If this is correct, liberty is almost gone -UPDATED

I am going to look around more before commenting further, but if this is correct then we’re looking at something very bad, indeed.

…the democratically lead Congress has proposed the “Pay for Performance Act” which passed Thursday with even some Republican Congressman voted for it.

The scariest part of the bill is that while you’re serving as a “volunteer,” you’re prohibited from participating in worship and church activities, political rallies and being involved in a union. In short, your essential freedoms are gone.

That took less than 100 days.

More:

I keep hearing about Obama being a socialist but, I have to disagree. Based on these measures he appears to more like a person pursuing Communism or Fascism.

Let’s face it; if you wanted to tear down the Republic and install a Communist Oligarchy you would first have to take over all major industries where corporate power resides, then you must get the wealth away from the rich — but how would you do that? Well, you create an even larger economic crisis so the country thinks your massive debt spending is a way to help the country when your real plan is to incur so much debt that the only way to prevent the country from bankruptcy is to impose a tax system that depletes the wealth of the top 1% until we’re all equally “wealthy.” …Well, except for those wealthy people who helped you get there.

Read the whole thing.

Do recall, friends, that we heard Bush was a “nazi” and a “fascist” for the last 8 years. Do recall that. Learn what “projection” means, if you don’t already know.

We need to find out if this writer is correct.

Also, remember, Fannie and Freddie are giving out 210 Million in bonuses. No one is fussing.

We need a Recovery Party.

UPDATE: I’m only just at my desk and it’s the middle of the day (Sunday’s are busy) and I see some comments saying this article is wrong…but then AJ Strata is writes this about this:

The Anchoress wished to know if there really were restrictions on personal religion in the bill – yes there are

`SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

“(a) Prohibited Activities.–A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

“(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.
Actually, the entire list is pretty damn oppressive:

“(1) Attempting to influence legislation.
“(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
“(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.
“(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.
“(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.
“(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

And there are more. Basically you have to give up all your constitutional rights

HOWEVER – In Comments Bender writes: As amended, the Act does not prohibit volunteers from engaging in religious worship in their own free time. It only prohibits those government-funded positions being used for religious purposes or for multiple other purposes. Such prohibitions are common in government-funded programs.

I think, deep down, I just really have a serious problem with this idea of serving the country by conscription rather than by choice. One reason I was always against the draft was because I felt our armed forces would be better manned by people who actually wanted to serve than by people resenting their conscription. I still feel that way. I have done volunteer work for years, and I do it because I want to, not because someone is telling me I must.

I’ve got paying work on the backburner, so I won’t be blogging much today, but do check out the comments, which are pretty interesting.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/ Bender B. Rodriguez

    Here is the text of the Pay for Performance Act of 2009, H.R. 1664, as passed by the House.

    I don’t see any language about volunteers or being prohibited from engaging in the listed activities.

    But, rest assured, such is no doubt coming.

    “O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. — Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart.” And now, even America has joined the hunt.

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/ Bender B. Rodriguez

    Perhaps he means the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, H.R. 1388, which has passed both houses of Congress. The Act basically involves various government-funded volunteer organizations. An early version of the bill contained the offending language at issue — “SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS. (a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities: . . .
    (7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.”

    However, as passed the Act now provides –
    Section 1310. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS (a) Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities:
    (1) Attempting to influence legislation.
    (2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.
    (3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.
    (4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.
    (5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to Federal office or the outcome of an election to a State or local public office.
    (6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.
    (7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132.
    (8) Consistent with section 132, providing a direct benefit to any–
    -(A) business organized for profit;
    -(B) labor union;
    -(C) partisan political organization;
    -(D) nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and
    -(E) organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless the position is not used to support those religious activities.
    (9) Providing abortion services or referrals for receipt of such services.
    (10) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.
    (11) Carrying out such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.

    *****
    As amended, the Act does not prohibit volunteers from engaging in religious worship in their own free time. It only prohibits those government-funded positions being used for religious purposes or for multiple other purposes. Such prohibitions are common in government-funded programs.

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/ Bender B. Rodriguez

    Oops, I think I forgot the link to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.

  • jakewashere

    There is no recovery. After watching the last two years of headlines, I am ready to conclude that it is God’s will that America be no more. Our time is up.

  • Piano Girl

    Several friends have sent this to me…I’m scared of this administration & liberal Congress and the awful stuff they are trying to push through, but I wonder if this edict is only for while the “volunteer” is on “official duty” ~ in your off time, you would be able to attend church, etc.? I would love for someone who knows how to root around in the misery that is a congressional bill could get to the bottom of this and let the rest of us know.

  • tim maguire

    These are some crazy vicious folks, but this one doesn’t pass the smell test. No church AND no union? One loses the conservatives and the other loses the liberals. Can’t be true.

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate’s Cove

  • rcareaga

    “We need to find out if this writer is correct.” Golly. However might a humble citizen go about doing that? Perhaps we could…read the legislation, which is readily available online to anyone “who knows how to root around in the misery that is a congressional bill.” You will look in vain, my auditors, for prohibitions on “participating in worship and church activities, political rallies and being involved in a union,” for example, and for other lurid features breathlessly described in the “Big Hollywood” piece to which the Anchoress has linked.

    Myself, I have the sense that this is dicey law if only because it seems to have been drafted in haste and in response to popular outrage: the legislature should be responsive but not reflexive. Brother Broes, however, is either delusional or dishonest in his extravagant fantasy, the dissemination of which should rightly redound to Big Hollywood’s discredit. It is to be regretted that, given the grave importance the Anchoress attaches to the link she provided, she did not take the trouble to subject herself to the four or five screens of dry governmentese comprising the actual text of the bill before she passed this farrago of misinformation and panic-mongering along.

    [In reading the legislation it looks pretty "dicey" and worrisome to me, Rand. I did not have time to read more last night which was why I carefully said, "if this is true" and "we need to find out" as opposed to "look what it says!" But read article 125 - admin]

  • http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com Hootsbuddy

    In case anyone wants to look further…

    Sorry, I’m too tired to peck out html tags this morning. [Why, that's fine, Hoots, I live to please! ;-) Admin ]

    When I heard the Angry Left hurling the same slings and arrows at President Bush I had the same reaction. But Naomi Wolf changed my mind. I put up a post about it and although my observations don’t get much attention anywhere else I still think they have merit. Here’s another link.

    Elizabeth, the reason I linked The Anchoress when I started blogging was that it seemed to be a voice tending to moderation in an ocean of extremist rhetoric. I don’t link to many high-traffic sites left or right, but at heart I remain an unreconstructed Liberal for reasons that even to me sound like a broken record.

    When I heard the reverse neologism “Obama Derangement Syndrome” I dismissed it as a cute but silly replay of the original, equally silly game with a new name. But when I go to the comments thread of one of you links and find stuff like “If this is the case then we have a tyrannical govt that should be overthrown…I choked, voted for McCain, and bought a large supply of ammo…It’s getting about time we vote with pitchforks and torches…I am planning on keeping very little money in the national banks. I do not want my “elected” officials to take it. I plan to buy food, water, and weapons, for when people try to take my ‘stuff’…Watch your asses people, the life we know is coming to an end. And hide your money. And buy cigarettes and cigars online, from overseas. The FDA is going to be monitoring all our smokes, who knows what mind altering chemicals they will use to make us pay more taxes…” I come to the conclusion that it’s neither as silly nor as harmless as I thought.

    What I need to say to you is that the more stuff like this you link, the less I want to read your otherwise excellent comments about many topics. Your spiritual insights are smart, sensitive and usually inspirational. Your descriptions of family and friends are witty and fun to read. And those occasional lists of links flushing the cache tell me that you read almost everything. But since the election your relentless carping about anything Obama is getting on my nerves. Lots of this stuff, like today’s links, is really over the top.

    My support of Barack Obama is by no means a blank check. He has already made some moves I don’t especially like and I expect more to follow. I knew before he was elected that he is a politician first and anything else second. He may even be more pragmatic than Bill Clinton, but that remains to be seen. I do think he is more principled and is yoked with his wife in a way that more nearly resembles a marriage than a political alliance, but even that remains to be seen in light of her clear ability to do more than stick to a traditional first lady’s political knitting.

    Meantime, the end of the first 100 days is still three weeks off and if nothing else he has the world eating out of his hand in a way that no president has done for a long time, including Clinton. Did anyone notice that he made it a point to confront the Europeans with their predilection for anti-Americanism? That he turned the Sarkozy lemon into lemonade? For a “novice” on a learning curve he seems to be displaying a gift for international diplomacy, despite his widely advertised protocol blunders. Not since the press made such a big deal about President Ford’s head bumping the helicopter has their been such a clamor to show a president’s butt. The day is long past when photos of a president in a wheelchair were off limits.

    Have fun with Naomi Wolf, if you have time. And decide for yourself if we’re on the road to Fascism.

    [See, Hoots, I am enough of a classical liberal to really dislike the idea of a government telling me not that I "can" serve the nation, but that I "must and will" serve. I have a problem with banks trying to give back TARP money and not being allowed to because the government MEANS to control things. I have a problem with the incredible debt this president is comfortable with bringing on to my children and theirs. I have a problem with my president - and yes, he's still my president and I pray for him as much as I ever did for Bush - bowing to a Saudi King, or any king. I don't particularly think that he turned Sarkozy's "lemons into lemonade." I'll read the Wolfe when I have time (it won't be today; I have something I need to write for pay), but I don't like the fact that my president seems to be saying one thing and doing another, "yes, I'll actually be post-partisan" (Right) "Yes, I'll actually give consideration to the concerns of pro-lifers" (right). I'm sorry if you're not liking the blog, these days. In honesty, I'm not much liking what I'm having to write about, either. On the plus side, I give Michelle Obama more points for her clothes than most on the right will. Does that help? Admin]

  • http://spreadingolive.blogspot.com Elizabeth Anne

    1) Can anyone show me where in the Serve act ANYONE is “required” to volunteer? I can’t find it anywhere except alarmist blogs.

    2) The Pay for Performance Act applies ONLY to companies who asked for and received TARP funds.
    We require all kinds of things from women receiving welfare that we wouldn’t tolerate the government requiring from anyone else. Why should corporations be any different? The restriction expire when the money is returned or paid back.

    I’m not saying this is a good bill. I’m just saying that the hysteria is way out of line.

  • Peony Moss

    Anchoress, I’m not seeing anything in the text of the “Pay for Performance Act” that covers membership in a union, participating in worship activities, and other activities protected by the Bill of Rights.

  • http://hillaryneedsavacation.blogspot.com/ HNAV

    “We need a Recovery Party.”

    Indeed, I love the humor, but I am not a fan of this attempt to grow a third party if this is what was implied.

    I find a number of the more outspoken Pundits, did so much to diminish the GOP brand, failing to be truly objective in the era after 9-11. One would only imagine they would understand the responsible nature of the Republican effort in a Majority from 2002 to 2004, by seeing the disastrous contrast of the Pelosi – Obama – Reid effort. I do know, Democratic Partisans pretended to be upset with a number of factors like spending, etc., to debase the support for the Republican Effort. Some even hid as ‘Libertarians’

    Many of these who speak of a Third Party, are understandably frustrated, but a number of them are the ‘know it all’ class, who sit on the sideline offering only cynicism having never managed or governed anything.

    A number of these argued aggressively for the use of force in Iraq, then ran away from it when it grew unpopular. Many could not see the sound attempt to reform Social Security after the 2004 election, and focused obsessively on Pork spending which is a tiny aspect compared to the massive entitlements (even though the Republicans reigned in discretionary spending slowly after the 9-11 disaster – lowering the deficit every year until the mortgage poison corrupted the economy).

    The GOP was admirable in it’s efforts in fighting the GWOT after 9-11, keeping the USA safe and empowering freedom around the Globe. They provided sound appointments to the Judiciary, lowered taxation, etc. The Bush Administration even tried to reform Fanny and Freddie long ago.

    I have watched third party fantasies only empower the likes of the Democratic Party folly before.

    Ronald Reagan worked within the Republican Party, to produce better policy. I strongly feel this is the best path.

    One of the best aspects of the Republican Party, that still adheres to one of it’s initial beliefs, in the conviction of liberty and freedom. As with the Abolitionists of old, today’s GOP (the vast majority of it’s members) was truly impressive after 9-11, just as it had been during the Cold War, believing in the liberation of the oppressed and the empowerment of Democracy.

    Perhaps a more effective plan, instead of a third party conception, would be to permeate the Democratic Party, to try to force it from it’s disastrous left leaning slant, working for better policy from within, as well as trying to push the Republicans to embrace better policy.

    Regardless, producing a check on the vapid Obama – Carter Administration this 2010 is a must, and the Republican Party is the only reasonable alternative at this time.

  • rcareaga

    You appear in your update to be conflating the “Pay for Performance Act” and the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” Act, the latter of which deserves a down vote for its fatuous acronym alone.

  • http://spreadingolive.blogspot.com Elizabeth Anne

    Anchoress – The title of the WHOLE section is “PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS”. The restrictions listed are not, as I’m reading it, restrictions on activities the person volunteering may undertake. They are restrictions on the kind of volunteering one can be paid for under the Americorps/Teach For America program. In other words, you cannot receive government funding to teach Sunday school. Other prohibited organizations involve those that provide abortion services, those that campaign for legislation, and for-profit organizations. So you ALSO cannot work for Planned Parenthood under this legislation.

    [Elizabeth Anne, I guess I distrust government enough not to believe that they will restrict this to "teaching" but beyond that, can I just say that not being able to work for Planned Parenthood does not somehow make all of this all-right? I'm enough of a classical liberal that even though I am pro-life, I recognise that in America, if you want to work for PP, you should be able to do that, without the government telling you you cannot. The idea here is that as a "volunteer" you will be "working for the government" (and so you will be) and therefore cannot advocate for anything else. And of course, there can be no "religious" undertakings, in that case, either. See...I believe you should have the CHOICE to even work for the government or not. But then I always was a classical liberal... - admin]

  • http://spreadingolive.blogspot.com Elizabeth Anne

    Yes, but again – there is NOTHING. AT. ALL. in this legislation that makes it mandatory! At all! At any point! This legislation expands Americorps and Teach For America from 70.000 to 250,000 and funds accordingly. Period. You can still work for planned parenthood: You just can’t get money from the Americorps funds for it.

  • http://spreadingolive.blogspot.com Elizabeth Anne

    And also, what Bender said in comment 2.

  • http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com Hootsbuddy

    This is too weird. I wasn’t gonna post again until you had time to read Naomi Wolf but this keeps naggin at me.

    …I just really have a serious problem with this idea of serving the country by conscription rather than by choice. One reason I was always against the draft was because I felt our armed forces would be better manned by people who actually wanted to serve than by people resenting their conscription. I still feel that way.

    Out! Out! Damned spot!!!
    I don’t know why this “forced to volunteer” meme won’t die.
    Not the link to Fact Check and the language of the bill itself (not to mention “there is NOTHING. AT. ALL. in this legislation that makes it mandatory! At all! At any point!” from #15) is there any support for this piece of agitprop.

    From the Fact Check link:

    Some Internet postings claim the bill says the government must come up with plans for a “mandatory service requirement for all able young people,” but that phrase is nowhere to be found in either the House-passed bill or the Senate version.

    The bill as introduced in the House, however, did call for examining whether this would be a good idea….

    All of that language is now gone. To be clear, the original bill didn’t call for a mandatory public service program, but called for the exploration of whether one could be established. But the entire section on creating a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service” was stripped from the bill.

    Do let’s set that straight.

    ============================

    Now, unrelated, here’s the weird part:

    I appreciate your being opposed to conscription, and as a card-carrying conscientious objector who was drafted I once would have been in agreement. As I grew older, however, I changed my opinion, and not for reasons you may think.

    You said (and I think most people would agree) “I felt our armed forces would be better manned by people who actually wanted to serve than by people resenting their conscription.” That certainly is the thinking behind the “all volunteer military” concept. But I am of the opposite opinion. There are good reasons for professional warriors and I have a very high opinion of many (particularly General Petraeus who was consulted too late to do more than clean up a mess) but I want the military to include some who really don’t want to be there. As long as there are provisions for conscientious objectors, I see nothing wrong with the draft.

  • http://sthubertsrosary.com/default.aspx ShanaSFO

    The problem with this is that by the time the information as to what it is and what it says begins to circulate, the Congress has moved on it, voted and passed it to the next House. The worship & volunteer clauses that are so objectionable were passed by the House in the original bill, but removed by the Senate.

    As I understand what I’ve read as I’ve followed this, (and I have followed it through govtrack.us) it originally did forbid those who were volunteering from participation in worship or using the language of faith during ‘service’. It was also very ambiguous about who the volunteers were to be. It set up ‘education camps’ which was struck and changed to ‘education campuses’ and then that was struck as well.

    The problem is that the new version of the bill passed the Senate and it is back in Committee. Anything can be reinserted. Listening to one of the talk shows, it was noted that ‘faith based’ organizations were going to be funded to permit people to volunteer this way, and this was what lured some Republicans to vote in its favor.

    Interestingly enough, Rahm Emanuel can be heard telling a reporter that he is for all Americans volunteering for civil service:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffltipFYy9M

    Its certainly very convoluted at this point because the language keeps changing (and can be changed again in a ‘crisis’ by executive order, don’t forget that). But the ones putting it together need to be considered. Carefully consider what they have they said in the past to see where it will go in the future.

    Forcing someone against their will to ‘volunteer’ work for the government is called slavery. We already HAVE a paid National Guard, a paid Coast Guard and an excellent paid military. We don’t need to force people to volunteer for a civilian brigade.

    I do not like to be an ‘alarmist’, but there is too much moving too fast with too little consideration of the American people before the vote is taken. When someone ‘rushes’ so many bills and so many votes, it is because they don’t want people to think about what it is and what it will mean for them until it is ‘too late’.

    THAT is what ought to worry everyone.

  • MrsFairfax

    …but I want the military to include some who really don’t want to be there.

    Can I ask why? And also whether you’re acquainted with any military personnel?

  • http://vita-nostra-in-ecclesia.blogspot.com/ Bender B. Rodriguez

    I want the military to include some who really don’t want to be there

    There are fewer things that I can imagine that would be disruptive of the military’s ability to achieve its objectives than to have a bunch of folks who don’t want to be there and who come from a culture where malicious antagonism toward the military and its mission is celebrated.

    I myself was never subject to the draft, but I was a registration resister. I was required to register for Selective Service — reinstituted by Jimmy Carter and opposed by Ronald Reagan. I was required by law to do so, but I refused. I refused because it is involuntary servitude. It was for such things as being free from being pressed into service that we fought to liberate ourselves from Britain, not to mention fighting amongst ourselves at the cost of several hundred thousand lives to smash and destroy institutionalized involuntary servitude.

    At the same time I was resisting registration, I was enrolled in ROTC in college with a mind toward a military career.

    Contradictory? Not at all.

    Eventually, as it turns out, I caved when they sent me a notice saying “we know who you are and we know where you live and if you don’t register a lot of bad things will happen to you.” Now, if they knew who I was and where I lived, what the hell was the point of me having to register? I was already de facto registered! Meanwhile, blind as I was/am, I failed the vision qualifications for receiving a commission, and it was too severe to get an exemption, so the military became a moot point anyway.

    Anyway, the last things our troops want is to have a bunch of malcontents next to them who would do nothing except make it more likely that the good troops would get killed or injured — maybe even from being fragged by the malcontents. Keep them the hell away, far, far away. The military will be happy to save their sorry asses from our enemies, but keep them the hell away.

  • http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com Hootsbuddy

    MrsFairfax @ #18

    A bit off topic. Short question with a very long answer.

    Cutting to the chase, it makes better citizens, better commanders and NCO’s and causes everyone in the country who is a potential candidate (or has one in their family) to pay better attention to saber-rattling in Washington.

    FYI, all this talk about conscription is based on reality.

    The Selective Service System is an independent agency within the Executive Branch of the federal government. The Director of Selective Service is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

    The legislation under which this agency operates is the Military Selective Service Act. Under this law, the mission of the Selective Service System is twofold: to deliver untrained manpower to the armed forces in time of emergency in accordance with requirements established by the Department of Defense, and to administer the alternative service program for conscientious objectors.

    I could fill this thread with stuff but it’s way off topic. If you’re interested here are some links to my very wordy blog, including one inspired by the Anchoress.

    Hate and it’s children
    Military Conscription is Coming…
    Rahm Emanuel Notes This link goes to the root of the “compulsory service” meme which hatched right after the election. There is a conversation in the comments that might help answer your question.

    And yes, I know many military people and have for many years, many of whom I count among my closest friends.

    [The other side to the conscription issue, however, and one that was articulated to me by my Marine nephew, is that people who don't really want to be in the service can often cause more problems than they help solve. While it is very true that many draftees served honorably and valiantly in WWII and Vietnam, this is a very different generation and I am not sure that I trust they will do the same. In order for that to happen, there would have to be a sea-change in how the armed services are portrayed and presented to the nation, specifically by the press and Hollywood, who have done their damndest to distort and denigrate who our service people are, and what they do. Just the other day Bill Maher made a disgusting remark alluding to our servicemen as rapists. I take your point that the side of the country less-inclined to the military might be more interested if they had some skin in the game - and one could even argue that the draft could have the effect of introducing left to right - I frankly do not trust the government to fairly implement the draft, and I am not entirely sure I trust the generation to serve faithfully, either. Not right now. And I hate writing that. I'll take your points. But my reservations are not without basis. -admin]

  • http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com Hootsbuddy

    Drat!
    Two links didn’t take. A pox on all html tags.

    Military Conscription is Coming…
    Rahm Emanuel Notes

    [Edited to insert links. The thing is, Hoots, any time you throw a url into the comment without embedding the link code, it gets held for me. Admin]

  • http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com Hootsbuddy

    I share your concern about this and the next generations regarding conscription.

    My concern is that instead of an occasional military draft responding to a crisis, compulsory universal service along the IDF model could morph into the kind of feral generation now on the loose in that country.

    Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques – IDF fashion 2009

    Bernard Avishai on Child Abuse

  • http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com Hootsbuddy

    Once more

    (this is worse than phone tag)

    [Sheesh, Hootie..maybe I'm glad you weren't trying to insert the links! Still busy writing something else and not yet reading. Admin]

  • http://hootsbuddy.blogspot.com Hootsbuddy

    “…people who don’t really want to be in the service can often cause more problems than they help solve.”

    What?
    There are people in the military who don’t want to be there?
    There hasn’t been a draft for decades. We now have an all volunteer force.
    Quelle surprise!

    (Sorry. Cheap shot, I know. I couldn’t resist.)

  • margareth

    I have always found that in volunteer work – just as in any other type of work – you tend to get more out of 5 people who WANT to be there than you do from 15 people who are there because they HAVE to be. In fact, people who are assigned or conscripted generally spend more time griping than they do working.

  • http://irasciblechef.com irascibleChef

    “If this is correct, liberty is almost gone -UPDATED”

    It’s already gone—already stop kidding yourselves.

    The question is, is it possible to get it back. Difficult yes, but if we have learned anything from history—anything is possible… More possible in the USA, than any other place, at any other time in the history of this great earth.

    We’ll get it back, but what will the cost be to get something back that we already had…

    —IrascibleChef

  • Pingback: Read This While You Still Can — Thoughts on Centralizing Everything « New Wineskins

  • http://www.madtasty.com Misogynist

    Didn’t we already do this?

  • Pingback: Steynian 343 « Free Canuckistan!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X