Wooly Pated

[mlerules]

12 hours later. So lucky I dinna have to go to work today. Mostly managed to catch up on sleep. Got a mess of my Selective Svc Bd indoctrination - oops - training reading done, too. Gonna be a slow afternoon/eve, and prolly an early night. Meanwhile, much food for thought. As Pascal noted, "la couer a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point." (The heart has its reasons, whereof reason knows nothing."

Comments

[redefining-self.livejournal.com]

Well . . .

Be forewarned: this reply is going to skirt the edges of being a little offensive since this is essentially a political issue. :)

Well, since I'm 31 I'm not required to stay up-to-date with the draft board anymore. Lucky me.

But being a fairly strict egalitarian I tend to look at things in terms of fairness to everyone involved.

Having stated that I'm about to ask a question that some will find sexist. It isn't intended to be sexist in the exclusionary sense thought it will focus on gender. It is not a rhetorical question since I'd geniunely like an answer.

First let me state that I think the draft is contradictory to a free country. Telling me, even in times of national emergency, that I have to go off and fight and maybe die is, well, dictatorial.

Also, to my knowledge (and I could very well be wrong about this since I haven't looked at the rules in a while) only men are "eligible" for the draft. Meaning that only men can be required to go off to war against their will.

Having said that why is it that a woman is sitting on any selective service board? I sincerely don't mean this as an offense but it does offend my egalitarian nature a little.

Now, if women were (or are, as the case may be) included in the draft then I have absolutely no problem with women sitting on draft boards.

I feel like I'm saying something that is going to ruffle a lot of feathers on people who read this and I feel like I have to overstate this: I'm not trying to do that. The natural egalitarian in me just wonders why?

[mlerules.livejournal.com]

Two wrongs don't make a right. So even if it's not fair that only men must register for selective svc (mainly I think b'c of political ramifications if'n they tried to get women to register and then a draft kicked in and some of the chicks were preggers or w/kids to care for), it doesn't make it right to restrict the board members to men only. The board members are members of the community who can be impartial and fair in making determinations re: appeals for reclassification. I can do this as well as a man, so there's no reason not to have me on the board just because the selective svc system's one-sided. Two instances of unfairness doesn't equal fairness. At least now the voting age is 18 so those going off to fight (were there a draft) could take some part in the decision making process (elections of officials). Don't forget that prior to 1980 the voting age was 21.

Oh, and the concept that every man has an obligation to bear arms in defense of his country goes back a long long way. The colonists brought this idea over from Europe. 'Twas back during WWI (1918) that the Supremes (US Sup Ct) upheld the validity of the draft based on Congress' powers to raise and support armies, to declare war, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, which impliedly gave Congress the power to conscript men for war ('specially when the All Volunteer Force (which is what we currently have in the U.S.) just ain't providing the necessary & req'd manpower).

The trickiness - and perhaps where your own reluctance stems from - seems to lie in the definition of "in defense of his country." People sometimes seem to feel differently 'bout taking up arms if'n we're actually attacked by a specific country (e.g., Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor) versus going off to battle elsewhere w/less specific more nebulous threats (e.g., to fight a war against terrorism in Iraq, and we won't even mention Vietnam). Further compounding the problem is the situation when there's no actual declared war, e.g., Congress hasn't actually exercised its power to declare war, even if it has essentially written a blank check for the costs of one. It's not good enough that someone dislike the reasons for the war. To be a Conscientious Objector one must object to ALL war, not just certain ones. (Note - this definition doesn't cover it all.) Interestingly, the Selective Service System is an arm of the EXECUTIVE branch of the fed'l gov't, not part of the Dept of Defense.

On a related note, I tend to think that there is a certain amount of give and take inherant in being a member of society and wouldn't mind if'n there were some sort of national svc req'd for all citizens, although not necessarily (and to my mind not req'd) in the military. But I think it'd be better for all if'n folks took some time working together on projects that helped everyone, such as helping out in clinics, assisting in classrooms, giving time & energy to public works projects (gardens, roads, art, etc.) Some schools are starting to include public service components to their curriculum, which pleases me. It's just not enough that folks think only of themselves and their small circles. It'd work better if'n people realized they really are - and should be - part of a larger community working towards some common goals rather than selfish bastards out to get whatever they can for themselves. Thus endeth my rant for the morn.

[redefining-self.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more. Two wrongs absolutely do not make a right. They can, however, make it fair. Is that the case here. Not necessarily. I admit that I am viewing this in an overly simplified binary view. It is, in reality, far more complicated than simply right and wrong.

I didn't claim though that this was going to be a completely rational opinion on my part. There are a few other things where my over simplified binary view fundamentally ignores other related issues. Abortion for one. I believe that it is the sole province of the woman to make the decision for or against abortion. I don't believe that the parents (unless the mother-to-be is a dependent and not self-sufficient) or the father should have anything to say about it. Why? Because it is happening to her and her alone. It is her life affected directly and irrevocably. The father may or may not be required to provide child support. The parents of the woman many or may not be asked to lend a hand. But for her, one direction or the other will have lasting effects on her life.

That basically ignores the social importance of the father in such a setting. And considering who I feel about a father's rights one would think I would have a different stance.

I think the justification used by the government to exclude women from the draft was argued using empirical, "best interest of the nation" points (those points you mentioned). In reality, I believe that the men running the government at the time the draft was instituted were seeing women in a very different light. A light more conservative in it's views of women. Consider that when the US supreme court upheld the draft women hadn't yet achieved the right to vote. This tells me something of the pedestal women were viewed to be on.

In the modern day there are highly accurate pregnancy tests to either screen out mothers-to-be or to direct them to domestic support positions that should not require them to fight.

I believe that a women is every bit as capable as a man, and vice versa. My views aren't intending to express a desire to keep women out of such things as draft boards (since I know full well that you would bring a personality of open-mindedness and intelligence to such a thing :) but rather to change the system such that all were treated equally under the laws.

As for my reluctance, 'tis true that I would be less enthusiastic (though not necessarily less determined) to adhere to the draft if our country attacks someone as opposed to the other way around. However, if the draft had been instituted in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and I had been called I would have been every bit as determined as if they had attacked the US. My problem is when we become an offensive country. Whene we attack we are taking a huge moral and political liability upon ourselves. Some would say that we are merely attempting to prevent another 9/11. If that was an attainable goal I would support it wholely (including accepting a draft notice). Since the war on terror isn't a declared war and there are too many things that suggest this is more than half political I would be less happy about being drafted.

As for national service, consider me a supporter. It would be valuable and perhaps useful experience for many to perform some form of service for their communities. I'm glad to here that schools are already leaning in that direction. Many of my friends have done such things (habitat for humanity, volunteered in schools, homeless shelters, and such) and most have fond memories of those experiences. I have helped with a homeless youth shelter in San Diego, helped to support an orphanage in Mexico, served as a police officer (for which I was duly compensated and thus doesn't quite fit neatly into my view of national service), and other activities. All were rewarding in their own right.

In any case, I very appreciate your well thought out and intelligent discourse. I suppose, based on what I know about you, that I expected nothing less. And that is the reason I took a chance here to see what you might have to say about this issue. You have given me some points to ponder on, and ponder I shall.

On a completely unrealted note - would you or Elize (or preferably both) be interested in attending Comic-Con, July 14-17.

[redefining-self.livejournal.com]

Oh, I forgot one thing. I'm not really a conscientious objector to war. I only object to some wars. It has been a proven fact in human history (and suggests something of our nature) that war is inevitable.

By the way, have you ever seen the movie Equilibrium? It takes a unique and over-simplified view of how to prevent war. Check it out.

[mlerules.livejournal.com]

Many thx for the film suggestion...making a note of't.

[mlerules.livejournal.com]

Consider that when the US supreme court upheld the draft women hadn't yet achieved the right to vote. This tells me something of the pedestal women were viewed to be on.

Wow. Hadn't really thought 'bout it in this way and it's a very interesting thought. Thinking 'twas more that folks (the guys running the country) didn't think women were smart enough to vote and take such things (politics) seriously. There is indeed though a really fascinating double-standard, where women are looked up to (as providers and caregivers and important domestically) yet also looked down upon (emotional rather than sensible/rational/intelligent).

In the modern day there are highly accurate pregnancy tests to either screen out mothers-to-be or to direct them to domestic support positions that should not require them to fight.

Oh, you are so right here. I agree that there's no sensible reason not to draft women if'n there's gonna be any draft at all. My point was more that politically it starts *pinging* people's sensibilities if some of the realities of war (like, say, DEATH) start happening to new or in-progress moms. And practically and realistically, if getting preggers were a way outta serving in combat zones, methinks the birth rate might skyrocket. Given overpopulation issues, I'd think this would be best avoided. Still, even Consc Obj'tors must perform civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest. There's plenty for folks to do, if'n Congress had the balls to require it of all people.

Thx for taking the time to ask, read, respond and discuss this stuff intelligently.


On a completely unrealted note - would you or Elize (or preferably both) be interested in attending Comic-Con, July 14-17.

Oooh, lemme check w/her this eve - could be grand fun! She's my temp roomie as she's working for a sculptor up in Topanga Cyn for a couple weeks, building model boats and whatnot and the commute from her place would be far less than pleasant (okay, in plain English: it SUCKS, badly). Oh, and do you know anything 'bout BayCon happening in San Jose over Mem'l Day w'end?