Hi Ray, See below...***
Natalia ----- Original Message ----- From: Ray Evans Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Darryl and Natalia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Good Draft??? > Calm down Natalia, > > That wasn't what I said at all. What I said was that there was no other > activity in America where the rich and poor were thrown together against > their will and having to communicate with one another. *** As humans they will no doubt stumble upon one another's wisdom and some relationships will manifest true empathy. The draft cannot lead to an improved army, however. Its soldiers must always follow orders from top officials, whose motives are almost always subject to insanity. For past conscientious objectors, their life was turned into hell. Religious objectors were turned into guinea pigs for bio/chem experimentation/innoculation to avoid prison/physical torture/bleak futures. Forcing people, rich or poor, together under these circumstances creates far more resentment toward others, attention deficit as in any power-over situation, and extremely low morale. Communication around a lie can be stimulating and meaningful. But the reason for the relationship is based upon expanding the lie that the U.S. needs to further fortify itself and extend its unilateral will upon more of the world. It is up the > citizens of the US as to how they use their Army but if they don't talk to > each other and are locked up in class stratas then you are guaranteed not to > have a policy that reflects what you are wanting. *** This is assuming that draftees will be truly representative of a higher good. Even if this were so, those that wield the power only serve the corporate will of the times. Well, come on, when do you see that agenda turning a new leaf? Corporate positions will only augment in ignorance, and the point is that armies are primarily for offense, not defense. That can never be changed within the army nor at corporate level. It must be changed by attitude of the nation, a commitment to peace. I disagree that it's up to the U.S. citizens how they use their army. That's been the problem, that they think it's for their defence, whereas it's really for the corporate agenda. Soldiers still have to kill or drop the bomb, or face corporal punishment and prison. I would rather have them > at least spend a couple of years working off their hormones in training and > getting some good college education, that most of the poor would never have > access to, then having this "professional" army made up of the poor who > resent their fellows and who have never spoken to a rich man or listened to > the disdain. Those are the people who are more likely to follow the orders > that should never have been given and should never be followed. It wasn't > the professional Army that refused to carry ammo in the sixties student > riots. It was the draftees and some few volunteers. > *** The few who failed to follow orders did not substantively change the purpose of the military. I'm glad that they got some education, and even a military education may in some cases be better than none at all. As to hormones, the army was and is notorious for ensuring continuous access to hookers and drugs. I live in Victoria, where the Esquaimalt Naval Base is nearby. I also lived in Kingston, Ontario, and London, Ontario, both homes to military bases. Army personnel tend to spread a lot of disease and abuse, not just because of their hormones, but because of anger being the underlying emotion they share. > I think you reacted from your gut and didn't think that through. Given > the technology today I would prefer to have real citizens with the knowledge > of those weapons than people who think that it is just another job. That > professional job should only be the officers and everyone else should be > draftees with those who volunteer. > *** I'm not sure what you mean above. Real knowledge has nothing in common with weaponry. Weaponry is the tool of patriarchy, which also holds no common ground with real knowledge. Again, we disagree as to the calibre of personnel one gets when instituting the draft, but knowledge of weapons left to officers does not change the purpose of the weapon itself. Most citizens would prefer not to waste their days on this beautiful planet being forced to learn about killing tools that win wars for the elite. Knowing your weaponry may help you to feel you are in control, but it only perpetuates the need for defensiveness. All this weaponry education would be better spent upon programs that do some good. Where can this knowledge of weaponry ever be complete if it's an industry for those who rule the world? Really, what good is knowledge of atomic weaponry? There are no medicines in existence to overcome them. Bio/chem technology will serve no purpose because the effects are devastating. The idea is to stop their manufacturing, not to be up on the latest. > As for the fear of death. The world is a frightful place. Better we > train and know what to do than be ignorant and sheeplike. Then trust it to > Democracy and work to fight off the fascists and bigots. We get the kind > of Army we deserve. We have to be more deserving and that means more > civically active. *** Train to be sheep. Military must follow rules, and joining them won't change that. The ignorance is in the belief that the system will miraculously correct itself while continuing to perform misdeeds. It cannot. It must die out hopefully once corporate underpinnings have collapsed economically. Channelling further investment into an insane cause is adding to chaos. Training to know what to do implies that there is some imminent threat. The only way to avoid terrorist attacks, which you cannot prepare for, is to make serious reparation where unilateral offensive action was taken, and of course change foreign policy to one that benefits more than just the U.S. nation. I am not saying that the U.S. deserved 9-11. I am saying that their corporate agenda effects and affects the rest of the world. It's time for systemic change, and the realization that war and its related industries are counterproductive to liberty, life, real knowledge or world peace. Thanks for your response, Natalia > REH > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Darryl and Natalia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christoph Reuss" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:36 PM > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Good Draft??? > > > > Ray, > > > > Below, you wrote: > > "I was and am for the draft as I think it makes rich and poor live > > together for a couple of years and share experiences helping." > > > > Sounds like a great social experience from that p.o.v.. > > > > May I ask, is this consistent with "choice" and "diversity" in careers you > > have been supporting? Can learning how to be an effective killer (excuse > > me--that's defender of the wealth of the nation) be good for everyone's > > life, after the "Good Life" is over, and the wars are over too? Is serving > > in the military the only guarantee that one contributes to the well being > of > > their nation? Are you possibly caught up in the collective GUILT of the > > U.S., anticipating the need for defensiveness? > > > > Further, is it logical for the U.S. to draft more unwilling babies to > > continue with the U.S.'s big mistake of engaging in combat that is not > only > > illegal and insane, but immoral? The current wars are not really wars, > they > > are invasions initiated by insane MEN who don't give a cr_p for their own > > country's children. Assuredly their kids will not be on the front lines of > > any war. All this stemming out of UNILATERAL SELFISH decisions that had > > nothing to do with TRUTH. Decisions made by insane so-called leaders do > not > > necessitate the need for more soldiers to die or to kill thousands more > > overseas. They are a call for TRUTH, a call for responsible REPARATION, > not > > the proliferation of a LIE. > > > > But there, perhaps you were talking about an army of peacekeepers, in some > > distant future? > > > > The problem here is not even one of whether or not the U.S. needs more > > soldiers, it is one of its need for DEFENCELESSNESS. If all of the > soldiers > > weren't occupied in their offensive tasks overseas, there would be no need > > for compounding the original error. If the U.S. changed its foreign > > policies, reversed the recent decisions to funnel the nation's > > infrastructural capital into more war, if the U.S. took stock of its own > > bio/chem/nuclear arsenal and dismantled IT to set an example to the rest > of > > the world thereby greatly diminishing this so-called need for > defensiveness, > > if it worked with the rest of the globe to really initiate a stage for > > peace, and channelled a small proportion of the money they waste on war to > > do some good in the world and in its own backyard, the draft would not be > an > > issue. > > > > As to whether or not it is good for rich and poor to come together to HELP > > their country or others in these times, that is NOT what they are doing. > > Today's recruits or draftees would be lucky to be posted at the White > House, > > even to a war with so-called just cause, though IN MY NOT SO H.O. that > would > > never be consistent with the laws of the Creator; but for most, they will > be > > cannon fodder, bomb droppers, baby killers, nature and culture destroyers, > > and the sycophants of insanity. > > > > Natalia Kuzmyn > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Ray Evans Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 12:30 PM > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: Breathing in/out > > > > > > > I think Keith did that on purpose just so I could correct him after he > did > > > the same to me on some simple Math that I screwed up. > > > > > > Just because he looks at something from the opposite side of the circle > > > doesn't mean he's backwards, just that he sees the other side. If we > > > demand that people see it as we do then we are refusing to move > ourselves > > > and that is just as fascistic as we accuse the neo-cons of being. > > > > > > The first group that I found too obnoxious to bear was on the left in > > > Chicago during the Vietnam war when I knew all they wanted to do was > > escape > > > the draft. I agreed with much that they said and I was in the Army and > > if > > > it was a matter of my life and death I would have fought just as they > did. > > > I have manifested that by fighting just as hard since. But it had > nothing > > > to do with the self-righteousness they effected as they tore at the > roots > > of > > > tradition and American culture at the time. Their pop culture > destroyed > > > serious American culture and left us with trash. Their taste was > > > adolescent elitist and the geniuses they effected have long since been > > left > > > in the dust bin of fashion. Many of them are now on the right, like > > David > > > Horowitz who likes to brag about being a convert from the Left. > Actually > > > he is just as obnoxious and childish on the Right as he was on the Left. > > > Once the draft was removed they cared little about Vietnam. I was and > am > > > for the draft as I think it makes rich and poor live together for a > couple > > > of years and share experiences helping. But the left of the sixties > > were > > > brats just as the Wolfowitz, Buchanon, Matthews bunch are brats today. > > > They effect their cultures and represent them very badly in the long > run. > > > > > > > > > REH > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:10 AM > > > Subject: [Futurework] Re: Breathing in/out > > > > > > > > > > I wish Keith would wake up one morning and realize that he'd got it > the > > > > wrong way round about FT too. Inflated frog economists and all > that... > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > Keith Hudson confessed: > > > > > At 17:26 28/11/2003 -0500, you wrote: > > > > > >Sorry Keith but its the reverse. The diaphragm descends inflating > > the > > > lungs > > > > > >while the gravity of the earth forces us to deflate. The process > > of > > > > > >exhalation is the normal result of presure on both visceral sac and > > > lungs. > > > > > >It also does other things like digestion and messaging the organs. > > > Good > > > > > >system. When you sing you just control the rate of exhalation but > > you > > > > > >can't prevent it. > > > > > > > > > > > >REH > > > > > > > > > > You're quite right. As soon as I woke up this morning I realised > that > > > I'd > > > > > got it the wrong way round. I didn't know whether to 'fess all to > the > > > group > > > > > or keep my head down and hope no-one had noticed. I should have > > realised > > > > > that we had a master lungsmith on this list! > > > > > > > > > > Keith Hudson > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the > > > keyword > > > > "igve". > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Futurework mailing list > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Futurework mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
