Alright...I've heard of someone trying to cover all their bases, but this is ridiculous:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/24/bernanke-offers-fed-tools-stem-recession/
Ben Bernanke says that the economy may be able to recover in the next year....but wait!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090224/bs_nm/us_usa_fed_bernanke_8
or, we might just be stuck in a depression until 2010.
I get the fact that this is two different articles spinning their own story about whatever Ben Bernanke actually said, but come on now...the fact that this sort of mix-up could even happen seems (at least to me) to really damage Ben Bernanke's credibility - not that he needs the help, with the economy in the shape it is. As the FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN, Bernanke needs to be very clear on what he's saying; instead of trying to cover himself "just in case", why not try some honesty? I mean, we all know it's bad...but who does he think he's fooling?
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Open Response to Conscription
I was online this morning, and saw this article:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4659
After reading the Colonel's views on why we need a draft, I decided that the other side of the argument needs expounding. I have only a few main points (which I summarized and sent to the editor), and here they are, in a simple format:
1.) This guy obviously remembers the LAST TIME we had a conscript army; we all know how that one turned out (if you don't, I'd suggest doing some reading on the 1960's - people burning draft cards, rioting, etc). Knowing how the public reacts to conscript service, how can this guy seriously suggest we go back to such a system?
2.) When Col. Hauser retired, he probably started to receive his pension. And possibly his medicare/medicaid payments. And don't forget about Social Security. All these things come from a life of hard work and service (which anyone who served honorably in uniform deserves), but will also not be around for my generation. I'm not averse to public service, but I have to start getting all my "ducks in a row" for my own future because, unlike the authors of this page, when I hit that "magic age" of retirement, the government isn't sending a check. Or a card. Or any sort of benefits - Social Security is projected to fail within the next 20-25 years (I'll be 47 if S.S. can hold out that long). Without serious help, government medical assistance will go bankrupt soon as well.
3.) A quote:
Of course, reinstating the draft will generate opposition from all parts of the political spectrum, on the left by civil libertarians and opponents of any use of force, in the center by classic libertarians and those who would regard conscription as an unfair “tax on youth,” and even by some on the political right, who (as noted earlier) would correctly perceive that the modified draft proposed here would inherently constrain presidential unilateralism. The professional military, traditionally conservative, might initially resist such fundamental change, though we are confident the professional military will come to value its significant advantages.
The benefits of universal national service, however, far outweigh these resolvable objections. Aside from the strictly military advantages -- larger and better-educated armed forces -- there would be a number of positive social consequences. Conscription will enable the forces to reflect the full spectrum of American pluralism, in terms of both socioeconomic classes and racial/ethnic groups. It is unacceptable that less than 1 percent of the country’s eligible population serves in the armed forces, with almost no war-relevant sacrifice being asked from the rest of society. It ought to be axiomatic that the hardships and dangers of military service be more widely shared.
- Apparently, the fact that the Army cannot recruit volunteers is "unacceptable". The author of this letter needs to look at reality for a moment, and then think about one thing: Why can't the Army recruit a larger percentage of the population? There may be a fundamental reason why recruitment has fallen in the last few years (War on "Terror", Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), but clearly the way to solve this issue is conscription. Add that to the fact that apparently, we all need to be sharing the hardships and dangers of war, and you can immediately see the "benefits" of bringing this plan into action.
America needs to care for her soldiers. Our government and people need to make sure that these brave men and women are taken care of when they've finished their service. One of the best ways to protect them is to make sure that if we send them to fight a war, that it is a just war, a "necessary" war, and one that must be fought. When the only thing a war does is make a few men at the top richer (Cheney), it is not a "just" war, or a necessary one. I, for one, choose not to become cannon fodder. I choose not to die in a meaningless war. If the terrorists bring the fight here, I'm always ready to protect my country, but I don't see how that relates to shattering national unity "in the name of freedom" halfway around the globe.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4659
After reading the Colonel's views on why we need a draft, I decided that the other side of the argument needs expounding. I have only a few main points (which I summarized and sent to the editor), and here they are, in a simple format:
1.) This guy obviously remembers the LAST TIME we had a conscript army; we all know how that one turned out (if you don't, I'd suggest doing some reading on the 1960's - people burning draft cards, rioting, etc). Knowing how the public reacts to conscript service, how can this guy seriously suggest we go back to such a system?
2.) When Col. Hauser retired, he probably started to receive his pension. And possibly his medicare/medicaid payments. And don't forget about Social Security. All these things come from a life of hard work and service (which anyone who served honorably in uniform deserves), but will also not be around for my generation. I'm not averse to public service, but I have to start getting all my "ducks in a row" for my own future because, unlike the authors of this page, when I hit that "magic age" of retirement, the government isn't sending a check. Or a card. Or any sort of benefits - Social Security is projected to fail within the next 20-25 years (I'll be 47 if S.S. can hold out that long). Without serious help, government medical assistance will go bankrupt soon as well.
3.) A quote:
Of course, reinstating the draft will generate opposition from all parts of the political spectrum, on the left by civil libertarians and opponents of any use of force, in the center by classic libertarians and those who would regard conscription as an unfair “tax on youth,” and even by some on the political right, who (as noted earlier) would correctly perceive that the modified draft proposed here would inherently constrain presidential unilateralism. The professional military, traditionally conservative, might initially resist such fundamental change, though we are confident the professional military will come to value its significant advantages.
The benefits of universal national service, however, far outweigh these resolvable objections. Aside from the strictly military advantages -- larger and better-educated armed forces -- there would be a number of positive social consequences. Conscription will enable the forces to reflect the full spectrum of American pluralism, in terms of both socioeconomic classes and racial/ethnic groups. It is unacceptable that less than 1 percent of the country’s eligible population serves in the armed forces, with almost no war-relevant sacrifice being asked from the rest of society. It ought to be axiomatic that the hardships and dangers of military service be more widely shared.
- Apparently, the fact that the Army cannot recruit volunteers is "unacceptable". The author of this letter needs to look at reality for a moment, and then think about one thing: Why can't the Army recruit a larger percentage of the population? There may be a fundamental reason why recruitment has fallen in the last few years (War on "Terror", Iraq, Afghanistan, etc), but clearly the way to solve this issue is conscription. Add that to the fact that apparently, we all need to be sharing the hardships and dangers of war, and you can immediately see the "benefits" of bringing this plan into action.
America needs to care for her soldiers. Our government and people need to make sure that these brave men and women are taken care of when they've finished their service. One of the best ways to protect them is to make sure that if we send them to fight a war, that it is a just war, a "necessary" war, and one that must be fought. When the only thing a war does is make a few men at the top richer (Cheney), it is not a "just" war, or a necessary one. I, for one, choose not to become cannon fodder. I choose not to die in a meaningless war. If the terrorists bring the fight here, I'm always ready to protect my country, but I don't see how that relates to shattering national unity "in the name of freedom" halfway around the globe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
