WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2007-01-12 18:19:56 +0000

Saw both Barbara Boxer and Lindsay Graham on the NewsHour last night. I'm astonished either of them got elected. Is it too much to ask of our elected officials to express their thoughts in sentences, not elliptical paragraphs? Chuck Hagel was on Charlie Rose, which makes me think Jim Lehrer doesn't get first pick.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-01-12 18:32:19 +0000

I heard Lindsay Lohan just wrecked Marilyn Manson's latest relationship...

Posted by tgl on 2007-01-12 18:38:54 +0000

Just as social conservatives are threatened by homosexuality, they are threatened by childless women in positions of power.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2007-01-12 18:44:34 +0000

Does she have any cats?

Posted by tommy on 2007-01-12 19:21:52 +0000

NC

Posted by MF DU on 2007-01-12 20:45:14 +0000

GODDAMMIT! NO MORE NC

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-01-12 20:48:35 +0000

Ask me Next time I Catch up with you.

Posted by tgl on 2007-01-13 14:57:49 +0000

I guess I understand that Boxer is implying that people w/o children of fighting age might choose to escalate a war with greater ease than those who do. But I agree with MFGR. It's not a strong argument. I can understand all the reasons for not going to war, and I don't have children. I think we've had other discussions on this board (notably about race), and I think the conclusion we made is that humans can emphatize with others without having the exact same experiences. Is this not true here? --- I also think that America is better of with a volunteer military. A professional force, motivated by patriotism or nationalism, is more effective than a volunteer force. That's just pragmatic. I'm ignoring the morality of using force, of course. But if you're going to use it, it might as well be as efficient as possible. For example, American culture doesn't support the type of military service that Israel mandates. One could argue that Israeli's military suffers from the same dysfunction that characterized the American miliary during Vietnam. Not that I want to parrot the hawkish (ha!) argument about the reason for failure in Vietnam was due to the unworthiness of the conscripts. The zeal of our current "professionals" has led to similar atrocities. --- I'm saddened we're in this mess. The "new" strategy is to dig deeper, any child can see that.

Posted by virtue on 2007-01-13 16:03:51 +0000

I don't know, tgl, I think there are some very persuasive arguments for some kind of national service, with a strong military component. I also dispute the ideas that our current "volunteer army" is solely motivated by patriotism or nationalism, and, even if it were, that such a force would ergo be better than a consripted force. There are very real economic benefits to joining the military, particularly for those from lower socio-economic brackets (the potential benefits being inversely proportional to one's starting economic level), including the ever increasing enlistment bonuses and the number of people that use their military service primarily as a form of college financial aid (and in this current age, a lifetime of cheap healthcare). Arguments for some kind of national service with a strong military component include the potential dangers that a professional army (or, perhaps we should say, mercanary army?) serving a civilian populous poses (there are very real reasons for the 2nd Ammendment, even if I am not entirely convinced that they, or the ammendment's language, preclude a 72 hour waiting period). Additionally, I think that there are very real benefits to meeting other Americans from other classes/creeds/education levels/(dare I say colors?). Personally, my father would never have attended college had it not been for his military service. We can already see the way in which the armed forces/industrial military complex hide behind wide spread ignorance of military life in arguing for greater national defense spending. It's a lot harder to do so when more than three percent of the population can call bullshit.

Posted by virtue on 2007-01-13 16:05:19 +0000

Well, then, I guess we can all see why I'm the third most conservative member of this board.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2007-01-13 16:51:04 +0000

"Personally, my father would never have attended college had it not been for his military service." Mine neither. As for national service, I can appreciate the arguments for it, although I'd rather see it in place with a choice of types (military service or public service). Mu uncle (the English one) felt his national service experience was extremely important in his growth as a person. And I'm the looniest bleeding heart on here.

Posted by tgl on 2007-01-13 17:58:10 +0000

I'm not against the notion of national service, as many of the benefits that people currently derive from military service arrive available in the public realm. Money for college, meeting others, etc. could be gained by infrastructure maintenance or teaching. I like our current arrangement. As much as I would like there to have been a military coup to remove Rumsfeld et al., there was not, and the military continues to take orders from our civilian government. Bands of militias do not warm my heart, that's what we are fighting against in Iraq. I'll take (background checked) individuals with guns over organized groups with guns any day. So, I prefer a military --controlled by a civilian government-- motivated by nationalism as opposed to mercenarism. Isn't someone signing up for the Army to pay for college a mercenary of sorts? The number of people in the military is not what effects the budget the most --here I'm going out on a limb-- spending for missile defense, nuclear submarines, and stealth bombers constitute the lion's share.

Posted by tgl on 2007-01-13 18:36:53 +0000

I'm not sure a conscripted army is a conservative position.

Posted by tgl on 2007-01-13 18:37:50 +0000

That being said, I'm pragmatic; if a volunteer army would make it less likely that the US enters an unprovoked conflict, then I'm for it.

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-01-13 18:42:57 +0000

I think everyone should have to wait tables for a year.

Posted by virtue on 2007-01-13 23:41:58 +0000

I didn't mean to suggest that the majority of defense spending was on military personnel, so much as that our (the U.S. collectively) perception of the value of veterans experience/opinion is higher, regardless of the actual relationship between said experience and informed opinion on multibillion dollar R&D programs. I might even argue that a greater number of veterans would argue for the value of personnel developement over high priced weapons, with associated defense savings. I do agree that many of the arguments for a military draft could also be accomplished by national service, and I do not see nation wide conscription as valuable if understood purely in terms a male military draft.

Posted by MF DU on 2007-01-14 00:39:50 +0000

Does mopping hospital floors for 4+ years get me a waiver in this 'waiting tables' argument?

Posted by Epoisses on 2007-01-14 12:24:08 +0000

No.

Posted by tendiamonds on 2007-01-14 12:53:35 +0000

How about a year as a cook at a diner having to listen to those whiny, patronizing servers complain about the customers?

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2007-01-14 13:16:14 +0000

No.

Posted by G lib on 2007-01-15 14:28:55 +0000

I agree with tgl and Virtue here-- I (left of Hillary, I think, although I thought the quiz was stupid) conscription with the option of volunteer work would probably make us less insular and arguably more patriotic. However, that would only be true for 9/10ths of the country, and not those who are most likely to run it-- I'm sure the Bushes and the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts and the Hiltons and the Spellings of the world would do their time "in the airforce." or "running their family foundation," and never come in contact with hoi polloi.

Posted by G lib on 2007-01-15 14:29:17 +0000

yes.

Posted by G lib on 2007-01-15 14:29:46 +0000

yes.