Sen. Edwards is talking about this idea of mandatory service. It is stupid. It is nonsense. The idea of American freedom is about the freedom to perform national service or not. I like that there are programs like Americorps or the military around, but the idea is to make it so people voluntarily sign up. Conscription’s got no place in a democracy like ours.
About
Oliver Willis
owillis@gmail.com
AIM: oliverwill
OW @ MySpace
OW @ Facebook
OW @ Flickr
OW @ XBox Live
OW @ Twitter
Read My Endorsement
National News
- Takeru Kobayashi Vows To Regain Hot Dog Eating Competition Crown
- Gilbert Arenas Signs $111 Million Deal With Washington Wizards
- Kristen Bell Signs On To Play "Queen of Babble"
- Sick Chicago Dad Ricardo Gonzalez Caged Kids Because He Didn't Have Baby Sitter
- Bush Attending Olympics Opening Ceremony, Ignoring Chinese Civil Rights Abuses
- Christina Applegate Boyfriend Lee Grivas Found Dead
- Kim Kardashian, Reggie Bush Eat Out
- Hilary Duff Likes It Raw
- Australian Couple Jailed After Making "Sex Contract" With Teen Daughter To Have Babies
- Audrina Patridge Could Go Topless In "The Reef" (Into The Blue 2)
While I think a draft in this instance is probably a bad idea, I have to quibble with you.
1) Most democracies have some form of conscription. Countries with much healthier democracies than we have.
2) When making an army, you have 2 choices: a mass conscript army or a professional volunteer one. Unfortunately there’s another name for the latter: a mercenary army. Historically those have shown a dangerous tendency to support their officers over their country.
So it really isn’t such an open and shut case.
So it really isn’t such an open and shut case.
Sure OW, it all depends on what the meaning of “liberty” is.
I’m not sure of Edward’s reasoning, considering his push back at the GOP marketing slogan “war on terror.” However, it may be that he is trying to make starting a war that much more unattractive by making sure the children of the well heeled are in the cross hairs along with the rest of us. Mandatory conscription might make it that much more difficult to get a deferment for ingrown toenails, or to do blow while keeping Texas safe from the Vietcong.
Mandatory conscription would also promptly triple sales of extra strength laundry detergent, as the legions of loud mouthed chicken hawks would surely explosively sh*t their pants.
So Edwards is proposing a major boost to the armed forces’ withered ranks and giving a nice boost to the economy. Well, the part that deals with soiled linens, at least.
See, it’s a floor wax and a dessert topping.
How about a Roman Empire approach? Wanna be a Roman citizen? Serve in the army!
In France I think it’s One year military, or two years relief work. The USA could make this really work for them; do this work, get your education topped up. Or something, and this way it wouldn’t be mandatory.
Mandatory Service Is Stupid…
Except for the children of Rethuglican Chickenhawks.. Then you can be expected to be drafted and sent off to fight in Daddy’s wars.
If nothing else, Oliver, you’re consistent. Two sets of rules: one for those you like, another for those you don’t. And your dislike is universal; for the children of your enemies, you cheerfully set aside every single principle you might hold (including the United States Constitution, especially Article III, Section 3 and Amendment XIII, Section 1) just to score some cheap points.
You are a remarkable individual. Every time I think you’ve sunk as low as you can, you find new depths to plumb.
J.
That’s just rich coming from the jealous slimer (have you ever corrected your numerous inaccuracies even after people point them out to you? nope!). I’m consistently against mandatory military service, but if Bush is going to send people to war for no reason, I can’t see why his healthy, fit, of age daughters can’t sign up.
“Jealous?” Yup. Of exactly one thing. Not your writing ability — I’m three times the writer you are, if not more. Not of your audience — I don’t care for sycophants. Not for your blog — we get lots more traffic at Wizbang than you.
I’m jealous that you get paid for blogging. You sit at your desk at Media Matters and research and post about stuff that is in perfect lockstep with your masters’ agenda, then loudly proclaim your independence.
As far as “admitting mistakes” — I do it all the time. I make mistakes; it’s inevitable when you’re a one-man operation and don’t have an entire foundation behind you to harness for research and fact-checking.
Hell, I did it just two weeks ago, when I went back and apologized to the Democratic former Attorney General of Massachusetts. I also ate a healthy amount of crow over the London subway shooting. When was the last time you made a public admission of error and apologized?
But back to the topic at hand. I just did a cursory digging, and you are at least partially consistent: you did denounce Rangel’s efforts to bring back the draft.
But you have this incredible blind spot, this moral vacuum, when it comes to the Bush twins. They have done almost nothing to merit any public attention (I hardly think a couple of campaign appearances and a semi-lame, semi-cute introduction of their father at the RNC counts), yet every now and then you (and a bunch of your peers) haul them out and use them to attack their father.
You got problems with their father. I understand that. Lord knows a lot of people do. But you don’t attack their kids to get at them.
Let me pre-empt a couple of stock answers. Yes, it was wrong to pick on Amy Carter (excepting, of course, the time Jimmy said he was consulting her on foreign policy). I thought it was contemptible when Rush Limbaugh and John McCain went after Chelsea Clinton.
Besides, every time you go after the Bush twins, you give up your right to complain about them.
J.
Check heaven666.org if you want to see that trash Jenna’s bush.
Maybe Jay Tea would have a better chance of getting paid for his blogging if his blog posts weren’t steno’d from RNC talking points. Oh, and the usual “I hate Massachusetts and the Boston Globe” rants.
Hey, enlightened, I’d have a lot easier time blogging if I was on that list. Instead, I currently dig up my own topics and elaborate my own opinions. Could you hook me up with the people at the RNC? And do they pay well? I’ll even stop saying nice things about NH’s current Democratic governor (who I voted for twice) and advocating for gay marriage, for the right price.
But back to the topic at hand… why does Oliver have such a resentment of the Bush twins? It’s not like they’ve ever run for or held public office…
J.
Humour is something that happens to other people, isn’t it JT?
I disagree with you, Oliver.
I believe that Edwards’ idea is all plusses all around.
Got nothing to do with Liberty: You have as much Liberty as you are wiling to fight for. And that’s the lesson we should be teaching our youth: Freedom ain’t free.
Good men have fought hard, bled, and died for centuries to keep it safe, now you do your part.
I love the French idea: One year Military, 2 years national service.
God knows there are many, many places in America where young, strong, optimistic, energetic young people could make a serious difference.
I believe you can teach patriotism, I believe you can learn to be a better American.
I believe deeply in our founding principles, and I think a year of service will go a long way to making sure our young people, our young Americans, have a stake in our experiment in government and give htem a chance to contribute their colorful threads to our National fabric.
And, yes. National Service should give you a head start towards US legal residence and citizenship.
And the Bush twins should be the first to be drafted!
Jay Tea, you suck.
Ask pretty much anyone who has served in the military for very long, and they will tell you that ending the draft was the absolutely best thing that ever happened to the services. By getting rid of those who never wanted to be there, and filling the ranks with those who were not only willing, but eager to serve — and had to not only assert and re-assert that, but in many cases struggle to serve — we developed the most professional, most capable, most motivated, most dedicated armed forces the world has ever seen. To undo over 30 years of progress would be insane — and is a rare point of agreement between me and our gracious host.
As far as your points, Wellstone, they derive from a fundamental disagreement on the primary purpose of the military. You want to use it as a tool of social engineering, a way to reshape American society in a way you think would be better.
I have nothing against that goal, but I could not disagree more with your proposed method. To me, the primary function of the armed services is to — in the words of their oath — “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Their particular area of expertise in applying that oath is violence. Force. “Killing people and breaking things.”
It ain’t pretty, but it’s too often necessary. And I want absolutely nothing to impair their ability to carry that out — especially crack-brained social experimentation that will most likely end up with a chunk of Americans seeing military service as a burden, and resent the military in general.
Kind of like what happened in the 60’s and 70’s.
J.
Oh, and Wellstone, yes, I do suck. But only for certain people, of the appropriate gender, compatible personality, and willingness. In your case, the first and third criteria are irrelevant — the second one strikes you from the list.
I hope you’re not too heartbroken over that.
Everybody serves in the military, the dangerous divide between military and civilian goes away, and everybody gets VA medical care.
Jay Tea, you suck at the Conservative teat, among other places.
“Social engineerng”? “Reshape society”
“Crackbrained social experimentation”?
What makes you think that only the military loves their country, or is patriotic?
Oh, wait, I forgot! You’re a Rethuglycan! Liberals and Democrats could not possibly love their country or like the military, right?
You suck.
“You want to use it as a tool of social engineering, a way to reshape American society in a way you think would be better.”
As opposed to Jay Tea, who wants to use the military to reshape Iraq society in a way that he and 25% of the public that still support the war think would be better. As far as the rest of the asshattery in his post I’ll just summarize it with LOL.
“You want to use it as a tool of social engineering, a way to reshape American society in a way you think would be better.”
As opposed to Jay Tea, who wants to use the military to reshape Iraq society in a way that he and 25% of the public that still support the war think would be better. As far as the rest of the asshattery in his post I’ll just summarize it with LOL.
Hey, I thought this thread was about disagreeing with and criticizing John Edwards…
Gosh, I feel so important. People here think more about me than a former vice presidential nominee.
I might have to start charging for autographs.
J.
Oh, and back on point: the Preamble to the Constitution reads:
Note that “provide for the common defense” comes before “promote the general welfare.”
Bringing back the draft is a DUMB idea, mainly pushed by people who think that bringing it back will raise more opposition to the war in Iraq — and don’t give a tinker’s dam about the long-term consequences of that action. The phrase “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” seems to be appropriate here.
I must disagree with Jay Tea on one — and only one — small point. I believe that ginning up opposition to the war in Iraq is Charlie Rangels’ motive in calling for reinstating the draft.
John Edwards’ reasoning lies in two fallacies: 1) That jobs can be “created”; and 2) That government can “fix” anything (except, of course, for some strange reason, the problems in Iraq).
Jobs can’t be created?
The Clinton Economy created over 23 million new jobs.
The Government can’t “fix” anything?
Uh… When a people, and the Government that they command, decide to fix something, it can get fixed. See “desegregation”.
It’s only weak asshat Conservative ignoramuses who only believe in dictators and the “unitary executive” and not in their own government who make happen this particularly self-fulfilling prophecy.
Duh.
If you freaking BREAK IT, it doesn’t work anymore.
Duh.
I love the idea of mandatory service, Period. Rich kids, poor kids, leftists, rightists - all gotta do time for Uncle.
Freedom ain’t cheap.
Mr. Pipeline: the “dot com” boom created those jobs, not the government.
And desegregation as an example of the government fixing something?
You typed that without a beverage warning?
Here you go, quick test: Anybody who thinks we live in an integrated society, raise your hand.
Plantsman?
Acanthus?
Oliver?
That’s just rich coming from the jealous slimer (have you ever corrected your numerous inaccuracies even after people point them out to you? nope!). I’m consistently against mandatory military service, but if Bush is going to send people to war for no reason, I can’t see why his healthy, fit, of age daughters can’t sign up.
See, I disagree with you here. I don’t believe that the children should suffer for their parent’s misdeeds. However, I would love to see those that pushed for this war themselves be required to enlist. Maybe Bush can put on that flight suit for real instead of playing dress-up.
I didn’t care about this thread until I saw this: “You have as much Liberty as you are wiling to fight for. And that’s the lesson we should be teaching our youth: Freedom ain’t free.”
WTF?
What fighting did you do for liberty? Protesting a price increase at Starbucks?
You should have been struck by lightning the moment you finished typing that.
“Teaching our youth”.
Holy Crap!