Premier Rock Forum

This is the Congressmen Rangel bill that is an attempt to shift part of the burden of military service off the lower castes, and thus putting the children of power holding families at risk of death or catastrophic injuries, on the theory that killing for oil will become a harder sell when the scrap heap of blown-off arms and legs becomes less brown and black.

Committee debate begins tomorrow- don't worry, there's no chance of this passing in an election year, it's just Rangel fucking with the Republicans.

109TH CONGRESS H. R. 4752 2D SESSION

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FEBRUARY 14, 2006

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons
in the United States, including women, between the ages
of 18 and 42 to perform a period of military service
or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the na-
tional defense and homeland security, and for other pur-
poses.

full text of bill from the House web site

As contentious as it is, I've been callling for this for almost 2 years now.
It's not that I actually want it, but it will bring *everything* home.

The problem with Iraq is that it effects very few people in a tangible way. I have friends that served in the military a decade ago. I live in a diverse community comprised of many socio-economic classes. However, this war has affected me in almost no way. I still get up and go to work each day and the only rationing I've done has been entirely voluntary. Remember, Bush told us to "go shopping" when the shit hit the fan.

A distant friend of my wife's lost an arm over there. That's as close as I ever got to the problem.
15 Americans and countless Iraqis are dying weekly, yet it doesn't hit us hard - it's just news.
I imagine that I'm not alone. We, as a country, should feel the effects of this war every single day, and then decide if we're actually in favor of it. This shit should hurt us all, every day, until it's over.

So, if Chandler and Emily have to take 2 years out of their lives in the name of "freedom" this will finally hit the middle classes.
NO DEFERMENTS.
Nevermind that some actual good will come out of such a project. Standing in the desert or cleaning up vomit in an old folk's home for 2 years might make people think a little bit about the world they live in.

People will finally bitch because they will feel the effects of this little experiment, and oh no, they can't have that. We can't have Reynolds starting college at 20 years old!

Go Rangel!

-A

Great post, Alex. I've got a cousin who has worked for what I consider the 'peaceful' side of the US government for over 25 years, as an engineer improving water filtration in some very dangerous areas- even though it is laying the foundation for American /global capitalism in those areas, I still respect the hell out of him for doing it, and moving his family literally twenty times that I know of to keep doing it. He intends to retire to Cairo ( if he makes it, but he's in increasingly dangerous Pakistan right now, so it's always an open question).

I copped out on active service overseas myself, partially because I was happy in isolated America- on a nuts and bolts daily life level, not in a philosphical or political sense- and partially because I didn't want to be an American overseas. If I could have been an anonymous global citizen without the stigma of US imperialism staining me, I'd like to think I would have done so, rather than just stayed safe in the states with my complaints.

Oh, hang on here... do any of you believe that the 18 year old son of a multi-billionaire will have to serve in the military or clean up puke or something? His "service" job will be something like handing out towels at an exercise facility that isn't regularly used. Please. Would such a law somehow remove the practice of string-pulling from everyday life? How so?

Great point Scott, but I still think the desired result would be acheived. The rich bastards will always get out of their duties. There are very few people like Kerry or Gore who go when they can just get out of doing it.

Nothing's foolproof. However, if the middle classes, who are just as removed from this war as the billionaires (for the first time in history), our foreign policy, and the workings of our government had this hit home, that would be more than enough to tip the scales. Right now they tend to associate themselves with the rich, which is why
a) they are concerened with an estate tax that will affect none of them.
b) 40% of this country thinks they are in the top 5% of income earners. That's "fuzzy math."

Right now they probably think that fighting this war is for the "other people" to do. Well, guess what guys, under National Service, most of you are "the other people."

What this tells me is that a reality check like "your kid can't get out of national service like l'il Rockefeller over here can" would be just the adjustment we could use. People might start to think about how actions affect them because it would ACTUALLY affect them.

This could be played very well. Rangel knows it.
If the Republicans are so patriotic, then why would they be against this bill?
What's the matter Senator, is it that you don't actually believe in serving this country? "Freedom" "Democracy" and what not?
Oh, and why is it that your son isn't fighting this war? Or daughter for that matter.

-A

I think the republicans are for the two year of national service thing but the plan is to pull that rabbit out of the hat after the mid term elections.

Presently they will argue the virtue of a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gay marriage. Or some law to make racism legal or at least a acceptable social option.

As for the wealthy there will always be a escape hatch written in for them it is just that the only choice that the vast majority will use will be the military. I am sure that the president would allow drinking time deductions if you have a upper class background I mean if you don't have to pay tax why should your patriotic duty extend to serving in the army.

Recently I had an argument with someone regarding the poor being the cannon fodder for the rich etc.

My argument went like this:

'Look, I'm poor from a broken home with little hope at the on set of my life in social advancement.
I have spent large chunks of my life with barely threpence (english term I don't actually know what it means) to rub together and have done some absolutely God awful jobs to ensure I can get drunk of an evening. But nothing, nothing would make me stupid enough to join the army in this day and age.'

'But the underclass are targeted'

Yardy yardy yardy

'But there are expensive promotional campaigns aimed at the poor'

Blah blah blah

'The children of the rich and wealthy don't end up fighting the battles for the rich and wealthy'

Boo hoo fucking hooo.

I'm sick to fucking bricks of this 'our boys' attitude. If military service is voluntary and you go off to fucking timbucktoo and get your legs/arms/head blown off as a result then I can find little space within me to find any sympathy.

You are a fucking idiot and now you are an idiot with no legs/arms/head.

I will reserve my sympathy for the poor fucking pleb whose house you are going into to gun down the mater and her kids.

If you are not forced to go in the army then don't. Fuck this patronising poor plebs attitude.

Rant over.

my girlfriends brother is going to afganistan with the canadian troops and im pretty sure he just really likes violence.

a noble reason in my opinion

Earwicker wrote:I'm sick to fucking bricks of this 'our boys' attitude. If military service is voluntary and you go off to fucking timbucktoo and get your legs/arms/head blown off as a result then I can find little space within me to find any sympathy.

You are a fucking idiot and now you are an idiot with no legs/arms/head.

I will reserve my sympathy for the poor fucking pleb whose house you are going into to gun down the mater and her kids.

If you are not forced to go in the army then don't. Fuck this patronising poor plebs attitude.

Rant over.

I'm unclear on what prompted this. If it was directed at my comments, I think you may have misunderstood my point.

First, as an aside (not related to my point, but related to yours):

Yes, if you volunteer for the army, you never know what might happen. Sorry about that soldier, but them's the breaks.

But, two considerations:
-When you join up, ostensibly it's to defend the country. When you get sent off on an empire building mission, and that's not what you signed up for, that sucks and it violates the agreement in some way. Still, I see your point.
-Our National Guard is fighting in Iraq. They are volunteers who joined the military part time. Their job is to handle emergencies and domestic defense when our military is otherwise engaged, not to be called up to fight a foreign war. People here have called it a Back Door Draft. I feel badly for those guys. They signed on to direct traffic and keep order after a hurricane. As you probably know, their presence could have been used here twice last year. I would not have felt badly had they been deployed to New Orleans. *That's* what they signed on for.

Now to my point:
Middle class people in the US don't suffer one bit for this war. It affects them in no way daily.
If it did, we wouldn't be in it. I promise.
People here aren't very much in favor of what's going on in Iraq, but they aren't doing a damn thing about it either. They re-elected Bush, right?
They are still demanding tax cuts too.
A way it could affect them is if we had some sort of social service program to offset the expenses and manpower commitments that are required. That would get people's attention because they would actually have to give up something: time, earned income, time in college, or their life.
Sadly, this is how you get an American's attention.

-A

alex maiolo wrote:I'm unclear on what prompted this. If it was directed at my comments, I think you may have misunderstood my point.

It wasn't actually a direct response to any post here but the subject of discussion just stirred up a bug bear of mine. In Britain (and I presume it is much the same elsewhere) as soon as a war starts everyone gets behind 'our boys' even if they were against the war right up to the declaration.
This is crazy.

alex maiolo wrote:-When you join up, ostensibly it's to defend the country. When you get sent off on an empire building mission, and that's not what you signed up for, that sucks and it violates the agreement in some way. Still, I see your point.

This is why I said in this day and age. If a Brit had joined up to fight Hitler in 1939/40 then good-o (we had conscription then but you get my point?) nowadays a brief glance over the political landscape demonstrates that wars have sweet fuck all to do with defending the country. If someone is too dumn to read a newspaper before going off to kill someone, destroy their house, kill family, spray white phospherous into building and set it alight then their death is, if anything, welcome.

alex maiolo wrote:People here aren't very much in favor of what's going on in Iraq, but they aren't doing a damn thing about it either. They re-elected Bush, right?

Two points a/ the poor working and under class have votes too.
b/ no, Bush was not re-elected.

You are correct that the middle classes are almost always the motivators of political change in any developed country so I am not attacking that point.
But what I object to is this idea that the poor soldier, often from a disadvantaged background with little career options in his free market ravaged small town, is somehow at the mercy of the fates when it came to his or her decision to join up.

Are poor people too stupid to make decisions for themselves?

If so then should they be voting?

In our countries the education systems may not be great but pretty much everyone can read. There are libraries. A poor person can educate themselves.
I know cause I did.