On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Robert Naiman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, I take your points, but I think, at the least, that there is an
> in-between. Call it a "two-shot."
>
> Every so often, Rep. Rangel introduces a bill to re-institute a
> military draft, as a means of calling attention to the currently
> skewed distribution of the burden. It makes a small splash when he
> does so, but only a small one, in part because hardly anyone in
> Washington wants to be associated with calling for a reinstatement of
> a military draft, even as a rhetorical device.
>
> I think, at the very least, that if Rangel and/or similarly situated
> Members of Congress (ie progressives from super-safe districts) would
> introduce my proposal, which is significantly more plausible, instead
> of what Rangel usually introduces, it would make a significantly
> bigger splash, and therefore do more to advance the underlying
> argument.

A point.  Hope you forwarded it to Rangel or a staff member.
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Gar Lipow <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Robert Naiman
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> How can we spread the burden of current wars more fairly, hasten the end of
>>> the wars, and make future wars less likely, without compelling Americans to
>>> participate directly in unjust wars? By instituting a wartime national
>>> service draft. A universal time tax will disproportionately inconvenience
>>> the super-rich, who will use their disproportionate political influence to
>>> make war less likely.
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/for-a-dreamy-wartime-nati_b_762757.html
>>
>> My take: pretty obviously you don't intend it as a serious proposal,
>> because it has no more political chance of being passed than a Draft,
>> and if a path opened to change that the political energy it would take
>> would be better spent on ending the wars directly.
>>
>> So I think we can only judge it as a rhetorical device. And as an
>> answer to  Gate's rhetoric, your rhetoric is pretty good.. It has some
>> emotional appeal, but is also a good frame on which you were able to
>> hang some facts. So I think it is good in this particular context. Not
>> a good long term frame - too indirect. I would not like to see it
>> pursued further. But quite good as a one-shot.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Naiman
>>> Policy Director
>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>> [email protected]
>>>
>>> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from
>>> Afghanistan
>>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pen-l mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Facebook: Gar Lipow  Twitter: GarLipow
>> Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598
>> Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> pen-l mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> [email protected]
>
> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>



-- 
Facebook: Gar Lipow  Twitter: GarLipow
Grist Blog: http://www.grist.org/member/1598
Static page: http://www.nohairshirts.com
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to