The Current Events/Issues Thread - Read the First Post

[darkmagicwillow]

---

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).

---

I'm against the draft in any form and so is the 13th amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

If you're against war, you should be against the draft because a voluntary military strictly limits the amount of military action the POTUS can unilaterally engage in. A voluntary military force offers a country yet another democratic means to limit war by simply refusing to participate, a means that the US desperately needs in an era where Congress has ceded its power over war to the POTUS.



If you're for defensive war, you should be against conscripting military forces for the same reason that the Greeks believed and showed it to be wrong. They beat overwhelming armies of Persians, because they were free men defending their homes while the Persian Army was conscripted into involuntary servitude to attack someone else. I don't think the US would ever lack for devoted soldiers should any nation be foolish enough to invade one of the 50 states, the economic power that has been shown to be so important in modern warfare is heavily on the side of the US as well, and the oceans are more of a barrier than ever with the power of the US Navy and Air Force, so I don't think the lack of a draft would ever prevent the US from defending itself successfully.



p.s.: Triscuit, that was an intriguing article about how the Bush II White House is run. It looks like it's all starting to collapse. Thanks for posting it.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[skittles]

An opinion column from the Detroit Free Press :



DESIREE COOPER: Charmed, I'm sure, but never an admirer



Lack of concern for poor a dubious legacy at best



June 8, 2004



BY DESIREE COOPER -- FREE PRESS COLUMNIST



It had been a torrid relationship, one that aroused passions in me that I'd never had before. I was young and inexperienced when he came into my life, barely able to vote. A man 49 years my senior, he'd charmed his way into my life.



I worried about our life together -- he had so little concern about children, about struggling families, about the poor. But when I tried to warn others, no one believed me. To them, he was sweet, almost grandfatherly. He'd cut to the quick, then smooth it over with a joke. His persona and his principles were so vastly out of sync, he nearly drove me out of my mind.



It was on March 30, 1981, that I heard the news: Someone had shot him. I'll admit that my first thought was, "It was only a matter of time. He's a man who will spoon you arsenic with a lump of sugar. Someone finally decided to put an end to it." But then I was hot with shame. I fell on my bed and cried.



Yes, yes, I despised Ronald Reagan. But I never meant for anyone to kill him.



Remembering the real Reagan



The 40th president of the United States survived John Hinckley's bullet, but more miraculously, his rosy reputation has survived the mean-spirited reality of his tenure as president. Yes, he was charming and affable. He was a straight shooter, but often doddering -- a trait, which for reasons I can't explain, we found comforting in the Leader of the Free World.



Yes, the Soviet Union fell during his reign, as much from the weight of its own failures as from engaging in an expensive arms race with the former Hollywood movie star.



But does "trickle down" mean anything to anyone who's not potty training? Reagan and his since-discredited voodoo economics fueled the "greed is good" 1980s, giving tax cuts to the rich, and overseeing the pillaging of savings and loans institutions while cutting food stamps, demonizing "welfare queens," and racking up a $2.6-billion national debt. He was the Marie Antoinette of American politics, a man who championed the wealthy and let the poor scrabble over crumbs.



Schoolchildren -- that is, what was left of school after Reagan's attacks against federally-supported programs like Head Start and his charge to abolish the Department of Education -- were surprised to learn that trees cause pollution, nuclear war was winnable and ketchup qualified as a vegetable, according to their pink-cheeked president.



Reagan was the man who painted racism, sexism and classism red, white and blue. During the Reagan years, inner cities where choked off from economic prosperity, leaving 33 percent of African Americans in poverty while the white poverty rate fell to 10.5 percent. Black adult males had the same unemployment rate as white teenagers.



He was unrelenting in his attacks on affirmative action, wanted to allow states to bail out of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and, out of his 385 lifetime judicial appointments, only seven were black.



Here's one for the Gipper



My mother always warned me not to speak ill of the dead, but no one ever said anything about correcting revisionist history. One need only to look at the ever-widening chasm between the rich and poor, urbanites and suburbanites, blacks and whites, the healthy and the ill to know that Reagan may be gone, but his brand of cruel conservatism survives.



Ronald Reagan lived longer than any other U.S. president. My only wish is that he could have outlived his legacy.



Contact DESIREE COOPER at 313-222-6625 or cooper@freepress.com.

skittles



In vino veritas

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I'm against the draft in any form and so is the 13th amendment.

---

Apparently more than one president has found a way to get around the Constitution. But if you look at Article I Section 8 of the Constitution under the Legislative Branch, you'll find that the 13th amendment really doesn't circumvent the issue (nor specifically condemn) the draft and Congress has power to do the following under this document:

Quote:

---

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;





To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;





To provide and maintain a navy;





To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;





To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;





To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

---

Thus, the Legislative Branch can legally institute a draft although it should be for purposes of defending the homeland. I guess the term militia in this case could be VERY loosely defined (which would not be surprising) so they could get around that potential loophole to shore up the draft legality argument.

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: 6/8/04 10:30 am

[urnofosiris]

Yesterday I removed a post by Gatito Grande and Kieli´s subsequent reply because I perceived something Gatito said to fall outside the guidelines of this thread. I was mistaken and I will repost both posts now. I apologize for interrupting the flow of this thread and to both Gatito and Kieli for the inconvenience.

[Repost Moderator]

Originally posted by:



Gatito Grande



11. Fish in the Bowl

Posts: 1487

(6/7/04 11:38 am)





To participate in the military is morally wrong. To participate in the United States military (except perhaps the War of 1812, when the "homeland" was directly attacked) is foolish. (Our education systems unfortunately teach much foolishness---to say nothing of the media! )



Those are my beliefs, Kieli. Take 'em or leave 'em: it's a free country.



GG Um, I mean, in theory. Out



Now, can we please get back to what unites us . . . like getting this paranoid, hotline-to-God f*ckhead outta the White House?

[Repost Moderator]

Originally posted by:



Kieli





9. Gay Now

Posts: 1299

(6/7/04 12:49 pm)

Quote:

---

To participate in the military is morally wrong.

---

Depends on your morality, which apparently, is obviously higher and better than mine and any other person that chooses to serve in the military. *shrug* Whatever.

Quote:

---

To participate in the United States military (except perhaps the War of 1812, when the "homeland" was directly attacked) is foolish.

---

Glad you weren't around when my ancestors required the US military to free them slavery. And to participate in WWII.

Quote:

---

To participate in the United States military (except perhaps the War of 1812, when the "homeland" was directly attacked) is foolish.

---

They are indeed your beliefs...however you were stating them as fact and being insulting in the process. You can be a pacifist. That is your choice. But to disrespect military in such a manner you have here was something I could not abide. And thus, I made my own beliefs be known. So...anyone can take them or leave them as well. But I thought we were stating our beliefs and opinions WITHOUT trying to offend anyone. Apparently, my assumption was in error.



Kieli just not tolerating bashing of the men and women who do their duty or wish to.....OUT

[Kieli]

Rona caught my error and I felt obliged to clarify:

Quote:

---

Glad you weren't around when my ancestors required the US military to free them slavery. And to participate in WWII.

---

I meant those who volunteered for the military and went overseas to help even BEFORE we were directly attacked in Pearl Harbor.

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.

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

To participate in the military is morally wrong.

---

This is the part of the post I took issue with. To me that is the same as saying that everyone who participates in the army is morally wrong i.e. immoral. It does not even read as an opinion, it reads as a fact. It is wrong. Period. I consider calling someone or their actions immoral an insult, whether it is justified or not. If someone were to come here and voice their opinion (or their beliefs) to let me know that me choosing to live my life in a gender other than I was born in is morally wrong, or that being gay is morally wrong, I would be inclined to get upset. In this case I firmly believe it is not justified to characterize every army, every soldier like that.



Of course there are soldiers who do questionable things, things that would be called immoral by most people, but why is everyone who participates in the military morally wrong? In an ideal world we would not have armies, we would not have guns, we would not need police officers. If all these organizations were disbanded I would not go around robbing other people´s home, beating them up or killing them or steal their land. I wouldn´t, I have enough faith in mankind to trust most people would not, but it only takes a few who would.



There are undoubtedly countries who have armies meant to conquer and not to protect, there are soldiers who join because they like to kill people, instead of hating it. Not all armies exist for that purpose, not all soldiers want to kill. Not all of them are morally wrong, or if they are, so are all police officers. I would get rid of every gun on the planet if I could, but I can´t. I believe armies and soldiers are as necessary as a police force.



My youngest brother (11 years older than me) served in the Dutch army. In the late 70s he was sent to Libanon as part of the UN peace effort. He did not go there to conquer anyone or to murder anyone. He went there to protect people and try and stop them from getting killed by two warring parties. I have a really hard time seeing what he did and his part in the military as morally wrong.



I have less than zero love for GWB and I continue to vehemently disagree with what he did on so many levels. I hate what some of the US and allied soldiers have done to the Iraqi people, I hate what some of the Iraqi people have done to US soldiers and citizens, but that does not make all US soldiers or all Iraqis immoral.



The reason I keep harping on like this is because the word moral has a great significance for me. It is a word that is not easy to define, but for me it´s meaning is very charged. I get pissed when I hear holier than thou people like Bush ride their moral high horse and trample us with it. I am not religious, but it always puzzles me that people like him who claim to be always skip over the part that says "judge not..."



If someone feels I am immoral for being trans, fine whatever, feel that way. I honestly don´t care, but do not throw it in my face as if there is something wrong with me. I do not knock on doors saying their gender consistency or their transphobia offends me. If someone is a homophobe or transphobe etc., no big deal unless they start calling me names or try to make laws to deny me equal rights or worse. Being a soldier is not immoral in my eyes, no more than being a police officer is. I might consider some of them, like any group of people, immoral because of their actions, but not everyone, always, and everywhere all the time.



If anyone read this all, go get a drink, you´ve earned it.





Oh and I am firmly against drafting. I don´t believe anyone who chooses to serve in the army is doing anything wrong. They are potentially risking their lives and that is a choice every individual should make for themselves and if someone does feel they can´t be placed in a position that might cause harm to another, even if that is done in self defense, then I don´t think you can force someone to do that. If they survive they do have to be able to live with themselves.

Edited by: DrG at: 6/8/04 10:22 am

[cattwoman98111]

here is a link along the lines of skittles post...fair warning its a little disturbing but, oh so honest.



www.nydailynews.com/news/...3243c.html





ETA: Garfield, I respect you for returning the above posts. I also happen to agree with you, but I will not go into it all over again as I feel comfortable enough to say "garfield spoke for me" on this one. I need that drink now.

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: 6/8/04 3:52 pm

[skittles]

Thank you, Cattwoman, for posting that link.



Very good comment. Sad, too. Too much sadness this week.

skittles



In vino veritas

[darkmagicwillow]

You've cited the relevant parts of the US Constitution, Kieli, and I agree that Congress has the power to raise an army, but I disagree that the right to raise an army implies the right to conscript soldiers. You can raise an army of volunteers, which is traditionally what the militia was, and conscription is a drastic power which to my mind would require explicit mention. However, even if the US Constitution did grant the power to conscript, the 13th amendment would supersede it as it superseded other parts of the US Constitution that mentioned other forms of involuntary servitude. I know that lawyers hardly ever read the US Constitution as written, even parts as clear as freedom of press or speech.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I know that lawyers hardly ever read the US Constitution as written, even parts as clear as freedom of press or speech.

---

I definitely disagree with that particular observation. It's always been my experience (limited and jaded though it is) that lawyers read into the laws whatever will help them win a particular case. Written or unwritten, they invariably will both hammer home the "letter of the law" or try to insert "reasonable doubt".

Quote:

---

I disagree that the right to raise an army implies the right to conscript soldiers.

---

True, that right is not implicit, but it could be implied. There goes that "reasonable doubt" thing again. It just depends on how one wishes to interpret the Constitution. One would hope that the spirit of the Constitution would not permit conscription. However, that really can't be known for sure as it's not explicitly stated either. If the 13th Amendment truly supercedes then all of the prior military drafts should be considered unconstitutional; someone could have sued the US Government and the US Supreme Court would have been in an unenviable position to uphold the mandate of said amendment. Title 18, U.S.C. Section 1581a (peonage law) & 1584 lend credence to your view. My argument is, when going up against the Federal Government, which claims that National Safety and Security is at stake, it would really difficult to NOT view the dictates of Article I as tacit permission to draft citizens into soldiery to protect the interests of the country. The legal definition of involuntary servitude (which I'm sure you know) posits that this act is illegal if the person was forced into servitude if it benefits another person (read: private citizen)...it does not explicitly state anything about a government. When one is sentenced to spend life in prison or on a chain gang for a crime, are they not placed in involuntary servitude? (While the 13th Amendment contains explicit provisos in this case, the legal definition still applies.)



I'm not wholly disagreeing with your position...I'm just curious as to the logic and methodology you use when coming to your conclusions. Overall, I find this discussion really fascinating.

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: 6/8/04 6:50 pm

[wildnexu]

Quote:

---

But does "trickle down" mean anything to anyone who's not potty training? Reagan and his since-discredited voodoo economics fueled the "greed is good" 1980s, giving tax cuts to the rich, and overseeing the pillaging of savings and loans institutions while cutting food stamps, demonizing "welfare queens," and racking up a $2.6-billion national debt. He was the Marie Antoinette of American politics, a man who championed the wealthy and let the poor scrabble over crumbs.

---

How do you explain that mean income for the lower class rose by 12% during the Reagan era.that more people moved from the lower class to the middle class and eve the uper class than anytime in American history.These figures come from the Congressional Budget Office,a nonpatisan enity, not Limbaugh or o'Reily,though they have qouted them and I have confirmed them by doing the research.



welfare queens should be demonized.Although not every mother on welfare is a welfare queen and true welfare queens area very small minority they do exist.To pretend welfare queens (and kings) are a republican myth is just not factual.Welfare fraud is still a problem.If you need help,then by all eans,you shoud be heled but my aunt worked in a welfare office and she confirms there were people(male and female)living high on the hog through fraudauntly collected welfare.Again they are in the minority and it could be that welfare fraud only happens in Olney illinois but welfare Kings and Queens but to call a sade a spade is not anti poor.It is anti cheat.



Greed is good is whaty liberal's think conservatives blieve.Gordon Gecko was a crook and is not nor ever has been represenative of the common conservative,despite what the director of that film would have you believe.Our main problem is the same one liberals have,the extremists ave captured the movement,we are letting idiots like the heritage foudation and Dubya speak for us.



What really scares me isthat Bush will ride the tide of emtion and sympathy for the gipper back to the white house.



Was Reagan perfect,HELL NO!!!



He botched the handling of the AIDS crisis ,he helped get the goverment's nose firmly in our buissness but he did a lot of good.Trickle down does work and tax cuts increase goverment revenue.John F JFK(such a raging conservative)proved it and Reagan reconfirmed it.



And contrary to popular myth it was not Reagan's defense spending that created the deficit.It was run away social spending.Often on programs that duplicated programs that already exisited.Reagan was not against social spending he was for responsible social spending.He understood that it takes more than throwing money at scial problems to solve them.And yes the Departent of Education needs to go.All it as managed to do is throw money at problems.The states can do that and without the huge bueacratic overhead.



That said Bush is on the rght track with NCLB,he just needs to fund it properly.There is a difference between providing adequeate funding for good ideas and throwing money at a problem.



our schools are in severe need of accountabilty.



I was impressed that Clinton had kind words fo Reagan. they seemed heart felt and authentic.He even had a jar of Jelly Beans Reagan gave him in the oval office.



forgiving your enemies their virtues is a true sign of greatness.



Reagan was not perfect,but he was a good man and a good president.Reagan and JFK are my favorite presdents.Although JFK was lefton social issues he was right of center on fscal issues.



Finally Reagan was right to oppose Race based affirmative action.You make up for centuries of descrimination by more discrimination by more desrimination?And why is a Rich black kid more deserving of 20 points on his admissions to Michigan than a dirt poor applachian whte kid who had to get through school living in a one room shack and studying by fashlight or oil lamplight.



you want to make up for economic disparity? Great!!



I love that goal.It is why I support as many non race based college funds as I can afford to. So how about Affirmative action based on economic status rather than race.



I do not care what the Supreme court says.There is never a time when giving race based advantages is justfied.Watever the race of the recipient.



What next?do we make up for the lynching of innocent blacks by lynching innocent whites.I don't think so.



as a Tg gal who had been beaten for being Tg and even had guns pointed at her.I am not making light of anti black lynchings.I am trying to point out what I believe to be the logcal extreme of a policy of making up for descrimination in the past with descrimination in the present.



the way to make up for the sins of the past is not to continue committing them but to stop.



Reagan was right to oppose Race based affirmative action.



tabby

[maudmac]

Reagan, bleh. I am not feeling the Reagan-love. He did too many Bad Things for me to be comfortable seeing him so lauded.



66 (Unflattering) Things About Ronald Reagan By David Corn, The Nation:

Quote:

---

Editor's Note: This list of "66 Things to Think about When Flying in to Reagan National Airport" appeared in the Nation on March 2, 1998 after the renaming of Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan. As Corn says, "the piece remains relevant today – particularly as a cheat sheet for those who dare to point out the Reagan presidency was not all that glorious and was more nightmare in America than morning in America."



The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.



Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy's astrologer.



Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig "in control," silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, "mistakes were made."



Michael Deaver's conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger's conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger's five-count indictment, Ed Meese ("You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime"), Donald Regan (women don't "understand throw-weights"), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.



"The bombing begins in five minutes," $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African-American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), Reader's Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than eighty civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra. "Facts are stupid things," three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon.



David Corn, Washington editor of the Nation, is author of 'The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception.'

---

I do agree with Tabby, though, at least that income-based affirmative action makes a lot of sense and it's something I'd like to see. A rising tide lifts all boats. Poverty is a serious issue in America, which is pretty much an abomination considering what a prosperous nation this is. And I know very well that white folks are not immune to poverty. As it pertains to Reagan, though, he didn't exactly advocate helping out the poor folks, so...well, fuck him.

---

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

[SuperMandy13]

Just wanted to make a brief comment. Supply-side economics isn't always your friend. Actually, in my opinion, it really is kinda 'voodoo economics'. Not too fond of the theories. Tax cuts only create additional revenue up to a certain point, and doesn't really help if the deficits each year continue to add more and more to the debt. Debt isn't necessarily bad, but it isn't good.



Though, from another side of the argument, taxes aren't all that good either, so...



But really, the trickle down effect does work... sorta. Maybe? But it doesn't bring a huge effect, like most fiscal policy 'cause it tends to be slow and too much or too little, so I'd give the kudos for the U.S. economy not crashing and burning more to Volcker, the chairman of the Fed at that time. Reaganomics just kinda... well, I dunno, actually, if it helped or not. Hard to tell. Maybe yes, but kinda got showed up by Volcker's really really tight monetary policy at the time.



You can blame this little lesson on my econ history professor for filling my head with all this.

[wildnexu]

I am the first to admit the Reagan presidency was a mix of good and bad,I just happen to think Reagan's had a lot more good than bad.As fr him not caring about the poor,I feel that is false.His polcies created opputunities for the poor to pull themselves out of poverty(more did then any other time in US history).Unlimited handouts only trap people in a cycle of dependency.althogh they are nessecary in some cases it is far better to create an enviroment where people can pull themselves up with goverment given them a boost.



although I do not support free college for everybody I do support matching funds for everybody and a full ride only for the most destitute.



you earn half in rivate scholarships or what you can provide the goverment will pay the other half.You could still get private scholarships based on need if you are poor but you would have to invest the time in seeking them out and applying.



this would give you the dignity f knowing you at least did your part.



capitalism is about opputunity.Athough the poor tend to be better taken care of under socialism they have less opputunity to improve their lot.



Actually my idea way of running things is a goverment with conservative fiscal policies and liberal social policies.



I want gverment out of the bedroom(regardless of a person's orientation) and giving a boost to thoose who need it but without the stifling taxes that are nothing more than forced redistribution of wealth.



Reagan understood that poverty has social cuases that have nthing to do with distribution of wealth.Does that mean poor people deserve to be poor?NO!



it means that sometimes eople's choices cuase them t be trapped into a cycle of pverty and that we need to adress people's choices.If a young girl chooses to engage in sex as a teen and is trapped in poverty becuase of that choice how is that the fault of those of wealth.



and please do nt tell me the weathy are not doing their part.The top 20% of the population pay 80% of the taxes with the lower 80% only pay 20%.



if we are seriuos about fighting poverty we must not only provide economic and material assistance to the poor but adress the underlying social causes,something which liberals tend to be loathe to do describing it as blaming the victims.



We need a healthy dose of protestant work ethic combined with a goverment safety net.Reagan recognized the problem is that instead of letting the safety net break the fall a lot f people are content to just stay in the safety net.



One thing that does not help is goverment rules that make climbing out of the safety net an all or nothing thing.Welfare reform has been a failure.It has basicaly tossed people out of the safety net to land as they may instead of helping them to climb out on their own one wrung at a time.



I want to get off disabilty but if I do I loose even the lousy medicare I have.And i have to spend the 600$ a month it cost to get my meds out of my own pocket instead of sing my SSDI ceck to pay 75% of the cost..



If our system made sense if I did my part of holding a job they would help by helping at least helping me get the meds that keep me sane and harmless as a fluffy bunny.



T%abby

[Gatito Grande]

Boy, Current Event/Issues and Politics have really become indistiguishable here, haven't they?



That most people find pacifism itself morally offensive is hardly news to me (that was sorta the point of my "Where's my parade?" rant---if it had one ) . . . and all those several billions of people are entitled to their opinions (as I am to mine).



The problem I thought I had run into (to wit, Garfield) was as follows: "To participate in [war] [LGBT life] is morally wrong." In each case, the person holding the belief is entitled to it in a free society . . . it's just that only the latter (as per the FAQ) is emphatically Off-Topic on the K.



One other point: I don't believe I can alter my pacifist beliefs just because I really, really like someone who is, or has, participated in the military ( or love : e.g., my favorite uncle, a WWII hero). At the same time, heck, I have in fact done things that I believed were morally wrong all the frickin' time. I don't believe I am in any way morally superior to those who have been/are in the military---quite the contrary. Gandhi said, "In responding to injustice, if the only choices I had were either violence or inaction, I would choose violence every time." (It's just that he didn't believe those were really the only choices.) I may flap my mouth (or in this case, fingers) in favor of nonviolent action---putting one's life on the line in response to injustice---but in point of fact, I've hardly ever done so (which is why the fistfight I broke up a few weeks ago was so memorable, instead of "just another day on the frontline" for me).



Gatito is a hypocritical lame-o, and I apologize if I didn't convey that Awful Truth.



GG Tabby, the devil can quote Scripture, and O'Reilly can quote the CBO (as C.S. Lewis---I think---put it, "By mixing in a little truth, one can make a lie all the more deadly" ). Income inequality grew dramatically under Reagan, and the Have-Not end didn't recover, even in the Booming '90s. And anyone remember, that under Reagan, 4% unemployment was defined as "Full Employment"? Or that figures on "the middle class" ignored the fact that it now took *2* adults working full-time to maintain (whereas in the 50s-60s-early 70s, it was one). The hardcore truths are, that since Reagan, the rich have grown richer, whereas everyone else has slipped (sometimes quickly, as under Reagan and Dubya, sometimes more slowly, as under Clinton) further behind. Out

[justin]

Quote:

---

That most people find pacifism itself morally offensive is hardly news to me

---

I'm interested to know what you're basing this on. There are probably some people who equate pacifism with cowardice, but I don't personally think that most people do.

Quote:

---

One other point: I don't believe I can alter my pacifist beliefs just because I really, really like someone who is, or has, participated in the military

---

It seems that you're saying that the following two statements are equivelent,

1: I'm a pacifist

2: It is morally wrong for anyone to participate in the military



I don't think this is correct. Personally I'm a pacifist but while I think that military service is wrong for me I wouldn't presume to say that it's wrong (morally or otherwise) for anyone else. Though this may be down to my being a Libran.

"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."

[sprhrgrl]

i agree a lot with justin. i'm a pacifist as well - i choose nonviolence in my own daily actions and do my best to assist others in doing as well (people around me, poeple i love) but at the same time while i'm opposed to war, i don't want to thrust my own views ("moral" or otherwise) on others. dialogue, sure, but no thrusting. (;

Sweetie, I'm a fag. I been there. - Tara (Dead Things shooting script)

[SuperMandy13]

Sorry, one more brief comment from me, because my brain's so full of economics it must spill over somewhere.



4% unemployment is pretty damn good and is actually considered full employment or at least close to it. I don't know the actual natural rate off-hand, but I think it's somewhere around there or maybe a little less? I dunno. But, this is because there is always at least a little bit of unemployment. There is no zero unemployment, because there's always gonna be some people who are in transition between jobs.

[maudmac]

I do wonder why it is, exactly, that it's generally perfectly acceptable in certain lefty, progressive sorts of circles to be vehemently anti-war, to speak out loudly against the whole military-industrial complex thing...yet if you dare question why people would choose to become part of the military, it becomes obvious that this is a serious social faux pas. I'm not following the logic there, honestly.



If the military tends toward doing some pretty evil things, does it not stand to reason that a person willingly joining the military either does not know what sorts of things the US military is likely to do or knows it well and approves, or at least is tolerant, of it?



Over the course of the history of the United States, it's my position that the majority of military action has been...well, yeah, I'll say the word - immoral. I do think some military action has been justified and even righteous and moral. (WWII, for example.) But it's the exception.



Military service may provide jobs, careers, housing, educational opportunities, job training, etc., but it also may require an individual to pull triggers and launch missiles. The targets of those projectiles may or may not be people who are truly, truly the enemy. It's not up to the individual soldier to make that determination. They must be able to take human life on command. I can't help but wonder what goes on in the mind of a person who chooses to put themselves in a situation where that will even be a possibility.



Now, if I were under attack myself, just sitting here minding my own business, and someone or some force came at me intending me grievous harm or death, hell yeah, I'd blow them the fuck up if I could. But we aren't exactly minding our own business in Iraq, are we? Who invaded whom there? Who are the aggressors there? Who is defending what, exactly?



I'm absolutely against a draft and I would not register for one and that's just all there is to it. Not. Gonna. Do. It. If the US were invaded or something, however, I think the lefty, progressive types would be lining up around the block along with everyone else, myself included, to fight whoever dared to think they could do such a thing to our home. I don't wonder how the people of Iraq feel about Iraq suddenly being full of a whole lot of Americans. They feel the same way I'd feel if an Iraqi tank were rolling down my street right now. I'd feel incendiary animosity toward those Iraqi troops, no matter how many "support the troops" rallies the civilians of Iraq might be having for them back home.



The bottom line is that I don't understand why there's one standard applied to the Commander-in-Chief (he's eeeeevil) and a very, very different standard applied to the individuals who have chosen to carry out his will.



And, yeah, I've had many a fight with my fellow progressives over this and it's put a dent in a relationship or two over the years. It's definitely an unpopular opinion. I have lots of those.

---

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

[skittles]

Ok, I'm taking exception to your quote of 4% unemployment.



That figure only includes those people who are currently receiving unemployment benefits. It does not include those people who have had their unemployment benefits run out. It also doesn't include those people who had their own business & it had to shut down due to any number of reasons, especially the recent changes in the WORLD economy.



Unemployment benefits only allow for a certain number of weeks, usually 26-39. That depends upon the state of residence. In some areas of the country and in some types of employment (blue collar, white collar, pink collar) there are such a lack of jobs that people are trying to change professions. But that still doesn't put a roof over their head or food on their table.



I won't identify my area, but it is extremely bad here. With plants closing & relocating their work to Mexico & Asia. And just closing their doors for good, some due to bankruptcy. There are so few jobs here that people aren't finding work.



Imagine losing a job that paid $20 an hour & being forced to have to work at the local MegaMart for $6 an hour ... not to mention the loss or cutback of medical benefits.



I'm sorry, but when politicians & upbeat economists start quoting those "rosy" unemployment figures, I start seeing red & purple & a few psychodelic montages. I strongly dislike the quoting of most statistical figures that are based upon flawed data.... or in this case, misleading data.



Ask one of my friends who is looking for work NATIONWIDE & still can't find a job!

skittles



In vino veritas

[SuperMandy13]

I assume you're responding to me, right? Well, I wasn't saying that unemployment is 4% right now and that those numbers are good. Right now it's... actually, I have no idea what it is now. I shall go Google it later.



I was actually responding to Gatito Grande's comment about 4% being defined as full employment during the Reagan years. And 4% is about the natural rate of unemployment, at least at that time, I think. I could be wrong, 'cause it's a debatable thing. I dunno if there's a definite natural rate and it keeps shifting around a lot and stuff, so... yeah, as in many things in economics, it depends.



So, yeah, commenting on the natural rate of unemployment and not the state of unemployment now. And actually, I think unemployment numbers do include people who've had their benefits run out and all that. Well, if they're looking for a job, that is. It just doesn't tell the severity of the situation, like most statistics. There's only so much that numbers can say, unfortunately. And economics goes a lot by the numbers, but please don't hate it for that.



I could also try and say that unemployment really is getting better, but that would be like me saying a bomb's gonna kill a thousand people as opposed to two thousand. Still shitty situation no matter how you look at it, yeah?

[skittles]

Ok, SuperMandy, I understand now what you were referring to now... yeah, Reagan & unemployment numbers... I don't want to even go there....



I just know too many people who have slipped through the cracks of the "system" ... they don't appear on anyone's lists... and there are too many of them that really want to work, but can't... usually because of where they live & that they cannot move.. the jobs just don't exist in some areas of the country.



I sometimes think I see too much & know too much. But I don't want to be blind or unknowing.

skittles



"You are a child of the universe,

no less than the trees and the stars;

you have a right to be here." Desiderata, Max Erhmann

[SuperMandy13]

No worries. Sorry I wasn't clearer about what I said. And it's actually good to call me on stuff if you see me just spouting stats and saying, 'hey, that's not too bad'. Sometimes, I get a little too gung-ho about my enthusiasm for my major. *hugs econ text book* So, I give you permission to whap me upside the head if I let all the numbers get to me and blind me.

[skittles]

psst, Mandy... I love economics, too... but don't tell anyone... I already am too much of a geek... with econ, it might throw me over the edge...



and then I'd get thrown over the edge of a cliff...



or probably get thrown off of the top of the New York Stock Exchange.

skittles



"You are a child of the universe,

no less than the trees and the stars;

you have a right to be here." Desiderata, Max Erhmann

[Gatito Grande]

Since I brought up the 4% = "full employment" thang: until Reagan, 0% unemployment was the goal. The goal! Under Reagan, 4% of the willing-to-work population was written off. "Oh well, it's only 4%, we've done enough" (during the depth of the Reagan Recession, it was about 10% IIRC).



But unemployment rates, rising or falling, don't reveal the extent of "Reaganomics": from breaking unions, to doing away w/ occupational/environmental protections, to "I Scratch Your Back/You Scratch Mine" relationship w/ corporations who take their jobs to the 1$-a-day/unions outlawed/*no* environmental protections Third World (a relationship which has continued---and worsened---to the present).



Returning to "Current Events": I watched some of the Funeral ritual; I admit it. That kinda stuff has been "psychologically tested" for hundreds (if not thousands) of years to induce certain feelings of poignance and verklempt-ness, and it did its job even w/ me.



However, two things brought me back to my Cynical Old Self:

1) loved that riderless horse! It was a Democrat, for sure: poor critter was strainin' and practically ready to buck RR's stinky old boots the entire time. Yay horsie!

2) The military chorus singing multiple verses of "America the Beautiful": the mo'fo's changed part of the second verse, the actual text I provide for your edification:



America! America!

God mend thine every flaw,

Confirm thy soul

In self-control,

Thy liberty in law.



GG Hmmm: recently (as under Ronnie), wouldn't you say that (the U.S. of) America has been raising a bumper harvest of flaws, while displaying very little self-control or liberty in law? Out



NB to justin:

Quote:

---

There are probably some people who equate pacifism with cowardice, but I don't personally think that most people do.

---

I feel very confident in stating that most (U.S. of) Americans do (either cowardice or stupidity). Be glad you live in a more enlightened country (not that you'd know by your PM, eh?) !

[dekalog]

When talking about politics and figures it is always good to keep in mind that they are skewed in favour of or against whatever they are trying to prove or disprove. Every political body has their own interests and will do with their facts what they want to do to prove their theories.



As for war - imo they often occur because of economics and greed. To me that is immoral, but that is just my opinion. As well, it wouldn't be the soldiers that I would find fault with - they are the cogs in the wheel with as much power as, well me. The individuals who decided and plotted for the war to happen are who I would find immoral.

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

I feel very confident in stating that most (U.S. of) Americans do (either cowardice or stupidity). Be glad you live in a more enlightened country (not that you'd know by your PM, eh?)

---

Hmm...interesting though that the "most Americans" you paint with the same brush still think that the famous pacifist Sergeant Alvin York was still a hero. He refused to fight but was drafted anyway. In addition, since we're doing the whole "sweeping generalizations" thing, I think most Americans really have no idea how pacifism is really defined. It's really easy to have politicians like Bush stir up the collective patriotic feelings of a country....sometimes patriotism can be more than a little blinding. When one considers the fact that the US would've never come into its own without someone fighting for it (i.e. Revolutionary War, Civil War), it's tough for some (American or otherwise), to think of pacifism as a "good thing". Many may even harbor deep resentment for those who espouse pacifisim because they may have lost someone dear to them in a war or skirmish who fought very hard for that pacifist to have that right. *shrug* Who can say what goes on in a person's mind?



Human nature being what it is, we all have violent tendencies. Even the Sgt. York had killed a man in a drunken rage before reverting to his pacifist beliefs. The act affected him that much. However, even he realized that it was either "kill or be killed" and apparently he wasn't going to stand around let someone stick a bayonet in him no matter how averse he was to taking another person's life.



In my observation, pacifism is a good ideal...but reality is that development of human nature is still too immature to completely grasp this concept. There will always be someone who feels he/she must subjugate or rule by violence in order to cement their political/religious/societal power. Until that day comes when such people don't exist or this need felt by a powerful few no longer exists, pacifism will most probably continue to be viewed as a "weak position".

Quote:

---

Every political body has their own interests and will do with their facts what they want to do to prove their theories.



As for war - imo they often occur because of economics and greed. To me that is immoral, but that is just my opinion. As well, it wouldn't be the soldiers that I would find fault with - they are the cogs in the wheel with as much power as, well me. The individuals who decided and plotted for the war to happen are who I would find immoral.

---

I agree. And the underlying problem is that we a society continually perpetuate this problem by consistently voting the offenders back into office or buying into the campaign lies that are being spouted every election year. We continually allow a two party system to solidify its power in a country that really wasn't supposed to have such a system. And we continually put far too much power in the hands of a chosen few who never should've had it in the first place. We stopped thinking for ourselves politically and slowly but surely we allowed the power of the people to be filched away until it barely exists anymore. Generally speaking (since we are doing that apparently for the purposes of this discussion), the American people are just as responsible for the wars being waged in our name b/c we allowed those political entities to do it. They exist because of us and now there aren't enough people willing or able to do something about it. I had hoped that will change this election year. Only time will tell.

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: 6/10/04 6:06 am

[tkheaven]

*looks around* ahhh, I hate politics, I stray away from the subject...

I'm just wondering why the hell I have to work tomorrow if it's been declared a Federal and State day of mourning. Grr, *thinks new bosses* read the memo guys! We're gonna have to get that extra day if we come in tomorrow! Blah... (love this little guy)

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."