The Portland Progressive Examiner has a surprising take on HR5741, the latest Universal National
The bill, or something like it, is an interesting proposal, and should not be dismissed out of hand. There is a great deal to be said for the proposal. Such a measure would help build character and citizenship in a whole new generation of Americans. To be an American is a privilege, and Universal National Service may be a way to bring that point home.My answer:
To be an American is an accident of birth, and does not obligate me no matter how often that lie is repeated. I owe you nothing, Bubba. You can call it hysteria - you can call it Shirley for all I care, but how is involuntary servitude NOT slavery?
I've a feeling this fella would look at it differently if the majority in congress had "R" behind their names.
5 comments:
So they are making a new deal draft now?
This is the fourth time somebody in congress has introduced this bill. It won't pass this time either, but it's still noxious.
This is Rangel's way of saying that even though there's an all volunteer army, there aren't enough sign-ups from what he considers the "elite" class.
I view it differently - to some extent, I'm in favor of an everybody serve military, exemptions only for actual disabilities. I think it would benefit a lot of young people just out of high school to have a couple of years of military discipline. My husband - who served during the Vietnam draft period - counters that with "the military is not a social service" - which, unfortunately, I can't disagree with. Besides...the same people in power whose children don't serve now would exert their political power to get their kids exempted from real duty. Al Gore is an example.
I'm really sorry you object ... sorry because I think that although you - we - need to recognize that the powers that be are mere humans, nevertheless, I think you have a point. The ideals of America have been so burdened with the ideals of those who want no one to fail that we have become a nation where no one can succeed.
I don't see how we are going to find our way back - or if we can.
Actually I think that was John Conyers' thing. He introduced a version of this at least twice, for outspokenly racial reasons. I've no idea what Rangel's excuse is.
I certainly won't argue that a dose of discipline when young is a bad thing. But I don't - and will never - believe that any man or group of men has the right to force it, no matter the justification. Forced servitude is the very definition of slavery. I've had it explained to me a thousand times how it's different when a government does the forcing. But I just don't buy it. If it's wrong for a person to force you into slavery, it's wrong for a group of people to do so. That's all a government is - a group of people with too much power.
I understand your position. I also understand that if your society is attacked by another, you either defend it or accept domination by that other society. That's the fact. If you're able to opt out and choose to do so, that _should_ be your option - but if society needs all hands on deck or you lose that option...what then?
In other words, as long as there is a choice, I honor your choice...but what if your choice means you - and everybody else -_loses_ that choice?
So...I guess the question comes down to "does society offer you anything" and "do you owe society anything for any benefit it gives you".
Government has gotten too big - in that I have no disagreement. But _some_ government is good. So...where are the limits?
Post a Comment