bring back the DRAFT ?

If they do bring it back, you might want to consider signing up
to be a member of your local draft board.

https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp

Martin

Post by Curmudgeon
I wonder just what might happen if both J.Kerry and G.W.Bush were asked the
very same question at some kind of Presidential debate ?
That question being "Do you now think it is time to bring back the Draft ?"
I wonder who would be in favor of it and who would be against it ?
As they are both poles apart politically how in the world could they both
agree on their answer to this question ?

Seveigny

2004-04-24 03:19:55 UTC

Post by Rowley
If they do bring it back, you might want to consider signing up
to be a member of your local draft board.
https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp
Martin

I got an email, from a well respected friend on this very subject. I read
the email and had some questions about the objectivity of the sources cited
in the email I'm cutting and pasting the email I received. The bills are
accurate. There have been bills, introduced in the House and the Senate on
this subject. I checked them through thomas.gov. The rest of the
information hasn't been checked through objective sources. I'm working on
that.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/mandatorydraftcoming19mar04.shtml

Mandatory Draft Coming-Soon

From: Sophie Lapaire <***@sun.com>
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/mandatorydraftcoming19mar04.shtml
March 19, 2004

I rarely send a mail to a large audience, but the possibility of mandatory
drafting for boys and girls (age 18-26) starting June 15 2005, is something,
I
believe, everyone should know. This litteraly affects EVERYONE since we all
have or know children that will have to go if this bill passes.

If there are children in your family, READ this.

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. Details and links follow.

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
--
Also, crossing into canada has already been made very difficult.

Actions, actions, actions:
P please send this on to all the parents and teachers you know, and all the
aunts and uncles, grandparents, godparents.... And let your children know --
it's their future, and theycan be a powerful voice for change!

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

The draft

$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: 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.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm
www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year,
http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.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.

WHAT TO DO:

- Tell all your friends

- Call the Mercury News (Newsdesk) 408-920-5000

-E-mail the SF Chronicle at: ***@sfchronicle.com

- Contact your Senators and tell them to oppose these bills.
Barbara Boxer: 415-403-0100
Diane Feinstein: 415/393-0707
Anna Eshoo: 202/225-8104
Nancy Pelosi: ***@mail.house.gov

For the full list of representatives (53) and websites, go to:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc&state=ca

We just can't sit and pretend that by ignoring it, it will go away. We must
voice our concerns and create the world we want to live in for
our children and their children's children.

~Cate

Alan Lichtenstein

2004-04-26 11:51:57 UTC

( previous post snipped-follow thread )

Your post was quite informative and eye-opening. I would have thought
that the calls for a draft were merely political posturing on the part
of one Harlem congressman, in particular. Yet, your revealing that
funds have been appropriated in supportive areas leave no room to doubt
that this is definately on the front burner.

Our armed forces have long ago moved from a concept of mere manpower to
one of "smart" warfare. Technology has advanced to the point that we
now require fewer individuals than previously to fight wars. Our armed
services have met enlistment quotas for a number of years, and our
fighting men and women are now of higher intellecual caliber than in
previous eras, including Vietnam. But apparently our planners never
planned for the occupation, especially in a place where we would be
unwanted. Our troops have suffered more casualties from the occupation
than they suffered in combat against an organized armed force. While
that vindicated the establishment of a highly "lean and mean" fighting
force, we now find that we need mere bodies to serve as what amounts to,
as jailkeepers. Thus, in that venue, the draft makes sense, from a
manpower position.

Of course, there is an alternative to the draft. And that is a vast
public outcry against what in reality, is Mr. Bush's war. Our armed
forces should protect us from outside aggression; not themselves, be the
aggressors.

Alan

Joni Rathbun

2004-04-26 12:57:55 UTC

Post by Seveigny
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. Details and links follow.

WHere's the evidence that W is "quietly trying to get these bills passed"
? Both are Democrat political posturing bills, one up since 2001.

Post by Seveigny
$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: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual
performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The SS has NOT lain dormant for decades. That's nonsense.

Post by Seveigny
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.

Those positions were filled before 9.11 ... There has been a steady supply
of volunteers for those positions. They're appointed, trained and have
been standing by since before 9.11.

Why? Because the SS has not lain dormant as suggested. This has been
a part of its job since being reinstated *20* some years ago. Having
boards trained and available in wait is one of the things they are
responsible for.

Post by Seveigny
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm
www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year,
http://www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.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.

Two democrats have brought bills, one as long ago as 2001. The republicans
and W have had nothing to do with it.

Current enlistments are at or above 100% of quota targets.

Personally, I think there's some over-reacting going on.

Alan Lichtenstein

2004-04-26 13:42:11 UTC

WHere's the evidence that W is "quietly trying to get these bills passed"
? Both are Democrat political posturing bills, one up since 2001.

The SS has NOT lain dormant for decades. That's nonsense.

Those positions were filled before 9.11 ... There has been a steady supply
of volunteers for those positions. They're appointed, trained and have
been standing by since before 9.11.
Why? Because the SS has not lain dormant as suggested. This has been
a part of its job since being reinstated *20* some years ago. Having
boards trained and available in wait is one of the things they are
responsible for.

Two democrats have brought bills, one as long ago as 2001. The republicans
and W have had nothing to do with it.
Current enlistments are at or above 100% of quota targets.
Personally, I think there's some over-reacting going on.

I'm not so sure, Joni. The bills appropriating money are too specific
for my taste. Additionally, Pentagon projections, going back to the
1970's regarding the future of how the US would fight future wars, all
pointed towards a highly technical fighting force rather than mere
"boots on the ground." The US performance in two recent wars justifies
the pentagon projections. And as you indicate, as have I, enlistment
quotas have been filled. In point of fact, some areas, particularly, in
the Navy are so competitive, that there is an actual rejection of
applicants for that training.

But Pentagon planning was for the conduct of war, not occupation. As an
occupying power, we need additional manpower, not counted on in the
downsizing of the military. Now, what is needed, are what essentially
amounts to jailers, requiring no training for highly technical combat.
Hence, the reintroduction of the draft may appear, on the surface, to
make sense.

I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.

Alan

Lee

2004-04-26 14:31:31 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.

What, specifically, makes you feel that way?

The fact that the posturing includes specific amounts of
money and actions to be performed by certain dates doesn't
mean that it isn't still posturing.

Alan Lichtenstein

2004-04-26 18:58:45 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.

What, specifically, makes you feel that way?

The fact that Cate indicated that a substantial amount was added to the
Selective Service system budget, for no apparent reason( despite Joni's
rationalizations ) coupled with her claims of specific dates of
implimentation. In addition other bills requiring some form of national
or Military service appear to be going in that direction.

Post by Lee
The fact that the posturing includes specific amounts of
money and actions to be performed by certain dates doesn't
mean that it isn't still posturing.

You don't spend tax dollars and set deadlines to posture. Even
Democrats know that.

Alan

Joni Rathbun

2004-04-26 21:55:44 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.

What, specifically, makes you feel that way?

The fact that Cate indicated that a substantial amount was added to the
Selective Service system budget, for no apparent reason

There's no evidence $20 million was added to do the board thing as
described in the email Cate received. The total ESTIMATED (not necessarily
received) was under $8 million for that function and that figure is only
slightly higher than in previous years. The entire budget is $26,100,000.
It was right at $25,000,000 during Clinton's last year in office.

The SS has NOT been sitting idle. It has been fully functioning for
over two decades. What the letter claims is being funded by an additional
$20 million has been in place for years now and there is NOOOOOO evidence
of a $20 million increase. $26,100,000 subtract $25,000,000 is $1,100,000.

( despite Joni's

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
rationalizations ) coupled with her claims of specific dates of
implimentation. In addition other bills requiring some form of national
or Military service appear to be going in that direction.

Post by Lee
The fact that the posturing includes specific amounts of
money and actions to be performed by certain dates doesn't
mean that it isn't still posturing.

Rangel penned his bill a couple years ago and is on record regarding
his posturing... that maybe if politicians knew THEIR kids would be
drafter too, they'd give this going-to-war a little more thought.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
You don't spend tax dollars and set deadlines to posture. Even
Democrats know that.

They haven't. The point is pointless. It's nothing more than the one
zillionith email letter of exaggggeration and misinformation we've
ever seen....

Alan Lichtenstein

2004-04-26 22:16:54 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.

What, specifically, makes you feel that way?

The fact that Cate indicated that a substantial amount was added to the
Selective Service system budget, for no apparent reason

I have not perused the respective budgets. I have always known Cate to
be factual. Are you saying that she has posted inaccurate information?
It would appear so. Apparently, I will now have to check for myself.

Post by Joni Rathbun
The SS has NOT been sitting idle. It has been fully functioning for
over two decades. What the letter claims is being funded by an additional
$20 million has been in place for years now and there is NOOOOOO evidence
of a $20 million increase. $26,100,000 subtract $25,000,000 is $1,100,000.

Post by Joni Rathbun
( despite Joni's

Post by Lee
The fact that the posturing includes specific amounts of
money and actions to be performed by certain dates doesn't
mean that it isn't still posturing.

I don't know. Rangel represents a district for which the military has
been a step up. I don't know why he would posture so, because under a
draft, it is precisely HIS constituents who would suffer.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
You don't spend tax dollars and set deadlines to posture. Even
Democrats know that.

They haven't. The point is pointless. It's nothing more than the one
zillionith email letter of exaggggeration and misinformation we've
ever seen....

Well, I've not seen this before. And bill numbers indicate that this is
more than posturing.

Alan

Joni Rathbun

2004-04-26 23:04:50 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.

What, specifically, makes you feel that way?

The fact that Cate indicated that a substantial amount was added to the
Selective Service system budget, for no apparent reason

She said she posted an email she received but had not checked out all
the info so my disagreement with her is not personal.

I understand the limited role the Selective System has played for nearly
a score of years. I was concerned, should Cate's assertions prove
accurate that ADDITIONAL funds would be added. Should that be the case,
there can be no other reason than an expansion of their current
activities, and that would mean an active draft.
However, I note your assertions. Now I will have to check for myself.
I don't know. Rangel represents a district for which the military has
been a step up. I don't know why he would posture so, because under a
draft, it is precisely HIS constituents who would suffer.

It was all over the news and the subject of many a debate a
few months ago. He accused the Bush admin of being to eager to go
to war and wanted to influence people whose children would be
affected by a draft. He's been quite candid.

Post by Joni Rathbun
They haven't. The point is pointless. It's nothing more than the one
zillionith email letter of exaggggeration and misinformation we've
ever seen....

Well, I've not seen this before. And bill numbers indicate that this is
more than posturing.

??? Thousands of bills are never passed into law. And countless bills
are presented to make a point, never expecting to be passed.

Meanwhile, a quick stroll thru Snopes gives a person some idea as to how
many emails we've seen go thru here and our own email boxes that are full
of misinformation (eg the info in this current one about the Selective
Service).

Lee

2004-04-26 21:43:13 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.

What, specifically, makes you feel that way?

Post by Lee
The fact that the posturing includes specific amounts of
money and actions to be performed by certain dates doesn't
mean that it isn't still posturing.

You don't spend tax dollars and set deadlines to posture. Even
Democrats know that.

The number of bills being drafted means absolutely nothing.

Deadlines don't mean anything unless there are meaningful
consequences for failing to meet them.

Budget increases that can be explained (even if you choose
to call it "rationalized") mean nothing.

What else have you got?

Alan Lichtenstein

2004-04-26 22:10:26 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
I thought that the call for the draft was the political posturing of a
few Democratic Congressmen, however, after reading Cate's post, it
apparently is more than that.

What, specifically, makes you feel that way?

Post by Lee
The fact that the posturing includes specific amounts of
money and actions to be performed by certain dates doesn't
mean that it isn't still posturing.

You don't spend tax dollars and set deadlines to posture. Even
Democrats know that.

The number of bills being drafted means absolutely nothing.

Are you suggesting that we ignore those proposals? I have never been an
advocate of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.
Apparently that is what you are advocating.

Post by Lee
Deadlines don't mean anything unless there are meaningful
consequences for failing to meet them.

In this particular case, the subject matter to which the deadline
relates does not require a penalty for failure to meet. Rather, it
suggests a time frame for government to meet due to the intensity of the
situation.

Post by Lee
Budget increases that can be explained (even if you choose
to call it "rationalized") mean nothing.

You would have to do quite a bit of explaining to justify a substantial
budeg increase for a dormant government agency that is in mothballs and
has no current function. Of course, should you be getting ready to take
that agency out of mothballs, and reactivate it, why that's quite a
different matter.

Perhaps it's just my skeptical nature, and you are more complacent.

Alan

Post by Lee
What else have you got?

Lee

2004-04-27 00:23:00 UTC

Post by Lee
The number of bills being drafted means absolutely nothing.

Are you suggesting that we ignore those proposals? I have never been an
advocate of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.
Apparently that is what you are advocating.

Inductions are well above quota for all branches.

Post by Lee
Deadlines don't mean anything unless there are meaningful
consequences for failing to meet them.

No, it suggests that the bill's sponsors would like for people
to believe that the situation is intense.

Post by Lee
Budget increases that can be explained (even if you choose
to call it "rationalized") mean nothing.

You would have to do quite a bit of explaining to justify a substantial
budeg increase for a dormant government agency that is in mothballs and
has no current function. Of course, should you be getting ready to take
that agency out of mothballs, and reactivate it, why that's quite a
different matter.
Perhaps it's just my skeptical nature, and you are more complacent.

Correcting the funding level doesn't imply that you're expecting
to reactivate it immediately. Passing a bill to correct the funding
level doesn't even mean that the money is going to be spent.

Alan Lichtenstein

2004-04-27 10:59:28 UTC

Post by Lee
The number of bills being drafted means absolutely nothing.

Are you suggesting that we ignore those proposals? I have never been an
advocate of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.
Apparently that is what you are advocating.

Inductions are well above quota for all branches.

I have already asserted so in prior posts to this thread. But my
comments above were in response to your comments suggesting that the
mere introduction of a bill meant absolutely nothing, and inferred that
this action should not be considered by the electorate. I replied with
the above statement, meant to be interpreted that if we ignore the
introduction of these bills, it would be too late to do anything about
them should they become Law. The time to fight a bad Law is before it
becomes so.

Post by Lee
Deadlines don't mean anything unless there are meaningful
consequences for failing to meet them.

No, it suggests that the bill's sponsors would like for people
to believe that the situation is intense.

Perhaps. But regardless, your original assertion regarding a penalty is
inappropriate in this instance.

Post by Lee
Budget increases that can be explained (even if you choose
to call it "rationalized") mean nothing.

You would have to do quite a bit of explaining to justify a substantial
budeg increase for a dormant government agency that is in mothballs and
has no current function. Of course, should you be getting ready to take
that agency out of mothballs, and reactivate it, why that's quite a
different matter.
Perhaps it's just my skeptical nature, and you are more complacent.

Correcting the funding level doesn't imply that you're expecting
to reactivate it immediately.

Why would you provide funds for something that you were not planning to
use sometime soon? Does that seem logical to you? Of course, if you
are getting prepared to reactivate that process, then increased funding
in preparation for more extensive implimentation makes a great deal of
sense.

Passing a bill to correct the funding

Post by Lee
level doesn't even mean that the money is going to be spent.

Why would ANYONE want to increase a funding level and not spend the
money? You don't increase funds unless you are planning to spend the
money for some purpose.

Alan

Lee

2004-04-27 13:29:46 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
The time to fight a bad Law is before it
becomes so.

That only applies to bills that have a chance of passing.
Bills that were only introduced to cause a stir don't require
any particular response, unless the jerk(s) who introduced it
happen to be from your state.

Post by Lee
Deadlines don't mean anything unless there are meaningful
consequences for failing to meet them.

No, it suggests that the bill's sponsors would like for people
to believe that the situation is intense.

Perhaps. But regardless, your original assertion regarding a penalty is
inappropriate in this instance.

A deadline that doesn't have any penalty for failure to meet
it has no meaning. That applies to every deadline, in every
situation. I understand you to be saying that the implied
penalty is that the US won't be ready, otherwise, but there
is no reason to believe that such a penalty exists.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Why would you provide funds for something that you were not planning to
use sometime soon? Does that seem logical to you?

Yes, it does. You can't really shrink-wrap a government
agency and throw it into a closet, and then expect to be
able to reactivate it quickly after 100 years.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Passing a bill to correct the funding

Post by Lee
level doesn't even mean that the money is going to be spent.

Why would ANYONE want to increase a funding level and not spend the
money? You don't increase funds unless you are planning to spend the
money for some purpose.

It's called politics. Haven't you ever known a legislature to
vote to increase education funding during an election year, and
then realize that they have something "more urgent" to spend it
on a few months later?

Alan Lichtenstein

2004-04-27 16:17:33 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
The time to fight a bad Law is before it
becomes so.

That only applies to bills that have a chance of passing.

Every bill introduced should be considered by the electorate to have a
chance of passing.

Post by Lee
Bills that were only introduced to cause a stir don't require
any particular response, unless the jerk(s) who introduced it
happen to be from your state.

You are most fortunate in having an "inside track" to congressional
thinking. For the rest of us, who aren't privy to such "insider
information," it would be wise to express our opinions accordingly.

Post by Lee
Deadlines don't mean anything unless there are meaningful
consequences for failing to meet them.

No, it suggests that the bill's sponsors would like for people
to believe that the situation is intense.

Perhaps. But regardless, your original assertion regarding a penalty is
inappropriate in this instance.

A deadline that doesn't have any penalty for failure to meet
it has no meaning.

If it has no meaning, then why specify one?

That applies to every deadline, in every

Post by Lee
situation.

Not true. Deadlines are frequently used to establish time frames for
planning. You post a very good example below.

I understand you to be saying that the implied

Post by Lee
penalty is that the US won't be ready, otherwise, but there
is no reason to believe that such a penalty exists.

You may consider lack of rediness a penalty. I had assumed that you
used the term to represent some tangible feature. In this instance, I
will have to agree.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Why would you provide funds for something that you were not planning to
use sometime soon? Does that seem logical to you?

Yes, it does.

Really? I am amazed that a good loyal Republican would assert increased
government spending for a program that he admits has no immediate use.

You can't really shrink-wrap a government

Post by Lee
agency and throw it into a closet, and then expect to be
able to reactivate it quickly after 100 years.

I agree that planning is necessary, but if you don't need something for
100 years, you don't play for it 100 years before you need it.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Passing a bill to correct the funding

Post by Lee
level doesn't even mean that the money is going to be spent.

Why would ANYONE want to increase a funding level and not spend the
money? You don't increase funds unless you are planning to spend the
money for some purpose.

It's called politics.

Even politicians have some sense of the rationale. What you are
proposing is irrational.

Haven't you ever known a legislature to

Post by Lee
vote to increase education funding during an election year, and
then realize that they have something "more urgent" to spend it
on a few months later?

All the time. Lying to the electorate is a skill politicians have in
abundance. After all, we are now in a war because our president lied
not only to the electorate, but to congress as well. But we are not
talking about lying( are we? ). We're talking about making an
appropriation for a process that will not be used. Very different.
Politicians can find a host of better ways, which will be far more
beneficial to them in the form of patronage than to spend it on what is
essentially, useless at this time, and which can be funded later when it
is really needed.

Alan

Lee

2004-04-27 18:41:11 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
The time to fight a bad Law is before it
becomes so.

That only applies to bills that have a chance of passing.

Every bill introduced should be considered by the electorate to have a
chance of passing.

Nonsense. Some bills are clearly drafted with no intention
of being passed. They either show the constituents that the
congressweasel "tried his best" or, as in this case, stir up
fears.

Post by Lee
A deadline that doesn't have any penalty for failure to meet
it has no meaning.

If it has no meaning, then why specify one?

For some of the same reasons that bills are introduced with no
intention of being passed. Showmanship. Free political
advertising.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
That applies to every deadline, in every

Post by Lee
situation.

Not true. Deadlines are frequently used to establish time frames for
planning. You post a very good example below.
I understand you to be saying that the implied

Post by Lee
penalty is that the US won't be ready, otherwise, but there
is no reason to believe that such a penalty exists.

You may consider lack of rediness a penalty. I had assumed that you
used the term to represent some tangible feature. In this instance, I
will have to agree.

In this case, there is no actual expectation of any lack of
readiness should the deadline be missed, so there is no penalty.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Why would you provide funds for something that you were not planning to
use sometime soon? Does that seem logical to you?

Yes, it does.

Really? I am amazed that a good loyal Republican would assert increased
government spending for a program that he admits has no immediate use.

I am not a Republican, loyal or otherwise. I do, however,
understand the value of investing for future benefit.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
You can't really shrink-wrap a government

Post by Lee
agency and throw it into a closet, and then expect to be
able to reactivate it quickly after 100 years.

I agree that planning is necessary, but if you don't need something for
100 years, you don't play for it 100 years before you need it.

You pay to maintain it. You replace capital equipment as it
becomes obsolete. You hire and train a skeleton crew of
bureaucrats to make sure that the procedures are up to date.
Considering that this is a federal agency, it takes a certain
amount of manpower just to file the appropriate paperwork to
show that they haven't been doing anything.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Passing a bill to correct the funding

Post by Lee
level doesn't even mean that the money is going to be spent.

Why would ANYONE want to increase a funding level and not spend the
money? You don't increase funds unless you are planning to spend the
money for some purpose.

It's called politics.

Even politicians have some sense of the rationale. What you are
proposing is irrational.

It's for appearances. If it's not intended to be implemented, it
doesn't have to be rational.

Alan Lichtenstein

2004-04-28 10:48:01 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
The time to fight a bad Law is before it
becomes so.

That only applies to bills that have a chance of passing.

Every bill introduced should be considered by the electorate to have a
chance of passing.

Nonsense. Some bills are clearly drafted with no intention
of being passed. They either show the constituents that the
congressweasel "tried his best" or, as in this case, stir up
fears.

Post by Lee
A deadline that doesn't have any penalty for failure to meet
it has no meaning.

If it has no meaning, then why specify one?

For some of the same reasons that bills are introduced with no
intention of being passed. Showmanship. Free political
advertising.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
That applies to every deadline, in every

Post by Lee
situation.

Not true. Deadlines are frequently used to establish time frames for
planning. You post a very good example below.
I understand you to be saying that the implied

Post by Lee
penalty is that the US won't be ready, otherwise, but there
is no reason to believe that such a penalty exists.

You may consider lack of rediness a penalty. I had assumed that you
used the term to represent some tangible feature. In this instance, I
will have to agree.

In this case, there is no actual expectation of any lack of
readiness should the deadline be missed, so there is no penalty.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Why would you provide funds for something that you were not planning to
use sometime soon? Does that seem logical to you?

Yes, it does.

Really? I am amazed that a good loyal Republican would assert increased
government spending for a program that he admits has no immediate use.

I am not a Republican, loyal or otherwise. I do, however,
understand the value of investing for future benefit.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
You can't really shrink-wrap a government

Post by Lee
agency and throw it into a closet, and then expect to be
able to reactivate it quickly after 100 years.

I agree that planning is necessary, but if you don't need something for
100 years, you don't play for it 100 years before you need it.

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Passing a bill to correct the funding

Post by Lee
level doesn't even mean that the money is going to be spent.

Why would ANYONE want to increase a funding level and not spend the
money? You don't increase funds unless you are planning to spend the
money for some purpose.

It's called politics.

Even politicians have some sense of the rationale. What you are
proposing is irrational.

It's for appearances. If it's not intended to be implemented, it
doesn't have to be rational.

Lee, this discussion has digressed to the pickyune, and it is obvious
that we have different opinions regarding the seriousness of the
legislative process. I do not believe further discussion will be
productive, for the issues that are being shared by the discussion
direction are really not significant. So, I'm going to disengage. But
it has been a reasonably decent discussion.

Alan

Lee

2004-04-28 21:41:57 UTC

Post by Alan Lichtenstein
Lee, this discussion has digressed to the pickyune, and it is obvious
that we have different opinions regarding the seriousness of the
legislative process. I do not believe further discussion will be
productive, for the issues that are being shared by the discussion
direction are really not significant. So, I'm going to disengage. But
it has been a reasonably decent discussion.

Agreed.

Joni Rathbun

2004-04-26 21:59:44 UTC

WHere's the evidence that W is "quietly trying to get these bills passed"
? Both are Democrat political posturing bills, one up since 2001.

The SS has NOT lain dormant for decades. That's nonsense.

Those positions were filled before 9.11 ... There has been a steady supply
of volunteers for those positions. They're appointed, trained and have
been standing by since before 9.11.
Why? Because the SS has not lain dormant as suggested. This has been
a part of its job since being reinstated *20* some years ago. Having
boards trained and available in wait is one of the things they are
responsible for.

Two democrats have brought bills, one as long ago as 2001. The republicans
and W have had nothing to do with it.
Current enlistments are at or above 100% of quota targets.
Personally, I think there's some over-reacting going on.

I'm not so sure, Joni. The bills appropriating money are too specific
for my taste.

What bills appropriating money? There are two longshot bills up proposing
a draft. Nothing has been done about either one. Meanwhile, the Selective
Service budget is only $1,100,000 more than it was when Clinton was in
office. There's been no additional $20 million provided to create
boards (that have long existed and don't need creating because the
SS has NOT lain dormant.... an outright lie).

Curmudgeon

2004-04-24 05:13:26 UTC

I am 50 + years old.

"Rowley" <***@tenet.edu> wrote in message news:***@tenet.edu...
If they do bring it back, you might want to consider signing up
to be a member of your local draft board.

https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp

Martin

JMD

2004-04-24 06:19:03 UTC

Is being AGAINST G.W Bush unAmerican ?

"Curmudgeon" <***@cox.net> a �crit dans le message de news:WHmic.29786$***@fed1read02...
| I am 50 + years old.
|
|
| "Rowley" <***@tenet.edu> wrote in message
| news:***@tenet.edu...
| If they do bring it back, you might want to consider signing up
| to be a member of your local draft board.
|
| https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp
|
| Martin
|
|
|

D. Best

2004-04-24 10:08:47 UTC

No ... being against anything is probably more American than following a
leader blindly, accepting every tidbit that they spout off about without
question. Some of the rhetoric that is coming from many of the politicians
today is absolutely ridiculous and anti-democratic ... they are 'muddying'
the issues. Too many politicians and not enough statesmen. Unfortunately
we have two political parties that have become symbiotic parasites. They
need one another to exist ... in the process we the American people are
being cheated. The rhetoric changes but little else does. No matter which
political party is in power nothing truly changes. It is truly the 'Irony
of Democracy' and an elitist controlled government.

Regarding the draft ... it should never had stopped ... a civilian military
should be mandatory in a democracy. A professional military is just not a
good idea for a variety of reasons. Mandatory service to ones country ...
be it military, job corps or whatever should be a part of our society.
There should be no exceptions ... everyone must donate 2 years to their
country. It's called ownership ...

Just my humble opinion.

doug
--
-d. best-
Exercise Your Mind, Body & Freedoms

M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 23, 2004

2004-04-24 11:17:48 UTC

Post by Rowley
If they do bring it back, you might want to consider signing up
to be a member of your local draft board.
https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp
Martin

Must not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces

I guess that leaves out all veterans. I wonder why?

Rowley

2004-04-24 13:13:04 UTC

Post by M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 23, 2004

Post by Rowley
If they do bring it back, you might want to consider signing up
to be a member of your local draft board.
https://www4.sss.gov/localboardmembers/bminquiry.asp
Martin

Must not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces
I guess that leaves out all veterans. I wonder why?

I wondered about that too

Martin

Curmudgeon

2004-04-24 17:45:57 UTC

*Because they know how to manipulate the system*

Must not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces

I guess that leaves out all veterans. I wonder why?

I wondered about that too

Rowley

2004-04-24 19:02:00 UTC

???????????

Post by Curmudgeon
*Because they know how to manipulate the system*
Must not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces
I guess that leaves out all veterans. I wonder why?
I wondered about that too

Bob LeChevalier

2004-04-24 19:50:49 UTC

Post by Curmudgeon
*Because they know how to manipulate the system*
Must not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces
I guess that leaves out all veterans.

Why? Isn't there a considerable gap between those who spend a career
in the military, and those who never serve at all.

The veterans who serve only a single military hitch are presumably
most like those who would be drafted. No idea if this is "why",
however.

lojbab

--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org

M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-April 25, 2004

2004-04-25 14:57:22 UTC