose to participate). Furthermore, when it comes to "civilian service," I have about zero trust for the government to establish where I (or any other civilian: it's academic for me at 42 . . . I think!) should best serve.

---

This I agree with. Sad to say, I too do not trust our government to do the right thing and utilize civilian resources to their fullest potential (and I ain't talkin' political bolstering either).

Quote:

---

This whole "ghetto-ized" military of those either 1) too poor or 2) too stup-- um, "misinformed" or 3) both, to do something else, is just not working. They are simultaneously expendable but, at the same time, exert (along w/ their predecessors, veterans) a disproportionate influence on American politics (see how vigorously both Bush and Kerry are courting their votes).

---

I vigorously disagree with this. Last election there were thousands of military write-in ballots that remained (and still remain) uncounted; votes that should have mattered but apparently didn't because Bush was too busy tramping on the Constitution to notice that soldiers are voters and citizens too that have the right to have their votes counted.

As a child of soldiers and former military myself, I am mightily offended by the untrue statement of "ghettoized" military. Do you happen to have any "proof" to support this blanket generalization, Dr. GG? Because the last time I checked, many soldiers had college degrees (even advanced degrees), even the "grunts". Not all are college dropouts, high school dropouts or societal misfits, as your statement implies.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[kpmuse]

Checking in at the Senate web site, S89 to re-instate the draft is a real bill that is currently in the Armed Services Committee. It's counterpart in the House is HR 163.

If you want to read the official language check here:



www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@L&summ2=m&

Edited by: kpmuse at: 6/7/04 7:35 am

[Kieli]

Oddly, I don't really mind this bill. Israel requires military service of its citizens and so does Switzerland, if I'm not mistaken. I'll do my duty but when it's done, it's done and I'm out. I don't trust the US government to implement this bill responsibly...but I won't give them the satisfaction of calling me a traitor either. I grew up in a military household, I wore a uniform in the past; thus it's not a problem for me. I wonder if this bill will have provisos for pacifists.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.