Yes, but the war in Iraq hasn't protected my freedom one bit.
I'm past worrying about being drafted myself, but I don't care much for seeing younger people forcefully drafted and sent off to fight and die so Haliburton and a few other favorite Bush charities can get lucratrive contracts at the expense of other people's blood.
Unfortunately, we do have an obligation to finish what we've started and not leave an even more dangerous mess behind, but the only "freedom" involved here is trying to stay free from nasty consequences from something we shouldn't have started in the first place.
Given the dubious reasons for our military being so stretched in the first place, a draft to cover our asses after Bush misleading us into a war should be an absolute last resort. How about a 75% tax on Haliburton et al's profits to increase soldier's pay and make more people willing to volunteer?
Apart from the greater poverty, obesity and homicide, New England is quite nice. But not better.
(Note to self, do not feed the illiterate trolls)
Enough with the snobbery. America has a wide divide of incomes just like england does. The average income is practically the same (give or take 20 GBP). As far as obesity and homocide are concerned. Environmental and behavioral changes brought about by economic development, modernization, and urbanization have been linked to the rise in global obesity. England's obesity rate rose from 6% of men and 8% of women in 1980 to 17% of men and 21% of women in 2001 http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/n.../0001220es.pdf
Americans do have a slightly higher obesity rate on whole (30%), but not new engalnd particularly. One of the major contributers is the increasing competition of restaraunts (especially fast food) to give you more "bang for your buck" leading to inherently more caloric intake http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/6/1207 . Another theory proposted by harvard is that americans are not eating more, just more often.
"And claims that lack of exercise is to blame are decisively brushed aside.
Americans actually run around more than they used to, enough to compensate for their more sedentary working lives.
Even growth in time spent slumped in front of the TV seems to be slowing.
Many hands make light work
Instead, the culprit seems to be the division of labour.
In the mid-1960s, the average American non-working woman spent at least two hours a day on the family meals - now, that figure has halved.
At the same time, manufacturers of food have invested heavily in making their products tastier, cheaper, more varied and more convenient for the consumer.
The authors point to the potato, which previously required laborious cleaning, peeling, chopping and cooking to make a meal, but which is now consumed by most Americans in the form of processed French fries.
The increased efficiency of food production - supplies per person have surged by 20% in the past two decades in the US - has driven down prices.
And its increased convenience has provoked a shift to frequent "grazing" - small but cumulatively hefty snacks, as opposed to regular meals."
It's not a matter of england being better then the US. If anything America is better for being more industrialized. The current obesity problem in the US is just a evolutionary step twords the ideal convenient, on demand and healthy food of the not so far off future. The FDA has recently put forward the requirement of the labeling of foods to include Trans-fatty acids by '06 (which as consumers become more educated will cause producers of manufactured food to alter it's current negative helath FX.) This summer the food pyramid was also updated to include the dangers associated with trans-fatty acids and the benefits associated with alpha-linolenic acids.
"The risk of becoming a victim of violent crime for those interviewed by the BCS in 2002/03 was 4.1 per cent. Young men aged 16 to 24 were most at risk, with 15.1 per cent experiencing a violent crime of some sort in the year.
In the police statistics, violent crime was one of the crime types most affected by the new crime recording standard. There were just under one million violent crimes recorded by the police in 2002/03, an increase of two per cent since 2001/02, after adjusting for changes in police recording practice.
Of the one million recorded violent crimes, 28 per cent were common assaults and 14 per cent harassment, both of which involve no physical injury to the victim. Furthermore, many of the 'other woundings' (35% of violent crime) will have resulted in minor injuries, such as bruising, grazes and black eyes."
Whereas, an analysis of the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, part of the FBI?s Uniform Crime Reporting program, puts Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island well below the median single victim-single offender intimate homicide rate of .34 per 100,000 population. The rate means that on average, an intimate homicide occurs about once in every population of 300,000. Connecticut has the highest rate of the New England states, at .28 per 100,000. Maine falls next, with a rate of .24 per 100,000. Massachusetts falls in the middle with a rate of .18 per 100,000, and Vermont?s rate is .17 per 100,000. Rhode Island ranks last with a rate of .10 per 100,000, one of the lowest rates in the country.
If there were a draft, I wonder what would be the defense of all our brave chicken hawks for skipping out on the last draft they were eligable for, chief among them Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney, and George "what me AWOL" Bush. Seems like a tough sell.
I'm not sure how you can say that in this, "The New Normal."
Well, if "the new normal" involves invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and have no ties to Al Queida and have no possible way of attacking the U.S. and indeed may prove to more of a security threat post-invasion, then you have a point.
eh tonton just has to make sweeping generalizations... what one does when they are wrong. A lot of young guys enlist for the money and benefits and free education. I'm an advocate for elisting I would have if I didn't get the scholarship I won... The thing with texas and a lot of United states, (given some exceptions) we stand by our principles
tonton you absolutely have no clue either... sorry but you don't. come to texas the only thing true is the good BBQ... thats the only exception to the rule.
No way. Absolutely no way. This is so hit-you-on-the-head obvious from a political standpoint for the Bush administration, I'm surprised some people are even thinking for a second that they may do it. If anything, we're going to get out of Iraq way before we should.
I do not dispute your assessment of the political costs of bringing back the draft. Rather, my point is that:
1) externally generated issues of international security ? over which the U.S. Administration has some influence, but no clear control (e.g., North Korea)
and
2) issues of the U.S. domestic approach to foreign policy and international security ? over which the U.S Administration has direct control, but where strong ideological views of the current Administration may commit it to a course of action
may, in combination, lead to such a pressure on U.S. forces so as to require a draft, like it or not.
No way. Absolutely no way. This is so hit-you-on-the-head obvious from a political standpoint for the Bush administration, I'm surprised some people are even thinking for a second that they may do it. If anything, we're going to get out of Iraq way before we should.
middle class and poor are not strictly economic designations.
For my part I left the question open. I don't think it will come to that, certainly NOT in the first term. A second term president, maybe. But, something dramatic would have to happen on the world stage to demand American involvement on two fronts. Korea? We'll see.
Well, if "the new normal" involves invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and have no ties to Al Queida and have no possible way of attacking the U.S. and indeed may prove to more of a security threat post-invasion, then you have a point.
Does Rumsfeld know you're spreading upper-tier intelligence on the Internet
Well, if "the new normal" involves invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and have no ties to Al Queida and have no possible way of attacking the U.S. and indeed may prove to more of a security threat post-invasion, then you have a point.
Otherwise, you are quite mad.
Yea some dip shit in a cave had "no possible way of attacking the U.S." either.
Comments
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
Freedom isn't free
Yes, but the war in Iraq hasn't protected my freedom one bit.
I'm past worrying about being drafted myself, but I don't care much for seeing younger people forcefully drafted and sent off to fight and die so Haliburton and a few other favorite Bush charities can get lucratrive contracts at the expense of other people's blood.
Unfortunately, we do have an obligation to finish what we've started and not leave an even more dangerous mess behind, but the only "freedom" involved here is trying to stay free from nasty consequences from something we shouldn't have started in the first place.
Given the dubious reasons for our military being so stretched in the first place, a draft to cover our asses after Bush misleading us into a war should be an absolute last resort. How about a 75% tax on Haliburton et al's profits to increase soldier's pay and make more people willing to volunteer?
Originally posted by Harald
Apart from the greater poverty, obesity and homicide, New England is quite nice. But not better.
(Note to self, do not feed the illiterate trolls)
Enough with the snobbery. America has a wide divide of incomes just like england does. The average income is practically the same (give or take 20 GBP). As far as obesity and homocide are concerned. Environmental and behavioral changes brought about by economic development, modernization, and urbanization have been linked to the rise in global obesity. England's obesity rate rose from 6% of men and 8% of women in 1980 to 17% of men and 21% of women in 2001 http://www.nao.gov.uk/publications/n.../0001220es.pdf
Americans do have a slightly higher obesity rate on whole (30%), but not new engalnd particularly. One of the major contributers is the increasing competition of restaraunts (especially fast food) to give you more "bang for your buck" leading to inherently more caloric intake http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/76/6/1207 . Another theory proposted by harvard is that americans are not eating more, just more often.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2665793.stm
"And claims that lack of exercise is to blame are decisively brushed aside.
Americans actually run around more than they used to, enough to compensate for their more sedentary working lives.
Even growth in time spent slumped in front of the TV seems to be slowing.
Many hands make light work
Instead, the culprit seems to be the division of labour.
In the mid-1960s, the average American non-working woman spent at least two hours a day on the family meals - now, that figure has halved.
At the same time, manufacturers of food have invested heavily in making their products tastier, cheaper, more varied and more convenient for the consumer.
The authors point to the potato, which previously required laborious cleaning, peeling, chopping and cooking to make a meal, but which is now consumed by most Americans in the form of processed French fries.
The increased efficiency of food production - supplies per person have surged by 20% in the past two decades in the US - has driven down prices.
And its increased convenience has provoked a shift to frequent "grazing" - small but cumulatively hefty snacks, as opposed to regular meals."
It's not a matter of england being better then the US. If anything America is better for being more industrialized. The current obesity problem in the US is just a evolutionary step twords the ideal convenient, on demand and healthy food of the not so far off future. The FDA has recently put forward the requirement of the labeling of foods to include Trans-fatty acids by '06 (which as consumers become more educated will cause producers of manufactured food to alter it's current negative helath FX.) This summer the food pyramid was also updated to include the dangers associated with trans-fatty acids and the benefits associated with alpha-linolenic acids.
There's also this bit of good news Effect of Recombinant ApoA-I Milano on Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and here
Drug Appears to Unclog Arteries - Study
As far as violence is concerned, NE violence is declining while Englands violence rate is increasing. Here's a book you can read.
from: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics28.htm
"The risk of becoming a victim of violent crime for those interviewed by the BCS in 2002/03 was 4.1 per cent. Young men aged 16 to 24 were most at risk, with 15.1 per cent experiencing a violent crime of some sort in the year.
In the police statistics, violent crime was one of the crime types most affected by the new crime recording standard. There were just under one million violent crimes recorded by the police in 2002/03, an increase of two per cent since 2001/02, after adjusting for changes in police recording practice.
Of the one million recorded violent crimes, 28 per cent were common assaults and 14 per cent harassment, both of which involve no physical injury to the victim. Furthermore, many of the 'other woundings' (35% of violent crime) will have resulted in minor injuries, such as bruising, grazes and black eyes."
source: http://www.pop.psu.edu/data-archive/daman/ucr1.htm
Whereas, an analysis of the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, part of the FBI?s Uniform Crime Reporting program, puts Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont and Rhode Island well below the median single victim-single offender intimate homicide rate of .34 per 100,000 population. The rate means that on average, an intimate homicide occurs about once in every population of 300,000. Connecticut has the highest rate of the New England states, at .28 per 100,000. Maine falls next, with a rate of .24 per 100,000. Massachusetts falls in the middle with a rate of .18 per 100,000, and Vermont?s rate is .17 per 100,000. Rhode Island ranks last with a rate of .10 per 100,000, one of the lowest rates in the country.
<RANT>^{CLOSE_RANT}
Originally posted by Naderfan
If the draft is reinstated, we should begin a tradition of having our president lead us in battle. Then we'll know it's a worthwhile fight.
NO! We couldn't do that! If Bush was killed America would collapse!
Originally posted by AlPanther
NO! We couldn't do that! If Bush was killed America would collapse!
AlPanther I love your style!!!!
Fellows
Originally posted by shetline
Yes, but the war in Iraq hasn't protected my freedom one bit.
I'm not sure how you can say that in this, "The New Normal."
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
I'm not sure how you can say that in this, "The New Normal."
Well, if "the new normal" involves invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and have no ties to Al Queida and have no possible way of attacking the U.S. and indeed may prove to more of a security threat post-invasion, then you have a point.
Otherwise, you are quite mad.
tonton you absolutely have no clue either... sorry but you don't. come to texas the only thing true is the good BBQ... thats the only exception to the rule.
Originally posted by BRussell
No way. Absolutely no way. This is so hit-you-on-the-head obvious from a political standpoint for the Bush administration, I'm surprised some people are even thinking for a second that they may do it. If anything, we're going to get out of Iraq way before we should.
I do not dispute your assessment of the political costs of bringing back the draft. Rather, my point is that:
1) externally generated issues of international security ? over which the U.S. Administration has some influence, but no clear control (e.g., North Korea)
and
2) issues of the U.S. domestic approach to foreign policy and international security ? over which the U.S Administration has direct control, but where strong ideological views of the current Administration may commit it to a course of action
may, in combination, lead to such a pressure on U.S. forces so as to require a draft, like it or not.
Originally posted by Harald
Was that love, peace or grace?
And don't post an "I was only joking" ploy.
I'm glad he wasn't joking. Tonton deserved it.
His comment was assinine for a variety of reasons... not the least of which is, he's living in Hong Kong and has been throughout this ordeal.
Originally posted by BRussell
No way. Absolutely no way. This is so hit-you-on-the-head obvious from a political standpoint for the Bush administration, I'm surprised some people are even thinking for a second that they may do it. If anything, we're going to get out of Iraq way before we should.
Agreed
For my part I left the question open. I don't think it will come to that, certainly NOT in the first term. A second term president, maybe. But, something dramatic would have to happen on the world stage to demand American involvement on two fronts. Korea? We'll see.
Originally posted by addabox
Well, if "the new normal" involves invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and have no ties to Al Queida and have no possible way of attacking the U.S. and indeed may prove to more of a security threat post-invasion, then you have a point.
Does Rumsfeld know you're spreading upper-tier intelligence on the Internet
Otherwise, you are quite mad.
Not really, I'm too old to be drafted now
Originally posted by addabox
Well, if "the new normal" involves invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and have no ties to Al Queida and have no possible way of attacking the U.S. and indeed may prove to more of a security threat post-invasion, then you have a point.
Otherwise, you are quite mad.
Yea some dip shit in a cave had "no possible way of attacking the U.S." either.
Originally posted by Scott
Yea some dip shit in a cave had "no possible way of attacking the U.S." either.
By your (ludicrous) reasoning, there is no country on earth that has an ironic "no possible way of attacking the US."
So go invade them all Tiger, grrrrrrr! Grrrrrr! You PaNthArr!!!11!!
Go get Korea, France, Syria, Iran, Brazil, Venezuela TgiErrr!!1
THEY'RE ALL AFTER YOU!
www.ready.gov ... get your facemask and work out which table you'll dive under in The New Normal!
Originally posted by Scott
Yea some dip shit in a cave had "no possible way of attacking the U.S." either.
Monte Negro and San Marino are two little mountain-top states near Switzerland (probably) with seats at the UN and armed forces and everything.
Fiji has an army.
Wooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.